What's your point, and what does it have to do with how wrong you are about the conclusion you formed from the image? Who's really obfuscating here? Who's the one going off on a tangent? Especially since you cede that: Yeah, and I keep explaining how you are wrong about what you assume the object to be. Then you should either A. Learn about what your talking about, or B. stop right there and admit you don't know what you're talking about. What you've experienced in the past is irrelevant. It's anecdotal, and does not constitute evidence that you are in any way right about this. Just because you haven't seen it, that doesn't mean that it's not a real phenomenon. What issue did I avoid? The issue of you trying to change the subject? Yeah, I did that quite nicely. Even you had to admit that your "issue" wasn't the real issue. You're all glitter and no substance. You keep making this claim over and over again but you don't back it up with anything of substance. Prove that your claim is plausible by providing concrete evidence that your fantasies are anything more then fairy tales. Ad hominem will not win this debate for you. Prove that the camera used could have captured a clear frame of the nose of an aircraft moving at 400+ miles an hour. If you cannot, then you should admit you are wrong and we can move on.
Um, I did. Yeah, the unburnt and unscathed lawn in front really proves that. lol Where did it show I was wrong? Hmm, let's see what I wrote again: "So why still no debunking of the no-plane-buried-in-Shanksville theory? That should be one of the EASIEST conspiracy theories to debunk if a most of a 757 really buried there!"
Not that it is any of your business but my uncorrected vision is 20/80 in my left eye and 20/200 in my right. Corrected is not much better due to a condition I have had since birth. When I said I could hardly tell where the nose of the object is in that blurry pathetic excuse for evidence, I was not trying to "obfuscate". I was being honest. You should try it some time. Pretty much from beginning to end. Pull it meant the fire fighting contingency. Pull is not a demo term having to do with explosives. Pull IS a demo term referring to a building being pulled with cables. But you know this already. Just checking to see if you were going to stick to your word games. Are you disputing that 93 crashed there or just that it a certain percentage buried?
Gee, do you really think Larry would give an explanation that would incriminate him after?! Have you ever heard anybody before refer to a group of people as "it"? Another strawman. We just just said it was a demo term which you confirm below... Funny to see you trying poo-poo this and build up another strawman! Since "most"* of the plane (i.e. most of the evidence of Flight 93) was supposedly buried, if none was, a conspiracy is proven. Do you disagree? (*Hannibal's confirmed term)
He wasn't referring to a group of people. He was referring to the firefighting operation. Perhaps you should watch the video again. Watch it with someone that can read so you don't miss the important points. The video cited firemen AND demo companies that corroborate his explanation. Were they "in on it" too? Actually I was very specific when I said Was WTC 7 brought down with cables? But in true truther fashion, you take the quote out of context and take the parts that you like. I disagree that a conspiracy is proven. Do you disagree that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville?
So far Scott has been less then successful in his attempts to support his claims about the surveillance image. I figured I'd give him a hand in trying to debunk myself. The image above gives us an idea of the field of the camera's perspective. The first thing to note, is that the plane is not traveling perpendicular to the camera's line of sight. This is actually a good thing for Scott. If it was traveling perpendicular to the field of view, the plane would actually spend less time in front of the camera, giving the camera less of a chance to capture the image. On the downside for Scott's argument, the angle makes for a different profile in a still image. Next on the list of things to take into account is the distance from the camera at the point the plane enters the field of view, and the distance from the point the plane exits the field of view. Now, the pentagon is 921 feet to a side, the plane impacts about a 3rd of the way along a side, and the camera is offset from the side by a certain amount. With a little diligence, someone should be able to come up with a pretty accurate estimate of distance to the point of impact. (where the plane exits the field of view.) As an off the cuff estimate I would go with about 660 feet. A little more work should be able to get you the distance to the point of entry. Once you have those two figured out, the distance the plane traveled through the camera's field of view easy to extrapolate. Just looking at the image, I think it's fair to say the distance is less then half. For sake of argument, let's say it's 400 feet. Flight 77 hit the pentagon at 530 miles an hour. That's 777 and a third feet per second. That means the plane was in the camera's field of view for around a half a second. The camera used, however, only had a 1FPS rate. That means the chances that the plane would even be in the shot during the scan are greatly diminished. (This is not good for Scott's argument. I'd like to see how he gets around this) The last thing to figure out, and I'll leave this to Scott, is to determine the type of camera, and the rate at which the camera scans a frame. If we're talking about something that takes even 50 milliseconds to scan the frame, the plane moved 38 feet during that time. That's almost a quarter of the plane's length.
The point is that your behavior in other issues has been that of a sophist who doesn't believe his own arguments. You didn't criticize candycorn for his lame way of dealing with the light pole issue. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...f-israli-involement-9-11-media-coverup-3.html He asserted that the downed light poles proved a 757 flew into the Pentagon from that angle. Tell us your opinion right now of his way of dealing with this info. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632 You also ignored me twice when I asked you to give your opinion of the explanation put forth in the video for the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg At the 1:00 time mark they show us that the object that looks like the nose of an aircraft on the right side of the picture is smoke and the aircraft is to the left of the object. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q20NmYGE-T4&feature=player_embedded"]Top 5 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked - YouTube[/ame] For the third time-please tell us what you think about that theory. An objective truth-seeker would have answered me the first time. What we need is an objective third party to confirm what you say. In view of your sophist-like behavior in other issues, nobody is going to simply take your word for anything. The F-15's in this picture were taken with a fish-eye lens and they don't show the type of distortion you say is present in the Pentagon picture. http://www.google.es/imgres?q=f-15+...4&tbnw=159&start=8&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:8 Some of these photos were taken from the ground. http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&c....,cf.osb&fp=7036a1b3d285d9b0&biw=1024&bih=494 Of course we don't know what kind of camera was used but I've never seen any photo of a fast-moving object taken from that distance that showed that type of distortion. The photos of distortion you put provided are of objects that are very close to the camera. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/193865-disinformation-shills-29.html http://www.politicalforum.com/4753159-post280.html I looked around for an expample of that kind of distortion at a distance and I coundn't find anything. Could you provide a photo of that kind of distortion at a comparable distance? No thinking people are going to consider the case closed on your word considering your sophist-like behavior. There's also this other picture. http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm
More dancing. Self-sourcing is lame. Why did they involve the light poles at all? Your turn; you know the rules.
To make people think a 757 came in from that angle. Watch all eight parts of this documentary and pay special attention to part six starting at the 5:00 time mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSX4p6i1qR4 Here's a short summary of it. http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170 Here's more. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/193865-disinformation-shills-35.html#post4791239 Hey candycorn- You never addressed the question I asked you in post #4 of this thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/219916-top-5-9-11-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html#post4787575
Now we're talking about angles? Why was it important to come in from that angle? You said that the Pentagon was attacked to lure us into a war. So why was the angle important? I think that Hani Hanjour simply overshot the target and circled back to hit it--there are reasons that 3 of the largest buildings in the world were hit on that day--they didn't have the wherewithal to make surgical strikes in jumbo jets. Tell us why you think it was a question of that angle. This should be hilarious. As for the #4 post, I see no allegation being made on the video; just more debunking of twoofer arguments.
What are you talking about? You're the one that tried to change the subject. I didn't go off on your tangent and that makes me a sophist? What a load. What does what DDave said have to do with your position that the nose of the aircraft is shown in that photograph? He said he could hardly tell where it was. Why is this something I need to address in order to disprove your claim that it is the NOSE of the aircraft that you're talking about? Can you answer that? In case you didn't notice; I'm talking to YOU about YOUR CLAIM that the image shows the nose of the aircraft, and that that nose is too large to be that of flight 77. I do not need to go off on tangents in order to disprove YOUR CLAIM. So either prove that the camera used was capable of taking a clear image of a aircraft moving at 400+ miles an hour, or admit you are wrong and we can move on to these other issues you have. I'm not going to take orders from you to go off on tangents either. I'm talking about this specific issue until it comes to a completion. If you want to talk about other things, address the problem I raised with your claims about the nose of the aircraft. Address your claim and we can start to address these tangents. Why? Are you unable to study the subject on your own? You can attack this poster, or you can substantiate your claims. One will support your argument. The other will get you banned. I gave you a technical description of exactly what causes the distortion, and I gave you a mathematical model of the actual event. The aircraft moved almost a third of its length during the duration of a 50ms scan. That would make the object appear LONGER then it actually is. Prove me wrong with evidence, or admit you're wrong and we can continue on with your tangents.
I've seen a lot of photos of planes flying at high speed at about that distance. I've never seen a single distorted picture. It's a question of time until this gets cleared up. Your refusal to comment on the theory put forth at the 1:00 time mark of the video is very telling. It's not a tangent. It's a legitimate question. Your theory seems to be that the nose in this picture is that of a 757 and that it's distorted. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg The video in post #1 puts forth a different explanation. Sometimes professional sophists who work for the government aren't organized and put out stories that conflict with each other. Then, it comes up on a forum and they have to tap dance around and hope the truthers forget about the issue. That's why candycorn also refuses to comment on it; it disagrees with the theory you put forth. We also have this other picture with supports the small plane theory. http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm I asked you if you supported candycorn's behavior as an objectivity test. I do that sometimes and the pro-official version people always tap dance around and avoid the issue because they can't criticize a fellow pro-official version poster. The verification of your assertions of the camera specs and performance is pending and our not being able to identify the truth right away doesn't prove you right. Your avoiding my other questions is very sophist-like behavior. There's plenty of other proof of an inside job such as the way the buildings fell so this issue doesn't make or break the scenario of an inside job. http://able2know.org/topic/177268-1#post-4782975 I can't find a single distorted picture of a fast-moving plane taken from the ground. http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&c...urce=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=sePbTv2mOejm4QTs9bn5DQ Can you tell us if any exist?
Do you really believe that there are professional sophists who work for the government? Our??!! Our not being able or your not being able? Our would imply more than one. Who are you working with?
Hey DDave- You destroyed your credibility when you said this... ...in this post. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/193865-disinformation-shills-28.html#post4751196 Where the object is is very clear. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg Some pro-official version posters say such lame things that they are either morons, or disifo agents. A lot of them obviously aren't morons so they must be disinfo agents. http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
Any word on why the light poles would be involved when they could just change the angle of the plane and not have to worry about planting poles, cabs, tow trucks, etc? No? Keep on dancin dear.
LOL, Like I would be worried what YOU of all people would say about my credibility. I think it is YOU who destroyed YOUR credibility by saying this . . Of course that's not the only thing you've posted that calls your credibility into question. Who said I was a pro-official poster version. I think the truth is somewhere in between the official story and your plausible scenarios although a lot closer to the official version than the alternatives. Plotted on a line chart it would look something like this Official Version ------ Truth----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Truther Theories
Here's another video about that. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs&feature=related"]9/11 Pentagon Attack: A Closer Look - YouTube[/ame] In this video, they do come right out and say what they think the object is. You can see when they zoom in on it though that the picture is far from clear.
I doubled the speed of WB11's last orb showing, and their plane morph. The wingless drone was shown 6-8 times between 9:03-9:26, with the fake image making its debut only one minute after the last orb showing. The live orb and fake plane image cast their own shadows behind the towers, dismissing any nonsense that the drone was added or faked. Since the orb did circle the buildings before impacting the southeast corner of tower 2, the fake plane image at 9:27 was altered to make it turn more north, giving a more plausible (but still impossible) flight path. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGEDvG9KQ&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=34&feature=plpp_video"]WPIX (WB11) 9/11 9:21 - 9:31 - YouTube[/ame]
there was NO 'orb' no plane circled the building before hitting it,and the 'fake plane image' is just something you made up,and are spamming the boards with
I am new to this forum and have not read the arguments so I may be missing something. I am not a truther. One argument I have always agreed with is, a lot of conspiracy stories present grainy photographs that are very difficult to make out. You would think that there would be some good photos. That is one thing that bothers me regarding the Pentagon. One of the most advanced and well protected buildings on the planet cannot produce a good photo of the plane or missile or whatever going into the Pentagon. That doesn't smell right.
And you actually didn't answer it. Surveillance footage is not meant to be movie quality. It's meant to be archival. It's also not meant to capture objects moving at extremely high rates of speed. I suggest you look into surveillance technology. You'd be hard pressed to find any building with a cctv system frame rate high enough to capture an aircraft moving at 500 miles an hour that also has a lens that can accurately capture a field of view the size of a couple of football fields. I don't believe such a system even exists. Why would anyone need such a system? It's you're trying to capture fast moving large objects flying at your building on your security system, you got bigger problems then the camera technology.
Am I correct in saying that the first video released was from a convenience store and not the Pentagon cameras? Wasn't it from the 7 11?
