Clear Evidence of 2nd Hit Video Fakery-- Misplaced "Puffballs" in Fairbanks vs Hezarkhani

[spooked911]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTbm5ewcIeU

[zappaman]

1. "clear evidence"

very funny!
good one, Spooked!
nice to see you have a sense of humor.

[spooked911]

2. wasn't a joke but

feel free to elaborate why you think this is so funny

[zappaman]

3. feel free

to elaborate why it is "clear evidence"

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[spooked911]

5. still waiting

for something other than snark or ad hominems

[SDuderstadt]

6. Dude...

if it weren't for "snark" or "ad hominems", I doubt you'd get any responses at all.

Simple question, dude: Why do you think you're not taken seriously here?
'

[spooked911]

9. ummm...

I'll take "because you can't handle the truth" for $200.

[SDuderstadt]

11. I'll take...

"because you have no evidence" for $500, dude.

[spooked911]

10. Funny

apparently posting that you have sufficient intelligence to understand the video is an insult and requires deletion. Go figure.

[SDuderstadt]

7. Hey, Spooked!

I misplaced some cheese puffs the other night. Would you volunteer your supersleuth skills to help me find them?

[spooked911]

8. Oh, you card! Hahahahaha!

You're a riot!

[SDuderstadt]

12. Well, at least my laugh lines are...

intentional. The irony is that they're still no match for your unintentional laugh lines.

Say, have you ever considered doing stand-up comedy based on your goofy "no-planes", "mini-nukes" and "this doesn't look right to me" bullshit? Surely Indianapolis has an Improv club or two. Hell, I'd even pay to come see you the next time I'm in town, dude.

[zappaman]

13. Careful

I think calling someone a "card" is an insult and against DU rules...

[Twist_U_Up]

42. wrong as usual

[spooked911]

14. seriously

if you know why this isn't evidence of video fakery, please let me know.

[William Seger]

15. It's been explained to you before. You didn't understand it.

There isn't any way to tell in the Fairbanks video whether the circled "puff ball" is above the wing or below, because of the camera angle: All you can tell is that it's out from the building, whereas the wing is in the building at that point.

Once again, the inability to understand simple perspective and inability to conceptualize three dimensions from a two-dimensional image had led a "no-planer" astray. And no doubt, once again you'll insist that it's still good evidence as long as you don't understand why it isn't.

[spooked911]

16. First, please show me when anyone "explained"this before.

Second, the puffball is clearly ABOVE the wing.

I understand what you are saying, as that is the only way you can reconcile this finding with the official story. But if you carefully examine the Fairbanks frame-by-frame, it is clear that the "port" puffball emerges while the wing is still slightly out, and the puffball is above the wing.

It's not close really. To say that the smoke puff is below the wing in Fairbanks, you have to say that it is extruded far out from the hole, on a thin, essentially invisible, "stem" of smoke. But Hezarkhani clearly shows the smoke puff is not that far out.

[zappaman]

17. check any thread you have ever started

for explanations on how things like aviation, physics, and controlled demolitions actually work.
unfortunately, you choose to ignore anything that goes against your rock-solid "evidence" which pretty much consists of "this doesn't look right to me" or "I don't understand".
but you are entertaining.

[spooked911]

19. Umm... no.

It's not that simple at all. I don't know if you just find it easier to promote this false notion that I am a simpleton that doesn't know anything or if you really believe that.

By the way, I asked in another thread if your dad was a commercial pilot, and if he had flown 757's and if he knew about the official speeds of the 9/11 planes, and you didn't respond.

[William Seger]

18. Actually, after looking closer, I've changed my mind

I said that the "puff ball" -- the white spot circled in the video -- is just somewhere out from the building, and from that angle you can't tell if it's above or below the wing. A closer look shows that the white ball is just the part of the smoke ejection that's out in the sunlight, out past the shadow of the corner of the building. A closer look shows that part of the same ejection is still in the shadow, and watching all the frames as it develops, it's clear that it's coming precisely from where the engine entered the building, which is exactly what the Hezarkhani video shows. Your contention that "Hezarkhani clearly shows the smoke puff is not that far out" is obviously nonsensical bunkum, since there is no way you can tell from that angle how far out it is. You're just blowing smoke up peoples asses to make that assertion.

There is no discernible discrepancy whatsoever between the two videos. This is just yet another case of "no-planers" shamelessly shooting off their mouths with absurd speculations disingenuously represented as "evidence," based on nothing but really sloppy and incompetent video analysis.

[spooked911]

20. "Hezarkhani clearly shows the smoke puff is not that far out"

Compare the puffball to the portion of the fuselage sticking out of the tower in Hezarkhani, then you can judge the distance out from the facade. It is not much more than ten feet out.

Also, it is a bit unlikely that the "puffball" was a significant distance from the building, on the end of what had to have been a thin stream of smoke.

[William Seger]

22. That's a good example of what I meant

... by sloppy and incompetent video analysis.

> Compare the puffball to the portion of the fuselage sticking out of the tower in Hezarkhani, then you can judge the distance out from the facade. It is not much more than ten feet out.

It might appear that way if you assume that the darker edge along the bottom is right against the building and compare it to the fuselage sticking out of the building, but there is absolutely no way in that 2D image to verify that assumption. Instead, a rational person would look at the Fairbanks video and note that the assumption is simply invalid. Similarly, if you look at the Fairbanks video casually and it looks like the "puffball" might be above the wing, a rational person would look at the Hezarkhani video and note that the assumption is invalid. But not "no-planers."

The only "discrepancies" are between what the videos show and your own unsubstantiated assumptions, and your only purpose for those assumptions is to create a "discrepancy" where none really exists. If all we had were these two videos, then the best you might say is that they don't really settle the issue conclusively. But of course these two videos aren't by any means all we have. We have dozens of other videos and photos, physical evidence, and uncounted eyewitnesses, all saying that a plane hit that building. Even if you could prove that either of these videos had been altered -- and you most certainly have not -- we could toss these videos out and still know that a plane hit the building. This is where "no-planers" show how far out of touch they are with reality and rational thought. Based on nothing more than their own assumptions about what these videos show instead of what they "ought" to show, and a few other cases where videos don't look like they think they "ought" to, they claim to have proven that not only are those videos fake but all the other evidence must be fake, too. And yet, not in a single case are they able to show any solid reason for believing that any of the videos are fake. It's beyond ridiculous.

[spooked911]

24. First, there are about twenty other reasons why these videos are fake

Second, there just isn't that much shadow in the Hezarkhani puffball, and you can clearly see it doesn't stick out that far.

Third, in Fairbanks, there is a frame where you can see light between the puffball and the wing gash, so it is not simply a shadow effect.

I'm glad you at least say this is inconclusive at best. That's a start.

[SDuderstadt]

25. Spooked...

Does it ever occur to to you that no one is picking up your banner? Why do you think that is?

[Twist_U_Up]

43. and how many have picked up on your "banner" dudette?

zipperman,dingleberryman?
now thats a crowd
lol

[SDuderstadt]

44. Yeah....

that would explain why Spooked has very few defenders, TuuTuu.

I'll ask you politely to quit calling me "dudette'. I'm a dude. That would be Mr. Dude to you.

[zappaman]

45. picked up the banner, Tuutuu?

hardly.
SuDude doesn't have to convince anyone of what happened on 9/11, because I and the rest of the world know what happened.
It's you and the other logically-challenged who need to have people pick up your banner.
how's that going?

[William Seger]

28. First, there are zero VALID reasons for thinking the videos are fake

... which is why you can't find a single video expert who agrees with you. All you've got is about twenty things that YOU don't understand.

Second, you completely missed my point about making the unjustified assumption that the "puffball" is directly against the wall. It had nothing to do with how much shadow there was. I'd suggest you read it again, if I thought that would really help. But it's ironic that "there just isn't that much shadow in the Hezarkhani puffball" actually defeats your argument. Draw a diagram of the building showing where the sun was, then try to explain to my how it can be that so much of the "puffball" is out in the sunlight if it's only 10 feet from the building. Comparing it to the Fairbanks video explains why, perfectly: Because it's really much farther out than your imaginary interpretation.

Third, I didn't say anything about a "shadow effect" except the undeniable fact that the white part of the "puffball" is in direct sunlight, and that it certainly appears that there is more that's in the shadow of the building, right where the engine entered the building. But since you brought it up yourself, of course it would be the shadow on the smoke that you are mistaking as the wing gash when you try to claim that the "puffball" is "above" it. That, however, is a completely different consideration than what I'm saying about not being able to accurately locate the "puffball" in three dimensions from a 2D image.

And finally, of course it's "inconclusive" from just those videos, at least in the sense of being able to prove to a logician that my interpretation is accurate and yours is nonsense. But nobody really needs to do that, since you have failed to produce any rational reason for suspecting that the videos were faked. It is quite conclusive that you have once again failed to deliver what you claimed in the title of your OP. Once again, you promised "clear evidence" and once again all you've delivered is bullshit that falls apart under even casual scrutiny.

[William Seger]

31. Now, this is funny: Even the guy who first imagined this "puffball" nonsense doesn't believe it now

That's funny, but this is just pathetic: You already knew that, but can't figure out why.

Looking at Lawson's "Puffballs - Busted" video, I saw a comment by Lawson that the guy who first proposed this "misplaced puffball" theory, Rasga Saias, has since figured out what the videos really show, admitted his mistake and recanted.

And then, I find that you already knew that.

Rasga Saias has curiously retracted some good work of his showing video fakery (the puffball contradiction) and is now pushing the idea that a plane hit the tower (in email exchanges). Why they have made this switch, I can't say for sure. {Emphasis added.}

Really? Does that mean that you can't figure out something as obvious as "why they made this switch," or that you just can't bring yourself to say it?

[zappaman]

32. how sad

n/t

[spooked911]

21. another way to look at it is that the port puffball in Fairbanks

is either far out (>20') below the wing-- or above the wing and close (~10') to the facade. The latter option fits better with what Hezarkhani shows.

[William Seger]

23. WTF? The Fairbanks video is a reasonably good source

.. for estimating how far out from the building the "puffball" is, because it is taken from the side. What you can't tell from that angle is how far away it is from the camera, relative to other details such as the entrance hole, and that's what you're really claiming to be able to deduce. No, you can't.

You also haven't commented on what I said about the white part of the "puffball" simply being the part of the smoke cloud that's out in the sunlight, and that closer inspection shows that it's just the outer edge of a cloud that's right where the engine went into the building.

[spooked911]

26. My comment--

if the white part of the "puffball" is simply the part of the smoke cloud that's out in the sunlight, then it is sticking out way too far in the Fairbanks if it is under the wing. That is part of the problem to me.

Actually, another thing is that the port puffball has a very clear, strong under-shadow in Hezarkhani and that is just not there in Fairbanks. We can see some details in the shadow, as it is not complete shadow, and there is no defined shadow for the port puffball in Fairbanks.

Frankly, it looks like the puffballs were painted on wrong, perhaps more than the plane being in the wrong spot.

[SDuderstadt]

27. "it looks like the puffballs were painted on wrong"

This is one of your funniest lines yet, dude. I'd write more, but I am laughing too hard.

[zappaman]

30. the best line yet!

:rofl:

[William Seger]

29. Sorry

> if the white part of the "puffball" is simply the part of the smoke cloud that's out in the sunlight, then it is sticking out way too far in the Fairbanks if it is under the wing. That is part of the problem to me.

That doesn't make enough sense to comment on. WTF does "out way too far... if is is under the wing" mean? Those are two different directions.

[spooked911]

34. yeah, I don't think we're getting anywhere on this

"out way too far... if is is under the wing" mean?

First of all, why quote me wrongly?

Second, it seems obvious to me that the puff is out too far if it is below, but if it is higher, it could be the right size.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Dude...

no one is buying your "no-planes" bullshit, except others who share your delusion.

[zappaman]

38. have you shared your "findings"

with the survivors of 9/11 groups I posted for you in another thread?
"no planes" is something that I think they need to hear.

[William Seger]

39. So, once again....

... after promising "clear evidence" all you've really got is "it seems obvious to me." Gee, thanks.

Here's what's obvious to me: You can't possibly tell with any accuracy how far out the "puffball" is in the Hezarkhani video, and you can't possibly tell how high it is in the Fairbanks video, because they are both 2D images. The sunlight and shadow of the corner of the building, however, do give some useful clues, and those clues are consistent between the two videos. You can't just guess at where the "puffball" is and then claim that guess as "clear evidence" of a discrepancy. Most especially you can't claim to have found a discrepancy when the shadow is telling you that your guess is simply wrong: If the "puffball" was as close to the building as your guess, then it would be in shadow in both videos, but in fact it's out in the sun in both. So, the only discrepancy I can see is between the videos and your guesses about what the videos show.

Case dismissed.

[SDuderstadt]

40. This is why no one...

takes Spooked seriously. I actually feel sorry for him. He's a textbook example of how the flawed reasoning of conspiracy theorists winds up exposing them to well-deserved ridicule.

[jberryhill]

33. It's Called "Parallax", Spooked. /nt

[spooked911]

35. No, it's not

but I suppose that's how you must rationalize it.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Maybe you should look up the...

definition of "parallax" before you embarrass yourself further, dude.

[Iggo]

41. .

:hi: