Craig Lamson Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Don't pretend that photographs can't be altered or completely faked ... All you have to do is to look at the Apollo photos to see that .Instead of continuing to bash Jack and his research , why don't you supply the source of where you got your suspicious photograph from ? ... Then we will all be able to better determine if it's real or not . Standard Jack White limited hangout. How much misinformation can that man opost? One has to laugh when White finally finds himself boxed into a corner with no way out...he plays the "its been altered' card. ROFLMAO! All of the evidence, boith visual and eye witness sows building 6 intact at and after the time the first tower fell. Sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 (edited) This is only a link to the suspicious photograph . http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC6roof.jpg I do believe the fact that it was faked by the defenders of the official government LIE is in the link addy .. "wtc7LIES ".... "WTC6ROOF" .... Thank you . And what web site can this picture be found on ? Edited September 25, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 It looks like the one's defending the official government version of 9/11 will do just about anything to pretend to win the argument .Posted for Jack . Actual White, If you take the UNALTERED photo (not the gross alteration that you provide...FOR NO GOOD REASON) int photoshop and simply use the info tool, you will find that the roof is NOT the brightest object in the photo, sectionof the sky are. Also if you run the threshold function you will find that the very brightest level of the roof is 200 while areas of the sky run 245 and up. You don't have a clue as to what you are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 When Jack said the the roof of WTC 6 appears to be the brightest OBJECT in the photo , I don't believe he was including the sky in that assessment . If you look at the photo , the WTC6 roof IS the brightest OBJECT in the photo... and the photo looks suspiciously photoshopped . Do you know where this suspicious photo came from Mr. Light and Magic ? ... Cuz so far your pal phunk is being very secretive about it's source . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 When Jack said the the roof of WTC 6 appears to be the brightest OBJECT in the photo , I don't believe he was including the sky in that assessment .If you look at the photo , the WTC6 roof IS the brightest OBJECT in the photo... and the photo looks suspiciously photoshopped . Do you know where this suspicious photo came from Mr. Light and Magic ? ... Cuz so far your pal phunk is being very secretive about it's source . When did sky and clouds cease being objects? Photoshopped? Yea, right, you can tell all of this from a jpg artifact filled web image? Not in a million years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 (edited) Forget it all you supporters of the official version...its all over....but the last pieces to fall to earth and crash....as did the WTC...Watch and weep...... http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-206.php Perhaps Peter would be willing to explain in his own words how this slide is supposed to "seal" the case. and more coming in the scientific journals! More?! No scientific journal has ever published a "truther" work. The closest they got was Judy Wood being allowed to make a presentation at a conference. Edited September 25, 2007 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Sorry Peter, I only got past 3 or 4 slides before I was rolling on the floor laughing. The molten metal has very little Chromium, yet abundant Manganese. So we rule out molten structural steel as a major component. This guy doesn't even know the difference between stainless steel and structural steel. Stainless has chromium to inhibit corrosion. Structural steel usually has manganese to increase tensile strength. Little Chromium and abundant manganese is exactly what some who knew what the hell they are talking about would expect to find in structural steel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 (edited) The only thing suspicious is the claim by the person who recently -said he never saw the WFC Winter Garden before -thought it was a tipped over bulding and -claimed that the photo he posted was the only one of said knocked over building, depite the fact there are many photos of the glass atrium Now claims to have colected almost every post 9/11 photo of the WTC area! http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8381 EDITED to add link Edited September 25, 2007 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 When Jack said the the roof of WTC 6 appears to be the brightest OBJECT in the photo , I don't believe he was including the sky in that assessment .If you look at the photo , the WTC6 roof IS the brightest OBJECT in the photo... and the photo looks suspiciously photoshopped . Do you know where this suspicious photo came from Mr. Light and Magic ? ... Cuz so far your pal phunk is being very secretive about it's source . When did sky and clouds cease being objects? Photoshopped? Yea, right, you can tell all of this from a jpg artifact filled web image? Not in a million years. Since when did the sky and clouds cease being objects ? ... Since the only OBJECTS in this photo that MATTER are the buildings and whether or not one of them has been ALTERED ! I see that neither you or phunk has supplied the source of this suspicious photo yet ... and yeah right , it looks photoshopped to me . Like Jack said , he has collected every picture taken of 9/11 and has never seen this one before ... So I think it's very reasonable to ask where it came from . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 (edited) The above is phunk speak for I will take one single line from a very long list of reasons why 9/11 was a conspiracy and then pretend that I have debunked the all of the inside job evidence and hope that no one will notice that I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about . Edited September 25, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 When Jack said the the roof of WTC 6 appears to be the brightest OBJECT in the photo , I don't believe he was including the sky in that assessment .If you look at the photo , the WTC6 roof IS the brightest OBJECT in the photo... and the photo looks suspiciously photoshopped . Do you know where this suspicious photo came from Mr. Light and Magic ? ... Cuz so far your pal phunk is being very secretive about it's source . When did sky and clouds cease being objects? Photoshopped? Yea, right, you can tell all of this from a jpg artifact filled web image? Not in a million years. Since when did the sky and clouds cease being objects ? ... Since the only OBJECTS in this photo that MATTER are the buildings and whether or not one of them has been ALTERED ! I see that neither you or phunk has supplied the source of this suspicious photo yet ... and yeah right , it looks photoshopped to me . Like Jack said , he has collected every picture taken of 9/11 and has never seen this one before ... So I think it's very reasonable to ask where it came from . Oh so its BACKSTROKE time I see. Now its...OBJECTS THAT MATTER! Man have you lost it. I have no clue where the image came from...why not do some research? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 I'm not defending anything, I'm telling you why you are wrong. There's a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 The above is phunk speak for I will take one single line from a very long list of reasons why 9/11 was a conspiracy and then pretend that I have debunked the all of the inside job evidence and hope that no one will notice that I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about . Duane, he linked to a specific page in the middle of that presentation, I told him why the claims beginning on that page are incorrect. Do you really want me to go through the entire presentation and do the same? Whenever I do that to something you post, you complain that I am picking apart every minor detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 (edited) Oh so it's GAME TIME again I see. ... The brightness of the sky is not the problem with this photo ... It's building 6 that we are discussing here , and the fact that WTC 6 is almost as bright as the sky might very well be a problem . Kevin posted the suspicious looking photo here so why doesn't he answer the question ? Edited September 25, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 Oh so it's GAME TIME again I see. ... The brightness of the sky is not the problem with this photo ... It's building 6 that we are discussing here , and the fact that WTC 6 is almost as bright as the sky might very well be a problem . Kevin posted the suspicious looking photo here so why doesn't he answer the question ? You are playing the games here duane. And Jack as well. The brightness of the roof is not a problem either, its a smokescreen to cover up for the fact that ALL of the evidence points to the fact that Jack White made a horses A-- of himself with his building 6 study. And now its the old...the photos been altered Jack White Gambit. He does this OVER and OVER when his tit is in a wringer. There is NO REASON to suspect that tis image has been tampered with...and why? Because EVEN WITHOUT IT the remaining evidence says the building was standing and did not "explode" at 9:04 am. Game, set and match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now