A (botched) perspective on an old 9/11 video.

reply to post by wmd_2008

Once again for the HARD OF LEARNING a 30 fps video is NO GOOD to study high speed collisions!!!

But it seems to me that the banned member's argument was based on the sreenshots that were posted, which seem to be the available actual frames.

Does it matter if these frames are part of a 30fps video as opposed to a 1000fps video, for instance?

The frames still show the actual situation at those points.

Are you saying that the posted frames do not show the actual situation at those points?

TheNewSense
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Once again for the HARD OF LEARNING a 30 fps video is NO GOOD to study high speed collisions!!!

But it seems to me that the banned member's argument was based on the sreenshots that were posted, which seem to be the available actual frames.

Does it matter if these frames are part of a 30fps video as opposed to a 1000fps video, for instance?

The frames still show the actual situation at those points.

Are you saying that the posted frames do not show the actual situation at those points?

I will repeat to you what I said to the banned member why do scientists/researchers spend THOUSANDS of $/£ on high speed cameras when all they need is a smart phone according to the banned member!

He could not get his head round how the plane went through the wall that was his/her problem they seem to forget it was a 100+ ton object traveling at 400+ mph.

Look at the video a few posts before



How can 30 fps show something that lasts less than 1/200th in the video above.

The subtleties of what happens to the aircraft and the structure during that impact cannot show up in that video due to quality and frame rate.

Also you have the problem of a low res video compared to what we can shoot today which is further reduced in quality when it was uploaded to youtube.

Have a look at this 1 million fps video of bullet impacts you can see tiny fragments of the bullet/steel
during the impact do you think that would show at 30 fps you would need to be lucky just to get a frame with even part of the bullet.



That's what the banned member couldn't get there head round.

What I find strange is for a new member you came to this thread and reply to one of my posts a few pages in so welcome to ATS lets hope it's not welcome back!

reply to post by wmd_2008



I asked you a simple question which you seem to refuse to answer.

So the frames that were posted don't show the state that the plane was in at those points in time?

This is what you are saying?

So lets say I take a picture of a plane in flight, which is one single frame, then what would show up in the picture would not be a representatation of the situation at that point?

Basically what you are saying is that you can't take a picture of a speeding object because it would travel too fast to show up in one frame, which is off course completely ridiculous.

TheNewSense
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I asked you a simple question which you seem to refuse to answer.

So the frames that were posted don't show the state that the plane was in at those points in time?

This is what you are saying?

So lets say I take a picture of a plane in flight, which is one single frame, then what would show up in the picture would not be a representatation of the situation at that point?

Basically what you are saying is that you can't take a picture of a speeding object because it would travel too fast to show up in one frame, which is off course completely ridiculous.

Obviously as this seems to difficult for you to understand, WHAT I am saying is that the fine details of the IMPACT are lost due to the resolution and the frame rate you CANNOT see how the structure and aircraft interact due to the limitations of the video NOW that should be simple enough even for YOU to understand , Do you think all the detail of that camera video at 1000/2000 fps or the 1MILLION fps bullet video would show at 30 fps.

YOU also don't seem to understand the principle of how video works although a video camera shoots at say 25, 30,50 or 60 fps second it also has a SHUTTER as well.

I have various cameras from a 16MP dslr to a mini dv tape video camera that I can set the shutter to the following speeds AUTO, 1/6, 1/13, 1/25, 1/50, 1/120, 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000,1/2000, 1/4000, 1/10000 second. AUTO is fixed at 1/50 second.

So in a nice bright sunny day I could shoot at 25 fps or 50 fps with the shutter at 1/2000 th of a second.

Now if that plane was doing 400mph at 50 frames per second that plane would travel 12ft every frame but each frame would be a 1/2000th of a second snapshot of time.

LOOK at that bullet video you can see the bullet peel itself apart, If the plane video was shot with similar equipment you would see exactly how due to its mass and KENETIC energy it interacted with the structure.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Again you didn't answer the question.

Do the frames that were posted show the actual situation at that point or not?

reply to post by wmd_2008

The subtleties of what happens to the aircraft and the structure during that impact cannot show up in that video due to quality and frame rate.

But the aircraft itself is able to be captured in enough detail to see it clearly, without it showing any signs of interaction with a massive building as it flies into it?

So you are talking about some form of magic that does in fact show parts of the plane as it flies into the building but because of the framerate it doesn't register the signs of impact.

How can you hold up this argument, logically?

You can't be serious.

If you are,



I think you are not making efficient use of the space here and it is also not very smart.

reply to post by wmd_2008

The subtleties of what happens to the aircraft and the structure during that impact cannot show up in that video due to quality and frame rate.

Let me also note that at this point you concur that effects of impact on a plane hitting a building should at least occur in such a crash.

reply to post by TheNewSense


Neoprad.... *cough, cough*... i mean "TheNewSense", why are you continuing to debate this point, Neopradigams views were basically wrong, its probably what got him banned and I for one must say that i find it very suspicious that a new member such as yourself should pick up the baton on this thread on the LOL forum four days after he gets banned.

To be blunt, I think you are Neopradigram, upon being banned you waited a few days (probably sulked a little and sent of a few emails to some mods) set up a new account just so you could continue with this frankly pathetic line of argument. I of course cannot prove this but what i would say to you is that it really is about time that this thread was laid to rest, think of this as some advice to a "new" member.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by TheNewSense

 

Neoprad.... *cough, cough*... i mean "TheNewSense", why are you continuing to debate this point, Neopradigams views were basically wrong, its probably what got him banned and I for one must say that i find it very suspicious that a new member such as yourself should pick up the baton on this thread on the LOL forum four days after he gets banned.

To be blunt, I think you are Neopradigram, upon being banned you waited a few days (probably sulked a little and sent of a few emails to some mods) set up a new account just so you could continue with this frankly pathetic line of argument. I of course cannot prove this but what i would say to you is that it really is about time that this thread was laid to rest, think of this as some advice to a "new" member.

Haha rich,

Mister "I don't debate no planes" was sent in to go the lower than low route as a last resort in the face of reason and logic.

("I ain't gettin 'in no debate on no plane, I pity the fool!")

Here on ATS we don't discuss banned members so stop breaking the rules.

Me personally I would never suck up to anybody, if there ever is sucking up it's the other way around.

Move along Mr T.

reply to post by TheNewSense


Thats funny...

seems like you have just quoted me on one of my earlier replies to neopradigrams that i made pages ago.

hmm......

Also I am way better than Mr. T

And no ordinarily i refuse to debate the "no planes" hypothesis (lets call it what it is, disgusting lie), but that is not what I am doing, I am just pointing out that it seems very odd to me that you a new member, have picked up on this line of argument almost right away.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Very perceptive. You do realize that I might have read the thread?

Better than Mr T?

Part of a better team too?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Maybe you can comment on the arguments I posted instead of focusing on the poster, surely, if they are that ridiculous you wouldn't need to be focusing on the member, would you?

reply to post by TheNewSense

Part of a better team too?

yeah its called the A+ plus team.

And as i already told you (yes you) I dont debate anything regarding no-planes,

frankly i am not stupid enough to debate that with anyone, although if you have any specific points in mind i may humor you.

thats why i am in the A+ team.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


You seem to have an hard enough time with the word "paradigm" alone lol.

So you admit that you are wasting space with ad hominum attacks, being off topic and discussing banned members?

Maybe mods can do something about this guy right here?

reply to post by TheNewSense


it was not supposed to be an attack rather it was more of a friendly warning that you might want to just let this one go and move on.

To get back on topic, As i have said before if you have any specific point regarding 9/11 you wish to discuss with me further i will be happy to debate any aspect of the topic, just not anything that implies faked victims

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Since I wasn't even talking to you I'll wait till WMD replies to the ongoing discussion.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

it was not supposed to be an attack rather it was more of a friendly warning that you might want to just let this one go and move on.

Really, what might the consequences be?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

it was not supposed to be an attack rather it was more of a friendly warning that you might want to just let this one go and move on.

The only way this could have been benevolent is if you were trying to warn me because I might get banned as you thought that I was a returning member but the problem with this is that you were going out of your way to be a snitch as you were literally saying that I was a returning banned member.

So if it is not a friendly warning about a potential banning, then what are you warning me about and how does this make you look like one of the good guys in any way shape or form?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


What's the matter, nothing more to add? I see you coming on and offline for the past 20 mins.

Is this pathetic display here the full extent of the power and skill of the A+ team?

Special forces allright.

TheNewSense
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Again you didn't answer the question.

Do the frames that were posted show the actual situation at that point or not?

I will say this again NEO as you seem to be acting dumb they show a LOW RES LOW FRAME RATE IMAGE.

This is the aftermath of the impact.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1e8d27860f5a.jpg[/atsimg]


As you can see in the image above the HOLE is in the area of were the fuselage and engines would be and the further along the wing impact zone the lower amount of damage also the columns have a staggered break pattern because they failed at the weakest point the joint and of course the column tree joints were staggered.