Monday, June 26, 2006

Miscellany

Here's an interview with an NYPD helicopter pilot who saw the second plane make its attack run:



Here's the Woo-Woo Credo:

7. Memorize all the sci-babble terms used in the Star Trek series. They are very useful if you get cornered by a skeptic, and you need to come up with some sort of "scientific" explanation. e.g., Inertial Dampeners.

Yes, how did they manage to get the fake plane into the videos of dozens of amateur videographers? Quite simple, really; they just reversed the polarity.

17 Comments:

At 26 June, 2006 13:43, Blogger nesNYC said...

The holograms, blue screens, UFO’s, Satan in the smoke and other non-issues are a distraction designed to derail legitimate questions of that day.

 
At 26 June, 2006 14:13, Blogger CHF said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 26 June, 2006 14:14, Blogger default.xbe said...

Quote Einstein, and do so often. Quote things he said if possible

so true....

 
At 26 June, 2006 14:19, Blogger CHF said...

nesnyc,

If you believe that the WTC towers were build with bombs planted in 1972, that every structural engineer in the world is unreliable and that every Muslim suicide bomber is actually a Jew...hell, WHY NOT believe in holograms, blue screens, UFO’s, and Satan in the smoke?

How can those be "dustractions?"

I mean they're no less believable than the shit you're already are on record as having endorsed.

 
At 26 June, 2006 14:26, Blogger apathoid said...

That democratic underground thread makes my head hurt.
The no-plane, missile pod, C4 core, and micronuke theories just go to show that this is merely a sick hobby for some of these people.
If they truly believe this idiocy, they should be in straight jackets.

 
At 26 June, 2006 14:45, Blogger James B. said...

The problem Nintendo, is that we can't tell the difference between the illogical nutty theories that are legitimate, and the illogical nutty theories that are "disinformation".

As a matter of fact, you guys can't either. Does this tell you something?

 
At 26 June, 2006 15:28, Blogger nesNYC said...

As a matter of fact, you guys can't either. Does this tell you something?

It should tell you something that you believe 19 Arabs hijacked those jets. That's nuttiest to ever get passed as fact and you guys eat it up; no deep throat it :D

 
At 26 June, 2006 15:31, Blogger BG said...

Quite a bit more discussion about the 2nd Hit:

Covertoperations.blogspot.com

Wiki Type Page (very rough, just started)

 
At 26 June, 2006 15:38, Blogger apathoid said...

nesNYC said
It should tell you something that you believe 19 Arabs hijacked those jets. That's nuttiest to ever get passed as fact and you guys eat it up


Yeah, middle-easterners hijacking planes - thats crazy talk.

 
At 26 June, 2006 17:40, Blogger shawn said...

It should tell you something that you believe 19 Arabs hijacked those jets.

An Arab has never ever hijacked an airplane before.

And I have never made a more sarcastic comment in my entire life.

On a totally unrelated note, David Ortiz is a god among men.

 
At 26 June, 2006 17:42, Blogger shawn said...

That's nuttiest to ever get passed as fact and you guys eat it up

Yeah, it's far nuttier than such facts as "the world is flat", "the Earth is the center of the universe", "we didn't land on the moon", "there was a second gunman in the grassy knoll", and "9/11 was perpetrated by the US government".

None of these facts have any basis whatsoever in reality - ed.

 
At 26 June, 2006 17:46, Blogger default.xbe said...

i did some figuring on the "fakity fake" video

in the wide angle shot, the towers are between 5 and 6 pixels wide, sicne the towers are 208 feet wide this gives us a figure of about 35 feet by 35 feet per pixel

a 767 is 180 feet long, or about 5 pixels

the body would be between 1/3 to 1/2 a pixel high

the tail would be about 1/2 a pixel square


so its no wonder you cant see th eplane in the wide shot, its too small to show up at that resolution

another thing to consider is the smoke coming from the north tower could have easily obscurred the plane to a point of not showing up in the video

this of course refers to the youtube video, which has probably been re-encoded and recompressed several times, the original copy would doubtless be higher resolution with no video compression, and probably does show the plane

 
At 26 June, 2006 21:26, Blogger Chad said...

I don't know about you guys, but that cop looks pretty damned CGI'd to me.

I mean honestly... if Lucas could bring Gungans back into the universe, what makes you think he couldn't do a New York City police officer?

 
At 26 June, 2006 21:50, Blogger James B. said...

if Lucas could bring Gungans back into the universe, what makes you think he couldn't do a New York City police officer?

Now whether he should have done that, is a different matter entirely.

 
At 26 June, 2006 23:11, Blogger Pat said...

BG, you're not going to seriously tell us you're a no-planer?

Spook911 gave me the biggest laugh out of this whole nonsense when he claimed that he made a plane out of wood and a building out of wood and tried to smash the plane into the building but he couldn't quite get the plane through the building. Probably wondered why cars have these big accidents when everytime he smashed his Matchbox replicas together nothing really happened.

 
At 27 June, 2006 03:03, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

I have recognized another "Woo-Woo" tactic that has been patented by the 911 "Truthers"- I call it the Conspiracy Reversal. Basically it works like this:

CT assumes that the amount of evidence for the OS and his conspiracy are on equal footing. Then he alleges that the OS is actually the REAL conspiracy theory- in fact the "looinest 9-11 conspiracy theory" to use the quote of some posters I encountered in the past.

Here's the problem CTs, the "official conspiracy" theory is backed by documented evidence, on-site investigators, eyewitnesses, and QUALIFIED ENGINEERS. Your conspiracy theory, does not have any of this going for it. In fact, you don't even have a real theory but rather a nebulous mass of various "holes" in the OS, many of which are not actually "holes" when one actually takes the time to verify the basic historical details.

Furthermore, believers of the official story, when questioned, do not refer to some massive conspiracy to cover up anything, nor do they claim that their detractors are "paid agents" of the conspiracy. CTs DO.

And THAT is why you are proponents of the "conspiracy theory".

 
At 27 June, 2006 10:16, Blogger HD_Wanderer said...

"That democratic underground thread makes my head hurt."

I agree. I manipulate images for living. If they actually believe that digital manipulation can do that sort of thing (live?) they need to step outside and get a good grip on reality again.

I still don't grasp how they think that personal video cameras were manipulated... Smoke, mirrors and the light bouncing of Dick Cheney's head?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home