Disinformation and shills

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Jun 26, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Your math is flawed because you are starting from a flawed standard. Garbage in, garbage out. The fact that your "result" supports your "theory" is an example of "figures don't lie but liars figure".

    You call that a clear picture?? You can't even make out any windows of the Pentagon because of the glare. You can barely discern where the nose of the object is much less make definitive judgments as to its shape.

    Is YouTube and Google not owned? Why are all these videos on YouTube if there is this vast conspiracy to conceal the truth?

    I don't have a game. I am just trying to get some sensible answers to questions. You however seem to be playing the game of incessantly reposting the same information over and over as if reposting it thousands of times will make it logical and sensible. You don't answer direct questions, you just reply with copy and paste links. And then you have the audacity to criticize the debating skills of others.

    Not proof. Just forum posts. Theory, conjecture, innuendo, cherry picking of facts and not much else.

    In your own words . . .

    Besides, it's on the Internet. How the hell can it be buried?
     
  2. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,917
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where the nose of the object is is very clear.
    http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

    It's on the right side of the picture a little above the middle. The shape is very clear. It has the shape of the nose of a fighter type plane such as an F-4.

    I know you pro-official version people always have to make the last post no mattter how lame your arguments are. That post of yours is pretty lame. There is a point at which things are so clear that sophistry becomes ineffective. The best sophist in the world couldn't convince an eight-year-old that this is an unclear picture.

    When you pro-official version people lose debates, you keep saying lame things until the truther gets tired and stops posting and then you bury the part where you lost with a few pages of BS and then you go on talking to each other as if nothing had happened. If I stop posting, this will be buried within a day or two.
     
  3. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You can't be serious. You call that a clear picture?

    [​IMG]

    It's 400x200 pixels and has a terrible glare. Few if any details are clear.

    I see the area you are talking about. You honestly believe that the picture is sharp enough to determine what you are claiming?

    And if so, are you saying that a fighter type plane crashed into the Pentagon?
     
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,917
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've been saying that for a long time. All the evidence points to that. A 757 flew over the Pentagon and landed at the airport that's behind the Pentagon and a fighter-sized plane flew in from another angle and probably fired a missile just before impact.

    The people who saw the 757 put it in a place where it was at an angle that wasn't consistent with the crash.
    National Security Alert - Sensitive Information Part 1/8 - YouTube
    (8 parts)

    http://www.physics911.net/missingwings
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wings that should have been sheared off by the impact are entirely absent. There is also substantial evidence of debris from a much smaller jet-powered aircraft inside the building. We conclude with a high degree of certainty that no Boeing 757 struck the building. We also conclude with a substantial degree of certainty that a smaller, single-engined aircraft, roughly the size and shape of an F-16, did, in fact, strike the building.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    Start watching this at the 11:45 time mark.
    9/11 - Painful Deceptions - (Full Length). - YouTube

    http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html

    Of course. It's very clear. The nose of the craft is shaped like that of a fighter. Compare it with the nose of a 757.
    http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b757/b757_15.jpg


    You pretty much showed you're not an objective truth-seeker when you said this in post #276.
    The location of the nose of the craft is very obvious.
    http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

    You were having trouble seeing it because you didn't want to see it. It's pretty clear that you're not here to seek the truth, but to obfuscate the truth. You're not fooling any thinking people.
     
  5. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,016
    Likes Received:
    3,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I love how truthers lean so heavily on amateur image analysis and never bother to research the media formats they rely on. They never take the time to learn the limitations of the technologies they say proves their arguments.

    The security camera obviously used a fisheye lens. The intent of this camera must have been a wide field of view, with less importance placed on scale and distance. Before measurements can be taken from the image, a proper analyst would correct for the type of lens used on the camera. Can any truther even tell me what kind of camera it was?

    Knowing how the image was taken is very important. A good analyst would want to know the shutter type, shutter speed, and ISO rating of the camera in order to analyze a portion of the image thought to be moving at a high rate of speed. Without this information many false conclusions can be drawn.

    Without such knowledge they look at images like this:

    [​IMG]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_shutter

    And conclude they're looking at a high tech military vehicle, instead of a rolling shutter distorted Audi.
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,917
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It would take a lot of distortion to change the nose of a 757 to the nose in this picture.
    http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

    There is no similar distortion in the Pentagon. The distortion in the whole picture would be consistent if that were the distorted nose of a 757.

    Do you agree with what DDave said in post #276?
    Do you think it's difficult to discern where the nose of the craft is in the picture?
     
  7. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,016
    Likes Received:
    3,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is incorrect.

    Look again at the picture I posted. The rolling shutter causes the nose of the Audi to stretch in a different proportion from the rest of the Audi, and the rest of the environment. Notice that the phenomenon does not effect the background, which is also in motion in relation to the CCD.

    In the Pentagon photo you have posted, the Pentagon is not in motion, the lawn is not in motion, and the camera is not in motion. The only thing moving is the aircraft. The Pentagon is distorted by the type of lens used, and the plane is distorted by the lens, the shutter speed, and the quality of the CCD.

    The other thing that needs to be addressed is the aliasing due to image compression. 7Forever couldn't seem to wrap his head around this in relation to his "orbs" How about you? Do you understand that image compression causes artifacts that distort images?
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,917
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Similarly, the foreground in this picture is distorted and the background doesn't seem to be very distorted.
    http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

    The part of the picture in question is the background. The part of the Pentagon that's as far from the camera as the craft is is not distorted to the degree that the nose would have to be if it were really the nose of a 757.

    Once again, do you agree with what DDave said in post #276?
     
  9. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which airport behind the Pentagon would that be?

    Do you anyone who witnessed a 757 flying over the Pentagon? (There are plenty who witnessed it hit.)
    Do you have anyone who witnessed a fighter sized plane or a missile?
     
  10. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,016
    Likes Received:
    3,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're not understanding.

    There's two different types of distortion that exist in that image. The first type is due to the shape of the lens. The lens design causes light to bend toward the center of the aperture in order to create a wider field of view. This makes the image look warped around the edges and objects in the center appear further away then they actually are. The side view mirror on your car is a similar type of lens. That's why it's marked "objects in mirror are closer then they appear."

    The second type of distortion is due to the speed and type of the shutter. Objects in motion are affected by this type of distortion. Objects that remain still are less affected, but strange things can still happen depending on light interference through the aperture.

    This is BS. I challenge you to quantify how much the pentagon should be distorted if the plane were a 757. Bear in mind, the pentagon is not in motion. The aircraft nose is. They are not expected to display the same type of distortion.

    There's not enough information in the photograph to identify the shape as the aircraft's nose. It could be the nose. It could be the midsection. It could be the tail. Rolling shutter causes images from different points in time to exist within the same image. I'll give you an example:

    [​IMG]

    How many propeller blades does this aircraft have? Are they all attached to the aircraft or are they magically hovering in mid air? Does the airplane display the correct amount of distortion in your view?

    How about this one?

    [​IMG]

    Are the blades really bent like that? Are there really that many of them?

    Of course they aren't. The CCD simply isn't able to keep pace with the speed of the propeller. The image takes a period of time to create, and during that period of time the image changes. Thus, you could be viewing parts of the background in places where the plane actually was simply due to the way the CCD scans the image.
     
  11. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    More probablys. It seems you know for certain (or claim to anyway) what didn't happen, but when you are asked what did happen, all you can come up with are "could haves", "maybes", and "probablys" with no corroborating evidence whatsoever.

    Okay, I'll play along. If the 757 flew over the Pentagon and landed somewhere else, what happened to all the passengers and crew and to the plane itself?

    Not to mention citing a website that spends the first several paragraphs "explaining" how it is obvious that the image has been tampered with (again with no evidence) and can't be trusted and then in the NEXT paragraph proclaim all of the "facts" that the supposedly untrustworthy image DOES prove.
     
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,917
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the shutter speed is too slow, the object is blurred. It doesn't look clearly outlined with a distorted shape. That is a clear picture of a nose that is too small to be a 757.
    http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

    See above.

    I don't know how to calculate it but the distortion of the nose is extreme if it's a 757 nose. The section of the Pentagon that's as far from the camera as the craft is looks normal. I see no significant distortion.

    We also have this.
    http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm

    The length of a 757 is twice the height of the Pentagon.

    If you take the space between the upper left part of the box and the tail of the craft and increase it by twenty seven percent to allow for the angle (I measured it), you'll see that it's not twice the height of the Pentagon at the point that's as far from the camera as the craft is as it would be if it were a 757. Are you saying that distortion would throw this off? I can hardly see any distortion in the background of the picture you posted in reply #280.

    You're not answering the question I asked you. Here's his full quote.
    Here's the part I want you to comment on.
    He says he can barely see where the nose is in the picture. Did you have any trouble finding the nose of the craft in the picture

    Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
    http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Pentagon_Missile_Batteries

    Here's a witness list.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632

    The witnesses who saw a 757 put it at an angle that is not consistent with the angle of the craft that crashed.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk
    (8 parts)


    The crash site is not consistent with a 757 having crashed so we can deduce that a 757 flew over the Pentagon.
    http://www.physics911.net/missingwings
    http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html
     
  13. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,016
    Likes Received:
    3,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're still not getting it. Look at the Audi again. The entire car is moving at the same speed, not just the nose of the car, and yet it's just the nose that gets blurred. This is due to the way the camera reads the CCD. The camera cannot "see" the entire image at once. Instead, the image is scanned in lines. The rate at which this scan takes place, and the pattern in which this scan takes place is the shutter speed, and the shutter type. This is why part of the Audi is blurred, and part of the Audi is well defined.

    You should learn before you try and tell people what should and should not be. You clearly are not familiar with the media, and your assumptions are false due to that fact.

    And this is why I included the type of lens in my discussion. This analysis is not corrected for the lens distortion caused by the fisheye. You cannot "measure" something that is not scaled correctly to begin with.

    Yes, I did answer your question. I just answered it in a way you didn't like, or didn't understand. You asked me if the nose can be discerned in your photograph. The answer is: Due to the shutter distortion, you cannot be sure that what you are looking at is made up of the nose, the middle, or the tail section of the plane. The CCD, the shutter speed and the type of shutter is not designed to be able to capture an object traveling at 400+ miles an hour.
     
  14. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The gov needs not to do any of the above. There are enough d****** out there who's only reason for debating the issue in support of the gov position, is self interest.

    It was less than 5% of the population that created, supported and fought for the creation of the United States. I suspect there were at least that many opposed to it, and in support of the Crown. The rest were to busy trying hack a life out of the wilderness to notice.

    Less than 5%, certainly not the majority were absolutely CORRECT about what they knew and believed.
     
  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Less than 5% you say? hmmmm

    [​IMG]

    How about less than 0.5%?
     
  16. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,917
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're being deliberately obtuse. Take a very close look at this quote.
    DDave said he could hardly tell where the object was. My question is whether you can easily tell where the nose is. It's not about what the object is or looks like. Please tell me whether you had any trouble finding the object.

    I'm asking you this because DDave seemed to be playing games because he was cornered. I want to see how objective you are.

    This is true of objects that are close to the camera. The objects in your picture that are as far from the camera as the craft in this picture is...
    http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

    are very clear. I see no significant distortion. You are trying to muddy the waters comparing the distortion that occurs in the foreground but not the background with an object that's in the background.
     
  17. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Not playing games, just trying to figure out what portion of the picture you are claiming is the nose of a plane.

    [​IMG]

    I assume it is the portion I have circled in red. Could be the base of a distant building for all the detail that picture has to offer.

    Can you tell me what the areas are that I outlined in blue?

    [​IMG]

    I stand by my original quote though. It is a 400x200 pixel image with huge glare spots taken with a fisheye lens. You can't even tell if the building has windows yet . . .

    you claim that the picture is clear.
     
  18. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,917
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Give me a break. There's only one thing in this picture that even comes close to looking like the nose of an aircraft.
    http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

    Give me a break again.

    I don't know the technical terms but they're some kind of light artifacts caused by sunlight. They certainly don't look anything like the nose of a plane though. Also, the rest of the plane would have to be connected to the nose so none of them could be the nose.

    That was a good attempt at damage-control but I doubt you're fooling anybody.

    You're being deliberately obtuse. The part of the picture that shows the nose of the craft is clear. There is glare in other parts of the picture. Saying the part of the picture which has no glare is unclear because there's glare on the other side of the picture is pretty lame.

    As I said before, there's a point at which evidence is so clear that sophistry becomes ineffective. No matter how skilled a sophist is, when he tries to obfuscate something as clear as this, he just ends up looking silly.
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,917
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's a video I just came across.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtlzCyKbw5Q"]G FORCES - Scene From 9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON - YouTube[/ame]
     
  20. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Agreed. But it certainly isn't definitive. ESPECIALLY if it was the nose of the plane, it would be moving at over 500 mph.

    I never said that the other sections I highlighted were the nose of a plane. I was merely pointing out that the image is not entirely clear.

    I'm not saying that part of the picture which has no glare is unclear because there's glare on the other side of the picture. I'm saying that the image as a whole is not clear enough to identify the details you are claiming. The part you are claiming to know is the nose of something too small to be a 757 is at the edge of a photo taken by a fisheye lens. You do know that fisheye lenses distort (bend) items at the edges of the field of view, don't you?

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheye_lens

    In photography, a fisheye lens is a wide-angle lens that takes in a broad, panoramic and hemispherical image. Originally developed for use in meteorology to study cloud formation and called "whole-sky lenses", fisheye lenses quickly became popular in general photography for their unique, distorted appearance.

    I don't have time to watch it at the present time, but I will and get back to you.
     
  21. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    11,016
    Likes Received:
    3,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You keep asking the same question. I keep giving you the same answer. You ask if I can see the NOSE of the aircraft, and I keep telling you that the part of the image you are looking at cannot be defined as the nose. This is due to the way digital cameras capture high speed images. It doesn't get more objective then that. You're trying to define what you see in the image as a specific part of the aircraft, and I'm telling you that what you see could be a distorted composite of many different periods of time due to rolling shutter effect. This would explain why what you see looks longer then what you would expect the nose to look like. I think it's an artifact of motion blur and you've not come up with a reasonable explanation why I'm wrong.

    You claimed that the building should also be distorted but the building is not in motion.

    You also claimed:

    In other words, you think that the plane was far enough away from the camera that the camera should be able to capture it moving at 400+ miles an hour. This statement is wholly unsupported by you with any actual evidence.

    First of all, the focal length of the lens is not the issue. The issue is the speed at which the area of the CCD is read.

    Second of all, the vehicles in my photograph are moving at a realistic maximum relative velocity of 120 - 160 miles an hour, while the background would be expected to be a maximum relative 60 - 80 miles an hour. My guess is that the actual velocities were much lower, but I cannot rule out the higher values.

    The plane on the other hand is moving at 400+ miles an hour. There's no comparison there.

    Let's say it takes 200ms to read the entire CCD. At 400 miles an hour, the aircraft moves .586666668ft every millisecond. That means in the time the scan takes place, the aircraft moves 117 feet. The entire aircraft is only 140 feet long. The scan can be of any part of that 140 feet.
     
  22. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So . . . do you really want to put your faith in a video that starts out by telling you that "we tried to prove this point before but it was pointed out that we were wrong but you should believe us this time"?

    Also, the entire premise of their calculations is based on the 757 flying level across the lawn. How do they know that is the case? Again, they are relying on video that does not show that kind of detail.

    But I'm guessing you won't question that because their conclusion fits with your theory.

    But let me ask you again, if AA77 did not crash into the Pentagon . . .
    where did it land?
    what happened to the plane?
    what happened to the passengers and crew?
     
  23. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe you should have watched the whole video
     
  24. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe you should comment on the whole post. C'mon, you can write in more than 140 characters at a time, can't you?
     
  25. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I did watch the whole video. Maybe you should learn to read for comprehension.

    Not true at all. It just has to impact above the foundation in the final stage of its descent. Does not mean that it was flying level or had to pull out of a dive to achieve this. What is the basis for their claim that it was flying level?

    And what about if AA77 did not crash into the Pentagon . . .
    where did it land?
    what happened to the plane?
    what happened to the passengers and crew?
     

Share This Page