NIST photo covered in too much shadow

[demodewd]

Does bolo truly believe that his NIST Flight 175 photo is proof of no pod? It's covered in entirely too much shadow to make such a claim. He must be desperate to present us with such an abjectly poor example of a no pod scenario. But...I see his problem. All the other photos clearly SHOW THE POD. No wonder he needed to resort to such a lame example. And no wonder NIST resorted to using this particular photo as their representation of #175 entering the building. Do you smell a NIST cover-up? Abe? seatnineb? dulce? I do.

[Abe Linkman]

1. 1-man crusade, or something else (res ipsa loquitur)? As for FL175...

PR folks working on "big" issues like 9-11 have access to anything and everything they need to try & undermine the truth. It still amazes me that H & K had the chutzpah AND the resources to stage the phony stories about how Iraqi soldiers supossedly had unplugged incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals and even had the 15 year old girl tearfully testify about it (as everyone NOW knows, she turned out to be the daughter of a Kuwaiti Ambassador).

Our media is so often little more than "stenographers to power" -- and
none of 'em checked out the validity of the incubator lies until AFTER the PR prank had accomplished its goals (galvanizing support for Poppy to go to the aid of the pedophile Emirs of Kuwait).

It's impossible to know what "bolo" believes.

Regarding FL 175 and FL 11: DD has raised a very good point about the
lack of eyewitnesses to either plane actually striking the WTC. And, the photo images have always struck me as like "buttuh" entering those buildings (if, indeed, they DID enter them). Too smooth.

I'd like to see bolo dig up some photos of even one more instance of a plane striking and entering a building as smoothly as those on 9-11 supposedly did.

It seems like anything is possible, where 9-11 is concerned. Except for the fairy tale being sold to us by the Government...and the four people here (which I believe is actually three...one of them pretends to be two different posters).

[demodewd]

2. re: planes

Planes entered the buildings. Why would those "people" go to the expense of attaching that big tumor onto phantom 175? On the Fireman's video(long version) you can easily hear the low flying plane overhead .

[Abe Linkman]

3. Good point. Question about the "low flying plane overhead"

I don't understand what you're getting at regarding the low-flying plane overhead. What, if anything, does it have to do with FL 175?

Thanks.

P.S. I can accept that "planes" entered the buildings, but as you (or someone else here pointed out), but later retracted, in the bolo images, it DOES kind of look like the plane flys over the building. Maybe that's precisely why he selected the particular images he did -- to maybe stir the waters and get people sidetracked talking about just that.

[demodewd]

4. Naudet

I was refering to the famous Naudet Fireman's Video of the WTC1 crash. I had an earlier long version where you clearly hear the plane going over the firemen's head. The NIST photos show the plane entering the building at a 90 degree angle from the side facing you in the photo. :)

[seatnineb]

10. Scott Meyers Edit.

Demodewd........

Mate,I think Abe said it best........
Anything is possible.......

Interestingly the Scott Meyers video was shown on the documentary:
A memorial to New York City.
9/11/01

This Documentary was hosted by Guliani and featured loads of different angles of the attack(shot by variouse "amateur" cameramen).
It was shown here in the U.K to mark the 1 year anniversary in 2002.
I assume it was shown in the U.S at the same time.
I recorded it.

But the Meyers video in this documentary was edited to only show THE EXPLOSION AFTER the plane had hit.The footage of the plane itself was edited out.
There is also AUDIO on the video of what seems like a young boy AFTER the explosion occurs.........
It sounds something like........
"Mom.......theres another one!".....
It always seemed to me like he was reacting to AN explosion, not the plane.

The NIST report is the first time(to the best of my knowledge) that the plane footage has been "re-inserted" back into the Meyers video.
Thats nearly 3 years for whoever was in possesion of this tape to play around with its contents.

Considering that the F.B.I erased the flash as the plane strikes the North Tower in the the Naudet video.
We do indeed know that anything is possible.

[demodewd]

11. re:Meyers

The Meyers 175 photos do appear bogus to me. I was just interpreting what I believe I see in the photographs where the plane enters the building 90 degrees from the wall facing us in the photos. The white coloration of the building and the possible photo shop tampering of the shadow..there seems to be a slight reddish hue (very small) in the arera of the "pod". Thanks for the info on the FBI erasure on the Naudet tapes. Do you have a newspaper account of this?

[seatnineb]

12. No links , just a hunch...........

It is just my intuition that the F.B.I altered the footage.

Who else would have the motive,expertise and access to the original source material to convert this........



To this...........


"In the days right after Sept. 11, the Naudets declined to talk to a reporter about the images they had recorded. They had been interviewed by the FBI, which confiscated their tapes as part of the investigation"
http://www.jsonline.com/news/attack/mar02/24649.asp?for...

[objection]

13. All images ordinarly seen on the Internet are converted.

It is stupid to look at such things as if to represent an absolute representation of reality.

Look at the file sizes.
Frame 1 of the "Televised" version is 41836 bytes.
Frame 1 of the "DVD" version is 94838 bytes.

jpg images are compressed to save disk space and download time, which inevitably causes a loss of quality, especially of color accuracy, and often with spurious artefacts appearing.

With video images serious losses of quality also happen if frame rates are converted.

[seatnineb]

14. Wrong!

There will be no picture artifacts courtesy of a jpeg file subject to compression come to your rescue when you see the original interlaced scanned Gamma Press and the CBS(DVD)* T.V versions .

.

Those still frames are accurate depictions of what the actual Video and DVD versions look like.

Dont believe me?
Then check out the videos and the DVD for yourself.
If you can get your hands on them

Believe me.
You wont like what you see (and dont see)

*(The DVD was also shown on T.V courtesy of CBS with additional commentary featuring actor Robert De Nero)

[MercutioATC]

5. "if, indeed, they DID enter them"???? You're doubting THAT, now?

Just explain to me why:

1) The radar data doesn't show the "replacement" of the real plane with the one that actually crashed.

2) A missile would be necessary for a 767 travelling at over 400k to make sufficient entry into the building.

3) Anybody would mount an external pod when they had an entire empty 767 fuselage to work with.

This isn't telling "fairy tales"...these are legitimate questions. They're questions I've repeatedly asked you that you've declined to answer.

Wanna take a shot at them?

[Abe Linkman]

6. I'm still open-minded. YOU are the one who is certain. So YOU need proof

But, you haven't provided even a scintilla of evidence for your fairy tale. Obviously, if you had any you'd provide it. After all, even though you can claim to be one or two persons here, you still wouldn't want to be thought of as a laughingstock if you could avoid it. (I'm assuming you have a normal, healthy ego and conscience)

[MercutioATC]

7. You're "open-minded" about the fact that planes hit the WTC towers?

ummmm....O.K....

The evidence I present is available to all of us. I saw the video of planes hitting the WTC towers. I'm pretty comfortable that qualifies as evidence.

On a side note, I'm confused. In another post you spoke of "Oude" as a different person, but you sometimes allude (I thought) that we were the same person. Just who is this second person that I'm supposed to be?

Oh, and Abe...I'm not worried about becoming a laughingstock here. I actually answer the questions posted to me and don't accuse other posters of having some hidden agenda. Thanks for the concern, but I'm fine.

[Abe Linkman]

8. Did you see the pilots and passengers, too? Was Osama one of them?

Which flight was Osama on?

[MercutioATC]

9. Another refusal to answer a question.

Are you in doubt that planes hit the WTC towers?

I'll make it simple and start with that one question.

[markses]

33. Here's some further evidence

I saw a large jet smash into the north Tower of the World trade center with my own goddamn eyes, from Chambers Street and Broadway (more than 10 blocks south of where the naudet video was made). I will never understand this endless parsing of photographs, DVDs and videotapes. I know damn well what I saw.

[MercutioATC]

35. A PLANE hit the WTC? Is the government paying you to say that?

Are you here just to spread disinformation? Get off your spinning wheel. Are you posting as more than one person? I have the special ability to detect that, you know. You're fast becoming a weak joke here, you naive newbie.


...just kidding. I figured I'd hit you with some of the comments you'll get from some of the resident hardcore CTists early so you'd be ready for them.

Seriously, welcome aboard!

:hi:

[markses]

40. Yes, I am on the (shadow) gov't payroll

My instructions were to be in lower Manhattan the morning of Sept 11 so I could perform a plausible eyewitness role for when the official version of events were later challenged. My mission was to parrot the official talking points, particularly with regard to the type of airplane I saw. Tell me how I'm doing? ;-)

[MercutioATC]

47. Very good!

...just try to draw it out a bit more. You 'fessed up too easy. They like it better when they feel they have to work for it.

:evilgrin:

[markses]

48. Oh, did I say that out loud?

I thought we were communicating by the super secret DU Conspiracy Theory Taskforce and Pentagon E-team ("DUCTTAPE") channel just there! Oh, did I just mention the DUCTTAPE channel out loud as well! Ach! It's all so hard to manage.

;-)

[MercutioATC]

56. Markses! You're giving away all of our secrets!

Actually, it's ME giving away our secrets because I supposedly post here under multiple accounts to better carry out my disinformation campaign....

...see, you don't even really exist.

:)

[seatnineb]

38. Mr Arraki vs Markses,Naudet and Mr Obenhaus.....

But could you tell which airline the jet belonged to? .... like Jules himself........

Jules Naudet:
I remember actually filming the fire-fighters and I had my
camera like this filming them and then when we heard the plane
I looked up and I had time to see the plane going in between
two buildings and I saw immediately,I COULD EVEN MAKE OUT
AMERICAN AIRLINES ON IT, because it was that close. And then
just turning the camera around and - I don’t know if you can
use the word pleased to film anything quite like that. I
actually just discovered much later on that day that, yes, I
had filmed it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/02/september_11/forum/txt/naudet_transcript.txt

You see.........
Our Jules, like you, Markses, is gifted with far more perceptible eyes than a certain Mr Arraki....

Or so we have been led to believe............

From the ABC live broadcast 9/11/01

Mr. ARRAKI: I was sitting in my car here in Greenwich, you know. I just saw the plane was coming down from the left side and going straight to the building, you know, and go inside.
I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside. A small plane.

GIBSON: Was it a jet plane?

Mr. ARRAKI: No, no. It was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot plane--small plane, you know. It was that kind of plane.

GIBSON: You mean like a small single or double-engine prop plane?

Mr. ARRAKI: Yeah. Double-engine, yeah, yeah, yeah.

GIBSON: Right. And it actually went into the building there on the upper floors?

Mr. ARRAKI: Yes, going into the building, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something--I don't know, it's like they work with the motors--I never saw a plane like that before! Yeah!

Mr. ARRAKI: Yeah. I--I saw--yeah, I saw the second plane, it go boom. I--I heard, you know. I just wake up my head like that I saw the side, too.

GIBSON: And that second plane much larger than the first?

Mr. ARRAKI: Same. Same, two both. Both same.

GIBSON: They're both the same?

Mr. ARRAKI: Yeah.

GIBSON: Because the pictures we see, the second plane looks rather large.

Mr. ARRAKI: No, is going inside, too. Is going inside the building, too. And the second hole it's smaller than the other one

Indeed...........
To nullify Mr Arraki's rather interesting testimony , a senior ABC producer was brought in shortly afterwards to add credence to the "large jet" scenario.....

Mr. OBENHAUS: I was approaching the subway, a tremendous roar went over my head and--and I looked up immediately, and it was a plane much lower than I've ever seen a plane in lower Manhattan, and it was a large plane. I couldn't identify it as anything specific except that it was a commercial jet certainly. And it--it--my eyes followed it because this is approximately 15 blocks from the World Trade Center, and it--it just slammed right into it and was completely engulfed by the--by the building. It was extraordinary. No--no wings flew off, nothing like that. It just went directly in, creating this sort of cavern-like hole and--and suddenly, then, big, big flames started protruding from it and then, of course, smoke.

It struck me, you know, the profile--the body of the plane was of such scale that I immediately identified it as a commercial jet. I didn't--I couldn't--it happened so quickly I couldn't tell whether it had windows on the side or what, but it could very well have been some sort of a--a transport plane. But it was a large, large plane, as opposed to, occasionally down here you do see smaller, prop planes or smaller aviation stuff that flies around here sometimes, doing movies and things like that.

JENNINGS: Could you see any markings on it whatsoever?

Mr. OBENHAUS: No. I did not. It was too--too quick. I--I--I can't give you any kind of identifying help on--on what it was.

JENNINGS: Do you remember what color it was? Was it...

Mr. OBENHAUS: I--my impression was--was that it had a tan coloration to it However, the sun, it was very low in the horizon, and I think kind of orange, and it may have been simply the color of the sun reflecting off a silver exterior. I--I really am not sure of that.

JENNINGS: Could you see any markings on it whatsoever?

Mr. OBENHAUS: No. I did not. It was too--too quick. I--I--I can't give you any kind of identifying help on--on what it was.


http://66.159.17.51/cooperativeresearch/www/timeline/2001/abcnews091101.html

[markses]

39. Yes, but you see

I don't need a producer to nullify Mr. Arraki's testimony. I don't need a huge apparatus to nullify it. I saw it myself, in real time. I don't need to interpret other people's testimony and cast one against the other. I'm an eye-witness, just like Mr. Arraki. And I was closer, and I had a clear look at the thing. Mr. Arraki is wrong, for me, because what he saw was not what I saw. Not because of any nefarious plot by an ABC producer, but because his testimony does not comport with what my own eyes saw. Now, explain to me the specialness of Mr. Arraki's perception.Here's one quality of my perception that leads me believe my own eyes over Mr. Arraki's. I grew up in the flight path of Laguardia Airport. I know a 767 when I see one. I'd had large passenger jets flying low over me for 20 years.

[seatnineb]

41. Sure.........

You were closer to the impact.........

But were you closer to the plane?

Mr Arraki said he saw it come from THE LEFT (and he was in Greenwich).


So the plane would have had to have passed him by aswell.
(As it traveled from the upper part of Manhatten to the North Tower.)

Giving him the opportunity to see what it was.

The only thing that undermines Mr Arraki is the quality of his English.
But he did seem adamant that he saw a small plane.

Nothing more.
Nothing less.

It is just your word against his.

The difference being his testimony came within 20 minutes.

Yours has come after nearly 3 years.

[markses]

43. LOL

My testimony here (on this thread) has come after 3 years, which is neither here nor there. Take a look at Chambers and Broadway on a map and determine where it stands on the flight path. That was my location. I can't imagine that I was farther away from the plane then was Mr. Arraki. Here's your real argument, since you seem unable to come up with it yourself: Since I was closer to the point of impact, I might not have had as long a look at the 767 as did Mr. Arraki. It came into my line of sight and disappeared into the building in a very short time. The real counter-argument is not space (distance) but time (how good a look did you really get?). Here is the best case scenario view from near Mr. Arraki's location:



It is clear that the plane came in to his left. When he was sitting in a car (the best vantage ever, of course). On Northmore Street. Mr. Arraki's claim that the second plane was just as small as the first one leads to serious suspicion, since then we would have to take Mr. Arraki's word over the dozens of clear videotapes and photographs. Moreover, how is it that Mr. Arraki claimed to see the entry hole in the south tower from his position on Northmore street? Impossible. This is an easily impeachable witness, despite your best efforts. I do not fault Mr. Arraki. It was a terrifying and confusing morning. But I know what I saw. That his story doesn't stand up under even the most cursory scrutiny is clear to all but the most obstinate.

On edit: We also get a taste of Mr. Arraki's confused state:

Mr. ARRAKI: No, I can't see, because I told you, I'm on Northmore in Greenwich. I just saw up the building, I don't see downstairs.

GIBSON: So you're in Greenwich Village?

Mr. ARRAKI: Yeah. I 'm on Greenwich Street in Northmore.

This transposition of Greenwich and Northmore is not a language deficiency error (despite your rather unethical suggestion that those who disbelieve Mr. Arraki do so because he speaks less than perfect English, a laughable slander if ever there was one), but a sign of an excited state. For which Mr. Arraki can, of course, be forgiven, but which cannot be ignored in an assessment of his credibility for all that.

[seatnineb]

45. Good points.........

But........

Maybe Mr Arraki is referring to the smaller hole in the NORTH side of the South Tower.

And who says Mr Arraki never got a view of the second.........
Check this out.

On September 1, my buddy and I went to NYC to work as Ironworkers. We got dispatched to work on a high-rise IN QUEENS.
We stopped working for about twenty minutes as the first building burned wondering what we could do, when we saw the second plane come around the corner of the other tower. HE MADE A U-TURN and crashed into it right before our eyes.
http://www.journalregister.com/towntalk/html/messages/456/305.html

So this second plane presumably flew from north to south.......
Turned round and crashed into the South side of the south tower.

The Iron Workers testimony also casts doubt on the official trajectory of Flight 175.

How could this Iron worker see this U-turn........



From Queens,NYC.......?

[markses]

46. You have a very strange habit

Of picking out the eyewitnesses who supposedly saw something different, while ignoring the many more eyewitnesses (not to mention the video filmed by regular folks) who saw the trajectory as stated in the so-called official version. There is very good video footage taken from the Brooklyn promenade which shows the plane coming in over New York harbor, from the south. Furthermore, the idea of a plane making a "u-turn" so close to the tower and still gathering enough speed to strike as it did is implausible. Now, I didn't see the second plane come in or hit, but I heard it from my new position at Broadway and Wall Street. It came in just as fast as the first one, and sounded more or less the same as the first one (but louder, since by this time I was closer to the action). I'll stick with the video footage, my own experience, and the testimony of thousands (including my brther, who saw the second plane fly past his window at 55 Water Street - that is, to the south of the WTC - as he was watching the first tower burn, although I suppose it is possible that the conspirators got to him, too!), over the testimony of one iron-worker in Queens, thanks.

Now back to Mr. Arraki. You say that he could have seen the smaller hole punched through the north side of the south tower. First, I don't think this is plausible given his distance and vantage point (both the north tower and the billowing smoke at that point would have made it difficult to see that side of the south tower from where he was located, as you can see from the picture I posted above of his approximate location). Second, that is not what he says. He says

GIBSON: Because the pictures we see, the second plane looks rather large.

Mr. ARRAKI: No, is going inside, too. Is going inside the building, too. And the second hole it's smaller than the other one.

He is clearly indicating that the hole he refers to is the one made by the plane "going inside" the building (i.e., on the south face of the south tower, which he could not possible have seen from Northmore Street in Greenwich Village (it is unlikely that he could have gotten a good view of even the north face of the south tower from his vantage, either). This "other one," in the context of the conversation, clearly indicates the hole made by the first plane in the north tower. I can't imagine how you would interpret his comments otherwise.

[seatnineb]

49. A point of view.

Markses says...........

"This "other one," in the context of the conversation, clearly indicates the hole made by the first plane in the north tower."

The above is what I meant!

Watch any video from CNN to NBC to any of the other amateur footage and you will see that the damage inflicted to the north eastern and northern face of the South tower WAS visible.Especially not long after the crash.

The smoke from the North Tower was drifting upwards.
The damage to the South Tower was at least 15 floors lower than in the North.
And the smoke (at this point in time) emanating from WTC2 was not sufficiently blackened to obstruct the view.

Giving Mr Arraki the advantage to make the comparison from Greenwich.
(The hole in the northern face of the North tower compared to the hole in the northern face of the South Tower)

And when Mr Arraki said this.
" No, is going inside, too. Is going inside the building, too. And the second hole it's smaller than the other one."

Maybe he was IMPLYING that the plane had entered completely....... Even if it was from the opposite side of the tower that he was looking from.
And that is where the quality of his English comes into play.

[markses]

50. Ay yay yay

The question is not whether the hole in the north-east face of the south tower was visible. the question is whether it was visible from Mr. Arraki's vantage point. I may have been, it may not have been. It seems to me implausible, however, for reasons stated above. As far as watching videos, I don't need to watch videos. I saw the way the smoke was drifting: up and to the east. Now, we could say that the hole in the north east face of the south tower was somewhat lower than the damage in the north tower, but I still think botht the smoke and the angle would have made it difficult for Mr. Arraki to make the bestassessment of the situation. Now, let's remember that all this started with the claim that Mr. Arraki's view of events was on the same plane as mine, and therefore it was my word against his. That's increasingly laughable as Mr. Arraki's vantage comes under question. Now we're not even saying that he saw the south tower strike, but rather saw its effects on the north face. And yet Mr. Arraki is the evidence that the FIRST plane was smaller than a large commercial airliner, and Mr. Arraki says that the second plane was the same size as the FIRST plane - oh, and Mr. Arraki seems VERY FRAZZLED at the time of his statement, transposing words and telling us that he just woke up. Your witness is certainly not sufficient to debunk (for me, anyway) the cumulative weight of 1) my own eyewitness experience, 2) the collected video and photographic evidence, 3) the many other eyewitnesses I've heard accounts from and spoken to, includin my own brother, who had a perfect view of the approach and strike of the second 767. These other little semantic dodges are pretty much useless at this point. Mr. Arraki is not credible on the size of the planes, as anyone approaching this reasonably would clearly see.

[seatnineb]

51. Who is "the credible eyewitness"

Your own eyewitness experience?

O.k
So here we have a credible eyewitness on the DU forum who saw American Airlines Flight 11 hit the North Tower at 8:46am on 9/11/01.

So lets have a look at our eyewitness.

Well.....

We dont have his/her name.
We dont have his/her occupation.
In fact.
We dont know anything about him/her.

Oh and his/her testimony is nearly 3 years late.

Sounds like a credible eyewitness to me!

[markses]

52. Ah, I see

Fine. I'm making it all up. I'm a gubmint plant. Rejoice, though, because this seems to be a new strategy! If the gubmint is sending fake eyewitnesses in to refute you with incredible eyewitness tales, that means you're getting close. :eyes:

So I suppose this new tactic on your part means you've given up on the Mr. Arraki strategy?

[Bolo Boffin]

53. You got it

Now they will wear you down with inane argumentation and slanders on your reputation, until finally you realize with disgust that for you, it's just not worth it anymore. And then you'll stop posting in this forum, and they can go back to asserting whatever they want about the 9/11 attacks.

It's what happened to Sara Roberts (Anablep). She was an incredible researcher who debunked the Flight 77 denial with ease. Some CT fruitloop named Gerard Holmgren made her life a living hell for it, and now Sara's work is gone and Gerard still has his Paypal button.

I really appreciate your account and your passion. One of the things I've tried to make our honorable opponents understand here is the real offensive nature of their speculations. People died in these attacks - lives were changed forever. To suggest that these victims were part of or subjected to the machinations necessary for even the blandest of LIHOP scenarios is something to be approached delicately if it were true, but most of our honorable opponents seem to revel in calling family members liars on the basis of the flimsiest evidence imaginable. I can't for the life of me undestand why people who claim to be in sympathy with what DU is doing would come here and post such malicious trash.

Thanks for your story, markses.

[seatnineb]

54. Mr Arraki or Mr Markses?

Markses claims........
"So I suppose this new tactic on your part means you've given up on the Mr. Arraki strategy? "

Not at all.
Mr Arraki gave a name.
And gave testimony within 20 minutes or so of the initial crashes.

He(for me,anyway) is just a tad more believable than you.

[markses]

55. And how, exactly, would I go about

showing you otherwise? You seem intent on putting me in an impossible position. Shall I reveal my own name? My employer? Shall I have testimony from friends and family? This seems a bit overboard.

In any case, Mr. Arraki's testimony falls down on its own, without any need for compariative analysis, as I've shown in this thread. Your disingenuousness on this point is clear enough. When it became impossible for you to defend Mr. Arraki's account based on its own merits, you turned to an ad hominem, accusing me of fabricating one of the most traumatic and important moments of my life. Sure, I can't prove to you that I was there over these boards, and it is unlikely I would be able to prove it to you in person without the aid of many, many people who I saw that morning, in that area, mainly from my workplace. And of course you know this, which is why you brought it up. But your skepticism on this question doesn't seem to have as much to do with the truth of the matter as it does with the weakness of your own arguments. Mr. Arraki's story is simply not believable, all on its own. Not because he had bad intentions (as you seem to), but because he was quite clearly confused. Your tactics here are sad, to be sure.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

63. Unsolicited advice not needed. The n/t was inadvertently ...

left in AFTER I edited the message. Thanks for your input, though.

Regarding your domain check point; if someone is using two different computers, then what good would it do?

[MercutioATC]

67. Hey! I authorize it, too.

I've posted my occupation (specific facility included), my age, how many siblings I have, my marital status, the city in which I live and I'm on the DU gallery page.

I'm not intimidated by something like a domain check.

[MercutioATC]

66. I'm not you, markses, I'm OudeVanDagen (of course, not really)

The only specific claim Abe's made is that OudeVanDagen and I are one and the same. Personally, I WISH I had OudeVanDagen's engineering knowledge, but that's another story.

The rest of us have multiple personalities in general. Nothing specific, but a bunch of us seem to be posting under multiple names, if the claims are to be believed.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

69. Gentlemen

Please remember that DU values civility and respect.

Lithos
9/11 Moderator
Democratic Underground

[seatnineb]

64. You have disproved NOTHING!

You are basing your pathetic argument that Mr Arraki was in Northmore St when the first plane hit.
He is only in Northmore street when he is giving his testimony to ABC some 20 minutes later.
He says that he was somewhere in Greenwich when the first plane hit.

But
Even if he was on Northmore St.............

Mr Arraki would have had as good an eye view of whatever it was that hit the North Tower as ANYONE.

There are several amateur videos in circulation ,all of which were shown in the documentary:

New York City
A Memoriam
9/11/01

There is a video shot from Franklin St.(just one street before and directly in front of Northmore).
Courtesy of My-Kyung-Heller

There is also a video filmed from Debrosses St(several blocks directly BEHIND Northmore )
Courtesy of Mike Tool

Both these videos show CLEAR UNOBSTRUCTED views of both towers.
That is why Mr Arraki is able to make a comparison between the holes in the NORTHERN faces of both towers.

As for the plane itself.
Jules Naudet was on Lispenard street.This is to the north east and BEHIND where Mr Arraki was(assuming he was on Northmore St.)
We know that the plane arrives to the west of where Jules Naudet is filming.
This would mean that the plane passed either directly over head or to the east relative to where Mr Arraki was.
The real crunch is that Jules Naudet was so close that it enabled him to identify this plane as an American Airlines jet.
Mr Arraki was as close if not closer than Naudet was.
So why should his testimony be anyless significant?
You would say because he contradicts himself saying that the second plane was the same as the first.
Read on.

The iron worker in Queens corroborates what Mr Arraki saw..
Flt 175 approached from the north to the south (just like the first plane).
That is why Mr Arraki claims to have seen it.

This plane subsequently at some point then performs a “U-turn” and hits WTC2 from the south.
And which ever way you will pathetically try to deny it.
This iron worker from Queens.........and Mr Arraki .....blow a big gaping hole through the official trajectory of flt 175.


As you have reminded us..........
Mr Arraki said both planes were the same.
And the one thing that resonates most from Mr Arraki’s testimony...........


“I never saw that plane before. It's like something--I don't know, it's like they work with the motors--I never saw a plane like that before! Yeah! “

The testimony of Mr Arraki and the Iron Worker is head and shoulders above yours Mr Markses.

But keep trying.

[markses]

68. He was somewhere in Greenwich?

I suppose you mean Greenwich Village, since there is no neighborhood called Greenwich in NYC? In any case, I think you should rather stick with Northmore street, since at least that gives you a definite location. "Somewhere in Greenwich" is pretty weak as evidence, but conveniently unverifiable for you (it doesn't admit of any real counterarguments, since there is no real argument). In any case, it looks like you've done your perusal of the New York streetmap (one wonders if you've ever actually walked them, or simply take your traveling carnival act to maps the way you take it to photographs), excepting the one street location I've provided: Chambers and Broadway. Tell me again how I was farther away from the 767 than was Mr. Arraki, wherever he may have been in "Greenwich." I had a clear look at the thing as it came over, looking west on Chambers street from the east corner of Broadway. What was I doing there, you might ask? I was preparing to hand out campaign literature at the polling place at 30 Chambers street, but I took a wrong turn west (rather than east) when I got to Chambers coming south on Broadway. Unlike Mr. Arraki (according to your argument), I know where I was when I saw it.

I'll have to look at the In Memoriam again to see your point on visibility, but I'm not at all impressed, in any case. Mr. Arraki's testimony is clearly confused, and you have to engage in some bizarre gymnastics in order to get it to say what you want it to say. Your assumptions pile up ("no, he was talking about the smaller hole in the south tower's north face," and other hermeneutic operations of medieval delicacy). And yet, despite a thousand photographs and our own eyes, we are to believe that the plane that crashed into the south tower was a small plane, just like the one that crashed into the north tower (per the highly reliable Mr. Arraki, God knows whence), and God's in his heaven, and all's for the best, in the most twisted of all possible worlds - yours.

And yet I know what I saw, mr. Arraki's confusion notwithstanding. And I didn't hear about it on ABC News, nor did I hear about it on some Internet site. I heard it, for rizzeal. And tasted it. You'll call my own account into question, of course, but I think deep down you know I'm not lying about being just where I say I was, just when I say I was. And I'll tell you this, friend: I saw a large passenger jet, almost certainly a 767, fly over my head at high speed and low altitude, and crash into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. With my own eyes I saw it. You are, of course, sad that you didn't, but that is your problem. You know I'm telling the truth about that. Whether it fucks up your worldview is another question.

[markses]

70. Oh my

I just did a review of these streets and I begin to see the problem. Mr. Arraki is not in "Greenwich Village" at all. He is calling from the corner of North Moore and Greenwich Streets, which is, of course, in Tribeca, not Greenwich Village, and not even close. I'm sure you knew this, since you must have mentioned it before. Or not. Whatever. That's a helluva transcript there. From that location, he probably could have seen an only partially obstructed view of the south tower's north face. Your Warner Wolf impression, however, leaves a bit to be desired. First, Heller (on Franklin Street) certainly has an unobstructed view of the south tower. They are also located significantly east of Mr. Arraki's location, since the north tower is clearly to the west of their location, and Mr. Arraki claimed that the plane came in "left" or - if he was looking south, which he must have been to see the collision - to the east of him (thereby putting him west of the North Tower). You have a better chance with Michael Toole's video from Debrosses Street (a much better angle to judge Mr. Arraki's visibility than on Franklin street, apparently to the east of Church Street, in any case). We do see the explosion in the South Tower from Debrosses street, but we see no further shots as far as I could tell in In Memoriam, so we can only infer what was visible. It may even be that Toole, being farther away, had a better angle to see the south tower than would Arraki, at N. Moore and Greenwich. Hard to tell. But the point is not really that important, since it doesn't go to the heart of Mr. Arraki's testimony. In any case, Mr. Arraki, if he viewed the first crash from North Moore and Greenwich, was just about directly beneath the plane as it came in, while I got a side view of it from my location on Chambers and Broadway, him slightly to the west of the route, me to the east, with my location being about 4 blocks further south towards the WTC.

[seatnineb]

71. Hey.............

I never said that I DISBELIEVED you.
I just disagree with the way you have attempted to dismiss Mr Arraki.

Does admitting that I agree that you saw a 767 fly into the North Tower f**k my world up.

No!

What you experienced on 9/11/01 was f****d up.
But not just for you.
For the 3000 people who lost their lives.
For the friends and relatives of these 3000 people who lost loved ones.
For others who survived....such as yourself....but suffered life changing injuries or psychological trauma.

But it doesn't stop there.
What about the thousands of Afghans and Iraqis who have also been killed/injured/traumatized as an indirect result of 9/11/01..........
They count just as much...........

And I'm just curious to know what caused it all.

Hence.........

Back to Mr Arraki.

I found this photo taken from the west village.
So I guess this would be BEHIND but roughly in line with where Mr Arraki was.

[markses]

72. Hmmmm

I'm well aware of the people who lost family, friends, neighbors and/or coworkers, since I'm one of those people. Moreover, I was against the indiscriminate bombing of Afghanistan, much less the illegal and criminal, and thoroughly unrelated war against Iraq.

As for Mr. Arraki, he was much closer than that picture, not being in the Village at all, but rather on the corner of Greenwich and North Moore, well down town from there.

[LARED]

42. Very interesting

GIBSON: And that second plane much larger than the first?

Mr. ARRAKI: Same. Same, two both. Both same.

GIBSON: They're both the same?

Mr. ARRAKI: Yeah.

If he thinks both planes were the same size it clearly indicates he saw a large commercial airliner, and is mistaken about both planes being small.

There is no doubt about the size of the second aircraft. It was captured on hundreds of video cameras, 100,000's of people saw it. There is no doubt.

[KFC]

15. I sure don't see a "pod"

What the hell is a "pod scenario"?

[LARED]

16. The pod is

a fantasy that some folks are having that the jet that crashed into the WTC needed extra explosives to make it look more Hollywoodish. Oh, it was also needed to make sure the jet was completely destroyed so the missiles/f-15,16 flying tank trucks whatever really hit the building would never be found.

They also think that there were jet sprays of fuel at hundreds of gals per second just before impact to get that little extra firepower to really convince frighten people.

Aren't you glad you asked?

[KFC]

17. Acid is one hell of a drug.

Sounds similar to a "jets being holograms to obscure the missles" theory some dork floated a while back.

[demodewd]

18. 3 pod images 3 different photos

Evidence of missile pod on plane that crashed into WTC2

[Abe Linkman]

19. There's also the spectral analysis done in Spain which proved this, too.

I assume you're familiar with the scientific investigation undertaken by a team in Spain in which a number of tests and analyses were conducted on the images of the aircraft which appear to show the presence of what is being called a "pod". They concluded that there is definitely something there that couldn't be shadows or a landing gear.

I don't have thw Web site memorized, but it's easy to find.

[LARED]

20. Too Funny

spectral analysis ????

I am familiar with that so called analysis. It was exposed as BS when it was posted here. The "team" used some high level mathematical algorithms to detect edge locations in images by analyzing the pixels. Notice, it detects edges not three dimensional aspects of an image.

It is completely useless to prove there is a pod. It is completely useless in low quality images. It is just like the rest of the so called evidence used by the 9/11 revisionists - useless.

[Abe Linkman]

21. If merc can use his "report", then what's wrong with using this one?

I'm merely pointing out a report that has been widely disseminated. The fact that you don't agree with it doesn't prove it COULDN'T be accurate.
It MIGHT be just as accurate as you are.

(thanks for the logic lesson, merc)

[LARED]

22. Reports

Merc's report is just that, a report. It has all the necessary element to determine how they devised the report. The report you are referring to was a single web page that made some very bold conclusions based on a lot of wishful thinking.

Abe, the guy that wrote that web page used this program. http://www.mathworks.nl/access/helpdesk/help/toolbox/images/

A program I am pretty familiar with. I don't do image processing, but I used it for control systems analysis among other tasks. It is an incredibly powerful program. It is not so powerful it can take those grainy images of the so called pod and prove anything.

I reviewed the algorithms he claims to have used but could not review the method used because (amazingly) it was not stated in the "report." The functions he used state quite clearly that noise in the image is a major problem for identifying edge pixels. Forget about identifying 3-d elements. Anyone that is serious would not make the claims he did using the software he claims to have used.

Having spent the time to provide an response, I humbly await the one or two lines of sophistry you will post to claim some asinine thing.

[Abe Linkman]

23. Kindly provide a link showing where you say the report's study is flawed

I haven't read anything that undermines the credibilty of the people who undertook the study, but if you know otherwise, I'd be very interested in seeing it. After all, as we've found out here on DU, Disinformation and propaganda is abundant. We've even got reports that would make Arlen Spector and The Warrens happy.

If you know of an objective study that debunks the claims of the Spanish researchers, would you please provide a link for it?

Thanks.

[LARED]

24. Shoot Abe, I can't even find the so called "study" on-line

anymore. Tell you what, you find the study and then I'll see if anyone wasted time doing an objective study.

Once I fail to find anyone that objectively debunked the "study" you can explain to me why the "study" is objective and should be taken seriously.

[Abe Linkman]

25. That's what I thought. The study IS valid. You tried to pull a fast one.

Ha ha. The pod is visible on every photo ... except, oddly, the one provided by the very objective boloffin, who is as innocent as the driven snow. AND, the images have been subjected to a scientific study which proved their existence.

You don't have to apologize. Besides, I know that it wouldn't be sincere, coming from you.

Stay tuned. I have a few other opportunities for you to put your foot in your mouth.

[LARED]

26. Helllllooooooooo Abe, what are you babbling about (n/t)

[LARED]

27. The study IS valid?????? More BS from revison land.

So show it to me. Tell me why it's valid.

[Abe Linkman]

28. Gotcha! BIG Time.

Tell you what, BIG BS guy -- go debunk yourself and then tell us why YOU'RE valid.

[LARED]

29. GOT YOU

I have provided information about my credentials. You seem to be afraid to tell why your views hold any weight. Even you're hyperbole is lightweight.

[Abe Linkman]

30. Too late to dance. You got no street cred, "lared".

Go debunk yourself.

[LARED]

31. Abe, you don't dance

You just talk about dancing.

[LARED]

32. A invitation to dance. Assuming there is some substance to the Linkman

I stumbled across the web page you referenced as a report proving the existences of a pod.


http://www.amics21.com/911/report.html

So let me know if you want to dance.

Tell me how this proves the pod exists?

[markses]

34. You are getting the serious red ass here

I want to see the report as well. Show your goddamn evidence or go home.

[LARED]

36. Here's his "evidence"

http://www.amics21.com/911/report.html

Not exactly a compelling anaylsis.

Welcome to this little corner of DU.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

37. This may be of interest demodewd

911 In Plane Site:

Video & Photographic Evidence
of the Largest Coverup In Modern Day History

Please be advised that the information contained in this documentary is overwhelmingly significant. We offer no conclusions, but simply present the evidence and let you the viewing audience draw your own conclusions.

More here: http://www.911inplanesite.com/

I might have to get a copy just to check it out, it can go on my bookshelf next to the copy of the E.B.E.S. that I just ordered from the 'militiaheads.'

[LARED]

44. Capitalist pigs

Trying to make money on the death of Americans

Swine.