bdamage Loc: My Bunker

Where is zee plane boss?
Please splain this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs

emarine

Maybe your logic & reasoning needs some help... how hard is it to decipher a stationary license plate at a toll booth or a parking lot gate security camera set up to look into a stopped car VS a jet plane going over 500MPH given the slow frame speed of this type of equipment?... bet ya it works well on stopped or slow moving stuff & real crappy on fast moving stuff...

whole2th

"real crappy" means unreliable at positive identification. Yet, you insist the real crappy video is proof positive.

How about some less crappy video to clear up the controversy? Release the CITGO and Sheraton Hotel videos. Release Pentagon security videos. PROVE THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE with reliable, not crappy video.

emarine

All the videos have been released & they are extremely boring... maybe you didn't quite understand the inability of a slow frame speed for the quality of fast moving objects the first time around?... The industry standard for security video was 1 frame per second... slow frame speeds save tape of usually very boring videos of slow moving stuff...

whole2th

Surely, such a claim as "All the videos have been released" is something you can prove with a reference. If not, it's just another deception on your part.

I'll risk boredom to be shown actual proof (not a crappy video--your characterization) that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

emarine

They were released in 2006 look them up... they are boring at best... but maybe not to you...you decide after you find them... nothing worse than a lazy neo Nazi propagandist...

whole2th

Your claim ... Your burden of providing proof. Nothing worse than a deceiving liar.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Is that the best you've got? Damn. That video is as useless as tits on a boar.

The plane was destroyed when it hit the Pentagon, smashed into a million pieces.

Add another layer to your tinfoil hat.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

9-11TV.org: DVDs for the 9-11 Truth Movement

Introduction

According to the FBI, there were 85 video surveillance cameras in the vicinity of the Pentagon that might have captured some parts of the Pentagon event on 9/11. The FBI confiscated some of the recordings from those cameras very shortly after the event, and the rest over the following days. This act by the government fueled the suspicions of those questioning a large plane impact into the Pentagon. It is known that the FBI confiscated much 9/11 evidence, including evidence at all four crash sites; thus their confiscations at the Pentagon were typical, not unusual. However, since the two videos that were released do appear to contain useful information about what hit the Pentagon, we should not automatically assume the FBI is being dishonest here.

Why very few cameras captured the impact event

There are a number of valid reasons why only 4 of the 85 videos were released by the FBI in response to a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request filed in 2004, which was fulfilled in 2006. Because of a number of factors (listed below and detailed in the footnotes) only 2 of the 85 cameras captured any useful footage of the plane-impact event.

Most of those 85 cameras were not aimed in the direction of the Pentagon and/or at the part of the Pentagon in question.
Most cameras were located a considerable distance from the impact event, and virtually all surveillance cameras had wide-angle (fisheye) lenses which cause some geometric distortion and render distant objects at very low resolution.
Many cameras had obstructed views of the Pentagon impact area.
In 2001, virtually all surveillance cameras had low spacial resolution.
In 2001, most or all surveillance cameras recorded at low frame rates (low temporal resolution), generally at one frame per second.
The high speed of the plane, accelerating to over 550 mph, caused some image blurring and offered a low chance of catching more than a single frame of the plane, given the low-recorded frame rate (one frame/sec).

History

The well-known “5-frames” from a Pentagon surveillance camera were first released in March of 2002. The only frame that appears to include the plane has a post obstructing the camera’s view of almost everything but the tail fin.

In December 2004, Judicial Watch, a public interest group, filed a FOIA request on behalf of Scott Bingham. The request was for surveillance camera footage that might show the plane approaching and/or hitting the Pentagon.

The FBI identified 85 surveillance cameras that were located in the vicinity of the Pentagon that might have revealed the plane. After the Zacarias Moussaoui trial ended in 2006, the Department of Defense released 4 of those videos2, including a 200 frame extended version of the 5-frame sequence first released in 2002.

Completely new to the public in 2006 were the 183 frames that were released from a second identical surveillance camera located adjacent to the first camera within the same security checkpoint. One of these new frames provided an unobstructed view of the plane, but at such low contrast and resolution it was not initially noticed or reported as such. Instead, what appears to be the same white smoke seen in the crucial frame from the first camera (released in 2002) is also seen at the edge of the second camera’s crucial frame. The shape of the white smoke was mistakenly identified in news media as the plane’s nose.3

What the two Pentagon camera recordings reveal

Both of the two Pentagon surveillance cameras were in a security check point located about 833 feet north of the impact point. Both cameras show what appears to be white smoke trailing the approach of a rapidly moving object. The frames that followed the impact of that object show a massive orange fireball, quickly followed by a rising column of black smoke, and then debris fragments raining down and landing near the two cameras six to nine seconds after the impact.

The second Pentagon camera had an unobstructed view, and has one frame which appears to show a plane near the right edge of the frame, and appears to have the same white smoke trail that is seen in the 5-frame sequence. In a way similar to the identical first (5-frames) camera, the recordings from this second camera yielded a low resolution image of distant objects due in part to their wide-angle lenses, so the images do not make clear what is revealed by the second camera’s frames either. But what does appear in the crucial frame from the second camera resembles a somewhat out-of-focus airliner, including the tail fin and trailing smoke as seen in the adjacent “5-frame” camera.

Note: The smoke trail seen is the result of the right engine clipping a tree and ingesting the debris. As David Chandler explains in Going beyond speculation (34:50 minutes)

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

That's my point.....that's the best, doctored vid the gov would release.
You got any vids to prove your point?
I didn't think so.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Point? You have no point. The terror attack on 9/11 wasn't a video game.

Over 130 human beings saw the jet hit the building, 2 low resolution, 1 FPS, fisheyed cameras caught a glimpse of it, 4 radar stations tracked the flight, the FDR aboard the jet recorded it, but because it wasn't captured on Blue Ray HD, it didn't happen.

What universe do you live in?

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

"What universe do you live in?"
The one that evil rules until my Lord and Savior returns.
And you?

emarine

The Burden of ignorance is on you A-Whole... you have had many years to simply Google it... I would double up on your meds sit back & relax when you view them...

whole2th

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth provided funding to the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) to evaluate if fire caused the collapse of WTC 7 and to examine what may have occurred at 5:20 P.M. on September 11, 2001. Therefore, the UAF research team evaluated the structural response due to the reported fire.
A structural framing virtual model of WTC 7 was used to conduct the study. The reported failure was simulated using three-dimensional finite element computer models of the building. The research team studied the building’s response using two finite element programs, ABAQUS and SAP2000 version 18.
At the micro level, three types of evaluations were performed. In plan-view, the research team evaluated: 1) the planar response of the structural elements to the fire(s) using wire elements; 2) the building’s response using the NIST’s approach with solid elements; and 3) the validity of NIST’s findings using solid elements. At the macro-level, progressive collapse, i.e., the structural system’s response to local failures, is being studied using SAP2000 with wire elements, as well as with ABAQUS, and it is near completion.
The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building. Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously.

http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/
http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
http://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth
http://www.UU911.dk
https://www.facebook.com/911truthDK/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlJeU5fWvH4

You who fit the description in John 8:44, Revelation 2:9 and Revelation 3:9 deign to advise me about researching 9-11?

Burden of proof?

emarine

You posted this junk 3 months ago with no explosive demolition collusions... maybe you should hold your breath A-Whole...