Irreconcilable Difference
Check out the approach path the plane takes to the South tower in this video (VideoA) versus this video (VideoB).
In VideoA, taken from the north of the tower and slightly to the east, the plane is approaching the tower straight-on from the south, and flies in that path for about three seconds before contacting the tower.
In VideoB, taken from the far north and slightly to the west, the plane approaches the tower from a southwesterly direction before it disappears behind the towers for about two seconds before the south tower explodes.
These two paths cannot belong to the same plane. I submit that it is impossible for a real Boeing 767 to be in both videos, because of the conflicting paths.
I challenge anyone to explain how these paths can belong to the same plane.
I'd love to hear your explanation, Pinch.
In VideoA, taken from the north of the tower and slightly to the east, the plane is approaching the tower straight-on from the south, and flies in that path for about three seconds before contacting the tower.
In VideoB, taken from the far north and slightly to the west, the plane approaches the tower from a southwesterly direction before it disappears behind the towers for about two seconds before the south tower explodes.
These two paths cannot belong to the same plane. I submit that it is impossible for a real Boeing 767 to be in both videos, because of the conflicting paths.
I challenge anyone to explain how these paths can belong to the same plane.
I'd love to hear your explanation, Pinch.
posted by spooked at 10:20 AM
22 Comments:
I will attempt to translate pinch's likely explanation for this before-hand. here goes -
"your tin foil hats are showing! maybe you should try tin foil underpants as well! I'm rolling on the floor at the ridiculousness of your even noticing any discrepancies to begin with! this is all a result of your hatred of bush! I'm still rolling on the floor!" "etc!"
sorry, I couldn't resist the temptation to make my previous comment -
what I find a lot more distressing than obvious shill/apologists like pinch are the vast quantity of other extremely dedicated "truthers" (who shall remain nameless) that refuse to even contemplate the real truth, which seems patently obvious to me thanx to this blog.
Thanks James! Great Pinch imitation, and I very much agree with you on the other point-- all the "truthers" who don't "get" it.
First question, Spooked: What sort of "scientist" are you? You mentioned in a post on the DU Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience Group that you are a "...scientist in real life."
No scientist I know of would take two completely, totally, utterly different views of an event and categorically state that they are not the same event based on such a dearth of evidence.
The videos are at different speeds, taken from vastly different locations, highlight different parts of the plane's flight path, involve vastly different aspects of this event.
The technical term I would use, and I would strongly suggest you and your minions here look it up, is "parallax", noun: An apparent change in the direction of an object, caused by a change in observational position that provides a new line of sight.
A second definition is even better:
"The apparent displacement of an object caused by a change in the position from which it is viewed."
Those of us who have flown for a living have no problem understanding the seemingly different angles and perspectives based on where one is observing something. Consider the dynamics of recreating an air combat mission during a debrief - angles, approaches, speed, the different locations of the aircraft involved. The need to understand and think in 3 dimensional abstracts concerning things related to aviation events is important.
Its fine - really, it is - to continue your lunatic approach to this, but it would be a bit more entertaining if you stuck to solid aeronautical science in your moonbat analysis (if THAT isn't a non sequitur I don't know what is!).
So, again, what sort of scientist are you? And do you make a living at it? Cause if you do, I want a piece of that action!
it doesn't take a scientist to see that the flight paths in those clips are not the same and it shouldn't take those of us who have NOT flown for a living to realize that something is not kosher HERE either. c'mon pinch, what's up with that? why does the purported flight175 melt thru the side of wtcS like a cartoon plane would?
LOL!!
I think it's an absolute HOOT that we got stuck with probably the LOWEST paid, and most IDIOTIC of ALL Gov't SHILLS on the payroll...the Infamous 'pinch'. LOL
How & why did we end up with this absolute bottom of the totem pole SHILL/Moron, parroting the Official Conspiricy Theory ad nauseam??!
If this UTTER MORON, with his nonsensical, moronic logic-defying responses is the best the Gov't can do...then they're in Trouble.
hehe
HEY FIVE-SIDED FISTAGON/NSA...SURELY YOU CAN THROW
SOMETHING MORE CHANGELLING (but certianly never more entertaining! hehe) THAN OL' "PINCHY" OUR WAY!??
HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Pinch-- you are simply not going to even TRY, are you?
The videos are not of such different speeds, if you go by the fireball evolution, and neither is the plane going appreciably faster in one video versus another. The angle of each video is different, yes, and that is where you have to use some brains.
In video B, are you saying that the plane DOESN'T approach the tower from the southwest? But anyone can see that the plane comes at an angle, it does not come from deep out, it banks in at an angle, coming from the southwest. Or are you saying that in video A, the plane is approaching from the southwest? But that can't be, because the plane approaches the tower straight-on, without turning, and hits the south side of the tower. Or are you saying that a Boeing 767 somehow managed to change course, back up and come again at the tower straight from the south in the blink of an eye? Is that what you are really saying?
But there simply is no doubt about the fact that the approach directions are different between the two videos.
The computer generated "Plane" can clearly be seen approaching WTC #2 FROM TWO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS in the posted videos, INDEPENDANT from where the camera happens to be located, or any other DISTRACTION techniques our SHILL pinch tries to introduce to muddy the waters.
So Shill (as pinchy will be most approiately referred to from here on in), for illustrative purposes; if a plane is flying from North to South and is heading toward target X (in the South). If you film the plane from multiple locations, the plane's ACTUAL HEADING is then changed?? Based on where the camera is located!?
LAUGHABLE logic.
No moving of the camera (or the viewers) position will ever change the FACT of the real direction in space an object is truly travelling.
Never.
But yet this is the exact twisted logic our Shill would have you all believe, to obfuscate the fact commericial airliners DID NOT IMPACT THE TWIN TOWERS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.
Rock on, Rob! :)
In any case, simple models can show that there is no way the wide angle shot is consistent with the other shot from the northest. The plane in the wide angle shot does not have time to turn and come in straight from the south-- it can only approach the tower from the angle. That is just a FACT.
Now, we can argue about whether either video is real. Possibly the wide angle video (which is simialr to what CNN showed early on the morning of 9/11) was faked and the other video is real. But the question arises-- how on earth could CNN have produced a fake video of a plane hitting the tower so quickly on 9/11 and more importantly WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?
"I'm pretty sure of the following
- AA Flight 011 struck WTC1" huh?
Oh we are, are we!??
Hmmmm 'hybrideb'...maybe you'll make a better attempt explaining how a "plane" that NEVER EVEN TOOK OFF ON 9/11/01....MANAGES TO HIT ANYTHING!??
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html
Haa!
Another transparent Shill to destroy.
Hope your more of a challenge than our resident moronic Shill...
But, being "Pretty sure" of non-existant flights hitting buildings...you appear to be off to a great start in your Shill career.
hehe ;-)
Flight 11 in FACT, DID NOT take off from anywhere, at anytime on 9/11/01.
Maybe you missed the BTS database info posted previously, so here it is again for your education:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html
Check your facts, and try try again. :-)
Or...continue to ignore facts that don't fit into your individual train of thought...
BTW, Welcome here. ;-)
You and I are gonna have F-U-N!
hybrideb, according to rob's link to a holmgren site, (here's another), who evidently did a search of the flight records, flight11 didn't leave the ground that day. and as for the pod that you are so quick to dismiss, (no pod, eh?) were you aware that flight175 (the one with the pod), which the official fairytale claims was a 767, sent one of it's engines plummeting to the street below? and that engine was from a 737? personally, I believe that the plane with the pod was a cartoon. I recommend looking thru the archives of this blog, as the proprietor (spooked) makes it seem very obvious. don't just dismiss the no-plane theory out of hand my friend - look into it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
First of all-- Hybrideb: great site! Thanks! Really, your demolition stuff is great.
Second, there is little to no solid evidence that flight 11 really hit the north tower.
What I have been showing over the past few months is that the video evidence, which is the key evidence showing that Boeing 767s hit the towers is flawed and cannot be trusted. I think the evidence points to the idea that videos of the second hit were faked. You can believe what you want to believe, and I will believe what I want to believe, but I hope you keep an open mind.
Rob-- be gentle with Hybrideb. He/she is a planehugger, not a government shill.
QUITE telling how HybridEB never even addresses the demonstrable fact that on 9/11/01, flights 11 & 175 NEVER TOOK OFF. This is not a matter of debate. This is not some 'Theory'.
It's a fact.
Please show all of us where flight 11 is listed that morning in the list of all flights that took off in the US on 9/11/01:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html
But I somehow expect utter silence on this fact from you. Because your tightly clung-to belief in hijacked planes and Oh-So-Scary Arab terrorists on 9/11 cannot co-exist with this pesky little fact. So to avoid this paradigm shattering fact...you just avoid it altogether. And then mock & deride it in a effort to discredit it in others eyes. Very OLD disinfo tactic.
Oh no pinch, with all respect, what we have here is no mere planehugger at all.
And now we are all just a bunch of looney 'Conspiricy Theorists"...are we now, because you refuse to address the FACT that according to the Government's OWN Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) website from 2001 SHOWS FLIGHT 11 NEVER TOOK OFF!??
But yet at the same time you post on your webite LOADS of photographs & videos showing & claiming (and you YOURSELF claim) the WTC was brought down by explosives! So...what does that then make you?
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
If a person who supports the Official Government Conspiricy Theory was to encounter your site, they would call you the exact same derogatory names you just called us!!
Talk about a hypocrite!!!
Funny how someone who claims to have done all this reading...done all this research...watched all these movies on 9/11, yet missed the BTS flight database bombshell (which is NOT AT ALL NEW INFO mind you)!??
Not very thorough in all of your vast "Research"...now were you? ;-)
For all the Planehuggers out there:
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=71
hybrideb -
what's so weird about it? this entire blog is pretty much dedicated to the idea that 175 behaves in a cartoon like manner!
ghostplane
do you deny that it behaves like a cartoon?
and are you denying that the manifests for 9/11/01 show that flight 11 didn't leave the ground that day?
you find this all very amusing do you? do you think that we made all of this up to see who's tin-foil hat was the biggest?
Direct question for "HybridEB".
Take a good look at this picture(s) below:
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/prod/dialspace/town/pipexdsl/q/aqrf00/ubinger/reaction1.jpg
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/prod/dialspace/town/pipexdsl/q/aqrf00/ubinger/debris_scene_comparison.jpg
This still is a 'reaction shot' of the first hit on the WTC from the Naudet Brothers 9/11 film. The location is Church & Murray Sts. It is looking North.
This film was shown on CBS in early 2002, and is also available at Amazon.com
http://tinyurl.com/pzea9
I'd like you to tell me what is fundamentally wrong with this picture.
(hint: Just about EVERYTHING!)
Can you be more specific regarding how these flight paths appear different? I have examined these two videos and to me, it appears one might have been shot from the roof of a neighboring building. I agree that they appear to fly slightly different routes, but couldn't this be a result of different perspectives of the shot? One video appears to have been shot from a helicopter and you can see the plane banking slightly to the left. The other appears to have been shot at a lower level than the plane, but not at street level - perhaps a building roof? The frustrating thing about this second video is that you have such a clear shot of the plane in the beginning, but the camera zooms out and the plane disappears behind a building and you only see the fire ball. You mentioned that you've done models with block and a toy plane/string. Have you isolated which buildings are appearing in the non-helicopter video? Do you believe one of these videos could have been shot from a roof of a neighboring building?
On another note, I find your blog fascinating and you've done alot of great research. I heard of your blog from a podcast (I can't remember which) a few weeks ago. I am convinced these building were brought down by explosives, but I am not ready to accept that these planes were CGI models or something of the sort.
shep, check all of this out::
ghostgun UA175
Very good work!
I called David Von Kleist on Monday (yes this Monday, and yes I really did call him). He was polite, but acted totally in the dark about where the recent research and sharing is taking us (faked video).
Keep up the great work.
Discussion about 9/11
Von Kleist's question was the same question that had me confused for a while (maybe it still does):
if they faked with cgi, why did they put in a "pod" and have the pod flash. Webfairy told me it was just more distraction.
Shep-- perhaps look at this and
this first. And the post above this might help too.
I also think the POD was a specially built-in distraction. Perhaps it is a signature for those specific digital fakers. I think it is clear the POD is not an optical illusion.
Post a Comment
<< Home