| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:05 am Post subject: |
 |
|
This graph communicates the answers to your questions. The velocity of the plane is plotted frame by frame. You can see exactly what is occurring, frame by frame. Nose enters, nose hits tower, etc.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
egw
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 101
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Just as I thought: You are an idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I'll give you an opportunity to clarify. Do you have any intellectual foundation for your position? Can you present any data which conflict with mine? Can you offer any logic or reasoning? Can you point out errors in either my premise or methodology?
Do you bring anything at all besides childish name calling? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
egw
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 101
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Can you for my benefit, and for any other novices who might be reading this, tell us how many seconds it takes for 45 frames to elapse?
And do you really expect us to believe that the pixel induced inaccuracy of the video footage isn't more than enough explanation for any variance in speed in such a short span of time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
NTSC video is 30 frames per second. 45 frames is 1.5 seconds.
Below are control cases that show the margin of error. These are from videos comparable to, but slightly worse quality than Chopper 5.
I have offered data that demonstrate that the margin of error is way too low to account for the velocity variations. I will make the raw control videos available to you, if you wish to repeat the analysis for yourself.
Your position is that the margin of error is too high. Do you have anything at all to substantiate your position?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
egw
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 101
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pick any 5 you tube videos at random and I'm sure a few of them will display evidence of activity which upon your kind of analysis would be considered to be physically impossible.
Experts in the field refer to them as "SPQ anomalies" - short for Sh*t Picture Quality anomalies. The ccd set up on the channel 5 camera was only of a certain quality, and you simply can't reverse engineer measurement accuracy into a sloppy device.
Sorry.
BTW, the browser I use is called "Internet Explorer." Have you heard of it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ace Baker wrote: | Well, I'll give you an opportunity to clarify. Do you have any intellectual foundation for your position? Can you present any data which conflict with mine? Can you offer any logic or reasoning? Can you point out errors in either my premise or methodology?
Do you bring anything at all besides childish name calling? |
I knew I'd regret the expenditure of time over this, and I was right.
The nose clearly changes shape and length twice between frames 3 and 8;
and the entire forward fuselage elongates at frame 17.
You're basing your 'variable speed TV fakery theory' on extropolating the behaviour of digital pixelisation artefacts, which the gullible are meant to assume represents the three dimensional reality of the plane.
Childish name calling is the least of your worries if you truly consider your "research" soundly based and worthwhile. I'm sorry to inform you it's really just the usual misrepresented NPT sh*t - as usual, but repackaged to look like a 'technical analysis'.
What a joke.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coconut
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Graham, NC
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | You're basing your 'variable speed TV fakery theory' on extropolating the behaviour of digital pixelisation artefacts, which the gullible are meant to assume represents the three dimensional reality of the plane.
|
Yes, finally someone gets it! The No Plane theories are based exclusively on analysis of heavily compressed video and blurred photographs.
Digital compression destroys data. More compression = less quality. With digital video, this usually shows up as pixellation and exaggerated motion blur.
The pod theory uses the same erroneous analysis.
| Ace Baker wrote: | 1. Not accurate enough, could miss targets. Big problem.
2. Not strong enough, would mostly shred and bounce off, as in the Sandia F-4 test. Then, no excuse for "collapse".
3. Would leave real wreckage which could be investigated. Whether real passenger flights or substitutes, big problems with wreckage too. |
1. Yes, because a Boeing 767's navigation computer, capable of checking and altering parameters thousands of times per second, as well as landing and taking off automatically, is going to miss the Twin Towers.
2. A 767 travelling at +500MPH, I submit to you, would have been strong enough to tear through the perimeter columns of the towers. The F-4 test is no comparison. The wall used there was concrete which was several feet thick, the kind you would have protecting a nuclear reactor. Take a soft lead bullet and shoot it at a steel sign. I bet you it'll go through because of its high velocity.
3. So all of the aircraft debris found in Manhattan was planted there?
This entire issue is ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Chopper 5 video analyzed in my paper is not from YouTube. It is a hi-res (640 x 480) .mov file, linked in the paper.
It doesn't matter. Any video, at any resolution, with any amount of compression, is going to have limitations. Measuring velocity from any video is going to involve a margin of error. The point is to determine what that margin of error is.
I have done that.
For the quality of video used, we can expect variations in position to be no greater than 1 pixel.
A YouTube video may indeed have a greater margin of error, but that still would not render it useless for such analysis.
I believe I've corrected the display problem on the page, perhaps you can visit again and see if there really are any errors.
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Chopper5Velocity2.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ace Baker wrote: | The Chopper 5 video analyzed in my paper is not from YouTube. It is a hi-res (640 x 480) .mov file, linked in the paper.
It doesn't matter. Any video, at any resolution, with any amount of compression, is going to have limitations. Measuring velocity from any video is going to involve a margin of error. The point is to determine what that margin of error is.
I have done that. |
Have you ever heard of 'GIGO' - Garbage in, garbage out?
It's relevant because digital video (with the exception of special hi-speed kit) cannot do what you are expecting. What you fondly call hi-res (640 x 480) isn't fine enough to do what you're seeking to do.
I'll leave aside the fact that what you're really seeking to do is breathe new life into the dead No Planes disinfo meme by rebranding it as TV fakery for now.
| Ace Baker wrote: | | For the quality of video used, we can expect variations in position to be no greater than 1 pixel. |
And you arrive at this margin of error figure how exactly?
Low spec. 35mm film might be a way to do this, but even a hi-res 640x480 digital frame with a thirtieth of that resolution minimum cannot.
| Ace Baker wrote: | | A YouTube video may indeed have a greater margin of error, but that still would not render it useless for such analysis. |
I say it most certainly would. It's the visual equivalent of a generalistion that can't be clarified whichever way you chop it up.
The page displayed ok for me. It was the content (and purpose) that disappointed.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| egw wrote: | | Just as I thought: You are an idiot. |
Be polite and respect those who you disagree with please
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You guys are speaking categorically about something which is fundamentally a matter of degree. You are claiming that the margin of error is too great to make this analysis, but you have not shown how you have arrived at this conclusion.
I, on the other hand, have provided my data.
The margin of error was determined by taking a similar video, known to be authentic, and performing the same analysis, and seeing how much the velocity deviates. That section is here:
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Chopper5Velocity2.html#Contr ol_Case___Steady_Camera |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ace Baker wrote: | You guys are speaking categorically about something which is fundamentally a matter of degree. You are claiming that the margin of error is too great to make this analysis, but you have not shown how you have arrived at this conclusion.
I, on the other hand, have provided my data. |
In implying that 2-dimensional pixels can represent 3-dimensional space to the degree of accuracy you're claiming, your assumption about your data is highly questionable if not downright misleading.
Your control case is hardly similar at all.
You would need to have used a similar lens, with a similar depth of field, from a similar distance, in similar conditions, from a similar perspective. And in addition have an aircraft fly a similar curving (not linear) path to that flown by UA175.
Travelling at 540mph (792ft/sec) the plane would move approx 1200ft in the time represented by your 45 frames segment, yet it apparently covers a distance of almost exactly twice the width of the Towers (i.e. 400ft).
The deficiencies in your measurements and calculations are so glaring, need I go on?
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now you've abandoned your argument, and picked up a different one. That's OK.
The distance, perspective and conditions are similar. Depth of field is not relevant, the subjects are in focus. The planes in my control cases appear smaller in the picture than does "UA175". Therefore, they would have a greater margin of error than does Chopper 5.
The curvature of the flight path is quite insignificant in Chopper 5, and cannot be the source of error in any case. Here's why.
Imagine a plane moving a constant speed of, say 500 mph on a curved path. Say it begins perpendicular to the line of sight, and curves toward us. The apparent velocity would begin as 500 mph, and then gradually decrease as the plane began to face more and more toward us. This would explain how the apparent velocity could decrease gradually, but could not explain abrupt increases and decreases in velocity.
The only explanation for abrupt increases and decreases in velocity is camera motion.
Think this through guys. I know that video fakery and no planes is a lot to swallow, I hugged planes for two years. But there's just too many problems with the videos. On Chopper 5, the darn plane speeds up and slows down. If anyone can explain how Chopper 5 introduced such great errors, when my control videos don't, I'll listen. But just making such assertions, without anything to back it up, is just not persuasive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here are the unit conversions from my paper. Are you saying there is an error here? If so, please point it out.
Unit Conversions
Width of tower = 182 px = 208 feet
Scale = 1.14 feet/pixel
Distance from edge of picture to tower = 392 px = 446 feet
Nose travels from edge of picture to tower in 17 frames = 17/30 of a second
446 feet in 17/30 second = 788 feet / second = 537 mph
Largest variation in apparent velocity = 8 px/frame = 274 ft/sec. = 186 mph
Typical variation in apparent velocity = 5 px/frame = 182 ft/sec = 124 mph |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ace Baker wrote: | | Now you've abandoned your argument, and picked up a different one. That's OK. |
Erm... no - we're still on the same subject - i.e. the validity of the results of your analysis.
| Ace Baker wrote: | | The distance, perspective and conditions are similar. Depth of field is not relevant, the subjects are in focus. The planes in my control cases appear smaller in the picture than does "UA175". Therefore, they would have a greater margin of error than does Chopper 5. |
Even though all other criteria are different? I don't quite see how your assertion can follow.
| Ace Baker wrote: | The curvature of the flight path is quite insignificant in Chopper 5, and cannot be the source of error in any case. Here's why.
Imagine a plane moving a constant speed of, say 500 mph on a curved path. Say it begins perpendicular to the line of sight, and curves toward us. . |
That assumption depends on the location of the camera relative to the curve. Judging from the general haze, I'd estimate it to be well outside the imagined diameter of the flightpath.
| Ace Baker wrote: | The apparent velocity would begin as 500 mph, and then gradually decrease as the plane began to face more and more toward us. This would explain how the apparent velocity could decrease gradually, but could not explain abrupt increases and decreases in velocity.
The only explanation for abrupt increases and decreases in velocity is camera motion. |
Quite - and the Towers themselves do drift across the distance of two letters of the logo as the camera's POV changes during the final phase of the flight. Yet you're calculating pixel distances as if having 'stabilised' the edge of the building, the camera is stationary. On the contrary, the camera's motion is critical to the accuracy of your analysis for the reason you state.
| Ace Baker wrote: | | Think this through guys. I know that video fakery and no planes is a lot to swallow, I hugged planes for two years. But there's just too many problems with the videos. On Chopper 5, the darn plane speeds up and slows down. If anyone can explain how Chopper 5 introduced such great errors, when my control videos don't, I'll listen. But just making such assertions, without anything to back it up, is just not persuasive. |
I've already stated over several posts why I believe your findings are faulty without restating them again.
But I will add it's not about 'hugging' planes - it's about establishing evidence for a specific purpose; and for me at least your evidence isn't even convincing enough on its own, never mind in the full context of the events in NYC that day.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chek, forgive me, but you're avoiding the issues, and you did switch your argument. The first argument was that margin of error is too large, the second argument was that a curved flight path could somehow cause apparent abrupt speeding up and slowing down. That's two completely different arguments.
You haven't explained why you think my paper is in error, other than the vague assertion that the quality of the video is too low, and/or that the conditions of my control video are not similar enough.
The curvature of the flight path is a complete red herring. A curved flight path, on video, will present a smooth graph line. It would increase or decrease, yes, but it would do so gradually. It could not speed up and slow down repeatedly.
It appears that you have assumed the legitimacy of the video, and then assumed there must be something wrong with my analysis.
All photos and videos, of any quality, will have a margin of error. The point is to determine what the margin of error is, and make sure the data are significantly larger than the possible error. I have done that.
Suppose you tell me what you think the margin of error is in the Chopper 5 video, and why you think so.
[/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ace Baker wrote: | Chek, forgive me, but you're avoiding the issues, and you did switch your argument. The first argument was that margin of error is too large, the second argument was that a curved flight path could somehow cause apparent abrupt speeding up and slowing down. That's two completely different arguments.
You haven't explained why you think my paper is in error, other than the vague assertion that the quality of the video is too low, and/or that the conditions of my control video are not similar enough.
The curvature of the flight path is a complete red herring. A curved flight path, on video, will present a smooth graph line. It would increase or decrease, yes, but it would do so gradually. It could not speed up and slow down repeatedly.
It appears that you have assumed the legitimacy of the video, and then assumed there must be something wrong with my analysis.
All photos and videos, of any quality, will have a margin of error. The point is to determine what the margin of error is, and make sure the data are significantly larger than the possible error. I have done that.
Suppose you tell me what you think the margin of error is in the Chopper 5 video, and why you think so.
[/i] |
With regard to chopper 5, the POV is changing as the camera moves not only in a north easterly direction but is also climbing (notice the WTC roofline drop between the first and last frames) while Flt 175 is also curving. There is also a high probabilty that the multi element telephoto lens is also in motion. I can't see how you've possibly allowed for all those conditions in a graph with only 2 axes.
Further, there are too many variables for a 2D lo-res video analysis with all the attendant previously mentioned problems inherent in the format. Pixels are being added, subtracted and blended frame by frame by compression algorithms optimised with acceptable full speed output viewing than split second scrutiny in mind.
The only way I can conceive to improve the margin of error would be to recalculate the overall scene through a 3D computer simulation - but even with that we're back to a GIGO situation using this source material alone. There just isn't enough fine detail visible to fix any meaninful reference points.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
With regard to chopper 5, the POV is changing as the camera moves not only in a north easterly direction but is also climbing (notice the WTC roofline drop between the first and last frames) while Flt 175 is also curving. There is also a high probabilty that the multi element telephoto lens is also in motion. I can't see how you've possibly allowed for all those conditions in a graph with only 2 axes.
|
Well, then let me explain it to you. I stabilized the video, holding the towers motionless. The video can then be analyzed as if there was no camera movement. You are quite correct that camera motion will affect apparent velocity, and that is the whole point of the study.
I am measuring the horizontal velocity of the airplane. That parameter must be stable on an authentic video. How many control videos would it take to convince you of this?
| Quote: |
Further, there are too many variables for a 2D lo-res video analysis with all the attendant previously mentioned problems inherent in the format. Pixels are being added, subtracted and blended frame by frame by compression algorithms optimised with acceptable full speed output viewing than split second scrutiny in mind.
|
Frames are recorded at a very precise rate of 29.97 per second. Even consumer camcorders must be this accurate, or NTSC video would not work at all.
During digitization, frames remain discrete. You seem to be suggesting that information from one frame gets "blended" into other frames, and that is simply not true.
| Quote: |
The only way I can conceive to improve the margin of error would be to recalculate the overall scene through a 3D computer simulation - but even with that we're back to a GIGO situation using this source material alone. There just isn't enough fine detail visible to fix any meaninful reference points. |
I didn't ask you how to improve the margin of error, I asked you what you thought the margin of error is. How accurately can the position of the plane be measured? Within 100 pixels? 50? 10? 3? What do you think it is, and why?
My control videos would have all of the same problems as Chopper 5, and are of slightly worse resolution. If what you say is true, then how was I able to obtain such stable results on my control videos? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Ace Baker"] | chek wrote: |
With regard to chopper 5, the POV is changing as the camera moves not only in a north easterly direction but is also climbing (notice the WTC roofline drop between the first and last frames) while Flt 175 is also curving. There is also a high probabilty that the multi element telephoto lens is also in motion. I can't see how you've possibly allowed for all those conditions in a graph with only 2 axes.
|
| Ace Baker wrote: | Well, then let me explain it to you. I stabilized the video, holding the towers motionless. The video can then be analyzed as if there was no camera movement. You are quite correct that camera motion will affect apparent velocity, and that is the whole point of the study.
I am measuring the horizontal velocity of the airplane. That parameter must be stable on an authentic video. How many control videos would it take to convince you of this? |
Your stabilisation can only occur in two dimensions (left-right/ up-down) which you are contending is a reasonable substitute for 3 dimensions. If it is resulting in uneven motion (which even the video fakery inlay you propose wouldn't suffer from) then clearly your assumed compensations aren't adequate.
| Quote: |
Further, there are too many variables for a 2D lo-res video analysis with all the attendant previously mentioned problems inherent in the format. Pixels are being added, subtracted and blended frame by frame by compression algorithms optimised with acceptable full speed output viewing rather than split second scrutiny in mind.
|
| Ace Baker wrote: | Frames are recorded at a very precise rate of 29.97 per second. Even consumer camcorders must be this accurate, or NTSC video would not work at all.
During digitization, frames remain discrete. You seem to be suggesting that information from one frame gets "blended" into other frames, and that is simply not true. |
And yet each period of 1/30th of a second is not totally discrete, due to comparative frame analysis by the codec as it calculates which part and how much of the frame to change based on the preceeding one. This is how MPEG2 compression works.
| Quote: |
The only way I can conceive to improve the margin of error would be to recalculate the overall scene through a 3D computer simulation - but even with that we're back to a GIGO situation using this source material alone. There just isn't enough fine detail visible to fix any meaninful reference points. |
| Ace Baker wrote: | | I didn't ask you how to improve the margin of error, I asked you what you thought the margin of error is. How accurately can the position of the plane be measured? Within 100 pixels? 50? 10? 3? What do you think it is, and why? |
Because that is not what the video format recording the scene is designed to do, I have no meaningful answer to that. And just as importantly neither do you. We can guess, but even after consulting with experts it would remain a guess, variable from frame to frame.
| Ace Baker wrote: | | My control videos would have all of the same problems as Chopper 5, and are of slightly worse resolution. If what you say is true, then how was I able to obtain such stable results on my control videos? |
Your control videos show an airplane much closer travelling in a straight line probably on a steady accelerating climb after take off, probably at half-to-one-third the speed of UA175 in far clearer visibility affording much better definition. In my estimation the control data is so different to the case data as to render it of little comparitive value.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us.
Last edited by chek on Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:33 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catfish
Validated Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 430
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
I knew I'd regret the expenditure of time over this, and I was right. |
 No regrets eh chek?
_________________
Govern : To control
Ment : The mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| catfish wrote: | | chek wrote: |
I knew I'd regret the expenditure of time over this, and I was right. |
No regrets eh chek? |
They're probably laughing their legs off at all this down at the NWO wheeltappers and shunters club.
Hopefully one day soon it will prove to be hollow laughter.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's try a little experiment. Watch this YouTube video and tell me if it is real or fake. Then explain why you think so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjBMBAB8jAU |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StopThe9/11CoverUp
Minor Poster
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 74
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Im not going to bother reading the other 3 pages of this thread seeing as the majority of the first was basically ridiculing the very important points raised by the topic writer.
The most valid points in the original post are:
Why use fake TV imagery to MAKE people believe a plane has hit the Twin Towers and then subsequently having to silence witnesses who never saw a plane hit the towers.
having planes really flying into the towers would be 1: so much more easier for people to believe as many people would see it happen and 2: it would ease the amount of work making people believe that no planes hit the towers.
A perfect example of why the US government would not try to fake it is the failed attempt to make out that jessica lynch was actually kidnapped by iraqis. That attempt to "fake" the evidence was a complete bungle.
If they could not get people to believe that then there is no way they would be so succesful faking planes on 9/11 and so unsuccesfull on such a minor job as jessica lynch.
you are in fact missing NOTHING.
You have asked yourself what possibly are the best questions to ask yourself regarding no planers and have concluded like myself and many, many others that planes were indeed used in the "attacks".
Thank you so much for the post, spot on points that are so obviously valid that any no planer cannot argue without sounding ridiculous.
My thanks again.
Ade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're assuming that which is not true. You're assuming that a plane would just penetrate the building and stop inside.
Imagine you're the perps. A 767 has never hit a twin tower before. You don't know exactly what's going to happen. You can have your engineers calculate all day, you don't know exactly where it's going to hit, and you don't know how many floors it is going to encounter.
What if major parts of it deflect away and fall to the ground? You've got real people down there who might find something incriminating.
What if it hits a few floors above or below where it was supposed to? Now how do you engineer the demolition to look like a collapse?
What if a passenger survives the crash? It has happened. Now you have a guy who says there were no hijackers.
There are problems with no planes and video fakery, but they are smaller problems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ace Baker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 107
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And do try my experiment from above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ace Baker wrote: |
There are problems with no planes and video fakery, but they are smaller problems. |
You have got to be kidding.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
