| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 68123 | 2006-04-18 09:04:00 | Conspiracy theory anyone | Barnabas (4562) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 447402 | 2006-05-18 02:32:00 | A 757 is a pretty big plane. You'd think at least one frame from that video would show a wing or tail section sticking out of the explosion....but nope no sign of a plane at all. :illogical What a croc... Can't you conspiracy "theorists" do some simple arithmetic? The length of a 757-200 is 47.3 metres, it flies at 850km/hr economical cruising. Let's assume that was the speed it was travelling as it approached the Pentagon at virtually zero feet. It takes 0.2 seconds for 47 metres to pass by. The security video shows a new frame about every 1 second. The estimated field of view from the wall to the right hand edge of the frame would be about one plane length, certainly less than 2 lengths, (you can argue about that estimate if you like), so there is only about a 20% chance of catching a shot of the plane. In other words you'd need 5 planes nose to tail to be certain of getting one in a shot. "Blink an eye and it's gone" .......Memories of Farnborough airshows in the days when they did low level flypasts at 600mph + :)....... If you can't believe the photos of engine and undercarriage parts strewn around the hole then there is not much hope for you lot. www.abovetopsecret.com |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 447403 | 2006-05-18 02:42:00 | Where are the scars on the building from the wings & engines etc? All I can see on the footage is a round hole. Now there should be some damage from wings and engines right? :confused: Your link doesn't load for me. The video I've seen show's no parts that could not have been carried and dropped onsite within minutes of the "crash". |
Sb0h (3744) | ||
| 447404 | 2006-05-18 02:46:00 | The length of a 757-200 is 47.3 metres, it flies at 850km/hr economical cruising. Let's assume that was the speed it was travelling as it approached the Pentagon at virtually zero feet. That's quite a feat to fly a heavy airliner at 850km/hr at virtually zero feet and not touch the grass in front of the pentagon or hit a lamp post or anything else on the way through. I take my hat off to the rookie (and barely trained) pilot. |
Sb0h (3744) | ||
| 447405 | 2006-05-18 03:13:00 | A 757 is a pretty big plane. You'd think at least one frame from that video would show a wing or tail section sticking out of the explosion....but nope no sign of a plane at all. :illogical What a croc... It's no use twisting and turning :), I was addressing your comments above. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 447406 | 2006-05-18 03:23:00 | It's all quite simple. After the protests ouside the Pentagon during the Vietnam war, 15% of the US budget has been devoted to perfecting an invisibility cloak (so that police brutality could be hidden). The one the CIA stole from Harry Potter was being tested at the Pentagon at the time. It works, so the plane, and the people in it were invisible. In the confusion, Harry Potter managed to steal it back, and took his fast broom back to Hogwarts. | Graham L (2) | ||
| 447407 | 2006-05-18 03:28:00 | ...and why is there a black van parked outside my house? :eek: | Sb0h (3744) | ||
| 447408 | 2006-05-18 03:36:00 | It's no use twisting and turning :), I was addressing your comments above. You are right Terry, I concede the chance of actually catching a 757 in a frame from that specific security video is approx 20%. That being true still does not prove a 757 hit the pentagon, just as much as the video does not prove it didn't. (I think I confused myself with that statement) :confused: |
Sb0h (3744) | ||
| 447409 | 2006-05-18 03:59:00 | I'm not a photographer, but I believe with video cameras there is a "shutter time" parameter, probably not effectively faster than 1/60 sec film camera equivalent. So for a stationary non-panning security camera to capture anything more than a faint blur at best is probably expecting too much. Grahams invisibility proposition may not actually be far off the mark :thumbs: If you have tried to snap high speed fly-pasts at air shows, you will know what I mean. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 447410 | 2006-05-18 04:26:00 | Unfortunately I don't own a camera good enough to even attempt to capture close up shots of aircraft in flight. I live along the flight path to ChCh Intl airport and would love to get a shot of one of the large jets coming in with the low pressure vortex swirling over the flaps and wing tips. Hmmm telephoto lens might be required for that, maybe one day. ;) | Sb0h (3744) | ||
| 447411 | 2006-05-18 04:39:00 | In the 1950s I worked for Joseph Lucas Gas Turbine Equipment, and we used to get a free trip to Farnborough, and on non-VIP days we could use the Lucas box which gave a front row view of the runway. I had what was effectively a 1/60 second Kodak box camera with 127 black and white film. Trying to get a snap of someone like Neville Duke going past at 600mph in a Hawker Hunter was impossible :) I think I got the odd blur or two. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | |||||