Pentagon - No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption.

page: 42
136
<< 39  40  41    43  44 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I think they did release camera footage of the plane that hit the pentagon. It's the "smoke". Remember that when the media showed the 5 frames and the later different views, they pointed at the "smoke" and said, "We are told this is the fuselage of the plane", and in the later views, "this is the nose cone".

Look at the "smoke". It looks like an A3 Skywarrior. The "corkscrew smoke" effect is simply the sharp shadows due to the engine nacelles.

Global Hawk is too slow and too small. A cruise missile is way too small. Just a rough estimate shows that the A3 is the right size, about as long as the pentagon is tall. Its wingspan of about 72 feet is right for the wall markings.

The A3 was designed for high speed below radar missions, especially nukes. Most of what is left of them is in Raytheon's inventory. There are probably enough parts to put a "special" one together, with their remote control tech. I seem to recall that there were supposedly several top Raytheon engineers and managers who died in the 9/11
crashes.

There are several configurations, radomes. If you look carefully you will see what appears to be a dark "spurt" upwards at the nose. This is misconstrued by many as the tail of a GH or whatever, but that must be Wonder Woman's plane, because you can see the distant trees through it!

I think it is possible a kinetic weapon, bunker buster, was launched from _inside_ the A3 just before impact. The perps surely knew that any plane would just bounce off that building. They probably did expect the A3 to mostly disappear in the hole, but small pieces flew too far and that's why the line of people combing the grounds.

Look at the pics, the engine nacelle shadows. Look at the particular radome linked; I think the plane number on the radome version is pretty coincidental, too... :-)

Shadows:

www.airliners.net...&sid=40af901f878d27ec291f454de73084fd

Radome:

www.airliners.net...&sid=40af901f878d27ec291f454de73084fd


edit on 15-1-2011 by Toto2 because: Shadows link didn't work
edit on 15-1-2011 by Toto2 because: Reformatted.




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
After being away for a few days, I check on the couple threads that interest me most right now, and it's so much easier now. I no longer waste a minute reading a single word of Wack's or any one of that groups. Talk about a 'dead horse'. Their biggest weakness is their lack of new material. Their story will never be more believable. What a shame.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Toto2
 


Oh, not the "A3" story again! That nonsense has been floating around, spurred by that character "Tom Flocco", mostly. (Same "source" for the bogus Barbara Olsen "story", that she was in Europe in 2002. THAT was thoroughly debunked, it was such a poor attempt and had multiple flaws).

The "A3" idea doesn't hold up, for many reasons....not least of which is NO EVIDENCE at all for any debris from that airplane, nor the engines.

Oh, and speaking of evidence.....the "A3" idea only lasts until you look at the actual overwhelming evidence for the American Boeing 757...AND the crew and passengers who were onboard...AND their DNA....AND their personal effects recovered....AND the SSFDR that was recovered.....ETC.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
After being away for a few days, I check on the couple threads that interest me most right now, and it's so much easier now. I no longer waste a minute reading a single word of Wack's or any one of that groups. Talk about a 'dead horse'. Their biggest weakness is their lack of new material. Their story will never be more believable. What a shame.


There is new material relating to AA 77 at the Pentagon on this thread :-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It just seems most truthers are afraid to touch it.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



There is new material relating to AA 77 at the Pentagon on this thread :-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It just seems most truthers are afraid to touch it.


Really? I think it's because it's already been shown for what it is and no longer worth the effort..

What version is it up to now???



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1
 



There is new material relating to AA 77 at the Pentagon on this thread :-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It just seems most truthers are afraid to touch it.


Really? I think it's because it's already been shown for what it is and no longer worth the effort..

What version is it up to now???


Have you or any truther " shown it for what it is " ? I don't think so ; anyone is welcome to go and have a look.

Plus you know this is an original just published paper so what is with the " what version " ?

Are you seeking the truth or no ? Care to debate the content of the paper ?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I guess I wasn't clear. Though I am certainly aware of Flocco nonsense, as well as the stretches made by Carlsson and Schwartz, etc., I am posting because of what I see and (seemingly) no one else does. When the 5 frames were released, then the other batch, I looked for the silver and striped AA 77 but it looked nothing like that.

Why is the plane in the frames white? I also could not see any evidence of the wing design of a Boeing. When I looked about I found the A3 and it was the only plane which had the construction that could appear as in the videos. Most people, even among the truther groups, insist on saying the object claimed to be AA 77 by the Pentagon is actually _smoke_, probably because of the corkscrew effect from the triangular shadows.

I cannot see the wing design and engine of the Boeing 757 causing that pattern of shadows, nor can I see how the entire plane could look so white. The frames showing the nose cone don't look anything like a Boeing, either, but do look very much like some of the radomes used on the A3.

As to the "overwhelming evidence" for a 757, I don't see that. Also, whether the white object is an A3 isn't so important; it just seems the most probable and I see no Boeing 757 at all. If there is a better fit for what appears on the videos, and which fits the other aspects of the 911 crime, I'm open to it.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Toto2
 


It's really quite simple. Anyone who sits and thinks hard, and pays attention to the equipment used (the actual camera) and its details will see WHY there is no good, clear sharp image.

First....basic lessons in photography would be helpful. Many have very limited experience and understanding of the concepts of exposure time, aperture, motion of the subject being photographed (or digitally captured) through the camera's field-of-view, and the variables of lens focal length.

At the Pentagon parking entrance gate guard shack .... was a camera that, firstly, only took a frame of image at a fixed rate LESS THAN normal motion picture (or video) frame rates. Thus, it is a "stop-motion" (as it's incorrectly referred, sometimes....since objects in the image that are MOVING TOO FAST will blur out).

So, we have a frame rate much slower than 24 frames-per-second (normal film speed), or 30 fps (typical for NTSC video). (These rates are designed based, as I understand, the Human brain's ability to "not see" the individual frames, as they are displayed. The threshold is below about 18-20 fps, where the "flicker" can be perceived, as evidenced in vintage movie examples).

Now.....for each fraction of a second (and that is unknown, to me) that the camera shutter was open, for each frame image.....objects moving at high velocity will NOT be imaged clearly and sharply. This is basic knowledge, yes? American 77, at its final airspeed velocity of ~480 knots, is thus moving, in terms of feet-per-second, at about 810 ft/sec. (480 kts, at 6,076 feet/nautical mile = 2,916,480 ft/hour. Divide by 60, is 48,608 ft/minute. Divide again by 60 = 810.13333 ft/second).

SO, the jet was obviously moving too fast to be resolved clearly and sharply....what's more, as is evident by the focal distortion, is the lens was a "wide-angle" focal length. You can see the perspective of the distance is typical of such lenses....the "vanishing point" of 3D perspective is altered, and warped and exaggerated. Thus, objects farther away appear disproportionately smaller than "normal"....as viewed by the Human eye, and lenses in the ~55 -- 60 mm focal length (which closely simulates OUR visual perception of the scene).

You can read THIS about wide-angle lenses (and Google search for visual examples). Like THESE.

This subject (the blurring and sometimes poor camera resolution, and ability to clearly see some objects....especially nowadays, in the era of all digital, mostly) reminds me of the so, so many (tragically laughable) "UFO proof" videos that infest the InterWebz, and YouTube. OFTEN, they are birds!!! Blurred by the motion, unfocused due to the motion and inability to capture sharply, in the individual frame exposure rate...all limitations that many, many people seem to fail to grasp. (Plenty of examples on YT, just hunt around...)

Similarly, the ridiculous claims of "morphing" and "invisible" airplanes, and referred to as "UFOs" in the ongoing nonsense "chemtrail" debate....again, poor image quality that results in the camera unable to adequately resolve the airplanes, at times....so, distortion effects that are merely IN the camera's CCD and image processing software......



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
This whole "no plane hit the Pentagon" claim is so identical to the "no planes hit the WTC" claim that I have to consider them one and the same. The only footage of the first aircraft strike on the towers is of shadowy blurs and sillouettes...namely, becuase they were filming something else at the time and didn't expect a plane to come along. Yet, the majority of the truthers still accept the first aircraft strike was in fact a passenger jet because this didn't occur in the middle of the desert or at the bottom of the ocean. This occurred in downtown Manhatten and some 100,000 people specifically saw that it was a passenger jet. Yes, there are fringe proponents who insist the planes were holograms, the video is all fake, and the witnesses reporting it was a passenger jet are all secret gov't disinformation agents, but most truthers roll their eyes and take this claim with a grain of salt.

Why then, are truthers so eager to do a 180 and use the exact same stunted logic as the no planers and insist that it wasn't a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon. The Pentagon is in the middle of an industrial park as well as several highways so hundreds of people from every angle saw that it was a passenger jet, plus, piles of wreckage appeared all over the front lawn of the Pentagon immediately after the impact, and it'd be idiotic to claim that someone ran out and threw all these pieces onto the lawn in broad daylight without anyone noticing.

This whole, No plane hit the Pentagon" bit is nothing but instigating paranoia for paranoia's sake. If you acknowledge that passenger jets did in fact hit the towers then it's pointless to claim it was something else that hit the Pentagon since whoever was responsible for the attack irrefutably had at least two disposable passenger jets under their control that they were flinging into buildings elsewhere.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


Not at all. I have found on accidents I have worked, things that shouldnt have survived. We found 2 kittens alive in where they should have been killed. Another a bottle of wine still corked but all the others were smashed to pieces and it was near the edge of the box, which was shredded as well. We call this "# happens" it may not be a technical term but it happens



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I think the " no plane at the Pentagon " idea stems originally from that unresearched, jump on the commercial bandwagon quick, 2002 book by Thierry Meysann.

Ever since then it seems that, for a majority of truthers, you can't be a properly signed up truther unless you subscribe to it. Never mind that you can still have your "inside job" while accepting that AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

The evidence for AA 77 crashing into the Pentagon is of course overwhelming and we have the addition this month of the paper by Warren Stutt and Frank Legge confirming the last few seconds from the Flight Data Recorder decode.

There are some prominent truthers like Jim Hoffman and Frank Legge who argue against the " no plane at the Pentagon " theory because they say the weight of evidence is so great that to deny it makes the whole truther movement look like nutters. I wouldn't disagree with their assessment.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



piles of wreckage appeared all over the front lawn of the Pentagon immediately after the impact, and it'd be idiotic to claim that someone ran out and threw all these pieces onto the lawn in broad daylight without anyone noticing.


People keep talking about these "piles" of wreckage on the lawns but I don't see any pics that show that..
Just a few small scattered pieces..
Do you have pics of the "piles" or just the usual few shots.??
Please don't show what was found inside, just the outside stuff..



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Toto2
 


The A-3 Skywarrior theory is nothing new. Believers have tried to match up the wreckage and failed. People have also claimed to have photo evidence of a Global Hawk wheel on the lawn. It was in fact one of the wheels from the large mobile fire extinguishers near the fire station.

www.rense.com...

www.aerospaceweb.org...

TJ



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
There are some prominent truthers like Jim Hoffman and Frank Legge who argue against the " no plane at the Pentagon " theory because they say the weight of evidence is so great that to deny it makes the whole truther movement look like nutters. I wouldn't disagree with their assessment.

So the non-no-plane truthers as a whole don't look like nutters?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This occurred in downtown Manhatten and some 100,000 people specifically saw that it was a passenger jet.

Source?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Here you go....probably missed this in the research?? (I am sure that the many "9/11 conspiracy" websites heavily edit what they will display, in order to distort the truth....):





Reporter, near end...standing outside, says "...there was debris all over the place...":










CAPISCE???


edit on 17 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Not all the debris images have made it into the public domain. T. Carter, an American Airlines Flight Attendant identified part of the tail on the lawn. A Congress woman recognised it and an engineer held it. It was a part that T. Carter obviously recognised immediately. Some people are under the impression that the whole tail unit should have been sitting visible on the lawn. Even if other images are released then how do you think that the truthers will react? Even if the tail wreckage had been filmed and released immediately after the event then it would still be 'planted' evidence. It wouldn't make any difference one bit to them if every single piece of wreckage had been filmed and released.

It is as if they put all human emotion aside when discussing it? Think of those rescuers and recovery team members that had to recover the dead of Flight 77? Many of these people will be traumatised with the job that they had to do when recovering those killed at the Pentagon. If you or they actually met them would they call them liars to their face? Tell those people to their faces that they were all part of a conspiracy theory?

TJ

edit on 17-1-2011 by tommyjo because: spelling



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Here you go....probably missed this in the research?? (I am sure that the many "9/11 conspiracy" websites heavily edit what they will display, in order to distort the truth....):


lol, Did you actually watch the vids you posted??
The reporter says they weren't sure if it was a small or large plane and they saw a "small" piece of debris..

The last vid is the best..

Love that 3" piece of something he is holding..
I could tell instantly that WAS a Boeng 757..


I asked for pics of the debris outside and that's the BEST you can show??



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thank you for taking the time to explain some of the aspects that confuse many. However, I know all this and much more, and none of it is really pertinent to what I am trying to point out.

The white object has relatively sharp details, considering the distance and the camera. Whether there will be blurring or not will not be strictly determined by speed. It also depends upon the algorithms used to collect the CCD data, periodicity, type of triggering/strobe, etc. The feature determining areas of the white object/smoke consist of fairly large areas containing more than just a few pixels, and do not necessarily follow outlines or other details that are likely to be compression artifacts.

My attempt to "pull back the curtain" comes from a simple observation when I first saw these frames years ago. It has nothing to do with the silly hologram theories or other ideas that have been expounded by people with inadequate understanding of perspective, etc.

When I first saw the frames I tried to see the Boeing in that white object, or in the later images showing the nose. There is no fit. Those dark and light areas of the object (claimed to be AA77, not "smoke") are quite stark in contrast. The edges are clean without ringing or other anomalies expected with compression artifacts.

How is it that the Boeing's blue, white, and red stripes appear nonexistent on the nose images, and yet there is an obviously darker shade for the nose itself?

Again, look at the pictures and try to see the silver and striped AA77. Then look at those dark areas of the white object and notice how they correspond to the shadows of an overhead wing and engine nacelles like the A3 has. It is designed for carrier service. Remember that the gov announced that they had moved a carrier nearby in case of more attacks, and realize that the carrier is a mbile airbase, when there are already several land airbases available.

The perps surely realized that the most likely parts to survive such a crash are the engines and landing gear, so wouldn't they probably change those in their special version of the A3 or whatever?

The white object is locally clear enough and cannot be matched to AA77, but certainly bears resemblance to the details that would be apparent for an A3 at such a distance and with such a camera. The nose cone frames also do not match AA77. They certainly look _more_ like some of the A3/radome configurations.

The marks on the pentagon wall also fit the A3 far better than they do AA77, and there are many other details that make it likely. In any case, something else other than AA77 is probable.

Humans have, so far, much better _discernment_, at least potentially, in recognizing and integrating details of imagery. Look at the frames and look at pictures of Boeing 757s and A3s. These frames are what the DoD gave us as evidence that we can see, and refuse to comment or to expand on their claims. They don't care that many fall for the "smoke" nonsense, as it plays into the confusion. Even if it were smoke, coming from a damaged AA77, the plane would necessarily be easily visible.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I'm sorry that you don't understand the point. There are MANY other examples of the debris....and, yes, even SMALL pieces...yet, you use derision and a mocking tone? This is not representative of the entire story, but to illustrate the wide range.

And, yes...even the fact that "eyewitnesses" can also be mistaken. Out of any group, all seeing the same event, I would hypothesize that there exists a "bell curve" of sorts...a range...from VERY accurate and described precisely, to wholly inaccurate, and wildly incorrect. AND, it depends a lot on the location, distance and life experience/technical knowledge of each individual. This is well understood, has been demonstrated for years...I would think most people are aware of this phenomenon? (Maybe I presume people to know more than they actually do? In that case, I expect people will do further research, on their own...rather than just DISMISSING something, and hand-waving it aside. Intellectual pursuit, absent any effort at actuallly learning, is called something else entirely....).

Point is, despite a handful of persons whose initial impressions, immediately following the event, turn out to be incorrect, based on the reasons outlined above....it is the AGGREGATE of eyewitness testimony that matters. When you have a majority whose recollections begin to all match, independantly, then you know to disregard the others....although, usually, even if some details are incorect, they STILL have some other kernel to contribute, for the overall reconstruction and to help ascertain the circumstances.

PLUS, there IS physical evidence....too often, especially with this Internet anonymity, such outrageous demands are made....as if each here has some "right" of some sort....to "demand to see *everything*...or else, it's not good enough!!"

Sorry, but in the real world, it doesn't work out that way. NO events are recorded to such detail....yet, in the realm of "9/11 conspiracies"?? The so-called "truthers" are NEVER satisfied, no matter how mcuh evidence is shown to them.



A sad, sad commentary on the state of humanity, at this stage of our "development". Are we, as a species, devolving?? OR, is the Internet Age to blame? The over-load of info, and the "I must have it NOW!!" attitudes???

edit on 20 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
136
<< 39  40  41    43  44 >>

log in

join