The evidence at the pentagon has been planetd

Originally posted by TraitorKiller

I see, you are not going to discuss the pics because you can't debunk them.

I must be missing something. I can't seem to find your "pics" or any analysis of them to "debunk" in this thread. I did follow the links you posted to some site rambling about "tv fakery" or something or the other. The only thing I've seen so far are different relative "positions" of posts and stuff due to the location of the camera changing. Someone want to help me understand what it is I'm supposed to be seeing here?

reply to post by TraitorKiller

I already posted them. How can you say they are spam if you refuse to look at them. More discrediting.

I see only one photo posted here and I have no idea as to its provenance so there's nothing to say.

Normally you are all over things, Hooper, but now you are given the chance to debunk this proof of 911 fakery and you pass up the opportunity?

Post the photos here or provide a link to neutral website.

And what's with this hair trigger modding, is it now forbidden to suggest that someone is a big joke if they refuse to review and discuss the evidence that is presented?

You didn't provide any evidence, you provided a link to another website, one that specializes in promoting the insane notion that the victims aren't real.

Yet words like delusional and fantasy can be used freely by others.

And troll, shill, spy, conspirator. You would be amazed.

Guess it is clear where this particular mod stands.

reply to post by 911files


I didn't realize it was that hard. I posted one pic in this thread for overview. I couldn't upload the other pics so I couldn't post em here.

I provided a link to the thread and even posted a seperate link to the pics alone.

Off course this is all very confusing to you, and you had to add how they were "rambling' on that site. I have to say, that if you had trouble locating the pics that any piece of written text would be perceived as rambling.

Ok, click the last link I posted in that post. You see 7 pics, just going to give a few examples.

Look at the first pic, see the big structure with the signs on it? Then look at pic B from virtually the same angle, it has now moved to the left.

Now look at pic D, which is also from virtually the same angle, here the structure is missing completely.

This has nothing to do with camera angles or lenses, these pics are faked.

There are many more examples in these pics, but first respond to the ones I just pointed out.

reply to post by hooper


Are you guys being obtuse on purpose? The links containing the pics, even a seperate link to the pics alone have been posted in my post from the beginning.

If you guys are really having this much trouble to actually arrive at the page where these pics are posted, I feel for you.

And troll, shill, spy, conspirator. You would be amazed.

First off, I didn't call you that.

Second, all those are allowed, but saying "a big joke" is a nono?

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
Ok, click the last link I posted in that post. You see 7 pics, just going to give a few examples.

Look at the first pic, see the big structure with the signs on it? Then look at pic B from virtually the same angle, it has now moved to the left.

Now look at pic D, which is also from virtually the same angle, here the structure is missing completely.

This has nothing to do with camera angles or lenses, these pics are faked.

Okay, I looked at the pictures. The camera angles are different, so the "locations" of the poles and other reference objects "change". How is this evidence that the "pics are faked"?

reply to post by TraitorKiller

I couldn't upload the other pics so I couldn't post em here.

Copy (download) them from that other site and then post them here. Or do you really just want a little traffic over there?

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
Ok, click the last link I posted in that post. You see 7 pics, just going to give a few examples.

Look at the first pic, see the big structure with the signs on it? Then look at pic B from virtually the same angle, it has now moved to the left.

Now look at pic D, which is also from virtually the same angle, here the structure is missing completely.

This has nothing to do with camera angles or lenses, these pics are faked.

Okay, I looked at the pictures. The camera angles are different, so the "locations" of the poles and other reference objects "change". How is this evidence that the "pics are faked"?

Sigh. So you are saying that pic A, B and D are not from virtually the same angle, and the big structure with the signs is supposed to be completely missing in pic D, even though it is extremely large and directly in a line of view from those angles?

That is just crazy.

You can't be serious and honest, how can you argue against these facts. This is why it is too bad that I couldn't post them here in full view, otherwise you would look ridiculous saying that.

reply to post by hooper


You really have trouble reading right? I already said twice that I couldn't upload them here. I already copied them from there, but the file size is not supported by ATS.

Jeez, anything to discredit me and not discuss the pics right?

reply to post by TraitorKiller

If you guys are really having this much trouble to actually arrive at the page where these pics are posted, I feel for you.

Perfectly capable. Just not willing. Don't want to contribute to those sites. If the evidence is soooo powerful, post them here. Or post them to some neutral pics website. There are plenty out there.

reply to post by hooper


Omg, that is such a cop out, it's almost funny.

Like a big joke.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller

Sigh. So you are saying that pic A, B and D are not from virtually the same angle, and the big structure with the signs is supposed to be completely missing in pic D, even though it is extremely large and directly in a line of view from those angles?

That is just crazy.

And there is the key, "from virtually the same angle", not "exactly the same angle". It is called parallax. And no, it is not "crazy", it is physics.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by hooper

 

You really have trouble reading right? I already said twice that I couldn't upload them here. I already copied them from there, but the file size is not supported by ATS.

Jeez, anything to discredit me and not discuss the pics right?

Then upload them to some neutral website. Or reduce the filesize and upload them. If there's a will there's a way. If, in fact, what you are really willing to do is get others to view them and comment, but what it seems is what you are willing to do is get people to visit those websites.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by hooper

 

Omg, that is such a cop out, it's almost funny.

Like a big joke.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by hooper

 

Omg, that is such a cop out, it's almost funny.

Like a big joke.

Consider it practise. If you really intend to unravel the big conspiracy then you are going to have to figure out a way to get people to see the "evidence" without visiting your website.

reply to post by TraitorKiller


Optical illusion or more coreectly delusion created by using a wide angle telefoto lens on a long distance shot

Images of objects are compressed together distorting their distance and perspective of the scene

Or in simple English objects in the picture look like close together when in reality are often quite far apart.....

reply to post by 911files


Omg, this is so pathetic, but I will play along.

Check pic A, how many columns of windows do you count between the hole and the left side of the pic. That's right 3. Good job.

Do we see the structure in the pic. Yes!

Now pic B. How many windows? 3! Yay! We can conclude it is almost the same angle, yet where is the structure?

Pic D. Windows? Again, 3! But the structure? Not there.

These are just a few, not even talking about individual poles.

reply to post by TraitorKiller


So, I take it you know nothing about photography or physics? Might I recommend that you study those two subjects at least to the elementary level and perhaps those photos will make more sense to you. Until then, you have presented no evidence that they are "faked".

reply to post by 911files


Lol, this is just hilarious.

What part of my analysis was off, you reckon?

Are you saying that my method of counting the windows to the edge of the pic is not a good way of establishing the viewing angle, and what is supposed to be in the pic, while knowing just by looking at those three pics that they are shot froma position to the rightside of the hole.

I mean it is clear by just looking at the pics.

Are you saying that there is a lens that removes objects from a straight line of sight, but still shows the stuff that is directly behind it?

That's one magical lens.

reply to post by TraitorKiller


No sir, I am saying you have made a claim and presented no evidence to support it.

reply to post by 911files


Well if you are not saying that, than there is no reason to not agree with me.

Except for maybe intellectual dishonesty.

Besides, I posted the pics, which are the proof of my claim. It is really simple and straightforward, no matter how hard a time you boys seem to have dealing with this.