Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Correlation between loser and woowoo?
94Z07
Member Posts: 112
A recent Zogby poll asked if the government and the 9/11 Commission are covering up the truth about 9/11.
In general those who have been around a while, have jobs, or have at least some college think there is no covering up. Conversely dropout losers and Democrats think there was is a conspiracy.
Are our government schools and MTV devotees turning out more woowoos?
The report can be found here:
http://www.911truth.org/images/911TruthZogbyPollFinalReport.htm
Below are excerpts from the report:
"US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up 42%"
"Both men and women and residents in each of the four regions are more likely to say the U.S. government and 9/11 Commission are not covering up anything. Majorities who agree include Republicans (64%), 50-64 year-olds, married adults, suburbanites (59%), Protestants, those with at least some college education, and people with annual household income of $50,000 or more (57%)."
"Majorities (50%-56%) of Democrats, 18-29 year-olds, Hispanics, single adults and those who are divorced/widowed/separated, residents of small cities, and adults with less education than a high school diploma believe the government and 9/11 Commission are covering up something. Nearly half of independent voters (48%) agree."
Comments
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
Britoca, I guess these are the phots you were talking about the other day. This is the first time I have seen them. My initial impression... the one on the right looks like landing lights. The other looks like a debris ploom cought on tape.
I am no expert and this is just my opinion. I would have to see larger clearer pictures.
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
but if you look around there's plenty of sites that have the footage in slow-mo, etc that first flash is literally one single frame. At least that second one seems to be somewhat at the impact moment. Would the metal have sparked in a spectacular fashion from the extreme friction? Bloody low resolution!!!
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
Friction? No clue here!
I just have a hard time beleiving that the pilots would be able to aim the plane to hit the exact spot where the explosives were placed. I'm just thinking the speed of the plane plus the menuverability of such a big jet...It would be a hell of a stunt.
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
If these were explosives, either:
A) the entire side of the building was laced (and not just a few columns, on one floor, obviously, because the pilot could miss the exact floor)
C) or the aiplrane themselves were carrying explosives.
But that's already conspiring really hard and before we go there, I'd like to see better and less exotic explanations.
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
I like the way you worded that. You didn't say "this is absolute proof" You didn't say the explination had to be absolute either. I think others in this thread gave plausable explinations. From the way you worded that you seem to still have an open mind. In the spirit of openmindedness, I would ask you to read this online article in Popular Mechanics.
PM Article
I like the way you worded that. You didn't say "this is absolute proof" You didn't say the explination had to be absolute either. I think others in this thread gave plausable explinations. From the way you worded that you seem to still have an open mind. In the spirit of openmindedness, I would ask you to read this online article in Popular Mechanics.
PM Article
Thanks for the link. I have read similar articles as well.
That article is debating the bulge undeneath the airplane. I am not debating that.
This is about the flashes of light at the begining of the impacts. That article doesn't mention or attempt to explain neither of both flashes. I'm glad I got you guys thinking about this though.
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
Oh, guess that those college-educated individuals are all outliers, huh?
So, you're implying that people that don't accept that the government had absolutely no involvement in 9/11 , axiomatically, are uneducated?
Unless you had all of the necessary parameters (footage of the flight itself, the building etc.), accepting that 9/11 was or wasn't a conspiracy is nothing short of faith.
I personally don't know and am unwilling to make any assumptions, since I don't have enough information to make an intelligent conjecture.
The whole matter is a sort of religion.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
have a look at these photos: 767-200
As you can see, the landing lights are in the landing gear itself (which was retracted at impact in both situations), and at the junction of the wings/fuselage.
Obviously, it couldn't have been the landing gear lights. So the next alternative is the wing lights.
First of all the flash is a bit too yellow in color, resembling a low temperature combustion flame and not a white beacon of light as these lights project.
Second, I have worked at an international aiport as a passenger service agent. I don't know if you realize how bright these landing/takeoff lights are, but they'd clearly light up the shaded S side of the S tower way before (relative "way") the airplane would reach it. I'm talking maybe just under a second, or a few frames before impact. Not just that, you'd see reflection off the aluminum surface of the building as well as the windows of the building. The best video to verify this is the famous and extremely graphic CNN video filmed from somehwere SE of the S tower. I think there'd be liitle doubts whether the landing lights were on or off if they were (in the second impact, not the first).
[edit] I just remeber there's a video of the second impact filmed from the front (filmed looking SW, from NE of the towers. I have it at home and I will see if you can tell if the lights were on or not [/edit]
In the first impact, it can't be a debris plume because it lasts only one frame and it's incredibly bright. If it were debris (dust?) why would it not remain in the air and remain that reflective? If you watch the impact in slow motion, frame by frame (try playing it with quicktime player) you can clearly see it lasts 1 frame only, while all the other debris that follows all other points of impact is darker in color (grey) and lingers for several frames.
I dunno guys
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
The article is 10 pages it covers much more than the "bulge"
The photo on the left of your first post on this thread is just a blur. What are we supposed to see in it?
The photo on the right is clearer but still not clear.
Since you presented the photo with no context other than a link to a Denmark domain, and since I can not read danish, would you answer these questions about the photo on the left?
1. Who is the photographer?
2. What type of camera was used?
3. What lens was on the camera?
4. What filter was on the camera?
5. What were the camera's settings?
6. Is this the whole picture or a zoom in on one area?
7. Has the photo been retouched at all?
8. Does this photo exist on a website that offers details in english?
All these things are important. I had a physics text that had a black and white high-res high-speed photo of a baseball striking a bat and deforming around the bat. The bat was bending under the force of impact. Yet in the same photo, the ball's shadow had not reached the bat's shadow. This was caused simply by the fact that light doesn't travel at the same speed in glass as it does in air and light on the edge of the photo had to pass through the thicker edge of the lens.
Also, light of different wavelengths traves at the same speed in a vacuum but at different speed in other mediums such as air, glass, and filters.
Answer all my questions and I'll take the challenge of giving you a plausable explination.
Can you give a plausable explination of how a novice pilot could hit a tiny target at full speed?
Or can you give a plausable explination of why the over 300 experts, coporations, agencies, and witnesses PM used for their article would conspire?
Off topic but are you ever going to get that "proof" that cold fusion is alive and kicking?
I have no doubt that you infered that. However, I never implied it.
I posted a link to the full survey results. The numbers are there for you to read.
The survey showed a trend; that's all. I never claimed nor do I believe that all woo woo's are dropouts. I never claimed nor do I believe that all who disbelieve in the conspiracy are well educated.
And we care because?
It's over. Why do we need to always recap on this topic about once a week? It wasn't hard enough for people to relive it for the first 3 years, but now it's 2006 and there's another movie coming out and still people talk about 9/11.
Just don't forget, but come on... lets move on with our lives. Onto bigger and better things. No one can change what happend. So lets stop living in the past, and start living in today.
The article is 10 pages it covers much more than the "bulge"
Yes, but not the flashes, which is what we are debating.
The photo on the left of your first post on this thread is just a blur. What are we supposed to see in it?
You have to go and watch the clip frame by frame. You will not understand the context of that single frame if you only see that frame by itself. u have to find the sequence. Unfortunately it is indeed extremely blurry, but it's the only one we got of the impact.The photo on the right is clearer but still not clear.
Since you presented the photo with no context other than a link to a Denmark domain
yes, but they are everywhere, not just some obscure website. Even in released DVDs you can buy anywhere off the shelve you will find it there, from multiple angles.
, and since I can not read danish, would you answer these questions about the photo on the left?
Read that part again: multiple footage angles. From the right, from the bottom, from the left... It's not just that one photo. I literally just grabbed the first one I saw when I searched for it1. Who is the photographer?
I don't know, I'm sure it can easily be found in the many websites about this.
2. What type of camera was used?
I don't know, I'm sure it can easily be found in the many websites about this.
3. What lens was on the camera?
I don't know, I'm sure it can easily be found in the many websites about this.
4. What filter was on the camera?
I don't know, I'm sure it can easily be found in the many websites about this.
5. What were the camera's settings?
I don't know, I'm sure it can easily be found in the many websites about this.
6. Is this the whole picture or a zoom in on one area?
zoom I believe
7. Has the photo been retouched at all?
if it's in many other videos, of different angles, and in officially released DVDs, I don't think it is
8. Does this photo exist on a website that offers details in english?
I'm sure u can find plenty of websites about it. I have, unfortunately they all jump the gun and claim "MISSILE!!!"All these things are important. I had a physics text that had a black and white high-res high-speed photo of a baseball striking a bat and deforming around the bat. The bat was bending under the force of impact. Yet in the same photo, the ball's shadow had not reached the bat's shadow. This was caused simply by the fact that light doesn't travel at the same speed in glass as it does in air and light on the edge of the photo had to pass through the thicker edge of the lens.
I understand it could perhaps be an aberration or a similar optical effect, but again, there are several different angles showing the flash of light. It is highly unlikely that for each of these observation locations the same optical effect would have taken place.Also, light of different wavelengths traves at the same speed in a vacuum but at different speed in other mediums such as air, glass, and filters.
Answer all my questions and I'll take the challenge of giving you a plausable explination.
Or, you can look it up with us and join in!
Can you give a plausable explination of how a novice pilot could hit a tiny target at full speed?
C'mon now! I never even made such claims. I'm trying as best as I can to keep the conspiracies away from this thread.Or can you give a plausable explination of why the over 300 experts, coporations, agencies, and witnesses PM used for their article would conspire?
They are not conspiring. I just haven't seen anyone debating these flashes of light. It's always "the pod under the airplane", the "bulge", the pod, the pod! This is not about the pod.This is about how metal striking metal makes a flash of light that outshines a 5m idamter fuselage in one photo and makes a yellow flash of light (though dimmer) on the other
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
Okie dokie, Britoca.
I'll drop the conspiracy bit and all side issues.
Let's focus on just the flash that seems to appear just before impact.
Can you help me get started by pointing me to what you feel is the best representative photo or video of the flash? I'll search on my own as well. You know a lot more about the flash than I do and I'll take it on faith that what you point me to is not a photoshop'd image.
I applolgise for confusing your concern/comments (re: the flash) with conspiracies.
oh! BTW were there similar flashes on the second plane's impact? IIRC there were much more videos of that one. If not I'll stick to the flashes on the first one.
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
I don't believe in a lot of these conspiracies put out, althought this Light thing Brit pulled up is sort of weird. Still, I am a little skeptical, because if nothing else, I think there is one reason why There was no 9/11 Conspiracy.
Frankly, our Government just isn't smart enough to pull this kind of thing off. I'm not saying its smart to kill people and be Sadistic and stuff like that, but our Government, if it was all Dead-set on it and such, wouldn't be able to do it. The Agencies involved would be fighting over who does what like they always are. Bush just Plain isn't smart enough. And it wouldn't be able to be kept a secret, somebody would get a conscience Before or After, get enough people with them to do so, and come out with it. The government can't keep Secrets at all.
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment;
We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
have a look at these photos: 767-200
As you can see, the landing lights are in the landing gear itself (which was retracted at impact in both situations), and at the junction of the wings/fuselage.
Obviously, it couldn't have been the landing gear lights. So the next alternative is the wing lights.
I may have mispoke or mistyped. Not landing lights, but running lights or head lights. I looked at the link you posted and it shows what appears to be lights where the body and wing meet. http://airliners.net/open.file?id=1080556&size=L&width=1024&height=695&sok=JURER%20%20%28nvepensg_trarevp%20%3D%20%27Obrvat%20767-200%27%29%20%20BEQRE%20OL%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=3 I'm am not an areospace eng, and this is not the say all be all. Just my observations again.
First of all the flash is a bit too yellow in color, resembling a low temperature combustion flame and not a white beacon of light as these lights project. You are correct good point, but could it be something with the camera filiming it, or is it the same in every different shot? I do not know. I have not seen the footage.
Second, I have worked at an international aiport as a passenger service agent. I don't know if you realize how bright these landing/takeoff lights are, but they'd clearly light up the shaded S side of the S tower way before (relative "way") the airplane would reach it. I'm talking maybe just under a second, or a few frames before impact. Not just that, you'd see reflection off the aluminum surface of the building as well as the windows of the building. The best video to verify this is the famous and extremely graphic CNN video filmed from somehwere SE of the S tower. I think there'd be liitle doubts whether the landing lights were on or off if they were (in the second impact, not the first).
[edit] I just remeber there's a video of the second impact filmed from the front (filmed looking SW, from NE of the towers. I have it at home and I will see if you can tell if the lights were on or not [/edit]
In the first impact, it can't be a debris plume because it lasts only one frame and it's incredibly bright. If it were debris (dust?) why would it not remain in the air and remain that reflective? If you watch the impact in slow motion, frame by frame (try playing it with quicktime player) you can clearly see it lasts 1 frame only, while all the other debris that follows all other points of impact is darker in color (grey) and lingers for several frames.
Where can i see this video? Sounds interesting. I love a good mystery. I think that is why I have posted so much in these fourms.
I dunno guys
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
"alright. I haven't looked into this stuff in well over a year now, so I don't know where the "best research" into this is. I think I'm gonna rent a bunch of dvds and compare footages. How's that?"
Britoca,
Don't knock yourself out or go to too much trouble here. Just set aside say 15 minutes and search some online places and point me to your top two picks. Would that work out ok?
I'm not trying to be difficult about the picture on the left. But could you tell me what I'm supposed to see in it so I can be sure I'm looking for the right thing?
I think the left image is an enlargement from Gamma Press's video.
I've not been able to locate the more interesting picture on the right though. Do you know what the original souce was called?
Thanks a bunch.
I wonder if they did 9/11 o nthat day cause it's the same as 911 the emergency phone number!?!?!?!!
OMG I cracked the case!!
No post-graduate education – Kerry 49% -- Bush 50%
Post-graduate education – Kerry 58% -- Bush 40%
I love your supposition that Democrats are somehow dumber than their counterparts. It sounds a lot like something Bill O' Reilly would say. It isn't true, but hey if we repeat it enough it won't matter right?
Here's what you are not seeing about that poll result. Those who responded that they believe there is some coverup being done are NOT neccessarily suggesting that someone planted explosives in the buildings, or that "Bush was in on it". What they are saying is that the full truth is not being reported. Perhaps they believe that the coveruo is simply to hide governmental incompetence, or to avoid explaining why the Bush admin did not act more aggressively in response to pre 9/11 intelligence which indicated such an attack was imminent.
There are many degress of, and reasons for, a coverup. Characterizing all of those who believe one occurred as tin-foil hatters who think Cheney snuck into the World Trade Center carrying 4 tons of plastique explosive is just bizarre reasoning on your part.
What they are saying is that the full truth is not being reported. Perhaps they believe that the coveruo is simply to hide governmental incompetence, or to avoid explaining why the Bush admin did not act more aggressively in response to pre 9/11 intelligence which indicated such an attack was imminent.
Now that is a cover-up I could agree with! It does make sense IMHO. I think that the ability to accept the responsibility for one's actions is a skill that is dying out like the ability to start a fire with only two sticks. I see it daily in my line of work, or at least the people I deal with.
What is the big deal? I you F-up, suck it up and and admit it! It will make you a better person. imho...
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
It's a bird...it's a plane...it's a....well, it sure looks like a plane to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CLk07ippj4&search=wtc%20%20plane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYAaJKZ7vL4&search=wtc%20plane
alright, here's a video of the second impact a bit more to the front of the airplane.
It's still blurry, but it seems the landing lights are off, but still a bit hard to tell.
Apparently there's also no reflection of a light off the fuselage. What do you think?
There's probably a better one out there though. I thought I saw one looking at it head on, but it's very rare. Maybe it'll pop up.
I found the other clip (mov), very blurry as well. Also seems that there's no spots of lights on the wings, but inconclusive I'd say.
-virtual tourist
want your game back?