Can YOU Debunk This?

Notice that props given by the video author:

greatbenwa said:
WORD UP:
NICO HAUPT, SIMON SHACK, BSREG, YOURRROOM101, POLLENb, HEAVYPLASTICIAN, GENGHIS,CNN911FAKES,THEONLYREALAZZ,PHOTO FU
Click to expand...


No further evidence needed to show that Pentagon crash deniers are just another breed of no-planers.

I don't quite get what the video is trying prove. It doesn't attempt to establish the distance between the two cameras; from using Google Earth, that seems to be about 20 feet. The distance to the car for video A was about 5 feet, the distance to the car for video B was about 25 feet. That involves a difference between the two of about 80%. But the distance to the impact site respectively was about 644 and 665 feet -- involving a difference of only 3.2%. And the "background object" used as a reference point in the video (the penthouse of the Potomac at River House) was respectively 4,290 and 4,310 feet -- involving a difference of only 0.5%. So why should one be surprised to find almost no perceptible difference between the placement of the "background object" in the two videos, a small amount in the case of the fireball/smoke plume, and a huge amount in the case of the car just a few feet away from the camera in video A?
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
From that video alone, it is not apparent that it is a plane. I admit I see a thin white thingy which seems to be traveling at a high velocity, but using this video alone, I cannot say it looks like, or is a plane, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...


If you are talking about video A, look at what is in front of the "thin white thingy". Our own RKOwens4 made a video intended to point it out:



I don't agree 100% with his analysis (I have provided mine elsewhere), but I am convinced that the plane is visible in the frame -- though it blends in with the background. In my own analysis, I have observed how the patterns of light and dark fit together well with what can be observed in the buildings in the background. And of course the same feature corresponding to the vertical stabilizer is visible in both videos.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96597&page=2
 
Mangoose said:
If you are talking about video A, look at what is in front of the "thin white thingy". Our own RKOwens4 made a video intended to point it out:



I don't agree 100% with his analysis (I have provided mine elsewhere), but I am convinced that the plane is visible in the frame -- though it blends in with the background. In my own analysis, I have observed how the patterns of light and dark fit together well with what can be observed in the buildings in the background. And of course the same feature corresponding to the vertical stabilizer is visible in both videos.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96597&page=2
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link to the video. I haven't seen that before. I think it is very interesting, yet I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane indeed does blend in with the background.
 
Sizzler said:
The producer of the video is essentially claiming the fireball is faked.
Click to expand...

How can you tell that? I watched it and have no idea what the point was. If the point was to somehow show that the fireballs were fake, what was all that other stuff with the car and the big white vertical bars? That made no sense.
 
Mangoose said:
I don't quite get what the video is trying prove. It doesn't attempt to establish the distance between the two cameras; from using Google Earth, that seems to be about 20 feet. The distance to the car for video A was about 5 feet, the distance to the car for video B was about 25 feet. That involves a difference between the two of about 80%. But the distance to the impact site respectively was about 644 and 665 feet -- involving a difference of only 3.2%. And the "background object" used as a reference point in the video (the penthouse of the Potomac at River House) was respectively 4,290 and 4,310 feet -- involving a difference of only 0.5%. So why should one be surprised to find almost no perceptible difference between the placement of the "background object" in the two videos, a small amount in the case of the fireball/smoke plume, and a huge amount in the case of the car just a few feet away from the camera in video A?
Click to expand...

What latitude and longitude are you using for the security cameras?
 
TheLoneBedouin said:
What latitude and longitude are you using for the security cameras?
Click to expand...

After making your post look retarded, that is all you have to say?

And why don't you look for yourself?

Do you have any rebuttal for what he said?

edit...

using my best guess as to where the cameras are I got this....

38.872694, -77.058273 for the camera furthest away and 38.872654,-77.05827 for the closer camera.

What is your point?

Do me a favor and take two pictures. One 20 feet closer than the other. Tell me how much closer things in the background appear vs. things that are close by. Then, try this with a fish eye lens.

Please come back with your results.

Gawd are truthers really this stupid? I mean, I knew they were stupid but really?
 
Last edited:
lee5 said:
Gawd are truthers really this stupid? I mean, I knew they were stupid but really?
Click to expand...

That's nothing

One of them once measured the height of the barrier in the Pentagon video footage and then applied it to the background to prove the "airliner" was too small to be an airliner, but must in fact be a cruise missile. Of course, following his logic, the Pentagon was about 15ft high.

Yes, that's right. He made no attempt whatsoever to take into account perspective. No, I'm serious.
 
Sigh.

Posting truthervideos on the internet has turned into graffitti of the -00's - just a way to get your tag up.
 
gumboot said:
That's nothing

One of them once measured the height of the barrier in the Pentagon video footage and then applied it to the background to prove the "airliner" was too small to be an airliner, but must in fact be a cruise missile. Of course, following his logic, the Pentagon was about 15ft high.

Yes, that's right. He made no attempt whatsoever to take into account perspective. No, I'm serious.
Click to expand...

:boggled:

Wow, seriously, that is 6th grade material, if that.

[facepalm]
 
gumboot said:
One of them once measured the height of the barrier in the Pentagon video footage and then applied it to the background to prove the "airliner" was too small to be an airliner, but must in fact be a cruise missile.
Click to expand...

I don't suppose this gentleman was kind enough to elaborate on what type of cruise missile it might have been...or why the damage at the Pentagon was completely inconsistent with the blast pattern and dynamics of a unitary HE warhead.

[double facepalm]
 
Debunked in 10 words or less....

A 5-minute, 20-second Argument from Ignorance

Next.
 
I think we are all underestimating the power of youtube.

It seems to have magical powers that convince people that what they see is real and truth, no matter how much it defies logic.

I really need to make a youtube video. :)
 
I'd like to make one where it's all medieval and stuff...then I hit this guy in the shoulder with a sword for no reason and he goes down all slow and stuff. Then this blacksmith gives me a different sword that looks exactly the same as the first one. I'd walk around all slow and dramatic swing it in circles awkwardly...and I'd do it all with greasy black hair and a fur pelt because I would be Ronnie James Dio.

End of Derail.
 
Ahh....another moron pointing out that the plane is not very visible in the video. *** Newsflash *** - The video is shot at 1 frame per second. The plane was traveling at 750 feet per second. Why are they still suprised they dont see the plane fly smoothly through the video ??

My god....
 
gumboot said:
That's nothing

One of them once measured the height of the barrier in the Pentagon video footage and then applied it to the background to prove the "airliner" was too small to be an airliner, but must in fact be a cruise missile. Of course, following his logic, the Pentagon was about 15ft high.

Yes, that's right. He made no attempt whatsoever to take into account perspective. No, I'm serious.
Click to expand...

Dude that was Terral! One of last year's stundie finalists:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104033

He was awesome!
 
parky76 said:
wow...debunking is getting easier and easier. too bad this guy probably spent like 23 hours putting this nonesense together.

i suggest volleyball, softball, hiking, knitting, bird watching, rock climbing,....
Click to expand...
........watching grass grow, paint peel, counting tiles......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom