WTC attacks - the alternative thread

[editor]

Why not, having well made your point to all and sundry, just STFU instead?

Instead of having a temper tantrum, why don't you try answering the question?

If you - and other conspiracy 'fans' - are going to clutter up these boards with wild claims of the World's Greatest Cover Up, it's more than reasonable to enquire as to the credibility of the source material you're basing your claims on.

 

[WouldBe]

I have found some info on Prof C from google.

He has produced the grand total of 2 papers at the university. 1 in 1990 and another in 2001.

The first paper is on the subject of 'competitive learning'.
The second paper is on the 'diagnosis of cancer'.

So absolutely no bearing whatsoever to photographic analysis.

 

[WouldBe]

I've just done some research into SOBEL edge detection as used by prof C.

Link

From the link

In a picture, an edge is normally defined as an abrupt change in colour intensity.

Which is exactly what we have on the underside of a United airlines 767. Where the colour sheme is dark blue with a silver stripe down the center.

This will definately fool a SOBEL edge detector. A PREWITT edge detector works on the same principle but just uses a different mask so this filter will be fooled as well.

So the entire theory about strapped on missile launchers / flame throwers is a complete red herring.

Looks like the only thing thats unravelling round here is the conspiracy theory.

 

[Dr. Christmas]

Good post would be- and good work in finding the necessary materials to cast doubt on this theory.

"It's all gone quiet over there...."

 

[editor]

Oh dear me.

These revelations sure look rather embarrassing and go go some way to explaining the curious reluctance by certain conspiracy fans to answer my questions about this elusive professor!

But I'm sure DrJ. bigfish etc will be along shortly to share their background research on the professor and tel us why anyone should completely swallow his one-page, peer-unreviewed, press-shunned, unpublished 'analysis'.

Er, you did check first before making the wild claims, didn't you guys?

 

[editor]

I have found some info on Prof C from google.

He has produced the grand total of 2 papers at the university. 1 in 1990 and another in 2001.

The first paper is on the subject of 'competitive learning'.
The second paper is on the 'diagnosis of cancer'.

So absolutely no bearing whatsoever to photographic analysis.

Good work!

Did you find anything on the 'University School' in Barcelona?

 

[bigfish]

Okay, I've doubled checked through the documents.

Not being a Spanish speaker I have taken the name reference given at the bottom of the analytical report literally by the looks of things.

It reads:

AMPARO SACRISTÁN CARRASCO
PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL

But by reading through the links I eventually found what the howling hoards of doubters all missed.

Ombudsman's report on the origins and handling of the investigation by La Vanguardia

Martín de Pozuelo set to work. He had a meeting with R.R. and Calvet at La Vanguardia.es head office. They spent two long afternoons poring over the photos, videos and all the visual material they could get together on the attack on the twin towers in New York. What conclusion did they come to?

They noticed evidence of shapes present on the fuselage of the plane. They couldn't tell what on earth it was.

Martín de Pozeulo has told the ombudsman that he did not think it was opportune to publish anything as yet on the subject. Data and reliable sources were missing. He says about these "shapes":

"It looked like an optical effect but as that was a totally subjective opinion I showed the photos to fellow photographers and asked them to give their opinion as image experts. They swung between the hypothesis of an optical effect or an added object, as I did. The reporters persevered.

They consulted another expert, Amparo Sacristán, an image and microelectronics specialist at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Her first appraisal encouraged them to go on in their investigation. Doctor Sacristán performed a digital analysis of the photos and concluded that they were shapes not reflections brilliance. The results of this new stage were surprising and disconcerting.

Xavier Mas de Xaxàs, who was working as a correspondent for the "La Vanguardia" in the United States on the 11 September 2001, searched for news, published or unpublished, which could throw some light on the matter. He was gathering information on the poor security at Logan airport (Washington).

Meanwhile Martín de Pozuelo consulted aviation experts—among them an aeronautical engineer who asked not to be identified, due to his rank. He spent all one morning analising the photos in the "La Vanguardia". His pronouncement reinforced the hypothesis of something added to the fuselage.

The two reporters conducting the investigation were not convinced, of course. They were sceptical. They decided to take it one step further to dispel all doubt. They turned to US sources. The Boeing company in Seattle agreed to have a look at the photos and give their conclusions. The photographs were sent electronically from "La Vanguardia".

For ten days, by telephone and electronic mail, the company responded whenever called by the two "La Vanguardia" newsmen, as the photos were studied by various departments at the company. Finally, from Seattle, back came a surprising, enigmatic reply: "We are not able to tell you what it is. Security reasons."

It was then that the newsmen decided there was enough to report to "La Vanguardia" readers. The text and photos were handed in to the newspaper's editorial office to assess whether to publish a first report. It was released in the June 22 issue. It caused an impact, even in the United States, where the translation of the "La Vanguardia" article was hung on a web site dedicated to 9/11.

The two reporters then asked Boeing once more: "Is there any further news?" Answer: "No answer for security reasons". A negative reply which does not clear up the mystery. And so they continue to investigate.

Here is the email address and telephone number for the Ombudsman who deals with complaints from La Vanguardia's readership: (ombudsman@lavanguardia.es) or call 93-481-23-38.

I feel confident that all of you're questions and doubts can be answered simply by taking the trouble to write to the Ombudsman. I'm certain in my own mind that La Vanguardia have acted entirely properly through out their investigation. Indeed they have even subjected the investigative process itself to examination by an Ombudsman. In terms of objectivive reporting and analysis this is very reassuring indeed.

Ever thought of appointing an Ombudsman here?

 

[editor]

Meanwhile Martín de Pozuelo consulted aviation experts—among them an aeronautical engineer who asked not to be identified, due to his rank. He spent all one morning analising the photos in the "La Vanguardia".

Hold on.

So Boeing are also involved in the 'cover up' too? Lordy. I'm losing count of the tens of thousands of people who must be 'in' on the conspiracy now!

And aren't you just a teensy weensy suspicious of these experts who are so forthcoming with their damning opinions, but then go strangely coy when it comes to putting their names to their 'expert' opinions?

And where's this 'University School of Barcelona'?

 

[bigfish]

And where's this 'University School of Barcelona'?

Barcelona.

 

[editor]

Barcelona.

How hilarious you are.


You've made it clear that you think Professor Carrasco's micro 'analysis' is somehow significant, so could you kindly produce some background information about his expertise and relevant qualifications and tell me more about the academic qualities of the 'University School of Barcelona', please?

 

[Jazzz]

But I'm sure DrJ. bigfish etc will be along shortly to share their background research on the professor and tel us why anyone should completely swallow his one-page, peer-unreviewed, press-shunned, unpublished 'analysis'.

Why me? I never set any particular store in the qualifications or analysis by Carrasco. I know, however, what my own two eyes see in the footage.

It's this kind of misrepresentation that promotes very poor discussion, editor.

 

[editor]

Why me? I never set any particular store in the qualifications or analysis by Carrasco. I know, however, what my own two eyes see in the footage.

It's this kind of misrepresentation that promotes very poor discussion, editor.

Err, as far as I can see, his (ahem) 'analysis' represents the only 'proof' that the passenger planes were switched into the missile-spewing, remote control death missiles you insist hit the WTC.

But if you're happy to discount his shaky claims, that's fine by me.

Seeing as you're so sure that the planes were switched, could you tell me what happened to the original passengers, pilots and planes and explain why no baggage handlers, refuelling staff, airline staff, air traffic controllers etc etc seemed to notice the change?

Oh: and have you come up with a remotely credible explanation for all those faked phone calls yet, or is that one still proving too tricky even for your wild imagination?

 

[bigfish]

I took the origional photo (submitted to Prof C) and the photo i found on the web and ran them through photoimpact7. The photo I found was flipped to make it easier to compare and both photos had the 'emboss' filter run on them.

Why do the 'cylindrical tubes' appear to be recessed into the fuselage rather than sticking out?

We know for a fact that on the second photo this recessed affect is due to a flat silver stripe so what does that say about the recesses on the underside of flight 175?

I'd hate to think that someone with a BTEC in 'potato juggling' had out smarted a professor.

I challenge you to send your material to the Ombudsman at the email address I have provided. Personally, I have every confidence that La Vanguardia and the good professor can easily dismiss your counter theory that "it was the livery wot done it honest guv!" or is it the "it was the the wing bulges wot done it honest guv!" theory? Anyway, which ever one you do finally decide to settle on I'm sure that when they've all stopped laughing they'll be able to put you right.

Be sure to post up their response wont you?

 

[Irish Bandit]

OBJECTIVES OF THE ANALYSIS

To verify the possible presence of objects on the underside of the fuselage of the second plane involved in the attack in New York on 11 September.

Why look what we have here, a video showing the bottom of the second plane as it crashes into the WTC.

And not a magical cylinder to be seen!

 

[sparticus]

I notice the supporters of the official story including the editor are still ducking my request and keep diverting the debate into mobile phone calls, holographic images and now photo analysis of the planes. Whilst some of this evidence may or may not be credible it is but a diversion away from discussing the absolute mountain of evidence that supports

THEY KNEW
THEY LIHOP

This evidence is sourced and was reported by 'professional journalists' in the 'mainstream media' in the weeks and months immediately prior and following 9/11 and catelogued in numerous publications. The sources include the washington post, the new york times, abc, newsweek, bbc, the observor. Believe me I can go on.

I'm ready and waiting for your reply. What's your problem. Either you are unaware of this evidence (which is practically the first thing you come across in any serious investigation of 9/11), in which case you have no authority to offer an opinion on 9/11, or you are aware of the evidence. If you are aware of the evidence and yet still claim the official story is true, please explain your reasoning.

Ian

 

[zarathustra]

Government's lying? Oh my word!

I'd hide if I were you, Ian.. once you've reached the groin-grabbingly seditious conclusion that a government lied, you'll be on the hit list of the thought crimes police!

 

[WouldBe]

I challenge you to send your material to the Ombudsman at the email address I have provided. Personally, I have every confidence that La Vanguardia and the good professor can easily dismiss your counter theory that "it was the livery wot done it honest guv!" or is it the "it was the the wing bulges wot done it honest guv!" theory? Anyway, which ever one you do finally decide to settle on I'm sure that when they've all stopped laughing they'll be able to put you right.

Be sure to post up their response wont you?

I can't see the point in wasting the ombudsmans time when the link I posted up is to do with someone who develops software to perform SOBEL edge detection. If he doesn't know how the analysis is performed then no one does. He clearly states

In a picture, an edge is normally defined as an abrupt change in colour intensity

Now what part of that statement don't you understand?

From the earlier picture I posted there is a distinct change in colour intensity on the underside of a UA767.

Any muppet can use a program like photoshop and produce nice effects by clicking on menu items. It doesn't mean they know how they work. If your expert is an expert, I'm sure he would have given a different explanation if he knew about the livery of the aircraft concerned.

I was going to download the software to perform a SOBEL analysis on the photo I found, but at 6.5Mbytes over a 56k modem I couldn't be bothered.

So I make that

Potato jugglers 1 Theorists & experts 0

 

[editor]

I notice the supporters of the official story including the editor are still ducking my request and keep diverting the debate into mobile phone calls, holographic images and now photo analysis of the planes.

So you haven't got a credible explanation for how 'they' could have possibly faked the phone calls either then, eh?

Do you think the planes were switched?

 

[editor]

Why look what we have here, a video showing the bottom of the second plane as it crashes into the WTC.

And not a magical cylinder to be seen!

Indeed. It looks like a perfectly normal plane to me - and there's no sign of these ridiculous missiles blasting away.

Sadly' some people would prefer to take the word of some obscure and completely unqualified Professor posting from some extremely obscure 'University School' in Spain.

I've repeatedly asked bigfish to produce some background information to this elusive professor, but I've heard ne'er a peep - and that seems rather strange since he's enthusiastically extolling the virtues of his one-page micro 'analysis' done with a freeware filter.

And where the chuffing heck is this University School? What do they teach?

 

[bigfish]

I can't see the point in wasting the ombudsmans time...

Your reluctance to subject your own findings to the scrutiny of those whose analysis you seek to challenge with your own cod-science-red pen approach, is duly noted.

That looks like another spectacular own goal by old by Spudchester United's resident aeronautical expert to me!

Great stuff, I hope you can maintain the very high level of commedy you've achieved on this thread. It really brighten's up my day readying your paranoid fantasy theories I can tell you.

Now, how about turning your attention to demolishing the argument being presented by Sparticus?

Good luck cos you're gonna need it!

 

[happie chappie]

Being a bit bored (and slightly sad), I've just read all 400-odd posts on this thread. A lot of the technical stuff (remote controlled planes, various bumps on aircraft and the luminous properties thereof) I'm simply not qualified to comment on.

Neither can I offer any hard evidence that the USG's version of events is true. All I can do is weigh up the information I have to hand, and make a reasoned judgement. IMHO, the USG's version is more likely to be true. Not because I necessarily believe it has told the whole truth about 9/11, but because the alternative explanation would involve a conspiracy so big, involving so many people, as to be simply unbelievable. Decades after the event, a much smaller alleged US conspiracy (if, indeed, it was one) involving the assassination of President Kennedy still won't lie down. What would make the USG think it could get away with staging 9/11? And, perhaps more importantly, why bother?

Again, why launch a missile at a building just before impact with a large plane? It simply doesn't make any sense. Incidentally, the site promoting this version of events has a link to another site, packed with all kinds of photos and technical data, maintaining that the towers were brought down by demolition charges placed inside the building. Clearly, both conspiracies can't be right. BTW, what did happen to the missing planes, passengers etc that were “swopped” during the flights?

But perhaps the most important reason I tend to believe the USG is that the person/group it blamed for the attacks haven't denied it. Indeed, it/they have even admitted responsibility, and have glorified in it. Compare this to, for example, the reaction of ETA when accused of the Madrid bombings. Unless, of course, OBL and Al-Qaeda are also part of the conspiracy.

This isn't to say that all conspiracy theories are tosh. But, but by the same token, if conspiracy theorists are to be taken seriously, they have to admit that, sometimes, things are as they appear, and the truth is stranger than fiction. No more, no less.

Happie Chappie

 

[editor]

Your reluctance to subject your own findings to the scrutiny of those whose analysis you seek to challenge with your own cod-science-red pen approach, is duly noted.

As is your continuing reluctance to provide any meaningful background information about the University School of Barcelona and the Professor whose one-page nano-analysis you have so eagerly lapped up and swallowed whole.

And that makes you a blazing hypocrite.

 

[bigfish]

I've repeatedly asked bigfish to produce some background information to this elusive professor, but I've heard ne'er a peep...

It's not my job to do your research for you... that's your job. Personally I'm completely satisfied with the veracity of the analysis presented into the [Spanish] public domain by La Vanguardia, a 100 years old conservative newspaper, as too are they.

If you have a problem with any of their reporting then you should write to them at the email address already provided.

As is your continuing reluctance to provide any meaningful background information about the University School of Barcelona and the Professor whose one-page nano-analysis you have so eagerly lapped up and swallowed whole.

And that makes you a blazing hypocrite.

Let me see now, a little earlier in the thread you were selectively quotinging from a number of your own posts in order to fabricate an accusation of "selective quoting" against me. Now I'm a hypocrite because you can't be arsed to send an email to the Ombudsman of a Spanish daily newspaper.

I don't suppose there's much chance of getting an adjudication by an Ombudsman here on your latest hysterical charge of hypocrisy hurled against me is there?

No, I rather thought not. Now I know how the defendents at the Salem Witch Trials must have felt.

 

[In Bloom]

Intersting, when you google 'university school of Barcelona' nothinig mentioning a 'university school of Barcelona' comes up.

 

[Dr. Christmas]

So, let's get this straight...one Spanish ombudsman says the story's okay, therefore you must be right?



Did this Spanish ombudsman know anything about photographic imaging, or indeed the appearance of a bog standard 767?



Look, a profile of a 767 has been put up and it's been shown over several posts that

1. the 767 that hit the towers was completely normal

2. the analysis of the photo was cock eyed

3. that cock eyed analysis resulted from flawed methodology

4. the frankly incredible missile theory is therefore a load of old pony.

Look, no-one really knows what happened on 9/11, beyond the horrific deaths of 3000+ people.

I am interested in new theories that may shed light on what did happen then.

But your pathetic bluster in clinging to this nonsensical line of inquiry really undermines the genuine efforts of those who are concrened to nail down the truth.

really, give it up.

 

[bigfish]

But perhaps the most important reason I tend to believe the USG is that the person/group it blamed for the attacks haven't denied it. Indeed, it/they have even admitted responsibility, and have glorified in it. Compare this to, for example, the reaction of ETA when accused of the Madrid bombings. Unless, of course, OBL and Al-Qaeda are also part of the conspiracy.

It looks like your most important reason is about to go up in smoke HC.

Al-Q have never claimed responsibility for 9/11. Indeed bin Ladin himself has denied involvement. Nor did Al-Q ever claim responsibility for the US Embassy bombings in Africa or the attack on the USS Cole in the Yemen. All of which is odd for a terrorists who always make it known that it was them. The only people claiming it was Al-Q is the USuk imperium who as we speak are looting the Middle East under the phoney pretext of the 9/11 attacks.

 

[In Bloom]

It looks like your most important reason is about to go up in smoke HC.

Al-Q have never claimed responsibility for 9/11. Indeed bin Ladin himself has denied involvement. Nor did Al-Q ever claim responsibility for the US Embassy bombings in Africa or the attack on the USS Cole in the Yemen. All of which is odd for a terrorists who always make it known that it was them. The only people claiming it was Al-Q is the USuk imperium who as we speak are looting the Middle East under the phoney pretext of the 9/11 attacks.

Its funny how video footage of bin Laden talking about A-Q's role in the attacks has since appeared.

 

[sparticus]

Editor

FYI, I have read what to my mind was a plausible and amusing account of the pentagon demonstrating to I believe it was Dick Cheney some voice simulation technology that is able to create believeable false speech based on a small sample of genuine speech. I've tried to track it down for you but failed. Fear not if I find it I'll pass it on. Having said this it was an email bulletin or internet site and so would not pass your test of credible evidence. Besides even if a plausible scenario could be presented to explain away the mobile phone evidence, what would it prove?

But as well you know this is precisely the type spurious issue that takes us away from debating 9/11 in a serious manner. I have the evidence sourced from over 700 references catelogued in the rather excellent The War on freedom by Nafeez Ahmed. These references are from mainstream media sources as well as from more independant but no less credible sources. Perhaps as someone who takes keen interest in 9/11 you have read it. If not you are welcome to my dog-earred and extensivelly highlighted copy.

I'm not the only one who puts creadance in Ahmed's book book and the evidence he presents . "Far and away the best and most balanced analysis of Spetmeber 11" according to Gore Vidal. Nafeez is executive director of the Institute of policy research and development in Brighton.

Any conspiracy with the Bush Administration at its heart rests on proving 2 facts

THEY KNEW AND THEY LIHOP.

If these 2 things are true, it's a conspiracy plain and simple. The how it was done can be for further debate. This may or may not involve faked mobile phone calls, mysterious objects strapped to the planes, holographs, detonation of the towers or insider trading by the Bush Crime family. If you can explain to me how these 2 statements are not facts but lies, then I will accept that 911 and many other issues are not conspiracies. I am open to that possibility. Are you open to the possibility that 911 is a conspiracy based on THEY KNEW AND LIHOP?

Although we currently disagree about 9/11 we probably agree on a great many issues such as the Bush Crime Family are guilty of war profiteering and war crimes both in the Iraq war and previous wars and we have many common aims: like exposing Bush or ending global poverty and conflict. We just have different understanding and hence strategies on how to achieve these common aims.

I reckon Bush knew. I reckon the evidence in Nafeez's book proves it and I reckon 9/11 is the issue that can remove Bush and expose much wider and deeper corruption that pervades the system and the discredited vision of elite globalisation (as described by 2003's Alternative Nobel Peace Winner in this site. And so open the very real opportunity for political, economic and spiritual transformation around the world (I prefer transformation to revolution, since revolution so perfectly describes the process where genuine peoples movements are co-opted and manipulated by the world's elite).

If I'm right. If the evidence backs up my claims and Urban 75 is used as a vehicle to promote this evidence, then U75 can play a part maybe a very big part in bringing about 911 truth and global transformation. Just hear me out with an open mind.

I used to think having an editor in open debate on a discussion board was not a good thing, but I've changed my mind. It could be very valuable as a model for improving accountability and understanding of a news/political organisations. Behind all discussion boards are people and/or organisations that are governed by people. And all people and organisations have agendas or purposes if you like. The question is what is your agenda and urban 75's purpose. I don't mean this in a nasty or threatening way. This especially relevant at a time when Urban 75 needs funding and buy-in from its users and to do so it needs to build a sense of community and common identity. For example, you don't see Jon Snow (atleast under his own name) debating on C4's boards so their site provides limited opportunity to understand or shape the sites purpose or agenda or the editorial positions of channel 4.

So how about it? Will you look at the evidence presented in The war on freedom (which is also available elsewhere) with an open mind? And if I am shown to be right (They knew and LIHOP) will you join me in seeking to expose the real story of 9/11 and then use this truth to transform the world?

It's a hell of an opportunity. Before you turn it down, best check out the facts.

Easy now

Ian

 

[editor]

It's not my job to do your research for you... that's your job. Personally I'm completely satisfied with the veracity of the analysis presented into the [Spanish] public domain by La Vanguardia, a 100 years old conservative newspaper, as too are they.

Let's get this straight.

You make a load of dubious claims based on the one-page analysis of a near-untraceable Professor from an as yet untraceable 'University School' in Barcelona, and I'm supposed to go off and find out who he is, what his qualifications are, where his University School is and research its academic areas?

Why can't you produce some credible background information about the elusive Professor and his University School, bigfish?

It's beginning to look like you don't know the first thing about this Professor character and you haven't the bottle or the honesty to admit it.

I can't help asking myself: What kind of gormless idiot would believe every word of a flimsy, one-page article found on the internet making incredible, world-changing claims without bothering to carefully check the credibility and background of the source first?

Hmmm....I think I might know know or two people that fit that description perfectly....

Now, what were the professor's qualifications again?

 

[happie chappie]

It looks like your most important reason is about to go up in smoke HC.

Al-Q have never claimed responsibility for 9/11. Indeed bin Ladin himself has denied involvement. Nor did Al-Q ever claim responsibility for the US Embassy bombings in Africa or the attack on the USS Cole in the Yemen. All of which is odd for a terrorists who always make it known that it was them. The only people claiming it was Al-Q is the USuk imperium who as we speak are looting the Middle East under the phoney pretext of the 9/11 attacks.

If I'm wrong about OBL, then I stand corrected. But, as I understand it, AQ is not a monolithic, centralised organisation, but more a collection of ideas, and people who adhere to them.

In any case, that still leaves the question of the sheer enormity of the alleged conspiracy. And why? As people have pointed out, the US had interfered with/invaded numerous other countries over the years, but hasn't found it nesccessary to stage alleged terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11 before doing so. The main justification for the invasion of Iraq was WMDs, not 9/11.

Happie Chappie