Reply #39: A "put-up-or-shut up" challenge to all you CT's regarding Bolo's picture [View All]

[SDuderstadt]

Ummm, guys....there most certainly is a 90 ft. hole there, it's just not the shape you expect it to be.

In the book, "Leading Strategic Change", the authors detail how people's "mind maps" can keep them from seeing certain things. If I ask you a certain question, your subconcious creates a picture of what it expects the answer to look like. For example, if I say that I am going to show you a picture of a "home run" and want you to point it out, how many of you would immediately expect me to show you a baseball picture? If I, instead, showed you a picture of an electrician establishing the power connection to a house from the electric utility's line (known as a "home run"), how many of you would immediately leap to the wrong conclusion that there is no "home run" there?

In the case of Bolo's picture, there's a 90 ft. hole there, alright, it just doesn't look like what you're expecting. That's because it's:

a) not totally symmetrical
b) contains shapes other than a circle and
c) doesn't look like the cartoon cutout of a plane crashing into the building.


Get my point? If not, let me elaborate:


When I say I am going to show you a picture of a hole, is your expectation that the hole will be shaped like a circle? Wouldn't you expect that based upon the nose of the plane? You would, right? What about the REST of the plane? Is that circular? No.


I am one of the ones saying that the hole is 90 ft. wide and I am right. Note that I am not claiming that the circular portion of the hole is 90 ft. wide, nor should we expect that because neither the nose nor the fuselage of that plane is 90 ft. wide, is it? Hint: no, that would be one humongous plane. The dimensions of the circular portion of the hole in Bolo's picture, however, would easily accomodate the nose and the fuselage (http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=101).

And if merely the nose or a portion of the fuselage penetrated the building partially, it would be reasonable to expect only a circular hole, but that's not what happened, is it? Given that the plane penetrated the building completely, what would we expect to see? A circle? Or a wide rectangular hole in the middle of which is a circle? Do you get my point?

When you look at the picture, your brain expects to see a circular hole, right? And you do, right? When you see it, you stop looking for the rest of the hole. Now, look at the picture again. Find the part that corresponds to the nose/fuselage, then look BELOW and see the wide rectangular hole that extends on both sides. No one is claiming the hole is entirely circular. No one is claiming that the circular portion of the hole is 90 ft wide. No one is claiming that the hole is UNIFORMLY 90 ft. wide. But, when you look for the complete hole, rather than just the circular part, I challenge you to deny that the "hole" is less than 90 feet wide at its widest point. In other words, quit looking for a 90 foot wide circle.

For whatever it's worth, I expect the most intelligence-challenged "true believer" adherents of the absurd "no-plane" wing (no pun intended) of the "truth movement" to attempt some sort of bullshit refutation of this which, frankly, proves my point.