Magically Healing Steel Columns

If I were a CTer questioning 911 in a calm, rational way, I would probably want to slap troothydude upside the head for making me and my 'movement' look like an idiot.
 
Totovader said:
How did you...

When was I born?

Have you heard about this million dollar challenge some guy has? You should think about trying out for it...
Click to expand...


Well, I eyeballed the width of the WTC and compared it to the width of the image. Divided up the horizontal resolution thusly, to determine how many pixels roughtly make up the face of the WTC. The width of a face is a given (207ft) so from that we can determine the pixel/foot ratio.

Obviously it's hideously rough. But it's better than nothing. :p

Now one of the aviation genius' can tell us what the thickness of a 767 wing is, and from that we can determine how many pixels the initial impact hole should be... :D

-Gumboot
 
OK I see that there are a few different interpretations of what happened here.

1) There was no plane at all. Instead an illusion of a plane was projected to appear to fly into the side of a building and then an explosion was caused with pyrotechnics.

2) There was a plane that flew into the side of a building but it didn't explode. The apparent explosion was caused by pyrotechnics

3) There was a plane that didn't fly into the side of a building. It appeared to do so by some trickery. An explosion was then caused by pyrotechnics

4) A plane flew into the side of a building and exploded.

I see nothing to dispute version 4. Yes, you've got one frame of grainy video with fails to clearly capture one wing. This can easily be explained by the quality of the footage. To believe in version 4 you need to make one minor ad hoc justification.

To believe in version 2 you need to explain not only how a fully fuelled Jet can crash without exploding but how this could have been anticipated by those whose job it apparently was to make it look like it exploded. The question of why you would go to the effort of stopping an explosion only to replace it with a fake explosion immediately springs to mind. Why not just fly a plane into the side of the tower? It would seem to be capable of achieving the same results.

To believe versions 1 or 3 you need to explain who such an illusion could have been pulled off to fool thousands of independent observers who witnessed the event from all angles. - it's the sort of mass illusion that would put David Copperfield to shame. I suppose a giant mirror could have been erected to reflect the second tower but this illusion must work from all angles. Then of course you need to convince the friends and families of all those people on the flight list to go along with your deceptions and the people on the flight list to pretend that they're dead. That's a suggestion of a very wide ranging conspiracy. Alternatively you could actually kill those people, after all, if you're prepared to kill all the people in the tower, a few more deaths won't make too much difference to your conscience. Of course this raises the question of why you would perform such an elaborate illusion. Why not just fly a plane into the side of the tower? It would seem to be capable of achieving the same results.

So please Truth Seeker which version of events are you suggesting.
 
Ocelot said:
OK I see that there are a few different interpretations of what happened here.

1) There was no plane at all. Instead an illusion of a plane was projected to appear to fly into the side of a building and then an explosion was caused with pyrotechnics.

2) There was a plane that flew into the side of a building but it didn't explode. The apparent explosion was caused by pyrotechnics

3) There was a plane that didn't fly into the side of a building. It appeared to do so by some trickery. An explosion was then caused by pyrotechnics

4) A plane flew into the side of a building and exploded.

I see nothing to dispute version 4. Yes, you've got one frame of grainy video with fails to clearly capture one wing. This can easily be explained by the quality of the footage. To believe in version 4 you need to make one minor ad hoc justification.

To believe in version 2 you need to explain not only how a fully fuelled Jet can crash without exploding but how this could have been anticipated by those whose job it apparently was to make it look like it exploded. The question of why you would go to the effort of stopping an explosion only to replace it with a fake explosion immediately springs to mind. Why not just fly a plane into the side of the tower? It would seem to be capable of achieving the same results.

To believe versions 1 or 3 you need to explain who such an illusion could have been pulled off to fool thousands of independent observers who witnessed the event from all angles. - it's the sort of mass illusion that would put David Copperfield to shame. I suppose a giant mirror could have been erected to reflect the second tower but this illusion must work from all angles. Then of course you need to convince the friends and families of all those people on the flight list to go along with your deceptions and the people on the flight list to pretend that they're dead. That's a suggestion of a very wide ranging conspiracy. Alternatively you could actually kill those people, after all, if you're prepared to kill all the people in the tower, a few more deaths won't make too much difference to your conscience. Of course this raises the question of why you would perform such an elaborate illusion. Why not just fly a plane into the side of the tower? It would seem to be capable of achieving the same results.

So please Truth Seeker which version of events are you suggesting.
Click to expand...



I don't think I've ever seen Occam's Razor so expertly and simply applied to thoroughly debunk ever CT plane-related theory at once in a single succinct post.

Bravo sir!

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Well, I eyeballed the width of the WTC and compared it to the width of the image. Divided up the horizontal resolution thusly, to determine how many pixels roughtly make up the face of the WTC. The width of a face is a given (207ft) so from that we can determine the pixel/foot ratio.

Obviously it's hideously rough. But it's better than nothing. :p

Now one of the aviation genius' can tell us what the thickness of a 767 wing is, and from that we can determine how many pixels the initial impact hole should be... :D

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

It's simple, it's interesting, but it would have been more impressive if you were a psychic.
 
Mobyseven said:
It's simple, it's interesting, but it would have been more impressive if you were a psychic.
Click to expand...


Let these mere mortals enjoy their "science" a little longer. The Devout Brotherhood of the Eyes of the Father shall have our age of victory soon enough.

-Gumboot
 
So, TS1+2=4, are you on a crusade to prove without any doubt you are the most moronic poster in history? You do have some stiff competition, but so far you've shown yourself worthy of the mantle.
What is this supposed to prove, other than the fact it's a crappy screen shot of a grainy video?
 
gumboot said:
I don't think I've ever seen Occam's Razor so expertly and simply applied to thoroughly debunk ever CT plane-related theory at once in a single succinct post.

Bravo sir!
Click to expand...

Seconded.

Motion to strike TruthSeeker1234's nonsense from the record and move on to the next agenda item.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
It is absurd to contend that the resolution in the above video is too poor to notice the huge plane-shaped hole.
Click to expand...
I thought we were looking for a slice where the wing went in!

The trouble is, that resolution of that video is too poor to even see if the wing is still outside or has gone in. If you take still images from two comparable videos, but then zoom in on one and blow it up, there may be more pixels per meter of the building, but that doesn't mean that the resolution is any better. Enlarging a small blurry image just gives you a large blurry image.

Since you didn't know that, here's a tip: if you ever shop for a telescope, do not make the common newbie mistake of comparing the magnification of the different models. Any small telescope can magnify images beyond the point that you would ever want to do so, and a 400x magnification does you no good with a 50 mm objective lens. You'll end up looking at big blurry blobs that are difficult to keep in view.

Since the thickness of the wing in your video still is around the same size as the spacing of the perimeter columns, to determine whether you can see the wing-hole, you'll need an image that you can clearly discern the individual perimeter columns. The resolution of the image you have is too low.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Here are 9 frames to study. Frame 6 is the same as the one frame I posted on the other thread. The two white puffy shapes in frame 6 are explosions, not the engines.
Click to expand...

Or, to be entirely precise, they are the explosions resulting from the engines hitting the building, as your sequence very clearly shows.

There is plenty enough resolution to see the gash in the side of the building, if it were there during this time frame.
Click to expand...

Yes, probably. So why do we not see the gash in the side? Well, what caused the gash? .... Right! the plane passing through. And since, in your picture, the plane is still in the process of passing through, the hole after it is not there yet.

Now, that hole, was it plane-shaped? I mean exactly plane-shaped like in a cartoon? .... No, it was not, it was a large ragged hole, roughly in the shape of a plane. How can that be? Well, what happens is that the impacting plane imparts momentum to the parts of the wall it hits, and they fly away. However, at the very instant of impact, that hasn't happened yet. What hole might be there at that instant is just exactly the size of the plane, and that (the thin opening from the wing, the rest of the hole is still occupied by parts of the plane) is too narrow to see in the low-res video.

Look at the second sequence on this page (the one with the lemon):

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/exhibit-7.html

See how the bullet seems to just slip trough the surface, and only afterwards does the hole explode into existence.

Look at this frame from a different video, showing the gash in WTC1. The towers are much farther away, so the resolution on them is far worse, yet you can clearly see the gash.
Click to expand...

Yes, because this is after the hole has, not only been fully developed, but further enlarged by the subsequent fuel explosion.

You can even make out the pieces of aluminum cladding that were protruding.
Click to expand...

Actually not. Those might as well be JPEG compression artefacts, but since we know that cladding was indeed protruding, we interpret it as such.

It is absurd to contend that the resolution in the above video is too poor to notice the huge plane-shaped hole.
Click to expand...

And nobody does. The huge hole only came after the plane had passed entirely through, and the one you see on later shots was further enlarged by the fuel explosion.

Hans
 
Consternatio said:
My god. Those 9 frames show the murder of hundreds of people and the subsequent death of hundreds/thousands more. You're watching a plane full of people who may well have known exactly what was happening to them, being slammed into a building of people who may or may not have entirely unaware of their fate.
Click to expand...
Those on the left side of the plane could clearly see that the plane was going to hit the tower due to the banking of the plane.

Good god. There just aren't words.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
I pop in these threads every once in a while just to get my dose of lunacy for the week.

At first I always just thought I was behind the times, due to my trouble understand what the OP is supposed to mean.

Now I understand that the OP doesn't even know what It is supposed to mean, the poster is just on crack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom