Pentagon analysis
I dug this up to add this youtube video which is quite revealing..
opinions please.
the man is clearly an idiot...he claims that's the raw footage he's using...but it quite obviously isn't...it's the highlighted clip because it clearly shows the highlighting of the object in the corner of the picture
not to mention that he claims he is showing the footage 1 frame at a time...yes...the footage he recorded from the news...and while the news broadcast may have been showing a single frame of the original footage....the news broadcast itself wasn't a single frame....thus what he's actually saying when he clicks the mouse 39 times...is that he's showing 39 frames of the news broadcast....not 39 frames of the original security recording
his own failure to realise this clearly shows him to be a retarded ****wit of epic proportions
not to mention he claims near the end that the fireball as shown on the security camera footage would take 15-20 seconds to reach the point that it did....what utter nonsense...as someone who studied explosions and fire at a degree level and masters level his claim is complete jibberish...and that's scientific fact
as for the other piece of footage....it's laughably fake...watch the explosion just after impact...it wobbles in relation to the building...clearly showing that it's been badly added on
Okay, that whitish grey object is not what hit the pentagon.
It is not a Boeing 757, nor a missle, it's not even solid.
Do you remember the plane hit 5 lamposts? It hit the third with it's combustion engine and that caused smoke.
It's all here in this awesome independant youtube video.
YouTube video I've posted this a ridiculous amount of times, I feel it needs a separate thread and that thread be stickied.
Now for some lulz.
Mr Parker will ignore this post, jaden's post (unless he makes even the slightest mistake and only comment that), say "good job Bicnarok 👆👆👆" and slag off members of the Bush Administration, NORAD or the supposed NWO.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Thats a good analyzes, especially considering the fake at the end.But the frame delay is an interesting thing, maybe you can explain why this rubbish in more detail.
he's not using the raw footage...he's using the news footage...which itself was delayed by the news broadcaster to show the image at the right hand side
when it was broadcast...the image would've been shown in the corner for say 10 seconds....paused at that moment in order to show the viewer the object...now at say 10 frames a second...that'd be 100 frames to click through before the object moved
you can tell he's using the news footage with the pause in it because it has the object hightlighted in the corner...
if he'd been using the raw footage which was recorded at 2 frames per second...he would've just clicked twice...once the object would come into view...and the next the object would have impacted at exploded
oh...and lord xyz...excellent video...very similar to the one i posted about the WTC impacts that was made
Originally posted by jaden101That's a very good video, it practically debunks the whole 9/11 mysteries theories.
he's not using the raw footage...he's using the news footage...which itself was delayed by the news broadcaster to show the image at the right hand sidewhen it was broadcast...the image would've been shown in the corner for say 10 seconds....paused at that moment in order to show the viewer the object...now at say 10 frames a second...that'd be 100 frames to click through before the object moved
you can tell he's using the news footage with the pause in it because it has the object hightlighted in the corner...
if he'd been using the raw footage which was recorded at 2 frames per second...he would've just clicked twice...once the object would come into view...and the next the object would have impacted at exploded
oh...and lord xyz...excellent video...very similar to the one i posted about the WTC impacts that was made
Not that I had the time to watch all that shit. Loose Change was bad enough.
Excellent videos.
The problem is they are mostly animations, and you can add what angle you want into it depending on your opinion.
What I think should also be considered is that airplanes flying into buildings releases a lot of chaotic energy which is very difficult to reproduce in any re animation or computer generated analysis.
If it were to happened 100 times in the same place the outcome would probably be different each time.
My main doubts about the offical story are that the plane appears to have disappeared, and how an unexpeienced pilot managed to perfrom such a manouver, I cetainly couldn´t on Microsoft flight sim.🙂
well 1: they weren'y unexperienced...they'd clocked alot of hours training with smaller planes...2: the planes didn't "disappear" and any basic knowledge of physics would show why they didn't cause more damage to the exterior and almost left a plane shaped hole in the facade of the WTC but not the pentagon
and 3: in relation to the WTC anyway, they used extremely accurate physics models of both the plane dimensions, speed and mass as well as the building materials...they modelled liquid action for the fuel as well as flame spread based on that data....so i'd say it's as good a representation of what happened inside the building as you're ever going to get
Workers of the WTC said the plane would've pierced the framing of the WTC, it did.
The towers were plane proof, but not explosion and fire proof.
The pentagon had reinforced steel/concrete walls, this is not weak. Planes have hit buildings and mountains and shattered on impact before.
As for inexperienced pilots, I've only heard Hani Hanour to be inexperienced. The guy who taught him said he could do everything but land. Interestingly, Hani did everything but land.
Originally posted by lord xyzThe towers were plane proof, but not explosion and fire proof.
which is only partly true...as Leslie Robertson, the chief engineer of the WTC said himself, the building were only designed to withstand the impact of a 707 (the biggest plane of the time) flying at low speed, lost in fog and seeking a landing while low on fuel being the most obvious type of accident. the plane that hit was much larger, although not considerably heavier but had an almost full fuel load and was travelling close to 500mph....some 350 above the estimated accident speeds when designing
and as i stated (and robertson himself said in relation to the fall of the towers on sept 11th) the laws of physics apply...double the mass, double the energy on impact...double the speed and quadruple the energy of impact
this means that coupled with the extra mass and the velocity of impact being almost 3 times what was designed for...the kinetic energy would have been some 9 times more than was calculated for in the design.
Originally posted by jaden101Alex Jones and his followers don't care about detail though. That's why I tend to distance myself from conspiracy theorists, despite being one myself.
which is only partly true...as Leslie Robertson, the chief engineer of the WTC said himself, the building were only designed to withstand the impact of a 707 (the biggest plane of the time) flying at low speed, lost in fog and seeking a landing while low on fuel being the most obvious type of accident. the plane that hit was much larger, although not considerably heavier but had an almost full fuel load and was travelling close to 500mph....some 350 above the estimated accident speeds when designingand as i stated (and robertson himself said in relation to the fall of the towers on sept 11th) the laws of physics apply...double the mass, double the energy on impact...double the speed and quadruple the energy of impact
this means that coupled with the extra mass and the velocity of impact being almost 3 times what was designed for...the kinetic energy would have been some 9 times more than was calculated for in the design.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Alex Jones and his followers don't care about detail though. That's why I tend to distance myself from conspiracy theorists, despite being one myself.
And that's why Alex Jones and his ilk are rightfully regarded as completely ****ing spanners by anyone with any basic intelligence.
Originally posted by lord xyz
So 9/11 was done by a lone nut?
I don't get this coment. Just because someone doesn't think that the U.S. Government or ficticious groups bent on world domination covertly planned and orchestrated this attack doesn't mean they think that one "lone nut" did it. That's just stupid.
Originally posted by KharmaDogHe said it wasn't a conspiracy. That suggests there it wasn't a bunch of people who got together to plot it out.
I don't get this coment. Just because someone doesn't think that the U.S. Government or ficticious groups bent on world domination covertly planned and orchestrated this attack doesn't mean they think that one "lone nut" did it. That's just stupid.
So either 5 terrorists on each plane decided to take out the same buildings without any planning with eachother, or a lone nut did it.
I said lone nut because the JFK debate is lone nut or conspiracy.