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

Lloyd England exposed was involved in 9/11 false flag event

1…4243454748…95

Comments

  • #1322
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    banie01 wrote: »
    How many frames per second do you think the camera was recording?

    How much of an aircraft travelling at @777ft per second do you think should have been captured?

    Do you understand how a multiplexed security camera signal is recorded?
    Particularly on an analogue system?

    I don't think you understand the footage. Security tape is showing three seconds of footage the object appearing and then crashing. We see the smoke trail all the way in but we never saw the plane really?

    A plane flying in front of the camera would block far off objects like the trees in the distance. You don't understand this.


  • #1323
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    It only two seconds. The blob of smoke is 1 second and next second light later the flash of light and you got the trail of smoke spread across the grass.

    Why are you saying flight 77 would not be seen between the two frames? How come the plane did not block out the trees in the distance when passed in front of it?
    SO are you back to claiming that it's an A-3 or whatever?
    Or have you gone full missile like the experts and youtube videos you copy paste from?


  • #1324
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,055 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I don't think you understand the footage. Security tape is showing three seconds of footage the object appearing and then crashing. We see the smoke trail all the way in but we never saw the plane really?

    A plane flying in front of the camera would block far off objects like the trees in the distance. You don't understand this.

    I am being told what I understand now by you?
    Put down your crayons and dig out your calculator.

    The video shown covers a timespan of 3 seconds.
    What frame rate was that video captured at?
    What effect would low frame rate capture have vis a vis an object travelling at 777ft per second?

    Do you understand what multiplexed recording is?


  • #1325
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,055 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    King Mob wrote: »
    SO are you back to claiming that it's an A-3 or whatever?
    Or have you gone full missile like the experts and youtube videos you copy paste from?

    Well he can't stand over any of his 757 claims anymore can he :pac:


  • #1326
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,023 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I don't think you understand the footage. Security tape is showing three seconds of footage the object appearing and then crashing. We see the smoke trail all the way in but we never saw the plane really?

    A plane flying in front of the camera would block far off objects like the trees in the distance. You don't understand this.

    104 people saw the plane hit the Pentagon directly.

    26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

    39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

    42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris.

    0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

    0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.


  • Advertisement
  • #1327
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    banie01 wrote: »
    I am being told what I understand now by you?
    Put down your crayons and dig out your calculator.

    The video shown covers a timespan of 3 seconds.
    What frame rate was that video captured at?
    What effect would low frame rate capture have vis a vis an object travelling at 777ft per second?

    Do you understand what multiplexed recording is?

    The plane went invisible for three seconds is this your theory? Let's ignore the object did not block the pixelated trees in the background. Explain how that's even possible? We can see the smoke trail for the three seconds but we can not see the plane?


  • #1328
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,055 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The plane went invisible for three seconds is this your theory? Let's ignore the object did not block the pixelated trees in the background. Explain how that's even possible? We can see the smoke trail for the three seconds but we can not see the plane?

    Answer the questions I asked you please.
    How many frames per second is the equipment capturing?
    Do you understand how multiplexed recording works?


  • #1329
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    banie01 wrote: »
    Answer the questions I asked you please.
    How many frames per second is the equipment capturing?
    Do you understand how multiplexed recording works?

    It records 1 frame per second.

    Yes. And this affects what exactly in the footage?

    Hilarious you believe a commercial airline would not block out objects in the background and camera would not pick this up.


  • #1330
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    It records 1 frame per second.

    Yes. And this affects what exactly in the footage?

    Hilarious you believe a commercial airline would not block out objects in the background and camera would not pick this up.

    Where is your plane? what created the explosion in that footage?

    Remember, whatever answer you make up on the spot to answer these questions becomes your new "theory", so think long and hard

    Or just avoid the glaring questions

    And to recap

    1. What speed was your "plane" going?

    2. With sources


  • #1331
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,055 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    It records 1 frame per second.

    Yes. And this affects what exactly in the footage?

    Hilarious you believe a commercial airline would not block out objects in the background and camera would not pick this up.

    So 1 frame per second trying to capture an object travelling at 777feet per second.

    What is the field of the camera?
    What distance is it actually covering of the 757?

    At 1 frame per second versus the speed of the plane from right of frame assuming even a very generous field of view at the level of the aircraft of 1000ft...
    It would capture slightly more than one frame of video.

    In reality the field of view at the point of impact is much less and it is practically conceivable that given the multiplex frame switch that it would have been possible for the impact to have occured without any actual frame of the aircraft appearing at all.

    Luckily however, there is some video captured that corrobates all the other evidence and witnesses.


  • Advertisement
  • #1332
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    banie01 wrote: »
    So 1 frame per second trying to capture an object travelling at 777feet per second.

    What is the field of the camera?
    What distance is it actually covering of the 757?

    At 1 frame per second versus the speed of the plane from right of frame assuming even a very generous field of view at the level of the aircraft of 1000ft...
    It would capture slightly more than one frame of video.

    In reality the field of view at the point of impact is much less and it is practically conceivable that given the multiplex frame switch that it would have been possible for the impact to have occured without any actual frame of the aircraft appearing at all.

    Luckily however, there is some video captured that corrobates all the other evidence and witnesses.

    FDR data had Flight 77 180 feet above the highway at 9.37am when supposedly crashed. How did the plane crash at this height? How did get down to 20 feet in less than a second?

    Go look at the data if you don't believe me. The video animation you can find online.


  • #1333
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,055 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    For the sake of the relatively sane posters and contributers.
    This is a comparison of different frame rate captures on CCTV.
    Surprising how close to disappearing even relatively slow moving vehicles are.
    Now imagine trying to capture a kamikaze attack at 1FPS!



  • #1334
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    banie01 wrote: »
    For the sake of the relatively sane posters and contributers.
    This is a comparison of different frame rate captures on CCTV.
    Surprising how close to disappearing even relatively slow moving vehicles are.
    Now imagine trying to capture a kamikaze attack at 1FPS!


    Lol you can see the car even at 1 frame per second. Yet you can't see the big airliner that 155 feet long with three seconds of footage :confused:


  • #1335
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    FDR data had Flight 77 180 feet above the highway at 9.37am when supposedly crashed. How did the plane crash at this height? How did get down to 20 feet in less than a second?

    Go look at the data if you don't believe me. The video animation you can find online.

    You are misinterpreting the information

    It's been explained to you but you continue to play games where you "don't get it"


  • #1336
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,055 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Lol you can see the car even at 1 frame per second. Yet you can't see the big airliner that 155 feet long with three seconds of footage :confused:

    And the car is travelling at @ 5% of the speed of the aircraft in question.
    It is to show as I said, the sane posters the impact 1 frame per second capture has on actual video capture.

    It's not video...
    It's stop motion.

    But tell ya what, dig out your crayons.
    Work out the FOV of the pentagon camera and tell me what distance it covers.
    Then work out how many frames of 1FPS video the 757 should have appeared in then?


  • #1337
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Lol you can see the car even at 1 frame per second. Yet you can't see the big airliner that 155 feet long with three seconds of footage :confused:

    Again playing games or playing a character who "doesn't get things" that are painfully obvious

    but supports insanely complex conspiracy theories with no practical evidence


  • #1338
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,023 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Again playing games or playing a character who "doesn't get things" that are painfully obvious

    but supports insanely complex conspiracy theories with no practical evidence

    And ignores 104 eyewitnesses!

    ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR PEOPLE SAW IT HAPPEN.

    Completely ignored.

    This must be up for some Boards.ie comedy award


  • #1339
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You are misinterpreting the information

    It's been explained to you but you continue to play games where you "don't get it"

    Not really it's their data they released it. The plane is too high at 9.37am. Notice how high the plane is above the highway! How did the Plane hit light poles at this height? 180 feet in altitude at the moment of the crash.

    They should be correcting this if its wrong and explaining how they made an error publically.

    474855.png


  • #1340
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,055 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    The Nal wrote: »
    And ignores 104 eyewitnesses!

    ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR PEOPLE SAW IT HAPPEN.

    Completely ignored.

    This must be up for some Boards.ie comedy award

    But that's because you haven't provided their names as demanded by CS :pac:

    Like the 757...
    They aren't real! :pac:


  • #1341
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,023 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    banie01 wrote: »
    But that's because you haven't provided their names as demanded by CS :pac:

    Like the 757...
    They aren't real! :pac:

    Like saying theres 150 Tesco stores in Ireland and him claiming there are none because I didn't list their addresses.

    Hes just craving attention, bless.


  • Advertisement
  • #1342
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    banie01 wrote: »
    And the car is travelling at @ 5% of the speed of the aircraft in question.
    It is to show as I said, the sane posters the impact 1 frame per second capture has on actual video capture.

    It's not video...
    It's stop motion.

    But tell ya what, dig out your crayons.
    Work out the FOV of the pentagon camera and tell me what distance it covers.
    Then work out how many frames of 1FPS video the 757 should have appeared in then?

    You crazy mate. 155 feet airliner is going to be noticeable even if its a blur. You ignoring the gap the space between the object hitting the wall and the object appearing in the frame.


  • #1343
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,055 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You crazy mate. 155 feet airliner is going to be noticeable even if its a blur. You ignoring the gap the space between the object hitting the wall and the object appearing in the frame.

    Not at all, the size is irrelevant.
    It's speed of travel across the frame is known, the frame rate is known.
    I've even gone so far as to tell you how to work out how many frames the aircraft actually should be visible in and rather than do the simple maths.
    You deflect.


  • #1344
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    banie01 wrote: »
    Not at all, the size is irrelevant.
    It's speed of travel across the frame is known, the frame rate is known.
    I've even gone so far as to tell you how to work out how many frames the aircraft actually should be visible in and rather than do the simple maths.
    You deflect.

    Not all you believe the plane was travelling 530mph an hour 3 to 4 feet off the ground. I know what you keep claiming 777 feet a second.

    People who believe a commercial airliner can do this speed at this level are not all there in the head.


  • #1345
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    This was tried in an actual simulator by a qualified pilot. The results are not surprising.



  • #1346
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Not really it's their data they released it. The plane is too high at 9.37am.

    Again you:

    a) Don't understand the information

    or

    b) Refuse to understand the information in order to bring your conspiracy to life

    No one else has a problem with this in the thread, only you.


  • #1347
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,055 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Not all you believe the plane was travelling 530mph an hour 3 to 4 feet off the ground. I know what you keep claiming 777 feet a second.

    People who believe a commercial airliner can do this speed at this level are not all there in the head.

    You are just exposing your wilful ignorance now.
    It's accepted consensus that the speeds are correct.
    So what's your current theory de jour?

    And more importantly what actual evidence have you got to back it up?
    Funny how you are avoiding maths again tho, tell you what if it will make fit a little easier to your skewed world view...

    Work out how many frames the plane would appear in at 493mph...


  • #1348
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,906 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    banie01 wrote: »
    You are just exposing your wilful ignorance now.
    It's accepted consensus that the speeds are correct.
    So what's your current theory de jour?

    And more importantly what actual evidence have you got to back it up?
    Funny how you are avoiding maths again tho, tell you what if it will make fit a little easier to your skewed world view...

    Work out how many frames the plane would appear in at 493mph...

    Dont let him deflect, do the same as the 9-11 thread, no matter what he posts everyone needs to just ignore it and keep repeating these questions until.he answers.

    I see he has bailed from the 9-11thread because he can't answer the questions.


  • #1349
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,087 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    This was tried in an actual simulator by a qualified pilot. The results are not surprising.


    This stuff is debunked

    Why are you even using this? you believe that the plane hit the Pentagon

    It's like you're so desperate to hint at some conspiracy, any conspiracy you'll even contradict yourself

    More than anyone in any of these threads your posts are literally making the best argument that the conspiracies are all bonkers


  • #1350
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,055 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Dont let him deflect, do the same as the 9-11 thread, no matter what he posts everyone needs to just ignore it and keep repeating these questions until.he answers.

    I see he has bailed from the 9-11thread because he can't answer the questions.

    Oh believe me, this isn't a let him deflect tactic.
    I'm curious to see what number he comes up with and how it affects his standpoint is all.


  • Advertisement
  • #1351
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    banie01 wrote: »
    You are just exposing your wilful ignorance now.
    It's accepted consensus that the speeds are correct.
    So what's your current theory de jour?

    And more importantly what actual evidence have you got to back it up?
    Funny how you are avoiding maths again tho, tell you what if it will make fit a little easier to your skewed world view...

    Work out how many frames the plane would appear in at 493mph...

    US Government position it was 530mph. Pilots who have tried in real simulators can't do it explain it. The video is proof of this. They visited a pilot instructor working for airlines and he said he could do it.

    It crazy you believe a commercial airliner can fly 530mph 2 to 3 feet from the ground. It not a stealth bomber or advanced fighter jet.


Advertisement