North Tower Strike Pictures -- Something "Fishy"
CB_Brooklyn Thu, 09/21/2006 - 10:53am
What's wrong with these? They don't look right
[dz: this thread has been locked. users who wish to argue further over this subject matter are welcome to find a forum to do so on. users who continue to use this site only as a method to argue over personal opinions will find their posts removed, and will be banned.]
this is fucked up none of
this is fucked up none of the news stations are covering chavez's live speech today at 12:00PM thursday 9/21/2006 while fox news has the beginning of his speech and cuts to commercial... wow i cant belive this coverup is unfolding before our eyes
There’s nothing wrong with
There’s nothing wrong with these pictures CB_Brooklyn, what there is something wrong with though is you being on this site, please go away and take your "no planes at the wtc" disinfo bullshit with you. Good day.
please drop the name
please drop the name calling, it just spawns more of it.
and for the record, i don't see anything wrong with these photos either. given that the plane was drifting to the right and then turning to the left before the impact one should assume that 2 photos taken from different points along that path would look different.
there is no substance to this post other than the arguement of perceptions, which will never convince anyone - especially someone who already writes off all 9/11 skeptics as nuts.
Dude there's no name calling
Dude there's no name calling I just asked this disinfo pedaling individual to go away in the politest possible terms, I even said good day lol.
For sure there *IS*
For sure there *IS* something very damn wrong with these pictures/screen shots.
When you comparing the sizes of the Towers with the incoming aircraft silhouettes, the sizes of these alleged incoming real aircrafts do strongly contradict with each other. Just make the math and check the rule of proportion!
Rabid Planehuggers always escape from an explanation for this:
Original feeds up at Killtown (4.1, 6.1)
http://www.911tvfakery.net
but these photos are at
but these photos are at different times prior to the impact..
obviously the further before the impact, the further away the plane will be, the smaller it will appear.
in the first photo the plane is closer to the towers, which is why you can see its wings tilting, whereas in the 2nd photo the plane is much further away from the towers, which is why its wings are level.
again, this is all perception, and i dont see how you expect this type of 'evidence' to prove anything to anyone.
There is nothing "further
There is nothing "further away".
That's why we have videos to make our case!
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
The size itself of the second CGI in the VH1 (non-live) videodoesn't change at all, when coming closer to its alleged target:
i completely disagree with
i completely disagree with you, the plane appears to get larger as one would suspect in that video, but it is pretty hard to judge anything given that it is only visible for a short time when it is furthest from the building.
my point was that in your two photos in your comment, one was maybe a 1/2 second before impact, the other maybe 1 1/2 seconds before impact, so obviously the size and trajectory would be different.
That's why i gave you the
That's why i gave you the video link, see above.
The CGI in the second VH video doesn't change its size in itself, when coming closer to its alleged target.
This feed includes your "maybe a 1/2 second /maybe 1 1/2 seconds before" combination in full length!
Screenshot from VH1-CGI
Screenshot from VH1-CGI after obscured (on purpose) by the logo.
No change of its size:
i watched that same clip you
i watched that same clip you linked over and over and i see a change in size, albeit a small one, as should be expected given its relatively low change in distance from the overall distance to the camera.
do you honestly think that this clip would prove anything to anyone?
Your tolerance and patience
Your tolerance and patience in dealing with trolls, back-and-forth namecalling, and Nico's repeated posting of the same images/videos continue to amaze me. May the zen be with you.
i've looked at all of
i've looked at all of killtown's videos, and i am familiar with them. with that said i still completely disagree with you.
can you tell me in what way this theory differs from the pod theory? are not both of these theories largely based on perception and speculation? aren't arguements which are largely based on perception and not on traceable facts likely to be brushed off easier than those that are more easily tested and proven?
i just don't get it, i try, but i dont, and i dont think anyone i know would either..
Hey Wait A Minute...
They might be on to something... I never noticed it before until I saw this picture...
Clearly, you can see there there is a discrepancy in this photo.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Thanks for the "levity",
Thanks for the "levity", Jon. :)
No...
They're really on to something. I don't know what it is, but it's something. ;)
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Good catch, Jon :)
Good catch, Jon :)
Is this another director's cut of Didi Kromberg's satire fly-by series?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pmiXinq2O0
Dz,
Dz,
i pointed you exactly on 2nd hit footage 4.1, 6.1 at killtown.
What has the pod theory to do with all this?
That's a complete disinfo distraction by Jayhan + Co., declaring cartoons for real.
"..i dont think anyone i know would either.."
Which is a manipulative statement, because supportive voices for the fakery evidence are here on this forum plus 80+ who signed the fakery petition.
You can't have it both ways. Once it's "just nico" who's pushing this, then you ignore Shayler, Walter, Reynolds, Wood + co. plus 16 other st911 scholars and many 9/11 video researchers.
So where's your mathematical result on the rule of proportions?
Why does the size of aircraft silhouette, which doesn't increase when reaching its alleged target strongly differ compare to the Size of the Towers, when compared with other footage with has only a minimal diferent size of the Towers?
i was asking you how the pod
i was asking you how the pod theory was any different form this. both theories seem largely based on looking at the impact footage and arguing how it should have looked versus how it did look, and not on any undeniable evidence.. im looking for things that i can talk to someone about and show them and have them realize that we are being lied to, but this type of evidence does not seem to accomplish that, even amongst those that already question 9/11.
where is your mathmatical result on the rule of proportions? since you are the one making the arguement, then i would think you would be the one that needs to provide the mathmatical evidence, right?
and im talking about the friends i have.. perhaps we could arrange a screening of about 30 of my friends, and at the end we can see how many you could convince? i know that i could convince a majority of them that our government was involved in 9/11 within an hour or two, do you think you could do the same with just this video footage and speculative suggestions?
im obviously just trying to have a rational arguement here, because i must admit that i do not believe in your position any bit whatsoever, but i do appreciate having at least a rational discussion!
I reject the "pod research",
I reject the "pod research", so why should i talk about it?
The podders reinforce the official story and ignore rules of physical violations. They have zero evidence on remote controlled "Planes", which are able to rotate almost 45 degrees, LOL :)
http://911closeup.com/nico/nico-closeup.htm
The screenings did already take place, at 911cgiwatch.blogspot.com and at YOUTUBE:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=U4AlmPyQ4IU&mode=related&search=
So far, from 1,600 views
only a handful critized the footage.
Where the hell is your
Where the hell is your "mathematical result on the rule of proportions." Why don't you "make the math"? Be sure to show your work, with units.
Why does the size of aircraft silhouette, which doesn't increase when reaching its alleged target strongly differ compare to the Size of the Towers, when compared with other footage with has only a minimal diferent size of the Towers?
My guess is that it has something to do with the several seconds after the plane is occluded by the buildings before it impacts. If the object were visible, it would appear to be getting larger.
Here, please *YOU do the
Here, please *YOU do the math for me.
I am biased as you are.
So you give us the mathematical results of the rule of proportion:
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/2176/proportionvh1amagr1.jpg
So this is your "math", a
So this is your "math", a couple of blurry images with lines drawn on them? It's laughable, Nico. Really. Are you sure you're not disinfo trying to waste my time? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you don't know what you're talking about. I will, however, refrain from calling you a retarded child. That's just not cool.
If this your invocation of the "rule of proportions" then I challenge its veracity because:
1. The long lines in each (two-dimensional) image are projections of lines of (possibly) equal length from three-dimensional space, at different viewing angles.
2. The distance between the towers and the plane in each image (and hence their relative size in our 2-D projections) is different because the images were taken at different times.
3. The short lines in the images do not even make sense. In one you draw a line from wingtip to tailfin and in the other just draw a line across most of a blurry dot.
For all of these reasons and each one individually, your claim is out of proportion.
Hey, I visited this post to
Hey, I visited this post to see how the "plane huggers" would react. And sure enough, straight away, an attack on the poster. Do the mods agree that this is not productive?
You call this kind of shit
You call this kind of shit productive?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reQZT9Hzvt8
dz, it's time to ban these fools. WTF are you waiting for?
You also wanna ban the 4,630
You also wanna ban the 4,630 viewers of the Reynolds clip, which are coming to 911blogger.com?
And how does the Reynolds FOX gig block any 9/11 activism?
Please advise :)
making up terms like "plane huggers".......
making up terms like "plane huggers" does not create reality. It only is a piss-poor attempt at distorting it.
But that is your job - right? Your job is to insert a poison pill into this movement - right?
Tell me - what is the difference between YOUR job and a holocaust denier? what is the difference between YOUR job and all those "good germans" who allowed their neighbors to be carted off to their deaths?
what possible 'greater good' could yor attacks upon this movement serve? how can covering up crimes against humanity ever forward the causes of social justice and peace in our age?
we approach another world war and i hope you are prepared to deal with the ramifications of what you are doing to yourself. what will yu tell your grandchildren YOU did during the war?
What's the difference
What's the difference between Jon Albanese and Mike Ruppert, who both called Loose Change "CIA material" ?
And thanks for the confirmation in your slang that you had been one of the "anonymous" who posted the same drivel about me.
Nico is a renowned liar.
His lies are legendary is this movement.
But - let us forget that an focus on his IGNORANCE.
He claims depth of field are not relevant in video.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
He forgets i am a filmmaker:
Depth of Field in video is dependent upon the following variations:
A. The focal length of the lens.
B. The diaphragm opening (effective aperture).
C. The distance from the lens to the object that is focused on.
D. The distance from which the image is viewed.
E. The viewer's personal standard of the permissible degree of sharpness (or unsharpness).
Other variables in the formula remaining constant, it follows that:
A. The shorter the focal length of the lens, the greater the DoF.
B. The smaller the diaphragm opening (larger f/stop number), the greater the DoF.
C. The greater the distance to the object being focused on, the greater the DoF.
D. The greater the distance from which the image is viewed, the greater the "apparent" DoF.
E. An often-used standard of acceptable sharpness is the reproduction in the image of a small point in the object plane by means of a "Circle of Confusion," or disc not greater than 1/100 of an inch. This is often expressed as 1/1000 of the focal length. Sometimes a figure of 1/300 of an inch or 1/3000 of the focal length is used.
At this point in the discussion, the image size will not remain constant. If you change the focal length in the above example, the subject (Target Size) will get larger or smaller depending upon the change in focal length.
Is it ignorance? or is it dishonesty? is it real? or is it Memorex?
Nico........duh. done embarassing yourself yet?
you are a filmmaker and you
you are a filmmaker and you don't see anything odd in the different images of the same plane all gliding thru the side of wtc2 like casper the ghost?
your filmmaker self finds nothing weird about 2 separate vids shot from roughly a mile apart yet both show the same foolish looking shadowy black plane with the same amputeed wing?
being a filmmaker why do you accept films that show a nosecone poking out the back side of wtc2 as legit after seeing a photo of that same backside reveals that no hole was made where the nosecone was seen to have poked out?
-------
just because "1000's of eyewitnesses must have seen a plane" does not mean that the media didn't present obvious phonies to the world.
FORCED PERSPECTIVE
I don't think this "blog" deserves anywhere near the attention it has received, but just for kicks I'll chime in...
CB, the phenomenon you are observiing is nothing more than forced perspective, which is a commonly used film technique that employs optical illusion to make an object appear farther, closer, larger or smaller than it actually is. Although it is used primarily in filmmaking it is also used in architecture. It manipulates human visual perception through the use of scaled objects and the correlation between them and the vantage point of the spectator or camera.
That is clearly the case here where in your first shot, you have a building between the camera and the towers. This is the shot where the plane appears smaller, because the camera is quite clearly further away.
In the second shot, notice no building between the camera and the towers. The camera is quite clearly closer to the towers, thus the plane, which is why the plane appears larger.
I hope we can move on now.
and don't forget.....
depth of field can be manipulated through aperture settings.
in photography the wider the aperture setting the more shallow the depth of field appears. duh
comparing two images is therefore worthless. you are comparing 2-dimensional interpretations of 3 dimensional space. a fool's task.
Albanese, go back to your
Albanese, go back to your "CIA material".
We're not comparing photos, we're comparing videos.
And there is no change of sizes when coming in closer to the alleged object.
I am still waiting for the math for this:
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/2176/proportionvh1amagr1.jpg
Albanese obviously forgot,
Albanese obviously forgot, what he learned as a 3rd grader.
So i am doing it for him and pick "cm" for Towers and aircraft silhouette:
5.5 cm Towers (first footage) = 1.1 aircraft silhouette
4.3 cm Towers (second footage) = x
x = 1.1 x 4.3 / 5.5
x = 4.73/ 5.5
x = 0.86
Problem is that x of 2nd footage has aircraft silhouette as 0.5 cm
No change of incoming size when coming closer to its alleged object, therefore this math of proportions reveals a fake.
again - for the slow to learn.....
Depth of Field - and relative size of objects in video - is dependent upon the following variations:
A. The focal length of the lens.
B. The diaphragm opening (effective aperture).
C. The distance from the lens to the object that is focused on.
D. The distance from which the image is viewed.
E. The viewer's personal standard of the permissible degree of sharpness (or unsharpness).
Other variables in the formula remaining constant, it follows that:
A. The shorter the focal length of the lens, the greater the DoF.
B. The smaller the diaphragm opening (larger f/stop number), the greater the DoF.
C. The greater the distance to the object being focused on, the greater the DoF.
D. The greater the distance from which the image is viewed, the greater the "apparent" DoF.
E. An often-used standard of acceptable sharpness is the reproduction in the image of a small point in the object plane by means of a "Circle of Confusion," or disc not greater than 1/100 of an inch. This is often expressed as 1/1000 of the focal length. Sometimes a figure of 1/300 of an inch or 1/3000 of the focal length is used.
At this point in the discussion, the image size will not remain constant. If you change the focal length in the above example, the subject (Target Size) will get larger or smaller depending upon the change in focal length.
Is it ignorance? or is it dishonesty? is it real? or is it Memorex?
Nico........duh. done embarassing yourself yet? these were taken with different cameras. you know NOTHING about the aperture settings on these cameras.
you are dishonest and injurious to this movement.
Nico
all kidding aside
debating you is like taking candy from a retarded child
Albanese is a fruit
Albanese is a fruit looper.
You can repeat your "Depth of Field" analysis all over again, it is meaningless because the image size DID remain constant, when coming closer to the object.
Direct links:
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/2176/proportionvh1amagr1.jpg
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/513/proportionvh1ama0qd6.jpg
The only dishonest person on this current blog is Albanese.
His credibility is zero. His history speaks for itself:
-blocking the evidence on controlled demolition for years
-forcing us at ny911 during 2004 to change the banner message from "Bush Regime engineered 9/11" to "Support the 9/11 family members- stop the 9/11 cover-up".
-accusing Loose Change as distributors of "CIA material"
-pushing his own limited hangout stuff in his 'doku'
-ignoring my question on his alleged 1,000 sources on south tower hit eye-witnesses and then suddenly turned into one of them to make a point
-claiming he saw the first plane on the west side of his building, though it's blocked by another building
Notice how Nico's lies expand?
Each and every time I confront him on his junk science - (i.e. aperture.depth of field in video) he responds with an ever growing list of lies about me?
why is it that Nico is still allowed to publicly LIE and defame people where?
Where did i lie in any of
Where did i lie in any of these statements? :
...Albanese
-blocking the evidence on controlled demolition for years
-forcing us at ny911 during 2004 to change the banner message from "Bush Regime engineered 9/11" to "Support the 9/11 family members- stop the 9/11 cover-up".
-accusing Loose Change as distributors of "CIA material"
-pushing his own limited hangout stuff in his 'doku'
-ignoring my question on his alleged 1,000 sources on south tower hit eye-witnesses and then suddenly turned into one of them to make a point
-claiming he saw the first plane on the west side of his building, though it's blocked by another building
lies
- blocking the evidence on controlled demolition for years
Lies. I merely expressed an opinion. I have no power to block anyone from anything. I just always felt that physical evidence is not the strongest way to lead when approaching new people.
-forcing us at ny911 during 2004 to change the banner message from "Bush Regime engineered 9/11" to "Support the 9/11 family members- stop the 9/11 cover-up".
Yes. And in the early days of this movement it was a shrewed move. YOU on the other hand would scare new members away with your stupidity.
-accusing Loose Change as distributors of "CIA material"
Lies. I merely quoted Murdoch - and pointed out how making mistakes in facts can be interpreted.
-pushing his own limited hangout stuff in his 'doku'
Yes - i actually claim planes were involved in the attacks.
-ignoring my question on his alleged 1,000 sources on south tower hit eye-witnesses and then suddenly turned into one of them to make a point
and i should answer to you why? everyone knows there were thsouands of witnesses. teh streets downtown was flooded with people.
-claiming he saw the first plane on the west side of his building, though it's blocked by another building
Now this is the biggest lie. HOW IN HELL DO YOU FUCKING KNOW WHAT MY VIEW WAS FROM MY OFFICE?
DZ - ban this guy. he is clearly outside the bounds of acceptable behavior.
Albanese's "aperture.depth
Albanese's "aperture.depth of field in video" turns into junk science, because the image size DID remain constant, when coming closer to the object.
And he's still ignoring *that* observation as seen above.
Nico, I have never met you
Nico, I have never met you or John Albanese but from what I have read on this site he has FAR more credibility in my eyes than you do. For you to say his credibility is "zero" and is the only dishonest person here is absurd. Just abso-freakin-lutely absurd.
Every time I interact with you on 911blogger your credibility takes another hit. You accuse others of not knowing third grade math and yet seem to have no understanding of the various concepts several people have tried to explain to you.
BCS, your support on demand
BCS,
your support on demand with Albanese is laughable.
So does that mean, you support the concept that the aircraft silhouette of the second clip
DID not remain constant? It ddin't.
Does that also means you are supportive of the following actions of Albanese?
-blocking the evidence on controlled demolition for years
-forcing us at ny911 during 2004 to change the banner message from "Bush Regime engineered 9/11" to "Support the 9/11 family members- stop the 9/11 cover-up".
-accusing Loose Change as distributors of "CIA material"
-pushing his own limited hangout stuff in his 'doku'
-ignoring my question on his alleged 1,000 sources on south tower hit eye-witnesses and then suddenly turned into one of them to make a point
-claiming he saw the first plane on the west side of his building, though it's blocked by another building
DCS,
i don't know your 9/11 research- and activism bio, but here's mine:
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911bio.html
Nico - the special olympcs just emailed me
they are requesting i stop debating you. they are embarassed.
I second that too. You are
I second that too.
You are promising this now for weeks, but you always come back like a "reset button" (no insult!).
So why don't you stay in your own hangout blogs, dig for more "CIA material" and finally leave the video researchers alone? ; -)
BCS, your support on demand
BCS,
your support on demand with Albanese is laughable.
So does that mean, you support the concept that the aircraft silhouette of the second clip
DID not remain constant? It ddin't.
Does that also means you are supportive of the following actions of Albanese?
-blocking the evidence on controlled demolition for years
-forcing us at ny911 during 2004 to change the banner message from "Bush Regime engineered 9/11" to "Support the 9/11 family members- stop the 9/11 cover-up".
-accusing Loose Change as distributors of "CIA material"
-pushing his own limited hangout stuff in his 'doku'
-ignoring my question on his alleged 1,000 sources on south tower hit eye-witnesses and then suddenly turned into one of them to make a point
-claiming he saw the first plane on the west side of his building, though it's blocked by another building
DCS,
i don't know your 9/11 research- and activism bio, but here's mine:
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911bio.html
BCS, your support on demand
BCS,
your support on demand with Albanese is laughable.
So does that mean, you support the concept that the aircraft silhouette of the second clip
DID not remain constant? It ddin't.
Does that also means you are supportive of the following actions of Albanese?
-blocking the evidence on controlled demolition for years
-forcing us at ny911 during 2004 to change the banner message from "Bush Regime engineered 9/11" to "Support the 9/11 family members- stop the 9/11 cover-up".
-accusing Loose Change as distributors of "CIA material"
-pushing his own limited hangout stuff in his 'doku'
-ignoring my question on his alleged 1,000 sources on south tower hit eye-witnesses and then suddenly turned into one of them to make a point
-claiming he saw the first plane on the west side of his building, though it's blocked by another building
DCS,
i don't know your 9/11 research- and activism bio, but here's mine:
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911bio.html
i dont think this reveals a
i dont think this reveals a fake, i think it is entirely open to interpretation..
for one reason the source image for your measurements is so blurry that you cannot properly determine the size, but rather have to guestimate to some degree, asside from that i cant even tell what you are are actually measuring as the lines you drew arent from wingtip to wingtip.
another reason is that the angle of the aircraft in the images are different from one another, but yet you use the same horizontal line to measure the width, despite the plane being at an angle in one photo and not in the other. add on top of it the changes in the planes direction and you have another factor of how the measurements would have to be made.
and finally this does nothing to calculate the difference in depth of field, which i have seen before in videos whereby a simple change of something on the video camera causes the depth to appear greater or smaller without having to reposition the camera..
again, this is all perception, which is why i wonder how you can expect this to ever be as convincing as other more demonstratable arguements.
"...the source image for
"...the source image for your measurements is so blurry..."
Which is another fruit loop remark (no insult!) because Albanese is using the same given measurements for his "depth of field" analysis.
Furthermore the "quality" of the aircraft silhouettes also does not change, when seen on original DivX footage.
DZ - why do the rules not apply to Nico?
Every debate results in defamation of character and smears and lies.
Is this not a violation of the rules of this message board?
Why should a discussion of aperture and depth of field result in a laundry list of lies being posted about me?
People are BEGGING you to once and for all ban this guy. He is clearly a disruptor.
In fairness, John, you
In fairness, John, you shouldn't be calling anyone a retarded child, either.
Did i call him a child?
I thought i called him retarded. I DID say that debating him was like taking candy from a retarded child. true. but - that is more a comparison than a point-blank accusation. its really a matter of perspective and opinion.
examples:
Nico is a retarded child.
Nico acts like a retarded child.
Debating Nico is like taking candy from a retarded child.
These are all gradations - various 'shades' ranging from fact - to opinion.
on the other hand - when Nico blatenly lies and states that i accused Loose Change of being CIA - or did not witness 9/11 - these are lies passed off as fact - and serve to disrupt the movement.
Nico's attacks are well known. they are not limited to just me. he viciously defames and attacks sincere and credible researchers everywhere.
mix this with his "research" that claims that no planes were used on 9/11 (wipes away tear)really should be an indication to you that this PERSON is actually injurious to this movement.
in the 1960s the FBI handed out coloring books to children with images of cops being shot. they attempted to hang this on the black panthers. if you were a black panther would you suggest the big-tent all-inclusive philosophy of allowing these disruptors to participate?
the line MUST be drawn somewhere - and i believe our collective efforts to confront and reveal 9/11 Truth MUST include some common-sense limits on allowing certain negative influences to defame and undermine our efforts.
Nico is CLEARLY what he is. CLEARLY. i am not suggesting censureship. but - i am also suggesting that we not be deaf dumb and blind.
Albanese is misquoting me on
Albanese is misquoting me on purpose.
I said, that you were supportive of Mike Ruppert's statement who refered to Loose Change as "CIA material".
You furthermore tried to escape once from this statement, when you said here:
http://www.911blogger.com/v2/node/2193#comment
"...it has always been my opinion that Loose Change simply presents to many factual errors...Ruppert referred to this film as CIA. I personally do not know - but this is the FIRST time I have heard that one of the producers of this film is military...
There was nothing
There was nothing defaming.
Your history is documented and your remark on Loose Change as CIA material is archived here on 911blogger.com
I also responded in an appropriate way to your "aperture of depth". There was a constant size of the incoming object, therefore your analysis is irrelevant
Furthermore it is Albanese, DemBruce and others, who are constantly violate the rules of this forum by repeating "posts which are purely abusive".
I don't think, "retarded child", "nazi" and other remarks have anything to do with a scientific argument or a general debate.
Nico - you clearly do not understand
I did not call you a retarded child.
I said debating you was like taking candy from a retarded child.
Don't you know anything about nuance?
The rules that apply to Nico Haupt...
Do not use the site to continue arguments with other users from thread to thread
Nico is using this entire site to "continue arguments" about "TV Fakery."
Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults
Since "TV Fakery" has been debunked SEVERAL times over by SEVERAL different people on this site, his information and commentary is not "useful", and when it's pointed out to him, he replies with attacks or insults.
Try to respect others who may have differing opinions, posts which are purely abusive will be removed
Nico has no respect for anyone. Especially not those who passed away on 9/11/2001. His continued attacks against individuals actually trying to make a difference, his "List of labels", his attempts at discrediting individuals with faulty information, etc...
Nico is not a 9/11 Truther. He doesn't belong on this site.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."