• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Surveilance cameras and resolution

I don't see a plane in that video and if it is a plane, it must be military and not commercial.
 
1. Your link doesn't work

2. The point of the thread is that cameras and resolution in 2009 are better than they were in 2001. You don't believe that? Really? I think there's more than just #1 above that doesn't work...
Or perhaps someone contains an excessive amount of #2.:D
 
truthers22.jpg
Above (your photo from april 2001?) - These are protesters who lack knowledge on 911. After a little research and using logic and sound judgment the group becomes much more descriptive of their evidence.
standup.jpg

This is the reality of the impact of 911Truth on the world.

Where are you hiding that "ample evidence" to support your mindless cult mantra "911 was an inside job"?
 
hmmm....so they had those investigate 9/11 shirts done up, etc.... within the first three months after the attacks did they?

I doubt it. I would wager good money that that picture was NOT TAKEN in 2001.

I am guessing 2006. I would need independent verification from the photographer and the photo participants before I would believe that is a 2001 photo.

TAM:)

edit: and regardless of the year that was taken, there is no proof it is a photo from a digital camera versus a scanned photo from a SLR.

In every way, as usual, another truther FAILS!!!
 
Last edited:
image properties has this photo from a photobucket album titled "powertothepeople_2006"

no captions in the album, so how is it determined that this image, in anyway, was taken in 2001???

TAM:)
 
image properties has this photo from a photobucket album titled "powertothepeople_2006"

no captions in the album, so how is it determined that this image, in anyway, was taken in 2001???

TAM:)
Not just 2001 but...
Dont think so ladies. Heres a shot from April 2001.
[qimg]http://www.notbored.org/earthcam.jpg[/qimg]
Plenty of good cams back then. You all fail.
bold is mine. :)
 
1. Your link doesn't work

2. The point of the thread is that cameras and resolution in 2009 are better than they were in 2001. You don't believe that? Really? I think there's more than just #1 above that doesn't work...

I have to take Tweeter's side a bit in this, JBA as the recording formats now aren't THAT much better than in 2001. What's changed is an awareness of what's lost just pitching video onto the Internet and let the compression gods take the hindmost. Add to that the fact that many of the videos 'analysed' by the likes of Ace Baker are so far removed from original video (not taking into account the shortcomings of the broadcast and cable signal path) and so pock-marked with compression issues and so much information having been thrown away in the interim that the word "analysis" is a misnomer when what they're doing with the footage they have.
 
Dont think so ladies. Heres a shot from April 2001.
[qimg]http://www.notbored.org/earthcam.jpg[/qimg]
Plenty of good cams back then. You all fail.

None of the objects in that shot are traveling through the cameras field of view at 500 miles per hour.

In fact, there isn't anything there traveling at 50 miles per hour.
 
And the camera was focused specificly on the twoofers and adjusted for the light levels at the target point.

The security cameras that caught Flt 77 and the ditching were adjusted to catch the best detail right in front of them.
 
Tweeter is a troll and only posted that picture to get all these reactions. Best to put him on ignore.
 
Tweeter is a troll and only posted that picture to get all these reactions. Best to put him on ignore.

He has been on ignore for 4-6 months now, but when people quote him, we can still see.

TAM:)
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom