Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by NWOwned
You need your head examined if you think that video shot at that res at what 29 fps then shown on youtube can actually show ANY DETAIL to back your
The only thing, I contend, that needs 'examining' here is the Naudet 'Fireman's Video'... which I am doing btw.
Pay attention, I'm not actually using DETAIL, resolution or even frame rate to make my evidence based argument.
No, I am using TIMING SEQUENCE and MECHANICAL DESIGN to outline what is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE no matter what the resolution or detail of the Naudet
Halve the resolution of the standard consumer DVD version of the clip I don't care, the degraded clip will still show, and therefore, STILL PROVE the
IMPOSSIBILITY of which I speak.
What TIMING SEQUENCE?
Take a look at the North Tower on the left side of my noted up composite pic. Yes it's BLURRY. No it doesn't show much DETAIL. FPS? It's a single
frame capture! But you know what? All of those limitations don't matter.
Why don't they matter? Because the only thing I'm curious about, the only thing I'm interested in is the timing of the apparent damage to the face of
the North Tower. The TIMING SEQUENCE of the apparent damage coupled with its LOCATION. You follow?
When we judge the Naudet 'Fireman's Video' clip on this criteria what do we find?
Now keep in mind, I'm not trying to invent something that isn't there, nor am I trying to make something not be there that everyone seems to accept
was there, nor am I trying to create multiple posts on the same topic for no good reason, no, I'm just looking at THE EVIDENCE and asking an important
intelligent logical question.
What is that question?
It is this: How come when I watch the Naudet 'Fireman's Video' clip very very closely, it clearly shows damage occurring on the face of the North
Tower where the right wing tip would impact before it shows damage where the right engine would impact when the wings on a Boeing 767-200 aircraft
taper back and have engines on the wings that are actually forward of the wing tips on a head first in trajectory hit?
I need me an answer to this because THE EVIDENCE as viewed in the clip considering how a 767 is actually built says that such apparent damage is
impossible if what we see impacting the North Tower is a 767 aircraft. You follow? Does anybody follow? Has anyone really really looked at what I'm
saying? Everyone, try now, ok?
What MECHANICAL DESIGN?
Have a close look at this plan view diagram of a 767-200 aircraft. See the right engine? See the right wing tip? See how much further ahead the right
engine is to the wing tip? Now I ask you, you seem intelligent, if we were to crash a 767 into a large tower or a giant screen door which would you
say would hit the tower face or screen door first on a head first trajectory, the right engine or the right wing tip? That's right. The RIGHT ENGINE.
The right engine would damage the building face BEFORE the right wing tip, why? Because of MECHANICAL DESIGN. Because the right wing tip is back
further than the engine etc.
Now everyone have a look above at my noted pic, look at the left frame:1299 of the Naudet DVD clip. In the clip, what appears to hit the building
first, the wing tip or the engine? Simple question. What is the answer to this simple question? Anybody? Correct, 'The right wing tip!' That is the
correct answer to the question based on a careful examination of the Naudet 'Fireman's Video' clip. Congratulations.
But now see, we have a SERIOUS, I dare say "IMPOSSIBLE" PROBLEM.
And what is that?
There is no physical way possible for the right wing tip to hit the face of the North Tower before the right engine on the very same wing! NO WAY. It
is impossible. So the Naudet clip contains an impossibility THAT NEEDS TO BE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED (it hasn't been yet). In fact, I'm the only person
on ATS and THE NET even talking about it.
It cannot be simply brushed away with the resolution, detail, frame rate, video artifact arguments because I'm not using those things in the proof. My
proof rests on the TIMING SEQUENCE of the damage pattern and its LOCATION. And on the MECHANICAL DESIGN of the right wing of a Boeing 767 200
aircraft. And that's all.
And when you put all that together what do you get? What does a careful logical intelligent look at the available evidence get us?
It PROVES that it is impossible for the right wing gash on the North Tower to have been made by the right wing of a Boeing 767 200 aircraft.
I don't want it to be that way even. Like I don't really have a preference you see? I'm just looking at the evidence and that's what the evidence
SAYS. Look at what I'm saying PROVE to me how it is wrong. I DARE YOU ALL.
edit on 26-7-2012 by NWOwned because: added word