That's quite a contradiction. There is nothing for me to "concede". If and when I find something I should concede about you will know. Given your posts I'm guessing if that ever happens it will likely be on a very minor point. It doesn't matter who you think your posts are "aimed at". Everyone in this forum is free to read all posts written by anyone in this forum. I'm not trying to "influence" anyone, maybe you are. I post anything and everything I come across that challenges the official 9/11 fairy tale in order to try to educate those who are not aware. And I'm open to discussion when and if I feel it's appropriate to serve my objective. It goes without saying all are free to make their own determination. It's not my job to convince anyone of anything. You of course are free to do as you wish, it's not my concern. But I will respond as I see fit and in the manner I see fit, definitely not on your terms. "You can a horse to water but you can't make it drink."
Only a little one Bob, my level of disappointment being very little and my level of "I don't actually care" being close to maximum. But well spotted huh! Yes there is Bob, if there's no plane do they need to dispose of the real one and passengers? Yes or no? They were all recorded dead and the actual plane is no longer in service. Sure it does Bob, it means all I need to do is expose your catalog of failures and others can see. I aim at people not entrenched in the conspiracies that you claim. Right, so YOU see yourself as an "educator" but you aren't trying to influence people. That's quite a contradiction there. If there was no plane would they need people to drop off all the AA77 bits? If there was no plane would the DNA examined need to be the actual passengers? If there was no plane would the cell phone conversations need to be faked? If they were faked as they must have been, then how do the recipients feel about their loved ones then dying? I can ask simple, obvious, irrefutable questions but I can't make Bob answer them. If they ARE refutable, refute them. You can lead a horse to water.....
oh that's okay I'll be happy to answer them. what AA77 plane pieces? I'd like to see what 'pieces' you're talking about and how many. personally I haven't seen Bob post anything insofar as a failure is concerned but I already rebutted most of your posts, and if that's what you're calling a failure then you've got plenty of them yourself. let's see the last one was oh yeah you didn't know that they were high-speed cameras out there lol here again that's highly illogical if there's no plane there's no passengers how hard is that? dispose of the plane are you kidding simply paint the different number on the tail lol do you find this difficult? are you talking about wreckage or are you talking about a 'bit' of plane? Like a gas tank cap? Maybe a panel screw? Panel? I'd like to see pictures of the wreckage, all of it! that does even to make sense what does a plane have to do with a cell phone conversation? simple name change under the witness protection program, none of this stuff is unfathomable like you seem to think. I've been refuting them all along and you've been ignoring it. Like I told you several times, you first have to establish that a plane in fact exists, and neither you nor your friend have yet to cough up a picture though you claim one exists. If anyone including myself were to see a plane when none existed that would be delusional. You agree with that yes? I dont see a plane, sorry. If you do post the pic! Failure to produce supporting evidence for your claims looks like yet another failure on your part, not Bobs.
I take it you haven’t seen the Wayne Coste presentation narrated by Chandler that Bob posted some time ago? Why don’t you watch that and perhaps we can talk specifics as to whether a 757 hit the Pentagon. Its 5 hours long and I know how much you love 5 second gifs but give it a shot.
I didn't realize you were a no-planer. Why don't you and Bob have a little argument amongst yourselves. "No planes" is as bad as "flat Earth".
Calling me names does not exempt the necessity for you to post a picture of the plane, there may be one I dont know, but there is no plane in the cam clip you gave me to review, sorry. I dont believe mass delusions, evidence is not a democratic process, it either exists or it does not, and based on video it does not, there is no plane in that video, which will be proven by your inability to post a pic of theplane you claim exists .
Lets do it this way IF ANYONE that sees this post can find a plane in the pentagon cam clip that Beta posted help him out and post a picture of it so I can become a believer too! Cant wait!
what am I supposed to be looking for? I seen chandlers comparison before, all I see is smudges that people want me to believe is a plane. I see no plane. That is nothing that can be accurately identified as a plane. Even if there were a plane there would be wings on the ground. To many defects in the story for me to jump on the believer wagon.
Citation please - provide a link proving this. I suppose you think that this "high speed camera" captured "everything". It should be pointed out to you, as you clearly don't understand cameras, that these cameras are recording low resolution and low frames per second. I believe there are 5 frames of any significance in each of the two angles.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/ CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. “In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found,” claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, “What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?” FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC in Washington, D C. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.” Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?”
Yes 'bits' of plane is all you got? This is plane wreckage,6ft high. I want to see wreckage NOT some **** someone dumped out of someones pick up truck. FACT 5 bits of plane does not make flt 77! Ok so we are at no plane pic, and no wreckage pic.
No its you that does not understand cameras. When its really bright out the camera automatically adjusts shutter speed FASTER! I have captured bullets coming out of a barrel with a standard cam on a bright day. BTW its impossible for a 757 to fly nearly 600mph at ground level, you would need 6 to 7 times the design power to do that. I think chandler calculated 575, not possible in thick air
There's wheel, undercarriage and engine bits. But all irrelevant - I said someone needed to place them all. Did that wreckage come from a maxed out plane smashing into a building? Calm down. Did you read the quote: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC in Washington, D C. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.” Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?”
Citation please - provide a link proving this make of camera, preferably with specifications. Hilarious. Do you not know the difference between shutter speed and frames per second? Of course you have. It was the "shutter speed" was it? Nope, perfectly possible if you have no regard for the engine. I have little regard for "chandler".
Calm down? Im in the cat bird seat LOL WRECKAGE not a pick up truck load of **** dumped on the lawn Do you understand? TOTAL WRECKAGE of our flt 77 or once again it does not exist. I dont care how many talking heads you produce, you see I dont believe until I see material evidence and you have shown me nothing remotely close to CONCLUSIVE.
It really doesnt matter all digital cams work the same. I will check for it. I may still have the link if the site is even still available 20 years after the fact. I most certainly do, but clearly you dont. Look it up on google ffs dont ask me to teach you about cameras so you can argue with me. Do your own homework, they all operate the same.
No really they don't. Ok, in-built excuse ready. It's all so very, very irrelevant. The security cameras WERE low resolution and quote clearly had a LOW frame rate. Enough game playing. You just got caught out. You don't know the difference. The shutter speed controls the amount of light captured. "When its really bright out the camera automatically adjusts shutter speed FASTER!" Shutter speed doesn't produce more frames. No need, I'm fairly good with cameras. You did this "LOL" thing about the "high speed" camera then got found out. Too late to cover it up. The bottom line is that there are only five frames of any relevance, the plane is moving too fast to be captured in high definition. https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/a675/2815396/ "The bigger problem is that the footage suffers from a glacially slow frame rate: It moves at approximately 1 frame per second, while the plane--or what theorists insist was some sort of missile--hit the Pentagon traveling 780 ft. per second (more than 530 mph). At these camera angles, Flight 77 hardly registers on either film before a fireball erupts from the building." 'LOL"
Thanks for proving you do not understand how they work precisely as I stated. Digital cameras increase shutter speed to maintain proper exposure as the view gets brighter. This has no effect on frame rate. On a bright day with fast shutter speed any plane would be tack sharp. LOL No no you arent, you dont understand how they function. now you do. IIRC those littons had a max shutter speed somewhere close to 1/100,000sec Better luck next time. Where is a pic of 'the' wreckage? Where is a pic of this alleged flt 77 hitting the pentagon?
This is important. Aircraft Parts and the Precautionary Principle Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts as a Positive Clue to Aircraft Identity https://physics-911.com/georgenelson/ (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling. Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.
Somewhere along the line someone fed you some bullshit and you fell for it. I have never even heard of a "Litton" camera, with not a single reference page founded for it on the internet. https://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-dont-pentagon-videos-clearly-show.html Debunking 9/11 Myths has this to say on page 61: A Pentagon spokesperson tells Popular Mechanics that the video was taken with a Philips LTC 1261 security camera and recorded at one frame per second. Jerry Housenga is a technical product specialist with Bosch Security Systems, which bought the Philips camera division in 2002. According to Housenga, it was unrealistic to think that the low-quality security camera footage would reveal the crystal-clear image of a Boeing 757 traveling at 780 feet per second. While most advanced security and surveillance cameras can be set to capture real-time video, the attached recording systems are almost always set at significantly slower frame rates in order to conserve storage space. As a result, it is unlikely that the recording system of any nearby security camera would be set at a rate high enough to capture the speeding plane with decent resolution. As reported by Popular Mechanics, therefore, the aircraft was flying at approximately 780 feet per second, which is 237.9 meters per second or 858 kilometers per hour. The Pentagon security cameras that took the videos used the NTSC standard and accordingly generated 29.97 frames per second in 60i mode, i.e., by capturing 60 fields per second (each frame of a television picture consists of two fields). Based on what data is publicly available and unless evidence to the contrary emerges, these cameras were therefore stationary analog interlaced models which used the NTSC standard.
since the people in your citation dont know any more about camera operation than you do here is a beginners guide how shutter speed affects a picture. https://shotkit.com/what-is-shutter-speed/ Short shutter speed = less blur. Long shutter speed = more blur. Frame rate, aperture, and shutter speed are all independent of each other. Youd be lost with a manual camera. https://digital-photography-school.com/manual-exposure-cheat-sheet/ class dismissed.
Noise. You got the camera wrong. You got the shutter speed wrong by an absolutely ridiculous amount. You failed to understand that shutter speed doesn't produce more images. You failed to admit any of that even after your obvious failure. You failed to even provide a citation. How about you provide one single website page that extols the virtues of the "magic-2001-100,000 a sec shutter speed" of this non-existent camera? Even when CLEARLY... the footage shows low resolution, low frame rate camera footage.
