No Boeing 767 impacted the South Tower on 911

I don't normally do aircraft, but I am working on a Pentagon diarama. I'll let you know when I am ready to push the pin into your ego. I normally do fighting vehicles, but some of the same principles of perspective and proportion and depth of focus apply to aircraft modelling as well.

 

It has nothing to do with ego. The angle of the fake image and real boeing are very close. Like Rich said, even if the real plane was slightly more left, then the right wing would appear further from the tail section. I'm not the type of person you may think I am. I've told some obvious truths over the past few years and people like yourself have simply resisted them. And, I fully understand that many Americans would make excuses for why they'd continue to believe there were planes, unlike the driver shooting jfk.

 

It's a question of you getting your eyes checked.


Nothing more.

 

It's a question of Rich getting his head candled.

 

Millions of people witnessed the event.

 

Rich is an idiot and you lack the critical skills to notice it.

 

PressTV - New studies: ?Conspiracy theorists? sane; government dupes crazy, hostile

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

Quote:
Jul 12, 2013

The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”

Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”

In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.

Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”

Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”

In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.

DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime.

Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.

In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.

The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:

Quote:
“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”
But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous - and more rational - than anti-conspiracy ones.

 

The realists actually have lives in the real world and have no time to slap down your hallucinatory hobgoblins. There are more important things going on now, like the aftermath of Florida v. Zimmerman.

 

Presstv... Lol...

 

The "orb" is quite clearly an aeroplane; you can see the sun reflecting off its starboard wing. So, in your opinion, what was this slow-flying "orb"; who built it and how was it propelled? Was it space aliens?
In the second video the tail fin and wings are clearly visible and ARE those of a conventional aeroplane. You need better glasses-or a screen with better resolution.

 

Exactly right; a city where you're lucky to catch a glimpse of sky between tall buildings, sound bouncing off their walls like a gunshot in a canyon, and an aeroplane approaching at around 500mph at low level; you'd be very lucky to spot it coming... What is the matter with these people?

 

The aeroplane looks shorter because of the perspective compressing which occurs when using a telephoto lens. There is no "sagging" of the engine, and the tip of the partially obscured (by the starboard wing), tailfin insignia is clearly visible. Furthermore the resolution of the picture is so woefully inadequate that fine detail-like windows-is lost. You people really need to get a hobby.

 

The "orb" is quite clearly an orb; you can't see the sun reflecting off its starboard wing. So, in your opinion, what was this slow-flying "orb"; who built it and how was it propelled? Was it space aliens?
In the second video the tail fin and wings are clearly NOT visible and ARE those of an orb. You need better glasses-or a screen with better resolution.

 

The fake plane image looks shorter because it's fake and no attempt was made to produce any fake imagery that could even be considered real. There is "sagging" of the engine, and the tip of the partially obscured (by the starboard wing), tailfin insignia is clearly NOT visible. Furthermore the fake image is so woefully inadequate as a way to present an excuse for why the image doesn't look real. You people really need to get a hobby.

 

Sorry mate, if you can't see what so many others have pointed out to you, then you either don't want to, have crap eyesight or both. Do you understand anything about photography, aerial perspective, lens distortion (both pincushion and barrel), perspective compression/elongation? No? Then go educate yourself.

Can we talk about the Loch Ness monster now?

 

Sorry mate, you won't see what the video and photographic evidence confirms beyond any doubt because you don't want to, you have fine eyesight. You don't understand anything about photography, aerial perspective, lens distortion (both pincushion and barrel), perspective compression/elongation. You are deluded and defeated. No planes were captured by anyone on 911 that crashed into a building and that is the strongest evidence that no airliners were used.

You can talk about the Loch Ness monster now.

 

Speaking of deluded......why do you keep insistiong what people saw is wrong and you are right?....were you there?

 

Why would I have to be there when four tv stations recorded an object that was neither a plane or chopper?

 

Every one of them caught an image of what looks like an airliner to a rational person.

 

No one captured anything that looks like a boeing 767. Show a fake image from 911 and a real boeing. I dare you. Bring it on.

 

They didn't....You just can't see.

 

Where would we find a 'fake' image of a 767?....there was plenty of eyewitnesses who SAW a real plane

 

Repeating what I said clearly shows you have no argument in response, and is the retort of a child. Stay 7 forever if you like; the rest of us have grown up.

 

You demean 7 year olds everywhere with that statement. He's in a class all his own.

 

At least a 7 year old would be able to learn that he is wrong after some brief education.