jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
Have you actually read what I said?
I never said they can't show it because the image is not clear enough, the reason I bring HD into the question is to illustrate to you how many storage space you need for ONE SINGLE camera. to operate.
The camera (any camera) can record 24/7, but that does not mean we would have 24/7 footage from that Camera due to the Unique Feature of CCTV design. That's they are multi-Camera design, that mean they will need to LOOP thru all the camera because let say you have 4 different camera for 1 CCTV system, you record all 4 into 1 single storage device. And that device in 2001 can not be bigger than 120Gb, because at that time, the world is still trying to break thru from IDE (Which limited device storage to 100GB) And scientist made the break thru to 120GB in 2002.
Now, I used to work in Pentagon, I know exactly how many CCTV there are (as I was part of the DSS Counterintelligence team), but I cannot tell you how many there are, let's say it's 100 (It's more than 100, a lot more) Which mean 100 camera would loop thru the same 100GB Drive and record 100 different image in the same second, which mean it will take 100 second to pass thru actual time pass (1 second) which mean your time gap (or storage gap) is 100 second delay, which mean if I am looking at the Camera 1 on the CCTV this second, the next second the image was recorded on Camera 1 would be the at 100th second in real time, so camera 1 record on a rate of 1 minutes 40 second per frame, which mean if anything happened on Camera 1, unless to that exact second, otherwise it was not recorded again until 100 seconds have passed, because all other camera (camera 2- 100) have to loop thru and deposit their image to the server before it route back to camera 1
Another issue with camera at that time is their exposure rate is not really that good. It cannot capture a plane flying at 650 miles/hour
As I told you, Top Gear have done a speed camera test (speed camera should have the best frame rate and exposure rate because it would be needed to bust speeding driver) and their test say if you can go past 173mph, it is above the camera limits. And the test is done in 2002. You can go search for it on Season 1 Top Gear.
Hence since the storage and the exposure problem, there might not be a photo or video for you.
It won't, both due to storage gap and the speed of the aircraft. See Above.
You do know that footage is what we called a Time-lapse footage? Right? It's the same as this
That is because the storage gap I told you before, the camera while they captured movie, but they store as a frame by frame because there are hundred of other CCTV camera trying to access the data farm and record images on the same Device at the same time. That camera show an unknown time gap. Which mean there may not be any footage if they did not loop it back at the exact moment.
Just because some camera caught a glimpse of it, it does not mean there must be one that capture it on record.
It won't. the problem is, the plane, the whole plane is travelling above 650 mph when it crash into the building. Which mean literally, when the plane felt apart, each and everything down to the last screw would have travel at the same speed before it rest, and with 650 mph speed, you usually cannot distinguish it between parts of aircraft. Effectively, the aircraft broke clean and became a shot gun. Unlike slow speed control crash into terrain, where you try to minimize the angle of attack and speed wrt the ground, the debris ended up "Skipping" instead of passing straight thru.
I have already show you the picture of high speed crash into terrain Here it is again
Using your own eyes, CAN YOU LOCATE THE COCKPIT, THE WING AND THE TAIL SECTION OF THE AIRCARFT?
Most large debris would have but cut up and embedded into the building structure itself. It's impossible to get a single piece of intact debris if the explosion is internal, because you don't just hit with the explosive force itself, but also the reactive force to the structure you hit, which mean the debris would have been diced up twice or more time.
Even on a high speed crash into terrain without other impeding structure like the German Wing Crash, there would be some debris big enough to survive but not big enough to know where they came from exactly, now imagine these "Bigger" piece of debris got chuck into a building with a speed of 650+ mph, Basically, it's like you put a fish on the bender, you start the blender once on high speed, majority of the structure of that fish would be gone, but when you start the bender again, the smaller pieces that left would not have a chance.
About how to fly a plane into a building, you need to know in a Boeing 757 (My brother fix Boeing 757 and he himself flew the 757 a few time) once you know the location of where you want to go, your autopilot will take you there, and everyone knows where the Pentagon was, it is at 38.87099°N 77.05596°W, so , autopilot will take you there, and as long as you know how to use the Autopilot to intercept the Glideslope, you can make a descend very easy because the computer will make the gradual descend for you, the only thing you need to do is to control the throttle and set the rate of descend, which in this case is easy too, because you go in with full throttle and you are not landing.
As long as the "Rag Tag Muslim" trained on how to use the Flight Computer, they can ask the computer the fly the plane in for them, Boeing 757 is not an aircraft from the 1950s, you don't need to fly the plane yourself, it strange you did not know this.
First of all, any type of fire can cause this level of destruction, as long as you leave the fire burning.
And what you don't know, again, as with many conspiracy theorist is that, CHEMICAL FIRE (where you burn jet fuel with combustible material) and a FLASH FIRE have different properties, I already made an assertion on Chemical Fire burning on another thread about 911 fire compare to the Glenfell Tower, I am not going to cover it again.
But to sum up, there are 2 reasons.
1.) Chemical fire that goes with Structure damage will magnify the result of either one (Chemical and Structure) because not only the fire itself will damage the structure, the structure itself would have also been damaged by the unburned chemical.
2.) Many people incorrectly assume AFS (automatic fire suppression) system can take out a fire without little damage. This is WRONG IN MANY LEVEL. The first thing is, you don't know what they use to fight fire in AFS, most commonly, water, and it will do nothing in this case because it is a chemical fire, where water only will help spill the chemical further. Which mean spill the fire after it have started. Another common system is CO2 (or liquid CO2) because CO2 is denser than air, which basically work by CO2 will blanket the fire and separate Oxygen to the Fuel, and then break the fire triangle. But this is not CO2 suppression system, because if this is, then there will not be any survivor coming out of the Pentagon unless they can fly or float above the room, because CO2 would also taken out breathable oxygen and basically just suffocate the people that left inside to death.
Then there are another reason, maybe the fire or damage taken out the Central AFS system? AFS have to draw two thing, either the fire fighting component or electricity. One for fire fighting, and the second for triggering the AFS, if the line to either or both is cut for, say structural failure, then AFS would not work.
However, judging from the survivor being scramble out of the burning pentagon, the AFS, if running is probably running on water not CO2, not Foam (otherwise people will be covered with foam) not argon gas (or other noble gas) otherwise no one will be able to come out.
I don't really care where you are from, or what you think the America is doing, I care about your present your point without facts and most likely without basic to immediate knowledge on the subject matter, what make you worse than these conspiracy theorist is that you try to deceive people by "Claiming" you have an open mind to evidence, but in reality, you only open to "Evidence" that suit your agenda. All in the while if you have actually process some basic knowledge on how thing works and do some basic research, there are no lacking evidence there for you to "Believe" hence, you are selecting evidence to purport your agenda.
All in the while you keep asking why this and why that. that would suggest to me that you don't know how things work. you don't know how fire works (otherwise you would not have say AFS should be more than enough to suppress the fire), how explosive work (Otherwise you would not suggest this is a missile or bomb attack) there are only one thing in your mind, which is US is faking this, and you try to search for evidence that suit you and only play them here and ignore the rest.
If this is a case of court, not in the US, may be in Switzerland or Sweden, and you accuse of US government fake this incident and is alledged it is a missile attack or bomb attack otherwise a high speed control collision to a building, you will lost the case. And you know why?
I have show evidence that the crash is similar to the known high speed collision into building example. The Fire suppression system and how it work, how CCTV works and why there may not be an image for the proof. And the problem is, beside claiming no image exist publicly (in itself does not mean those image does not exist) and the explosion should not be that and should have been something else (Where you did not support your theory, and I have put in why this cannot be a missile or bomb attack) which mean all you do is made accusation, but not one supporting evidence you show are supporting your claim. And hence you will lose the court case if there is one.
In the end, if you just admitted that you are a conspiracy theorist, I may not actually interested in this conversation, because I see Conspiracy Theorist is people who know jack shit about something and trying to make a buck by making wave. But since you said you are "OPEN MINDED" That's why I am here to challenge you.
And in case you are wondering,
My brother is a Boeing Engine Engineer with 16 years working for Boeing and 10 years working in the USAF.
My wife is a Doctoral of Law and is a trial and case lawyer with 10 years experience, before that she is a advocate general for Swedish Army.
I am a former Soldier, trained with Sapper and Counterintelligence. With 7.5 years experience.
May I know your qualification so we can put it on equal term?
Last edited:
