Marcus Icke's "Ghost Gun" Is Updated Again
with some new findings.
I like this finding the best, as it goes well with my findings on conflicting plane paths between videos:
This is more irrefutable evidence that the second hit videos were faked.
I like this finding the best, as it goes well with my findings on conflicting plane paths between videos:
This is more irrefutable evidence that the second hit videos were faked.
posted by spooked at 10:54 AM
22 Comments:
more evidence that there SIMPLY WAS NO SECOND "PLANE"!
This post - in fact the entire "technical" approach you lunatics take to this thing reminds me of the old saying "measure with a micrometer and cut with a chain saw". The level of analytical buffoonery that is being applied here to, at best, poor-quality and frankly crappy videos is really yet another aspect of the hilarious lengths that you moonbats go to.
There's a extremely funny clip going around of an Iranian university professor lecturing in a class on the "fact" that the cartoon Tom and Jerry was in reality an animated political propaganda statement on making Israel look better to the world.
This technical aircraft analysis using crappy videos falls in that same intellectual vein.
Your confusion, arrogance and out-right indignation that the press or the general public "doesn't get it" reminds me of another saying - the old carpenter's line of "I've cut this piece of wood 3 times and its STILL too short!"
You're just too dense to understand.
You're just too dense to understand.
oh! wow, that explains that! whatever were we thinking?
good explanation pinch - the world should rest easy knowing you're on the right side of things.
those two glide paths ARE obviously different and yet they both depict the same shadowy black silhouette of a plane - 911 was a bright shiny day and the sun was basically positioned behind the camera, right? so the plane should be just shining like a beacon, and yet it looks like a black hole. maybe it's painted flat primer-black like a red neck '60's muscle car - they should've painted flames on the side of it too! -
you know, here in conspiracyville where I live we have a lot of helicopters; both news and police, and even as small as they are you can still see the different colors and numbers on them from 2 miles away - but we're just too dense to understand I guess.
Ha, James...
In this case, yes. I could say consider the source with regards to what intellectual buffonery goes on here, but that isn't saying much.
"Dense" is correct. Alternate adjectives to substitute could "doltish, dull, dumb, half-witted, imbecilic..." and the list goes on (try any thesaurus search of "dense").
Its funny how the wacked-out left always resorts, when faced with the utter dearth of any follow-up cogent thoughts, of the old "Oh must be nice you being right and everyone else wrong!"
When it comes to the idiotic, wacked-out abso-freakin-lutely stupid left such as the denizens of Spook's Place, it IS nice.
Try and take whatever analytical and technical analysis that goes on in this 9/11 Truth or whatever the hell you freaks call this little child-tantrum you have going on and see what any competent and established professional or educational organization would say. Its already been pointed out that that lunatic Jones from BYU hasn't had *one single* peer review of that piece of crap he calls an analysis. Texas A&M University must be out of their ever-lovin' minds if that other total wack-job, Morgan Renyolds, is still on their faculty. No wonder the state of American post-secondary education is in such a poor state if these two are representative of academic acumen and educational standards.
So yes, when it comes to you dense morons, I am on the right side of things. I want you all to stay right where you are, though. Its more fun that way.
BTW...I know I am pushing the envelope with the number of "idiotic"s and "lunatic"s and "whack-job"s and such that I am using in these posts. The problem is that the list of available monikers to describe the collective brain-dead wastes-of-oxygen that makes up this Lunatic Left is short. Hence the repetitiveness. I'm sure you'll forgive me.
And as far as your first question goes - "Whatever we we thinking?" -I'm still trying to figure that one out. Don't know what you're thinking, but I know what you must be smoking.
so, er Pinch-- it's a pleasure, as always-- what exactly is your explanation for this discrepency?
That the lines weren't drawn right?
The videos clearly have enough definition for the purposes of assigning flight paths.
So what IS your explanation?
no, this was pinch's explanation::
(try any thesaurus search of "dense").
good job pinch! I've said before that you truly deserve a promotion and an increase in salary.
"Dense": adj. (dĕns) Slow to apprehend; thickheaded.
From the DU Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience Group, 29 March post:
Spooked: "I'm a scientist in real life. I have published peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals. I think hard evidence is important."
I want to know what sort of "biomedical research" you are doing so I make sure I stay away from whatever malady or area of "expertise" you are concentrating in.
"so, er Pinch-- it's a pleasure, as always-- what exactly is your explanation for this discrepency (sic) ?"
WHAT discrepancy? Two videos, taken
from different distances and different positions and different heights above ground with different sections of the flight path highlighted are juxtaposed to prove a that they aren't the same?
Duh.
Alert the media. Wait...they are in on it.
THIS is what I mean when I say analytical buffoonery.
Are you really serious about not seeing the inherent differences between those two shots? Betcha if you had a shot from on TOP of the building you'd have an even DIFFERENT flightpath to highlight. Imagine that! Even MORE "evidence" that this whole thing was....what is the latest....a toilet paper airplane projected onto a blue screen!
Any sort of responsible analysis would not even attempt to "prove" anything of the sort without access to different videos from similar positions to compare and contrast. To do so the way that idiot did (and the way you seem to champion) makes a complete mockery of the term "scientific method".
And about the smoke in those images.....those images are purported to be "time-lapse graphics" and the smoke doesn't even appear to be anything more than from a still shot - the smoke should have ended up a huge black smudge with no highly defined billows and cumulo-shaped cloud formations, as are in those two images.
But I suppose digital manipulation to further one's cause is restricted to only the government side.
Of course.
Ahhh....pinch the 2 Bit Gov't Shill...again.
LOTSA words...and ends up saying absolutely nothing...except more of the same behavior from page 5 of "How To Be A Government SHILL In 4 Easy Lessons".
e.g.: Insult, after insult, while never actually debating the Facts.
Yeah Pinch...it all happened JUST the way our trusty government said it did...now will you go away??????
;-)
a horizontal line would be horizontal no matter what point on the compass the camera was standing on.
look a little more closely at the clouds of black smoke and you will see that they ARE smudged, they are probably as ill defined as they should be for the amount of time it took the plane to travel that short distance; what, about 1/2 second? read the park forman video section in marcus icke's ghost gun and you will see that there are other anomolies as well.
--------
did spooked claim to be a peer-reviewed published scientist? I must have missed that. but even if he did make that claim and it turns out to not be true, he has still raised legitimate concerns about an event that looks phony at best. you are just wasting your own time here pinch.
I could care less if Spook's "published papers" are "peer reviewed". I already know what sort of "peers" he has. I would be curious as to what "scientific journals" he has been published in, though. It could indeed add to his credibility (depending on a) what the topic is, b) who the "peers" are that reviewed it and c) pertain to some technical aspect of the "scientific" field he claims expertise in - in other words it can't be a short essay on Elvis and his cloaking device printed in "Aliens Today" mag), but I bet each and every one of you $10 that he won't tell me. To pay up, though, it would have to be verifiable, legitimate and beyond any reasonable doubt.
As far as wasting time here, its fun. I have my own coterie of moonbats. Kind of like debating the aforementioned child in the midst of their tantrum.
Except "Rob". He is most likely a random-statement program, taking a fixed set of words and randomly re-arranging them to form some new response, marginally different from the previous. That's all I see him do here.
James-- I made that statement on DU, and I am just so touched that old Pinchy here remembered it. I am in fact a biomedical scientist who has published peer-reviewed papers. The point being that I have some ability to analyze data and draw conclusions that has held up to peer review.
In any case, about the videos, Pinch, you don't need to believe me, or Marcus Icke. Look at the videos yourself. You can see many videos show discrepencies in the plane paths.
It is really quite clear if you are not in complete denial about 9/11.
Or just read Marcus' "Ghost Gun" article and look at all the anomalies he has found with the 2nd plane.
"Two videos, taken
from different distances and different positions and different heights above ground with different sections of the flight path highlighted are juxtaposed to prove a that they aren't the same?"
Two videos-- check
Two different distances-- the distances are actually fairly similar
Two different heights-- again, they are fairly similar
Different sections of the flight path highlighted-- Wrong.
"Any sort of responsible analysis would not even attempt to "prove" anything of the sort without access to different videos from similar positions to compare and contrast. To do so the way that idiot did (and the way you seem to champion) makes a complete mockery of the term "scientific method"."
Look, it is simply bullshit to say you can't make a comparison unless you have videos taken from the exact same position. Science ALLOWS us to compare these things, get it? Yes, ideally, we would have videos from the same position to compare, but in this instance that is clearly a ridiculous stipulation. A detective or a scientist works with the evidence they have.
"And about the smoke in those images.....those images are purported to be "time-lapse graphics" and the smoke doesn't even appear to be anything more than from a still shot - the smoke should have ended up a huge black smudge with no highly defined billows and cumulo-shaped cloud formations, as are in those two images."
Why don't you try doing the analysis yourself and see what you get before accusing someone of manipulation, okay???
damnit, I'm glad you're a scientist but really, if a bum on the street made these observations about 175, they would be no less credible than if steven hawking himself made them.
it's the observations, not the observer that should be scrutinized.
Except "Rob". He is most likely a random-statement program, taking a fixed set of words and randomly re-arranging them to form some new response, marginally different from the previous. That's all I see him do here....
funny...that description seems to fit your Gov't Shill behavior to a "T".
what's that addage?? "One who lives in glass houses..." hehe
Good Ol' Shill "Pinch"...Perfectly Aping the Official Gov't Story every chance he/she gets.
The 9/11 Liars couldn't have found a more loyal servant in the character we're unfortunate enough to be infested with: 'pinch'...he has the blind & unthinking & unquestioning obedience only a lobotomized clone could relate to.
:-)
BTW pinchy, so what part of the Official Conspiricy Story do you find not credible? Anything?? Because you have never ONCE found fault with any part of the Govt's version. Is this possible?
I hope I didn't seem to be minimalizing your role as a scientist, that's not the impression I was trying to put forth. I like science, my brother in fact holds a masters in physics and teaches science at a high school level. good old public education! he refuses to even look at any of the events of 911 though.
anyway, pinch finds it amusing that you rammed a wood plane into a wood tower, but I say right-on to that, although a beer can plane and a barbecue grill tower might be more fitting -
I think what pinch fails to realize is that you, spooked, would be the first one to admit it if you were wrong, and just that alone makes you perfectly suited for this.
thanks James, I know what you're saying and agree.
The wood model was because I just wanted to test the wing strength versus column strength concept...I wasn't trying to mimic a plane crash so much
"...and just that alone makes you perfectly suited for this."
I agree...Spooked is *perfect* for this. As are all of his minions.
so pinch, what part of the Govt's Official Conspiricy Story do you not believe?
Or do you believe absolutely every last part of it??
"so pinch, what part of the Govt's Official Conspiricy Story do you not believe?
Or do you believe absolutely every last part of it??"
See? Absolutely nothing new in terms of verbiage, text, commentary. I can imagine a button that says "Generate new comment for" and a pull-down box with "Pinch" and a half-dozen other names.
Interesting program, but old concept. This has been done myriad times before with various subjects.
Recomendation: Add a routine that generates a cogent thought or two - a statement or observation that pertains to the discussion that is going on. It woudl at least read a bit better.
I guess pinch found my simple question too hard to answer.
More than obvious for all to see that Honest discussion is something our Shill wants no part of...just more insults. I think he/she truly believes that helps his cause...pity.
hmmm - good point 1234, the roof of the tower in the top photo IS slanted, perhaps due to perspective, but notice that the roofs of the other buildings are not - no, i don't have any explanation for that, no doubt someone else will chime in about that. i don't necessarily believe they were holograms myself; don't confuse flying hologram projector technology with cgi which could be placed right on a video in real-time, just like the first down line in a tv football game. there are quite a few obvious discrepancies with the images of 175 impacting the tower, not just the glide path in those two photos. and the proprietor of this blog is named spooked. my name is james ha, but so far i have agreed with everything that spooked has presented. and there are many who believe that the images of 175 were manipulated if not outright fabricated, who question whether some of the plane huggers are distraction agents as well.
It's worse than we thought!!!
Take a look at this picture ( //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Railroad-Tracks-Perspective.jpg )
and you'll see that no train can travel more than a few hundred feet without derailing because the supposedly "parallel" tracks actually converge! I always thought Amtrack was a government conspiricy, now it has been proved!!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home