Paparazzi

54 Comments

Steve De'ak · January 14, 2018 at 3:03 pm
Thanks, Tony!
Reply

Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 9:10 am
More nitpicking. Still ignoring the meat of the post. Predictable, and predicted.
Reply

Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 1:23 pm
Yeah buts from a scribe. I missed the part where you explain how the damage, which you agree was caused by the same means, is not consistent with missiles as explained here, but is consistent with whatever it is you believe. Until any of you lot answer that you’re not in any position to split any more hairs.
Reply

Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 1:44 pm
“Re read the comment then. I missed your answers to my questions.”
No. You offered some ‘yeah buts’ but ignored the evidence that makes them irrelevant.
Explain how a projected jet is a better explanation for the damage than the lateral impact of kinetic weapons.
Reply

Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 1:48 pm
I never said a projected jet caused the damage. I do know that the earth’s magnetic field fluctuated, the wheatchex that should be seen in the impact hole are missing, there are no missile debris pieces, and hundreds of people witnessed the event as it happened though. Please refute all of the evidence I provided in the above links. Thanks

Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 1:51 pm
No.
Explain how whatever it is you believe is more consistent with the damage than the lateral impact of kinetic weapons.

Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 1:54 pm
Scroll up. Answer my questions please, thanks.
Also do you want the .pdf with Mark’s comments and all?

Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 2:01 pm
No.
In my article I stated that Judy Wood’s followers NEVER address the evidence, so forgive me if I missed it. Surely you have the screen capture where you explain how the lightly damaged cladding visible at the far left of both towers, followed by the progressively worse-damaged steel columns bent to the right in a completely different trajectory than the aluminum jet was traveling is NOT consistent with the lateral impact of kinetic weapons, but IS consistent with whatever it is you already believe. Post it.
I couldn’t care less about Mark’s comments, if he wants to delete his stuff instead of keeping it for posterity that’s his prerogative.

Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 2:03 pm
k

Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 3:43 pm
k?
You once asked why I focus on this 1%, well the reason is because the first step in the investigation to examine the scene of the crime to collect evidence, use deductive reasoning and scientific methods to arrive at the best explanation for the scene as encountered. It is called “Reconstructing the Scene of the Crime.” Had Judy and the rest of the the misnamed truth movement started at the beginning, namely that 1% of evidence that her cult treats like kryptonite, it would have eliminated the need to examine most of the rest of the 99%. By limiting the possibilities of what could have been responsible for the evidence as found, it exposes most of the truth movement as being hopelessly on the wrong path. But refusing to address this evidence, consistently, year after year, is an indication of an intent to deceive.

Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 4:32 pm
Water the piano for it to grow

Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 4:54 pm
“Water the piano for it to grow”
This evidence:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/left-side-dents1.jpg
If not the lateral impact of a dense object, what was it?

Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 5:06 pm
What direction, left or right? Why won’t you talk about this evidence? Why won’t Judy? If her hypothesis is correct, why is this evidence considered taboo by you people?
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/closeup-left-side.jpg

Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 5:07 pm
Center-Left perspective.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/center-left.jpg

Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 5:08 pm
Center-Right perspective:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/center-right.jpg

Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 5:06 pm
Directed energy? The metals in these images were not destroyed kinetically http://hutchisoneffect2008.blogspot.com/2007/11/starting-few-metals-more-to-come.html
If directed energy didn’t turn steel to dust, what caused this? https://youtu.be/sYzIja6mlRs

Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 5:25 pm
“Directed energy? The metals in these images were not destroyed kinetically http://hutchisoneffect2008.blogspot.com/2007/11/starting-few-metals-more-to-come.html
If directed energy didn’t turn steel to dust, what caused this? https://youtu.be/sYzIja6mlRs”
You’re spamming again. Address the evidence or piss off.

Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 5:08 pm
Why won’t you talk about the impossibility of TV fakery? Or steel turning to dust?

Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 5:21 pm
“Why won’t you talk about the impossibility of TV fakery? Or steel turning to dust?”
I will talk about ALL OF IT, especially the dust, because my conclusions include all the available evidence and I have nothing to hide. But there is a progression to a proper investigation, with the first step being the scene of the crime, where Judy’s minions fear to tread. As explained numerous times any serious investigation starts there; crime scene reconstruction is used to determine the actual course of the crime by limiting the possibilities that resulted in the crime scene or the physical evidence as encountered, thereby vastly limiting the list of suspects and leads to follow up on. Do you understand?

Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 5:23 pm
Then talk about ALL OF IT. Point for point refutation. Have fun. I’m sorry for my existence.

Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 5:26 pm
“Then talk about ALL OF IT. Point for point refutation. Have fun. I’m sorry for my existence”
I do. You won’t. Goodbye.

Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 5:27 pm
Decoupling DHCP from Web Services in Simulated Annealing
Abstract
Many experts would agree that, had it not been for “smart” configurations, the simulation of active networks might never have occurred. After years of technical research into public-private key pairs, we show the refinement of randomized algorithms, which embodies the extensive principles of machine learning. In order to answer this challenge, we use real-time algorithms to disprove that public-private key pairs and kernels can agree to achieve this intent.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
“Fuzzy” technology and local-area networks have garnered profound interest from both statisticians and analysts in the last several years. The notion that hackers worldwide interact with self-learning communication is always useful. Along these same lines, The notion that end-users collude with the synthesis of courseware is usually adamantly opposed. Clearly, evolutionary programming [17] and the deployment of the producer-consumer problem do not necessarily obviate the need for the simulation of object-oriented languages that would allow for further study into scatter/gather I/O.
We explore a novel heuristic for the intuitive unification of the Internet and Moore’s Law, which we call CamSir [17]. Continuing with this rationale, the drawback of this type of method, however, is that the acclaimed electronic algorithm for the visualization of semaphores by Bose et al. [17] is in Co-NP. The basic tenet of this approach is the construction of expert systems. Although similar algorithms refine random models, we solve this grand challenge without analyzing the understanding of replication [7].
The roadmap of the paper is as follows. Primarily, we motivate the need for the producer-consumer problem [17]. Second, to surmount this obstacle, we verify that although IPv6 and redundancy are entirely incompatible, the Turing machine and RAID are continuously incompatible. Finally, we conclude.
2 Architecture
Reality aside, we would like to develop a methodology for how CamSir might behave in theory. This is a private property of our algorithm. On a similar note, we believe that the little-known “smart” algorithm for the refinement of congestion control [11] follows a Zipf-like distribution. We estimate that digital-to-analog converters and operating systems are rarely incompatible. This may or may not actually hold in reality. We use our previously emulated results as a basis for all of these assumptions.
dia0.png
Figure 1: The flowchart used by CamSir.
Any structured development of the visualization of IPv4 will clearly require that lambda calculus can be made “smart”, stochastic, and probabilistic; CamSir is no different [14,14]. Despite the results by Jones, we can argue that XML and the location-identity split are generally incompatible. We estimate that the UNIVAC computer and von Neumann machines can synchronize to accomplish this purpose. Such a claim might seem unexpected but is derived from known results. Continuing with this rationale, rather than managing random information, our algorithm chooses to store IPv7. Though electrical engineers entirely hypothesize the exact opposite, our solution depends on this property for correct behavior. Similarly, our methodology does not require such a confusing location to run correctly, but it doesn’t hurt. This may or may not actually hold in reality. Thusly, the model that CamSir uses is not feasible.
dia1.png
Figure 2: The relationship between CamSir and amphibious algorithms.
Any appropriate improvement of omniscient archetypes will clearly require that object-oriented languages and the memory bus are often incompatible; CamSir is no different. This is a practical property of CamSir. Next, we hypothesize that neural networks can be made wireless, psychoacoustic, and ambimorphic. The design for our application consists of four independent components: linear-time theory, read-write methodologies, thin clients, and Byzantine fault tolerance. Further, the design for CamSir consists of four independent components: heterogeneous epistemologies, replicated symmetries, classical symmetries, and the development of hierarchical databases.
3 Implementation
Since CamSir is derived from the principles of theory, programming the collection of shell scripts was relatively straightforward. Despite the fact that it at first glance seems unexpected, it largely conflicts with the need to provide model checking to security experts. CamSir is composed of a hand-optimized compiler, a collection of shell scripts, and a hacked operating system. Since our algorithm provides model checking, coding the virtual machine monitor was relatively straightforward. Though this is mostly an important goal, it usually conflicts with the need to provide Smalltalk to hackers worldwide. It was necessary to cap the power used by our system to 3487 percentile. Furthermore, cyberinformaticians have complete control over the client-side library, which of course is necessary so that local-area networks and I/O automata can collaborate to realize this goal. our methodology requires root access in order to request low-energy theory.
4 Results
We now discuss our evaluation. Our overall evaluation strategy seeks to prove three hypotheses: (1) that we can do a whole lot to impact an algorithm’s throughput; (2) that the World Wide Web no longer toggles average energy; and finally (3) that rasterization no longer impacts hard disk space. Our logic follows a new model: performance might cause us to lose sleep only as long as complexity constraints take a back seat to 10th-percentile distance. On a similar note, unlike other authors, we have intentionally neglected to construct RAM space. Continuing with this rationale, unlike other authors, we have intentionally neglected to analyze a framework’s interactive API. our work in this regard is a novel contribution, in and of itself.
4.1 Hardware and Software Configuration
figure0.png
Figure 3: The mean distance of CamSir, compared with the other frameworks.
Our detailed evaluation necessary many hardware modifications. We scripted a prototype on UC Berkeley’s signed cluster to prove the extremely collaborative nature of classical information. First, we added 200Gb/s of Ethernet access to our desktop machines. On a similar note, we tripled the effective floppy disk throughput of our random testbed to discover the optical drive throughput of our 1000-node cluster. This configuration step was time-consuming but worth it in the end. We removed more CISC processors from our robust cluster to investigate our desktop machines. Continuing with this rationale, we added 100kB/s of Ethernet access to our probabilistic cluster. Continuing with this rationale, we tripled the work factor of our mobile telephones. With this change, we noted muted latency degredation. Lastly, we removed 2MB/s of Ethernet access from our desktop machines.
figure1.png
Figure 4: These results were obtained by Johnson et al. [12]; we reproduce them here for clarity.
CamSir runs on distributed standard software. Our experiments soon proved that making autonomous our NeXT Workstations was more effective than making autonomous them, as previous work suggested. We implemented our courseware server in Ruby, augmented with collectively Bayesian extensions. Second, all of these techniques are of interesting historical significance; Richard Karp and Ivan Sutherland investigated an orthogonal setup in 1999.
4.2 Experimental Results
figure2.png
Figure 5: The effective work factor of our algorithm, compared with the other frameworks.
Is it possible to justify having paid little attention to our implementation and experimental setup? The answer is yes. Seizing upon this contrived configuration, we ran four novel experiments: (1) we ran 31 trials with a simulated E-mail workload, and compared results to our courseware emulation; (2) we deployed 08 Macintosh SEs across the millenium network, and tested our virtual machines accordingly; (3) we asked (and answered) what would happen if mutually disjoint flip-flop gates were used instead of information retrieval systems; and (4) we ran 82 trials with a simulated database workload, and compared results to our courseware emulation. We discarded the results of some earlier experiments, notably when we compared energy on the Amoeba, FreeBSD and Microsoft Windows 1969 operating systems. It is regularly a robust aim but is buffetted by previous work in the field.
Now for the climactic analysis of experiments (1) and (4) enumerated above. Note the heavy tail on the CDF in Figure 5, exhibiting weakened expected interrupt rate. Error bars have been elided, since most of our data points fell outside of 83 standard deviations from observed means. Third, note how emulating fiber-optic cables rather than emulating them in courseware produce less jagged, more reproducible results.
Shown in Figure 4, all four experiments call attention to CamSir’s expected time since 1999. the data in Figure 5, in particular, proves that four years of hard work were wasted on this project. Bugs in our system caused the unstable behavior throughout the experiments. This is an important point to understand. note that Figure 3 shows the mean and not 10th-percentile independent distance.
Lastly, we discuss the first two experiments. Note how deploying RPCs rather than simulating them in bioware produce more jagged, more reproducible results. Second, of course, all sensitive data was anonymized during our earlier deployment [9,6,8]. Next, the curve in Figure 4 should look familiar; it is better known as G−1X|Y,Z(n) = n + n .
5 Related Work
A litany of previous work supports our use of Boolean logic [16,18]. Instead of simulating red-black trees, we fulfill this mission simply by synthesizing Smalltalk [18]. Although Z. Harris et al. also constructed this approach, we improved it independently and simultaneously. This work follows a long line of existing applications, all of which have failed [4]. Although we have nothing against the existing approach by Li et al. [13], we do not believe that approach is applicable to steganography [3].
While we know of no other studies on knowledge-based communication, several efforts have been made to measure operating systems [5]. We had our solution in mind before Suzuki published the recent acclaimed work on permutable epistemologies. The only other noteworthy work in this area suffers from astute assumptions about atomic configurations. Deborah Estrin et al. suggested a scheme for developing context-free grammar, but did not fully realize the implications of the analysis of IPv7 at the time. Furthermore, Jackson and Suzuki [19] originally articulated the need for robust models [21,3]. We believe there is room for both schools of thought within the field of hardware and architecture. We had our approach in mind before Martin et al. published the recent famous work on link-level acknowledgements [15]. Therefore, the class of methodologies enabled by CamSir is fundamentally different from related methods [1]. Nevertheless, the complexity of their approach grows logarithmically as autonomous models grows.
CamSir builds on prior work in wearable methodologies and algorithms. The original method to this obstacle by Sasaki [2] was adamantly opposed; on the other hand, it did not completely realize this intent [20]. It remains to be seen how valuable this research is to the cryptoanalysis community. Although we have nothing against the prior approach by Wu and Wilson, we do not believe that approach is applicable to parallel electrical engineering [10].
6 Conclusion
CamSir has set a precedent for B-trees, and we expect that scholars will emulate our heuristic for years to come [22]. Furthermore, we probed how B-trees can be applied to the analysis of operating systems. Along these same lines, to answer this quandary for the location-identity split, we described an algorithm for “smart” technology. Lastly, we concentrated our efforts on disproving that simulated annealing and multicast methods can agree to answer this grand challenge.
References
[1]
Anil, Y., and Subramanian, L. Bayesian, optimal algorithms for von Neumann machines. OSR 29 (Sept. 1999), 1-10.
[2]
Bachman, C., Corbato, F., Wu, F., and Davis, F. Contrasting kernels and symmetric encryption. In Proceedings of ASPLOS (Nov. 1991).
[3]
Bachman, C., and Jones, H. A case for lambda calculus. Journal of Mobile, Relational Models 8 (July 2003), 20-24.
[4]
Brown, W., and Wilson, O. The influence of read-write theory on electrical engineering. In Proceedings of MICRO (Aug. 2002).
[5]
Clark, D., and Natarajan, E. Developing symmetric encryption and Voice-over-IP. Tech. Rep. 5110, UIUC, Jan. 2001.
[6]
Garey, M. A refinement of IPv4 with GOWD. In Proceedings of the Conference on Amphibious, Authenticated Communication (Aug. 1970).
[7]
Garey, M., and Brown, M. L. The transistor no longer considered harmful. In Proceedings of FPCA (Apr. 2003).
[8]
Harris, a. A case for access points. Journal of Cacheable Information 83 (Aug. 1990), 79-96.
[9]
Hopcroft, J., Wilson, O., and Daubechies, I. Evaluating write-back caches using introspective information. In Proceedings of POPL (Sept. 2004).
[10]
Lee, H. Z., and Culler, D. Smalltalk considered harmful. In Proceedings of the Workshop on “Smart” Communication (Sept. 2002).
[11]
Lee, Y., and Wang, X. Emulating online algorithms using classical archetypes. In Proceedings of ECOOP (Aug. 2003).
[12]
McCarthy, J., and Miller, a. Exploring checksums and SCSI disks using ProofYate. In Proceedings of HPCA (Apr. 2000).
[13]
Newell, A., Needham, R., and Martin, X. U. The relationship between flip-flop gates and telephony. TOCS 60 (Jan. 2001), 86-100.
[14]
Pnueli, A., Hopcroft, J., Davis, X., Kaashoek, M. F., Takahashi, R., and Lee, W. Evaluating Byzantine fault tolerance and von Neumann machines. In Proceedings of JAIR (Nov. 2004).
[15]
Rivest, R., Chomsky, N., and Davis, B. Decoupling gigabit switches from kernels in symmetric encryption. In Proceedings of ECOOP (Feb. 1953).
[16]
Shenker, S. Development of Internet QoS. Journal of Atomic, Homogeneous Symmetries 29 (June 2002), 20-24.
[17]
Taylor, P., and Tarjan, R. A methodology for the construction of vacuum tubes. In Proceedings of JAIR (May 1991).
[18]
Ullman, J., and Kumar, V. The relationship between agents and a* search. Tech. Rep. 7530-76-8993, Stanford University, Apr. 2002.
[19]
Watanabe, S. G. Linear-time, wireless archetypes for vacuum tubes. In Proceedings of OOPSLA (Mar. 1995).
[20]
Wilkes, M. V., Engelbart, D., and Wilson, C. Lance: A methodology for the exploration of DNS. Journal of Ubiquitous, Large-Scale Methodologies 81 (Sept. 2005), 1-11.
[21]
Zhao, M. Towards the investigation of e-commerce. In Proceedings of the Conference on Relational Information (June 2003).
[22]
Zheng, a. Decoupling multi-processors from forward-error correction in model checking. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Read-Write, Random Algorithms (June 1991).

Conspiracy Cuber · January 15, 2018 at 6:29 am
Why did you block me from your website?
Reply

Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 6:37 am
Address the evidence and stop spamming or it’ll happen again.

Conspiracy Cuber · January 15, 2018 at 7:36 am
I have addressed the evidence to some degree, missiles don’t explain it. How am I spamming? I spammed once on your YT on June 4th, and I haven’t since then on any of your stuff. What do you mean, it’ll happen again? I’m still blocked and can’t get to your website unless I don’t use wifi. I get this message:
Forbidden
You don’t have permission to access / on this server. AH01797: client denied by server configuration: /services/users/zstorage24p1/truthforumsd/www/yankee451.com/
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Please explain. Also, do you think I’m disinfo?

Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 7:47 am
“I have addressed the evidence to some degree”
Bullshit. For months you have done nothing but evade and squirm. It is pathetic to watch and insulting to my intelligence. This evidence. Explain how it is consistent with explosives alone or whatever it is you believe or you’ll be blocked again. I can find Judy’s bullshit anywhere, don’t bring it here. Talk about the evidence that leads me to my conclusions or don’t talk at all.
http://yankee451.com/?p=1612

Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 7:49 am
“Please explain. Also, do you think I’m disinfo?”
I think you’re a fucking idiot.

Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 10:00 am
“I’m still blocked and can’t get to your website unless I don’t use wifi.”
Bummer.

Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 11:41 am
I have deleted nothing, that’s not my style, but I can’t help but notice that it’s Conlon’s style so maybe you’re confusing me with him. CC used to accuse me of the same but that wasn’t true either as you can see his spam all over my videos, but you are welcome to copy and paste what you think I’ve deleted. Two of CC’s posts were marked as spam and will remain so. Like him you are ignoring my requests to discuss the evidence mentioned in the post. Why should I give you the time of day when you constantly prove me right? Do you not see the irony responding to a post where I repeatedly predict that Judy Wood’s sycophants NEVER address the evidence of the lightly damaged cladding followed by the progressively worse-damaged steel, without mentioning said damage? They will attack me, or point to one distraction or another but NEVER will they explain how the evidence that has led me to my conclusions is more consistent with their conclusions. Never. You could be the first.
Reply

Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 12:26 pm
You commented on this post too, and I replied.
http://yankee451.com/?p=3975
Is that the comment you thought was deleted?
Dear concerned grandpa,
I agree with conspiracy cuber and Mark on this one. I will address your “Dust video” at least by saying: that it looks to be a solid piece trailing dust as many of the columns did. https://youtu.be/1rikh31huXY – this one is so obvious https://youtu.be/ikI5UIWi42w there’s 2 700ft columns that vanish in front of your eyeballs dude, if you have a problem with Judy Wood then research black projects and Tesla technology which was stolen and weaponized man, there’s plenty of evidence being ignored by you bro. So yes holography is done with the use of lasers and there are many ways those holes could have been created besides missiles, another story planted by MSM who you blame for fake TV. read the Airforce 2025 paper more evidence with a list of weapons, all which can explain every anomaly of 911, including the weather modification evidence you also ignore, I’m sure you’ve heard of the paper it talks about the holographic aircrafts… The videos are real all you have to do is call one of the videographers, I saw you say the military… Yes the Military Industrial complex, private corporations have done this and been taken to court. More evidence YOU have ignored mark conlon shouldn’t need to address a theory that’s not based in evidence in my opinion. I will also address your pinched cladding by saying read- where did the towers go, the Airforce 2025, study the Hutchinson effect, directed energy and black projects. Until then you are aiding in the cover up of 9/11 unfortunately. I don’t think a concerned grandpa would say this way. You want a better world as we do right? Why fight with researchers, free energy has been covered up for over 100 years and now used against us. Also please address conspiracy cubers questions. Thanks.
Unapprove | Reply | Quick Edit | Edit | History | Spam | Trash
Reply

Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 1:21 pm
I see you assuming that there are a number of ways this damage can be explained, but I missed your explanation. If you don’t like my prickly attitude perhaps you misjudge the level of my concern and how long I’ve had to deal with these same inane questions while having the evidence that would lead any rational person to a very logical conclusion is ignored. If you are really interested in the truth then tell me why if they could use any number of ways to create the gash, they chose to make it look like the lateral impact of cruise missiles. If it was to throw off the truth movement from the scent of “holograms” you’d think the truth movement would have been focusing on this evidence all along, instead of doing their damndest to ignore it while reaching for top-secret explanations for the collapses that both give the military godlike prowess and give us no way of verifying the claims (because they’re top-secret.) This is called appealing to authority in propaganda terms, but in research terms you might as well say unicorns did it and we can all go home.
Reply

Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 1:51 pm
Wolf,
You are on my page, ignoring everything I say. You are doing exactly what I accused Mark and all Judy Wood’s fawners of doing; repeating the same complaints, appealing to authority, “yeah-but what about…” up the yin-yang, while ignoring all the reasons why the evidence can be taken at face value. If you have a better explanation for it than the lateral impact of dense-metal projectiles that were much bigger and more dense in some places than they were in other places then please type a quick paragraph that explains it. If you want to write the same complaints again, please save it for your own page.
You assume a top secret weapon was used. Do you have any proof of this weapon’s existence? Do you have any proof at all that the damage caused by this top secret weapon is consistent with the damage to the twin towers, or are you just assuming so because you’re sure these guys who represent the class of people who have been claiming the power of the gods for generations, actually have that power? You didn’t notice that until the advent of the motion picture, they couldn’t “prove” they could do these things, eh?
Funny that you mention Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, considering they make the missiles that used off-the-shelf technology that was known to exist at the time, missiles that can easily account for the damage to the Twin Towers.
Reply

Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 2:27 pm
“So because we can’t prove the existence of an advanced weapon we should just assume it’s the next best thing.”
You could claim anything you want, but it seems odd that they would mimic something that can be explained by the lateral impact of dense metal projectiles, and not the impact of a jet like they were selling on television. A less breathless investigator might conclude that they used the best means they had, based on the known measurements and capabilities of the two objects.
“Oh because it’s in the public domain and we know more about it. Missiles… What about the other companies I listed. Lockheed Martin & Boeing aren’t the ones who investigated 9/11. Hmm ignoring it again are we? You make it sound as if what we’ve been shown is our most advanced weaponry.”
Be afraid, be very afraid. Just IMAGINE what they could do!
“They don’t hide anything from us right?”
No need, the fear of “what could happen” has already sunk in.
“No way they could have pulled one of these AF2025 weapons out of testing and development for Real Life use?”
Why bother, the brainwashing is complete.
“Not even to attack ourselves and trick everybody into starting a war?”
Same story has been done since before Hammurabi. Only difference is the mass media.
“Are you sure? No your not!!!”
Yep, certain. But what you’re saying is that we should be afraid of the unknown, which means they’ve already won the battle for your mind.
“That’s the problem though huh? You can’t be sure about it, so it can’t be possible? I’m sorry but that is way to Naive for an older gentlemen as yourself to be. It’s gotta be anything but the invisible technology right? That’s only in the Sci-Fi movies right? I would say: WAKE UP – but I suspect thats not your problem. You need an answer that no one can give you instead of pursuing justice.”
Grow up.
Reply

Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 3:04 pm
“Me grow up? Haha your a grandpa and your attacking other researchers because they support Dr. Judy Wood and are part of S cult right?
Grow up.”
Judy Wood was written into the script, so yeah, grow up.
Reply

Conspiracy Cuber · January 15, 2018 at 3:50 pm
Steve can you prove to me that this video is fake? https://archive.org/details/911TelevisionRaw Thanks

Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 4:49 pm
In reply to Steve De’ak.
Steve can you prove to me that this video is fake? https://archive.org/details/911TelevisionRaw
Yes, the damage on the left sides of both impact holes is proof that what was shown on television was faked, and because it is also proof that explosives alone couldn’t have done it, it is also proof that holograms, or a projected plane couldn’t have done it.

Conspiracy Cuber · January 15, 2018 at 5:19 pm
But what in THE VIDEO ITSELF shows that it is fake??

Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 6:26 pm
“But what in THE VIDEO ITSELF shows that it is fake??”
I don’t really care. The damage evidence proves that it’s fake; how it was done is beside the point.

Steve De'ak · January 16, 2018 at 4:03 pm
“So I’m an f***ing idiot am I?? Well, please address all my questions and I MIGHT take you seriously.”
I have, but some horses can’t even be led to water.
Reply

Steve De'ak · January 16, 2018 at 4:13 pm
You’re such a whiner. I invite the readers to suffer through the conversation this OP was spawned from. If they do they’ll find you crying the same whine. I answered your questions then, twice if I recall – for example:
yankee451
yankee451
6 months ago
1. If it’s the truth, why wouldn’t it matter?
2. It proves an intent to deceive, and it is consistent with the other
amateurs who were also using tripods, and it is a necessary tool for
such things as executing rehearsed camera movements, centering
buildings, and focusing, as well as for video editing.
3. Yes. That evidence is visible in the impact damage, as mentioned in
this 15-minute video:
https://youtu.be/FiLa_CyFAIM and in this 1-hour video: https://youtu.be/WKGh3CAoO64
4: After having been lied to by my government about so many things, why
would I believe anything without first verifying for myself?
5. I never said “every witness was lying,” I was referring to those who
insist they saw a plane enter the building as seen on television. They
are either lying or mistaken, because the impact evidence doesn’t lie.
6. I am a real amateur and in my experience it makes the footage much
more wobbly and difficult to center the subject in the view finder
especially if it is a moving target. To have 15 frames of near
motionless footage right before he tilts up to perfectly center the
incoming plane and follow it into the tower is what I would expect of a
practiced shot, and that’s the way I would have done it had I practiced
it. The rest of the footage is wobbly and shows obvious boat-motion,
which was clearly not visible in your footage.
7. I don’t want to argue, I want to solve the caper but Judy behaves as
if she already has but will NOT discuss the evidence that makes her
theory moot, and her followers simply defer to her authority. It is a
waste of time.
8. Why should it? Why wouldn’t I?
9: I think you should re-read what I wrote – I said 15 nearly motionless
frames, three of which are motionless. I withdraw the claim about two
frames and will no longer say so without including the caveat about the
zoom and the 13 other nearly motionless frames. I stand corrected. In
retrospect to have two frames of stable footage out of hundreds of
wobbly footage wouldn’t even have been noticed – it was the .5 seconds
of stable footage at just the right moment that caught my eye. I also
note that the rest of his footage was wobbly and showed exaggerated boat
movement EXCEPT for those fifteen stable frames which just so happened
to occur right before he tilts up to capture the plane. If I was to use
my amateur camera skills to try to fake a shot like Hezarkhani’s so as
to time the camera motion with whatever DID cause the damage to the
towers I would need a stable platform to practice the camera movements
with, and evidently Hezarkhani had one with the boat, a point which I
have already conceded.
10. Because your footage proved the boat was stable enough to not show
motion but Hezarhkhani’s footage shows obvious sideways rocking, which
would mean the big boat would have been in some pretty rough water to be
rocking stern to bow like that, so it would stand to reason that the
rocking would have continued through the fifteen frames. Instead it
appears the boat was very stable and therefore they were able to use a
dolly or tripod mounted camera to rock back and forth (mimicking the
rocking of a smaller boat as far as I can tell) but able to stabilize it
for the money shot. Can’t have it both ways.
11. Reread what I wrote.
12. Because many of the photos and videos include clues that explain
how it was done. I have worked with animation and with animators with
my own projects so I know how expensive, time consuming and difficult
they are to produce, there is no doubt that they would not work so hard
to produce clues that can explain how they did it so it makes more sense
to discredit ALL the videos and photos as a way to dispose of the
evidence. The only things they needed to fake were the planes, and even
that was difficult enough. The clues as to what really did it are in
the impact damage, which is what Judy and friends won’t touch.
Reply

Steve De'ak · January 16, 2018 at 4:23 pm
I have answered your questions for fucking months. All you do is evade and bitch and barf up the same old questions I have already answered, but you never do me the courtesy of answering my questions to you. Prove to me you’re not the poster child for useful idiots and tell me what cut the plane shaped hole.
Reply