It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flight77.info - Pentagon video release imminent?

page: 22
1
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DirtyPete
www.infowars.com...


Anyone else see this on infowars? Looks like they must pay attention to these boards..


Uh yeah, right.
The camera takes 1 frame/sec, the plane was moving at 534 mph IIRC, so SUUUURE it's gonna show up in two or three frames just like that.

[edit on 5/17/2006 by Zaphod58]




posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Again, you didnt pay attention to your LINK or external quote did you?
From your HUGE quote ( which some of us always get punished for ) ....

Note that this photo appears to be from the RB211-524 which is an uprated relative of the RB211-535 used on the Boeing 747 and 767. This engine model contains seven intermediate pressure compressor stages compared to the six of the RB211-535. However, the compressor disks used on both engines are believed to be nearly identical. Note that this photo appears to be from the RB211-524 which is an uprated relative of the RB211-535 used on the Boeing 747 and 767. This engine model contains seven intermediate pressure compressor stages compared to the six of the RB211-535. However, the compressor disks used on both engines are believed to be nearly identical.


Are you just really not getting it? You article cant pick what the damn part is from.That is what I am trying to show you.One sentence it says the 524 then next says the 535 and then it is on the 747 then the 757
The research on that page switches up too many times to actually believe anything it says.

Lets just put it this way.No plane in video, no sale.Plain and simple.For those who say that they see a plane, best have your eyes looked at and stop eating those fungi.
We will never see other video.We will NEVER know for 100% fact it was an AA Boeing 757 flight 77
We were lied to about WMD's to go to war, they are lying to us about this.



Note that this photo appears to be from the RB211-524 which is an uprated relative of the RB211-535 used on the Boeing 747 and 767. This engine model contains seven intermediate pressure compressor stages compared to the six of the RB211-535. However, the compressor disks used on both engines are believed to be nearly identical.


If they're nearly identical then there's no reason they can't show a pic of one from a 747/767 engine to compare it to the part that was found. There were three parts that they were able to show as being INCREDIBLY close if not identical to an RB211-535 engine.


[edit on 5/18/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Images blown up using police photo enhancement software

Using Kneson Imagner, I've blown these images up to the best of my ability. They were blown up using the "Kneson Progressive" filter

Video Source:
Videos of American Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 (DOD):
Video 1 external video
Video 2 external video

Camera 1 Frame 1:
Normal Full Frame:
i24.photobucket.com...
Camera 1 Frame 2:
Normal Full Frame:
i24.photobucket.com...

Camera 2 Frame 1:
Normal Full Frame:
i24.photobucket.com...
Camera 2 Frame 2:
Normal Full Frame:
i24.photobucket.com...

Camera 1 Enhanced (300x, 300x):



Camera 2 Enhanced (300x, 300x):



500x Zoom (Camera 1, Camera 2):





posted on May, 18 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   
There is no way in heck that is a 757.....




posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DirtyPete
www.infowars.com...


Anyone else see this on infowars? Looks like they must pay attention to these boards..



Shame that the aircraft in this one is from The Land of the Giants, as the tail height of the 757 is about 44' and the Pentagon is 77' tall.
Not only that, the aircraft in that GIF is touching the ground so it really is incredibly big for something slightly over half the height of the building including the flimsy tail. As well as what Zaphod pointed out of course, the aircraft in that GIF going at snails pace. I'm not surprised it crashed if it was like that, it probably stalled

I guess gross exaggerations like this are OK when looking for the truth are they? It's just that I see it an increasing amount from the truthseeking crowd.... Kind of scary really..

Still, as long as you get people rallied up for the path to civil war it's all dandy - a few lies and misinformation never hurt anyone as long as it's for their own good..

Emm... deja vu.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   
You'll have to excuse this, it's a rush job and I'm sure someone else can make a more accurate one - I didn't count pixels or anything (I tihnk the depiction of the aircraft may actually be a wee bit on the large side), but it's close enough to demonstrate what a gross exaggeration the joke GIF is, and why it is a prime example of 'truthseeker' disinformation:



Ooh will you look at that too, it looks about the same size as the alleged nose cone of the aircraft in shot. Looks like the streak is too big to be a cruise missile or global hawk! Well knock me down with a feather..

[edit on 18-5-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I simply linked that infowars sight because that is a .gif that Jack Tripper posted on the first page of this thread....so I don't know why people are attacking me for it. I was merely observing that it's funny they would use a .gif created by a member of this board.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   
I wasn't attacking you, unless you made it?

The people who made it were either pretty dumb or don't care about spreading disinformation because it doesn't even nearly represent what one would expect to see, yet after seeing it a lot of people believe it accurate.
I just find it hypocritical and ironic that anyone who claims to be a 'Truth Seeker' would make it in the first place when it's grossly inaccurate. But you're OK dude, I'm not having a go at you.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Yea, my bad. I felt more like Zaphod was attacking me, but now that I look back he was saying the same thing you were and nothing about me personally.

Still pretty funny, I wonder if they got JackRipper's permission to use that?



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Oh don't worry it's not your fault, the majority of the time I'm not attacking the people who think they are - I just get the rid mist when I start writing and I don't make it clear who I'm (not) talking to.
Whenever I go off on one it's usually whoever started off the misinformation in my head LOL..



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Hello, does anyone else, feel the same way ?

I am only to well aware, of the many many lateral thinkers and fine minds that have put in hours and hours of investigations on this subject, but ,but, using agent smiths post, posted on 18-5-2006 at 02:02 AM Post Number: 2189323
that picture, is it just me, or is the angle of that, *thing* the angle, the bloody angle that it is coming in at ,puts the front end on the ground, yet everyone is aware no 'ground damage'

What am I missing here, it is making me think the frames we look at are just fiction ?



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Yeah it also doesn't leave a lot of room for the engines which sit bellow the fuselage by a good what? 5-6ft.?

And they didn't hit the lawn?



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:50 AM
link   
When you're looking at an image where 1 pixel probably represents at least a couple of feet square at that distance, it's like trying to spot your house in a wx satellite photo. Trying to see detail is useless. The craft only looks angled downward due to the dark area underneath which could be compression related, a shadow or anything. The top is horizontal.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Yeah yeah, and there was absolutely no damage on the lawn or on the ground.
Did you ever see the damage an engine can do with its blast ? (clearly not)

www.metacafe.com...




posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Thanks for the enhanced pictures IgnoranceIsntBlisss.

AgentSmith, is it really so hard to accept that regardless of shutterspeeds, you can clearly see that the shape coming into view is in no way stretched or distorted to the point you cannot tell anything? You can indeed draw two conclusions from that frame: first being it does not at all look like the bulky nose of a 757 and secondly it is too big for a cruise missile.

Thin nose pointed downward. Same discussion as "back, and to the left"???

Thin nose pointed downward
Thin nose pointed downward
Thin nose pointed downward

What else can anyone claim?

SU-27 Flanker or similar:

F-15 Eagle
F-14 Tomcat
MiG-29 Fulcrum

From www.globalsecurity.org...

If the frame would show something closely resembling a 757 nose I would shut up and accept this no questions asked...



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yeah it also doesn't leave a lot of room for the engines which sit bellow the fuselage by a good what? 5-6ft.?

And they didn't hit the lawn?


Exactly. The sharp downward angle and the speed that it's moving at, it would have been impossible for a 757 to not have hit the ground.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by HardToGet
What else can anyone claim?

SU-27 Flanker or similar:

F-15 Eagle
F-14 Tomcat
MiG-29 Fulcrum

From www.globalsecurity.org...

How many more times do you have to be refuted over yours, and others, continued persistence in claiming an Su-27 or similar?

Again, there is enough documented photographic evidence from the Pentagon crash site linked in this topic to indicate that NONE of what you are asserting (Su-27 or similar) was or is actuality, yet you persist. Can you provide any photographic evidence from the parts found at the Pentagon crash site to prove that indeed what hit the Pentagon was a Su-27 drone or similar..any? And do not ask for me to prove otherwise, becuase I already have when I addressed you before and directed you to a number of links showing that 757 photographic evidence found at the Pentagon crash site.

Again, given such already linked photographic evidence, there was NO Su-27 or similar aircraft involved, there was no Global Hawk involved, there was no cruise missile involved, and there was no other craft involved other than a 757, period. Continuing to rely upon the blurred whitish image within the video to make your cases, while continuing to ignore crash site photographic evidences, shows just how many here are actually continuing to grasp at straws to keep their hopes of a government conspiracy alive.

Urban Legends: Hunt the Boeing




Review the facts:

Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)

Rims found in building match those of a 757

Small turbine engine outside is an APU

Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine

Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos

Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo

Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211

Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes

Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object

Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion

Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner

Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon

60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage

Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11


Why it is most likely that an American Airlines 757-223 hit it the Pentagon

>>>>Pentagon: Why the No-757 Crowd is Making an Ass out of Itself



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   
PLEASE HELP!

I would like to calculate the statistical chances of the cameras capturing the plane as it flew past the cameras. Can anyone help me, or point me in the direction of the information. Maybe this has already been done.

If the plane was travelling at 500mph, that is 223.52 meters a second.

Or 111.76 meters every half second (the cameras took a photos every half a second).

What is the distance in meters across the lawn as seen from the direction of the cameras.

Would the second camera take photos at exactly the same time? Or can we factor different times into the calculation.

Also what was the shutter speed of the cameras? Or what would we expect, based on the photos? If we knew this we could calculate the blur of the plane we could expect.



[edit on 18-5-2006 by Clipper]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Seeing as thats a very wide angle lens, Im betting its shows over 200m.

Now we just see the tip of the nose but dont see the tail impact. That plane moves 190m+ at least the length of the plane in between shots, doesn anyone know what that distance is and how long it wound take to travel that far?



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Oh don't worry it's not your fault, the majority of the time I'm not attacking the people who think they are - I just get the rid mist when I start writing and I don't make it clear who I'm (not) talking to.
Whenever I go off on one it's usually whoever started off the misinformation in my head LOL..


[sarcasm] Boy, I wish I was a moderator so I could give the appearance of attacking people without meaning to and not have to care. [/sarcasm]

Seriously, there are several mods and other 'select' posters that (not just in this thread) have become extremely aggressive in their language and manner recently, displaying behaviour that would almost guarantee a warning from a moderator for any of us mere mortals.

I understand that mods are people too, but that also means that they make the same (self-admitted) errors as everyone else - this is just to remind everyone that we're all human and should at least take a deep breath or two and re-read what we write before hitting "Post Reply".

This topic is extremely controversial and generates a lot of emotion from those on either side of the fence, we should all know and accept this, right? So, as I have said before, let's try to keep the holy war to a minimum and instead direct the incredible resources and collective intelligence we have here to finding truth and denying ignorance, instead of endlessly attacking the 'heretics' on the other side of the fence.

BTW, thank you to IgnoranceIsntBlisss for the excellent enhanced images...I still don't know what I do or do not see in them, but it's great to have them available!

[edit on 5/18/2006 by Jaryn]

Clipper, I wish I knew the math and statistical analysis to help you as this seems to be a great thing to look into. I'm sure someone here can help you work it out...if they can just stop fighting long enough, that is



[edit on 5/18/2006 by Jaryn]




top topics



 
1
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join