This "REALITY SHACK" forum is the precursor to CLUESFORUM.INFO - and is no longer active. We only use it as a back up / message board whenever www.cluesforum.info runs into problems .

zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.

Learn More · Register for Free
Welcome to Reality Shack. 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:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3  ( Go to first unread post )

 Dimitri Khavelov nuclear demoliton, russian nuclear scientist fails it
hoi.polloi
Posted: Apr 6 2010, 02:12 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,066
Member No.: 1
Joined: 18-October 09



Yes, it seems the beams of the towers briefly run diagonally as if the shape of the building is merely a rectangle mask over an infinite series of beams - a video game texture. Interesting. Or, on close examination, it seems the beams set is a pre-determined width that stays swaying one direction while the rest of the building goes the other way. Note how the top right corner pokes out of the "border" and overlaps the adjacent facade.



user posted image

I hope this obviously funny mistake isn't meant to discredit their supposedly awesome software. Either way, it works for, and not against, the total simulation hypothesis -- that everything; city, airplanes, bystanders, terrorists and heroes, were part of one big, artificial machinema broadcast - a video recorded video game-style simulation rendering with FMV (full motion video) characters mixed with artificial CGI characters and distributed in Hollywood-style mockumentary tidbits and well-paced fake news.

All to fill the artificially created void of real reporting thanks to some sort of electronic jamming device, smoke screens and simple military-style terrorism-based crowd control in civilian disguise.

Yessiree. The authorities knew what they were doing. This is a thoroughly inside affair.
Top
brianv
Posted: Apr 6 2010, 03:02 PM


100 posts!


Group: Contributors
Posts: 730
Member No.: 6
Joined: 18-October 09



QUOTE (hoi.polloi @ Apr 6 2010, 02:12 PM)

Yessiree. The authorities knew what they were doing. This is a thoroughly inside affair.


Major Whoopsie indeed. You can see by the aliased-stepped line how far off vertical it is! I can't almost hear the shills' cries of "parallax" or "it's like the wheels of a wagon-train going backways on film" - courtesy of LETS TROLL.

user posted image
Top
simonshack
Posted: Apr 6 2010, 08:01 PM


1,000 posts!


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,289
Member No.: 3
Joined: 18-October 09



*

Well - the more time goes by, the more (as Martin correctly says) they f@@k up !

Please count the WTC beams here (They should be 57):

user posted image


Please count the WTC beams here and see if you can beat me !
I can't see more than 39, no matter how hard I try! blink.gif (*squinty eyes*) blink.gif
Of course, the beams here are also askew as rightly noted by Hoi & Brian above.
user posted image

They just keep messing around with that crappy software
- and their poor supervisor must have developed severe glaucoma by now.
Case closed - once and for all - for this chapter of the research, folks.
NONE of those silly 9/11 collapse videos are any more real than Santa Claus.

The tower collapses were of course the LAST thing they would have wanted to show the world on TV. ANYONE still looking at the videos for 'scientific analyses' aimed at determining what knocked them down is a fool or/and a shill. It took about an hour's time to surround them in a thick smokescreen - it's the oldest trick in the miltary book. No one was able to capture the 2 collapses on film. I hope we can all agree on this now - and move on.



같같같같같같같같같같같같

A LAST THING:
Some member posted a link to this 'picture' the other day :

user posted image

So are we to believe that - for a full hour- those multiple "TV choppers" who seemed to hover around the towers incessantly, somehow failed to show us one single dramatic shot such as the one above? And in spite of getting THIS close ? :
user posted image[B]


--------------------
http://www.septemberclues.info
Top
excised
Posted: Apr 6 2010, 11:14 PM





Group: Members
Posts: 59
Member No.: 36
Joined: 21-October 09



QUOTE (simonshack @ Apr 6 2010, 08:01 PM)
*

Well - the more time goes by, the more (as Martin correctly says) they f@@k up !

Please count the WTC beams here (They should be 57):

user posted image


Please count the WTC beams here and see if you can beat me !
I can't see more than 39, no matter how hard I try!  blink.gif (*squinty eyes*) blink.gif

user posted image

They just keep messing around with that crappy software
- and their poor supervisor must have developed severe glaucoma by now.
Case closed - once and for all - for this chapter of the research, folks.
NONE of those silly 9/11 collapse videos are any more real than Santa Claus.

The tower collapses were of course the LAST thing they would have wanted to show the world on TV. ANYONE still looking at the videos for 'scientific analyses' aimed at determining what knocked them down is a fool or/and a shill. It took about an hour's time to surround them in a thick smokescreen - it's the oldest trick in the miltary book. No one was able to capture the 2 collapses on film. I hope we can all agree on this now - and move on.


A LAST THING:
Some member posted a link to this 'picture' the other day :

user posted image

So are we to believe that - for a full hour-  those multiple "TV choppers" who seemed to hover around the towers incessantly, somehow failed to show us a single dramatic shot such as the one above? And in spite of getting THIS close ? :
user posted image


LOL well spotted simon....
Top
simonshack
Posted: Apr 6 2010, 11:55 PM


1,000 posts!


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,289
Member No.: 3
Joined: 18-October 09



QUOTE (excised @ Apr 6 2010, 10:14 PM)

LOL well spotted simon....

I'm glad you edited your initial post today, Excised.
I took the liberty to edit one letter of the thread's subtitle/description.


--------------------
http://www.septemberclues.info
Top
excised
Posted: Apr 7 2010, 12:12 AM





Group: Members
Posts: 59
Member No.: 36
Joined: 21-October 09



QUOTE (simonshack @ Apr 6 2010, 11:55 PM)
QUOTE (excised @ Apr 6 2010, 10:14 PM)

LOL well spotted simon....

I'm glad you edited your initial post today, Excised.
I took the liberty to edit one letter of the thread's subtitle/description.

No problem simon, least i could do after it was so thoroughly shot out of the water.
Top
simonshack
Posted: Apr 8 2010, 10:30 PM


1,000 posts!


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,289
Member No.: 3
Joined: 18-October 09



laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Mr. Khalezov keeps deleting my comments from his youtube channel...I wonder why?
http://www.youtube.com/user/911thology


--------------------
http://www.septemberclues.info
Top
hoi.polloi
Posted: Apr 8 2010, 10:39 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,066
Member No.: 1
Joined: 18-October 09



Hey Simon, here is a much more realistic depiction of what happened on 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFpcTGJwvZ0

laugh.gif
Top
D.Duck
Posted: Apr 8 2010, 10:49 PM


Retired Admin


Group: Contributors
Posts: 321
Member No.: 2
Joined: 18-October 09



QUOTE (hoi.polloi @ Apr 8 2010, 09:39 PM)
Hey Simon, here is a much more realistic depiction of what happened on 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFpcTGJwvZ0

laugh.gif

Hoi,

That's amazing, this is a must watch and Patrick Jean is a cool guy.


Thanks
D.Duck
Top
simonshack
Posted: Apr 10 2010, 01:49 AM


1,000 posts!


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,289
Member No.: 3
Joined: 18-October 09



*

Ok, so Mr. DIMITRI KHALEZOV wrote me these two messages on my youtube channel today:

MESSAGE N1 :
QUOTE

about number of beams

I watched your page where you accuse me of using a fake video clip with different number of beams. I did not get this clip from any 'supply' as suggested. I simply downloaded it from YouTube (it was someone's else clip commonly used here). Then I got it from cache of my browser (it was in .flv) format, then I used some video converter to convert it into .wmv format. Then I used a video editing program to insert it into my interview with simultaneous zooming. If 'my' clip is wrong in the number of beams it could be because of either reasons:
1) video converter reduced number of beams due to re-coding process, or
2) video editing software reduced number of beams due to zooming process, or
3) the clip I downloaded from YouTube was with the wrong number of beams from the very beginning.
In neither case I could see any guilt of mine. When it comes to computer generated crowd with happy faces in front of the most awful disaster in the US history, I think perhaps you are right - it points to computer manipulation. I see logic in what you claim. But your assault on my humble person is ridiculous if not to say malicious. I read you ravings on one of web forums in regard to my allegedly 'digital' identity to where you published our e-mail exchange. This conduct does not look too 'manly' from your side, to be frank with you.
Dimitri.


MESSAGE N2 :
QUOTE

one more

I carefully studied the two pictures on your page once more - I mean I compared 'Etienne Sauret's' and 'Dimitri Khalezov's' shots. And I noticed that the different number of columns as apperas is merely a problem of resolution and nothing more than that - compare, for example, the extent of detalization of smoke in these two pictures. It clearly points to a different detailzation due to different resolutions and nothing more than that. If you are really an expert in video (as you claim to be at least if judging by your actual works) then you must notice this before I pointed it to you, because I am far from being professional when it comes to videos. You are the professional. I think, Simon, you better apologize and remove all this bullshit from either your web page and your comments from my profile alike. This will be a conduct of a man. Otherwise I can tell you I am disgusted with you. After watching you previous works (I have been your watcher for quite a long time and in fact kept your videos in my personal collection) I felt a kind of respect towards you and your efforts. However it changed now after I saw how you behave in a real life. I am serious. I expect your apologies and a manly conduct.
Dimitri.


"detalization" ??

"A manly conduct. The conduct of a man".

Ah, how unmanly I feel ! laugh.gif


AN OBVIOUS PROBLEM OF "DETALIZATION" biggrin.gif laugh.gif tongue.gif
user posted image
user posted image

Seriously now: It looks like all the perps have left now in their lame repertoire is to employ inarticulate clowns to fight their losing battle.
This is a very good sign indeed which bodes well for the future... dry.gif


--------------------
http://www.septemberclues.info
Top
idschmyd
Posted: Apr 10 2010, 03:15 AM


100 posts!


Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Member No.: 15
Joined: 19-October 09



QUOTE (simonshack @ Apr 10 2010, 01:49 AM)
AN OBVIOUS PROBLEM OF "DETALIZATION" biggrin.gif  laugh.gif  tongue.gif
user posted image
user posted image

A humourless Russian. How original.

'Detailzation' no more explains the changing number of beams than 'f#cktzation' explains their orientation in Mr. Khalezov's version. Does Mr. Khalezov even acknowledge that phenomenom?
Top
Dcopymope
Posted: Apr 10 2010, 05:19 AM


100 posts!


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Member No.: 204
Joined: 10-April 10



QUOTE (hoi.polloi @ Apr 6 2010, 02:12 PM)
Yes, it seems the beams of the towers briefly run diagonally as if the shape of the building is merely a rectangle mask over an infinite series of beams - a video game texture. Interesting. Or, on close examination, it seems the beams set is a pre-determined width that stays swaying one direction while the rest of the building goes the other way. Note how the top right corner pokes out of the "border" and overlaps the adjacent facade.



user posted image

I hope this obviously funny mistake isn't meant to discredit their supposedly awesome software. Either way, it works for, and not against, the total simulation hypothesis -- that everything; city, airplanes, bystanders, terrorists and heroes, were part of one big, artificial machinema broadcast - a video recorded video game-style simulation rendering with FMV (full motion video) characters mixed with artificial CGI characters and distributed in Hollywood-style mockumentary tidbits and well-paced fake news.

All to fill the artificially created void of real reporting thanks to some sort of electronic jamming device, smoke screens and simple military-style terrorism-based crowd control in civilian disguise.

Yessiree. The authorities knew what they were doing. This is a thoroughly inside affair.

We all know the real beams of the towers weren뭪 built in a slanted direction. These beams look more like an overstretched heavily compressed Adobe Photoshop texture poorly wrapped around a 3d rectangular shape, most likely done in 3ds max software, rather than a real image of the WTC towers. So while the texture itself is not really 3d, the shape the texture wraps around is 3d. The process is called UV mapping, which is simply the placing of a 2d texture on a 3d object. As we can see, the texture was mapped onto the 3d object In an awkward direction, making it look tilted rather than straight up like it뭩 supposed to look; a dead giveaway if I say so.

This post has been edited by Dcopymope on Apr 10 2010, 05:27 AM
Top
simonshack
Posted: Apr 10 2010, 08:51 AM


1,000 posts!


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,289
Member No.: 3
Joined: 18-October 09




A former September Clues fan !... biggrin.gif

QUOTE
PART-1. I would like to inform everyone that I am disgusted with a person who is called 'simonshack'. In fact, I loved his SEPTEMBER CLUES, FOXED OUT and 911 AMATEUR works and I was his admirer for quite a long time.


--------------------
http://www.septemberclues.info
Top
hoi.polloi
Posted: Apr 10 2010, 10:57 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,066
Member No.: 1
Joined: 18-October 09



Would any real Russians like to step forward and comment on this fellow claiming to be of former Soviet Intelligence? I wonder ... is he Georgian and under the influence of the CIA's puppet Kashvili? Just speculation. Could be that Russia really wants to uphold the nuke myth in their own careful way as well.

If you care, you can try to sort out the way they discuss nuclear technology in part 4, around 7-8 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZFoLRkg-K0&feature=related

Then, in part 5 at 6 minutes he exonerates the American government?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddl4qsOc8po&feature=related

They were (chop) just (chop) "victim"! Cut cut cut .... weird video edit.

Aha. The Pentagon perps were just victims, sure. This would tie rather neatly into a bow, then ... with the loose ends representing the method of destruction (a fake weapon evidenced from fake video) and the foreign interest (pointed out to us by other "luminaries" who ignore TV fakery by calling it out-dated haha). It was nuclear missiles flying at the Pentagon and they had no way of stopping it - of course, of course Dmitri! It all makes sense now. This is why we need Star Wars and the missile shield right? Give the military even more of our money? Is that it?

This bow is the package never discussed but obviously "hinted" at enough to make it clear: this is the perpetuation of the "Cold War" nuke race nonsense. It weakens one enormous fakery for an older one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt_-qBVkTJk&feature=related

I have just never seen this happen in normal non-bootlegged TV because it has to do with an optical illusion from an overly sharp re-rendering of crisp video-game recordings. There are actually something like 3 or 4 lines hidden in each line, and when the pattern shakes as it does in the early part of the video, you can see that the texture appears to shift in the opposite direction from the building. This is not actually indicative of fewer beams. It may just be due to having fewer lines representing the many ... each vibration of the virtual camera moves the imagery behind this "resolution" (possibly a filter as well) and this melds the many beams into much fewer lines than can be shown on such a low pixel resolution. It is a common attribute of all this 9/11 footage - from fake amateur testimony to fake cityscapes.

This would mean it's probably a compression error and not necessarily the video-game texture error that it appears to be. But that is all going into too much depth since the source video attributed to Etienne Sauret looks 100% fake in the first place. The point is that it is anything but real ... and Dmitri's version makes it all the more clear.
Top
911thology
Posted: Apr 12 2010, 11:03 AM





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Member No.: 206
Joined: 12-April 10



Why I am so disgusted with Mr. ‘simonshack’.

1. It is not permissible among men to publish any personal mail exchange without consent of another party. He violated this rule by publishing my personal letter to him without asking my permission to do so.

2. He spread rumors over the Internet by claiming that I am allegedly a ‘digital creation’ (not a live being) by pointing out on some alleged ‘strange glimpses of light on my face’. He did so knowingly and being perfectly aware that this is not true. My telephone number in Bangkok is published on my YouTube profile, as well as on my personal web site and if Mr. ‘simonshack’ really wanted to check this out he could easily made a telephone call in order to hear the very same voice on the other side of the line as my voice in my video.

3. Actual genre of my video is not to defend the US Government, neither to defend the idiotic notion that aluminum planes could allegedly penetrate steel columns of the WTC. I clearly proved in my videos that: a) planes were fake; b ) movies showing planes were fake; c) US Government was the very one who demolished the WTC; d) moreover I actually accuse the US Government of knowingly sending unprotected ground zero responders to their certain death – because they were sent to work on ground zero without haz-mat suits. Which means that I accuse the US Government of the worst and the most disgusting crime possible. Judging by these 4 points, I should have been perceived by Mr. ‘simonshack’ as his comrade in arms, and not as his opponent. In fact, as I have mentioned, I held Mr. ‘simonshack’ in high esteem formerly for his excellent works FOXED OUT, 911 AMATEURS, SEPTEMBER CLUES and the rest and I perceived Mr. ‘simonshack’ to be the first to appreciate my own work too, because it was fully compliant with his own position and clearly designed to the very same effect. That is why I sent personal invitation to Mr. ‘simonshack’ to watch my videos once I uploaded them on YouTube. He was one of the very first people to receive this invitation from me.

However, instead of showing any solidarity or expressing any constructive criticism of my work, Mr. ‘simonshack’ preferred to indulge into disgusting practices mentioned above that do befit a man neither from the point of masculinity, nor from the point of politeness. Being quite an experienced person in life matters, as well as psychology I can’t miss the point. Mr. ‘simonshack’ was clearly offended by the fact that someone outdid him and provided something more valuable to the 9/11 research than his own works. Therefore, instead of appreciating my work he began his ridiculous assault on it clearly showing signs of elementary jealousy. He was offered to apologize, to stop his assault and to begin to behave like a man. Instead of answering my letter with such a proposal, he preferred to publish it on the Internet along with his ridiculous counting of the number of columns in a commonly known video clip that has nothing to do with me personally (I simply downloaded it form YouTube and used it in my interview as a reference and nothing more than that). Hence my disgust.
Top
911thology
Posted: Apr 12 2010, 11:04 AM





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Member No.: 206
Joined: 12-April 10



Regarding the rest of the points mentioned in this thread.

Someone accused me of not having a sense of humor. It is not true. I have a perfectly good sense of humor.

Mr. ‘simonshack’ personally accused me of removing (of even ‘constant removing’ as I understood it) of his comments from my YouTube page. I state that this is blatant lie and I have never ever removed even a single comment of his (nor of anyone else) from either page of my YouTube channel. Even the most filthy-mouthed morons and even the most spiteful critics of my movie are all allowed to post there freely without any censorship whatsoever. Mr. ‘simonshack’ shamelessly lied to visitors of this thread when he claimed about ‘removal of his comments’ and this is my answer.

Accusation: ‘Badly acted badly scripted badly green screened’ accusation. -------------- I am not a professional actor, neither is my interviewer. Sorry for that. No script? It is simply an interview in a form of rather informal conversation. What do you want from this? I don’t sell tickets to it. It is free of charge anyway. Bad green screen? – this interview was cheaply made, in private Thai studio. Hence problems with right lighting which made it impossible to use correct green chroma-key during editing. But does it diminish in any way my explanation how the US Government re-printed all post-9/11 dictionaries in order to re-define ‘ground zero’? Or does it diminish to any extent my explanation in regard to typical properties of underground nuclear explosions?

Accusation: ‘badly Russian accented Pavel Chekov type’ -------------------------------- this is the way I speak English. I can’t help with it. If you don’t like it, don’t watch the movie. Or download it and order some professional to make a new sound truck with the voice you like.

Accusations that I don’t want to name my interviewer. --- I DO NOT WANT TO NAME HIM. This is my decision and I do have really strong reasons behind this decision. This is final decision and can not be appealed. Just accept it.

Accusation: “Dimitri Khalezov, 333, Soi 40, Phaholyouthin Road, Senanikom, Chatuchak, Bangkok, 10900, Thailand
http://www.911thology.cn/911thology-dimitr...ntact-info.html
A former Soviet intelligence officer in Thailand at an address that can't be found through Google-Maps.” -------------------- answer. This is not my problem, this is the problem of the Google-Maps. This is the very address I used to receive mail and mail always gets through. Besides, I also have my telephone number published there. The number is the very one I am using now.

Accusation: ‘He also has a discussion forum: http://911books.net/forum/ Obviously an active den of important research. Recent messages include:
"free teen photo and pic" "free short skirt thumbs" "free nude picks celebs" "free sakura naruto hentai video" "Two Guys Having Anal Sex" ‘ --------------------- answer. I used to create this forum long time ago, but have since abandoned it being busy with some court cases in Bangkok. I had no time to maintain it and it was infested with spam-robots/bots promoting porn, Viagra and other kind of sh#t. I am just too busy to clean it, but I don’t see anything wrong in it, since nobody uses this forum anyway.

Accusation: ‘He's just another product of the SouthEastAsiaNews propaganda cell.’ -------------------------- answer. No, I am not. I am totally independent. That person became my acquaintance only once I uploaded my videos on YouTube and not before that. However, I don’t see anything wrong in him. He is quite an active researcher who found a lot of interesting info in regard to the 9/11 and 2002 Bali bombing.

Accusation: ‘Don't ring that number, you will end up chatting with Beverly Atkinson - or even worse maybe Genghis6169 Who are these SEA clowns, I wonder, hiding in the slime of Bangkok? How fitting, whoever they may be!’ --------------------- ignored, due to its being inconsistent with general rules of discussion listed above.

Accusation: ‘I have just looked through Khavilovs forum and there isn't a single 9/11 related topic in over 5000 started topics, they all seem to be about drugs or perversions of sex.’ ------------------------------------- Answer. As I have said that forum has been abandoned long time ago. Besides, you misspelled my surname. Next time try to be more considerate.

Accusation: ‘Khavilov owes more to the truth of tv fakery than the utter gutting of its tenacity with a site this bad if he is being serious. is this a case of hiding the truth in plain site by disguising it as a dog turd on the information highway?.’ ----------------------- Answer. You again misspelled my surname. I was very busy for long time due to my being a confidante and de-facto informal lawyer in Victor Bout’s case in Bangkok, and, in addition, in two other cases. For about last 2 years I did not do much about the 9/11 research and did not maintain my web sites. I just came back to active life about a month ago and plan to slowly improve everything – my web sites and the abandoned forum inclusive. Regarding the 2nd part of accusation – it is up to you. I stated clearly that the WTC was demolished by 3 x 150 kiloton nukes and I explained how the steel beams were pulverized from technical point of view. I explained that I knew it for sure from my former service in the Soviet nuclear intelligence that the WTC nuclear demolition scheme existed long time ago and its existence prior to the 9/11 is the matter of fact. I explained what kind of missile hit the Pentagon and where this missile actually came from. The rest of my claims (such as the FBI’s version on WHY they demolished the WTC, ‘no-planes’ suggestions, my conclusions that the US Government was not a culprit, but a victim of the attacks and the rest) are merely my observations and my personal humble opinion, not my testimony. Hope you can understand the difference between something stated as a part of a witness’/expert’s testimony and something expressed as merely an opinion?

Accusation: ‘Yes. Like Judy Wood, this is another creation to inoculate people from doing research.’ ------------------------ I don’t think it is fair to compare me with Judy Wood. While she is guessing without actually knowing anything neither in regard to the fact of the nuclear demolition scheme existed under the WTC from the beginning of 70s, nor in regard to nuclear explosions and their physical properties in general, I know either of them for sure and I don’t need to guess. I could clearly state it as an expert. Though, whether you accept my expert opinion or not, is entirely different story. I guess that people who tend to think independently, not zombied by 9/11-truthers, would accept what I say at once without much hesitation, because all I explained in regard to the WTC nuclear demolition is pretty self-evident. However, I do realize that someone will not accept that. But it is not my problem, it is his problem.

Accusation: ‘At 06:00 in Part 10 Dimitri f-cks up with his "rare" video.....’ ---------------- Answer. It is not ‘my’ video. It is commonly known video clip seen many times by either of you and you know it very well that it is not ‘my’ clip. I simply downloaded this clip from YouTube and used in my interview because this clip clearly shows the top of the Tower shaking before the Tower gets pulverized. It is one of only a few clips that shows clearly the Tower shaking. That is why I called it ‘rare’ in my interview.

Accusation: ‘Please count the WTC beams here (They should be 59):’ ---------------------- as I have said that I used the very same clip as Etienne Sauret’s one, but perhaps with lower resolution. The apparent ‘lesser’ number of columns is because of lower resolution issue. Even though I am not too professional in regard to video as Mr. ‘simonshack’ I do possess some common sense and basic technical knowledge. First of all you have to know that before this clip by Etienne Sauret got to YouTube it was first converted and re-converted several times over (perhaps including PAL-NTSC conversion, 7-10 times if not more conversions to lower resolution and in order to change actual video file format) and when it eventually appeared on YouTube it was most likely after its 15th conversion or so. All these multiple conversions by using various software (including probably cheap one too) would affect the video and might create all these irregularities like ‘lesser’ number of columns, or ‘inclination’ of columns. I personally don’t think this video is fake and do sincerely believe it is genuine. However, even if I am mistaken and Mr. ‘simonshack’ is right and Etienne Sauret video was indeed fake from the very beginning it by no means should affect credibility of my interview. Because I simply used the video evidence which seemed to me the most suitable to substantiate my points. I did not produce this evidence myself, I downloaded commonly known one from publicly available source. This fact exonerates me and my interview in any case (if any of you is familiar with basic concepts of jurisprudence you have to agree with this logic).

Hope I made all my points clear.

If you want to continue this discussion in a way that befit gentlemen/genuinely interested researchers you are welcome to ask me questions providing you agree to adhere to generally acceptable rules of discussion listed above in my 2nd post here.

If I am unwelcome to this Forum and you wish to continue to vilify me in the manner people do it in other forums, then all you have to do is to publish here this phrase: ‘Dimitri, you are not welcome here and you rules are not acceptable, we have different rules’.

Then I will not post here anymore and will not bother you otherwise.

Best wishes.
Dimitri A. Khalezov.
Top
simonshack
Posted: Apr 12 2010, 11:13 AM


1,000 posts!


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,289
Member No.: 3
Joined: 18-October 09



Welcome Dimitri,

Well let's start then:

1- You have said you found this videoclip on Youtube. Could you provide a link to it?
2- Why are there only 39 beams to be seen on this version of the Sauret clip?
3- Why are the 39 beams askew in relation to the WTC1 exterior frame?

user posted image


QUOTE
All these multiple conversions by using various software (including probably cheap one too) would affect the video and might create all these irregularities like 멿esser number of columns, or 멼nclination of columns.

No, Mr Khalezov. Your above explanation is not satisfactory. Please respond again and, in responding, please keep very much in mind your excellent rule n7 :

QUOTE
7)
No illogical argumentation is allowed. Should one party suspect another party of violating elementary logic, the discussion shall be immediately suspended and, the offence of violating logic shall be quickly pointed out and explained to other party. If no settlement could be reached in this regard then the matter shall be brought before a third party for arbitration.




4. Also, please show me where I have mentioned "strange glimpses of light on your face" and 'not a live being'. Those are both lies, Mr Khalezov. Not a good start for you to drop lies on this forum.

QUOTE
He spread rumors over the Internet by claiming that I am allegedly a 멶igital creation (not a live being) by pointing out on some alleged 몊trange glimpses of light on my face.


--------------------
http://www.septemberclues.info
Top
hoi.polloi
Posted: Apr 12 2010, 11:30 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,066
Member No.: 1
Joined: 18-October 09



QUOTE
2. He spread rumors over the Internet by claiming that I am allegedly a ‘digital creation’ (not a live being) by pointing out on some alleged ‘strange glimpses of light on my face’. He did so knowingly and being perfectly aware that this is not true. My telephone number in Bangkok is published on my YouTube profile, as well as on my personal web site and if Mr. ‘simonshack’ really wanted to check this out he could easily made a telephone call in order to hear the very same voice on the other side of the line as my voice in my video.


And yet that isn't enough, these days, 911thology. All that which you claim is evidence of a single person is only evidence of a simulation attempting to represent a person. You would have to meet Simon face-to-face somewhere for him to test whether you are physically real -- and even then you could be an actor.

Yes this is true of everyone, and your attempted proofs are appreciated, but still far from legitimizing who you say you are.

QUOTE
1. It is not permissible among men to publish any personal mail exchange without consent of another party. He violated this rule by publishing my personal letter to him without asking my permission to do so.


This would neutralize your accusation that he exploited a "personal exchange" - if I received something I considered anonymous, as he probably considers your letter, and lying besides, I have every right to post it as an example of something ridiculous - a psychological attack. "Permission" has to do with two parties who trust one another and you have so far shown no trust of Simon - only brushed him with compliments of his video which do not express any appreciation for what they imply - and accused him of being unmanly, and then expressed unwarranted disgust.

QUOTE
3. Actual genre of my video is not to defend the US Government [...] I should have been perceived by Mr. ‘simonshack’ as his comrade in arms, and not as his opponent.


No, "your" genre of video - if this is even your video - is "propaganda" :

It expresses the opinion that the tower collapse animations are real buildings, really exploding on film, which at this point should be an insult to anyone with an understanding of TV fakery technology. Your failure to understand this, consistently, shows you are a perp - and a late perp arriving much too far in the ball game to make any runs for your CIA and MI5 team.

Furthermore, Simon Shack's work includes the hypothesis that nobody was killed and the entire operation was a simulated military event inserted into a live population of millions of people in order to create the most striking psychological trick.

The insults thrown in your direction are worthy and appropriate for the level of disgust you deserve to suffer for being another shill with a looooong video that excludes the 100% computer-animation theory.

Your "opinion" that the US government killed sums of people under its charge does not make any sense whatsoever. You are not welcome here, shill. Go away or we will ban you.
Top
hoi.polloi
Posted: Apr 12 2010, 11:35 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,066
Member No.: 1
Joined: 18-October 09



QUOTE
I guess that people who tend to think independently, not zombied by 9/11-truthers, would accept what I say at once without much hesitation, because all I explained in regard to the WTC nuclear demolition is pretty self-evident.


So people who think independently accept what you say without hesitation? Oh, I agree! I agree! rolleyes.gif

[ADMIN: Expletives deleted]
Top
hoi.polloi
Posted: Apr 12 2010, 11:42 AM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,066
Member No.: 1
Joined: 18-October 09



QUOTE
Hello to everyone. My name is Dimitri A. Khalezov. I registered to this Forum because I found it out that there is a lot of speculations over my 911thology YouTube video posted in this thread and some of these speculations perhaps need to be addressed/clarified.

Just to inform you. I usually do not post on Internet forums with rare exceptions due to the following facts: 1) I am a different kind of a person compare to those who devoted their very lives chatting in Forums instead of spending their precious time on something else. 2) Generally people who chat full-time in the Internet forums, especially 9/11-related ones, are not able to comprehend anything logical simply because they are overloaded with excessive number of conspiracy theories which makes them often unhealthy skeptical, unhealthy suspicious and otherwise not capable of accepting the truth. 3) People who usually chat full-time in the Internet forums are in the most part of a very low social class - for example, they do no observe generally accepted rules of argument, show their ignorance to elementary logic, not trained to show respect to their opponents, not to mention that they often resort to personal insults instead of finding logical arguments to defend their positions. All of the above-mentioned makes me reluctant to ever indulge into discussions in the Internet forums.

hope you understand what I mean and what kind of attitude I expect. If I encounter here a typical attitude of typical full-time chatting trolls that I mentioned in the previous paragraph I will quit this discussion at once. If generally acceptable rules of argument will prevail here along with traditional respect that must be shown to the opponent, then it is OK for me to remain here for a while and to answer your questions (if any). In case if someone does not know what traditional and universally accepted rules of argument are, then let me point them out to you.

The most basic and important rules are these:

1) You can't insult your opponent in either way.

2) You can't show disrespect to your opponent irrespectively of whether you agree with him or not.

3) Any question must be constructed in the most politely manner possible and by no means any question may contain any hidden insult or derogatory subtext.

4) Any question asked must be clearly formulated and any question asked must show at least: 1. explicit interest of the asker in receiving an answer; 2. some sense from logical point of view. Questions that do not met these two conditions shall be regarded as insulting and designed to turn an argument into a counter-productive one (in modern day sense they could be classified as 'SPAM' in other words).

5) Any questions asked MUST be answered and under no circumstances can be ignored. However, either party retains its undeniable right to refuse answering a question, providing though, that it explicitly expresses its refusal to answer a question (preferably providing a clear reason behind such a refusal) and does not simply ignore it or pretend 'not to hear a question'.

6) Pretending 'not to hear a question', or ignoring a question, or pretending to 'be busy' during discussion of such a question, or silence instead of explicit expression of refusal to answer such a question shall be interpreted as that the concerned party either admits its defeat, or agrees with the position of the other party that asks the question.

7) No illogical argumentation is allowed. Should one party suspect another party of violating elementary logic, the discussion shall be immediately suspended and, the offence of violating logic shall be quickly pointed out and explained to other party. If no settlement could be reached in this regard then the matter shall be brought before a third party for arbitration.

8) If either of the parties decided to quit a discussion/argument based on the fact that the other party does not comply with generally accepted rules of discussion listed above (such as in result of personal insults or multiple refusals of another party to adhere to logic, for example), then such a party that quit discussion can't be called 'losing party'. The losing party shall be the party that did not observe the rules of the argument.

I think that if all of us observe the abovementioned rules we could have a very good and interesting discussion here.


Your rules are mostly unacceptable considering the circumstances. You presume too much, demand too much respect and do not show any comprehension of why you are accused of being a shill and defender of TV fakery. Your "rules" are not accepted so don't expect them to be followed. Don't post here any longer and apologize on your own youtube channel for your pathetic behavior here.
Top
simonshack
Posted: Apr 12 2010, 12:26 PM


1,000 posts!


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,289
Member No.: 3
Joined: 18-October 09



Hoi,

I think "Mr.Khalezov" should be allowed to respond to my 4 questions.
Since he doesn't seem to apply logic to his video 'explanations', he should be excluded from this forum on the basis of his own rules. In this manner, his 'manly' principles will surely stop him from whining like a child over on his channel.

I also would like to take the opportunity to thank Dimitri for providing a formidable addition to the bulk of evidence of WTC-collapse computerized animations. Thank you, sir. Much obliged. dry.gif


--------------------
http://www.septemberclues.info
Top
911thology
Posted: Apr 12 2010, 12:54 PM





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Member No.: 206
Joined: 12-April 10



QUOTE (simonshack @ Apr 4 2010, 12:53 AM)
It looks like DIMITRI is a digital creation - or something of that sort.
There are way too many glitches in his interview videos to make me believe otherwise.

Look - for instance - at the glitch between: 0:33 and 0:34 here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddl4qsOc8po&feature=related

There are MANY more to be found during his unbearably long, 26-part 'interview'...


Let me just say this for now
- time will tell if I'm right or wrong...:
Dimitri is just another
"confusion tool"
inserted into the system.


But wait: On one of his youtube videos he left this comment:
"No, my name is Dimitri. And my telephone No. is +66851230760
(which is in Bangkok, Thailand, so it had nothing to do with Israel)."


I'm gonna call him tomorrow.

Hi, Simon. Thanks for your thanks. I am very glad if my material could enrich your collection. In fact I have over 40 Gb DVD quality news footages from all major news agencies in MPEG format real HQ. Can share some if you want. However, it will not change my stance unless you sincerely apologize. From contradictory statements published by you ('welcome, Dimitri') and by hoi.polloi ('you are not welcome, Dimitri, don't post here or we will ban you') and again by you ('Dimitri has to be banned based on his own rules') now I am in a state of a total confusion in regard to the question if I am really welcome here or not and if I can post here or not. Nonetheless, not to appear coward I have to try to answer at least 4 questions of yours you suggest me to answer before I would be finally banned.

I will start with your question No.4. Where did you say that I am a digital creation of some sort. Here I quote your own post 'simonshack' as appears of the page 1 of this thread:

[beginning of the quote] It looks like DIMITRI is a digital creation - or something of that sort.
There are way too many glitches in his interview videos to make me believe otherwise. [End of the quote]

Moreover, in the same post of yours there are also these lines: [beginning of the quote]
But wait: On one of his youtube videos he left this comment:
"No, my name is Dimitri. And my telephone No. is +66851230760
(which is in Bangkok, Thailand, so it had nothing to do with Israel)."


I'm gonna call him tomorrow. [End of the quote]

I am obliged to state that you did not call me as promised.

Regarding the first 3 of your 4 questions I will answer them too - just let me see first if I could still find that link to the video, because I downloaded it 2 of 3 years ago and I am not quite sure if I could find the link quickly and I am not even sure if I could find it whatsoever. But I will try.

Top
D.Duck
Posted: Apr 12 2010, 01:10 PM


Retired Admin


Group: Contributors
Posts: 321
Member No.: 2
Joined: 18-October 09



911thology,

Of course you are welcome and thanks for answering Simons questions.

I will keep an eye on things so we don't get a lot of confusion, we have some newbees following threads so keep it crystal clear.


Thanks
D.Duck
Top
simonshack
Posted: Apr 12 2010, 01:40 PM


1,000 posts!


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,289
Member No.: 3
Joined: 18-October 09



QUOTE (911thology @ Apr 12 2010, 11:54 AM)


Regarding the first 3 of your 4 questions I will answer them too - just let me see first if I could still find that link to the video, because I downloaded it 2 of 3 years ago and I am not quite sure if I could find the link quickly and I am not even sure if I could find it whatsoever. But I will try.

Never mind, Dimitri - I know you can't answer them anyway. Questions 2 and 3 should not suffer any delay as to a response from you. They are the core questions of this thread and you know it. No amount of compression will do that, Dimitri. You know that too - stop playing stupid.

There's in fact no point in you even trying to concoct an answer for the 39 skewed beams, Dimitri. Let me make it simpler for you - and please understand that your answer to what follows will determine whether we will consider your presence on this board worthwhile or just an umpteenth waste of time:


- Are you aware, Dimitri, that you are using FAKE IMAGERY to support your nuke-demolition-theory ?


Thanks for a straight and unambiguous answer.


--------------------
http://www.septemberclues.info
Top
911thology
Posted: Apr 12 2010, 02:26 PM





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Member No.: 206
Joined: 12-April 10



QUOTE (simonshack @ Apr 12 2010, 01:40 PM)
QUOTE (911thology @ Apr 12 2010, 11:54 AM)


Regarding the first 3 of your 4 questions I will answer them too - just let me see first if I could still find that link to the video, because I downloaded it 2 of 3 years ago and I am not quite sure if I could find the link quickly and I am not even sure if I could find it whatsoever. But I will try.

Never mind, Dimitri - I know you can't answer them anyway. Questions 2 and 3 should not suffer any delay as to a response from you. They are the core questions of this thread and you know it. No amount of compression will do that, Dimitri. You know that too - stop playing stupid.

There's in fact no point in you even trying to concoct an answer for the 39 skewed beams, Dimitri. Let me make it simpler for you - and please understand that your answer to what follows will determine whether we will consider your presence on this board worthwhile or just an umpteenth waste of time:


- Are you aware, Dimitri, that you are using FAKE IMAGERY to support your nuke-demolition-theory ?


Thanks for a straight and unambiguous answer.

Now I am still looking for the links from where I downloaded the clips. However, I found it that I have at least two different qualities in my collection of videos and it seems that I used both of them in my interview - in one part it was a higher resolution one, and in the other - lower resolution (which you accuse of having lesser beams). For the meantime I am uploading both clips in dispute to my web site for you to download and to take an expert look at. Hopefully in 10 minutes you will get the download links.

Regarding the 2 questions you urge me to answer immediately:
2- Why are there only 39 beams to be seen on this version of the Sauret clip?
3- Why are the 39 beams askew in relation to the WTC1 exterior frame?

Question No.2. Answer: I think that unless we clarify matter with the video's various resolutions issue I can't clearly answer this question, because It appears to me that the lesser number of columns than necessary has to do with lower resolution and not with any malicious performance on my side, nor on the side of my 'imaginary bosses' who allegedly 'supplied me this video' (as I have said I downloaded it from YouTube).

Question No.3. Answer: are the beams are 'askew'. I don't know, but, perhaps, it has something to do with the low resolution either. The distortion in regard to the beams could have been caused (in my humble opinion):
1) by zooming problems of the Etienne Sauret's camera (I can't be sure what kind of video camera he used - would you be surprized if you find out that he used the cheapest personal camcorder of the eldest generation and digital zoom, instead of optical one?)
2) by multiple consecutive re-codings of his footage before it reached YouTube. In my opinion there could easily be at least 15-16 consecutive re-codings, if not more. Some of these recodings also involved digital zooming, and it would be just stupid to deny it.

In any case whether you consider my answer satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily, and even if this video were indeed fake from the begnning as you try to prove, even in such a case this video and this issue with wrong number of columns and with their tilting has nothing to do with me personally. I have no more affiliation to this movie-clip than you have affiliation to FOX video clips you used in your FOXED OUT series.

Just healthy thought in general: if someone used to create in advance facke videos of the Tower's would be collapse, why wouldn't such a person, who have a lot of time, a lot of money and a lot of proffessional equipment at his disposal, and who is apparently more professional when it comes to video editing than you and me, why wouldn't such a person create his 'fake' video with right detalis? Why should he make wrong number of columns in such a case? Does it some reasonable to you? Would not it be easier for such a TV-faker to make in advance a good-quality footage of still standing Tower and then without being in a hurry, carefully, professionally, create his nice, fake footage with right details and with right number of columns? Would you mind to address this sort of logical issue? Why should you (being a hypothetical TV-faker with unlimited supply of money and with all necessary professional equipment at your disposal + being not in a hurry at all) creaty a video intended to cheat millions with wrong number of columns, while you have an option to create the fake video with right number of columns? I would appreciate if you answer this.

Regarding your demand for a straight and unambiguous answer to this:
- Are you aware, Dimitri, that you are using FAKE IMAGERY to support your nuke-demolition-theory ?

Thanks for a straight and unambiguous answer. ------------------------ no, I am NOT (is word 'NOT' in capital letters unambiguous?) aware that I am using fake imagery, however, being a reasonable person I can't discard the possibility that you are right and the video was indeed fake from the very beginning (though as I have said I am inclined to believe it is genuine due to my observations in regard to logic mentioned in the above paragraph).

Your assault on my nuclear 'theory' (which is not a 'theory' in my opinion, but a matter of fact) based on the fact that the Etienne Saurette video could be (or in your opinion confirmed to be) fake is not sustainable in any case. Because my claims in regard to nuclear demolition of the WTC are NOT based on that video. They are based on the following points:

1. The spot of the WTC demolition was called 'ground zero'.

2. The US Government attempted to modify post-9/11 dictionaries in order to 'dilute' former clear meaning of the 'ground zero' term and the US Government was caught red-handed in such an attempt to modify the dictionaries.

3. I knew it for sure from my former service in the Soviet nuclear intelligence that the WTC indeed has its in-built nuclear demolition scheme from the beginning of the 70s.

You may call me liar and do all your best in accusing me of anything you want, but at best you can only place my point No.3 (that I served in the Soviet nuclear intelligence) under the question mark - though even this one is easily verifiable. However, even if you disprove my point No.3, my point No.1, and, what is the most important, my point No.2 would still stand, because they have nothing to do with me personally. Just go to library and compare pre-9/11 and post-9/11 dictionaries. If you need ISBN numbers, I will give you many of them - you will have chance to compare at least 6 pairs of different dictionaries to this effect. So, Simon, what it has to do with your assault on my alleged usage and alleged awareness of usage of TV fakeries in regard to my nuclear demolition 'theory'? Do you realize, at last, that my primary argument in this 'theory' is not videos? But dictionaries? (ADMIN: red highlight added by me, Simon Shack)

I know it will not change you mind anyway, because I already got the main point. For some reason (which I already described) you began to hate me personally and you will continue hating me. You will continue to denigrate me and continue accusing me of using TV fakeries. However, as I have said above: 1) I am not guilty of using them even if they were fake indeed. 2) It does not change anything in principle in regard to the WTC nuclear demolition. The rest is up to you.

If you need the links to compare the video-clips in dispute, let me know, I will post them to you.
Top
D.Duck
Posted: Apr 12 2010, 03:02 PM


Retired Admin


Group: Contributors
Posts: 321
Member No.: 2
Joined: 18-October 09



911thology,

QUOTE
lower resolution (which you accuse of having lesser beams).


I told you to be crystal clear.

There is no accusation of anything here.

There are 39 beams and it has nothing to do with the resolution.

You are pushing the limits but please go ahead.


D.Duck

Edit: BTW: They are not lined up properly, kind of f#cked up X 2, lol.
Top
hoi.polloi
Posted: Apr 12 2010, 03:10 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,066
Member No.: 1
Joined: 18-October 09



I am overruled by the other Admins in our quasi-democratic system of tyrannical board management. I for one do not trust "911thology" in the least, and I will leave this to be sorted out by Simon and D.Duck.
Top
D.Duck
Posted: Apr 12 2010, 04:20 PM


Retired Admin


Group: Contributors
Posts: 321
Member No.: 2
Joined: 18-October 09



911thology

QUOTE
The question of 39 beams and whether it has anything to do with resolution or not remains an open question


No its not an open question, it is very much closed, if you don't get that you will now have all the time you need to figure it out.

QUOTE
However, irrespectively of the question of whether 39 beams (instead of 59) have anything to do with the video resolution or not, they have absolutely nothing to do with me personally.


Yes it does, you should have looked at it and processed it through your brain then there had been no point for you to start the confusion game again.

QUOTE
Just healthy thought in general: if someone used to create in advance facke videos of the Tower's would be collapse, why wouldn't such a person, who have a lot of time, a lot of money and a lot of proffessional equipment at his disposal, and who is apparently more professional when it comes to video editing than you and me, why wouldn't such a person create his 'fake' video with right detalis?


You have to ask Anthony Lawson and the guys over there why they f#cked up big time, BTW: you sure write like Anthony, any chance you guys went to the same school?

You are banned, better luck next time cos I am sure there will be one.


D.Duck
Top
hoi.polloi
Posted: Apr 12 2010, 04:23 PM


Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,066
Member No.: 1
Joined: 18-October 09



Good riddance. While it may be a resolution problem, it's not one that resolves the fact that the original is fake and looks fake, and the copy of it used by the perps in this case is just that.

As for his dodgy and obsequious behavior, it gave him away from the start.

I, for one, am getting mighty tired of people "feeling" and "guessing" and hoping and praying and whatever else they want to do to imply that a video that looks like a video game and acts like a video game is a real video of the WTC. angry.gif

Please let's put this dog to rest.

All the videos from 9/11 are fake. All the pictures from 9/11 are fake.

This was made possible by technological censorship.

As for the dictionary issue, if the nuke doesn't exist or works differently than how he suggests, it blows his entire theory out of the water. I suggest everyone take a close look at the Nuke Hoax thread and munch on it for a while. I have made my decision on the matter: http://z6.invisionfree.com/Reality_Shack/i...hp?showtopic=57
Top
simonshack
Posted: Apr 12 2010, 06:10 PM


1,000 posts!


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,289
Member No.: 3
Joined: 18-October 09



I'm already missing Dimitri...He was soo much fun ! tongue.gif


--------------------
http://www.septemberclues.info
Top
« Next Oldest | PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD | Next Newest »
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up Now

Topic OptionsPages: (3) 1 [2] 3 



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0566 seconds · Archive