Can I convince PF's resident truthers that American 77 hit the Pentagon?

No wonder you cannot figure out 9/11 after 12 years, you struggle with even the simplest of understanding, between a copy of a video which is poor quality, and the copy of a video which is higher quality.

There is no more than can be done for you, if you honestly cannot get this simple, basic point.

 

Not a bit of it. One need merely do what You Tube user Ryan Owen did and compare two frames, the one with the mystery object present and the one immediately prior and pick out any pixels that are different from one frame to another and derive their colors. The red, silver and blue pixels and the swhirll of white ones from the smoke plume were not visible on the earlier frame. Everything else was in the same location in both frames. This is pretty basic film editing technique. Even a technologicly declined hose dragger like me can follow this.
In other words...if it was "poor resolution and frame rate" that accounted for the lack of anything identifiable, then NOW, it would still be "unidentifiable". We would simply see the "unidentifiable" even more unidentifiable. More plainly...you can't put something there that wasn't there before. The resolution is only as good as the original resolution of the source.[/QUOTE]Most of the videos that were available at the time that the whackadoodles crawled out of the gutter was reproduced from broadcast news sources. There will, in such cases, be loss of resolution. It was still possible, in some of the older publicly available footage, to see the thre blue lines of color ahead of and slightly above the white smoke, if you thought to look for it.

The Con Ed cameras on the Hudson were there to maintain surveilance ove a rather large docking facility of some sort, thus needed a greater depth of field. That it ran at near-normal speed allowed it to catch more than a single image. The cameras at the P-gon were just sally point cameras, concerned with who entered a very small area, thus were not required to have a great depth of field. This is not hard for a person of normal intelligence to figure out.

This is actually what scum like Bunel, Avery, Bollyn, Hufschmid and Alex Jones do. They grab sub-standard reproductions of evidence and call it what they weant to call it and the lunatics slaver over it.

 

It takes a lot for me to think that someone, a poster, is not exactly who they say they are. I don't make an accusation over the fact that we have simple disagreements in opinion. I start to make a case when facts are looked at but not recognized nor concessions made. Some people hold their positions irregardless of what information is presented to them. That is entirely unreasonable. I think some is because of patriotism, but others, not so much, their steady position is because they're employed to counter, well, conspiracy theories and theorists.

More at: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/387.pdf

 

It will take more time than I have right now to go through the whole Sunstein paper, but I would point out that it is a valid action of government to silence some conspiracy theorists if those conspiracy theorists are attempting to foment revolution, as is the case with a lot of the Nazi and FMOTL scum that keep bubbling to the surface on sites like this.

 

I know what a Nazi is, but FMOTL? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fmotl ?

I respect the social contract. I'm glad that things are genuinely okay where I live, but I am concerned about many pressing topics, both domestic and foreign. I fear that a lot of Americans are going to be incarcerated, shot or killed over this new gun-ban. The "out of my cold hands" mentality is starting to register with a lot of our compatriots. I submit to authority, but like with everything, there is a limit. I don't think the government should be in the business of disarming Americans. They already can take positive control of a person without giving a reason why, for however long they desire, and all without a trial. I had a thought a while ago that our government, facing considerable budget problems, is being forced to withdrawal from worldwide covert and overt engagements, but to keep the budget from tanking, they would need to invent a new enemy: "the American terrorist". I suppose I had that thought because of how the FBI and DHS looks at certain individualized demographics in America, like for example: Constitutionalists... terrorists. Ron Paul fans/supporters - terrorists. Preppers = terrorists. Conspiracy theorist = terrorist. Not to mention, the recent attempt to confiscate and disarm Americans and how gun ownership is being demonized by a certain half of the media. Worrisome.

 

A lot of them are terrorists and a lot of them are useful idiots whom the Organization intends to divert to thier purposes once the RaHoWa is up and running.

 

Not to mention ignoring all of the other evidence presented. Still.

 

Free Men on the Land. Extreme anarcho-nihilists who think that they are a law unto themselves.

 

Wow....I think you're confused as to who needs the help here.

My 1080P Plasma TV can't display a 480i image in 1080P. Can't happen...EVEN TODAY. The image would only be as high a quality as the original source (definition wise). Blobs on nothing can't turn into planes because "poor resolution" cameras are now shown through Hi def devices. Doesn't work that way friend. Now...if you ENHANCE IT (meaning ADDING things to it that weren't there before, I could better understand your premise). Unless you have some magical way to go back to 2001 and shoot the blob in hi def somehow, what you say is void of reality. Modified image in 2009? I can buy that. Key word being "modified".

 

Most of the videos that were available at the time that the whackadoodles crawled out of the gutter was reproduced from broadcast news sources. There will, in such cases, be loss of resolution. It was still possible, in some of the older publicly available footage, to see the thre blue lines of color ahead of and slightly above the white smoke, if you thought to look for it.

The Con Ed cameras on the Hudson were there to maintain surveilance ove a rather large docking facility of some sort, thus needed a greater depth of field. That it ran at near-normal speed allowed it to catch more than a single image. The cameras at the P-gon were just sally point cameras, concerned with who entered a very small area, thus were not required to have a great depth of field. This is not hard for a person of normal intelligence to figure out.



This is actually what scum like Bunel, Avery, Bollyn, Hufschmid and Alex Jones do. They grab sub-standard reproductions of evidence and call it what they weant to call it and the lunatics slaver over it.[/QUOTE]




I don't disagree with part of your post dude. If it was poor to begin with, it's poor afterwards. I think I said that. Are you saying the original WASN'T of poor definition now? Cause that's not what the team here says .

 

The original release probably had enough data for somebody with an IQ of 100 to read if he knew what to look for. The cleaner copy, straight from the source, only requires an IQ of 90.

 

You still don't get it. The original recording WAS NOT low resolution/quality. The COPY which was released to the public in 2005 was. In 2009, FOIA released a direct re-recording of the ORIGINAL. It is this copy of the ORIGINAL which I have used. No enhancement, just good copy vs a bad copy.

 

The "cleaner" copy. Perhaps you can tell me, more specifically, what exactly constitutes "cleaner"? Please tell me how I can convert all of my older televisions to HD and make them present HD resolution. "Straight from the source"? What source? The poor resolution, low frame rate camera that everybody claims that took those pictures of a blob?

You're trying to infer that the "cleaner" version was somehow originally impeded in some fashion. Somehow it wasn't portrayed in it's original clarity, until 2009, or that the original high res video somehow got "muddy" in it's presentation and transition from the Pentagon camera to the web. Am I right? Somehow.....the photo was degraded, somehow less than what it was in 2001. In 2009, thanks to technology, NOW we can see the plane. Right?

 

I don't get it huh. Well, if you go back through these very threads, you'll find that "official" defenders of the "official" BS story, you'll find that every argument as to why the photo was so bad, is because it was low res and poor frame rate. So now, you want to argue that the original recording was of "high quality" all along but, the government just didn't show us the "better" picture until 2009. Is THAT correct? They gave us all the "poor quality" image, and kept the "higher quality" tucked away until 2009. Am I close?

 

Pounding head against wall> 'Why.....do.....we........even.....try......with.....obstinate......truthers?'

 

Obstinate is one thing. Willful ignorance of a racist, extreme right wing 'truther' is another.

 

Pictures of debris?

How many seats in those pictures?

How many were in the airliner?

Only 180?

psik

 

'obstinate' was being nice,as not to incur the wrath of the mods

 

Cause it's the job and it pays well??

- - - Updated - - -

The source determines the resolution....NOT enhancements after the fact.

Keep at it.

 

What is your point?

Are you one of those nongnongs who wonder why a ceramic toilet bowl didn't survive the collapse of the WTC?

 

I think he probably finds it strange that "everything evaporated" (apparently even the ceramic toilet bowls).

 

NOTHING evaporated fraud,it was pulverized beyond recognition in most cases,by tons of debris...

 

Scuse me..."pulverized".

Titanium and everything. Yes...I've heard (thanks to the bearded cave dwellers with Walmart box cutters and our completely inept military for 2 hours).

 

no,not titanium and everything,and the hijackers did NOT live in caves,and only ONE,possibly two had anything resembling 'beards',and they used MORE than just 'boxcutters' (here's a picture of a womancaught in the middle of a boxcutter fight inh a bar http://citizensvoice.com/polopoly_f..._gen/derivatives/landscape_490/3687067297.jpg )
And they only really had to utsmart the airlines and the ATC's

 

Remember what I said about 'willful ignorance'?

'Truthers' are pathetic lemmings.