Clear evidence that 9/11 was an inside job

[ladmo]

There has been no mention of foreshortening or vanishing points... how can any measurement be accurate with these photographs?

 

[FatFreddy88]

We talked about D-B (62mm) and D-C (47mm). D-C is NOT in a way "marked" along D-B; there are two wholly different lines. You said "the difference is roughly 24%", and I pointed out that the difference could just as well be said to be roughly 32%. Just depending on which length is your 100%

Stop trying to obfuscate the issue. According to your measurements the difference was 24%. According to my measurements the difference was 27%.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7203863&postcount=228

If 62 is divided by 47 we get a percentage of 32%. Oystein maintains that the length of the craft must be increased by 32% to get the real length of the craft but this is incorrect as the above proof shows that the distance between the 47mm mark and the 62mm mark on a line is 24%–not 32%. The space between the 43mm mark and the 62mm mark is 32%.
----------------------------------------
FALSE! I did not maintain that at all! We never got to that point, because you failed to draw an image to explain what you measure! (And because I think you set out to measure lengths whose location you can't determine in the photo. You started out on the wrong foot).

I want to hear the opinion of all the pro-official version posters on this thread. Do you agree with Oystein when he says the 32% figure is the correct figure to use to increase the size of the craft behind the picture to get its length?
-----------------------------------------
No-one here can "agree" with me on this, because I didn't say that.

That's a pretty pathetic attempt at damage-control. Here are your posts.

(from post #233)

Maybe I'm missing something here. How can it be one or the other? The way I figure it, it can only be 24%.
47 times 100 divided by 62 equals 75.8 which means the difference is roughly 24%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy. 62 times 100 divided by 47 equals 131.9 which means the difference is roughly 32 percent.
Like I said, depends on whether you set the long or the short line as 100%

Using my measurements the maximum length of the craft is 78.1 percent the length of a 757.
---------------------------------------------
Yes. I already showed how your measurements and math were wrong.

(from post #246)

Easy. 62 times 100 divided by 47 equals 131.9 which means the difference is roughly 32 percent.
Like I said, depends on whether you set the long or the short line as 100%
----------------------------------------------------------------
Only one of them is the right one. We have to figure out which one it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------
No. Neither one is wrong, both are correct, you just have to remember which side you set to be 100%, the long or the short one, and be consistent in the rest of your analysis.
It is basically an arbitrary choice.
See, when you make US$1000 per month, and your wife makes US$ 1500 per month, her income is 50% higher than yours, and yours is 33% lower than hers. Correct? Both numbers are correct. In the former case, you set your income to 100%, in the latter you treat her income as 100%.

If you draw a line 62mm long and then mark the spot where it's 47mm long, the space between the 47mm mark and the 62mm mark is 24% of the whole line. If we use the figure of 32%, it changes the measurments; the 47mm mark is inaccurate; it has to be changed to 43mm for the numbers to add up. Therefore, the 24% figure is the one that has to be used here.
---------------------------------------------
See above. 24% of the long side, 32% of the short line. It's arbitrary, just be consistent.

(from post #259)

But everybody here can compute that 62mm is (62-47)/47 = 31,91% larger than 47mm (arbitrarily setting the short line, or 47mm, as 100%) while 47 is (62-47)/62 = 24.19% shorter than 62mm (arbitrarily setting the long line, or 62mm, as 100%)
This is about 7th grade stuff.


To make it easier for you:
Suppose you make US$ 47,000 a year. Now you go to your boss and demand a pay raise, you want a raise of 32%. Your boss agrees. What will he pay you next year? Let's see... US$ 47,000 * (100%+32%) = US$ 62040 (and we'll round that to 62K).
A year later, there is a bad recession and your boss talks to you and says: Hey Freddy, You got a raise of 32% last year, I can't pay that much any more. Can we agree to a cut of 24%? You agree, thinking you will still be better off than initially, right? So your boss will pay you this much a year later: US$ 62,000 * (100%-24%) = US$ 47,120 (and we'll round that to 47K).
Surprised?

Your attempts to obfuscate mathmatics are ludicrous. Mathmatics can't be obfuscated. This is what I said in post #243.

If you draw a line 62mm long and then mark the spot where it's 47mm long, the space between the 47mm mark and the 62mm mark is 24% of the whole line. If we use the figure of 32%, it changes the measurments; the 47mm mark is inaccurate; it has to be changed to 43mm for the numbers to add up. Therefore, the 24% figure is the one that has to be used here.

The 32% figure is not even to be considered. The only figure to use in this case would be the 24% figure. Your credibility is shot and the credibility of all the people who agreed with you is shot (start reading after post #260). The credibility of all the posters who avoided answering the question by pretending they didn't understand the question is shot.

It's pretty clear that you pro-official version posters don't even believe your own arguments. All of you know as well as the truthers that 9/11 was an inside job. I don't think many viewers and lurkers need to have what's happening here explained to them.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

 

[BCR]

don't think the camera-plain is so important in this case; we need to look at direction of the line-of-sight between the camera and the centre of the plane.

It is important for simplifying the equation to solve for the 'true length' IF angular equivalence is consistent across the image plane. However, it is not since there is angular distortion across the plane.

For example:

This image is 600 pixels wide. The normal is at 300 pixels from the left, the nose of the plane is 202 pixels to the left. Based on your estimate of the angle of the lens coverage, an angular size for the aircraft (beta) can easily be derived (~7.5 degrees by my reckoning since I come up with ~ 52 pixels for its width). Just playing around with GE I came up with a distance of 745 feet from the camera to the nose, but others might come up with a different value. Likewise, others may come up with a different value for the camera angle as well. None-the-less, estimate the two angles and the distance to the plane and you end up with a ball-park.

But then again, since there is image distortion we would have to know the specific values for the lens in order to add a rather elegant correction. At the location of the plane (alpha ~ 29 degrees), the beta angle is going to be underestimated considerably.

 

[BCR]

Your attempts to obfuscate mathmatics are ludicrous. Mathmatics can't be obfuscated. This is what I said in post #243.[/url]

Freddy, you have done no mathematics that I have seen. You've thrown around what I suppose is meant to be arithmetic, but no mathematics and I doubt seriously that you even know what the term means.

 

[leftysergeant]

It's pretty clear that you pro-official version posters don't even believe your own arguments. All of you know as well as the truthers that 9/11 was an inside job. I don't think many viewers and lurkers need to have what's happening here explained to them.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

Nazi methodology will get you nowhere. What that idiot Martin does is to call normal rational thought an attempt to unethicly undermine his Nazi followers. You lot are doing that to us and then claiming that it is what we do.

 

[twinstead]

Nazi methodology will get you nowhere. What that idiot Martin does is to call normal rational thought an attempt to unethicly undermine his Nazi followers. You lot are doing that to us and then claiming that it is what we do.

Well I for one am shocked. SHOCKED I say!

 

[BCR]

It's pretty clear that you pro-official version posters don't even believe your own arguments. All of you know as well as the truthers that 9/11 was an inside job. I don't think many viewers and lurkers need to have what's happening here explained to them.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

Freddy .... I AM A TRUTHER YOU !

 

[FatFreddy88]

Freddy, you have done no mathematics that I have seen. You've thrown around what I suppose is meant to be arithmetic, but no mathematics and I doubt seriously that you even know what the term means.

Please address the actual issue. Was I wrong when I said this?

If you draw a line 62mm long and then mark the spot where it's 47mm long, the space between the 47mm mark and the 62mm mark is 24% of the whole line. If we use the figure of 32%, it changes the measurments; the 47mm mark is inaccurate; it has to be changed to 43mm for the numbers to add up. Therefore, the 24% figure is the one that has to be used here.

Was Oystein right when he said this?

62 times 100 divided by 47 equals 131.9 which means the difference is roughly 32 percent.
Like I said, depends on whether you set the long or the short line as 100%

Please give a clear unambiguous answer.

 

[BCR]

Please give a clear unambiguous answer.

Well, since I have no clue what you are talking about, I can say this about this comment.

62 times 100 divided by 47 equals 131.9 which means the difference is roughly 32 percent.

I broke out my trusty calculator and performed his arithmetic.

131.91489361702127659574468085106 % ~= 131.9 % rounded to the nearest 10th. So yeah, that is absolutely correct.

Like I said, depends on whether you set the long or the short line as 100%

Yes, that is an absolutely true statement.

So Oystein is right. I don't see the issue.

 

[FatFreddy88]

Well, since I have no clue what you are talking about, I can say this about this comment.

As I said earlier–the credibility of you people who pretended not to understand the question is shot.

 

[The Platypus]

As I said earlier–the credibility of you people who pretended not to understand the question is shot.

Your in no position to make judgements on the credibility of others when you have no credibility at all. Why should I even listen to yet another wacko roaming the internet peddling delusional nonsense...

 

[FatFreddy88]

Your in no position to make judgements on the credibility of others when you have no credibility at all. Why should I even listen to yet another wacko roaming the internet peddling delusional nonsense...

Do you think Oystein was right, or wrong?

 

[twinstead]

Back in the old days, when we came across people like FatFreddy88 they were just raving, wild-eyed loonies on the street corners screaming that the world was coming to an end or aliens were among us. We just stepped around them and got on with our lives.

Now we have to turn off our computers to make them stop.

 

[BCR]

As I said earlier–the credibility of you people who pretended not to understand the question is shot.

In other words, your inability to communicate your thoughts in a coherent manner so that others can understand is somehow due to 'our' credibility. I had several people question me on what I was talking about in regards to the 2 degree difference. Did I question their credibility? No, I simply worked with them to find a better method of explaining what I was talking about in a more clear and concise manner. It is incumbent upon me to express my ideas coherently and has nothing to do with their 'credibility'.

Of course, we do speak the common language of mathematics which does make life a little easier

 

[BCR]

Back in the old days, when we came across people like FatFreddy88 they were just raving, wild-eyed loonies on the street corners screaming that the world was coming to an end or aliens were among us. We just stepped around them and got on with our lives.

Now we have to turn off our computers to make them stop.

I just needed a diversion today (a rest). Just having a hard time figuring out what this guy is trying to say.

 

[twinstead]

I just needed a diversion today (a rest). Just having a hard time figuring out what this guy is trying to say.

More power to you if you can, I'll give you that. I'm mildly curious, and I also need the diversion, so I'll stick around and watch.

 

[FatFreddy88]

Oystein made the mistake of trying to obfuscate something that was too clear to be obfuscated. The credibility of anyone who doesn't simply come out and say he was wrong is shot.

They way you people are tap dancing around to avoid doing this looks pretty pathetic.

 

[BCR]

Oystein made the mistake of trying to obfuscate something that was too clear to be obfuscated. The credibility of anyone who doesn't simply come out and say he was wrong is shot.

They way you people are tap dancing around to avoid doing this looks pretty pathetic.

So, instead of making an effort to make yourself clear (I'm a pretty smart guy and I don't understand what you are talking about), you are going to attack someone who is trying to make a very valid point for you which you obviously don't understand? Exactly who is trying to obfuscate who? Don't blame Oystein or anyone else for your inability to communicate.

 

[leftysergeant]

Oystein made the mistake of trying to obfuscate something that was too clear to be obfuscated. The credibility of anyone who doesn't simply come out and say he was wrong is shot.

They way you people are tap dancing around to avoid doing this looks pretty pathetic.

When arguing something in a public forum, there will be some listeners who understand all that is being said because they have the relevant education or knowledge. Others will not.

We have rocket scientists and structural engineers here who know the math, and we have fire fighters and soldiers who know something about what you can and cannot do with weapons and explosives.

You also have a few people here who know a bit about terrorism, foreign and domestic. At least one member here has studied domestic terrorist extensively after having been shot at by domestic terrorists.

The rocket scientists and engineers all seem to agree on the math for an aircraft of the accepted type hitting the building.

One must assume, then, that those who disagree with them must be brighter than the nerds, or lying or idiots.

Seeing that you rely heavily on Nazi sources for support, I cannot place any great stock in the possibility that your math skills are the better in this debate. Nazis lie a lot and only the mentally deficient really believe the stuff they sell.

 

[000063]

I should clarify: Not transparent to someone who severely struggles with 6th-7th grade arithmetic and 8th-9th grade geometry.

I did pretty well on both of those. I'm just too tired/lazy to do the working out myself, or to unravel yours. From what I've seen, it's not too difficult.