Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Simon Shack, Killtown, Fred, Ozzy and others are WRONG; But they won't retract...
Topic Started: Dec 12 2008, 12:34 AM (11,845 Views)
RasgaSaias
Member Avatar

Source - page 19
Posted: Dec 11 2008

Simon Shack
 
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:

Posted Image
Posted Image

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!

Posted Image

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.

Posted Image


But then, for my surprise, he adds the following:

Simon Shack
 
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...

Posted Image

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...


Edited by RasgaSaias, Dec 12 2008, 04:15 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genghis6199

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RasgaSaias
Member Avatar

Since I've seen his intentional misleading trickery I have no doubt of his intentions anymore...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genghis6199

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RasgaSaias
Member Avatar

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.
Edited by RasgaSaias, Dec 12 2008, 08:05 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
7wtc911
Member Avatar

Very impressive research Rasga!! Bravo!!! :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RasgaSaias
Member Avatar

7wtc911
Dec 12 2008, 11:50 AM
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RasgaSaias
Member Avatar

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

Posted Image

Simon Shack
 
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
 
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?

Posted Image

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
 
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...
Edited by RasgaSaias, Dec 13 2008, 05:11 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RasgaSaias
Member Avatar

Source - page 3
Posted: Dec 12 2008

And talking about pour quality shaky gifs.
According to Killtown:

Killtown
 
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:

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

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
 
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
 
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...

Edited by RasgaSaias, Dec 13 2008, 10:37 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RasgaSaias
Member Avatar

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:

Posted Image

Posted Image

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

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

Edited by RasgaSaias, Dec 14 2008, 06:33 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RasgaSaias
Member Avatar

Genghis made another great video exposing Simon Shack. - Click here! -

For those who don't know what was this about:

Posted Image


And for those really interested to find out how wrong and mistaken September Clues is, here are some more facts you should know about the layering theories:

September Fraud
September Fake
September Phony
September Fool
September Funeral
September Logic Flaw



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


Edited by RasgaSaias, Dec 14 2008, 12:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatprophet

Simon Shack R.I.P :-/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RasgaSaias
Member Avatar

The Matrix! - Sounds cool, huh? (Source, page 2)

After being exposed the fact that none of the included shots on this theory were identical in perspective, like wrongly stated on September Clues several times, Simon Shack finds his last resource on the limited angle used by 5 camera shots. He even made fancy high quality gifs this time to express his view.

Simon Shack
 
Those 5 shots represented roughly 85 percent of the 'planecrash' views shown to the entire World on the day. They were all taken within this approx 3° range of view (from North):

Posted Image
I wouldn't take anything he says for granted, so I'd like to see how he got to the 3º angle. But let's keep that for other time.

We already have the logic justification given by Ace Baker that it was meant to be that way to hide the south side of the tower during the plane impact, in order to keep the impact physics away from sight. Since it would be impossible to fake them in real time or in a few minutes later. This is the technical explanation.

But there's also something I would like to add to this matrix odyssey. The logistic explanation.

Forgetting the fact that there was a real need to hide the south wall from the WTC on the first videos from the plane impact, let's make the question: If you were willing to place a camera to record the WTC being hit by a plane, where would you choose to do it? Wouldn't it, perhaps, be on a tall building?
Of course it would... There's from where the better views come from, you Einstein!


This is the peninsula of Manhattan. And most of the tall buildings far enough, but not too far from the the WTC, are agglomerated in the red rectangle I draw:

Posted ImagePosted Image

So it was expected that some of the shots were recorded from those tall buildings. Which means there was also a logistic explanation for "The Matrix!".
It wasn't only the technical plane composite explanation.



But let's get this into the issue nobody from the Layering Crew wishes to talk about.
In the absurd hypothesis that it was all computer generated. Why would there be such a limited angle on the shooting position Simon? They could use every angle available for an extra dramatic experience if they had full control! Why create a boring matrix then!?

The layering theory keeps debunking itself...



And when Simon Shack says the following:
Simon Shack
 
Now do you want to play the "FIND the DIFFERENCE" game ?
"PETER STRID"____________________________"NEW WTC7 COLLAPSE"
Posted ImagePosted Image
I do hope he's not talking about the sunlight on opposite sides in each frame. Because even a child can tell the sunrise is on the opposite side from the sunset.
His disinformation tactics are getting retarded as time goes by. We still live on a round planet, right?

Though I'll take the challenge and I'll give Simon Shack the solutions for his game. The differences are:
Frame one - taken at approximately 9:03 am with the WTC7 intact, from a given perspective.
Frame two - taken at approximately 5:20 pm with the WTC7 being demolished, from a slightly different perspective.


Edited by RasgaSaias, Dec 19 2008, 09:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genghis6199

lol!!!.

well the idea that he doesn't know the sun was low on the left photo,
and the camera was looking straight into it,
would explain why his current theory about this photo makes no sense whatsoever.

it's called over exposure simon.

google it.

it's a common symptom of looking into the sun.
at times like this you cannot choose your viewing angle.
YOU GET WHAT YOU GET.

this cameraman was facing east - south - east at the time.


WHERE DOES THE SUN RISE SIMEY ?


in the second photo,
still facing east,
at 5 o'clock.

where does the sun set slimey >?
Edited by genghis6199, Dec 18 2008, 03:47 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genghis6199

Posted Image
why is he using a copy with a logo again ?.

because then you can't see what a great big piece of shit it is he is pushing uphill.

and whats with his big crayon lines??.

Edited by genghis6199, Dec 18 2008, 07:29 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Drama Club · Next Topic »
Add Reply