Debunking Pinnochio's Nose

[Travis]

Please start your autobiography, suggested title:
Nebulous Neurons, Un-snapped Synapses and Dead-end Dendrites (The Brain That Never Was)

I can't wait for the sequel: Electro-Chemical Signals that weren't (The Central Nervous System that will never be)

Do not approach the Internet.

Do not look the Internet in the eye.

Do not run from the Internet.

Absolutely do not taunt the Internet.

Never get in between a mother Internet and her Internetling.

 

[Belz...]

I know exactly what keying is. You cannot insert an aircraft impact and explosion onto a plate of the WTC through chroma-keying. It's simply not possible.

The aircraft is obscured by the towers at impact. That means the helicopter shot of the towers is the foreground plate. Now you might argue that you could key the sky, except that the lighting, exposure and angle of the sun makes this impossible.

Keying the sky is not as easy as you might think anyway. This shot was taken from a great distance away. The UV haze (which is clearly visible in the shot) causes bleed from the sky onto background objects such as the towers. Thus any attempt to key out the sky would result in partial loss of the buildings.





The aircraft is the background plate. It has to be keyed behind the buildings.

Your entire premise is a farce. If they are prepping plate shots in advance of the event, there's no need to do anything live - they can simply insert pre-prepared footage into the broadcast.

Your problem is there are dozens and dozens of videos of the impact, from a range of sources. Your problem is there are dozens and dozens of still photos of this event.

Your problem is hundreds of thousands of people saw this event WITH THEIR OWN EYES. You cannot explain this away. Your theory is utterly ridiculous.

-Gumboot

PWNED.

That's why we have the truth, and they have the twoof.

 

[Belz...]

Do not look the Internet in the eye.

When you stare into the Internet, the Internet stares back into you.

 

[Travis]

When you stare into the Internet, the Internet stares back into you.

Great reworking of the famous Nietzsche quote.

 

[aggle-rithm]

You gotta cut them a break seeing as how they're doing all this on super equipment no one has even heard of before! OR does that mean it should be flawless?

That's a good point -- since when has a radically new technology worked well enough to entrust to it a task that requires 100% reliability?

Remember the Patriot missiles in the first Gulf War?

 

[TjW]

<snippage by TjW>
The aircraft could have been CGI, but there is no reason that it couldn't be a real video. If I were doing it, I would have shot a real 767 flying north simultaneously from a great variety of angles, done so at around 9 a.m. on a clear day, and then taken all the backgrounds out. This would have been done ahead of time obviously. We'd be left with videos of a real 767 flying against a transparency.

Of course, if you had done this, then the image of the plane would not have slowed after having "hit" the image of the building.

 

[Travis]

That's a good point -- since when has a radically new technology worked well enough to entrust to it a task that requires 100% reliability?

Remember the Patriot missiles in the first Gulf War?

But George H. W. Bush went on TV and said "Thank God for the Patriot Missile. Forty-two Scuds engaged, forty-one intercepted."* Are you saying he was wrong? I'm not sure I'm prepared to accept such a radical notion that politicians might sometimes be wrong.

As for the notion that real time special effects of this nature is workable...I know of no technology that I'd entrust with something of such importance. If it doesn't work, after all, I go to jail. You'd have to really trust those tech guys to pull this off.

*Quote taken from Rick Atkinson's book Crusade. A very interesting and in depth look at the Gulf War. I'd recommend it.

 

[JC Fla]

Travis, the question to ask is, how many Patriots fired to intercept each Scud? They may have got all the Scuds, but at a 5 to 1 use rate, for example. H.W. may not have lied, he just did not embellish the truth.

 

[Travis]

Travis, the question to ask is, how many Patriots fired to intercept each Scud? They may have got all the Scuds, but at a 5 to 1 use rate, for example. H.W. may not have lied, he just did not embellish the truth.

Well I'm not saying he lied. From a strict definition of intercept he was correct, 41 of 42 times Patriots went up and hit the incoming Scud. Problem is that the Patriot was a point defense system and simply knocking the incoming missile a kilometer or two off course is a success for a point defense system. In Israel they were trying to protect whole cities with this system. In that case you can't just knock the Scud off course, you actually have to destroy it in flight. That's an order of magnitude harder and the Patriot of that time simply wasn't up to the job. It wasn't designed for it.

From what I understand the latest block Patriot can do this. But the point stands that for complex systems there is a maturation process. You just can't expect something so advanced to work the first time out with a 100% success rate. There will be bugs that need to be worked out.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Travis, the question to ask is, how many Patriots fired to intercept each Scud? They may have got all the Scuds, but at a 5 to 1 use rate, for example. H.W. may not have lied, he just did not embellish the truth.

My point was the the Patriot system software had a serious bug that went undetected until it had caused many deaths. If the system ran more than a certain period of time without rebooting, it began to experience calculation errors that rendered the missiles useless.

This is just one of many cases that shows that a new technology can never be tested adequately enough to guarantee that it will work perfectly the first time it's needed.

 

[Travis]

My point was the the Patriot system software had a serious bug that went undetected until it had caused many deaths. If the system ran more than a certain period of time without rebooting, it began to experience calculation errors that rendered the missiles useless.

This is just one of many cases that shows that a new technology can never be tested adequately enough to guarantee that it will work perfectly the first time it's needed.

I believe that bug was a timing one that was, as you mentioned, alleviated by frequent reboots and was behind the deaths from a Scud in Dhahran when the system ran continuously for a couple of days. My memory's a little hazy though.

 

[PhantomWolf]

There was a bug in the software, though this isn't suprising, it was written in ADA, the ninth level of hell of programming languages.

 

[JC Fla]

Thank you for the clarification Travis. I thought that is what you meant. Were you there? You seem pretty familiar with the system.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I believe that bug was a timing one that was, as you mentioned, alleviated by frequent reboots and was behind the deaths from a Scud in Dhahran when the system ran continuously for a couple of days. My memory's a little hazy though.

I wrote some code that had a timing problem that didn't reveal itself until it had been running for six months. How the hell do you test for something like that?

 

[Loss Leader]

1. The "debris" that exits the opposite side of the building is indistiguishable from the nose of the aircraft. No one has proposed a mechanism by which this could possibly occur.

Um ... the nose of an aircraft is designed to be aerodynamic - to cut through the air with as little disturbance as possible.

A bunch of debris that is accelerated by the force of an airplane hitting the building and the resulting explosion would be pushed into the air at a tremendous rate. Relatively, it would encounter a headwind of hundreds of miles an hour. In those conditions, the wind will force the debris into an aerodynamic shape.

It's not only possible that the debris would look like the nose of the aircraft, it's just about necessary.


In any case, I have now proposed a mechanism by which this could possibly occur. As such, if you again claim that no one has proposed such a mechanism, you would be lying. It's sort of like how you were lying when you said you wouldn't return to this board until I apologized to you.

I don't apologize, by the way. I reaffirm and reassert each and ever statement as though fully set forth herein.

 

[Travis]

Thank you for the clarification Travis. I thought that is what you meant. Were you there? You seem pretty familiar with the system.

No, I was 12 years old at the time.

 

[Travis]

I wrote some code that had a timing problem that didn't reveal itself until it had been running for six months. How the hell do you test for something like that?

I guess you don't unless you have the unlikely luxury of running it for that long. Which brings us back to how ridiculously impossible doing real time digital composites, that stand up to scrutiny and are completely consistent from multiple angles, would be.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I will present the results of my velocity study when I have them, whatever they may show.

Ace, now you're back online, how did the velocity analysis turn out?

Dave

 

[Travis]

Yeah, Ace, we're all dying to know!

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ace, now you're back online, how did the velocity analysis turn out?

Dave

Oh, it's very interesting. Not quite done. I'll have it finished and up in a day or two, now that I've got my laptop back (finally).

I'll tease you with the conclusion: The Chopper five video must be a composite, otherwise the plane is displaying a physical impossibility.

I'll be suggesting that the same analysis should be done on all the plane videos.