Yes, the source is biased, that is in favor of the TRUTH. The scientist who wrote it has solid evidence that the whole hijacked airliners business is bogus.
is a tangent Focus pinky .... Focus ..... Rather than say its not proper evidence, how about actually rebutting the material presented? You can attempt to character assassinate the messenger all you want but actually presenting a case to counter what has been shown to be that is by good science & physics. What do you have?
It was an example....and I didn't character assassinate' anyone,you offered no name for me to do so.. And you've presented me with NO 'case' to counter,as well.
Obviously then, you have not looked at the link I posted because the researchers name is in the web-page.
at this point it appears that you want to have the discussion wander off-topic so that you will not have to address the obvious video fraud involved in the "FLT175" reporting. I invite anyone who is curious to have a look at the web-page and come to your own conclusions. http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/ have a nice day : )
Opened your link....read the first link http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/hezarkhani/ Who was the author of that information? Why doesn't anyone put their names on the web site as to their area of expertise or education? I mean in the article it says this "What we have here is a technical impossibility for a real aircraft and a strong sign of video forgery. It looks as if the video has been composited from 3 layers - one layer with the UA 175 aircraft, a second layer with the foreground structures and a third layer with the WTC towers." Without names how am I a casual observer suppose to tell if what is being written is based on some ones expertise or just their beliefs? Wouldn't it be nice to see some names and credentials?
Have you ever heard of ACE BAKER? there is a video on YouTube where he lays it all out from a video editing perspective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds actually there is a LOT of activity on this subject you don't need to dig all that deep to find it. Ghost Plane "FLT175" ( etc.... )
OK so here is what I find, Ace Baker is "a Alexander "Ace" Baker is an American video/music producer" Ace demonstrated "how to insert a flying airplane image into the 911 videos," but he didn't exactly disprove that a plane flew into the towers or disprove the evidence of the parts and pieces of the planes that did . Got anything else....something say more scientific?
is this scientific enough: an image of an aircraft is seen traveling its own length in 6 frames of 30 f/s video, that is while traveling through air, and also in 6 frames of video, penetrating nose to tail a skyscraper wall. do you understand this?
Why don't you have Ace analyze the video of the jet smashing into the concrete wall and see if you get the same results.
Really, I'm not even going there, the case of the F4 intentional destruction of the aircraft is a sample size of ONE. There is a body of ballistics research that indicates the projectile would have to expend energy to penetrate the target and therefore slow down. you attempt to discount the entire body of ballistics research with a sample size of one demonstration. Also, WHY didn't the aircraft behave as a HOLLOW POINT? the nose of the airliner is most certainly not a solid mass....
You can wait all you want REASONABLE people understand that some proofs do not have to arrive with copious quantities of numbers.
How about claims supported by the facts Even if you don't personally like it, the fact is that its documented 2.25 sec. of free fall acceleration by WTC7. this is damning evidence and you don't approve of it, but the TRUTH is not dependent on your approval. The fact is that total destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 is evidence and very serious evidence, this is not the subject of "incredulity" its a fact that WTC1,2 & 7 were destroyed, and its a fact that in various fire code manuals, it is stated that total destruction of anything is a trigger for a swift and complete investigation of the site, testing for explosives ( etc.... ) and documenting everything. exactly what was done on 9/11/2001?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg&list=PL5B2640358CEB857E pay close attention to the first 5 sec. its rather sad that there isn't a calibrated video, that is one that has specific instrumentation of the ballistics so as to document the event. The fact is that given Newton's laws, the bullet upon impact with a target, would have nothing else to do except decelerate in that it takes energy to penetrate the target and the ONLY energy available is the KE of the projectile, and using it up causes deceleration. Science 101 stuff......
This is strictly a matter of opinion about that and the physics that aligns with natural law is that the projectile must slow down. The bullet penetrating a bit of cardboard still slows down some amount, admittedly a rather small amount but it does experience some deceleration, it must in the act of penetrating the target. So what I am questioning here, is the act of the alleged "FLT175" penetrating a wall constructed of steel box columns and penetrating as if it were penetrating a cardboard wall, and in response people say "oh but the airliner was going soooo fast!" This is why I complain about people sleeping through Science 101. Have a nice day : )
