Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
This GIF tells enough of the story to prove that a munitions missle did not strike the Pentagon.
I guess you missed my previous post in this regard so I will post it again here:
Comparative quality of video footage output
During the last 3 years, I have spent a considerable amount of efforts and time trying to gather as many security camera footages from diffferent
applications I have gathered well over 50 video footage clips, anything from car cams used in cop cars, nanny cams that caught a baby sitter
masturbating, corner store cameras that caught a hold up, the Madrid train station footage of the Madrid bombing, a few footages of different places
in shopping malls, gas station footage of a guy that caught fire, elevator footage of a girl who stipped for her boyfriend and the list goes on and
on... Every single one of those camera footages were from security cameras, they were all from a fixed station and many where hidden
Every one of them, and I mean EVERY one of them had a time stamping on the footage indicationg the time and date and often there was also a frame
count as well or the time was indicated in 10th or 100th of seconds. Also, every one of them were of far faster frame rates than the pentagon video
footage shown in the head message here. Not everyone was in colour (about 3 out of ten were in B&W) but they were all of at least as good resolution
as the pentagon footage as well. I looked everywhere on the net and in my area of town and nowhere could I find anyone using frame rates of 1 fps. The
lowest frame rate I could find was in a corner store with a frame rate of about 5 to 7 fps (manually estimated).
In addition to this, I set out to install a web cam on my computer and here is what I installed:
3Com HomeConnect Webcam
~ Still Image Capture Resolution: 640x480
~ Video Capture Resolution: 640x480 or 1280x960 (software enhanced)
~ Digital Video Capture frame rate: 60 frames per second maximum
~ On the market since 2000 but I bought it 2 years ago for around $100 (not sure) however, it has been discontinued for some time now!
~ Number of colors: 16.8 milliion
It is capable of taking high resolution JPEGs every half second (thought that would not be the most compressible output). Together with two 120 hard
drives for less than $100 each and you got a set up that can capture 640x480 resolution 30 fps video for well over 4 months non-stop, all for less
than a $300 upgrade to any computer.
As you can guess, my own $300 set up at home produces far better results than that of the one and only pentagon video camera footage available to the
So I conclude that if the footage submitted in the head message of this thread is the actual unaltered footage, it is very sub standard in comparrison
with the many many given applications I have found.
Are you buying into the idea that the pentagon (a high security level place) uses monitoring equipment far cheaper than the average corner store or
mall or even a simple nanny cam or even my own $100 webcam?
Appropriate quality for it's intended purpose
It's been argued that the pentagon gate camera only needed be good enough for the purpose of capturing any vehicles driving in and out of that area
within the first 15 feet or so of the camera's field of vision. So let's examine this assertion for a second:
At 10-15 feet away, the camera would have a field of vision of less than 20 feet wide. A small car or a rollerblader or a motorcycle travelling at
only 13 mph (20 foot/second) could drive by without getting caught on any of the frames of that camera if the frame rate was indeed 1 fps. Geez! Even
a fast runner could run by and not get caught on any of the frames! That is to say that at only 1 fps, that camera would be completely inneficient at
doing the job you want to think it was intended to do!
However, the idea that a place like the Pentagon would use sub standard security equipment is simply ridiculous, especially when you consider my $300
desktop set up would be far more efficient that what the footage proposes the pentagon uses.... especially when you consider the fact that at one
frame per second, the footage would be virtually useless for it's alleged intended purpose!
I don't buy it and I know you don't buy it either!
The explosion is a fuel explostion not a high explosive explosion and I have seen plenty of both.
As seen in the gif above, there is very strong evidence of a bright flash, we probably would see more of it if the pentagon cameras weren't so cheap
and sub standard in comparisson with your average QuickyMart cameras.
So how many of those fuel explosions you've seen exibit a bright flash like is seen here?
This "theory" is lame, at best, and idiotic, at worst.
And my daddy can beat up yier daddy so there!