what factual proposition are you talking about??? I simply asked to to watch a video presentation made by the truth community with some pretty conclusive evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon… why are you afraid to watch it?
No takers for this? I mean we got opinions on the odds of 3 towers collapsing after 2 being murderously struck by a passenger plane and one being struck with massive chunks of building then burning un-fought for 8hrs. But compared to those items above, 3 towers collapsing is a piece of cake.
Why would anyone be a taker after witnessing THIS: and this: why would anyone take stock in that after you posted THIS: and called it a 757? and that you are trying to debate cameras when you failed to recognize a shutter priority camera? 1 frame per second? Thats the shutter speed for taking a pic in near total darkness! This is REAL single frame motion blur, the leading edge is mostly clear. THIS: is some photoshopped smudge garbage with artifacts added. I wonder whats behind all that whiteout? Hmm....
Thank you for sharing your opinion. Hilarious. That isn't the shutter speed! That is the frame rate. Adobe. "What is frame rate? To the human eye, film and video seem to play as one continuous recording. But in actuality, cameras record pictures of multiple images, called frames. These frames are played back at such a fast rate that they appear to be in fluid motion. Frame rate is the measurement of how quickly a number of frames appears within a second, which is why it’s also called FPS (frames per second)." Nexis. "Frame rate refers to the number of individual frames that comprise each second of video you record, also known as FPS (frames per second.) The most common frame rates in video are 24, 25 and 30 frames per second. Shutter speed refers to the amount of time that each individual frame is exposed for. In video, the shutter speed you use will almost always be a fraction of a second. The number used in setting a camera’s shutter speed refers to the denominator of that fraction of a second. For example, if you set your camera’s shutter speed to 60, that means that each frame is being exposed for 1/60th of a second."
yours I dont know what the truth community presents I only know what I can see and I see no plane in that blob Beta posted. I see a photoshopped picture at about 100 resolution, resolution 'reduced', thats a poor fascimile of motion blur. You are on the right track though, just express your proposition what truther 'fact' I am supposed to be looking for in those clips? Otherwise I dont waste my time. I maintain that planes are NOT invincible light pole mowers, that its impossible for the wings to stay attached after mowing down 7 poles at >500mph. Poles dont bounce off like in the cartoons. Now take a real plane the wings get sliced off! and that was only 140mph! THIS is taxi accident! LOOK at this one! another taxi very slow speed accident! almost 1/2 way through the wing! and the paint on the pole is hardly scratched! How can anyone believe that a plane can hit a pole at 500+mph and keep the wings? (or for that matter slice through the side of a building) Especially after seeing video proof they cant???? Yes I need a compelling argument to waste my time chasing after someones idea of 'fact'. So give me a compelling argument and I will watch it.
Ok everyone. I want you all to examine these two comments and see if...... My quote: Shutter speed refers to the amount of time that each individual frame is exposed for. Basically he said 1FPS (FRAME PER SECOND) is the SHUTTER SPEED for taking a pic in darkness. The Pentagon cameras were Philips LTC 1261 models with a 1/60th Shutter speed and took 1 Frame per second. Instead of admitting his basic error, he doubles down and denies it. Too late, it's on the record now. "LOL"
Bleeding My statement From the previous page Thanks for discovering what is clearly a typo! You provided NO evidence that is a 480 resolution image! Produce it. It looks like maybe 60-70 resolution. Thats what they do when they want to hide things. Ha! I was right again!
Thank you for sharing your opinion. You compare taxi collisions on 50ft, reinforced airport lights, with 15ft 4-bolt attached lamposts. Then you spam your pictures that I went through with you about 4 years ago! Truck not making much of a dent in the wing. Lamposts are held up by floor mounted bolts.
you are afraid of any facts that disagree with your confirmation bias and you have zero understanding of physics regarding fast moving wings and stationary light poles … perhaps you should educate yourself before making an ass of yourself…
the wing allegedly hit at 1/2 way to the tip, NOT the base. the bases are designed to break away on auto impact with them. I guess now we need to teach you about highway pole construction too eh? lol The fact that you posted that proves you dont understand them either
I actually have no issue with typos especially obvious ones. But yours wasn't a typo. You specifically took the 1 FPS frame per second and applied it to the EXPOSURE! There isn't a way to typo that, it's a very basic photography error. Period. I never said it was 480. I said the Philips had 480 TVL and showed how this inflates the real resolution. However when you take any video and put it on the web, it is rarely done so in lossless format. According to YouTube playback, this footage is 360p. Ha, did you apply that to a cropped animated gif or image? Did you? Please tell me you didn't make another "typo".
What data do you have on pole deformation level as opposed to bolt shear? Ok. Why don't you try real hard to lose the attitude? You have failed in just about every post you have made over the last few days, so the idea of you "teaching" anyone seems a bit of a stretch. I await your informed education on the matter. Are you saying these are special plane-proof poles? Or somehow different to normal highway poles? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/september-11-pentagon-witnesses/ "Sean Boger was one of the few people at the Pentagon who saw the plane coming in so low it took down a street light. "I just looked up and, you know, a plane was flying directly at us," he said. He said it was just 10 to 15 seconds before the plane hit the building. "I just couldn't believe something that big could be flying that low and flying directly at us," he reiterated."
https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77pentagon.html#p5 McGraw, Stephen Father Stephen McGraw . . . mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. "The traffic was very slow moving . . . I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. "I saw it crash into the building . . . it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. . . . "There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows."
because if you look back, you will see that we went through this same **** a couple years and it didnt work for you then and it wont work for you now! your image is closer to 10 TVL I already checked the image quality its 72dpi So the pic you posted is downres photoshopped to hide the real image in fuz. I dont see 200 lines on the whole damn pic much less in 3-4 inches
Sure, 99.9% made up nonsense. Some of it is not even an accurate regurgitation of the official 9/11 fairy tale. Then there were 4 major engineering studies investigating the destruction of just WTC7 on 9/11 that took years each and all 4 disagreed and contradicted each other. One of these concluded that the errors of the other 3 made their respective hypotheses impossible. Maybe you should have read the synopsis I wrote about these studies instead of posting made up nonsense. Or not and just keep posting anything whether it makes sense or not.
But wait, he's not qualified. Why aren't you questioning his account but you question and/or dismiss every single eyewitness and expert who contradicts or challenges the official 9/11 fairy tale?
I get where you're coming from Bob, but let me turn that around for you. How come THESE witnesses aren't reliable for YOU!? For me, you quoted two lots of witnesses. One group testified to hearing sounds. I accept all their accounts and dispute nothing. They heard noises during a building fire, creaks, things blowing up, beams cracking etc. The point in what I don't accept is that they get to assume it is demolition charges. That would be speculation and disproven by the complete lack of ANY demolition charge sounds heard by anyone not local or on any video recording. The other group testified to orange stuff, molten lava , molten steel, rivers of metal etc. Once again speculating it is molten steel is absurd given the reasons I gave you that you subsequently failed to address.
Moving on: https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77pentagon.html "Evey, Walker Lee EVEY: Actually, there's considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E ring. It's just not very visible. When you get up close -- actually, one of my people happened to be walking on this sidewalk and was right about here as the aircraft approached. It came in. It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in. He happened to hear this terrible noise behind him, looked back, and he actually -- he's a Vietnam veteran -- jumped prone onto the ground so the aircraft would not actually -- he thinks it (would have) hit him; it was that low. On its way in, the wing clipped. Our guess is an engine clipped a generator. We had an emergency temporary generator to provide life-safety emergency electrical power, should the power go off in the building. The wing actually clipped that generator, and portions of it broke off. There are other parts of the plane that are scattered about outside the building. None of those parts are very large, however. You don't see big pieces of the airplane sitting there extending up into the air. But there are many small pieces. And the few larger pieces there look like they are veins out of the aircraft engine. They're circular."
Not seen this one before, the eye-witness claims the plane put down its landing gear. ibid. Sepulveda, Noel Master Sgt. Noel Sepulveda . . . left Bolling Air Force Base, D.C., that morning enroute to a meeting at the Pentagon . . . Sepulveda walked back to his motorcycle and saw a commercial airliner coming from the direction of Henderson Hall, adjacent to the Pentagon and where the Marine Corps has its headquarters. He said he noticed the airplane was not following the Potomac River, the normal flight path to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. He saw the plane fly above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear. The plane's right wheel struck a light pole, causing it to fly at a 45-degree angle, he said. The plane tried to recover, but hit a second light pole and continued flying at an angle. "You could hear the engines being revved up even higher," Sepulveda said. The plane dipped its nose and crashed into the southwest side of the Pentagon. "The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low," Sepulveda said. "For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it." An explosion followed, sending Sepulveda flying against a light pole.
Ibid Hagos, Afework Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in." Owens, Mary Ann Mary Ann Owens, a journalist with Gannett News Service . . . was driving along by the side of the Pentagon, on September 11, 2001, when a hijacked jet screamed overhead and ploughed into it. Looking up didn't tell me what type of plane it was because it was so close I could only see the bottom. Realising the Pentagon was its target, I didn't think the careering, full-throttled craft would get that far. Its downward angle was too sharp, its elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass. . . . Gripping the steering wheel of my vibrating car, I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head. Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon. It hit some lampposts on the way in."
I'll skip the insulting post. Where did I post that? Making crap up as usual? They are eyewitnesses and I have no standing to dispute their accounts. The comment I made is directed at you because you pick and choose eyewitnesses and what they claim according to your world. Everyone of those witnesses claim they heard EXPLOSIONS, not what you decided they heard. It doesn't matter what you accept or don't, it's not about you, it's about what 9/11 eyewitnesses claim, period, end of story. See above, it doesn't matter whet you think or accept, it's not about you. It's strictly about eyewitness testimony. You have no standing to dispute what eyewitness claim they saw, heard, felt and believe. You are irrelevant to the testimony of eyewitnesses and experts. Whatever reasons you gave me are all irrelevant and not worth addressing.
