You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #22: That's a good example of what I meant [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-15-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. That's a good example of what I meant
... by sloppy and incompetent video analysis.

> Compare the puffball to the portion of the fuselage sticking out of the tower in Hezarkhani, then you can judge the distance out from the facade. It is not much more than ten feet out.

It might appear that way if you assume that the darker edge along the bottom is right against the building and compare it to the fuselage sticking out of the building, but there is absolutely no way in that 2D image to verify that assumption. Instead, a rational person would look at the Fairbanks video and note that the assumption is simply invalid. Similarly, if you look at the Fairbanks video casually and it looks like the "puffball" might be above the wing, a rational person would look at the Hezarkhani video and note that the assumption is invalid. But not "no-planers."

The only "discrepancies" are between what the videos show and your own unsubstantiated assumptions, and your only purpose for those assumptions is to create a "discrepancy" where none really exists. If all we had were these two videos, then the best you might say is that they don't really settle the issue conclusively. But of course these two videos aren't by any means all we have. We have dozens of other videos and photos, physical evidence, and uncounted eyewitnesses, all saying that a plane hit that building. Even if you could prove that either of these videos had been altered -- and you most certainly have not -- we could toss these videos out and still know that a plane hit the building. This is where "no-planers" show how far out of touch they are with reality and rational thought. Based on nothing more than their own assumptions about what these videos show instead of what they "ought" to show, and a few other cases where videos don't look like they think they "ought" to, they claim to have proven that not only are those videos fake but all the other evidence must be fake, too. And yet, not in a single case are they able to show any solid reason for believing that any of the videos are fake. It's beyond ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC