9/11 Tape to be Released
- Thread starter Atomic
- Start date
Planes, be they F4s with small engines and swept back wings or sodding great Boeing 757s with big engines hanging under the wings are ALWAYS going to come off second best when colliding with a REINFORCED CONCRETE wall. Moreso if that wall is on the outside of the HQ of the US military (they think it's quite an important building). The 757 DIDN'T come in perpendicular to the wall, it hit at about a 40(ish) degree angle, look at the path the damage takes.Mujja said:
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 8,540
- Location
- Essex
For all those people saying why is no plane or only what could be a nose cone shown in the video, its because of the half second frames from the camera as already said before but to proove it is possible for it to completely miss the camera I've made this 5 second clip of rally cars going past a camera at about 40-60mph, in the first shot you see it at 25fps and then you'll see it how a security camera like the one at the pentagon would have seen it.
Link
As you can see I've selected different in and out points for the 3 clips just to show what could have been captured depending on where the second starts.
Link
As you can see I've selected different in and out points for the 3 clips just to show what could have been captured depending on where the second starts.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,086
- Location
- Berkland
Sirrel Squirrel said:
Pretty convincing to me. Good example. Shame their are people here who just won't except anything but a CT. As a lecturer from Liverpool Uni said on a programme about Dan Browns CT, their is a CT in everyone.
To my mind, the explanation for the lack of a clear shot of the plane comes down to three things :-Sirrel Squirrel said:
- the speed and size of the plane
- the frame rate of thecamera
- the distance of the camera from the impact scene
If the plane was travelling at 500mph, as it could well have been, then that's 2,640,000 feet per hour, which is 733 feet per second. As the camera was time lapse at a 0.5 second interval, the plane, which was 155 feet long, would have travelled 366 feet in half a second. It is therefore entirely plausible that no frame of a camera running at that speed would have captured any of the plane unless it was a fair distance away. The CCTV cameras were not very far away. At that range, if it did capture anything, it would need a VERY fast shutter speed to get a crisp image.
Several people have said this footage proves nothing. I disagree. In a previous thread, conspiracy theorists claimed the reason it wasn't being released was because it showed evidence of a missile strike. It might not prove much else, but it disproves that notion .... so, needless to say, conspiracy theorists move on to something else.
Oh, and if the cameras can't capture a 500mph plane in flight, what speed do missiles travel at again?
This argument is pointless. People, on either side, will believe what they want and, IMHO, little or nothing will change their minds.
I really shouldn't post in this thread becaus it just gets me annoyed how silly people are.
I challenge you to present any evidence to explain why the plane never left the FAA radar and was tracked from takeoff to the pentagon. We know exactly what flight path it took, and it's speed of impact etc. This is a documented FACT.
How there were dozens of whitnesses (including a member of this forum) who saw the plane hit. Yes there are a few who said they saw something different, but the majority said it was the plane.
Why would the conspirators launchi a missile (where from, authorised by who?) or switch planes after they had no problems flying two into the twin towers?
The Pentagon thing is all nonsence
Find out about the wargame drills running on September 11 used to confuse the FAA and USAF then you will find out the real conspiracy.
WARGAMES
I challenge you to present any evidence to explain why the plane never left the FAA radar and was tracked from takeoff to the pentagon. We know exactly what flight path it took, and it's speed of impact etc. This is a documented FACT.
How there were dozens of whitnesses (including a member of this forum) who saw the plane hit. Yes there are a few who said they saw something different, but the majority said it was the plane.
Why would the conspirators launchi a missile (where from, authorised by who?) or switch planes after they had no problems flying two into the twin towers?
The Pentagon thing is all nonsence
Find out about the wargame drills running on September 11 used to confuse the FAA and USAF then you will find out the real conspiracy.
WARGAMES
Last edited:
Perhaps to make the whole situation worse so that Bush can be a popular guy in fighting terrorism and they can justify spending money on it and pass a bill that grants phonetaps etc...MookJong said:
I fully believe the Twin Towers story (to a degree) but looking at all the stuff regarding the Pentagon it just raises a lot of questions.
fatiain said:
So, let me get this right ...... you believe that a thin aluminium tube can punch a hole in a granite clad building but several tons of (mainly) very hard Titanium engine won't?
I don't see the logic there, I'm afraid.
As for all the holier than thou "give some respect" type people; Someone explained earlier, that most of the people who have doubts about these events, believe that they are looking for the truth and that many of the families of the victims are doing the same; there is no disrespect, quite the reverse, so climb down from your high horses.
There will always be two sides to these things so, let's try to discuss things in a reasonable way; you never know, one party or the other may discover something that changes their mind.
I have just looked at the video on the BBC link and it looks like a missile to me. I never had any suspicions before but that has just ignited them.
The scale of the object is just wrong and too small to be an airliner and that is from someone who firmly defended the earlier claims of a plane and the extent of damage.
The scale of the object is just wrong and too small to be an airliner and that is from someone who firmly defended the earlier claims of a plane and the extent of damage.
fatiain said:
I'm trying to understand why the engines didn't leave their own entry holes but neatly folded up and followed the body ....... as you will see from the vid of the fighter crashing into a wall, the wings don't fold up, they stay in situ and disintegrate. Momentum would have carried several tons of pretty solid engine through the wall leaving maybe three holes like so ..... o O o
Not looking for an argument here, just can't understand why these heavy solid objects did not leave their own entry holes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 8,540
- Location
- Essex
Sequoia said:
exactly my argument is proving that it would be impossible to capture the plane, the rally cars go at about 50mph and they're only shown for a few frames and when on 2fps like the security camera you're lucky if you get a shot, the plane is going like 300mph so it would be impossible to get it in frame.
Last edited: