Website that points out photo anomalies from 911 and also new articles on it

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Too bad for him that it's a known hoax.
He should fix that. - I'll bet he won't though.

Yeah, Dave Kleist already has released a short doc on explaining this incident and admittted he was wrong in the original presentation of "In Plane Sight".

Good post, thanks.

Oooh, found some more anomalies...


Here's a sign on the right side of the first tree:



www.criticalthrash.com...



Note the post and the sign. Circled in red. In between two trees, right one circled in blue:



www.criticalthrash.com...




Note the post and the sign. Circled in red. Still in between two trees, left one circled in blue:



www.criticalthrash.com...



Now the pole and the sign, still in between the two trees, switch places and the pole is further away, you can still see the electrical box circled in green:



www.criticalthrash.com...




Then, apparently it moves even futher down by the overhead sign:



www.criticalthrash.com...




Here is the overhead view. You can see the pole in between circled in red, in between the trees circled in blue. The rounded rectangle designates the pole/sign that should be further down near the overhead street sign.



www.defenselink.mil...

Ah so it's not good enough they move taxis now, they move and replant light poles too? Oh and why is this? Please tell?

Originally posted by Mister_Narc

You will note that in the two pictures at the top of your post they have not taken into account that, the lamp post and electrical box are on the other side of the path. Your overhead shots help point this out better than I can - thank you.
One can see that due to the positioning and angle of the camera that the path is concealed behind the barrier, also concealing the point at which the lamp enters the ground - on the other side of the path (as I said is pointed out in your overhead pictures).


Your second picture



Has a small white sign below it, so is obviously a different sign not relevant to the conversation - but I'm sure that is what you were pointing out - my bad for not understanding! I also assume they had your OK to have more than one warning sign in the vicinity, because I'm sure they have a lot to answer too if they didn't have your permission!

As for the rest of it? Well. I just assume you don't understand perspective or something - I'm not sure exactly what you are trying ot suggest - that lightpoles walk or something?

[edit on 10-2-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Pretty amazing. I always stared at these two pictures for hours. I knew I wasn't imagining this...

I expect you did, what do you see when you look at inkblots?

It's called perspective dear boy, I bet you wish you'd stuck it out at school now..

If you ever had the joy of picking up a camera better than a Polaroid you'd understand what long distance lenses and perspective do to a picture. I'm sure there are people here with all the technojargon that can explain it properly.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
You will note that in the two pictures at the top of your post they have not taken into account that, the lamp post and electrical box are on the other side of the path. Your overhead shots help point this out better than I can - thank you.
One can see that due to the positioning and angle of the camera that the path is concealed behind the barrier, also concealing the point at which the lamp enters the ground - on the other side of the path (as I said is pointed out in your overhead pictures).

You are priceless.

What's going on in that head of yours?

Of course, he has taken it into account. That's why he is mentioning it. Do you even know what you are looking at? Or did you figure it out AGAIN in a matter of 3 minutes?

Obviously one of those pictures are fake. Guess which one he is suggesting is fake?



And furthermore, that is another point of contention with him...is the sidewalk.

Go to his site...and learn to look before you leap.

You look so bad when you do stuff like that. It's almost as if you have no patience or self control and have to be the first one to "debunk" me.

You should start thinking things through before you post.

Did you even address my discovery? I can't even tell in that gobbledygook analysis of yours.


Leave me alone, you stalker provocateur. Quit trying to rile me up.

Originally posted by AgentSmith

It's called perspective dear boy, I bet you wish you'd stuck it out at school now..

So, you don't get warnings for stuff like that?

Oh yeah, this site is fair, impartial, and on the up and up.

As a matter of fact. I am officially finished with you.

I said it once before, and now I am done.

You are not intelligent enough to hang with me and you try too hard to push my buttons.

You are obsessed with me.

You are on ignore.

Bye Bye.

I have a question in regard to the 2 pics of the mystery pole. Were these taken on the same day and if so why is the building in the background of the bottom pic not damaged or on fire?
I ask this cause the bottom pic looks like it may have been taken during a drill. I say this because of the expressions on the peoples face.
Don't hate I'm just curious.

He was right about the gaurdrail next to the trail. It was not there in the triage pictures.




That's because the gaurd rail was put there by the construction crews much later.




Larger Version


As you can see, the gaurdrail is part of the construction site. Of course it wasn't there during the attack.




The original site posted for this thread also has some interesting anomolies.




What peer-reviewed journals have those papers been published in?

IIRC, Jones paper has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. He must mean peers in the jury way, not the science way.

Maybe they thought the editor for the book that their going to be selling was enough peer review for them.

www.st911.org...

Scheduled for publication in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, forthcoming in Spring 2006.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by LeftBehind]

The "white" SUV and the green SUV are the same car!

It is white, because it is burned out.

So there are two separate signs warning people not to do a Vic Morrow impersonation.

So what?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The "white" SUV and the green SUV are the same car!

It is white, because it is burned out.

I agree with that.

But it does appear to have different rims.

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
But it does appear to have different rims.

Good one.



I think that just about summs up the whole debate.

[edit on 11-2-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
But it does appear to have different rims.

Good one.

No, you misunderstood initially. The interesting part of that piece I was referring to was the background. Not the color of the car. I was agreeing with you.

And lol lol cuz it was so funny, the rear driver side rim does appear different.







Like these style-Mags or dished out type rims...






Should be these style originally...




And here on the passenger side, there is no rim at all, just drum/disc brake...





Just an observation. I don't want to argue with you about it.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

So there are two separate signs warning people not to do a Vic Morrow impersonation.

So what?

No. THIS about sums up the debate.

Your lack of observation and comprehension skills.

Look again there sparky.

The first sign next to the little post is nothing. Just a sign. I was just establishing it's location and it's existance.

The pole, the one in between, is "walking" away from the other sign.


Don't tell me. Foreshortening right???

hahahahahaha.

I can't wait to see you slime your way out of this one.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Howard seems to have a penchant for picking out SOME details that he can attack while completely ignoring other points.

A particularly egregious example of this is his failed attempt of a rebuttle of your last detailed post on the NO 757 at the pentagon thread.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

My bad.

That was defcon5 not Howard.

So I guess now we have examples of each of them using that tactic.

I am sorry that I do not feel obligated to go over every little detail of every post. It is time consuming, I have many interests besides this topic, and I have been at this topic for almost 2 years. I would much rather spend my time researching escotology, personally.

I choose instead to pick out what strikes me as glaringly obvious mistakes, skewed scale drawings on 2D photos, contradictions, assumptions/mistakes about airlines/aircraft, and the ilk. That is all besides the fact that I have often said that I have little to no experience in photographic analysis.

I, unlike those on your side of the argument, do not feel the need to be the cocky know-it-all expert on every topic. I do, however, have some specialized experience in working on civilian aircraft, including both 757’s and 767’s, I choose to generally stick to the topics based on the aircraft and airline procedure.

As to things such as if a taxi was moved, if the towers were demolished, if a light pole got up and danced from one photo to the next, I will let you guys argue those topics as I have nothing of note to add to them.

To be brutally honest you would be shocked how little I have actually read about the events of 911. You see I don’t have a stake in which administration runs this country, IMHO we would be in a similar boat if the Democrats had been in office at the time, nor am I selling anything or being compensated to lean one way or the other. If you truly want to know my opinion it all falls to things that must occur to fulfill prophecy, who is behind it matters little to me.

I simply see inaccurate information being pushed on the subject of the aircraft, aviation, and the crash and I endeavor to correct some of it as time allows. I see those that would use skewed information to take advantage of people to push a political agenda or to sell merchandise. I would rather see people work together to get to the truth, as opposed to push information they know is wrong just to further some goal, or show how superior they are…

In a nutshell, I pick my battles…

If you guys want to attack me in threads (such as this one) were I have not even typed a word, ridicule me, or ignore me as you have with Agent Smith, Zaphod58, and Howard, then I am honored to be in such astute company….

Originally posted by Mister_Narc

Originally posted by AgentSmith
You will note that in the two pictures at the top of your post they have not taken into account that, the lamp post and electrical box are on the other side of the path. Your overhead shots help point this out better than I can - thank you.
One can see that due to the positioning and angle of the camera that the path is concealed behind the barrier, also concealing the point at which the lamp enters the ground - on the other side of the path (as I said is pointed out in your overhead pictures).

Of course, he has taken it into account. That's why he is mentioning it. Do you even know what you are looking at? Or did you figure it out AGAIN in a matter of 3 minutes?

Obviously one of those pictures are fake. Guess which one he is suggesting is fake?

Who knows, he obviously can't understand perspective like some other people, I've drawn a picture to help you understand, some people may also cope better with this than with words:



Lightpole's out to the left of the picture, as I depict above mate - see?

In your picture here where you say they have 'swapped' places:



The image is taken from the right of the first image, as depicted by the Green number '3' in the top image.

Now lets look at the final image you have left for your argument, this one:



Where you say:

Then, apparently it moves even futher down by the overhead sign:

If you look the angle of view that the photographer had does not even encompass the left hand tree, let alone the pole and sign.. Did it cross your mind that they may be a different pole and sign?

If you look at the spacing of the lampposts in the overhead image it could make sense for there to be another one near the overhead scaffold. The only thing you have succeeded in pointing out is that some time later during the cleanup operation they appear to have gone - perhaps they were in the way?

Where the helicopter warning sign you reference here was:



There was later a path and a break in the barrier for access. So what? if you look at the spacing of the sign from the one between the trees then it would make sense for there to be one equally spaced to the left - right where your photo kindly puts it

These images should help you see:



But as you can see the helicopter sign is missing
So it must have been removed during the cleanup operation, I wonder if that could have happend to the other one near the scaffold?
I've put pink circles where they should be referring to the photos from the day, they look equally spaced to me so it seems to make sense...

Come off it, you can't tell me you actually believe this crap you come out with? If I were you I'd stay off any subjects which involve spatial perception, it's obviously not one of your strongpoints.

You are priceless.

What's going on in that head of yours?

A lot more than some obviously

Of course, he has taken it into account. That's why he is mentioning it. Do you even know what you are looking at? Or did you figure it out AGAIN in a matter of 3 minutes?

Eh, well he obiously didn't did he? And no I didn't work it out in about 3 minutes - more like about 1 second like most people would..

Obviously one of those pictures are fake. Guess which one he is suggesting is fake?

Who cares? There is nothing to suggest any of them are.

And furthermore, that is another point of contention with him...is the sidewalk.

What about it? It's behind the barrier due to the angle that the picture was taken, the lamp is on the other side of the path - unless you are suggesting that they put in the path and moved the lamposts throughout the day or something?

You look so bad when you do stuff like that. It's almost as if you have no patience or self control and have to be the first one to "debunk" me.

Your right, I don't have any patience or self-control - well done on your astute observation - now try and apply it to topic.

You should start thinking things through before you post.

Yeah well I can never be bothered. Do you know what's most annoying for people like you? I only put about 30% effort in and I'm usually drunk and half asleep.

Did you even address my discovery? I can't even tell in that gobbledygook analysis of yours.

I expect you didn't.. Hence why I drew a picture to help. The only discovery you made was that spatial perception is your shortfall.

Leave me alone, you stalker provocateur. Quit trying to rile me up.

I was here several years before you thanks

Have you ever watched Star Trek: The Next Generation?
Just think of me as 'Q' and yourself as Worf..

[edit on 11-2-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
You are on ignore.

Bye Bye.

Woot... woot....

Yeah, and all the evil reptiles doing the photoshop didn't check the work done by the nice evil computer nerd before sending it out, because they were too busy getting off with that froglady from accounts, you know, the one with the nice legs.

COME ON!

[edit on 11-2-2006 by albie]

Originally posted by Mister_Narc

I would have to disagree with the pictures on the website saying the two pics are the same. They bothe have a sign and squad car but the car is in totally different positions.
You can see in the first pic, that the police car is actually facing the Pentagon. In the comparison pic, the car is somewhat almost parallel to the Pentagon. This would lead me to believe that they were, a) Not taken at the same time, b) The car was repositioned, or c) The comparison pic is of a completely different sign.

[edit on 11-2-2006 by ResinLA]