Clear evidence that 9/11 was an inside job

[triforcharity]

Freddy .... I AM A TRUTHER YOU !

Yeah, but you're not one of those dumb*** truthers. You get a pass.

 

[000063]

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

Who said they "pretended" not to? Maybe they just went and, y'know, learned?

Also, stop ad homineming. Address the debate, not the debater.

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.

Whee! Arbitrary claims based on ad hominems and avoiding the issue in question! Having fun?

 

[Hokulele]

Oystein is not wrong (since he/she never claimed that 32% should be used), but neither percentage has anything to do with determing the "correct" length of the plane.

Gah, this whole exercise reminds me of the time a CTist tried to multiply a speed by a length to come up with a distance (or something similar).

 

[BCR]

BCR, assuming you haven't lost the will to live already; my rough... actually very rough extrapolations from GE show:

* The flight-path (BD in the above image we've been working from) as approximately 53 or 233 degrees from North.
* The line-of-sight (AD in the above image) from the camera to the plane's centre as approximately 21 or 201 degrees from North.

I accept the plane may have been oriented 62 degrees from North, but I still can't reconcile the 2% difference you talked about (although this may well be me being t'ick).

Okay Freddy, pay attention, this is how it is done. It is called communication.

Pig, the flight path comes from the flight data recorder, or at least my recall of it, but on double-check it is 61.2 degrees, so closer to 61.

I also went back and measured the GE camera plane with some better historical imagery and came up with with a ~70 degree alignment with north, so that makes a BIG difference. So instead of 2 degrees, we are talking about almost 9 degrees! You guys might come up with different values since my GE is not working so hot since I put in the new dual head video card last week.

That changes my equation from alpha + 2 to alpha + 9. The result is a true length value of 124.5 feet. The aircraft is actually 155 feet, so I'm kinda short, but since I know that the lens is causing some shortening, it is a good ball-part estimation.

In other words Freddy, I messed up one of my GE measurements. I'm man enough to admit it. I also messed up the aircraft heading by a 0.8 degrees. The Pig challenged it, so I went back and measured again and double-checked my input values. I freely come back and admit my measurement errors (the math is sound though). No harm, no foul.

(wonders why the corrected image is not showing up)

 

[frenat]

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

Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that you weren't very clear with your constant spamming of links.

If you would take the time to actually LOOK (which I doubt you will) you would see that BOTH 24% and 32% are correct, just like he said. 47 is 24% smaller than 62 and at the same time 62 is 32% bigger than 47. As he said, it depends on what you set as 100. Is it 47 or 62? Math isn't your strong suit is it?

 

[SpitfireIX]

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

I'm not particularly interested in your math, or anyone else's, at this time. We have a solid model that illustrates that the aircraft in the picture is the correct size to be a 757, much more accurately than the simplified mathematical approximations used in this thread can.

 

[BCR]

I'm not particularly interested in your math, or anyone else's, at this time. We have a solid model that illustrates that the aircraft in the picture is the correct size to be a 757, much more accurately than the simplified mathematical approximations used in this thread can.

And then there is that

 

[Oystein]

So that we are on the same page, I added my reference points to your image.

I think you can see how they correspond a little better. The 2 degrees I was talking about is the difference between the camera plane and the aircraft's path.

I don't fully get why the image plane is important here. The lens will distort in ways we can't know exactly without going to extreme depths. The nose of the plane is closer to the camera than the tail, and it is oriented at an angle of roughly 40° to the line of sight, which is the reason why it appears shorter in the photo. This wouldn't change substantially if you panned the camera, except for the lens distortion, which we can't compute. Or can we?

 

[Oystein]

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

Freddy. You said

Oystein maintains that the length of the craft must be increased by 32% to get the real length of the craft
...
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?

And then went on to quote extensively from this thread:

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

(from post #233)

(from post #246)

(from post #259)

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

But in none of the quotes I ever said "the length of the craft must be increased by 32% to get the real length of the craft" or "the 32% figure is the correct figure to use to increase the size of the craft behind the picture to get its length"!
We never got to that point, because you started on the wrong foot - the difference between D-C and D-B has nothing to do with how large the plane would appear to the camera at A. For this reason, foreshortening of 32% would be wrong, 24% would be wrong, and 27% would be wrong, too.

 

[Oystein]

...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

@FatFreddy: I might add that BCR gave us a a few sketches with labled lines, points, angles, and explained his math using those images.

If you produced an image, labeled the lines that you measure, and explained what you did to come up with 27% or whatever, we might actually understand what you did and what you ask, and it would be easier to show you were you made your mistakes.

Please try to present your geometry using a sketch or two that contain all of the elements used in your math!

 

[Oystein]

Oystein is not wrong (since he/she never claimed that 32% should be used), but neither percentage has anything to do with determing the "correct" length of the plane.

Gah, this whole exercise reminds me of the time a CTist tried to multiply a speed by a length to come up with a distance (or something similar).

Ha! Bingo!
Freddy, see? That's what I am saying! Not what you put into my mouth!

 

[BCR]

I don't fully get why the image plane is important here.

It simplifies the math problem. Leaves you with just two angles easy to compute from pixel measurements from the image. Let me say it again. I never claimed it was the best or only solution. Freddy is the one who wants to use math to evaluate the size of the plane from a screen shot using a ruler. I'm simply developing his thesis using more accurate methods of measuring the angular size and then how to use that information when he gets it. Just trying to be helpful

The lens will distort in ways we can't know exactly without going to extreme depths. The nose of the plane is closer to the camera than the tail, and it is oriented at an angle of roughly 40° to the line of sight, which is the reason why it appears shorter in the photo. This wouldn't change substantially if you panned the camera, except for the lens distortion, which we can't compute.

As I pointed out in the beginning.

Or can we?

Yes we can, if we have the specs for the lens. Of course then I'd have to break out the calculus and Freddy is struggling enough with the trig.

 

[BCR]

I think Freddy is confusing math with arithmetic also.

math·e·mat·ics   
[math-uh-mat-iks] Show IPA
–noun
1.
( used with a singular verb ) the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically.

What I have been doing is mathematics. I am converting a real world problem into an equation which describes it. I derived a simple equation from which Freddy can now perform arithmetic.

a·rith·me·tic   
[n. uh-rith-muh-tik; adj. ar-ith-met-ik] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the method or process of computation with figures: the most elementary branch of mathematics.

Freddy has been doing arithmetic.

 

[Hokulele]

Freddy has been doing arithmetic.

Ferociously and randomly.

 

[Oz1976]

Do you think Oystein was right, or wrong?

He's right, you're wrong. Happy?

 

[The Platypus]

Do you think Oystein was right, or wrong?

Oystein is irrelevant. I think your way beyond simply being wrong...

 

[BCR]

The lens will distort in ways we can't know exactly without going to extreme depths.

Just to illustrate your point (and mine) which makes this all an exercise in futility, I used the lens distortion filter in Photoshop to attempt to correct some of it. Even on the second cycle, I was unable to remove it all, but it will give folks an idea of just how much angular distortion there is and why Freddy's methodology is flawed from the get-go.

 

[drewid]

I don't fully get why the image plane is important here. The lens will distort in ways we can't know exactly without going to extreme depths. The nose of the plane is closer to the camera than the tail, and it is oriented at an angle of roughly 40° to the line of sight, which is the reason why it appears shorter in the photo. This wouldn't change substantially if you panned the camera, except for the lens distortion, which we can't compute. Or can we?

Yeah. I use packages that have models for correcting lens distortion. Even on fairly sane focal lengths you can get a surprising amount of distortion, especially towards the edges, which you don't tend to notice until you have to deal with it for a specific reason.

 

[ladmo]

Just to illustrate your point (and mine) which makes this all an exercise in futility, I used the lens distortion filter in Photoshop to attempt to correct some of it. Even on the second cycle, I was unable to remove it all, but it will give folks an idea of just how much angular distortion there is and why Freddy's methodology is flawed from the get-go.

[qimg]http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/n525/John_Farmer/distortion.jpg[/qimg]

post 301

 

[Oystein]

Yeah. I use packages that have models for correcting lens distortion. Even on fairly sane focal lengths you can get a surprising amount of distortion, especially towards the edges, which you don't tend to notice until you have to deal with it for a specific reason.

I understand that lens distortion is significant, and that the image plane (or its normal, the direction that the camera is pointed towards), plays a role there.

In any case, FatFreddy's approach was wrong from the get go because of lens distortion, and he executed it in wildly erroneous ways, while displaying on the go that he understands next to nothing about geometry, arithmetic and photo imaging. And no math involved.