• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I assume this has been debunked..., but IMO 5 frames is silly to consider as a video. With the release of 5 frames they don't debunk the idea it must be something else, it's in high contrast with the planes crashing in the towers where a lot of videomaterial is available. I've heard that the FBI took some tapes, if that is true then they could give the ultimate debunking very easily

I admit it is understandable that there are only a few frames from that view because of the speed of the object. With about 850 km/s and a framerate of 25 per second the object takes a step of 9.4m per frame, the shutter speed will say something about the resolution.

quite inspiring to read this however

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm
 
delphi_ote said:
They're on our side, too. Didn't you get the memo? I wrote it on the cardboard in the middle of your roll of duct tape (on the side beneath the tape, of course.)
Click to expand...

Oh... I kinda... needed to use that duct tape, man.

It's okay, though. They'll never know what I did. They can't find out, can they ?
 
einsteen said:
Ok, a little repect from my side then that you went through all papers and verified it all.
Click to expand...

Uh, no.

I assume this has been debunked..., but IMO 5 frames is silly to consider as a video. With the release of 5 frames they don't debunk the idea it must be something else, it's in high contrast with the planes crashing in the towers where a lot of videomaterial is available. I've heard that the FBI took some tapes, if that is true then they could give the ultimate debunking very easily
Click to expand...

Sorry. The FBI didn't see a good reason to manufacture a fake tape to silence you guys. They were lazy, that day, and decided to show the real thing.

What ? You're going to pay 10,000 dollars for a cheap parking lot camera ?
 
Talk of the Nation

I just heard where National Public Radio is about to do an interview re: CTs (and debunking same.)

Miss
 
TOTN on NPR (not BBC)

Turns out the interview was rather short, primarily a book tour promo for "Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America" by Bob Goldberg, professor of history at the University of Utah. He was joined by Jim Meigs, editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics.

I was proud of the kids for specifically fielding calls from CTs, what with so many call-in shows screening to make sure only sycophants get through.

Here's the link to the NPR site if you want more:
npr.orgtemplates/story/story.php?storyId=5782277
(add the requisite URL stuff up front since I'm a newbie)

Missy
 
einsteen said:
Could you calculate the speed for me then, I'm lost
Click to expand...

You originally wrote:
I admit it is understandable that there are only a few frames from that view because of the speed of the object. With about 850 km/s and a framerate of 25 per second the object takes a step of 9.4m per frame, the shutter speed will say something about the resolution.
Click to expand...

Whats to calculate? 1 frame per second, not 25. A plane moving at 530 mph or 780 feet/sec will travel 780 feet, or 5 fuselage lengths, between security camera frames..
 
The aircraft was going 800 kilometres per hour (not second). Which is about 222m/s which is about 670 feet per second.

At a frame rate of 1 fps, the camera would be lucky to catch a glimpse of the plane in any of the 5 frames (at 1fps, 5 frames = 5 seconds, in which the plane would have moved a full 1100m or 3350 feet.)

TAM
 
apathoid said:
You originally wrote:


Whats to calculate? 1 frame per second, not 25. A plane moving at 530 mph or 780 feet/sec will travel 780 feet, or 5 fuselage lengths, between security camera frames..
Click to expand...

ETA: thats at 90 degrees, since the plane hit close to a 45 degree angle, then I believe it would be .707x780 ft..
 
einsteen said:
Could you calculate the speed for me then, I'm lost
Click to expand...

For one 850 (kilometers / second) = 1,901,395.85 mph. I don't think the plane was going that fast. Memory is that the plane was at ~580 mph. So:
580 mph => 0.161111111 miles per second
=> 850.666666 feet per second

A Boeing 757-223 (which is what Flight 77 was) is 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m) long.
So, in 1 second it travels ~5.4793344025764895330112721417069 times its length.

If someone knows the field of view of the camera, I'm sure we can calculate the possibilities of:
1) The plane being in the picture at all
2) The entire plane being in the picture
 
einsteen said:
I also don't get this, this is the Pentagon not McDonald's or the whammyburger.
Click to expand...

The thing is, we are talking about the government. I've seen ancient security cameras used in some very high security places.

They don't upgrade them every other year, they could have been 20 year old cameras.

Sure new cameras are cheap and take great pictures, but unless the camera was broken chances are it would not have been replaced.
 
Skibum said:
The thing is, we are talking about the government. I've seen ancient security cameras used in some very high security places.

They don't upgrade them every other year, they could have been 20 year old cameras.

Sure new cameras are cheap and take great pictures, but unless the camera was broken chances are it would not have been replaced.
Click to expand...

Plus, it is there to take pictures of the cars that are stopped at the security gate, not to take pictures of objects travelling 4x faster than most cars top out at.
 
While talking about the pentagon:

I allready posted this to LCF some days ago.

Did someone in here saw a colored version of this rare photo,
showing something that the idaho observer describes as
plane-wings in their printed version on June 2006:

The article: (without photos)
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20060607.htm

The related photo: (scanned b/w)
http://www.voicesofsafety.com/pogonews/2006/images/2006-08-08-IO-Article-pic-1.jpg

The thread at LCF:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12185

Regards,
Oliver
 
einsteen said:
I also don't get this, this is the Pentagon not McDonald's or the whammyburger.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why they fooled themselves into thinking they didn't need them "we're the freaking Pentagon, who's going to attack us?".

The Pentagon is a huge bureaucracy, the budgets for these kind of low "cool factor" technology gets stripped and put into "necessary" projects like trying to kill goats with your mind (or was that the CIA?)
 
I mean of course /h instead of /s, typo..

Ok with 1 fps I calculated a chance of 50% to get one plane uncrashed in one frame, realistic.

That site I posted at top does some analysis too (also 3d), the guy thinks they removed one frame.
 
Skibum said:
The thing is, we are talking about the government. I've seen ancient security cameras used in some very high security places.

They don't upgrade them every other year, they could have been 20 year old cameras.

Sure new cameras are cheap and take great pictures, but unless the camera was broken chances are it would not have been replaced.
Click to expand...

There is also the fact that a parking lot camera is not used for any purpose other than detecting events which are moving at a walking pace, or suspicious individuals cruising the lot at 15-20mph (up to maybe 30 feet/sec). Given the field of view, at that speed, one or more frames will catch them.
(Cruisers at higher speeds in the lot are likely to attract other attention, in case you're wondering)
Who expects a 500+ mph problem?
 
GENERAL QUESTION:

Did anyone see a structural, internal blueprint
of the towers regarding the elevatorshafts and
their arrangement in (horizontal and vertical) and/or
(perspective) view?

Maybe in some books? I can´t find any visual
information in form of illustrations about the
buildings internal structure.

BTW: Or WTC7?

Regards,
Oliver
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom