Not in the least. A successor to NACA. It didn't start to get problematic until after the Apollo program, when the bureaucracy shifted to career preservation as their main mission.
To revere the works of God and marvel at them. Why do you think he became a rocket scientist / engineer? Nothing to do with any "Project Blue Beam."
They look made of paper-mache, not of protoplasm.
I have read a lot about von Braun over my lifetime, and I have never found that he alluded to space aliens or false flags. I understand that some woman who claimed to be his last confidant alleges these things, but I think it more credible that she exploited her relationship with von Braun in order to grind a personal axe.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."
Why wouldn't a God-fearing man who dreamed his whole life about traveling into space quote that? Nothing to do with space aliens.
It's amazing how people don't read history. We could do it again (and are doing it again, albeit with a less functional NASA), but the problem was that no one wanted to PAY for going back---and the public had lost interest. "They" couldn't care less if you are stupid.
This leaves open the question of whether they were really tattoos in the first place, or only henna art, which can be washed off.
I will have to concede the likenesses are remote. I notice that the brows on 1.0 are prominent and protruding, whereas on 2.0 they seem to be flush with the forehead. Similarly, the upper cheeks of 1.0 are flat, and 2.0 seems to have bunching. Overall---and I find this surprising to realize---1.0 seems handsome (eagle eyes) and 2.0 seems unremarkable. If Fetterman gained weight, 2.0 is more credible. (Did Fetterman really have tattoos or just henna artwork? Artwork can be washed off.)
You sound like someone who has nothing to say in your own defense except insults. It ALWAYS means you have lost the argument (in your own head).
Logos are fixed in the field of the frame. There are no moving logos, at least not in the time frame of interest.
But it is one thing to surmise, quite another to prove. There is no proof of any such manipulation, and plenty of observational, photographic, and material evidence for the collision. Your arguments are of the same form as the "We never went to the Moon" crowd. When everything is a lie---why should I believe you? And why should you believe that everything is a lie?
Not desperate, just exasperated at all the stupid ignorance. And reluctant to spent over an hour rehashing nonsense. I notice you have nothing to say against my remarks, so all you have is a personal slur of "desperation". I have noticed this time after time in these dialogues.
My last hurrah (rewrote and edited the winning proposal for) was YAL-1A.
Well, I don't happen to have that in my Roladex. The point was: the anon matched the flight path to a map with the location of major buildings and determined that the airplane did indeed fly "behind" the building that obstructed the view of the wingtip. And what was wrong with that? The uninformed viewer starts out with an incorrect assumption of the depth of the images---which is a characteristic of images taken at long distance. Normal perspective cues for distance are obliterated by the fact that the images are all at the "same" distance. There wasn't anything to "show" except his statement of what he found.
But the fact seems to be that you give creds to the credulous.
Rank has nothing to do with it. I had a relevant direct experience with airplane sound signature being reflected from a building, convincingly from the direction opposite to where the plane was. Therefore, your comment did not cover all cases and was, to that extent, in error. You don't need to display self-deprecation as irony. Nothing retarded about construction work. Why would you call me an insulting name?
Edit: Primitive CGI was available earlier (e.g., "Tron") but the kind of CGI that we are familiar with and can expect today was not. Nor is it clear how that could be inserted into a video. But since the airplane flight path and the location of identified buildings confirms that the plane flew behind the one in question, it is moot.
Very interesting link. The article rips all the bogus Alex-Jones-based "theories" that I have been criticizing. More people here should read it and realize how they have been riding a rocking horse. Thanks for the info!
It would be interesting to institute a daily parade of open carry in defiance of the order.
No lies, pal. Just hard-headed realism to dispel the fanciful nonsense that destroys our credibility---which is all fine with the Black Hats. You guys are more interested in rationalizing your fantasies than understanding truth. And a sign of your weak case is the unfailing resort to insults and name-calling. Every time you do that, I know I am over the target.
Suppose (to your distaste) it all turns out to be true: the airplanes hit the Towers, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania countryside. That doesn't stop the questions about where did these guys come from, how were they trained, and who in the government gave them a pass (if anyone did). Maybe it was like Pearl Harbor, an event awaited but not specifically planned. Sometimes evil likes to play the long game and encourage an avalanche, so as to keep fingerprints from being found. And where do you think they got the idea? Look up Project Aphrodite to find a clue. Even as a young engineer in the 70s and 80s, it occurred to me that used airliners would make wonderful blockbuster cruise missiles. And they still would.
Not when you don't hear the first sound wave or if they overlap. That's why I stated my experience. I only criticized your conclusion; I did not downvote you. (Strange tool. I am an aeronautical engineer by training and occupation.)
I watched samples from it. All concocted. Street people declaring what they saw, when they saw only the effect. Some idiot with an eastern European accent insisting that an airplane would behave like a brittle accordion, and that it could not penetrate the building (B-25 vs. Empire State Building to the contrary). Someone referred to the video of one airliner passing over building tops and one wingtip seemingly went behind one building (which was in fact consistent with the path of the airplane and the fact that distance perspective flattens out at long distance). Where did the "undoctored" video come from, and what is the certification that it is "undoctored"? There was a fireball from the first instant of the collision, which is unremarkable considering the airplane was fully fueled and a collision would be guaranteed to create sparks or adiabatic heating in a fuel space with ullage. People in this country have become conditioned to think that a cloud of fire signifies an explosion because Hollywood finds it more convenient to simulate them with propane than with explosives.
So, prove it. Arguing "it might have been" or "it could have been" is only fantasizing based on an ignorant view of the mechanics of such an event. The planes were commandeered and were driven into the Towers, the Pentagon, and the countryside with all passengers aboard. They are gone, and this obsession with a fantasy is a morbid trivialization of their deaths.
This is nonsense. Airplanes don't shatter. There is too much momentum for the airplane not to penetrate BETWEEN THE COLUMNS. The man with the accent doesn't know what he is talking about, regarding airplane construction.
"The fact" that videos were "doctored"? How would you be able to prove that to be a fact, and not what it really is...an assumption. And where is the proof that the eyewitnesses were liars? And you have the temerity to say that "his sources are at least questionable," when all you have is sheer fantasy.
If you are on the ground among buildings, there will be no way to predict direction from sound, because you will be hearing echoes from the buildings. I was surprised one time near Boeing Field when an airplane was taking off, and the sound was coming from a direction completely different from where the plane was. It was reflecting from a nearby building.
The planes and passengers plunged into the buildings, where they were shredded by the structural columns. I've seen the reconstruction simulation. Very appalling. What do you think would happen? Be like a Warner Brother's cartoon where a plane goes "splat!" on the outside of the building and falls to the ground? That didn't even happen when a B-25 crashed into the Empire State building in 1945.
It was real, along with the reasons and the footage. Hard to stomach, I suppose.