Simon Shack, Killtown, Fred, Ozzy and others are WRONG

Joined: 4:00 AM - Oct 16, 2008

5:34 AM - Dec 12, 2008 #1

Source - page 19
Posted: Dec 11 2008
Simon Shack wrote:I submit these pictures for the evaluation of all and sundry. As this topic has been seized by aspiring debunkers to 'thrash' September Clues, I'm well aware of the implications in me bringing it up once again. I will comment this with only brief captions, hoping that keen observers will dedicate a little time to form their own opinions about this oh-so-controversial matter.
Simon Shack, like the good disinformation character he is, never retracts anything. So he brought the Verrazano Bridge back once again...

He presents us these images:




And calls our attention for the proximity of the bridge pillar A and B in relation to the WTC towers.

I also want to call the attention for the fact that the pillar A goes to the position of the pillar B on the horizontal axis from one angle to another due to rotation.
This is in fact very important to keep in mind during this study!



And the different elevation of the chopper made the bridge apparently go up and down. Those differences can also be easily seen and explained on the vertical axis.




But then, for my surprise, he adds the following:
Simon Shack wrote:Yes, the WTC has rotated, showing more of its West side. But by how many degrees ?
The problem is that Simon Shack isn't a real researcher. It seams that his role is to create chaos with unsupported claims never retracting any mistakes.
He tries to confuse everyone with unnecessary questions instead of giving answers. Avoiding every debate pretending he's a victim and pretending he's right.
If he was a real researcher he wouldn't be asking us how many degrees did the WTC rotate. He would try to find it himself and make his point!

So let's do all the work again just to prove Simon Shack wrong...



Notice how the 5 degrees space, represented in red, goes from one pillar to another on the Verrazano Bridge.
Which means that in a case of a 5 degrees rotation, the pillar A would be on the place of the pillar B.
This proves the accuracy of the 9/11 footage once again, showing that it was real and revealing how delusional the layering theory is.

The method used to test the bridge position and WTC rotation can be used by anyone, again and again, as many times Simon Shack brings the issue back.


Simon Shack is WRONG - but he won't retract...


Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 9:09 AM - Sep 27, 2008

7:52 AM - Dec 12, 2008 #2

i just find it completely bizarre.

he's saying he can see the angle has changed,
but that the verrazano shouldn't move.

his arguments have gone round in so much of a bullshit circle that it's hard to debate.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 4:00 AM - Oct 16, 2008

8:00 AM - Dec 12, 2008 #3

Since I've seen his intentional misleading trickery I have no doubt of his intentions anymore...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 9:09 AM - Sep 27, 2008

12:37 PM - Dec 12, 2008 #4

i have just been playing in google earth and i think it would be lucky to be 5 degrees.
at that distance it looks like about 3 degrees in the example he has given.
i'm just playing around in there
working out how to use it.
i might be able to squeeze a lot of data out of it yet.
gotta get compass settings out of it [degrees]
but i can get exact positions, with alt.

i'll track all the choppers ;)

the video is looking awesome.



any mystery about where the choppers were will soon be over.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 4:00 AM - Oct 16, 2008

1:01 PM - Dec 12, 2008 #5

It had to be 5 degrees or the pillar A wouldn't go to the position of the pillar B.


You can also play with this one.

http://maps.live.com/

It doesn't have tools but it has better pictures.
And you can choose from Aerial and Bird's Eye view.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 7:37 PM - Sep 27, 2008

4:50 PM - Dec 12, 2008 #6

Very impressive research Rasga!! Bravo!!! :)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 4:00 AM - Oct 16, 2008

5:47 AM - Dec 13, 2008 #7

7wtc911 wrote:Very impressive research Rasga!! Bravo!!! :)
Thanks! I'm sure Simon could have done it too.
But he never does. That's the problem about his theory.
It's unsupported.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 4:00 AM - Oct 16, 2008

8:59 AM - Dec 13, 2008 #8

I think this loop is melting some brains at 9/11movement.


Simon Shack wrote:I won't comment this little loop. It's all up to you.
Simon Shack is expecting to hock some uninformed viewers with his "It's all up to you" bullshit. Like if he's doing his "social service" spreading good stuff for free. But what he really offers to the public is pure disinformation.
Killtown wrote:It really looks like the background on this is on a different layer moving independently.
Yeah! It really does! Right guys?
I sure hope I won't get banned by Killtown for disagreeing with Simon Shack!
Oh wait, I'm not on 9/11movement forum...

What about more analysis and less talking?



I didn't use more arrows because these are enough to show there's also movement on the foreground.
It sounds retarded when someone has to rely on pour quality shaky gifs to try to convince anyone of layering.
But that seams to be the way they play the game...

Anyway, Elephant Room said it all.
Elephant Room wrote:watch the whole clip in hi res ... don't rely on a 21 frame animated gif to determine if there is movement in the foreground in these chopper shots from the 9/11 footage ... there is.
To be continued...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 4:00 AM - Oct 16, 2008

1:42 PM - Dec 13, 2008 #9

Source - page 3
Posted: Dec 12 2008

And talking about pour quality shaky gifs.
According to Killtown:
Killtown wrote:Not to keep perpetuating the "layering" debate squabble, but this was my 1st blogpost about TV fakery using an early release of the Hez video which led me to believe in the "layering" theory for some videos:



Is this "bouncing" phenomenon a result of "video compression"?
Is it? Hum... Well... I don't know... It could be the perps wanting to shake things up.
What do you think about this new baseless theory I just made up right now? Cool?
Killtown wrote:This was unlike the later Hez version in the CNN Remembers DVD which didn't seem to exhibit this phenomenon.
Wow! Really!? Why would that be? Let me try a wild guess: Could it be because it had a better resolution than that crappy video you picked up to make those gifs?
After all, it was a DVD version, right?
Killtown wrote:So if the above "bouncing" phenomenon is a result of "compression," then we should be able to replicate this same "bouncing" effect with the CNN Remembers version after "uploading and download it from youtube a 1,000x" (or however the "compression" theory goes) to create the "compression" problem.
Yeah! Let's keep the IF in the air to see if anyone tries it for you, right? Because when it comes to do something productive you guys do nothing! It's all about creating baseless doubts in peoples minds and offer no answers, isn't it? And there's no problem if anyone debunks it because you can always recycle it again later.

Killtown posted these gifs on his blog on March 21, 2007 (Source). He had almost 20 months (exactly 602 days and counting!) to test and research all the possibilities! And he still doesn't have a definitive answer if this could or could not be simply explained by a compression phenomenon!? What kind of researchers are these!? He's bluffing!

Of course it "bounces" because of the deterioration of the original video! That's why the DVD quality didn't exhibit the same thing! Where's the mystery? Why would it be any other way? Can Killtown prove the opposite or at least simply explain why would it look like this in a layering scenario? Or are we supposed to keep the suspense for 20 more months?

I wonder why did this make him believe in the layering theory... And why he brought it back if he's not willing to "perpetuate the layering debate squabble".


For those really interested on the truth, let me suggest you a way of testing this:
If this phenomenon wasn't explained simply by deterioration and was really evidence that layers were used to fake the whole footage, then it would have to be featured exactly the same way in every version of the Hezarkhani shot. But Killtown already told us it's not! So...

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 4:00 AM - Oct 16, 2008

10:23 AM - Dec 14, 2008 #10

Is Simon Shack retracting his claims or is he simply just taking down the images to try to hide the obvious mistakes he commits?
He's not taking down the text referring to the images. So I'm confused about his intentions.

I see that some images that were down some time back are up again on quoted posts, but not on his own posts.
What is he up to?

I uploaded myself the intentional misleading trickery gifs he made. Those shouldn't be hidden from the public to prevent further trickery.

Like this one where he tried to make a dark side from a chopper even darker on an attempt to make us believe it was black:





Here are the answers for his question about the "missing" chopper:

iDebunkSimonShack #1 - The Missing Chopper
iDebunkSimonShack #2 - The Missing Chopper for Dummies

Quote
Like
Share