Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ahmadinejad : "Most people" believe US behind 9/11
Options
Comments
-
-
-
TalkieWalkie wrote: »Look, there's a hole in the ground, you can see right into the basement...
Well yea, 110 storeys just fell down, surely you'd expect there to be some holes visible in the substructure?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
TalkieWalkie wrote: »Look, there's a hole in the ground, you can see right into the basement...
I've seen more concrete demolishing a shed, also notice the rebar completely stripped of concrete except for one piece slightly bigger than a cavity block.
There's so many things wrong with that photo right there and wasting 15 minutes itemising them will achieve nothing.
10 floors per second, compression, furniture.........this pic, think about it.0 -
-
Let's consider the "Pancake Theory"
According to the pancake theory, one floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one, and so forth. The "pancake theory" implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor. In the case of both WTC towers, we didn't see the floors piled up when the event was all over, but rather a pulverization of the floors throughout the event. (see pictures below) So, clearly we cannot assume that the floors stacked up like pancakes. Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becoming pulverized. In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. In reality, there isn't enough kinetic energy to do either.0 -
-
-
-
Thanks now at least we are getting somewhere. The next point is can we find higher res pictures because I find it odd that these 'cameras' are spaced such short distances away from each other, i dunno almost like lights and not cameras. Though it seems likely that some of them are cameras. Then we'd need to see where they are pointed, cause as I keep saying cameras point at the ground not into the air.
You can see some of the cameras in that entrance shot are point in the wrong direction. Then I'd like to know when those road cameras shot were taken.
No they almost definately look like camera's.
Maybe call the pentagon and ask where they were pointing.
And you still assume the pentagon's security system and cctv coverage should be on par with the local sweet shop.The traffic cameras update every 2 seconds - ie: a longer pause than the the plane would be visible for over that distance. It's pot luck whether they'd pick it up or not.
Yea and you can divide number of cameras that would show pentagon into that as all camera's would not be sync'd, so it gets down to fractions of a second, so surely something was caught on some camera, apart from the video that doesn't show a plane.0 -
-
-
Thats how pictures from telephoto lens come out, here's a tree thats bigger than the sun.
That pile must be at least 20ft high.
Eh - a telephoto lens won't make the firemen appear bigger/smaller than they are in relation to the background - all it'll do is compress the perceived depth of the image. The tree is going to have that comparative size against the sun, regardless of what lens you use - and the same is true of the firemen and the height of the pile behind them.0 -
Advertisement
-
No they almost definately look like camera's.
Having worked in the security systems industry I can tell you that the first image is that of a PTZ camera (Pan, Tilt, Zoom).
These camera's can be pick up images from 360 degress at various heights and ranges of zoom.
The second is an image of a fixed position dome camera.
It is common to find large banks of dome camera's within a short distance of each other each focused on a seperate subject, thus keeping a constant surleivance record of that subject.
The reason for this method being used in stead of a single PTZ unit is because with PTZ unit that pans in a 360 degree motion you have periods of time where you lose coverage of all areas/subjects.
If you wanted to surveil and area with multiple points of interest you would most defintiely use a large number of fixed cameras.
The dome cameras pictured are weather proof plus the dark lense helps eliminate glare from sun light.
Often you will see dome cameras with small steel frame cages on them, commonly refered to as vandal resistant domes.
If anyone has anymore questions regarding this stuff just give me a shout.0 -
Having worked in the security systems industry I can tell you that the first image is that of a PTZ camera (Pan, Tilt, Zoom).
These camera's can be pick up images from 360 degress at various heights and ranges of zoom.
My brother has a company that fits security systems and I agree.The second is an image of a fixed position dome camera.
It is common to find large banks of dome camera's within a short distance of each other each focused on a seperate subject, thus keeping a constant surleivance record of that subject.
The reason for this method being used in stead of a single PTZ unit is because with PTZ unit that pans in a 360 degree motion you have periods of time where you lose coverage of all areas/subjects.
In the pictures of the pentagon they look like lights and not cameras. Other than the three larger ones.If you wanted to surveil and area with multiple points of interest you would most defintiely use a large number of fixed cameras.
The dome cameras pictured are weather proof plus the dark lense helps eliminate glare from sun light.
Often you will see dome cameras with small steel frame cages on them, commonly refered to as vandal resistant domes.
You might use a large number or you might not. My question would be in 2001 with armed guards would you use a large number.No they almost definately look like camera's.
Maybe call the pentagon and ask where they were pointing.
And you still assume the pentagon's security system and cctv coverage should be on par with the local sweet shop.
Yea and you can divide number of cameras that would show pentagon into that as all camera's would not be sync'd, so it gets down to fractions of a second, so surely something was caught on some camera, apart from the video that doesn't show a plane.
The ones at the two corners and the one in the middle (above the crash site) look like cameras the rest look like lights, so that would be three I can see. We have no idea where these cameras pointed, or how many frames per second or the res, none whatsoever.
And still all we have to do is ignore all the other evidence of a plane and assume that video footage was hidden cause it showed it wasn't a plane.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html
That link is from a truther site and it goes step by step why is was a plane.What the No-Plane Theories Imply
1. That the 140-foot wide damage to the Pentagon, including a 96-foot-wide puncture, were somehow produced by a means other than a plane.
2. That fires smelling of burning jet fuel, were produced by some other means, or the photographs were faked.
3. That the aircraft debris, some clearly from an AA Boeing 757, was planted.
4. That the swath of downed lamp-poles matching a 757's wing span were sliced and knocked over by some other means.
5. That smashed objects in the paths of the engines were damaged by some other means.
6. That scores of eyewitness reports of a jetliner were faked, coerced, or coincidentally mistaken.
7. That the identification of Flight77's victims was fraudulent.
8. That Flight 77 and all on board were disposed of at some unknown location.
To believe that the Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77 requires accepting points 7 and 8.
To believe that the Pentagon was not hit by a jetliner requires accepting points 3 through 8.
To believe that no plane hit the Pentagon, one has to accept all 8 points.0 -
-
My brother has a company that fits security systems and I agree.
In the pictures of the pentagon they look like lights and not cameras. Other than the three larger ones.
You might use a large number or you might not. My question would be in 2001 with armed guards would you use a large number.
The ones at the two corners and the one in the middle (above the crash site) look like cameras the rest look like lights, so that would be three I can see. We have no idea where these cameras pointed, or how many frames per second or the res, none whatsoever.
And still all we have to do is ignore all the other evidence of a plane and assume that video footage was hidden cause it showed it wasn't a plane.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html
That link is from a truther site and it goes step by step why is was a plane.
In response to the highlighted sentence, the reason a large amount of fixed position cameras would be used would be to ensure everything is recorded at all times.
Armed guards perform a set of tasks but human error is always a possibility.
I'm not sure of how the law works with regard to surveilance and secrity in America, but in this country you need more than the word of a guard to prove something, thats where the CCTV technology comes into play.
I would be very surprised if there is an inch of that building outside and inside(bar toilets) that isn't covered by CCTV at all times and I would suggest that this has been the case for much of the past 25 to 30 years.0 -
:D:D 
Advertisement