WTC1/WTC2 perimeter columns vs. plane impact, math discussion...

So, is there anybody reading this forum who thinks
that because you can't see individual frames in video tape,
that it doesn't do frame rate timing?

I think we need to settle this for certain because
I do NOT want to leave this one open, its a certainty
that ALL of broadcast TV uses individual frames electronically defined for timing purposes.
if anybody is unclear on this, please express yourself.

 

I have already answered that so I don't know why you keep up with repetition of what I said.

 

Sorry about the repeat, oops .... I am just a bit frustrated by the
lack of actual science knowledge demonstrated by some people.
the idea that Video tape doesn't have a frame rate is an example.
You see, I stayed awake in Science class, while some of my contemporaries
doodled or daydreamed .... oh well, I know I can not write on par with some
of my educated friends, But when their circuits are gone haywire, who do they call?

 

I understand. I do know how analog tape and TV's work.

 

Crazy thing, most people who use cell phones,
if you told them that the devices run on magic,
they would not disagree with you.
technology/magic ..... whatever ....

its a crazy world!

 

ROFLMAO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video

I guess some people minds can't adjust to technology that doesn't STORE DATA in the most literal manner. A frame stored as magnetic spots on tape is still called a "frame" even though it is not a little rectangular area of film. So the number of these areas of frame data being read per second is still called a frame rate.

psik

 

Nope,try again......they're talking about film,not video.

 

"per unit of time of video" Quoted from the article, please read more carefully.

" WTC1/WTC2 perimeter columns vs. plane impact, math discussion..."
this thread was not about Video, therefore, can we please stick to the topic?

practically buried in nits ...... or something.

 

Does that mean you are ready to provide the math to prove your theory.

Great: please proceed. (I'm betting you change the topic further, however.)

 

It doesn't matter. You said videotape does not have frames per second.

psik

 

Video Bitrate



Digital video is composed of pieces of digitized information. Video bitrate refers to the amount of digital information carried in a video content stream. It is measured in bits per second or megabits per second. A higher bitrate generally means a sharper, much more detailed, image because of more information being carried per second.


Bitrate Standards



The video bitrate depends on what it will be used for. A higher bitrate leads to a higher quality image but it is also more taxing on many processors. DVD players have a maximum bitrate of around 10MBps (megabits per second). High-definition formats like Blu-Ray have higher bitrates. The maximum video bitrate for a standard Blu-Ray disc is 40MBps, which is why they have sharper images and better overall quality than standard DVDs.


Frame Rate


Frame rate refers to how fast the successive pictures that make up a video move. A faster frame rate leads to a faster, smoother picture while a slower frame rate leads to a slower, choppier picture. Frame rates are either progressive or interlaced. Videos where one full frame is followed by another full frame use progressive frame rates. Interlaced frame rates are when only half the image is displayed per frame but they alternate so fast that they create the illusion of one full image.


Frame Rate Standards



Films generally use 24 full frames per second, or 24p (progressive) if shooting with digital video. Many digital camcorders offer 60i (interlaced) as a standard. 60i means 60 interlaced frames per second, which creates the illusion of 30 full frames per second. 60i leads to a faster picture and is common with documentaries and home videos. Videogames tend to shoot for 60fps (frames per second) to maintain smoothness and a realistic feel. PAL television standards (some of Asia and Europe) use 25fps for broadcasting while NTSC (North America and Japan) use 29.97fps.



Read more: http://www.ehow.com/info_8792716_video-bitrate-vs-frame-rate.html#ixzz31KfEGsCq

 

videotape doesn't..video DOES use FPS as a measure,NOT videotape.

try again.

 

video isn't videotape...next.

You want to stick to the topic,fine

Mod edit,,flounder

 

Oh, we are getting semantically quasi-philosophical. So when the video is getting its frames off the videotape what is happening? LOL

psik

 

No frames on videotape.

 

Getting back the the net result, video tape or for that matter any means of recording
must have a way to sync the picture up to an output device ( that is the screen )
because if it can not be synchronized, its useless. Therefore,
if you record an alleged airliner traversing its own length in 11 frames of video
in AIR, and then also the same distance traveled in 11 frames of video while
penetrating a wall, what conclusion can you draw from this?

 

You're posting gibberish now....

 

Not my fault if you don't understand the bits about how video works,
its critical to the discussion here in that if there is an event that is
recorded to have taken 11 frames of video to happen, and then
a contrasting event that also takes 11 frames of video, but in regards
to the laws of physics, can not possibly be the same as the first event.

If you really gotta, go look up a high-school science teacher and ask
them to explain it to you.

 

I understand how video works,YOU however don't understand how videotape works

 

So my alleged non-understanding about something that you claim understanding of
then invalidates the 11 frames of video bit?

an alleged airliner that takes 11 frames of video the traverse its own length
in air, and then also 11 frames of video while penetrating a wall, do you
or do you not get this?

 

Exactly. The force generated by the mass of the aircraft times its velocity caused the aircraft to penetrate the wall of the building with little noticeable deceleration.

Got it.

 

How much force was required to penetrate the wall? including breaking the columns to
make the wing impressions?

 

So prove it.

If you are going to make the claim that the report is inaccurate, then post the facts that prove it.

Not just theory.

 

So your claim is that there should have been deceleration as witnessed by the number of frames between free flight and impact?

 

A force greater than the columns resistance to shear.

What's your point?