-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
I agree they show something.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
ALL the available evidence points to 77 hitting the Pentagon. Plane parts, DNA, first responders, a missing plane, etc. What sort of blinders must one have on to believe that even though a couple cameras showed something hitting the building, but not conclusively 77, it means the jury is still out about 77 actually hitting the building?
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Yes, Twinstead is correct. It is not only the sheer amount of evidence that makes the conclusion so firm and solid, nor the fact that some of the individual pieces in and of themselves prove Flight 77's impact (for example, the ATC radar data). Above and beyond all, it is the convergence of all the individual lines of evidence on that one conclusion that makes this conclusion such a strong one.
It's plane debris and DNA, and witnessess, and electronic data, and the other things mentioned. They all mutually support each other as well as the conclusion. Nitpicking about individual points accomplishes nothing nowadays because all other supporting lines of evidence would have to be disproven to disprove the entire conclusion. When a critique arises about any one single line - the witness statements about Flight 77's path, for example, that CIT and PF911T like to harp on - you have to ask yourself "Well, what impact does this have on these other lines of evidence?". And unless the answer is a compelling one, the individual critiques do not end up amounting to much. At best, it improves accuracy on the one individual line of evidence; at worst, it wastes time without accomplishing anything. Either way, there is nothing about an individual element's critique that does anything to assault the solidity of the conclusion.
Unsecured Coins
Hoku-maniac
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 5,905
It is Flight 77 verified by the speed and timing to match the time flight 77 entered the Pentagon and the fuel fire started; you can time the speed between 525 to 545 mph. You could time it and figure this out with math; poor p4t can’t the have a problem with math. But you seem to be capable of math right?
The lens makes Flight 77 look like it is level with the lawn but it is really at an angle to normal, about 4 or 5 degrees down. The proof this is Flight 77 zipping by at over 771 feet per second is the FDR was found inside the Pentagon on the track Flight 77 is seen flying on this video clip. And the passenger DNA was scattered along the same path inside the Pentagon in the same second or two after you see 77 zip by.
You know it is 77 because you are capable of rational thought and have skills at logic.
911Truth is not capable due to bias and no real skills in any fields required to understand 911 so they make delusional claims. Why is that true RedIbis?
You can deny this due to ignorance of optics, physics, math, and flight knowledge and the inability to find evidence that the FDR and DNA was found; but that would mean you are unable to comprehend the written word from multiple sources and have decided to remain RedIbis on the subject; who knows your position on anything, and you have nothing to add or any analysis to share on 911 issues now, or before.
Thanks for your insight on 911. Without your keen analysis where would we be?
Last edited:
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
Some Einstein at YouTube left the following comment:
I only responded “Yes” to his comment because I felt anyone stupid enough to ask that question would not understand the reason why even if I explained it. A more complete answer would have been that "it is not nothing you idiot!" Fortunately, JREF has a slightly higher IQ level going for it so I’ll explain why here for anyone who really wants to know.
There is no time stamp for this video. That means the only way a time correlation can be done is by matching events in the video with another video record. In this case, the traffic on Army-Navy is the best independent reference common to both the DEA footage and the Doubletree north camera.
Notice just two intersections east is the DT camera and the two vehicles circled traveling in opposite directions provide a good common reference for someone to use for such a purpose. But, there may be other vehicles which serve the purpose better. I have not had time to look further into such a correlation, but there are some here (like Mangoose and Boone370) who are very detailed oriented and might want to attempt such a correlation. It could even be someone not even related to JREF wanting to attempt the same thing. But if I chopped off the first 1.5 minutes of video which provides this traffic as a reference, then such a task would be much more difficult.
But then again, I don't suspect I had to tell the majority of you folks that.
I only responded “Yes” to his comment because I felt anyone stupid enough to ask that question would not understand the reason why even if I explained it. A more complete answer would have been that "it is not nothing you idiot!" Fortunately, JREF has a slightly higher IQ level going for it so I’ll explain why here for anyone who really wants to know.
There is no time stamp for this video. That means the only way a time correlation can be done is by matching events in the video with another video record. In this case, the traffic on Army-Navy is the best independent reference common to both the DEA footage and the Doubletree north camera.
Notice just two intersections east is the DT camera and the two vehicles circled traveling in opposite directions provide a good common reference for someone to use for such a purpose. But, there may be other vehicles which serve the purpose better. I have not had time to look further into such a correlation, but there are some here (like Mangoose and Boone370) who are very detailed oriented and might want to attempt such a correlation. It could even be someone not even related to JREF wanting to attempt the same thing. But if I chopped off the first 1.5 minutes of video which provides this traffic as a reference, then such a task would be much more difficult.
But then again, I don't suspect I had to tell the majority of you folks that.
Last edited:
SmartyPants
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 156
To quote George Carlin, "If a man speaks in the forest and there is no woman there to hear it, is he still wrong?"
Mangoose
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 921
911files: I'm not sure how useful it would be to use traffic to synchronize the DEA and Doubletree videos. As an example, I examined the white-topped bus that heads eastbound in both videos sometime soon after the explosion:
This bus first appears in the Doubletree video at 9:36:11 (DT time stamp) and it passed out of view by 9:36:18, across a span of approximately 175 feet (estimated via Google Earth), which yields a speed of about 17-18 mph. The distance between the position of the bus at 9:36:15 and the one at the frame above is about 1,400 feet, and if the bus was going at about the same rate, it would have been at its location at 1:48 in the DEA video roughly 53 seconds earlier -- assuming that it didn't stop at any of the two intersections that intervened between the two points. Of course, that is a long span of time with potentially a different average speed; if the bus was moving at an average of 24 mph, the span of time is shortened to 40 seconds. Because of this delay and margin for error, there cannot be any accurate synching of the videos on the basis of traffic. It would be better in my opinion to match the evolving shape of the smoke cloud between the two videos, as this utilizes the same object seen at the same time from both locations.
If we use the 53-second figure, then the bus was at 1:43 in the DEA video at 9:35:22 (DT time stamp). The explosion is first visible at 9:34:11, so this is 1 minute and 11 seconds after the explosion was visible. Within seconds, the view changes in the DEA video to the Pentagon and the smoke plume. The appearance of this plume however is somewhat more advanced than what is seen in the Doubletree video at 9:35:22, so this may confirm that the apparent speed of the bus as it passed the Doubletree is not a reliable indicator of its speed in the whole distance from the DEA camera.
This bus first appears in the Doubletree video at 9:36:11 (DT time stamp) and it passed out of view by 9:36:18, across a span of approximately 175 feet (estimated via Google Earth), which yields a speed of about 17-18 mph. The distance between the position of the bus at 9:36:15 and the one at the frame above is about 1,400 feet, and if the bus was going at about the same rate, it would have been at its location at 1:48 in the DEA video roughly 53 seconds earlier -- assuming that it didn't stop at any of the two intersections that intervened between the two points. Of course, that is a long span of time with potentially a different average speed; if the bus was moving at an average of 24 mph, the span of time is shortened to 40 seconds. Because of this delay and margin for error, there cannot be any accurate synching of the videos on the basis of traffic. It would be better in my opinion to match the evolving shape of the smoke cloud between the two videos, as this utilizes the same object seen at the same time from both locations.
If we use the 53-second figure, then the bus was at 1:43 in the DEA video at 9:35:22 (DT time stamp). The explosion is first visible at 9:34:11, so this is 1 minute and 11 seconds after the explosion was visible. Within seconds, the view changes in the DEA video to the Pentagon and the smoke plume. The appearance of this plume however is somewhat more advanced than what is seen in the Doubletree video at 9:35:22, so this may confirm that the apparent speed of the bus as it passed the Doubletree is not a reliable indicator of its speed in the whole distance from the DEA camera.
Last edited:
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
My first concern would be the clock (Timestamp) Accuracy.
While it is possible that the DEA timestamp is slaved to NBS clocks, such as WWV, the Doubletree clock is likely set by hand by just about anybody.
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
Agreed Mangoose, it is not a very accurate method but good enough for a ball-park figure. One vehicle won't do though, a number of vehicles need to be evaluated and averaged. I don't see a lot of value at this point, but it is something that might have value later on.
rwquinn, the DT video has already been aligned using a similar method using a helicopter fly-by ten minutes prior to impact, so we have the DT correlated to the DCA time scale within a few seconds.
rwquinn, the DT video has already been aligned using a similar method using a helicopter fly-by ten minutes prior to impact, so we have the DT correlated to the DCA time scale within a few seconds.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Ok--I missed that.
As long as you have a method of correlating the two timestamps, you're good
But how much is a few? in your original, 6 seconds is nearly 12% error, so that can be significant, especially in a collision/explosion/conflagration where speeds are measured in 100's to 1000's of feet per second.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
I can live with that.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
Don't bother, Pardalis. RedIbis was very careful to not make any claims; he only "asked questions". He knows if he makes an actual claim, he'll have to back it up, and he lacks the ability to do that. His behavior is that of the intellectually dishonest, and it is therefore not worthwhile to pursue any kind of meaningful discussion with him.
Last edited: