|
Author
|
Topic: W.T.F.!?!
|
|
|
KnickerZohnonnof
VoivodFan
Member # 272
|
posted October 19, 2004 17:36
    
Yeah I've seen it before and it is yet another one of those wonderful conspiracy theories in my opinion.I would be interested to see what extra footage was recorded though... -------------------- Hail Santa...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LyKcantropen
VoivodFan
Member # 162
|
posted October 20, 2004 05:59
There were some interesting inconsistencies, as I recall, with the Pentagon story. For example, the four pictures that were issued show a white vapour trail (that commercial jet airliners don't issue at low altitudes), the explosion being the wrong colour (if that means anything to anyone), punching through three layers of the incredibly well-armoured building in a very small hole (far too small for the size of jet), and a complete lack of damage of any kind to the pristine Pentagon lawn.It's interesting, but I'm not about to go around making theories, or claiming anything as "the truth".  There are a lot of inconsistencies with the official story of 9/11, but just as many inconsistencies with the "faults". For example, if it was, as some claim, a missile that hit the Pentagon, why? What was the point? And more importantly, where did the plane go? The one that amuses me most, is the complete failure of the USA's air defence system and NORAD. The guy in charge, instead of being fired for gross negligence, was made the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently, I believe. The guys from The Onion did a good "Dangerous 9/11 Questions" article in a book they produced, but I doubt there's an internet link.
| IP: Logged
|
|
LyKcantropen
VoivodFan
Member # 162
|
posted October 20, 2004 10:23
quote:
If this amuses you I would not want to know what it takes to cheer you on.
Hooray for taking things out of context! The whole passage works together - All those little words are conected to the same point! Doesn't it make more sense when you read them all together? What's amusing is that the guy who presided over the single greatest homeland defense error since Pearl Harbour was subsequently promoted without a blemish on his record. Not that the system which detects any incoming threat to the United States failed so utterly and miserably. That's no joke at all. In that quote you linked, see those little words? "ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY?" that means "ALMOST all" of their concentration is on large-scale attacks. Not "all". NORAD has ALWAYS been responsible for monitoring internal air traffic, in the events of emergencies. Like, oh, I don't know, hijackings. Any course deviation of a passenger aircraft, however slight, should be reported to NORAD within 2 minutes, and aircraft scrambled - and those already in the air, of which there are hundreds every day, are redirected. Fighter jets were redirected 113-odd times on false alarms in 2001 alone. Except for on September 11th, and probably a couple of other, more inconsequential days days as well. As it was, it took a frankly unacceptable 45 minutes to be reported, then for aircraft to be scrambled - by which time, most of the planes had already struck their targets. Hell, when not one, but FOUR planes are hijacked within minutes of each other, wouldn't you suppose that SOMEONE would have cottoned on? However you try and spin it, it's a massive security failure - especially given that intelligence had been handed in to the government several times about possible aircraft hijackings, and then attacks on buildings with aforementioned aircraft. The site's a good 'un, and does debunk some of the points. There's still some that remain, but I don't generally consider conspiracy theories of this sort as anything but points of interest.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Peter Nubile
VoivodFan
Member # 474
|
posted October 20, 2004 16:59
Yes, I agree with warcorpse... I guess that I should have been more careful with my own choice of words in regards to the original message. Please forgive me as coming across as being kind of amateurish (Heck, I would take it as a compliment to even be referred to as an amateur!) but I should have originally stated that I found the construction of this "show" to be interesting. The actual message or plot however is one which I find hard to believe. As a person who has some knowledge in regards to working with photographic images, it is very easy to literally edit out a 757 from at least that one video sample. All one needs to know is how to use a clone function like what is available in Photoshop as well as intentionally alter the resolution of the images so as too make it that much harder to really notice the changes. Heck, it wouldn't take much effort to even alter the color of the explosion - say by switching channels - as well as scale down the size of the fireball! I doubt if one even has to bother switching channels unless perhaps one is feeling kind of adventurous... One could easily make allot of debris from the explosion disappear and even edit in debris from a completely different explosion! On the other hand, for the sake of those diehard members of the other camp, one could easily edit in a 757 in place of a missile or small airplane... Oh yes, in regards to the alledgedly original small hole which was "observed" on the outside of the pentagon, if there is a will, there is a way! There are allot of brilliant people out there in the world who have a very sophisticated understanding of how to manipulate images; one could easily edit in a different hole and apply some other interesting techniques such as I already mentioned in regards to make it look very realistic... An ace graphics wiz would probably take it as an insult to even consider doing something below him or her as altering the resolution! Heck, some people would even consider it odd to come across a video which sports a low resolution - even if only a couple frames or a frame or even part of a frame is affected. I know that I do. In that one frame where there is that "ghost" image which is observe, well; one could use a "ghost" function; and or cloning; and or feathering; and or scaling to achieve a desired effect. What better way to cover up ones' tracks then to leave some intangible evidence which could easily point an investigator in a different direction or at least to offer to raise some new questions to make the original story that much harder to prove? Have I just contradicted myself again?-------------------- "Woah, ho, ho, and a pint of Hefeweizen!!!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
he really had fun...
