Yes, all jolly exciting stuff.

I would be suprised if you could just 'bolt on' that alledged something in secret and I am not sure the plane would even fly after such a change.

I think the truth is just plain dull. The picture has been enhanced as best I can manage.

As you can see a 767 and many similar planes have a large bulge in the fuselage where the wings attatch. I suggest the black blob on the lower part of the fuselage is the bulge on the other side. The lighing in the picture is strong and high, causing surface detail to be exaggerated. DV cameras are very good at exaggerating contrast too and do odd things in bright areas of pictures due to the oddities of CCDs and the digital compression in the camera.

Also note that the plane only covers a square some 20 by 30 pixels. It would be reckless to claim there was much information in a picture with so little detail.

It is just sooo indymedia to see stuff like this, it's the secular equivalent of finding a picture of the virgin mary on a piece of toast,  http://arborupdate.com/article/483/ .

How foolish of you to present yourself as some kind of expert.

The reason the I suspect photo was shown in its original unenhanced condition was that any enhancement would inevitably lead to accusations of tampering with the evidence. But you oblige by fiddling about in Photoshop (it looks like a simple brightness/contrast job to me) and posting an image which (to my humble optical organ) looks even more like a drop-tank than the original. You criticise (mini)DV cameras for creating too much contrast and attempt to disprove this anomaly by using more of the same. But it looks nothing like the part of the wing/fuselage fairing structure which you suggest. If that were the case the shadow cast by the fairing would not appear along the centre-line - which it clearly does in the photo.

And what of the same anomaly which is visible in the footage of every news organisation which captured this event? Some of this footage is low contrast and still looks nothing like what you claim it to be. And when enhanced looks even less so.

As for Occam's Razor, I would not personally step outside the realm of provable fact and advocate the David Ray Griffin approach to 9/11 analysis which makes an almost watertight case without the need for inconclusive evidence like this. But it occurs to me that your dismissive nature may be symptomatic of your unwillingness to consider all the evidence and prefer instead to pick off those bits which suit your agenda, i.e. self-appointed expert witness.

Zaskar/Mark D. Watson Wrote:

"I would be suprised if you could just 'bolt on' that alledged something in secret"

That's just the point! Thus suggesting that maybe it wasn't a regular plane and hadn't taken off from a civil airport full of passengers.

"and I am not sure the plane would even fly after such a change"

Really? Well, how do you reckon an AWACS gets off the ground, then? Or countless military aircraft fitted with armaments?

"It is just sooo indymedia to see stuff like this"

Really? Actually, I'm surprised the censors haven't already hidden this for threatening their 'governments are awful but nobody is really that evil' comfort zone.

Get it into your heads, the US Government were behind September 11th. I suggest anybody who doubts this does as Alice P. suggests and reads 'The New Pearl Harbor' by David Ray Griffin and takes a look at the Project For The New American Century's own document, 'Rebuilding America's Defenses (sic) on their own website:

 http://www.newamericancentury.org

 http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Oh, and don't forget to check out who they are!

Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

Also the bulge in your photo of a 767 taking off extends forward of where the wing meets the fuselage by a foot or two and rearwards by even more. The anomalous bulge does not even extend as far as the wing edges, forwards or backwards.

So, that kinda rolls your argument up, don't it, expert witness.

This is a much better image, I expect many of you have seen it. To a toast advocate this no doubt looks like a (scary something), but I remain unconvineced, and I still think this shows the planes reflective fuselage illuminated from an acute angle.

--------------------

Crikey Alice, I was only saying. Clearly I have strayed blindly and perhaps naively into a meeting of the virgin mary toast worshippers support group.

Alice my little crumb maiden, I dont know if I am an expert or not but i do spend many hours each day diddling with cameras video and such like and grappling with smear, compression artifacts, unsharpening alorithms. You made me an expert and then told me I wasnt. Oh, and the image wasnt done in p shop, but vegas 5, and well spotted contrast, brightness and centre point have been changed, also it is unsharpened, and a teeny bit desaturated to remove the effect of the crunchy artifacts. I might get the original vid (if I can) and do a better job and if we see a missile no one would be more happy than me.

I am not sure there is any point in me saying more given the enthusiasm of the Dualit congregationists, but here goes.... one more under the grill....

(1) Many of the airlines planes are not painted in large areas of the fuselage, this reflective surface will increase the perception of the surfaces topography when the lighting is acute, as in the video. Like with your nose. Light a face front on and the nose and fearures are flatenned, light from the side with a spot (like the sun) and you get nose city, coknesville.

(2) 'Really? Well, how do you reckon an AWACS gets off the ground, then? Or countless military aircraft fitted with armaments? '.

Yes good point Mr. Dum, nearly.... That AWACS plane didnt have it's thinghy bolted on by a bodger in a backyard, the plane was re designed around the big thingy using an existing plane as a template to reduce costs. And as for military jets, well they too are designed from the ground up to carry attatchments and also they have a power to weight ratio vastly greater than a passenger plane. You might as well say that you a military jet can serve adocado at 30,000 ft to bored businessmen cos a 767 can. Different plane different job.

(3) 'Get it into your heads, the US Government were behind September 11th. I suggest anybody who doubts this does as Alice P. suggests and reads 'The New Pearl Harbor' by David Ray Griffin and takes a look at the Project For The New American Century's own document, 'Rebuilding America's Defenses (sic) on their own website:'

Well Mr Dum, I dont dispute that, I merely am sceptical of this particular evidence. I really dont understand why you said that?

(4) ' That's just the point! Thus suggesting that maybe it wasn't a regular plane and hadn't taken off from a civil airport full of passengers. '

Yes possibly.... Now I am not sure what this alledged spare tyre on this plane is alledged to be, but I suppose the crumb converts are thinking 'bomb', well I would have thought if the plane was fitted out in secret to do the deed then putting the bomb inside would have been best.

(5) 'The reason the I suspect photo was shown in its original unenhanced condition was that any enhancement would inevitably lead to accusations of tampering with the evidence'

Alice, the original HAS been fiddled with.... putting to one side the artifacts introduced by the crap DV format, remember that this video has been VASTLY compressed to show on the internet as a flash presentation. Also, the image probaly HAS been enhanced by the newspaper. And how do you know it hasnt been 'tampered with' already? I dont think it has been actually.

(6) ' I would not personally step outside the realm of provable fact and advocate the David Ray Griffin approach to 9/11 analysis which makes an almost watertight case without the need for inconclusive evidence like this '

Indeed alice (in wonderland), so why the ranting? I am skeptical of this picture and you appear to be attmepting to imply that I must be saying that all the conspiarcy evidence is crap. Typical and unhelpfull bipolar thinking, again quite typical of zealots on Indymedia.

(7) ' prefer instead to pick off those bits which suit your agenda, i.e. self-appointed expert witness. '

Alice, that is just silly and rather lets you down and perhaps shows your agenda more clearly....... best say no more about that eh???

(8) 'Also the bulge in your photo of a 767 taking off extends forward of where the wing meets the fuselage by a foot or two and rearwards by even more. The anomalous bulge does not even extend as far as the wing edges, forwards or backwards. '

I suggest crumb fairy that is typical of how acute spot lighting can affect an image. See the nose illustration above.




As for toast i reckon tesco value bread in a dualit makes the best virgin mary toast and i like mine with butter on, not bile.....

Sorry, forgot this bit.

I had this bit of footage for ages and I presume I am probably the last person to notice but when I enhaned it i saw a tractor not a aa gun as i originally thought.

 http://www.zaskarfilms.com/filmPages/helikillpage.htm

Now I expect Alice still wont let me join the toast watchers collective cos I will be accused of spamming my web site.... c'est la vie....

To take your last point first, I never saw anything other than a tractor. Why? Perhaps because I saw this video long before anybody had the chanceto prime me on what it was supposed to be. No matter how I try I cannot see a gun. I might add that I was amazed that this was on the net for almost six months before anybody in the media took any notice of it - and only after it had been through the US military covered wagon = mobile weapons laboratory spin cycle.

Now, onto the business of artifacts and digital enhancement. Don't ask me how but I have a full frame DV version of this clip, i.e. not an mpeg or a flash file. I exported it from Final Cut Pro as a de-interlaced still - the de-interlacing was the only 'enhancement', if you want to call it that. It (below) is oddly similar, if not virtually identical, to the original posted here. I admit it has evidently been digitally enlarged. And I doubt that The New York Times would enhace it to illustrate something of which they were unaware or from which they were trying to distract attention.

Your suggestion that whatever it is was bolted on by a bodger in a backyard really misses the point. I don't think that anybody who views this as anything other than a legitimate part of a passenger aircraft thinks it was fitted by a bodger in a backyard. I think the powers that be had somewhat greater resources than that. Furthermore, many civil aircraft have military counterparts. I believe the AWACS itself is a militarised (Boeing's own word) 707.

By the way, if you bothered to investigate what people think it is, nobody (as far as I know) suggested it was a bomb. I think even the dumbest would figure out that a bomb would be better fitted indoors (if it would fit through the doors, of course). You need to view the item in conjunction with the 'pre-impact flash' as the original poster put it. This flash was captured on every bit of news footage which captured the second impact. Plus, as a bonus, it appears in the only recording of the first impact made by the Naudiet brothers whils making their documetary about the New York Fire Service.

Finally, I find the usual comments about 'conspiracy theorist' bad enough but your clearly sexually biased comments thoroughly condescending. Or do you feel threatened in your male dominated techno world?

Ha, well thanks for your comments alice, and to mention your last first, meeowww, you lot on this site can be a right nasty lot and I was merely responding playfully and in a manner garunteed to push the buttons that you advertise so clearly.... appears i succeeded.

So no I dont feel threatened, merely annoyed at your offhand unpleasentness and nastiness when all I was trying to do was contribute. Honestly...

However that being said I too am also amazed that the tractor clip did not cause more consternation when first aired. Thats why i put it on my site, cos I think people should get a chance to see it. Soory I failed to notice it was a tractor first off and suprised that you think that makes me a bad person.....

I have many more clips like that one, perhaps I should post them all on my site.

This has to be the one of the worst I am sure you will agree (even tho I happen to be a sinfull man eh?)

 http://www.zaskarfilms.com/filmPages/shoot1pagel.htm

I would love a decent copy of the vid in question, could you send it to me somehow, maybe msn or thru a web space somewhere???

Cheers. Mark.

Don't know what happened there...

Zaskar, how amusing, to be thought of as 'one of you lot on this site'!

The lot you are referring to could have, in my mind, included you - judging from your first post. Anything which challenges official history is usually ridiculed in the same vein. Usually, a topic like this is hidden at first sight - I can't understand why it is still visible - and plastered with suggestions to wear tin foil hats and other witty piss-taking. That kind of swipe is only marginally more patronising as 'my little crumb maiden'. And it usually comes from somebody with either a huge chip on their shoulder or an SWP 'truth officer' telling them what to think. Often accompanied by accusations of anti-Semitism.

What did I say that makes you think that because you didn't see a tractor means I think you are a bad person?

I checked your site out. The only things I hadn't seen before were the McDonalds training film and the idiot filming himself driving - a one man argument against democracy. I have seen the Nick Berg beheading ripped to pieces and personally I think that it was a psy-op. I reckon it was almost real in that he was decapitated but was dead before it happened. I'm also pretty sure that it wasn't an imaginary Al-Qaida cell that was responsible.

There is a mountain of stuff which is being ignored by the media, there are other Iraqi massacres which have been caught on video such as the crowd who were bombed in the infamous 'Oh! Dude!' incident.

The clip in question is 385Mb and I don't have that kind of webspace. I suggest you Google "Pavel Hlava" - though it seems not to be an uncommon Czech name!

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.”
Mahatma Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi said this referring to his struggles for Indian independence from Britain, but it is just as relevant to the 9/11 truth movement today. If we look at the movement in terms of these stages we can see the progress we have made, and how far we still have to go.

1. “First they ignore you"

From the minute the first plane hit the towers many Americans knew that something was fishy about the whole thing. From the incredible collapse of the towers that looked like a controlled demolition, to the instant naming of Osama Bin Laden as the prime suspect, real students of history saw this tragedy as a classic CIA psy-ops. Almost immediately on websites and chatrooms, small papers and magazines, patriots voiced their concerns and suspicions. However the mainstream media quickly began the cover-up. Nineteen Muslim terrorists hijacked planes with boxcutters. Two of the biggest buildings in the world collapsed from relatively small fires in hours. Osama Bin Laden planned it all from a cave in Afghanistan, and financed the whole operation for less than a million dollars. Anyone who thought critically about the attacks saw through the lies and realized that something was wrong. But no one in the mainstream media would report about these questions. Instead they began to beat the war drums and fan the flames of hatred with false videos of Palestinians celebrating the attacks. It would be months before information began coming out in dribs and drabs: public officials warned not to fly, firemen reporting bombs going off in the buildings, Israelis receiving mysterious warnings about the attacks. Eventually there were simply too many questions being asked to simply ignore them.

2. “Then they laugh at you”

Now the globalist-controlled media had to do something about the thousands of people who weren’t buying the government’s official story. So anyone who didn’t fall in line was ridiculed. “Loonies”, “Wingnuts”, “Tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists”. It didn’t matter that the governments official story was more far-fetched than something out of The X-Files, they had the big microphones in front of them and could say whatever they wanted, because they didn’t dare interview anyone credible who questioned their story. But brave men and women still kept it up on webpages and independent newspapers, refusing to be cowed by the propaganda machine of the globalists, and the movement kept growing.

3. “Then they attack you”

This is the stage we are reaching now. The tidal wave of anger and suspicion has grown too big to simply ignore or laugh off as the ramblings of madmen. The criminal cabal we call the U.S. government realizes that real patriots won’t be silenced that easily and have went on the attack. The Popular Mechanics cover story: Debunking 9/11 Lies is a classic piece of yellow journalism by the corporate creator the term, Hearst Corporation. The article is written by Benjamin Chertoff, allegedly a cousin of Department of Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff. If you look into Michael Chertoff’s past you will find he has been accused of representing alleged terrorists. This shows how the globalists are all tied together in this gross conspiracy against the United States of America. Chertoff’s article takes some easily disputed fringe theories and attacks them, trying to discredit the entire movement. This tactic is known as setting up a straw man, and is typical of yellow journalism. The article ignores such evidence as CIA insider trading, hard evidence of explosions in the WTC, and the mysterious collapse of WTC building 7. It also outright lies about NORAD intercepting planes before 9/11. This is what the mainstream media considers “debunking”.

This is a good sign, it shows that our efforts are starting to have an effect, but it is only the beginning. We can’t get complacent or slow down our work because the globalists have a huge advantage in money, power, influence, and exposure. But the one advantage we have is numbers. More and more people are waking up every day and rejecting the government lies, demanding that the truth be told to all Americans. It may seem impossible, but we should look to Gandhi for inspiration. He stood up to the British Empire at the height of its power and eventually succeeded. If we stay true to our beliefs and do what we know is right we will succeed as well, and return our great Republic to the People once and for all.

while it is true that dov zakheim
does run sysplan

which does have a remote control terminal
development program

and he did lose a trillion dollars

as compftroller fot the pentagon

I have never seen any evidence to suggest
he coined the phrase

new pearl harbor

Thomas Donnely wrote the PNAC document
Rebuilding Americas Defenses

the attempt to pin the phrase on Zakheim
was made when someone lifted some of my 9-11 pages
from 'down with murder inc'

 http://www.warcrimes.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/911-6.html


these pages are research material gathered from many sources
and it was presented as fact in the follw-up posts
that zakheim made the reference to Pearl Harbor
by over zealous idiots

this assertion plays into the hands of those who wish to label 911
investigators as anti semitic

its an op

a distraction


the links to securi tech
and the military industrial complex are
the real interesting places we should go to


not who coined what phrase when,
with no evidence to support it


-----------------------------------
more dirt dished on the distraction artists:


welcome to the internet
a global tool of techno theocracy


 http://www.warcrimes.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/conspiracy.html