Thanks I had not seen that one, it takes a while to go through all these, so i have not findished it.
He also has ripped apart the moon landing photos, my favorite is the 8x10 glossy's on the lunar landing pad, I found them just based on where he said to look but its after he enlarges it, you can see them clearly. You can tell thats luner thing couldn't make it to the moon, heck my old toothless dog could tear that thing apart.

Nice picture of the pentagon. Where's all the plane debris that was photo'd later on? Pretty damning evidence if real. Nice find.

Care to explain the hoax Howard? I'm rather interested.

It's covered in the link that I posted in my original post.

The picture of the "mystery explosion" was doctored to make it look like both towers were still standing, when in fact it was taken after the collapse of the south tower.

Didn't see the link. I'm looking at it now.

Interesting. Someone should e-mail him and let him know that it might be a fake. I wouldn't go as far as known hoax just because some guy on a web site says. That is until the person who did the hoax comes forward.

I think this is a great website full of things no one else has found due to this guys expertise and him being so meticulous.

Though I do recall a news person saying there had been an explosion in one of the smaller buildings and it was not WTC7. I wish I could find a transcript of this, since my memory is questionable on it, as I am sure everyones is on that day, it was traumatic just watching such a horrific thing, so I would not trust my memory on it. Anybody know where a transcript of that day is from the CNN?



[edit on 3-2-2006 by goose]

Sheesh. It looks like that so called "Professional Photographer"
has the same problems understanding perspectives, viewpoints,
and foreshortening as Merc_the_Narc

[edit on 4-2-2006 by HowardRoark]

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.

My bad.

That was defcon5 not Howard.

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

And you have a penchant for ad hominem attacks on anyone who does not agree with your assertions.

Do you have anything substantive to add to this thread or are you just trolling

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And you have a penchant for ad hominem attacks on anyone who does not agree with your assertions.

Do you have anything substantive to add to this thread or are you just trolling

There was nothing ad hominem about the "attack".

You gave us a fine example of this tactic within this thread and I merely pointed it out.

But yes I do have something to contribute.

Looks like this photo expert is still working on his site and has left off with building 7. I hope he addresses one of the most egregious examples of altered 9/11 pics there are. This building 7 pic was released late and is the only pic that I have EVER seen of the supposed "extensive damage" to the building.




We had some professional graphic artists analyze it in photoshop and they determined that the pic was most definitely manipulated.

The pixel blending in the damaged areas is what gives it away.