9/11: The Smoking Gun

[threadworm]

Still trying to pump this fast smell into the lift eh?

It's as stupid, ill-thought oitand I correct as it was when you first started it.

Kickstarter not raised enough I guess.

 

[smartcooky]

Boeing 727-200

Small correction - Boeing 767-200 series (specifically a 767-222)

 

[MBDK]

a large majority of members, or viewers, they would not know this context you speak of...nor should it be assumed that they would

Since the animation in smartcooky's post is headed by the point he is trying to disparage, and as that point is a direct reference to a claim made in the vimeo video in this threads lead post, the only ones who would not know the context would be those who had either not seen the video, nor ever heard of the old chestnut theory of missiles used instead of planes on 9/11. As this is in the 9/11 conspiracy thread, I find it conspicuously illogical to think the majority of readers would not know this context. IMO, your criticism is unjustified.

Thank you for the time and effort, smartcooky. I think it is a relevant and well-produced animation to rebuke the nonsense.

 

[Warp12]

1. I suggest you do your research before you pop your head up and criticise others. At least ASK before you spout off your opinion, and before declaring someone else's actual work to be the result of "cognitive bias" (for which, by the way, you have presented no evidence)."

2. I would contest your "large majority of members, or viewers, they would not know this context" statement. The large majority would see the title of the thread and who the OP was, and steer the hell clear.

3. Those of us who dare to dip their toes into a thread such as this are fully aware of the abject nonsense we are likely to encounter from any Twoofers that might come here.

4. You may not be aware, but this thread is just a fringe reset of the OP's previous nonsensical claptrap...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341275

... which was itself a fringe reset of his previous pile of steaming faeces...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271571




I did not represent it to be "factual", I represented it to be "accurate"



I have already given you a basic outline of how I made it, but to clarify, I used photogrammetric analysis of still frames from a number of different videos, as well as photos taken just prior to impact. To do this, I researched the dimensions of the South Tower to find the known distances between the windows and between the rows of windows, and compared these with the known wingspan of a Boeing 727-200, in order to determine both the scale of the line drawing and, as accurately as possible, the bank angle of the aircraft. I repeated this several times with different images to eliminate errors as much as possible.... and yes, I did allow for the various angles and elevations the different videos and images were taken from.

Now, if you are not satisfied with that answer, tough! I'm sorry, but I am not going to waste my time doing it all over again just for your benefit, especially as I know, from your body of work, that you have already made up your mind you won't accept anything I tell you.

But what this really comes down to is, you made an animation with a line drawing, where you overlay a wire diagram of a jet in order to validate your predetermined theory. Based on a lot of fuzzy video and assumptions, it would seem.

As I say, this is no different than what 'footers do with some of their media. I had thought you would tell me that scientists at MIT had determined this, or some such thing. Instead, you have basically validated my opinion that there is confirmation bias at play. And I had no idea that you personally created the animation.

This sort of armchair analysis is not beneficial for either side of the debate, imo.

 

[bknight]

Multiple cruise missiles? Were these the same cruise missiles that brought down TWA 800 and shot Societ nuclear weapons and Jewish space lasers out into outer space?

That was one of my memories, several cruise missiles flying on an exact trajectory, hitting the tower in a succession of westward points. They are accurate but not that accurate i real life.

 

[smartcooky]

But what this really comes down to is, you made an animation with a line drawing, where you overlay a wire diagram of a jet in order to validate your predetermined theory. Based on a lot of fuzzy video and assumptions, it would seem.

As I say, this is no different than what 'footers do with some of their media. I had thought you would tell me that scientists at MIT had determined this, or some such thing. Instead, you have basically validated my opinion that there is confirmation bias at play. And I had no idea that you personally created the animation.

This sort of armchair analysis is not beneficial for either side of the debate, imo.

Well you are just plain wrong. That the towers were struck by airliners is not "my theory", its not even a theory at all, its a clearly observed fact that actually needs no validation.

There is a huge difference between what you accuse me of... "overlaying a wire diagram of a jet in order to validate my predetermined theory", and what I actually did, which was to create an animation that confirms an observation (that the towers were struck by airliners), as well as to debunk someone else's preposterous theory that the wings of an airliner could not have made, and do not match, the damage pattern seen on the south tower and therefore "they" used multiple cruise missiles to fake that damage pattern.

I suggest you go read through the two threads I linked to in post #20 (because you clearly have not done so, otherwise you would not still be failing to understand the context). Making this effort will at least allow you to acquaint yourself with the substance of the debate, because at the moment, you are well and truly out of your depth here, and looking more and more like a closet 9/11 truther with every post you make.

 

[Gamolon]

But what this really comes down to is, you made an animation with a line drawing, where you overlay a wire diagram of a jet in order to validate your predetermined theory. Based on a lot of fuzzy video and assumptions, it would seem.

As I say, this is no different than what 'footers do with some of their media. I had thought you would tell me that scientists at MIT had determined this, or some such thing. Instead, you have basically validated my opinion that there is confirmation bias at play. And I had no idea that you personally created the animation.

This sort of armchair analysis is not beneficial for either side of the debate, imo.

"Predetermined theory"?

Do you think that a plane impacting the tower has not been proven yet? That there's no substantial evidence PROVING a plane impacted the tower?

 

[sts60]

What really angers Warp12 is that they were woke cruise missiles.

 

[Stellafane]

Wrong. Its not confirmation bias at all, and you have no ******* idea what you are talking about.

I don't have the capacity to understand it, so it must be stupid and wrong.

 

[Warp12]

"Predetermined theory"?

Do you think that a plane impacting the tower has not been proven yet? That there's no substantial evidence PROVING a plane impacted the tower?

Obviously you read none of the other posts where I made it clear that I don't believe in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. I just don't think that drawing a picture and overlaying it on a blurry hole in a building proves anything. Particularly, the claims of mathematical accuracy seem suspect.

I'd say I could draw a picture of Rodan and overlay it, to scale, on the same hole. It wouldn't prove that a giant reptile flew into the building, would it? We have better evidence than that, so we don't need to resort to such flimsy methods.

But hey, I'm no skeptic.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'd say I could draw a picture of Rodan and overlay it, to scale, on the same hole. It wouldn't prove that a giant reptile flew into the building, would it? We have better evidence than that, so we don't need to resort to such flimsy methods.

Rodan doesn't exist and we didn't all watch with our own eyes Rodan fly into the buildings.

 

[Warp12]

Rodan doesn't exist and we didn't all watch with our own eyes Rodan fly into the buildings.

See, you get it. We have better evidence than to rely on what was presented via the sort of animation in question. In fact, no evidence was presented at all....just a random animation without supporting facts.

Don't we often scoff at this same sort of "evidence" when it is presented by truthers? I believe that has already occurred in this thread.

 

[Gamolon]

Obviously you read none of the other posts where I made it clear that I don't believe in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

So you believe that a plane impacted the tower right? That there is an ample amount of evidence to prove this correct?

If you say yes to the second question, then how is it a "predetermined theory"?

I just don't think that drawing a picture and overlaying it on a blurry hole in a building proves anything. Particularly, the claims of mathematical accuracy seem suspect.

It doesn't prove anything? It's part of the body of evidence that a plane impacted the tower. It helps show that a plane matches the damage pattern.[/quote]

I'd say I could draw a picture of Rodan and overlay it, to scale, on the same hole. It wouldn't prove that a giant reptile flew into the building, would it? We have better evidence than that, so we don't need to resort to such flimsy methods.

No you can't! How ridiculous! Rodan doesn't exist. Nobody is claiming that Rodan impacted the tower.

But hey, I'm no skeptic.

Obviously.

 

[Gamolon]

Don't we often scoff at this same sort of "evidence" when it is presented by truthers? I believe that has already occurred in this thread.

Because there is no other supporting evidence that corroborates the "evidence" we scoffed at.

 

[Warp12]

So you believe that a plane impacted the tower right? That there is an ample amount of evidence to prove this correct?

If you say yes to the second question, then how is it a "predetermined theory"?


It doesn't prove anything? It's part of the body of evidence that a plane impacted the tower. It helps show that a plane matches the damage pattern.


No you can't! How ridiculous! Rodan doesn't exist. Nobody is claiming that Rodan impacted the tower.



Obviously.

My belief is that the towers were impacted by aircraft, yes.

If someone believes a plane impacted the tower, and then draws a picture of a plane fitting in the hole...is that your standard of evidence when it is presented singularly, without supporting data? Even the person who created it stated that it was not "factual"...only "accurate". I think that means, only to scale? Or something.

It is about standards of evidence, and how that changes once we are already invested in a belief. You are free to accept whatever you like as "proof". But I suggest that the standard be applied equally.

That's all. And I won't debate it further.

 

[RolandRat]

My belief is that the towers were impacted by aircraft, yes.

If someone believes a plane impacted the tower, and then draws a picture of a plane fitting in the hole...is that your standard of evidence when it is presented singularly, without supporting data? Even the person who created it stated that it was not "factual"...only "accurate". I think that means, only to scale? Or something.

It is about standards of evidence, and how that changes once we are already invested in a belief. You are free to accept whatever you like as "proof". But I suggest that the standard be applied equally.

That's all. And I won't debate it further.

When that animation is provided to supplement the copious amount of other evidence to support the fact that planes flew into the towers then yes, it's good enough. The animation isn't being supplied to stand alone on it's own merits.

 

[Gamolon]

My belief is that the towers were impacted by aircraft, yes.

And the evidence available proves it was a plane and that it could not be anything else correct?

 

[Gamolon]

When that animation is provided to supplement the copious amount of other evidence to support the fact that planes flew into the towers then yes, it's good enough. The animation isn't being supplied to stand alone on it's own merits.

 

[Gamolon]

But what this really comes down to is, you made an animation with a line drawing, where you overlay a wire diagram of a jet in order to validate your predetermined theory. Based on a lot of fuzzy video and assumptions, it would seem.

If I had a video of you throwing a baseball through my window, collected the baseball from within my home that had your fingerprints on it, and had 10 witnesses stating that they saw you throw the baseball through my window, and I said "You threw a baseball through my window!", is my statement considered a theory?

 

[Axxman300]

There are plenty of salient points to be made about why 9/11 conspiracy theories hold no water. "Blurfoot" type animations, as presented, do not factor into this.

I mean, even suggesting such is so patently ridiculous that it makes me laugh. We don't need this sort of fanciful "evidence" to prove that jets flew into the towers.

Remember, as critical thinkers we need apply a higher standard to our analysis.

We are dealing with child-level intellect. Cartoons work better than physics when dealing with Truthers. Both impacts are on video, with WTC-2 being filmed from dozens of angles. Yet the counter argument is that these are holograms.

Hey, if you want to waste time writing up the thousands of reasons that holograms would be physically impossible in an attempt to persuade this particular poster he's wrong, go right ahead.

I thought real skeptics work smarter, not harder. This branch of the forum is full of threads dating back over a decade full of the detailed analysis you demand. Analysis from serious experts who took the time to lay out the why's and how's of 9-11, only to be countered by Truthers with, "Nuh uh".

Most of the old Truthers have moved on. We're stuck with the nutjobs.