Sounds interesting but this blip tells me nothing.

I'm going to give this one more shot in as layman's terms as I can.

-Moving the direction of a beam of light does not speed the light up.
-The distance the beam travels in each direction is the same.
-The distance and/or speed of the light can only be measured from point A (The laser pointer) and point B (The moon in question).
-There is no measurement from Point B1 (the left side of the moon) to Point B2 (the right side of the moon). No matter how fast you shake the pointer around.
-The light that hits B1 is not the same *Blip of light that hits B2.
-You are NOT pushing the light around, you are projecting a separate wave of light to each new co-ordinate as you move it around.

An example: Imagine you tie a piece of thread from point A to point B1, then imagine you flick the beam to B2. You will now have a new thread from A to B2 and not from A to B1 to B2.

I hear what you are saying but I think his premise is unsound.
I can point a laser due north (into the stars) and then switch to point due south (into the stars.)
That doesn't mean anything can cross the universe (known or unknown) in a split second (except maybe Q)


I often thought about this as a kid. If I point a flashlight into the stars, will some entity, out there in space see my bean of light? I concluded that no they couldn't. Besides the fact that the light would get filtered out by space particles long before it reached anywhere, The light moves too slow. I can point my flashlight now and hold it there for one minute. Then that beam would have to travel for more years (Hundreds? - Thousands)? than even I could imagine until it hit something.

Did the light beam continue to travel through space after the minute I shut off the light or does it keep traveling? A blip of light traveling through space. If the light we see from stars could be light from stars that burned out years ago, then I suppose (if it was ever strong enough not to be filtered out) that blip would be possible.

So the fact that I can point and shoot a continuous blip of light in one direction in space, and then wave it around to another section of space, doesn't mean that blip is moving from one planet to the next (or even one galaxy to the next.)

This idea most likely asks more questions than it answers and I'm sure we could talk forever but I just think light defies the basic standards of measure we tend to use on it.

>> ^Bhruic:

Well, for the pixels thing, he specifically says "pixels", not "light emitting from pixels". The pixels themselves never move. The light the pixels emit (if any) does move, of course, to get from the pixel to your eye. But that's a separate issue.
He's also not saying that flicking your wrist speeds up light. The premise of this video isn't that light can travel faster than what we know as "the speed of light", just that "something" can travel faster - in this case, the image of a laser. The speed at which the image is traveling across the surface of the moon would indeed be faster than the speed of light. Which is fine, because as he points out, images don't have mass.

>> ^visionep:

This would be a lot more interesting if they showed the location of each of their data points as the years progress. Showing a map like this over such a long time with no idea of how much they have "guessed" at for the temperatures is pretty disengenuous.
The other factor with this map is the scale. From the article it looks like from dark blue to full red is about 1 degree Farenheight. As a non professional in the field of earth science it is pretty hard to quantify the affect of such a small change on the every day workings of the planet. Let alone derive some future idea of how these changes will accellerate or be countered by processes already in place on the planet.
It always bugs me when science looks like it is trying to make a point without delivering enough data to keep from being debunked.


This is not meant to be science, it's meant to be PR.

If there is a scientific beef with this I would think it is the opposite of your own. The trouble isn't showing things over such a long time frame, but in terms of climate change showing them over such a short one. 100 years is a blip on long term climate trends and it's the heart of the whole issue. Specifically, was the planet already warming before 1880 when mankind started pumping out CO2, and was it warming as quickly, or is the last 100 years truly something special or unique that we need to be worried about. Merely looking at the last 100 years answers none of that...

>> ^longde:




?

Blip.tv should be working now. Happy trails to you.

Mate, could you take a take a look at blip.tv embeds?

Thanks

>> ^radx:

This might work:
<embed wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" src="http://blip.tv/play/gbk7gtmUEwI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="431" width="500">
Test:

Edit: Yay, success is mine. Though I wouldn't be surprised of Lucky had already "fixed" this by the time you read it.


Thanks. That worked. Yeah, @lucky needs to fix this.

This might work:
<embed wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" src="http://blip.tv/play/gbk7gtmUEwI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="431" width="500">

Test:


Edit: Yay, success is mine. Though I wouldn't be surprised of Lucky had already "fixed" this by the time you read it.

@xxovercastxx

I don't know where you come up with "rather high accuracy". There's so many factors you wouldn't know. You could estimate where they were, but you still wouldn't know. And like I previously said, you wouldn't know if other radar systems were patched in to cover probable gap areas. If a particular radar has a listed range, you still wouldn't know how far beyond the range you could still get a response or the quality of response, or at what altitude you would be flying "under the radar".
The ONLY way to know where the radar gaps were would be to analyze computer tracking data of hundreds if not thousands of flights in that area. I guess air traffic controllers could have done this, but it serves them no real purpose unless they were tasked with doing it. So for the hijackers to know the gaps, they would have had to had access to that data and someone to interpret it.

Sure, it's all coincidence. Actually all the planes had their transponders either turned off or changed. Flights 11, 77, and 93 did so in dead zones. Flight 175 changed it's code (identity) a minute after flight 11 crashed into WTC1. A few minutes later turns and changes it's identity again. 10 minutes later it crashes into WTC2. This is the flight where (to my knowledge) no radio communication has been released, but has the most video evidence of crashing into WTC2. However for the first few hours it was reported flight 77 was the one that crashed into WTC2. United thought 175 was still in the air somewhere and didn't confirm it had crashed until after all aircraft had been grounded and 175 wasn't found anywhere. It didn't use this protocol for flight 93 which it confirmed had crashed almost immediately after it was reported. But we also know that the flight that hit the south tower couldn't have been flight 175 because the engine that was found doesn't match that of United's Boeing 767 (@3:03 here). FAA and NORAD lost 77 on radar and thought it was the second flight that crashed. After they later "found" 77, some were identifying it as flight 11 on radio. Also false blips were on the radar screens from active war game exercises. These were on the for most of the attacks, until at least after the Pentagon attack.

The point is the only reason to be messing with the transponder codes is to confuse ATC. Which wouldn't work if they weren't able to switch the codes under poor quality radar coverage. The planes would still show on radar if the transponders were turned off. So without war game false blips to blend in with, that would also be pointless.

Somehow these hijackers knew where the radar gaps were, knew how to read the jet's instrument panel, and knew when the jet was entering the gaps. They also knew how to maneuver and fly Boeing jets at 500 mph. These are the same schmucks that couldn't pass basic flying school with a single engine Cessna. These are the same schmucks that were recorded on radio to ATC, thinking they were talking over the intercom to the passengers. Let's also not forget that none of the pilots squawked an emergency or hijack code, or announced one over the radio. 0 for 4: more highly improbable coincidence.

I'm sorry you feel that way about the "truther movement", but it's not about treating "all explanations that can be imagined" equally. It's about treating all hypothesis equally and searching for evidence and reason to support it. It's about letting the evidence lead the way to truth wherever that may be and NOT jumping to conclusions or "explanations" from authorities without evidence like the official story ie the official "theory" has done. There's probably all kinds of crazy theories that can be easily debunked with physical evidence. But for some reason the authorities didn't want to do an honest investigation. It took over a year of pressure from victim's families for the government to agree to do their job. And even then the 9/11 commission members admit their report is basically a cover-up. Government bodies concluding the original half-baked government story, ignoring or covering up any evidence to the contrary. That's not how a real investigation is done.

What do you get out of it? Well..., maybe you wake up. Let's go back to my original question: Do you disagree with the documentary or are you instinctively hostile to 9/11 truth efforts?

Well so far, you've only managed to bring up one thing you disagree with and like I've explained, your conclusions on that issue are erroneous. And it's not about "getting my ideas heard", it's about finding the truth and spreading that message to other people. So why are you hostile toward that message? Why do you hold a bias against that?

@kymbos Fresh water my friend. The salt I put in is glorified kitchen sea salt now that I have read about it. Yes it is put in the freshwater to help with the internal ph of the fish, same way we use electrolytes I assume. I had a little blip recently with my 5 gallon month old tank, found that this salt is something handy to use when setting up a tank as well as general use for fish well being.

I am partial to Eel like creatures, khuli loaches and such.

NORAD on 9/11: Ordered to stand down

According to the newly released audio published here, NORAD was finally giving clearance to shoot at 10:32, about a half hour after United 93 reportedly went down and about an hour after AA 77 reportedly hit the Pentagon.

Fighter pilots at 10:09 were denied clearance to fire.

If you listen to some of the earlier audio, you will also realize that NORAD and FAA were getting false reports, false radar blips, or some other misinformation. Seems somebody was playing three-card Monte with Flight AA 11.

According to the newly released audio published here, NORAD was finally giving clearance to shoot at 10:32, about a half hour after United 93 reportedly went down and about an hour after AA 77 reportedly hit the Pentagon.

Fighter pilots at 10:09 were denied clearance to fire.

If you listen to some of the earlier audio, you will also realize that NORAD and FAA were getting false reports, false radar blips, or some other misinformation. Seems somebody was playing three-card Monte with Flight AA 11.