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.
These camerasa can be slowed down to 1 fps, they sure can but why would they do this when such low frame rate would render the camera virtually inreliable and useless? By any means, I cam provide you with a s**tload of survealance camera footages all with far better output than that ridiculous 1 fps footage Any way, go ahead and point us all to a single application where a 1 fps frame rate is used aside from this one case. Don't you wonder why the time stamps of those frames were hidden with some completely useless fake time stamps? Wouldn't you just love to see what's under that fake time stamp? Doesn't it bother you that someone tempered with such an importanty evidence in what is probably the crime of the century?
Originally posted by HowardRoark typi cal systems on the market note the cheaper ones run at slower frame speeds. and can store much more data before servicing. another one
So can I, but you're basing your theory on an animated gif, what you're posting is based on an unclear gif animation, and 5 frames made into an avi or mpeg would show the same thing, need the original avi or mpeg without the gif compression ( which is only 256 colors )... Can you supply that ???
Originally posted by PepeLapiu1Making an AVI file out of those 5 frames would be easy, I can do it if you want but you see, a 30 fps footage would have revealed the actual aircraft and the visible blinding flash associated with explosives and the full force of the shockwave also associated with explosives. This is why you will never get to see the full footage with the original time stamps and all the frames in their original resolution!
Originally posted by Jedi_Master Well... Like I said this is an animated .gif, I would like to see the .avi or .mpg that these frames were taken from, and that's probably why you are seeing 1fps...
What about a jey fighter? Would that have a landing gear .... maybe? Did you even try to read the whole post before replying?
Originally posted by Jedi_Master A missel again, please go to the begining and review the pics, why would a missel have landing gear...
Where is the Boeing in the parking lot video, then? It would be visible flying over the builidng as the "f-16" hit below. Most people would see two planes. A F-16 flying at 1150 mph would also produce sonic shock waves that would have been noted.
Originally posted by PepeLapiu1 Just imagine this, a F-16 travelling at 1150 MPH only a few feet of the ground (unlike a Boeing, a F-16 can easily do this) while a slower much bigger Boeing is flying toward the pentagon At 1150 MPH a few feet off the ground, a small plane like a fighter is barely visible while everyone would have their eyes riveted to the huge Boeing Just as the fighter and the missile hit the building a very bright and blinding flash occurs as many military explosives produce such a bright flash
Not really, the plane was heading north east when it impacted the southwest side of the pentagon. The airport is south east of the building, thus the boeing would have had to make a wide sweeping turn to line up with the runway, and somehow slow down from 400 mph in less than a mile.
Moments after, the Boeing flies into the billowing smoke just above the wall and keeps on going toward the Reagan airport only a mile to the other side of the pentagon
More than two eye witnesses
This would be consistant with the many many witnesses who saw a Boeing going TOWARD the pentagon while only two people reported seing the plane crash and I have to say, those two witnesses have had some very peculiar behavior and innapropriate statements which make me strongly suspect they are either lying or they were both tricked (more on those two witnesses later)
What crap.
This would also be consistant with at least 15 witnesses who reported a shockwave (sahockwaves occur with many explosives but not with kerosene explosions)
A plane hits the side of a building at high speed. of course there will be a shockwave, even if the fuel didn't explode.
This would also be consistant with the pentagon footage in my last post which shows the tail end of what was most likely a bright flash and also you can clearly see the camera had been shoock up at the second frame when the explosion first occured indicating a shockwave.
Cordite has not been used in military explosives in years. have you ever smelled cordite?
Furthermore, this would be consistant with the two witnesses who reported the smell of cordite inside the pentagon (cordite is a smell that occurs in firecraker use and many military issued explosives)
I don't remember anything about a single aircraft seat, but there are definitely two pictures of two different landing gear assemblies. One outside the "punch-out," and one inside the building.
And even further, this would be consistant with the finding of a single aircraft seat in the debris and a single landing gear along with a single engine (fF-16's only have one engine, one or two seats and a nose landing gear very similar to that of a Boeing)
Man your theory gets more an more convoluted. "What about the horses?"
But just in case some witneses were to report the Boeing having flown above the pentagon and missing completely, they dispatched a C-130 to follow the Boeing and fly right into the samoke plume as well as the Boeing so if somebody came out and said "the plane flew right over and missed" than they could be discarted as just having mistaken the Boeing for the the C-130
That is assuming that he hit the building exactly where he was aiming. Maybe he was tying to hit it in the middle? [edit on 19-5-2005 by HowardRoark]
But you see, you can't fly a 120 ton Boeing thru light poles and the likes, fly the thing a few feet off the ground and hit a precise target, Boeings just aren't that agile and accurate
Let's concentrate on what can be proven, and not speculate on what can't. Flight 77 could be anywhere on the face of the planet. 49 pages and these questions are ignored too. Allow me to quote my last post....from the previous page:
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird 49 pages and STILL no one has said what happened to the flight 77. Not counting the people who actually saw it hit, others saw it head toward the pentagon, there was an explosion at the exact time it would have hit the pentagon, but people insists the plane somehow escaped. Where did it go? Alot of people saw the C-130 and 77. After the explosion only the C-130 was left. What happened to 77?
[edit on 20-5-2005 by Moe Foe]
Originally posted by Moe FoeDo you know how hot the flash explosion would have to be to melt the titanium in the engines? Yet, they claim that there was plenty of DNA and body parts? Funny how DNA and body parts can survive an explosion hot enough to instantly vaporize aluminum and titanium, isn't it? They use titanium in bunker busters. If 6 tons of engine hit the wall at an angle, as claimed, it would either shower debris to the left of the contact point, or go straight through the wall. We know from the pictures that the latter did not happen. So, where did 12 tons of aluminum and titanium go? Do you really think titanium can be instantly vaporized by jet fuel?
Originally posted by deltaboy its a piece of it, the rest melted and decided to join heaven.While we're asking questions that can't be answered, where did the parts come from that have been proven not to be parts from a 757? That would be a better question. Are you still going to claim that the engine pieces are indeed from an APU, when manufacturers have clearly stated that it's not? I'm sure this page has been posted here numerous times. Nobody ever seems to address the conflicting information it contains. Maybe we can get a few of the believers to comment? How did these parts get into the Pentagon, if they're not 757 parts? www.onlinejournal.com...
Originally posted by Jedi_Master *sigh* If it were a missle then please tell me why it has landing gear ??
No, the landing gear of a F-16 is not similar to this landing gear. The landing gear appeared on the floor one of the Pentagon in the "C" Ring near the exit hole only can be the LEFT landing gear of a Boeing 757 or a Boeing 767 (and with 4 wheels).
"fF-16's only have one engine, one or two seats and a nose landing gear very similar to that of a Boeing"
Great web page about this... and the part numbers. www.pentagonresearch.com... "This is what I learned. The two landing gear in the left photo are the same piece - just mirror images of each other. Goodrich took over the Menasco Company in 1999. This part was originally manufactured by Menasco in 1991 for the 757. It is the main landing gear. The Goodrich part number for the Outer Cylinder is 161N1210-xx. The part number for the Reaction Link is 161N2301-xx. The reaction link goes to the fuselage. The reason it is not shown in the factory shot is that it is 8-10 feet long and is shipped separately. You can find these parts by contacting an airline and asking for their ATA Chapter 32 manual to see the diagram (it won't be found on Google)."
That's the thing though, it's not a fact. Those are the opinions of more than likely non airplane experts who happen to have a website.
Originally posted by Moe Foe There is indeed hard evidence that those parts pictured are not from a 757. Let's stick to the simple facts, for now. That is a fact, unless you can prove otherwise.
Well, if you can show where a plane traveling that fast that crashed into any building the size and with the same make up as the pentagon, and left "tons" of debris, then you'd have an better argument. There's plenty of evidence the debris was from a 757. Just go back and read the first post.
Frankly, I can't believe there wasn't tons of debris outside the building. That, IMO, is impossible.