really? wrote:ProfWag wrote:Oh c'mon Jayhawker, that's thinking logically. Some people around here find that offensive. (I would say who, but I don't want Scepcop to think I'm pointing him out...oh wait...)Scepcop wrote:That's very bad logic. A jetliner hitting the top of a skyscraper would only damage THAT part. At worst, the damaged part could tip over. But it's not going to make the thousands of tons of structure UNDERNEATH it to collapse with zero resistance. That's not logical or possible at all. Buildings don't have zero resistance. If they did, the roof over you would collapse on you right now. So you are definitely wrong. It is not perfectly reasonable at all. You can't destroy the top of a skyscraper and expect the whole structure beneath to collapse at zero resistance. Even a child can understand this.
Why can't pseudoskeptics?
Furthermore, Building 7 was not even hit by a plane. Did you forget that? That smoking gun didn't even make you raise an eyebrow? If not, then you are disinfo trolls with an agenda, not normal people with good common sense. Even rednecks have more common sense and logic than you.really? wrote:And yet the pseudoincredulous saw just what you said can't happen live on tv .SydneyPSIder wrote:I've just seen a very interesting analysis online a couple days ago of how the footage and pics have been faked. Will have to re-google it later and post a link , unless other forum members are happy to just google it like I did .
For instance, the shots taken from a helicopter have had the helicopter stuff faked in around it by a study of the movements of the fakery vs the background. then the brooklyn bridge keeps changing size, distance and location in different shots, as though using backmask software with a foreground and background being brought together -- and what was with that strange footage we've all seen with the WTC towers suddenly becoming grey wireframes in one shot as it goes out? bit hard to do in a real video shot, it's more like the early stolen copy of 'wolverine' that got out there with missing special effects! also, the analyst shows how the plane hitting the building with the nose coming through the other side intact and in exactly the same profile went awry -- attempting to mix a shot of the scene with a faked airplane using realtime or near realtime technology, and the real helicopter shifted slightly in flight, meaning the superimposed shot of a fake plane kept going out the other side. the guy involved in ostensibly 'taking' the shot is extremely quiet about it, and just says 'I don't know, that must have been what happened, that was the shot I took'. (Of course it's impossible for the soft empty nose of a plane to hit umpteen streel columns and come through the other side intact and in exactly the same profile). the analysis makes perfect sense and clears up a few mysteries.
also shows how the very limited number of street shots and some actor appearances by stooges were faked or set up.
ther's one piece of footage out there where one guy's arm goes *right through* another person, i.e. characters were dropped into the video later.
It's also interesting that some of the photos show a clear blue sky and others show a smoggy day. You can't have it both ways. On the day of 9/11 it was a clear blue sky, no thermal inversions or smog. Funny how 4 different networks carried identical footage also, except they were all different colours as though filters had been applied to make them look different.
Here's an example site, 'September Clues', not sure if that was the site I was looking at. Be sure to follow all the links in the index bar on the right -- unless you're a pseudoscep, of course, you won't want or need to see any of the evidence or think about it, that's not in the playbook.
To the bold.So what ? Here's what I see. I see in all 4 of the photos showing the same amount of haze near the horizon.
The pseudoincredulous masquerading as truth seekers constantly amaze me with their silly CT fabrications.
What? I'm talking about entirely different sets of photos. Those 4 are all analogues of each other. That's the point -- why would the same feed end up with 4 different types of tinting? Other pics on the actual day show a clear day with no haze near the horizon. The point is, if you follow the site, some of the video was pre-prepared with footage shot on other days and worked on.