Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You've got to realize that most don't 'see' what you 'see'. And it's NOT because they aren't looking.
This reminds me of that ex NASA scientist that saw faces and pyramids on Mars and glass cathedrals on the moon.
It SELLS is it's only virtue, IF it can be called that.
That's not even close to being true ... the national polls show anywhere between 45 and 65% see some or all of what I see. Overseas polls are well over those percentages. Just on this thread is over 30%. Hardly what could be described as insignificant. 30% of this country is over 100 Million people. This is pretty simple math .... and given that we have an average IQ in this country around 95-100 ... that means half are BELOW that figure.
So it's not surprising that 50% of the population would believe such a cockamamie story like aluminum planes ripping through steel and concrete buildings like they were made of paper mache, resulting in the entire structure being pulverized into twisted steel and dust .... including 100 acres of office furniture and equipment that also vaporized without a trace ... .... except, of course , the hijacker's magic passport!!!
It's not surprising that hundreds of people have testified to explosions ... video and audio recordings of explosions .... but because the talking heads say there were no explosives ... the nitwits claim that it was probably cans of window cleaner, and the other nitwits will believe that, along with the other 100 or so idiotic explanations given to attempt to explain this fairytale of Osama Bin Laden and his 19 Arab retards defeating the USA.
And you associate anyone who questions this brain dead nonsense as believing in little green men from Mars? . Here's your friggin sign too! We now know where on the IQ scale you're likely to land.
As an ex news photographer, I'm fairly well versed in both types of photography. Engineers and photographers do however do talk 'zoom ratios'. The zooming, the panning, the focal length, camera type (film vs digital) and camera movement ALL come into play in your conspiracy video. This camera was mounted on a helicopter with stabilizing gyro's (of the era) wasn't it?
You say it's not rocket science, so why are you trying to launch it as a rocket?
Zooming IS focal length .... zooming ratios are what manufacturers use to describe focal length for people who don't know what focal length is ... i.e. 6x zoom ... or 20x digital zoom. No pro discuses focal length in such terms, nor do they use digital zoom.
" Reynolds also points to some of the impossible physics that would have had to transpire had flight AA77 struck the Pentagon in accord with the official story. Simply put, no passenger jet could have flown at ground level at top speed because the resultant air pressure acting on the wings would have thrown the plane wildly off course even with the most experienced of pilots.........
......At high speeds, the highly energized wing-tip vortices and huge downwash sheet of a 200,000-lb. airliner make it physically impossible to get closer to the ground than one-half wingspan or about 60’ in this case. The physical forces of the compressible gas called air, in other words, stirred by a high-speed 757 traveling flat near the ground make it impossible to land it at high speed. An aeronautical engineer proves this proposition in an article (http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm - broken link) at www.physics911.net, and he invites other engineers and pilots to prove him wrong. Very few pilots have experienced the aerodynamic effects in this rare flight domain because they normally only get this close to the ground during landing at low speeds.
Highly wing-loaded aircraft like the Global Hawk or B1-B can land at high speed but not lightly wing-loaded aircraft like the 757. In addition, a ground-hugging 757 spewing a 100,000-lb. thrust jetblast behind it would have blown trailer trucks and people away, phenomena absent in the flight path ......."
I'm sorry, but all of the people saying that this was some kind of big conspiracy and didn't actually happen...... you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Watch how objects that are farther appear to move in reference to objects that are closer... even when they are both actually standing still.
Only a blithering idiot would consider that a "moving bridge." Most kids figure that out that effect by about age 10.
Very nice point ... well done! Most of us 10 years of age and older, recognize that reference items off in the distance appear to move far less than objects closer in view, when we are moving ... such as traveling in a car.
I would also like to point out that it is not a demonstration of supreme wisdom to use self defeating facts and arguments in support of your own contentions, which you have certainly done here ... IN SPADES. To be honest, if I had to guess, I'd wager that most "blithering idiots" would understand that to be a poor tactic! But I'll get back to this little point momentarily.
We can assume also that most children understand that buildings and bridges don't ACTUALLY "move" long before they reach 10 years of age ... so your insinuation that grown adults wouldn't understand this concept is far more a reflection on you and the deceptive tactics you continue to employ.
Let us then assume for the moment that most would agree that of the main items being considered ... buildings, bridges, and helicopter mounted cameras ... those of sound mind would choose the helicopter mounted camera as the only item that could possibly be physically moving.
However, when it comes to video, none of those items can be ruled out, because anything can be made to move in video, including bridges and buildings. Hollywood does it every day. The error apparently being made is a compound one, assuming that buildings and bridges cannot move, while also assuming that the video is legitimate. This is what separates the childish opinion from the more learned adult opinion that considers such video manipulations are indeed possible, while also understanding that it is the very purpose of analyzing the video to determine if evidence of such manipulation indeed exists. Simply assuming that the video is legitimate from the outset renders analysis of it rather pointless, don't you think?
Furthermore, not only is video manipulation possible, but in the case of 911 videos, there are other examples of such manipulations occurring, which then demands that such a possibility be that much more scrutinized.
All of that aside ... at ANY TIME when one is engaged in analyzing photographs or video, authenticity is THE FIRST STEP that needs to be established. Consequently, assuming authenticity from the outset leads to the equally illegitimate exercise of attempting to "explain away" anomalies rather than identify them and their true foundation.
Once again ... the video provides all of the necessary elements to ascertain source authenticity .... we know the source ... the Fox 5 Helicopter. We know that "conspiracy theorist pranksters" haven't manipulated the video ... it's open source, broadcast TV, and has been verified. The next step is to ascertain content authenticity, because we've only determined source authenticity so far, and not content authenticity. And that step includes applying real life constants to this analysis. Those constants being that fixed items don't physically move ... such as bridges and buildings, and that if one of those fixed items appears to be moving, there are only two possible explanations. The first being that such movement is an optical illusion created naturally by the manner in which the video was captured ... or ... the video has been artificially manipulated, and NOT AUTHENTIC, which is the fundamental reason for the analysis to begin with.
Such analysis isn't always an easy task .. there are lots of very good editors out there that can manipulate video to where it is almost impossible to detect their manipulations. Fortunately, the video we're discussing now is not one of the those examples. The manipulation in this case is BLATANT and OBVIOUS, and not at all difficult to identify. Why? Because we have something impossible occurring. We have a distant bridge that "appears" to be moving A LOT ... while the video also contains a number of other fixed reference items in the foreground and much closer to the camera, that don't appear to be moving at all, or show only very slight "movement". This is impossible with a legitimate and authentic video of a real life event, and proof positive of video manipulation on the surface.
If this were a legitimate video, and an authentic depiction of a real life scene, we'd see the EXACT OPPOSITE occurring, as you were so kind to point out to us "blithering idiots". In reality, the more distant bridge would "appear to move" far less than objects closer to the camera, if it was camera movement inducing the illusion of movement ... irrespective of focal length. Increasing or decreasing focal length doesn't change this effect. And you need not be an expert in video analysis to see that .... the average 10 year old, or "blithering idiot" should be able to grasp the concept very quickly, as this "blithering idiot" (myself) did.
The question I would pose to you is this: since you have already identified yourself as a person who understands the concept of distant item/closer item perspectives, why are you finding it so difficult to apply that knowledge to the video analysis ... or worse ... come to the complete opposite conclusion to what that concept demands?
My conclusion is that, like the video, there are only two possibilities ... one involves integrity, and the other, intellect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of us 10 years of age and older, recognize that reference items off in the distance appear to move far less than objects closer in view, when we are moving ... such as traveling in a car. 
To be honest, if I had to guess, I'd wager that most "blithering idiots" would understand that to be a poor tactic! But I'll get back to this little point momentarily.
