Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Which One Of These Is Not Like The Other One?

The conspiracy theorists would have us believe that hundreds of witnesses, in broad daylight, could not tell these flying objects apart. Take the test yourself.














































Update: The response from the CTs is that people would not be able to tell them apart since they were moving fast, and would be nothing more than an unintelligible blur. I have to ask then. Why do millions of people go to see these guys every year? Since apparently people can't see them anyway...

4 Comments:

At 16 May, 2006 23:51, Blogger RanDomino said...

Now imagine them moving 500 mph 30 ft off the ground, and you're not expecting them. You might see a blur, if you're lucky.

 
At 16 May, 2006 23:53, Blogger BG said...

James,

I'm telling myself to be polite. It's your bloggy and you can lie if you want to.

The point of those of us questioning the official story is made Here.

 
At 17 May, 2006 02:04, Blogger nesNYC said...

Now imagine them moving 500 mph 30 ft off the ground, and you're not expecting them. You might see a blur, if you're lucky.

If you didn't get your head chopped off! LOL! But what's funny, in my mind, is that many of the witnesses say they saw inside the windows and one even said she saw people. Come on! :D

Talk about tall tales.

 
At 17 May, 2006 05:27, Blogger Alex said...

Ran:

There's this little thing we call "perspective" which makes your argument ring hollow. A man standing directly beside a 757 moving at 500mph won't see much, and will probably be in too much pain to be worryig about what just almost killed him. On the other hand, a man standing a kilometer away would see it quite clearly. Go to the airport some time, park near an active runway, and watch the aircraft land. Most of them are still going in excess of 160mph, yet from a few hundred meters distance they appear to just hang in the sky. It's only when they're directly overhead that you can tell just how fast they're moving.

Bg: Your whole argument has been disproven so many times that I'm hesitant to do more than smirk and move on. Just in case though, I'll throw a couple facts at you:
1) The picture of the "hole" is the one of the few which show it being that small, and that's due to the fact that it's clearly obscured by smoke. Most pictures show a much larger hole.
2) The cable spools are, if anything, an indication that no explosives were used. A cruise missilve causes an actual explosion, with a rather powerfull shockwave, and it tends to throw lots of debris in EVERY direction. Such an explosion certainly would have damaged the spools more than they appear to be damaged, as it would have strewn rubble all over the yeard. On the other hand, the actual event, and the pictures of the aftermath, are clearly consistent with damage caused largely by momentum. Just like a good portion of the damage done to the WTC was done on impact, same goes for the pentagon. The "fuel explosions" might look impressive, but it's only a small factor in the damage done to the buildings.

non-sync: We all know witnesses can be unreliable. If you see a 757 It's quite easy to fool yourself into thinking that you saw people sitting inside of it. It's much harder to see a cruise missile and convince yourself you saw people sitting inside of it. That would take a special kind of lunatic.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home