Creative Speculation
Related: About this forumHere is the problem with the 911 conspiracy theory's......
How in the world could EVERYONE who was involved in this, which would have been 100s of people, not talk at some point? Hell, the manhattan project news Was leaked by many people.
Or someone at this point would go on 60 minutes or sell book rights!
You cannot keep something that big a secret!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
teddy51
(3,491 posts)put forth on the Pentagon hit alone (never mind other information, such as WT7).
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Many, many people were involved in cracking the Code.
Although the Enigma code was cracked during World War II and the devices fell out of popular use over the following decade, the public remained largely unaware of the Enigma machines, the role they played in World War II, and the great lengths the Allied forces went to crack the German Enigma codes. Upon declassification of this information in the 1970s there was a surge of interest in the devices. The majority of the remaining machines are found in museums and the hands of private collectors.
http://www.howtogeek.com/trivia/what-was-the-first-encryption-machine-called/
zeemike
(18,998 posts)That oeprations was known by hundreds if not thousands of sailors who took part in the operation...
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Would you go to the police or other authorities if asked to help commit the 9-11 attacks against citizens of your own country?
Would you expose the capture of the German sub while working for your own country?
Your answer to those questions should tell you why one is easy to explain, and the other is impossible.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And the answer to the hard one is that it depends on what kind of person you are...
If you are a sociopath the answer is no you would keep the secret if there was some bennifit to you to do so...because sociopaths have no empathy for others and believe the end justifys the means.
And it is easy thing to weed out the undisirable ones in an operation that depends on bieng a sociopath to do your duty.
And if such an operaton is taken on there is no doubt that if someone should break ranks then they know well that there life could be in grave danger because other sociopaths would have no problem whacking them....just like the Mob...
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)The operation to weed out the sociopaths couldn't be pulled off, and could easily be exposed. It's far from easy. It's impossible.
There isn't anywhere the knowledge that could successfully weed out everyone who wouldn't expose this terrible plan. Human minds are way too unpredictable. This just adds another level of impossibility to your conspiracy.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Or are you saying that they don't exist?
Well I can assure you that they do...and I can tell you that they will deal with someone who snitches on them with deadly force with no feelings at all...Ant that knoledge alone keeps people quiet.
hack89
(39,179 posts)as seen by the large number of mob leaders in prison, I would argue that the mob does a very poor job of weeding out people willing to inform on them.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Who polices the government?...they are the law.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Manipulation and control of people is a long practiced art.
There was even a book written centuries ago on the subject called "the Prince" by Machiavelli...it is the bible of the sociopath and all who would manipulate and control.
BobbyBoring
(1,965 posts)and there were many in the Bush administration and their military and the CIA.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Why I was doing it may not be known to me, just as all secret operations are done.
It is naive to think that thy would tell everyone what they intended to do....only on a need to know basis...that is how it has always been done.
And if you then find out that what you did helped it along and decided to squeal then you must know that it will put you in grave danger...because if they have the power to pull that off you know full well they can take care of a rat like you would become to them.
Besides rewards are a big part of it...you will be rewarded for your loyalty as long as you keep your mouth shut....and frankly they don't want idealist in the plot at all....just those that are willing to sell out and stay quiet....and that is easy to determine beforehand
Confusious
(8,317 posts)The Enigma machine was captured by chance. and by the British, not the Americans.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)German submarine U-505
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
U-505 is a German Type IXC U-boat built for service in the Kriegsmarine during World War II. She was captured on 4 June 1944 by United States Navy Task Group 22.3 (TG 22.3). Her codebooks, Enigma machine, and other secret materials found on board assisted Allied code breaking operations.[3]
Confusious
(8,317 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 6, 2012, 05:56 PM - Edit history (1)
You. It's not good to get your history from Hollywood. Or your conspiracy theories from the internet.
The first capture of a Naval Enigma machine and associated cipher keys from a U-boat was made on May 9, 1941 by HMS Bulldog of Britain's Royal Navy, commanded by Captain Joe Baker-Cresswell. The U-boat was U-110. In 1942, the British seized U-559, capturing additional Enigma codebooks. "The captured codebooks provided vital assistance to the British cryptographers, led by Alan Turing, at the code-breaking hothouse of Bletchley Park, near Milton Keynes."[4]
The capture, rather than sinking, of U-570 – the only ship to be captured by an aircraft – on 27 August 1941 by a Lockheed Hudson from RAF Coastal Command was important for determining the fighting capacity of U-boats, although her crew destroyed the Enigma and cipher information. The boat was towed to port and commissioned into the Royal Navy as HMS Graph.
Out of some 15 captures of Naval Enigma material during World War II, all but two were by the British – the Royal Canadian Navy captured U-774, and the U.S. Navy seized U-505 in June 1944. By this time the Allies were already reading Naval Enigma routinely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-571_%28film%29
All the captures happened by chance. There was no "operation" to capture the machine. That only happened in the movies.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Did not even know it was in the movies...but if you say so I guess it was...
I learned of it when it was finally released to the public back in the 70s and read a long piece on it in some publication who's name I have forgotten. I got most of what I know of history from books.
And what it said then about why it was important is that they got the latest code book which was the key to the enigma machine which was very helpful because when the Germans lost a sub they changed the code.
And the article said that it was the intent to capture if they could and when the situation presented itself they took advantage of it.
And I am well aware of the British code breakers and the amazing work they did...but we were in on it too.
But do I detect some contempt from you about people that you consider CTers?...have you convinced yourself that if they are a CTer they must be stupid and uninformed?
Confusious
(8,317 posts)yep.
"have you convinced yourself that if they are a CTer they must be stupid and uninformed?"
No "convincing myself" of anything. They prove it every time they open their mouths.
I mean, what have we got? The moon hoaxers. Yes we spend billions of dollars to build a giant rocket to do what? Not go to the moon.
The world trade tower people. Granted, I would like to know why our forces where standing down that day, but why explosives when all you had to do was weaken the steel on a platform building like the world trade center. Doesn't have to melt, doesn't have to be very hot. Enough heat, fast enough that steel can't get rid of it, and down the buildings come.
The easiest solution is probably the correct one. Incompetence. Which bush proved over and over.
Chemtrails. To high up to do anything. A jet engine is really hot, the air at that altitude is really cool. I knew how they were created in 6th grade.
Just the biggest examples.
Lack of scientific understanding and common sense seems to be a hallmark.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And how it is used to cover up the truth?
It is simply a matter of flooding the air waves and media with all kinds of theories and the crazier the better...because the best way to hide something is to bury it in a big pile of shit so that no one will look for it there.
And that has a chilling effect on intelligent people and MSM types because mostly they fear being made a fool of and so they use that fear to keep people from even looking for the truth.
It is amazing to me that all the evidence that is right before your eyes is not considered for fear of being called a CTer....and you can look at things like JFK's brains being blown out the back of the car and believe that the shot came from the back....or the WTC7 building collapsing strait down and be told it was from the fire damage....unbelievable really...but such is the power of fear.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 7, 2012, 11:04 PM - Edit history (2)
seeing as how, per JFK and wtc7, lack of science.
Why does an egg explode in the microwave, and a muffin doesn't?
A bullet has a compression wave. Upon entering a closed space, a pocket of air forms behind it. Since it is a closed space, already filled, the matter has to go somewhere. Where the bullet entered is likely spot for exit, since the surrounding material has already been weaked.
Building 7. So what? it was close to the towers. Not unlikely it took some structural damage after the collapse of the north tower. The damge to wtc7 was probably exacerbated by the fires. The way in which it was built was also a factor, with trusses.
Of course, you'll probably have more. A good CTer is always "what about this, what about this , what about this, ad infinitium" until the person is so tired of sifting bullshit that they just give up. Then the CTer is "couldn't answer that could ya, see I'm right." Doesn't matter if the person answers 1,000,000 questions, the CTer will declare he is right when the person refuses to answer the 1,000,001th question.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)If the bullet had entered from the rear then the front flap of scull would have been blown out and the brains would have went forward and so would the head...that is just basic science...that whole part about a pocket of air forming behind the bullet is nonsense because the force of it in no way could exceed the force of the bullet
And the same for WTC7....in order for it to fall strait down the support columns would all have to fail at the same time...something that has never happened in history before and is less likely than winning the lottery.
And the egg in the microwave is a poor example because heat causes steam inside the egg and that is why it explodes....try taking an egg and shooting it with a pellet rifle and see if you can get the egg to blow out toward the pellet....it won't happen....it can't happen.
But I guess it is easier to believe the impossible than to risk looking like one of those CTers who are held in such disregard...and that fear is used against the truth.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)> If the bullet had entered from the rear then the front flap of scull would have been blown out and the brains would have went forward and so would the head...that is just basic science...
Yes, it is, which why the Zapruder film proves that the shot came from behind:
Momentum transfer is instantaneous. The frame immediately after the hit shows that the direct result of the momentum transferred by the bullet was a forward snap of the head. The "back and to the left" motion starts two frames after the hit, so it cannot have been the result of momentum transfer from the bullet. Basic science.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And the second is the impact...so the head was traveling forward first....from the shot that hit him in the throat....why not show the next few frames where the flap of skull and hair is blown back and the brains out the back of the car...
Here is a HD version of the whole thing....if you can watch it and tell me the head shot did not send the head back I will give up completely even trying to discuss this because it will be impossible to convince you that your eyes are not lying to you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=iU83R7rpXQY&NR=1
William Seger
(11,040 posts)> why not show the next few frames where the flap of skull and hair is blown back and the brains out the back of the car...
Because it's irrelevant to the issue, so let's try this again: The first frame is the last one before the hit, and the second frame is the first one after the hit. The bullet only imparted momentum while it was in contact with the head, between those two frames. Momentum transfer was simultaneous with the bullet slowing down while passing through the head. The second frame shows the immediate result of that momentum: an unmistakeable, violent forward snap, which proves the shot came from behind.
The frame after that one just shows the head returning to approximately the starting position -- it looks as if his chin bounces off his chest -- and the frame after that shows the start of the "back and to the left" motion, which starts slowly and then accelerates. That motion simply CANNOT be caused by the momentum of the bullet, because the bullet is long gone from the scene by that frame. This is "basic science," which you implied plays some part in your beliefs.
> if you can watch it and tell me the head shot did not send the head back I will give up completely even trying to discuss this because it will be impossible to convince you that your eyes are not lying to you...
Again, my gif shows very clearly the immediate result of the hit. As a matter of fact, I discovered the head snap for myself after someone made a similar challenge to watch the thing closely, which I did by watching frame by frame. But then looking around the web, I found it that the forward head snap is fairly common knowledge among people who find the JFK conspiricists' evidence and arguments unconvincing, and some people have measured it very precisely to be about 2.5 inches.
After accusing people who disagree with you of just being too fearful to face the truth, and after claiming that "basic science" is your reason, it would behoove you to watch that gif a few more times and don't be afraid to give it some real thought.
(ETA: I also meant to correct your misconception that the head was already traveling forward. Examining the individual frames shows that it most definitely was not. It's in the same place for many frames, and then in the frame immediately after the hit it's been pushed forward very violently, as would be expected by a shot from the rear.)
zeemike
(18,998 posts)You do the math....how long is each frame and what is the speed of a high speed bullet...it would be impossible to capture the exact fame where the bullet hit.
And the ejected material is almost the speed of the bullet as it transfers the force to flesh and bone....so essentially the last frame represents the impact and the frames after that show a violent force back and to the left...consistent with a shot to the front part of the forehead from an angle in front of him.
But you still have not explained how if the bullet came from the front and pushed the head forward for one frame of the camera why after that one frame the head goes violently back and to the left after that frame....what force caused that?
But excuse me if I seem offensive but I cannot just stay silent so that people will like me....I am saying what I see and I am not afraid to say it even I am ridiculed...I am really to old to care.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)As I've said a couple of times now, the first frame in my animated gif is before the hit and the second frame is clearly after the hit. No, it does not "represent the impact"; it's our best available evidence of what happened immediately after the impact. There is no ambiguity in what that second frame shows -- a forward head snap -- and there's no mystery about why it happened: The bullet imparted forward momentum to the head when it passed through from rear to front. Momentum transfer is instantaneous; it's completely impossible for it to have the delayed action you're suggesting two frames later. This is "basic science" and I'm not interested in any imaginary science you conjure up to try to protect your conspiracy delusions.
I'm pretty sure you already know that there are several possible explanations for the "back and to the left" movement two frames later, but there is no reason to discuss them here. The truth that you suddenly seem to be very afraid of is that that motion can't possibly be because of momentum from the bullet, which is long gone from the scene by then, so that motion can't possibly tell you where the bullet came from. The immediate forward head-snap, on the other hand, certainly does, because there is no other reasonable explanation for it except momentum from the bullet.
I'm sure it's very frightening to be confronted with the fact that you were so wrong about something you were so sure about for so long, but reality can be like that sometimes. You need to inspect the evidence more carefully, and I dare say that advice applies to a great many of your beliefs.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And you have selected two frames...and those frames represent about 1/10 of a second together and you say the bullet impact caused his head to move an inch in 1/18th of a second...and that is all there was to the force of the bullet...
So I challenge you to include one second on the gif...you started on frame 312 so take it to 329 and then let us see what happened....if you can't consider just one second of the film then it is Chery picking evidence.
And you say there is no need to discuss why the movement back which lasts for many frames after 312 because someone came up with a theory the is even harder to accept....a tic in the nerves...but no...let's not talk about that....lets just stick to frame 312 to 329...
But no I have not been a long time believer it this ...it has been a long slow process of forming it based on information I have seen...and in some cases lived.
I was in Texas when JFK was shot and I first believed that it was Oswald alone that did it...just like most people...until I saw the Zapruder film...and that showed me clearly the shot came from the front...That is when I started to question.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)... then it's definitely time for you to question your conclusion, again, and this time pay closer attention. I don't know why I have to keep saying this over and over, but those two frames contain important evidence. That forward head-snap immediately after the hit demands an explanation and it's perfectly obvious what that explanation is: momentum from the bullet. Momentum was transferred to the head only while it was passing through the head, so again, that "back and to the left" motion two frames later could not possibly be caused by momentum from the bullet. Such a reaction could not possibly be delayed by even one frame, much less two. Furthermore, that "back and to the left" motion shows accelerating velocity over the course of several frames, which also cannot possibly be the result of momentum from the bullet, because a bullet could have accelerated the head only while it's passing through.
Beyond any doubt, the Zapruder film shows JFK getting shot from behind.
And that will be my last repetition of this "basic science," which you claimed played some part in your beliefs -- I can't force you to understand it. But the next time you go onto a public forum and claim that people don't accept JFK conspiracy bullshit because they are afraid to, perhaps you will feel a slight twinge of conscience.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)That a bullet traveling at 2500 fps takes 1/18th of a second to travel the 8 to 10 inches through the scull?
No frame 312 is just before the bullet struck and 313 is just after it struck....almost at the exact time really.
And one if they had some math skills could calculate just when if you know the speed of the bullet and the speed of the ejected mater that came from the impact...but I am sure any scientific study will not conclude that it took that bullet 1/18th of a second to traverse the head.
No what I see is a man shot from the front right side with a hi powered bullet that had a hollow point...called an exploding bullet because the hollow point does a lot of damage when it strikes....just like in frame 313, and leaves only piece of itself as evidence.
And this then will be my last attempt to point out the errors of this. But I am not ashamed of what I have said and will say it as often as I can with no fear of being thought a fool...don't matter to me at all if you think that....my life or my work does not depend on not looking foolish in the eyes of establishment power brokers....bottom line...I believe my eyes and my instincts and trust in my personal experiences....and will not be bullied by calling me a fool or a nut job.
OnTheOtherHand
(7,621 posts)I'm startled that you wrote the following:
I sort of thought that was William Seger's exact point. That is why he concludes that the bullet impact accounts for the motion between the frames.
You're the one who is asking us to look at over a dozen frames that, by your own reasoning, occur after the bullet is gone.
Well, that's very brave of you, or something. But I would be infinitely more impressed if you had an argument, instead of the Courage Of Your Convictions.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Then the head moving forward makes no sense...and could not have been responsible for the movement...remember that we are dealing with 1/18th of a second here...so frame 313 must be the moment of impact or virtually because the explosion of matter is still near the head....which would have occurred almost at the instant of impact.
And I looked closely at all the frames from 310 to 329 and frankly I can't see movement between 312 and 313 that the gif says there is...so I am not sure that he used 312 as the first frame in the gif.
Funny how it is that if you can find any little thing to question it seems to prove without doubt that the theory is wrong...but that same rule is not allowed to prove that it is. So no matter how many things are shown to prove the theory they will never be enough because one can simple pick two frames out of hundreds and make a point of it no matter how weak it is, that will be enough...After that all other good evidence can be ignored...including what you see with your lying eyes.
'And it has noting to do with being brave but everything to do with being free...and your saying that I don't have an argument does not make it so...and I could care less whether you are impressed...and that is another part of being free that you may not understand.
OnTheOtherHand
(7,621 posts)that "frame 312 is just before the bullet struck and 313 is just after it struck"?
Are you now asserting that frame 313 is long enough after the impact for there to be an "explosion of matter... near the head," but not long enough after the impact for the head to have had time to move?
Well, if you can demonstrate that he didn't, then you have something to talk about. Otherwise, it's sort of a strange comment, especially in the context of what follows:
Look, this is not very hard. You asserted that the video shows that Kennedy was shot from the front -- that anyone who "believe(s) that the shot came from the back" is saying something "unbelievable really... but such is the power of fear." Seger responded with a straightforward argument that the video provides evidence that Kennedy was shot from behind. It's a bit late for you to start complaining that Seger found "any little thing to question."
But you haven't presented good evidence, nor have you refuted Seger's. So, again, it's hard to tell what you are complaining about.
Yes, you are free not to care whether you make sense. Given that we're discussing the assassination of a president, I wish you would care, but the choice is yours.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The gif uses two frames from the Zapruder film...presumably 312 and 313...he alleged that the head moved from one frame to the other due to the impact of the bullet....so the bullet must have made impact on 312 tp do that...there is no evidence for that....And if it did not then the head moving forward was not from the bullet...and even if you did assume that it did then it would mean it took 1/18 of a second to traverse through the scull....which is a very long time for a bullet traveling at 2500 fps.
So what we are seeing is frame 313 showing the impact of the bullet...actually the bullet struck maybe 1/100 of a second before the exposure and that is why you see the cloud of material near the head....so any movement of the head caused by the impact would be shown only after 313.
But how can you say I did not refute Seger's claim....I just did it again and you will need to show me the math that refutes what I said....show me for instance a bullet traveling at 2500fps takes 1/18 of a second to traverse the scull for instance...which is the time between the two frames.
But I do care...and that is why I insist on real and substantial evidence to prove the lone assassin theory...and there is only this kind of evidence....Chery picked few frames that say proves when in reality it don't add up...not mathematically or in any other way.
OnTheOtherHand
(7,621 posts)on 312? What would that mean? If a frame captures an instant in time, then it would hardly be possible for the bullet to impact on a frame. It would impact between frames -- possibly much closer to the preceding frame than to the following frame, but not "on" either one.
That's the logical meaning of your own previous statement about frames 312 and 313, isn't it? You think you figured this out but Seger didn't? or what?
And here you're saying the same thing: that the bullet struck between frames 312 and 313, "maybe 1/100 of a second before the exposure" of 313. How on earth do you figure that there is enough time (whether "1/100 of a second" or whatever it might be) to produce a "cloud of material near the head" but not enough time to make the head itself move? What kind of physics is that? If you don't agree with Seger that the momentum transfer would be instantaneous, what is your reason?
Who said that the bullet took 1/18 of a second to traverse the skull? That's a straw man.
Back here in real life, you didn't "insist on real and substantial evidence to prove the lone assassin theory" -- you said, in effect, that anyone who doesn't see what you think you see in the video is gutless. If you want to walk it back, that would be welcome, but I'm not just going to forget.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The bullet could have happened just before frame 313...but then again you run into the problem of the head moving that quickly even if it was just an inch...and then there is the question of why the rest of the frames are not considered as evidence....and the head clearly goes back violently from some reason only the very smart people can know...but not from the bullet because you have already determined it came from the rear and so the evidence must fit that conclusion.
But observation and experience tells me that if he received a head shot from high up and above then it would have looked similar to the first shot that came out his throat....and he went down and forward....and if the head shot had come that same way the head would have went down and forward too and the bullet would have exited from somewhere in the jaw....not out the forehead.
If I knew how I wold make a GIF of frames 312 to 329...which would only represent one second of the bullet and aftermath...and then play it for you..then we would have the whole evidence and not just two frames..
Did I say gutless?...don't remember using that word...I said afraid...there is a big difference ...even people with lots of guts can be afraid....for instance if you are a scientist working for a big university or something you might well be afraid if you get caught reading about UFOs right?...your career could be ruined by that or believing in the grassy knol....if that got out you would be through.
And that is how they control what people think...through fear...and I am free of that...but if I were in that cage then I would keep my mouth shut too...out of fear of the consequence...that is what I am saying and I have no reason to walk that back.
OnTheOtherHand
(7,621 posts)What problem is that?
This is what I mean when I say that you don't have an argument: you don't have an argument. Again: the momentum transfer is instantaneous. The bullet can't transfer momentum to the head once it has come out the other side. It doesn't exert some magnetic force on the head. Nor does the head have to pause for a fraction of a second to realize that it was hit by a bullet.
You can psychologize this all you want, but I don't see you dealing with it. Fear? heck if I know.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Because you can out trivialize me...and we know you can pick apart anything I say...you have proved that and that kind of person wins the argument when it is about a CT....because all you have to do is find one small point to bring up and I have to answer every one....or I prove your point...so say the rules you seem to have imposed on the argument.
But you cannot and will not explain every frame after the one you chose...and under your rules you don't have to.
And this is why people can get away with a conspiracy because they can always find one thing to call it all into question...no matter how voluminous the evidence is for it....and many people seem to accept these rules as if they make any sense at all...for reasons that are varied I am sure...many accept it because the hated JFK...and I lived in those times and I know full well that is true....and many do it out of fear of being called a nut and ruining their career...and then others just accept it because they need to believe and there can be no cracks in their faith.
Don't matter why....you are either part of the solution or part of the problem...and the solution is the truth...the problem is the lies and deceptions that cover the truth...and you don't have to know all the truth to be part of the solution and you don't have to lie to be part of the problem.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)The Zapruder film shows JFK getting shot from behind, whether or not you understand why. That observation invalidates about 98% of all JFK conspiracy theories, and you have no cogent response to it. Perhaps you can join the camp that claims Zapruder is fake, too, but that would be difficult to justify after claiming that Zapruder was what convinced you there was a conspiracy.
> ... you have already determined it came from the rear so the evidence must fit that conclusion.
No, that is abject bullshit. The whole point here is that a valid conclusion must fit the evidence and yours does not. The entire reason for entering into this exchange was that your conclusion was based on incomplete evidence: You were unaware of that forward head-snap immediately after the hit, and you were unaware that the "back and to the left" motion didn't start until two frames later. But now that you are aware of that evidence, you cling to your faulty conclusion with an argument that is based on simply not understanding how momentum transfer works.
This is JFK conspiracism in a microcosm, and it set the pattern for 9/11 conspiracism.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)"That observation invalidates about 98% of all JFK conspiracy theories"
False...by the assumption that you are right and therefore all in invalidated.
"you have no cogent response to it."
Again false....you presume to say the my responses are not cogent and insist that yours is.
"Perhaps you can join the camp that claims Zapruder is fake"
Straw man
"a valid conclusion must fit the evidence "
But only the evidence you want looked at...
"But now that you are aware of that evidence, you cling to your faulty conclusion with an argument that is based on simply not understanding how momentum transfer works. "
In other words if you don't submit to my logic then you don't understand science and I do...
And that folks is how it is done...take a stand that what you say is empirical and pretend the world knows the truth of that .
Edited to ad this ....Hi speed camera of a bullets impact....notice the cloud of material thrown out even before the bullet gets through the target....that is how fast the ejected matter flies...
OnTheOtherHand
(7,621 posts)For pity's sake, we're discussing the assassination of a president -- specifically, the visual evidence that a bullet struck the president's head between two frames of the Zapruder film, imparting momentum that moved his head forward. Could you try to take your bruised ego out of the picture and focus on the evidence?
As William Seger says, this isn't a small point at all. What happened to the president's head as the bullet struck it obviously is relevant to determining where the bullet came from. Why are you suddenly so eager to talk about anything else but?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Which limit it to two frames....1/18th of a second and not any more than that...so you are in control of the discussion and you are the one that insist that the head moved...when honestly if you look at 312 and 313 you will find it hard to say how much if at all...but no matter you got me...your conclusion dispenses with all other information and no need to look at any other frames past 313...you win I loose.
And this is the same pattern all debunks of CTs use.,,bisect it till you find some unanswerable point then claim victory.
I say the evidence shows that the bullet struck in frame 313...or just mili seconds before the shutter on the camera opened although it could have been at the same time because the shutter stays open a very short time and could record the impact and the eruption of matter...and the next frames show a definite violent movement backwards and to the left....there is no question about that....that is plane to see....and you have no explanation for it that makes any sense.
But believe what you want and for the reason you have...makes no difference to me....the vast majority of people believe it was a conspiracy because of the volume of evidence that shows it was...and most of them are not going to change that by these so called facts on two frames of the film.
OnTheOtherHand
(7,621 posts)Who are you trying to kid? You've already launched your preemptive strike about "very smart people," so what point could anyone see in trying to explain anything to you?
(Ducks goalposts.)
I'll make a really simple point again: it makes no sense to argue that there was time for a "cloud of material" to appear, but no time for the head to move. And the reason for focusing on these two frames is that the momentum is transferred when the bullet hits, not after some magical time delay.
It's not a debunker tactic. It's the mere truth.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And you could prove your point right here and now with math.
How long does it take from the time the bullet touches the head until a cloud of material is presented....got an answer for me?
Well that too is almost instantaneous.,,,look at that slow mo I showed you....the bullet is not even though the target before the material is out there....and this is a very small amount of time...far quicker than the open shutter of the camera.
And take frame 312 and tell me exactly how much the head moved from it's position in frame 313....I have looked close and I can see none as referenced by a stationary object like the seat of the car....so this brings into question your first assumption and the is the crucial part of your theory.
And if you know how to do it...make a gif of frames 312 through 320...not even a second of time and show it here so we can see it...I would do it if I knew how....and maybe I should learn how but I don't need to win this argument and you apparently do.
And you have not established that the bullet hit before frame 313...that is the truth.
OnTheOtherHand
(7,621 posts)That's something, at least. But then, when do you see the head moving in the opposite direction?
Well that too is almost instantaneous.,,,look at that slow mo I showed you....the bullet is not even though the target before the material is out there....and this is a very small amount of time...far quicker than the open shutter of the camera.
When you say that "that too is almost instantaneous," are you conceding that the head movement should be immediate, not delayed? Or are you saying something else entirely? I can't tell what point you intend to make.
The truth is that you said so yourself. That's actually what got me interested enough to reply, as you'll see if you look back at the thread.
William Seger may be able to help you out with GIFs. But if you're going to ask him for them, maybe first you want to get your head in a place where you're willing to accept that he has thought hard and seriously about this, and your "such is the power of fear/only the very smart people can know" shtick is really not the right way to frame the discussion.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The shutter speed of that movie camera was probably about 1/30s....and maybe lower...now do the math....a bullet traveling at 2500fps will travel some 80 feet from the time the shutter opens to when it closes...so it could be that the bullet had just left the gun when the shutter opened and just impacted when the shutter closed...and that would be what you see.
So it is likely that 313 is when the impact occurred...but no I can't say with certainty because I don't know exactly when the shutter was open and closed....but you can guess from the size of the cloud of debris around the head that the impact had just happened.
By looking at the next few frames you can see clearly the force of that impact drove the head back
Here is a link to all the frames of the Zapruder film....open 312 and 313 and put them side by side and see if you think it moved...and tell me how much....I don't see it....then look at the next few frames and the head does jerk back violently.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
OnTheOtherHand
(7,621 posts)I think, for reasons already explained by William Seger, that it's practically impossible to interpret the backward movement of the head as caused by the impact of the bullet. It appears to accelerate.
I think it's quite clear in the GIF Seger posted, which looks legit to me. Looking at entire frames, that movement would be hard to spot.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)it's practically impossible to interpret the backward movement of the head as caused by the impact of the bullet
Seems to me that I just did...but it did not suit the narrative.
And you cannot explain that backward movement with any thing that makes sense...you merely say it is irrelevant because you have already solved the mystery....and you have not.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)Bullshit. It's been explained with several things that make perfect sense -- a neuromuscular reflex; the "jet effect"; compressive recoil of the neck and spine -- and the most likely answer is that it was a combination of them. Any one or all of those would cause the head to accelerate through several frames, which we actually see and which a bullet simply could not do. That's not a matter of subjective opinion; either you can refute that assertion or you can't.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And so you got me...I can't prove it was not nerves that did it....perfict.....and you don't have to prove the positive...that nerves did it... so again you win.
And then you insist that it is not a mater of subjective opinion....as if you have just presented empirical evidence...
I don't buy it at all....the bullet came from the front and was probably a hollow point bullet which is why it blew off a big flap of skull and bone...and yes that force could have, and would have, sent the head back...and my evidence is not subjective at all.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)... by disproving the positive. For example, the acceleration seen in that "back and to the left" motion proves that it was not caused by impact from the bullet.
And yes, I have indeed presented the empirical evidence for everything I've asserted. You formed a conclusion from incomplete information, based on a very superficial examination of the Zapruder film, and now you cling to that conclusion by simply denying the evidence and the reasoning I have presented, which calls into question what role evidence and reasoning really play in your conclusions.
But I don't care what you buy. My issue is what you're trying to resell -- a version of reality that doesn't agree with the facts.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)The reason that there is ejecta "almost instantaneously" in your video is exactly because momentum was transferred from the bullet to that ejecta "almost instantaneously." Starting from the very first instant that the bullet begins to lose any velocity, momentum is being transferred to the impacted body, including any pieces that get ejected. Now, if I can just convince you that if the bullet passes through a body, it can't impart any more momentum after it exits, then we're almost there.
> So it is likely that 313 is when the impact occurred.
That's absurd. That's not even possible, much less "likely," because frame 313 shows ejecta several feet away!
If you're going to claim that frame 313 is "when the impact occurred," then you're the one who needs to do some math to show how that ejecta got several feet away "almost instantaneously" while the bullet was still in the head. Until you do, I think I'll continue to be quite sure that the bullet has left the scene by frame 313, thank you.
As for your difficulty in seeing the displacement from 312 to 313 and distrust of my gif, it's pretty easy to find several other versions on the web. Here's a good one:
And as for you request to see more frames, here are 310 through 317:
Note a few things: There was no significant forward motion in frames 310 through 312; frame 313 (which is after the hit!) shows the head displaced forward by a couple of inches; there is only a small backward motion between 313 and 314; and then the head accelerates through the following frames.
There is no way for momentum transfer to be delayed for two frames, and there is no way that momentum transfer from a bullet can cause any more acceleration after it has exited the head. Therefore, the "back and to the left" cannot have been caused by the impact of the bullet.
Beyond any reasonable doubt, the Zapruder film shows JFK being shot from behind. Which just happens to be consistent with all the physical evidence.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)What...like 3 feet....now we should be able to figure just when the bullet struck with simple math....the bullet was say traveling at 2500 fps and imparts it's energy to the matter and that matter travels 3 feet...how long does that take....and that is the moment of impact....
Care to do that math?...I don't need to because I know that it will be a very small number sense 1/30 of a second the bullet travels about 80 feet...so the ejected material would be far faster than you think.
Look at a slow mo of a bullet striking an object and you will see the cloud of material when the bullet hits jumps out even before the bullet has past into the target.
But it is amazing how you can say that it is proven because you must be right that the bullet exited the head in 313....You use your own conclusion as evidence that you are right...I say 313 shows the bullet entering the head from the front....and that explains the backward movement....which you just ignore.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)... but imaginary physics and denials that leave you looking ridiculous.
And nope, I haven't ignored the backward movement. I have simply tried repeatedly to call your attention to the fact that it couldn't be the result a bullet impact before frame 313, and to the fact that there IS evidence in 313 which you hadn't noticed that tells us where the bullet came from. This is not a matter of subjective opinion; either you can refute that assertion or you can't. Denial is insufficient.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I look ridiculous...I have imaginary physics...that is how it works folks..you see it demonstrated right here....and most debunkers use the same principles to make you feel afraid to continue the argument even if the other side really has made nothing even close to physics or science to prove the case...
Your theory is all assumption and no fact.
You assume the bullet came from the back..(a must if you are to believe the lone assassin)...you assume the bullet caused that plume around the head as it exited the head..and you assume the motion after 313 is from some nerve jerk...but you have not proved one of those with science and math....but I am the one with imaginary physics.
zappaman
(20,617 posts)You assume the bullet came from the front..(a must if you are to disbelieve the lone assassin)...you assume the bullet did not cause that plume around the head as it exited the head..and you assume the motion after 313 is not from some nerve jerk, but from a bullet fired somewhere from the front(although the physical evidence from JFK's autopsy definitively prove the shot came from behind)...but you have not proved one of those with science and math....so, yes, you are the one with imaginary physics.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The plum of debris around the head...the movement of the head after the plum shows on that frame...the time between frames...the shutter speed...and these facts taken together as we must do when making judgments about such things.say the shot came from the front.
But to debunk this you (well not you personally) say ignore all those facts and focus on two frames representing 1/18 of a second and base everything on that...and offer no facts like math or science as proof of your theory...
And for god's sake don't widen this by bringing up the autopsy....please we cold be here for a very long time.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)In an attempt to defend your assumption that "313 is when the impact occurred," you are implying that the ejecta seen in frame 313 was moving at least an order of magnitude faster than the bullet, traveling several feet before the bullet could travel several inches. That would put the ejecta velocity at more than 20,000 fps or Mach 18. I'm not going to apologize for calling that ridiculous, since it's an understatement.
You want to completely ignore that forward head-snap in 313 and ignore the evidence that 313 is after the hit, and instead focus on something that happened two frame later, and then ignore that that motion shows acceleration that can't be explained by bullet impact. And all the while you keep whining about people ignoring evidence? Sorry, but yes, that's ridiculous.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Let's put it this way.
The shutter on frame 313 was open for 1/30 of a second....you say that the bullet struck before the shutter opened, traveled through the skull and exited the head and then the shutter closed....that means that it took 1/30 of a second for that to happen and if that is true you should be able to show with math that it is so.
And if it is so that means most of the energy of the bullet was spent and if that were so then why the head only moves the small amount you say it did is a mystery,,,but then you say there was a nerve jerk that caused the head to move back far more than the small amount you say it did from the impact of the spent bullet....that sounds ridiculous to me.
When the bullet impacts the flesh and bone at 2500fps it imparts energy to the particles it encounters at almost that speed....so if the ejected material is 3 feet away you can figure the moment of impact....if that material is moving at 2000fps it will take x seconds to reach 3 feet...
So show us the time line of the bullet in that frame and we will have the answer....it don't add up.
And by the way inertia is also part of the equation when you talk about the head movement, and if the head is at rest then it tends to stay at rest....and so you will not see an instantaneous movement of the head...which means the bullet must have struck even farther back in time to see the head move in 313.
zappaman
(20,617 posts)Zapruder's camera captured events at a steady 18.3 frames-per-second.
Your math seems off.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Shutter speed is how long the frame is exposed to light, which determines what is on the frame...FPS is how often the shutter does that.
And I want to say I am guessing on the shutter speed...it could have been lower than that, but not much higher because film speed was not that great then....but pretty sure on the FPS.
William Seger
(11,040 posts).. but the FBI measured Zapruder's camera as running fast with an average of 18.3 fps. Since the exposure time was a fixed percentage of the frame capture cycle, that would make the exposure time about 1/40th sec.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But I was just relying on memory....and no matter it still don't change anything much...in fact the faster shutter speed makes the math harder for you.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)> you say that the bullet struck before the shutter opened, traveled through the skull and exited the head and then the shutter closed.
Say what? No, I have never said any such silly thing. I have repeatedly said that the bullet hit between 312 and 313 and was gone by 313, so the shutter speed is irrelevant.
> And if it is so that means most of the energy of the bullet was spent and if that were so then why the head only moves the small amount you say it did is a mystery
To be more accurate, the issue is that the bullet would have imparted momentum only while it was in contact with the head, and I claim that that was entirely before 313. The "small amount" of movement may be a mystery to you, but given that JFK's chin was almost in contact with his chest already, and given that bullets don't actually pack the massive amounts of momentum the way Hollywood movies depict them, then there is no mystery. (There's a Myth Busters episode where they show that even a 50 cal can only move a body a few inches with a direct hit.) That's actually another of the known problems with the theory that the "back and to the left" was caused by a front-right hit: The acceleration seen in the entire upper body requires more energy than the bullet could possible have delivered.
> When the bullet impacts the flesh and bone at 2500fps it imparts energy to the particles it encounters at almost that speed....so if the ejected material is 3 feet away you can figure the moment of impact....if that material is moving at 2000fps it will take x seconds to reach 3 feet...
WTF? Frame 313 shows ejecta at least 4 feet away, and even if it were traveling as fast as the bullet (as implausible as that is, but even if), then the bullet would also be at least 4 feet away, i.e. no longer capable of imparting any momentum to the head. What math and time line would satisfy you, if that's not obvious to you? (BTW, not that it actually matters, but if you're going to attempt any math, you could at least take the time look up the correct values for the muzzle velocity, exposure time, etc.)
> And by the way inertia is also part of the equation when you talk about the head movement, and if the head is at rest then it tends to stay at rest....and so you will not see an instantaneous movement of the head...
Momentum is transferred instantaneously, so the head would have started to accelerate at the very instant that the bullet started to decelerate. When we would first "see" it depends only on how closely we can look.
> ...which means the bullet must have struck even farther back in time to see the head move in 313.
"Even farther back in time" than your version of 313 being the instant of the hit, which you can't seem to justify with anything but imaginary physics? Sorry, I don't see that as a problem for the theory. But since you mention inertia, if inertia is such a problem for the theory that the forward head snap was caused by the bullet impact, then good luck coming up with a convincing alternate explanation for that snap, which was just coincidentally immediately before the hit. Not that you will ever get around to even attempting that, apparently, since you won't even acknowledge seeing it.
Which reminds me, you wanted to look at the frames after 313, and I showed you that they show an accelerating "back and to the left" for several frames. Do you have even an imaginary physics explanation for that yet?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Because what is on the frame is due to how long the frame is exposed to light...the shutter speed determines that.
And so the bullet must have struck before the shutter opened in order to effect the head movement...and quite a bit before because of inertia the head does not move instantly when struck.
So that leaves you with the problem of fitting the time line of the bullet taking so long to traverse the skull.
But the whole body did not move...it was seated and could not....but the head has much less mass than the whole body and wold move if a high velocity bullet struck it...and that is not a theory but a fact of physics....especially with an exploding bullet where the entire force of the bullet is dissipated on the head.
And those several frames of back head snap is consistent with a shot from the front...Inertia is the explanation of why it last for several frames because the force is transferred instantly but inertia tends to hold the head at rest....all calculable by the way sense we know the mass and speed of the bullet and the mass of the head.
But don't look to me to do the math for you ....I don't need to prove you wrong...you need to prove you right.
And BTW...the particles ejected buy the bullet if it came from the back or front would have little mas and so would have little resistance to the force of inertia...probably not even measurable really...and so at 2500fps it would be about 1/600 of a second to move 4 feet...but maybe if it went through the skull it slowed way down to 500fps...that means it would have been only 1/100 of a second...
Sorry but you still got big problems with making ift fit in time.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)1. The exposure of frame 312 ended.
2. An unknown time later, a bullet hit the back of the skull at an estimated 1900 fps.
3. Less than a millisecond later, bullet fragments exited the front-right skull at a slower speed, say 200 fps, by blowing out a large section of bone.
4. An unknown time later, the exposure of frame 313 began, in which we see the head has been thrust forward since 312 ended, and we see a large cloud of debris on the front right which includes what appear to be skull fragments as much as six feet away.
The exposure time of the frames is completely irrelevant in this timeline.
And sorry, but whatever you're trying to say about "the bullet taking so long to traverse the skull" doesn't make enough sense to respond to, and the rest of the post isn't much better. So, first, let's see if you comprehend what I'm claiming in that timeline, and if so, do you have any objections that you can express coherently?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But that don't make it right. Even if you lower the numbers it don't make sense because even if your time line is right the rest is still unexplainable....for instance what would be the delay in head movement caused by inertia?....and why did the head not continue forward after 313?
And back to the movement you say is there...I looked closely at 312 and 313 blown up and all and noticed that what you used as reference points are elongated in 313....look at Jackie's arm on the back of the seat behind his head...it gets longer in 313 and so does the head of the driver and that little white thing on the door...why is that?....and is that distortion what you are saying is movement of the head?
I spent a little time on those two frames and I can see no difference in relationship between Jackie head and his in the....but the difference in the size of say Connelly's head due to the distortion is just the same as you say the head moved...
Another point the pattern of the cloud of debris is consistent with a frontal shot...not as it would be if the bullet came out of the head.
Buy look this is hopeless because you only want to believe your evidence and don't care at all to consider mine....and that is fine...believe what you will....and if you want to consider it debunked because you found some minuscule point that you can use that is fine too...but don't claim that anyone who doubts you is a fool or ignorant...that kind of intimidation don't work with me.
There is tones of evidence that says it was a conspiracy...including the house of representatives committee that investigated it....but if you want to believe it is debunked because you measured movement...or distortion like I think, then no one can change that
William Seger
(11,040 posts)... and prefer to pretend it didn't happen; you have no explanation for why the "back and to the left" doesn't begin until two frames after the hit; and you have no explanation for why that movement shows acceleration through several frames even though the bullet was only in contact for less than a millisecond. Instead, you continue to imagine some "delay due to inertia" that would violate the law of conservation of momentum.
But the reason this is hopeless is that I believe what I see in the film and in cause-and-effect, and I just won't consider your imaginary physics as "evidence?"
Oh yeah, and the reason for my intransigence is fear of The Truth?
Well, I do agree this is hopeless, so let's end this nonsense on that note of agreement.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Cause it is not... and I can't let that stand.
Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest, or the tendency of an object to resist any change in its motion. The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical physics which are used to describe the motion of matter and how it is affected by applied forces.
The mass of a body determines the momentum p of the body at given velocity v; it is a proportionality factor in the formula:
p = mv
The factor m is referred to as inertial mass.
But mass as related to 'inertia' of a body can be defined also by the formula:
F = ma
Here, F is force, m is mass, and a is acceleration.
By this formula, the greater its mass, the less a body accelerates under given force. Masses m defined by formula (1) and (2) are equal because formula (2) is a consequence of formula (1) if mass does not depend on time and velocity. Thus, "mass is the quantitative or numerical measure of body’s inertia, that is of its resistance to being accelerated".
This meaning of a body's inertia therefore is altered from the original meaning as "a tendency to maintain momentum" to a description of the measure of how difficult it is to change the momentum of a body.
And by the way I do have an explanation for the apparent forward head movement but you won't like it much....I spent some time last night looking at those two frames and now have proof that what you say is forward movement is actually distortion caused by blur...and it is measurable in the frames.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)Momentum transfer is instantaneous; there is no "delay due to inertia." The bullet passed through the head in less than a millisecond, and by the time it exited, it had lost most of its momentum by slowing down. The head gained exactly that much momentum during that exact same millisecond by accelerating, and it accelerated only during that exact same millisecond -- no "delay due to inertia" whatsoever. To say that "the greater its mass, the less a body accelerates under given force" does not imply that there is any delay in that acceleration.
I've mentioned several times that there is a lot of information about the forward head snap on the web, but it would appear that you haven't researched it. Here is a precise mathematical analysis of the forward snap that was done by a physicist. Apparently, he isn't aware of this "delay due to inertia" either, so maybe you should send him an email.
And no, the forward motion is quite real, not an effect of the horizontal blurring in frame 313, which is due to camera movement. In the gif I did, and in the one I posted from another site, the alignment was done to lining up the right edges of the blurred areas in 313 with the right edges of the same areas in 312. That means that all of the motion blurring in 313 is toward the left, relative to 312. That was done specifically to make sure that any apparent motion to the right was not really the result of motion blurring. But in fact, the boundary between the back of JFK's head and the car is clearly seen to move toward the right in all three gifs I posted, as well as in all the other examples you will find on the web. That is quite unlike the left edge of Connally's head, for example, or the left edge of any other object in the frame, all of which show an "apparent" motion to the left which actually is due to the blurring. Sorry, but you're imagining things again.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But I can bet I would find someone that could if I spent the time searching for it....which I have no intentions of doing.
But I did read some of it and in one place it confirms that there is a delay in movement caused by the inertia of the mass....here
the calculated snap would differ the most from the true snap because the head would have the shortest amount of time to move forward. The longer the burst is delayed, the farther forward the head can snap and the more closely the actual snap will resemble the calculated one. Although it is theoretically possible to use the difference between the calculated and actual snaps to estimate how long the burst was delayed, it is very difficult to do it in practice because you also have to know how far back the head lurched. We content ourselves in simply recognizing that the calculated snap must exceed the actual snap, and possibly by a large amount.
But I don't have the math skills to refute it and will not try....what I do have is experience and an ability to understand how things work...and by the way some experience with the dark side as well....and that has served me well over my 68 years....and here are my observations for what it is worth.
313 is visually consistent with a shot from the front.
The backward movement is consistent with a shot from the front.
Many witnesses say the shot came from the front
And all of that is the larger evidence...yours is the smaller and really minute in comparison to all the evidence for a shot from the front...
But again this is how the debunkers work...they pick a small thing and make it the sole thing they judge on and once they have an explanation for the small thing they will ignore all other evidence no matter how much of it there is...that is not how fair judgment works.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)Bullshit. The section you're quoting says nothing whatsoever about any "delay due to inertia." The "burst" that it is talking about is the bursting of matter out of the skull to produce the "jet effect" that Alverez first proposed. And by the way, he is giving you an answer to your question about why the head didn't continue going forward: The "jet effect" was strong enough to reverse that motion. In the section you quoted, all he is saying is that the sooner that force began to take effect, after the effect of the initial contact, the less time the head had to move forward. Clearly, he is not giving any support whatsoever to your imaginary physics that tell you there wasn't enough time for the amount of motion recorded in 312-313.
> 313 is visually consistent with a shot from the front.
But a shot from the front is not consistent with the forward movement since 312. Frame 313 is visually consistent with a shot from the rear and a shot from the rear easily explains the forward motion.
> The backward movement is consistent with a shot from the front.
No, it isn't and I've repeatedly given you two reasons why, which you have repeatedly refused to even acknowledge, much less refute: The backward movement comes two frames after the hit, and it shows acceleration that can't be explained by a millisecond contact with a bullet.
> Many witnesses say the shot came from the front
Many witnesses say they heard a shot from the grassy knoll, but I have what I think is an interesting observation about that in this post. It's an observation I haven't seen anyone else make.
> And all of that is the larger evidence...yours is the smaller and really minute in comparison to all the evidence for a shot from the front...
You are in serious denial. The actual evidence simply does not support the conclusions you want to draw. Regardless of how "small" the details are, you cannot defend your contention that what's actually seen in the Zapruder film was caused by a hit from the front, and you have neither refuted the reasoning that says 313 shows a shot from the rear nor offered any alternative explanation for that forward snap. And yet you have the chutzpah to say this:
> But again this is how the debunkers work...they pick a small thing and make it the sole thing they judge on and once they have an explanation for the small thing they will ignore all other evidence no matter how much of it there is...that is not how fair judgment works.
Hopeless.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)As long as the rules of evidence come from you.
This "jet effect" is a real joke....saying that the bullet caused an ejection of material so strong that it caused the head to stop it's forward motion....that is really incredible to me sense the force of the bullet is great at that speed and you say the ejection countered it is hard for me to believe...and I won't because it does not conform to anything I have seen in my lifetime.
And you keep insisting that there is motion between 313 and 312 and if there is it is slight and I believe not at all because of the blurring it would be imposable to even measure it accurately....but sense it is crucial to your theory you just insist it is there and that it is measurable.
And then there is the Nerve Jerk theory to explain all after 313....and that is the catch all because really you cold explain any movement on a nerve jerk....happens all the time in people with ticks....and you insist that inertia does not have an effect on the movement of a mass and must be instantaneous which makes no sense to me....if you push a heavy wagon it does not move all of a sudden but starts out gradually and then gets faster....things at rest resist being put into motion and that means time.
But I can and have defended my position over and over again...but it is and never will be enough...that we have established.
And this is how all debunkers of CTs do work...they insist that the one fragment they have found is empirical and no matter how you debunk their theory they insist it is real and cannot be questioned and should you question it you will be considered by them ignorant uninformed or some kind of a nut case....intimidation is all that is and it don't work for those of us that can think freely because we don't give a shit what you think about us.
So you can go back to your world where the official story is what is truth and never will it be otherwise...don't know why that is and don't care really....but to me it means you like being fooled or have some vested reason to want to believe that everything is in good order....well it is not...and has not been for a long time...and never will be as long as people can get away with things like this.
zappaman
(20,617 posts)With each post, you dig yourself a bigger hole.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And that is because this is like a case study in how debunking CTs work....when not able to answer the questions they turn to ridicule....I must be stupid because I still don't cave on this and admit the whole thing has been debunked by empirical evidence presented by you...and it is ridiculous for me to even continue to speak out about the weak evidence and the evidence ignored...I must be nuts...right?
William Seger
(11,040 posts)Ain't that the truth. 
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)But here, because it seems to support the official story, it must be true.
Never mind how blurry and distorted the images in 313 are.
One thing to show how sorry this "proof" is-- measure the distance from Jackie's elbow on the left side, to that white line that marks where JFK's head is.
In 312, that measurement is 10% bigger than the measurement in 313. IOW, the critical line showing where JFK's head is, is moved to the left in 313 a bit, making it then seem as though the head moves up.
Also, how do figure where to draw the right line next to Jackie's hat? The hat image is TOTALLY diffuse and could go different ways.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)What the white lines show is that the right side of the motion blur in 313 is lined up with the right side of the same objects in 312. That means that all the motion blur in 313 is toward the left, relative to 312. That means that the rightward motion seen for JFK's head cannot be an effect of the motion blur. Think about it.
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)from 312 to 313, Mrs. Connally's shoulder moves much close to Jackie's arm. Is Jackie moving forward too? Or is Mrs. Connally's shoulder jerking back rapidly? There's just a lot of things going on in frame 313, and while your GIF gives the appearance of JFK's head going forward, I think it's just not that clear overall.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)> Is Jackie moving forward too? Or is Mrs. Connally's shoulder jerking back rapidly?
Neither! Mrs. Connally's arm is just motion-blurred to the left, like everything else. Her elbow appears to move to the left the same amount as the back of Mr. Connally's head, the left edge of the door handle, and Jackie's elbow, while the white lines shows that the right edges of the images are all aligned with 312, so that's all motion blur toward the left, as I said.
The image is absolutely conclusive: The Zapruder film shows that JFK's head suddenly snapped to the right between 312 and 313, the exact same time frame that he was hit. When you watch it at full speed, you can actually see the snap; that's what made me look at individual frames in the first place. And significantly, this evidence is perfectly consistent with all the other evidence that says JFK was shot from behind and the complete lack of any credible evidence of a shot from anywhere else.
eomer
(3,845 posts)both forward and backward.
It could have been in motion forward during most of the exposure and then have started backward just before the end of the exposure. If the head were in motion forward due to some other cause and then the bullet struck from the front right at the end of the exposure then the head could actually be in motion backward at the end of the exposure duration even though it would seem to be in motion forward because of the timing of the exposure relative to the two periods of motion.
OnTheOtherHand
(7,621 posts)I'm having a hard time making that work.
eomer
(3,845 posts)It could be that the head moved forward through most of the duration and then was hit by the bullet just before the end of exposure 313 and immediately started moving backward. Because the backward motion started at the very end of the duration the net apparent motion between frames is forward but the actual motion at the end is backward.
For example, 99% of the duration spent moving forward followed by the bullet hit and then 1% of the duration moving backward. The apparent motion would be forward even though the head was in motion moving backward as soon as the bullet hit though the end of exposure 313.
And it is clear that the cloud would move much more quickly than the head, due to physics.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)... and sorry, but even speculating that there was some mysterious "other cause" that snapped the head 2.5" forward in something less than 1/18th second just before the hit won't save the hypothesis that the "back and to the left" was caused by the bullet impact.
OnTheOtherHand
(7,621 posts)I'm nowhere near square one. But I agree that these two frames in isolation don't actually prove the opposite of what I was told the Zapruder film shows.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)You just don't want to listen. You want to think that you have some special power over the truth, when in reality all you do is lie to yourself.
I'll try this again, though I doubt it will do much good.
maybe a little simpler.
Same as an egg. you are adding matter to a space that is already filled. The outside will crack along lines that are already fractured.
WTC7. The twin towers dropped straight down, so not impossible.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
I really don't see the significance of WTC7. unless...
A. unless you are looking for some little tiny bit of inconstancy, which you folks usually do. Like the gun that killed JFK. Someone said it was a 7.65 mm, but later found it was a 6mm. Now me, I Have terrible trouble judging distance. Can't tell the difference between 2 inches. I probably would have said it was a 45, and been massivly wrong, and you folks would have been ALL over that.
b. If WTC7 was demoed, then the twin towers were demoed. Sorry, a couple of planes flew into those buildings. The fires weakened the truss structure, causing the entire building to fail. That's another point, you always ask the wrong questions. You should be asking why Cheney had our air force standing down that day. But no, Let's pull out the wacko. the buildings were demoed.
BTW the head snapped forward. If you can't see that in the video, you're blind. Or a CTer.
and the entire reason I have contempt for CTers. You've already decided what the truth is, right or wrong, always wrong.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And I have no special power of the truth....what I do have is lots of life experience....and some of it is pretty dark...but if you pay attention you can learn from the dark.
I grew up around guns....had my first gun of my own at age 9. so I know how they are and how they work.
But honestly I thought it was terrorist that hi jacked planes that did it...and that Bush knew about it and let it happen....until I watched a documentary called "in plane site"...and that changed my mind when I realized that the planes were not airliners at all....there is visual evidence of that...each of those planes had a cylindrical object slung under the fuselage that could be seen....no airliner has such things...
so I recommend you watch that documentary...Netflix I know has it...and then tell me there is no legitimate cause for the theory.
zappaman
(20,617 posts)Are you serious in saying this bullshit "documentary" is what changed your mind?
If so, you are easily manipulated.
Start here...
The video starts right out with a blatant eyewitness report taken out of context to fit their theory. The first witness interviewed says "I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings went right there and slammed into the pentagon."
First of all, notice how he said "It was LIKE a cruise missile." This is the key. He was not saying that it WAS a cruise missile, he was saying it was like one, using a comparison. Don't believe me? Here is the source where he was later interviewed and is upset about Conspiracy theorists taking his quote out of context.
Additionally, if you scroll through this story here are some eyewitness reports of a 757 Boeing jet hitting the pentagon.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/...ses/index.html
And here:
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoud.../witnesses.htm
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83719
zeemike
(18,998 posts)in the video of the two planes....but they did have a pod slung under neath them....and no air liner has one of those.
So if the including of that interview is enough for you to ignore what you see then so be it....but I require much more evidence for me to dismiss the far weighed evidence of what I see and don't see.
And what I see is not a normal air liner in any of the videos....and what I don't see is any video of a airplane that supposedly hit the Pentagon...which is amazing sense it is the most surveilled building in the world....and they could not come up with one shot of it...
There are many unanswered questions....but if you want to ignore them all in favor of dismissing it on what you see is inconsistency in one interview you are welcome to it.
Do you think about these things even a little bit?
A "what if" scenario?
How would they sling something to the bottom of a plane? A jetliner has nowhere to sling something.
How would they put it on in a crowded airport, where everyone could see, and have no one say jack about it?
Video clearly shows a plane. a cruise missile is so small, no one would have seen it. They're 10 feet long, 3 feet high (around).
Yeesh, think for gods sake.
Point proved. You think you have the truth, and nothing will convince you otherwise.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And about things I know a little about.
Slinging a pod underneath an aircraft...any aircraft is quite simple...I know this because back in 1968 I was employed by Raytheon to do just that sort of thing...the pod was part of an Electronic warfare to train pilots without actually dropping bombs and shooting rockets....and the pod was about 10 feet long and about 3 feet in diameter.
And how to hide it?...simple you do it at an air force base and launch it from there....rondevu with the air liner and the airliner turns off it's transponder and the drone aircraft ( a converted 747 or whatever it was ...and the military has them) turns on his and squawks the same code....the ATC would never know....especially if they are all busy in a war game that just happened to be going on.
But yes I do think I have some of the truth...enough to know the whole thing stinks and that the American public is being played for suckers..again and again because it is so easy....make them afraid to look.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)Its easy to answer.
There was no pod under the plane.
Why bother with a pod, if there are no passengers? Just pack the plane with explosives. Unless you got a really good explanation for that one to.
So all those people in those planes, what, spend the rest of their lives in some deep dark dungeon? or were they in on it? Along with the pilots?
And not one of those hundreds of people ever wants to see their relatives again. Or the government has secret prisons were they keep these people and they never ever escape and never riot. And then they also have to hid the people who saw them get off the plane, maybe kill them all and bury them in in a mass grave, but of course then they have to kill the people who killed the passengers, because they may talk. Oh, lets not forget about the ground crew, they would have to be shot to, and anyone on the base who saw the liner take off. and anyone who wondered why a jetliner with AA markings ( Unless of course, they repainted it in midair, like in cannonball run )was taking off from a military base, most of which are located in cities, or like "area 51" are constantly watched by UFO hunters.
Wooo Boyee, got one HUGE conspiracy going on there. You sure I ain't in on it? Maybe we all are, and you're the only one no one told.
*facepalm*
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But not having all the answers is not evidence that the evidence for it is wrong...if that were true you could never convict a criminal because the lawyer could always raise something you could not answer.
I don't know what happened to those people or whether those were even real people...if they were real people on an aircraft they could be at the bottom of the Atlantic for all I know.
But let me tell you a story
In 1968 I was working at Eglin AFB in Florida in a shop outside a hanger that housed the YF...(can't remember its number).Blackbird spy plant....it was a top secret in 1968...but we would go out and watch it take off and land....and Eglin AFB is right in the middle of a highly populated part of Florida.
As far as ground crews are concerned they don't always know what the mission of the plane they service is...everything secret is on a need to know basis.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)Aliens? why would a civilization that can cross space bother with us? I wouldn't. Nor would if I could travel across the stars bother with a race that wasn't a threat. Why, if they're so intent on destroying themselves, allow them to bring it into MY world in ANY way.
There's probably more to these things then has been told to the public, but do CTers have the truth? Probably not even close. and the little left in that probably, not in any WAY close.
There's a sucker born every minute.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I kind of think that is what an enlightened race of aliens would see us.
But there are suckers and there are those that use suckers....and it has always been so.
AlwaysQuestion
(442 posts)Zeemlike, I have been meaning to stop by and tell you that I like the cut of your jib. Yes, I do. Besides, having hung in there refusing to be cowed by those of lesser intellect who hunt in packs, you have shown great strength and even more, a singular determination to seek truth. What could be more honorable than that?!
Unlike you, I can't be bothered to engage with those whose objectives are to harass, confuse and confound. I'm not yet quite sure if it is just their natural proclivity for championing the unchampionable or if they, too, are part of a conspiracy. In any event, I soon learned that these people were great at one thing in particular--baiting.
And so I no longer participate, but I do like to read your posts. Sad that there are so few of you left doing the job that needs to be done--in or out of the dungeon.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And I have tough skin but it is still nice to hear something soft and kind for a change....one could forget that such people exist if you did not hear it once in a while.
But I fully understand how you feel...it can be a pain in the ass and there is nor real good reason to subject yourself to it...it can make you jaded and cynical...Best to surround yourself wit good people that have hearts and souls and let the others go.
But I guess I have the heart of a pugilist...and they have to beat me to the canvas before I give up...and I don't have a glass jaw.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)Zeemike apparently believes implausible things for no good reason, and he has shown an amazing resistance to being shown clear evidence that he is simply wrong. That's exactly the same "singular determination to seek truth" that religious fanatics have. You even slander the "nonbelievers" the same way they do.
Why can't you prove your conspiracy claims with credible evidence? Well, obviously because the conspirators covered up all the evidence. What about all the evidence we have that says you are wrong? Well, obviously the conspirators faked it all. What about all the rational reasons people give your for rejecting those kinds of claims? Oh, nothing they say makes any difference to you because they're just evil people who love to "harass, confuse and confound," but you're not sure if it's because they're stupid or if they're part of the conspiracy.
Like religion, conspiracism is a pathological epistemology that deliberately places itself beyond reason as its only form of self-defense.
AlwaysQuestion
(442 posts)Ohmygawd, do you actually believe the stuff that you write? This notwithstanding, you are correct in characterizing religion as a pathological epistemology. It seems, however, that you became so overly excited about your phraseology that you charged right into a simile of idiocy.
I find it astonishing that you don't believe your own eyes as you observe three buildings being destroyed by detonation—and that's just for openers. But Zeemike and others have repeatedly taken you through all the improbabilities of 911 being the brainchild of Bin Laden, the Afghans, or the Iraqis. Few but the truly indoctrinated and the incurably naive continue to believe the official conspiracy theory. The idea of having this subject matter being characterized as conspiracy and stuck in "hell" is, in itself, illuminating. Still, it is what it is.
Psssstt, guess what? I don't actually believe that you or “the others” believe what you say you do. That's primarily why I engage so rarely. But, hey, you're just doing a job—self-appointed or otherwise.
By the way, I notice the pack still shows up on queue. Quite amusing to watch all this play out. Hope you guys are enjoying your collective pat-downs or zapping at the airport by the staff of the ubiquitous TSA. Nothing like being treated guilty without cause—but on the other hand, the populace is adjusting beautifully, so that when FEMA camps open up, everyone will have become used to no privacy of person or thought, the latter being ignobly yet effectively managed by the mass media. Can we imagine ourselves as citizens in a dictatorship? I can, but then I'm an eternal realist. Far fetched? Repeat after me, "History"! Nevertheless, Wm., you are destined to soldier on not in defense of your country per se but rather of those who run it!
William Seger
(11,040 posts)Not only do I believe what I write, but if you actually read it, you would see that I'm quite capable of providing detailed facts and logical reasons for WHY I believe it, and that I'm more than willing to defend my arguments against anyone who wants to challenge them. If that weren't the case, then I wouldn't write it.
You and zeemike have had every opportunity to explain what's wrong with what I believe and why people should instead believe what you believe, but all you've got are pathetically lame excuses for why you have failed so miserably, completely refusing to even glance toward the most obvious reason. Rather than deal with that in an intellectually honest way, you try to blow smoke up people's asses by just making nasty, cowardly assertions about my motivations.
> Psssstt, guess what? I don't actually believe that you or “the others” believe what you say you do. That's primarily why I engage so rarely. But, hey, you're just doing a job—self-appointed or otherwise.
Psssstt, guess what? I don't actually give a damn what sort of nonsense you believe if you can't defend it with facts and reason, and from where I sit, it sure looked like you now "engage so rarely" because you realize you can't do that. Who do you think you're fooling?
tblue
(16,350 posts)I don't necessarily believe there was an "inside" conspiracy in the attack, but there are so many unanswered questions, including why Bush and Cheney had to testify together.
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)For example, Bush and Cheney testifying together. The 9/11 Commission all but found that Bush and Cheney lied about who gave the shootdown order intended for Flight 93 first.
lib2DaBone
(8,124 posts)There is no way someone could (via drone control) fly planes into a building....
They said no way.. it could never happen.
Fast forward to news today... "Iran takes control of USA DRONE"...
How can it be denied any longer... what really happened?
hack89
(39,179 posts)Iran makes many unsubstantiated claims.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)This part of your conspiracy alone would require many (hundreds) people to pull off. You would need to find all of the experts with the specialized know-how, and they would all have to be morally retarded and able to keep a secret. Plus, what would be the motivation for anyone to go along with Bush's dastardly plan?
If only one conspirator opens his mouth or gets a conscious, the conspiracy would be exposed. This would cause a major revolution in the US.
Most people would not have anything to do with this conspiracy, and would report it to the police. It would be impossible to get this conspiracy off the ground.
And then how would you get rid of all those paasengers from the plane that crashed into the buildings, or do you claim that they were in the planes that crashed into the buildings. Were the stewardesses in on it then? That would have made them suicidal.
I've only scratched the surface of your impossible conspiracy theory. There are so many more levels of impossibility.
The simple hijacking, and the damage and fires that followed explain 9-11 very well. But I guess the simplicity is what bothers you.
terrafirma
(342 posts)The fact that 9/11 happened over 10 years ago. Technologies change. What was not possible back then may be possible today.
And I don't think the "drone" Iran is claiming to have shot down was a 757.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)by James Douglass.
Great book! Totally nails the perps up to Richard Helms in the CIA. (He wasn't able to directly finger Allen Dulles, the CIA Director whom JFK had fired--but Dulles was more than likely the top perp.)
Douglass says WHY! JFK was becoming a peace lover; refused to nuke Russia; opened backchannels to Krushchev to get around the CIA and the MIC and their warmongering; originated the "Nuclear Test Ban Treaty" (the first controls on nuke weapons) with Krushchev; was trying to de-escalate Vietnam and was planning to run for a second term in 1964 on a peace platform that he was sincere about.*
Douglass ALSO explains how so many people could be involved in the diabolical act of assassinating the president, at different levels of the conspiracy and with only "need to know" status, with many not knowing that they were helping the conspiracy, with complex misdirection involved, and with some of the perps thinking patriotically (in those "anti-communism" days) that JFK was a traitor.
"Why It Matters" is for us to figure out. Think about what a different world it would be if the U.S. had genuinely pledged itself to a peaceful world in 1964.*
It's very painful to think about. But we NEED to think about it, because those same warmongering forces are still with us and are even more capable today of diabolical conspiracies to keep the U.S. on a war footing--for war profiteer and corporate resource purposes--and to loot us blind.
That 9/11 was an inside conspiracy is totally possible, in my opinion--after reading Douglass' brilliant book and having lived through half a century of unnecessary wars, warmongering and war profiteering. I have no doubt at all, any more, about who killed JFK and why. Douglass solves that mystery. And there are such overwhelming holes in the "official story" about 9/11 as to warrant a complete new investigation.
----
*(LBJ ran on a peace platform in 1964, after JFK was killed, and won an overwhelming victory for peace--one of the biggest landslides in U.S. president history. But LBJ was LYING. He was escalating in Vietnam as he was selling himself as the "peace candidate." I remember this well because that was my first vote for president. I voted for peace--and got the bloodbath in Vietnam instead. The tragedy is that JFK would have been sincere about peace. Douglass establishes this without question. And the American people would have voted for it overwhelmingly. That is what the CIA was trying to prevent.)
RZM
(8,556 posts)There's a certain paradox here. The larger and more dramatic the event, the larger the conspiracy. Yet the larger the conspiracy, the less likely it is to stay secret.
If there's one thing we know about people, it's that they have a very hard time keeping their mouths shut.
Richard Charnin
(69 posts)why engage in a conspiracy in the first place?
By your logic, there has never been a conspiracy... because someone would eventually spill the beans....
RZM
(8,556 posts)The likelihood of people talking is always a problem. And the more people involved, the higher the probability of a leak, thus making the conspiracy a risky proposition from the beginning.
You essentially made the same point I did. If it won't stay secret, why do it in the first place? And the more time that passes without any bean-spilling, the more we can reduce the likelihood that there was ever a conspiracy at all.
Richard Charnin
(69 posts)By your logic, there has never been a conspiracy... because someone would eventually spill the beans....
Never been a conspiracy?
You mean like the Warren Commission ignoring scores of witnesses who saw shots fired from the Grassy Knoll?
Never been a conspiracy?
You mean like the 9/11 Commission never once mentioning Building 7 - in the hearings or in the Report?
RZM
(8,556 posts)I'm talking about probabilities and human nature. The larger it is, the harder it is to keep secret.
For the record, I don't believe shots were fired from a grassy knoll, nor do I believe that Building 7 came down because of planted explosives. I believe Oswald shot the president alone and that Building 7 collapsed as a result of damage/fires caused by the collapse of the North Tower.
If compelling evidence comes to light that discredits my beliefs, I'll say that I was wrong. Seeing as we already have compelling evidence pointing towards what I believe in both cases, perhaps the CTers should say they are wrong now 
Richard Charnin
(69 posts)Here is your compelling evidence of a controlled demolition:
Even NIST admits free-fall = controlled demolition.
Listen to the experts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hZEvA8BCoBw#
Here is your mathematical proof of a JFK conspiracy.
Probability of 15 witnesses unnatural deaths within 1 year of the JFK murder:
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/jfk/
RZM
(8,556 posts)Great job there
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)Yep, Tut's tomb must have had a curse, all right.
ETA: Hey, did you know that Booth shot Lincoln in a theater and fled to a warehouse, and Oswald shot JFK in a warehouse and then fled to a theater?
zappaman
(20,617 posts)Sorry.
"The conspiracy literature occasionally still quotes a supposed study done by the London Sunday Times which found that "the odds against these [assassination] witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one." The House Select Committee on Assassinations asked the newspaper where they got that number. The paper replied with the following letter.
The Editor has passed me your letter of 25th April.
Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times' editorial staff after the first edition — the one which goes to the United States and which I believe you have — had gone out, and later editions were amended.
There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong. It was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied — correctly — that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter — hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize.
None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material.
Yours sincerely,
Antony Whitaker,
Legal Manager.
(4 HSCA 464-65)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm
Richard Charnin
(69 posts)It's almost like they don't want you to believe it ever happened.
Or maybe they just forgot to put it in. Yeah, right. Not relevant.
But Dan Rather and Peter Jennings reported the collapse when it occurred at 5:20pm on 9/11. But the 9/11 Commission chose to never mention it.
The videos show that the Building 7 collapse was free-fall, meaning that it was a controlled demolition, meaning that it was wired long in advance...meaning that, well you get the idea...
Do you mean THAT conspiracy of silence on the part of the 9/11 commission and the mainstream media?
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)of the 9/11 attacks.
It laid out the main timeline of what happened. A scientific examination of the collapses was conducted by a more appropriate agency, NIST.
Your criticism makes as much since as faulting a biology textbook for not mentioning calculus.
Tunkamerica
(4,444 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:49 AM - Edit history (1)
the easier for you to knock over, a sort of straw building if you will.
Think about this: even the official narrative posits a 'conspiracy' of sorts, between 19 hijackers and their paymasters and coordinators.
Now consider the various gradations between pure coincidence theory (the way I classify the official narrative), LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) and MIHOP (made it happen on purpose). Do you think that a LIHOP conspiracy would require "100s of people" or simply a few winks and nods among sociopaths like Rumsfeld and Cheney? Remember that Richard Clarke testified publicly that the intel community was screaming that an attack was imminent in the weeks and months before 9-11. I'm sure Clarke has spent more than a few sleepless nights contemplating the possibility of LIHOP happening despite the 'code red' status of many of the relevant parties.
A conspiracy requires only two or more people, not 100s.
I am indebted to David Ray Griffin and his seminal work "The New Pearl Harbor" for helping me think rationally about this.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)So it is fair to criticize almost all truthers for any truther nonsense.
Frankly, almost everything that truthers promote is obvious nonsense.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)questions made all the more troubling by the silencing of the questions in the official account.
For example, I always say "Follow the money." I remember there were stories in the days that followed 9-11 about a huge surge in option trading in the stocks of United and American Airlines in the days immediately before 9-11. Specifically, the purchase of 'put options' (essentially, bets that the price of a share will go down). I have often wondered if the options trades were based on advance information of the attacks and have never seen any follow-up done in the official investigation. Who were those traders, what did they know and when did they know it?
David Ray Griffin has called for a new investigation, convened by an independent authority, and unraveling the thread of the options trades might lead to some surprising discoveries.
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)Two different reasons for both.
One was an investor who was also buying stock in one of the airlines. He bought the puts as a hedge. It's a rather standard thing to do.
The other was a tip from a newsletter saying to short the other airline. Details are fuzzy in my mind now, but it was in the 9/11 Commission Report, I believe.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:50 AM - Edit history (1)
to read the 9/11 Commission Report.
FWIW, I count myself 'agnostic' on the question of whether a conspiracy (other, that is, than the one alleged by the Official Narrative) was behind 9-11. My agnosticism and desire for a new investigation were triggered by an intense dislike and distrust of Philip Zelikow, who was the Executive Director of the 9-11 Commission and may not have been the most honest of brokers. But it is mere supposition on my part and nothing specific I could allege, hence agnosticism.
Remember Me
(1,532 posts)After my other post to you, I went looking for my old 9-11 files. Alas, I didn't find them. I MIGHT have them on an old harddrive, if I kept it, and then, if I can get into it. Sigh. I'd truly hate to have lost all that data.
In any case, from my memory of what transpired, there was so much involved that these "explanations" wouldn't begin to satisfy as an explanation.
The 9/11 Commission Report is best understood as the the official coverup tool. Period.
Bolo Boffin
(23,872 posts)I hope you find your hard drive full of evidence that would convict a nation that its government conspired to attack it. Sounds like something I would have kept better track of.
Remember Me
(1,532 posts)I rather doubt I'd have been able to "convict" a nation... and didn't exactly claim that. But whatever.
KDLarsen
(1,903 posts)The airline market is notoriously nervous, so when one major player folds, the rest of the market usually have to bear the brunt of the backlash. United Airlines were in the same Alliance as Ansett, so that's probably why they were singled out.
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)Well, at least you admit you use deceitfulness and fallacies to discredit people who don't agree with you. But no, it's not "fair". It's childish, antiscientific and irrational.
Uranus Needs Men
(18 posts)Everyone knows just what they need to know. This also occurs with the media, for example. They are so conditioned to parrot the Pentagon's latest squawking points that they never realize that they are LYING to us, along with the government!
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Pluralization is constantly being beaten down by Big Possessive.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Banks from trying to sue Saudi Arabia for financing and supervising the whole operation. We must be mushrooms, the media keeps us in the dark and feeds us bullshit.
eomer
(3,845 posts)I'm with you that it probably couldn't have been hundreds and therefore probably wasn't hundreds. But how do you get from there to the conclusion that it had to be zero? You're not being logical, Logical. Why couldn't it have been one more than the ones that are alleged, or two more, a dozen more, etc?
Ohio Joe
(21,894 posts)I can't imagine such a thing... Sure, perhaps at the start but once 9/11 began to un-fold, any scenario I can think of would mean that huge numbers would realize they had un-wittingly participated. So... What is the scenario in which only a few know even once it is over?
eomer
(3,845 posts)For example, imagine that Cheney made contact with a few operatives (CIA or private contractor types) and asked them to use their contacts with al Qaeda to instigate a dramatic attack. Further imagine that Cheney asked one or two high officiers in the military to arrange that exercises that were to be held anyway would coincide in time. Beyond these couple of officers that Cheney chose because he knew they would be in favor of a 9/11 type event, no one else in the military would know the real reason for the timing of the exercises - they would just be following orders as usual. The operatives would similarly have been chosen by Cheney because he knew they would be on board with a 9/11 type event.
Under this scenario the number of people who were part of the conspiracy would have been Cheney plus four or five others, all of whom were hand picked because they recognized and were in favor of the benefits to the rightwing and the military industrial complex of a 9/11 event.
And there are many other possible scenarios. For example, imagine a variation of the above where the military exercises were not manipulated but rather their timing was just leaked so it could be taken advantage of. Now you don't need high officers to issue orders, you just need one person (perhaps Cheney) who knew the timing to provide that information to the operatives who were part of the conspiracy.
And regarding huge numbers who would realize they had unwittingly participated, how would that be different than what we know? There were in fact military exercises that worked out to aid the attack and huge numbers who participated in them.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)After you've speculated a hundred scenarios, the question remains, why should any of them be given any credibility? Turns out, conspiracists can't come up with enough of a case to even convince each other what happened.
But you do make a good point that conspiracy theories aren't necessarily batcrap crazy with near zero plausibility; it's just that the ones that are seem to get the most attention, for some reason.
eomer
(3,845 posts)Speculation of who those additional parties were is about all we have since the "investigation" didn't want to track them down.
deadinsider
(201 posts)Look at the Oklahoma City Building after suffering all the damage it did. Why didn't if fall straight into its footprint? At least a little?
Never before or since have steel framed buildings fallen like that; total self-annihilation at near free fall speed.
The debate over the Zapruder film frames is obvious to me: the earlier frame is showing JFK at an instance after being shot in the back and the latter is showing an instance after he was shot in the head. The space inbetween represent the instance between those two points: the shot in the back was moving him forawards before he was shot in the head. The point on shutter speed and bullet speed is spot on: the camera Zapruder was using could not capture every instance of the bullets trajectory, period.
The 'movement' is no more than a gap inbetween frames that purports to show that the shot came from behind. However, despite this psuedo-proof, the majority of witnesses did not run towards the Book Depository; they ran towards the grassy knoll. Also, there is overwhelming evidence of several more bullet holes all over Daley Plaza and the limo as well as enough lead left in Connolly to make up almost another entire bullet sans the magic bullet that was found at Parkland Hospital.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)It was unrestrained thermal expansion causing girders to become unseated from columns, leading to buckling failure of one critical column, leading to progressive collapse of the entire structure.
> Look at the Oklahoma City Building after suffering all the damage it did. Why didn't if fall straight into its footprint? At least a little?
Um, perhaps because it was a completely different type of building under completely different circumstances? But in fact, the Murray Building did suffer "at least a little" progressive collapse: The initial blast only took out a few exterior columns, but a progressive (disproportionate) collapse brought down about half the building. Bad example of the point you were trying to make.
> Never before or since have steel framed buildings fallen like that; total self-annihilation at near free fall speed.
Well, surely you don't mean to suggest that if something never happened before, then it can't happen? Let me suggest that understanding why WTC7 collapsed requires understanding how it was put together and what was going on inside that building for seven hours. Since no similarly constructed building has suffered a similar unfought fire, the uniqueness of its collapse is completely unremarkable.
> The debate over the Zapruder film frames is obvious to me: the earlier frame is showing JFK at an instance after being shot in the back and the latter is showing an instance after he was shot in the head.
If by "back" you mean "back of the head," then a right-frontal second shot less than 1/18th second after the shot from the rear is one completely unsubstantiated speculation that's been advanced, but it was invented for the sole purpose of continuing to assert there was a grassy knoll shooter even though the Zapruder film shows JFK getting hit from behind. But (1) there is absolutely no physical evidence of a shot from the grassy knoll or of any second hit to the head; (2) the "back and to the left motion" doesn't require any hit from the right front; and (3) as I've been trying to explain to zeemike, without much success, a bullet hit can't really explain the acceleration seen in that motion, anyway, so it's a particularly bad hypothesis.
> The point on shutter speed and bullet speed is spot on: the camera Zapruder was using could not capture every instance of the bullets trajectory, period.
Only if "spot on" means "completely irrelevant," but I've never approved of that usage. Nothing being argued here has anything whatsoever to do with capturing "every instance of the bullets trajectory."
> However, despite this psuedo-proof, the majority of witnesses did not run towards the Book Depository; they ran towards the grassy knoll.
Well, not the "majority of witnesses," but in fact, those "ear witnesses" were one of the main reasons I myself, in the late 60s, believed there was probably a grassy knoll shooter. However, in 1969 when I went to Army basic training, one day they marched us out to sit in some bleachers set in a large pit so they could fire shots over our heads to teach us how to tell where a rifle shot came from. Why? It turns out, it's not as simple as you might think, and it fact, most people (including myself) would get it completely wrong. The complication is that bullets fired by high-powered rifles travel faster than sound, so if you're down range from one that passes nearby, the first sound that you hear is actually the "crack" of the bullet's sonic shock wave. It sounds very much like the crack of a bullwhip, because it's really the same thing. Here's the thing: That sound always appears to be coming from a direction that's actually perpendicular to the bullet's path! What they taught us to listen for was the dull "thump" sound that came later, which was the actual muzzle sound.
Since then (well, and since learning how weak the other conspiracy evidence really was), I haven't been too much impressed with some people's guesses about where the shots came from. There is simply no credible evidence for a grassy knoll shooter.
> Also, there is overwhelming evidence of several more bullet holes all over Daley Plaza and the limo as well as enough lead left in Connolly to make up almost another entire bullet sans the magic bullet that was found at Parkland Hospital.
If you see "overwhelming evidence" for any of that, then it seems to me you are easily overwhelmed. But re: the bullet found at Parkland Hospital, aren't you absolutely astounded that the "real perps" were so totally in control of the situation that they knew Connally would end up with an entrance wound with no bullet in it, so they planned to plant a bullet on the stretcher? Wow, those guys were good!
cbrer
(1,831 posts)>"It was unrestrained thermal expansion causing girders to become unseated from columns, leading to buckling failure of one critical column, leading to progressive collapse of the entire structure."
Doesn't thermal expansion suggest that girders would expand further into their mounts on the columns, rather than becoming unseated? Or perhaps in an extreme example, suffer warpage due to exceeding available expansion space?
>"Well, surely you don't mean to suggest that if something never happened before, then it can't happen? Let me suggest that understanding why WTC7 collapsed requires understanding how it was put together and what was going on inside that building for seven hours. Since no similarly constructed building has suffered a similar unfought fire, the uniqueness of its collapse is completely unremarkable."
There have been similarly constructed buildings on fire. For longer, and hotter. They didn't collapse. YOU pointed me towards this research. Unless there were construction characteristics not in the articles. If so please share.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)> Doesn't thermal expansion suggest that girders would expand further into their mounts on the columns, rather than becoming unseated?
No, it does not. If you're going to attempt to criticize the NIST hypothesis, the least you could do is read the damned thing. One aspect of the hypothesis is the asymmetric framing of that corner of the building, with beams framing into girders at an angle, and that the expansion of the beams pushed a girder off its seat, because none of the interior connections were designed to resist lateral loading.
> There have been similarly constructed buildings on fire. For longer, and hotter..
Please stop making assertions based on hunches. That is simply not true.
cbrer
(1,831 posts)Explains a lot.
*However* I'm not making assertions. I am loosely quoting the analysis that I read of other buildings fires. Again, during the search for other examples, one is liable to read analysis that is just plain wrong, but boy does it sound good. That's where expertise can clear the air.
I tried to download the PDF of the NIST procedures and conclusions to go through it. Damned connection won't let me. But I'll get it eventually. So girders designs aside, there have been no other examples of buildings survivng collapse after a fire exceeding the events at WTC? The six examples I cited each claimed to be a fire of more intensity, and duration than WTC. Although as I said, there were some significant design differences. I'm not trying to make a case that "proves" that WTC7 was demolished. I'm looking for parallels that can provide TRUE conclusive evidence.
Whatever counter-intuitive situation exists, I want to shine the light of truth on it. Believe me. I am at least as tired of the hype and bullshit as you seem to be.
deadinsider
(201 posts)I don't take the NIST simulation seriouly at all. Why? They won't release the code due to "national security." How did they determine it was a critical cascading 'event'? Nobody knows 'cause they wont release the coding that could tell us what variable values they used to simulated the collapse of WT7.
Here: good guy answered my question above with decent explainations. One cited was NIST. However, there's more to it than that: WT7 was the Command and Control Center for New York City responding to a catastrophe like 911. But, apparently they forgot to have the their building up to code (Fire).
So apparently a run-away toaster oven, left unattended for about an hour, could have destroyed that building. WT7 was over 50 stories tall. Yet, with minimal damage, and left to one side entirely, the very large structure collaspes into its footprint (demolition experts be damned; how do they make money anyway?).
Yet the arguments we get is that NIST calculated that a critical column failed on some-or-other floor creating an internal collapse that then leads the eyes to believe the whole builing fell at once at free fall speed.
Yeah.
deadinsider
(201 posts)Okay, this is the normal response: an 'unrestrained thermal exansion.' Fancy terminology! Dude: that fancy word-salad you just tossed has as little to do with builings in contemprary architecture as it has to do with greens in that sentence. Repeating fancy language doesn't equate to valid explaination. We're still here, us conspiracy crazy-heads: HOW?? Or, as my man Meatwad says: "Do what now?"
So the OKC building is different. Yup. Gotcha. But does that mean the code for building is 'that' different? Actually, how much of a diffence in years of completion are there between the Murrah building and the World Trade Center complex? The point I was making was to discontinue this absurd notion that damage to WT7 brought the building 'straight' down into its footprint. The OKC bombing proves that a contemporary building, meeting building codes, can withstand half of its weight-bearing girders et al being destroyed and still stand (well, until DEMOLITION EXPERTS come in to bring the rest down). Remember: they hired explosive experts just to bring down half of a building in OKC; and it wasn't even surrounded by much - compared to lower Manhatten).
Dude, did you really just state "the uniqueness of it collapse is completely unremarkable"? That is your sentence. That sums it all up. Really, after the demand on logic that you made in that sentence, do I really have to say anything more?? Uniqueness would make something incredibly remarkable; its remarkable because its unique. That was my point.
You state without batting an eyelach: "even though the Zapruder film shows JFK getting hit from behind." WHAT?!? Where are you getting that from? There IS evidence of a shot to the front of JFK: skull fragments were collected from Daely Plaza from the north of where the head shot occured. That means a shot from the south-west pushed his stuff to the opposite side of the head-shot bullet's origin.
And here's another quick dismissal from you: "the "back and to the left motion" doesn't require any hit from the right front;" unquote dude. That's ALL you have to say about that: pretty much the most damaging evidence to the Warren Commision Report? Welp, to you: "Hey guys, it just doesn't 'require' any hit from the right front'". Really? WHY NOT?!?
Again you serve me up a softball. You say: "a bullet hit can't really explain the acceleration seen in that motion, anyway, so it's a particularly bad hypothesis". Really? Because, philosophical (and linguistically) that sentence you just used contradicts itself. If you're saying that the acceleration can't be explained, how can you explain that his theory is the wrong explaination? I respect you guy; really I do. I think you mean well. But this pretzel-logic you're using, which is very selective, won't work with me dude. Either try to explain it, or, if you can't, you can't dismiss others explainations. Sucks; I know. But that's how it works.
Shutter speed: if I meant "completely irrelevant" I would have used that phrase. I used "spot-on". And it is important: you, I believe, are missing the point. A slow shutter speed can only capture so many frames of 'moving reality.' The dude I was agreeing with was saying that the frames you were focused on were missing a part of 'reality' due to slow shutter speed.
Yeah, I'm sure 'earing' a shot isn't as simple as I think. But there is this reality: Zupruder reacted to the shots in his original film, and there were more than 3. Also, the Grassy Knoll area down to Elm is very confined; its not that large of a space. This is not hiding in a foxhole. These shots were 'right on top' of them. These witnesses were feet away. I'm sure you anecdotal army training means a lot to you; but I can't verity if you've really been there anyway. It could be true, or it could be someone coming up with cripe to support their viewpoint. Don't know...
Talking about planting evidence: when it comes to conspiracy (not theory) all you need to look out for is damning evidence. The circumstantial stuff you can leave alone; no one will believe it or think it important after time anyway. You can testify to that.
William Seger
(11,040 posts)> Okay, this is the normal response: an 'unrestrained thermal exansion.' Fancy terminology! Dude: that fancy word-salad you just tossed has as little to do with builings in contemprary architecture as it has to do with greens in that sentence. Repeating fancy language doesn't equate to valid explaination. We're still here, us conspiracy crazy-heads: HOW?? Or, as my man Meatwad says: "Do what now?"
So, if you don't even understand how unrestrained thermal expansion could cause WTC7 to collape, is there any point in trying to correct your misconceptions about "builings in contemprary architecture?" Probably not, but first...
> So the OKC building is different. Yup. Gotcha. But does that mean the code for building is 'that' different? Actually, how much of a diffence in years of completion are there between the Murrah building and the World Trade Center complex? The point I was making was to discontinue this absurd notion that damage to WT7 brought the building 'straight' down into its footprint. The OKC bombing proves that a contemporary building, meeting building codes, can withstand half of its weight-bearing girders et al being destroyed and still stand (well, until DEMOLITION EXPERTS come in to bring the rest down). Remember: they hired explosive experts just to bring down half of a building in OKC; and it wasn't even surrounded by much - compared to lower Manhatten).
That is complete nonsense. The Murray Building was reinforced concrete, while the WTC buildings were two different types of steel framing. There is no logical reason to think that three different types of structures would behave the same even in the same catastrophic conditions, much less three different types of catastrophes. The Murray Building proves nothing whatsoever about WTC, but you are talking through your hat, anyway, since there are no building codes that specify that buildings must be designed to withstand truck bombs or 767 impacts or 7 hour fires. Specifically, regarding WTC 7, there was no building code that required the beam-to-column connections to withstand thermal stress and progressive collapse, so they simply weren't. You seem to not grasp that these are matters of fact, not subjective opinion, and that you are in no position to debate the issue if you don't know the basic facts. Please stop trying to fake it.
> Dude, did you really just state "the uniqueness of it collapse is completely unremarkable"? That is your sentence. That sums it all up. Really, after the demand on logic that you made in that sentence, do I really have to say anything more?? Uniqueness would make something incredibly remarkable; its remarkable because its unique. That was my point.
Your reading comprehension is dismal. What I said was, "Since no similarly constructed building has suffered a similar unfought fire, the uniqueness of its collapse is completely unremarkable." Perhaps different phrasing will help: Given the uniqueness of the circumstances, the uniqueness of the result is not unexpected. And yes, the topic you dodged was the logical fallacy of claiming "first time in history" as a rational reason for thinking WTC 7 must have been a controlled demolition. Are you familiar with the concept of a "valid" logical inference?
> You state without batting an eyelach: "even though the Zapruder film shows JFK getting hit from behind." WHAT?!? Where are you getting that from? There IS evidence of a shot to the front of JFK: skull fragments were collected from Daely Plaza from the north of where the head shot occured. That means a shot from the south-west pushed his stuff to the opposite side of the head-shot bullet's origin.
I don't see any reason to repeat here the facts and reasons that I've detailed numerous times elsewhere, and which you have apparently already ignored. No, there is no actual evidence of a shot from the front; all the actual evidence says the shot was from behind, so CTers just declare it to be fake. My point was, contrary to "mainstream" JFK conspiracism, the Zapruder film is yet another piece of evidence that the shot was from behind, when properly interpreted. If you think you can refute my arguments, then have at it, but your inability to understand them is not a refutation.
> And here's another quick dismissal from you: "the "back and to the left motion" doesn't require any hit from the right front;" unquote dude. That's ALL you have to say about that: pretty much the most damaging evidence to the Warren Commision Report? Welp, to you: "Hey guys, it just doesn't 'require' any hit from the right front'". Really? WHY NOT?!?
Here we go again. If you don't even know the alternate explanations for that back-and-to-the-left motion, then you really aren't prepared to debate the topic, but the main ones are: recoil of the neck and spine after compression; neuromuscular reflex; and Alverez's "jet effect."
> Again you serve me up a softball. You say: "a bullet hit can't really explain the acceleration seen in that motion, anyway, so it's a particularly bad hypothesis". Really? Because, philosophical (and linguistically) that sentence you just used contradicts itself. If you're saying that the acceleration can't be explained, how can you explain that his theory is the wrong explaination? I respect you guy; really I do. I think you mean well. But this pretzel-logic you're using, which is very selective, won't work with me dude. Either try to explain it, or, if you can't, you can't dismiss others explainations. Sucks; I know. But that's how it works.
The answer to your question lies in actually understanding my argument, so I can't say I'm very hopeful, but let's give it yet another try: The bullet hit cannot explain that particular acceleration because the bullet is long gone from the scene by the time that acceleration happens. Acceleration requires force, but the bullet exerted a force on the head only while it was passing through the head between 312 and 313, not two frames later and certainly not continuing for that entire back-and-to-the-left motion where we continue to see acceleration. If this is "pretzel logic" to you, then I'm afraid you're only going to embarrass yourself by attempting any discussion of physics.
> Shutter speed: if I meant "completely irrelevant" I would have used that phrase. I used "spot-on". And it is important: you, I believe, are missing the point. A slow shutter speed can only capture so many frames of 'moving reality.' The dude I was agreeing with was saying that the frames you were focused on were missing a part of 'reality' due to slow shutter speed.
Shutter speed is completely irrelevant to the actual argument made. The argument made involves only what we see in the sequence of the frames and explaining what we see using actual physics. What we see in the sequence of events is that the bullet hit between 312 and 313, and the head has moved forward -- i.e. exactly what would be expected by a hit from the rear and completely unexplained by a hit from the front. The sequence of events then shows a back-and-to-the-left motion starting two frames later, with continued acceleration for several frames after that, which simply cannot be explained by momentum from the bullet, period. The only "missing part of 'reality'" that I can see is in your belief that the bullet hit explains that motion.
> Yeah, I'm sure 'earing' a shot isn't as simple as I think. But there is this reality: Zupruder reacted to the shots in his original film, and there were more than 3. Also, the Grassy Knoll area down to Elm is very confined; its not that large of a space. This is not hiding in a foxhole. These shots were 'right on top' of them. These witnesses were feet away. I'm sure you anecdotal army training means a lot to you; but I can't verity if you've really been there anyway. It could be true, or it could be someone coming up with cripe to support their viewpoint. Don't know...
What I know for a fact is what I said: Identifying where a high-velocity bullet came from is not nearly as easy as people think, so those reports of a shot from the knoll are simply not conclusive of anything. This point was the general weakness of what's offered as evidence by conspiracists.
> Talking about planting evidence: when it comes to conspiracy (not theory) all you need to look out for is damning evidence. The circumstantial stuff you can leave alone; no one will believe it or think it important after time anyway. You can testify to that.
If conspiracy theorists could substantiate their theories with credible evidence, then they wouldn't be called conspiracy theorists. I just don't know of any case where that happened.
hack89
(39,179 posts)the only reason it didn't completely collapse is because the core of the building was made of concrete.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)probably shouldn't call themselves by names that invite derision.
It has to be made up.. Nothing like this would ever happen with todays security.