Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cem_devecioglu]

"I've filmed there before down at the Pentagon-- before 9/11-- there's got to be at least 100 cameras, ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come with haven't seen the straight-- I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video; I want to see 100 videos that exist of this," Moore said.

he cant ..  for the obvious reason..

The obvious reason being that it was flying at 500mph. 

Just give Moore another pie or two. That should keep him quiet for a while.

any video camera can picture objects even 5 times faster or more

Come on, Cem! These are CCTV cameras. 

CCCTV cameras can operate in low light, but cannot capture high-speed video. Also, their field of view is rather restricted - deliberately so as they are there to catch intruders on foot. I would expect this field of view to be no more than than a couple of hundred feet at best - any more would make detail of intruders too indistinct.

An aircraft travelling at 500mph covers 700 to 800 ft. per second.   

I'm using cheepo cctv which are 40-50$s each..  and I can watch even the war planes passing

[Nickbat]

"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building."

Ok, find a link to an image of these 'marks' on the Pentagons exterior wall. Just one will do. 

I would imagine that such photographs would be classified. (As indeed, would photographs taken on any MoD property in the UK.)

[Lizzie_Zoom]

"I've filmed there before down at the Pentagon-- before 9/11-- there's got to be at least 100 cameras, ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come with haven't seen the straight-- I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video; I want to see 100 videos that exist of this," Moore said.

he cant ..  for the obvious reason..

The obvious reason being that it was flying at 500mph. 

Just give Moore another pie or two. That should keep him quiet for a while.

any video camera can picture objects even 5 times faster or more

Come on, Cem! These are CCTV cameras. 

CCCTV cameras can operate in low light, but cannot capture high-speed video. Also, their field of view is rather restricted - deliberately so as they are there to catch intruders on foot. I would expect this field of view to be no more than than a couple of hundred feet at best - any more would make detail of intruders too indistinct.

An aircraft travelling at 500mph covers 700 to 800 ft. per second.   

Once again Nick spot on, and I have seen one of those videos.  It shows in a blink of an eye a blurred shape moving at high speed going into the wall.

[cem_devecioglu]

dont forget even the oldest cctv can take 25 frames per second..

[Nickbat]

"I've filmed there before down at the Pentagon-- before 9/11-- there's got to be at least 100 cameras, ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come with haven't seen the straight-- I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video; I want to see 100 videos that exist of this," Moore said.

he cant ..  for the obvious reason..

The obvious reason being that it was flying at 500mph. 

Just give Moore another pie or two. That should keep him quiet for a while.

any video camera can picture objects even 5 times faster or more

Come on, Cem! These are CCTV cameras. 

CCCTV cameras can operate in low light, but cannot capture high-speed video. Also, their field of view is rather restricted - deliberately so as they are there to catch intruders on foot. I would expect this field of view to be no more than than a couple of hundred feet at best - any more would make detail of intruders too indistinct.

An aircraft travelling at 500mph covers 700 to 800 ft. per second.   

I'm using cheepo cctv which are 40-50$s each..  and I can watch even the war planes passing

Maximum speed below 2,000ft over populated areas such as your home would be less than half the speed of the AA B757. Besides, your camera can only pick up such aircraft if it is pointed up towards the sky! Look at most CCTV cameras and they are mounted high looking downwards. The security is concerned with ground-based intruders, so cloud-watching is pretty pointless.       

[cem_devecioglu]

"I've filmed there before down at the Pentagon-- before 9/11-- there's got to be at least 100 cameras, ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come with haven't seen the straight-- I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video; I want to see 100 videos that exist of this," Moore said.

he cant ..  for the obvious reason..

The obvious reason being that it was flying at 500mph. 

Just give Moore another pie or two. That should keep him quiet for a while.

any video camera can picture objects even 5 times faster or more

Come on, Cem! These are CCTV cameras. 

CCCTV cameras can operate in low light, but cannot capture high-speed video. Also, their field of view is rather restricted - deliberately so as they are there to catch intruders on foot. I would expect this field of view to be no more than than a couple of hundred feet at best - any more would make detail of intruders too indistinct.

An aircraft travelling at 500mph covers 700 to 800 ft. per second.   

I'm using cheepo cctv which are 40-50$s each..  and I can watch even the war planes passing

Maximum speed below 2,000ft over populated areas such as your home would be less than half the speed of the AA B757. Besides, your camera can only pick up such aircraft if it is pointed up towards the sky! Look at most CCTV cameras and they are mounted high looking downwards. The security is concerned with ground-based intruders, so cloud-watching is pretty pointless.       

during special events (like air shows) they go really fast and low  and as I said 25 frames are adequate for very high speeds and I'm using 50

and must add most security cameras are wide angle nowadays and can catch really high altitudes..

[cem_devecioglu]

just check the link there are some interesting info
in honestjoe writing..

http://digg.com/news/politics/Michael_Moore_Calls_For_New_9_11_Investigation

did someone check this link ?

[jonnycool]

I'm with Nickbat and Lizzie on this one 

[Turk]

"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building."

Ok, find a link to an image of these 'marks' on the Pentagons exterior wall. Just one will do. 

I would imagine that such photographs would be classified. (As indeed, would photographs taken on any MoD property in the UK.)

Those classified photos, would they look like these ?
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-picture.htm
http://www.visitingdc.com/virginia/pentagon-address.htm


However, one image of the post impact exterior wall slipped through the net:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/pentagon.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kasjo.net/ats/Above_Top_Secret_article_1.htm&usg=__LuI5pcwMV1_X41IU4aVP6GrIoW8=&h=328&w=500&sz=30&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=SbapvMdOxTvjfM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=157&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPentagon%2Bexterior%2Bwall%2Bwings%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D519%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=265&vpy=206&dur=7813&hovh=182&hovw=277&tx=198&ty=98&ei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&oei=LNyLTJPBJM7BswbkveHXAQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0

Gosh...No 'wing' marks !!  :-? 

[TheBoy]

Some of the conspirists theories are compelling, particularly around Pentagon.

But I don't buy it. Not because I believe the authorities - far from it - its just I don't believe they could pull this off.


As for the twin towers, and controlled destruction, remember they had been attacked before.  Its possible they had had a warning, with from the terrorists, or from intelligence, thus rigged the buildings days/weeks/months/years before.  Me own feeling is that the towers were blown.

[Unicornrider]

It's the American government that is questionable, not the people. Of course Bush had a hand in 9/11.

The main priorities for many CIA agents was to obtain footage from any cctv cameras that had an outside view along the last stretch flight path of the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon ?  They knew which 'plane' it was etc, so what use would this be ?

And as for the announcment that the passport of one of the terrorists had been found in the rubble. 

It took a while for me to pay any attention to these conspiracy theory nutters, but there are far too many theories that sound more probable than the ones the U.S governments official announcments would have us believe.   

 

That's the thing...its so unbelievable that an american government would do such a thing its a PERFECT cover.

They know the masses would never believe it....they don't...so they have gotten away with it,just like they knew they would.

Lets face it 60 years ago if someone said ££were gonna walk on the moon"" they would have been laughed at for being a complete idiot,never happen...impossible.

Only it has happened and it is possible...just like the impossible government cover up which is 911.

[jonnycool]

It's the American government that is questionable, not the people. Of course Bush had a hand in 9/11.

The main priorities for many CIA agents was to obtain footage from any cctv cameras that had an outside view along the last stretch flight path of the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon ?  They knew which 'plane' it was etc, so what use would this be ?

And as for the announcment that the passport of one of the terrorists had been found in the rubble. 

It took a while for me to pay any attention to these conspiracy theory nutters, but there are far too many theories that sound more probable than the ones the U.S governments official announcments would have us believe.   

 

That's the thing...its so unbelievable that an american government would do such a thing its a PERFECT cover.

They know the masses would never believe it....they don't...so they have gotten away with it,just like they knew they would.

Lets face it 60 years ago if someone said ££were gonna walk on the moon"" they would have been laughed at for being a complete idiot,never happen...impossible.

Only it has happened and it is possible...just like the impossible government cover up which is 911.

Depends who you talk to 

[jonnycool]

Some of the conspirists theories are compelling, particularly around Pentagon.

But I don't buy it. Not because I believe the authorities - far from it - its just I don't believe they could pull this off.


As for the twin towers, and controlled destruction, remember they had been attacked before.  Its possible they had had a warning, with from the terrorists, or from intelligence, thus rigged the buildings days/weeks/months/years before.  Me own feeling is that the towers were blown.

Me neither

[Turk]

It's the American government that is questionable, not the people. Of course Bush had a hand in 9/11.

The main priorities for many CIA agents was to obtain footage from any cctv cameras that had an outside view along the last stretch flight path of the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon ?  They knew which 'plane' it was etc, so what use would this be ?

And as for the announcment that the passport of one of the terrorists had been found in the rubble. 

It took a while for me to pay any attention to these conspiracy theory nutters, but there are far too many theories that sound more probable than the ones the U.S governments official announcments would have us believe.   

 

That's the thing...its so unbelievable that an american government would do such a thing its a PERFECT cover.

They know the masses would never believe it....they don't...so they have gotten away with it,just like they knew they would.

Lets face it 60 years ago if someone said ££were gonna walk on the moon"" they would have been laughed at for being a complete idiot,never happen...impossible.

Only it has happened and it is possible...just like the impossible government cover up which is 911.

It's 'unbelievably' true.   (although I'm not sure the 'moon landing' example was the best choice when dealing with a conspiracy theory.

[charlie]

It's the American government that is questionable, not the people. Of course Bush had a hand in 9/11.

The main priorities for many CIA agents was to obtain footage from any cctv cameras that had an outside view along the last stretch flight path of the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon ?  They knew which 'plane' it was etc, so what use would this be ?

And as for the announcment that the passport of one of the terrorists had been found in the rubble. 

It took a while for me to pay any attention to these conspiracy theory nutters, but there are far too many theories that sound more probable than the ones the U.S governments official announcments would have us believe.   

 

That's the thing...its so unbelievable that an american government would do such a thing its a PERFECT cover.

They know the masses would never believe it....they don't...so they have gotten away with it,just like they knew they would.

Lets face it 60 years ago if someone said ££were gonna walk on the moon"" they would have been laughed at for being a complete idiot,never happen...impossible.

Only it has happened and it is possible...just like the impossible government cover up which is 911.

Depends who you talk to 

Mr and mrs spoon