WOW 9/11 again.

[daws101]

Maybe the guy in the OP is in a Drama club somewhere, and his "assignment" is to post a believable conspiracy theory at someone else's board, who knows!.

I was always told to think, not blindly accept.
Why don't you question something that has more holes than my old socks and smells a lot worse?



I'm not generally into conspiracy theories but this story has so many holes, it needs a closer look.
The bit that gets me the most is the pentagon.
There must be hundreds of cameras around that place but not a single photo of an aircraft except something with totally the wrong shaped nose cone in a blurry image.

The airspeed was reported to be 350mph or 563kph
That divides down to 156m/s
The aircraft, a Boeing 757, is 47+ metres long.

Note the time stamp on the images (Wrong date and time - maybe the security didn't know how to set up their video machine). Not even a second apart.
This bit is a deliberately understated guess. Understated to allow for error in the favour of the official US story.
The distance between the building and the edge of frame in those photos is 40m.
We know the camera was running at a minimum of 2 frames per second as there are two frames with the same time stamp.
That means a camera, recording an object moving at 156m/s over 40 m would see a large part of that that object at least once.
In fact, the building is 23.5 metres tall so the real distance is closer to 120 metres
That, with the massive inaccuracy in favour of the official story is, 0.25 of a second for the nose to travel but a further 0.3 of a second before the tail enters the building. 0.55 of a second with a frame every 0.5 second.
Where is the aircraft?

you are full of shit.
those models of security VCR'S were notorious for losing time ,the clock circuitry was faulity.
also you're wrong about the frame rate, it's 1 frame per sec.
the normal FPS IS for l NTSC is 29.97 fps.
so at 1fps you've lost 28.97 frames .
that makes your calculations invalid.
the plane you ask?: http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

 

[eots]

Maybe the guy in the OP is in a Drama club somewhere, and his "assignment" is to post a believable conspiracy theory at someone else's board, who knows!.

I was always told to think, not blindly accept.
Why don't you question something that has more holes than my old socks and smells a lot worse?



I'm not generally into conspiracy theories but this story has so many holes, it needs a closer look.
The bit that gets me the most is the pentagon.
There must be hundreds of cameras around that place but not a single photo of an aircraft except something with totally the wrong shaped nose cone in a blurry image.

The airspeed was reported to be 350mph or 563kph
That divides down to 156m/s
The aircraft, a Boeing 757, is 47+ metres long.

Note the time stamp on the images (Wrong date and time - maybe the security didn't know how to set up their video machine). Not even a second apart.
This bit is a deliberately understated guess. Understated to allow for error in the favour of the official US story.
The distance between the building and the edge of frame in those photos is 40m.
We know the camera was running at a minimum of 2 frames per second as there are two frames with the same time stamp.
That means a camera, recording an object moving at 156m/s over 40 m would see a large part of that that object at least once.
In fact, the building is 23.5 metres tall so the real distance is closer to 120 metres
That, with the massive inaccuracy in favour of the official story is, 0.25 of a second for the nose to travel but a further 0.3 of a second before the tail enters the building. 0.55 of a second with a frame every 0.5 second.
Where is the aircraft?

you are full of shit.
those models of security VCR'S were notorious for losing time ,the clock circuitry was faulity.
also you're wrong about the frame rate, it's 1 frame per sec.
the normal FPS IS for l NTSC is 29.97 fps.
so at 1fps you've lost 28.97 frames .
that makes your calculations invalid.
the plane you ask?: http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

oh really so do you have a link to these so called facts about the camera security systems at the pentagon and their capabilities ?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I outrank you.

whats outrank?

He was a Sergeant First Class. A non commissioned officer.
I have the Queen's commission, retired, of course.
Even in someone else's army, protocol demands a salute.

If your arsehole enough to keep bleating on about your rank.

You may have outranked me at one time, but as I said my former rank is now my tittle.

You outrank no one.........

 

[eots]

whats outrank?

He was a Sergeant First Class. A non commissioned officer.
I have the Queen's commission, retired, of course.
Even in someone else's army, protocol demands a salute.

If your arsehole enough to keep bleating on about your rank.

You may have outranked me at one time, but as I said my former rank is now my tittle.

You outrank no one.........

alight already you two...save it for "the terrorist"

 

[SFC Ollie]

Well, another one who believes that if it's on a youtube video it must be the truth.....

 

[daws101]

I was always told to think, not blindly accept.
Why don't you question something that has more holes than my old socks and smells a lot worse?



I'm not generally into conspiracy theories but this story has so many holes, it needs a closer look.
The bit that gets me the most is the pentagon.
There must be hundreds of cameras around that place but not a single photo of an aircraft except something with totally the wrong shaped nose cone in a blurry image.

The airspeed was reported to be 350mph or 563kph
That divides down to 156m/s
The aircraft, a Boeing 757, is 47+ metres long.

Note the time stamp on the images (Wrong date and time - maybe the security didn't know how to set up their video machine). Not even a second apart.
This bit is a deliberately understated guess. Understated to allow for error in the favour of the official US story.
The distance between the building and the edge of frame in those photos is 40m.
We know the camera was running at a minimum of 2 frames per second as there are two frames with the same time stamp.
That means a camera, recording an object moving at 156m/s over 40 m would see a large part of that that object at least once.
In fact, the building is 23.5 metres tall so the real distance is closer to 120 metres
That, with the massive inaccuracy in favour of the official story is, 0.25 of a second for the nose to travel but a further 0.3 of a second before the tail enters the building. 0.55 of a second with a frame every 0.5 second.
Where is the aircraft?

you are full of shit.
those models of security VCR'S were notorious for losing time ,the clock circuitry was faulity.
also you're wrong about the frame rate, it's 1 frame per sec.
the normal FPS IS for l NTSC is 29.97 fps.
so at 1fps you've lost 28.97 frames .
that makes your calculations invalid.
the plane you ask?: http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

oh really so do you have a link to these so called facts about the camera security systems at the pentagon and their capabilities ?

look them up!(they may not be on youtube!)

 

[Indofred]

you are full of shit.
those models of security VCR'S were notorious for losing time ,the clock circuitry was faulity.
also you're wrong about the frame rate, it's 1 frame per sec.
the normal FPS IS for l NTSC is 29.97 fps.
so at 1fps you've lost 28.97 frames .
that makes your calculations invalid.
the plane you ask?: http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

oh really so do you have a link to these so called facts about the camera security systems at the pentagon and their capabilities ?

look them up!(they may not be on youtube!)

I posted them.
Two frames have the same time stamp. That means at least two frames per second.
As for the distances, read the post and google the rest.
It's not hard.
As for frame rate in the top quote. Remember many security cams are time lapse to save on tape space so frame rate can be very low.

 

[Indofred]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvVAYjd7DYw]CNN, Live, 9/11/2001, The Pentagon, "No 757!" - YouTube[/ame]

Note where the reporter mention no large parts.

No large holes either.

And no marks where the wings and engines would have hit.

Now we'll pop a plane over the hole after the collapse.

Nope, still doesn't fit.

This building was hit by a missile.

A fireball of this size is generated by such a missile.

Now some pictures of other aircraft after hitting buildings.

A smaller fighter aircraft after a high speed impact.
No visible identifiable parts?

This one crashed into a building in Lagos.

No visible identifiable parts?

Even the holes in the official story are the wrong size.

 

[daws101]

oh really so do you have a link to these so called facts about the camera security systems at the pentagon and their capabilities ?

look them up!(they may not be on youtube!)

I posted them.
Two frames have the same time stamp. That means at least two frames per second.
As for the distances, read the post and google the rest.
It's not hard.
As for frame rate in the top quote. Remember many security cams are time lapse to save on tape space so frame rate can be very low.

sorry wrong again! WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT CAMERAS BUT THE RECORDING DEVICE. the time stamp is wrong.
besides as explained if the were the same second (even at two fps all you wouild see is a slightly longer plane image and a slightly shorter impact image.
here's the raw footage [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaCaldJGjmo]Flight 77 Hits Pentagon (camera 2) - YouTube[/ame]

all you need to do is count the seconds to see that they are 1fps.
the clips is 15 seconds long..
if the clip was running at the standard NTSC 29.97 fps.
the images would be much smoother.

as it is you've lost 13.97 fps for 15 seconds

 

[daws101]

CNN, Live, 9/11/2001, The Pentagon, "No 757!" - YouTube

Note where the reporter mention no large parts.

No large holes either.

And no marks where the wings and engines would have hit.

Now we'll pop a plane over the hole after the collapse.

Nope, still doesn't fit.

This building was hit by a missile.

A fireball of this size is generated by such a missile.

Now some pictures of other aircraft after hitting buildings.

A smaller fighter aircraft after a high speed impact.
No visible identifiable parts?

This one crashed into a building in Lagos.

No visible identifiable parts?

Even the holes in the official story are the wrong size.

still wrong! the holes are not from the body of the aircraft but the engines and landing gear Assembly!

 

[SFC Ollie]

CNN, Live, 9/11/2001, The Pentagon, "No 757!" - YouTube

Note where the reporter mention no large parts.

No large holes either.

And no marks where the wings and engines would have hit.

Now we'll pop a plane over the hole after the collapse.

Nope, still doesn't fit.

This building was hit by a missile.

A fireball of this size is generated by such a missile.

Now some pictures of other aircraft after hitting buildings.

A smaller fighter aircraft after a high speed impact.
No visible identifiable parts?

This one crashed into a building in Lagos.

No visible identifiable parts?

Even the holes in the official story are the wrong size.

still wrong! the holes are not from the body of the aircraft but the engines and landing gear Assembly!

And the blast.

 

[eots]

CNN, Live, 9/11/2001, The Pentagon, "No 757!" - YouTube

Note where the reporter mention no large parts.

No large holes either.

And no marks where the wings and engines would have hit.

Now we'll pop a plane over the hole after the collapse.

Nope, still doesn't fit.

This building was hit by a missile.

A fireball of this size is generated by such a missile.

Now some pictures of other aircraft after hitting buildings.

A smaller fighter aircraft after a high speed impact.
No visible identifiable parts?

This one crashed into a building in Lagos.

No visible identifiable parts?

Even the holes in the official story are the wrong size.

still wrong! the holes are not from the body of the aircraft but the engines and landing gear Assembly!

And the blast.

lol

 

[daws101]

still wrong! the holes are not from the body of the aircraft but the engines and landing gear Assembly!

And the blast.

lol

typical !

 

[Indofred]

all you need to do is count the seconds to see that they are 1fps.
the clips is 15 seconds long..
if the clip was running at the standard NTSC 29.97 fps.
the images would be much smoother.

as it is you've lost 13.97 fps for 15 seconds

That divides down to 156m/s
The aircraft, a Boeing 757, is 47+ metres long.

Distance seen by camera = greater than 120m + 47m of aircraft.
Minimum 170 m at a speed of 156m/s
1fps = at least a large part of the aircraft visible in at least one shot.

And that's just one camera. Are you seriously trying to tell me the Pentagon can't afford 2 on what is supposed to be a top security building?

So, who can explain why no large parts were left (unlike all other crashes) and why there was no damage either side of a hole that's far too small for an aircraft strike?

The story stinks.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Do we really have to go through posting all those pictures of plane wreckage at the pentagon again?

 

[daws101]

all you need to do is count the seconds to see that they are 1fps.
the clips is 15 seconds long..
if the clip was running at the standard NTSC 29.97 fps.
the images would be much smoother.

as it is you've lost 13.97 fps for 15 seconds

That divides down to 156m/s
The aircraft, a Boeing 757, is 47+ metres long.

Distance seen by camera = greater than 120m + 47m of aircraft.
Minimum 170 m at a speed of 156m/s
1fps = at least a large part of the aircraft visible in at least one shot.

And that's just one camera. Are you seriously trying to tell me the Pentagon can't afford 2 on what is supposed to be a top security building?

So, who can explain why no large parts were left (unlike all other crashes) and why there was no damage either side of a hole that's far too small for an aircraft strike?

The story stinks.

 

[Indofred]

still wrong! the holes are not from the body of the aircraft but the engines and landing gear Assembly!

So where did the body of the aircraft disappear to?
Vaporised on impact like the Sukhoi that hit a mountain in Indonesia a couple of months ago?

The "Aircraft" hit at ground level but there was no damage to the grass.
Explain that one.

 

[SFC Ollie]

 

[Indofred]

And the rest of it?

All other crashes, even into the side of a mountain, has large wreckage but none here.
Please explain why the hole is so small while you're at it.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And the rest of it?

All other crashes, even into the side of a mountain, has large wreckage but none here.
Please explain why the hole is so small while you're at it.

It doesn't matter how many times the size of the hole is explained you guys will ignore it. Tell me was that plane that hit the mountain flown directly into it at full speed with full gas tanks on purpose? Or did the pilot try to pull up? Don't know do you?

Ever seen the demo of a jet fighter being slammed into a reinforced wall? Nothing left.... Do I need to waste my time finding that video for you? No, I think not because you will ignore it anyway because it doesn't fit in with what you want to be true.....