BF2S Forums Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack

--->[Your]Phobia<--- wrote:

Can some one please explain these (esp usmarine/lowing/ATG)

http://www.livevideo.com/video/6F393F4D … part1.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/2CE2112F … part2.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/E0E8DC73 … part3.aspx

I only managed to stomach the first couple minutes of the first video. 

On the CNN footage.  Goes black for a second.  Most broadcasts, even then, go to air on a several second delay.  The most likely explanation is that somone in the control room suddenly thought that they should not broadcast that.  But that is just speculation.

Okay, now for a physics lesson.  For the CNN shot, how far do you think the camera was from the towers?  They had the magnification dialed up pretty high (I am surmising this from the shake and shimmer on the camera.)  A conservative estimate of 2 miles, say.  Sound travels at 330 meters per second at sea level.  2 miles is 3200 meters.  Thus, if the camera was 2 miles away, the sound of the explosion would take almost 10 seconds to reach the camera location.

More conjecture now.  I did not watch CNN that day, but would not be suprised if the cameraman was by himself at that location, and the reporter was just watching the footage and reporting what he saw from somewhere else.  Several agencies do just that.  If the cameraman WAS by himself, there would not even be a microphone on in that location.

Now as for the producers wife.  she was giving a phone interview.  Being IN New York, she most likely had access to local channels, radio or television, that most people around the world did not know.  Before the interview began, she may have heard a rumor that it was a plane that hit the first building.  Before going on the air, she just MIGHT have been told by the producers not to mention that rumor until they could confirm it.  (That would be known as "journalism").  When she saw the second plane hit, she blurted out that 'another plane' hit, because she connected it with the rumor of the first plane.  But since the rumor was not mentioned on the air before, it sounded odd to people listening.  Also, people wonder how she saw it hit the tower; did anyone think she was looking at it on TV like everyone else in the country? She said she could see it, but did not say how.  And even if she COULD see it with her eyes; we are only talking about some of the tallest buildings in the WORLD!  If you can get a clear sightline, they can be seen from 20 miles away!  As for seeing a plane from that far, you can see a plane at 30,000 feet flying overhead.  THay are not exactly small either.  30,000 feet is, just guessing here, 6 miles? 

Okay, that is all I saw before I closed it in disgust.  Too many people in this country learn their physics and sense of reality from movies.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

What up with the videotape of "the pentagon impact"? It was hastily confiscated and once released, had nothing on it.

It was released.  It was security camera footage of a parking lot.  The plane was caught on 2 frames of film as it was just about to hit the ground.  What, you expected multiple coverage from different angles?  Kinda lucky even that much was caught.

^^ lol

Serious factual argument right there.

imortal wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

What up with the videotape of "the pentagon impact"? It was hastily confiscated and once released, had nothing on it.

It was released.  It was security camera footage of a parking lot.  The plane was caught on 2 frames of film as it was just about to hit the ground.  What, you expected multiple coverage from different angles?  Kinda lucky even that much was caught.

The pentagon is the most secure facility in the world. I can guarantee you there were multiple cameras filming that spot, and if there was video of a plane hitting the pentagon they would have released it quickly. The fact that they have been so selective in releasing only four frames AND refusing to release anything else should tell you that they are doing that because they don't have footage of a plane hitting the pentagon.

JimmyBotswana wrote:

imortal wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

What up with the videotape of "the pentagon impact"? It was hastily confiscated and once released, had nothing on it.

It was released.  It was security camera footage of a parking lot.  The plane was caught on 2 frames of film as it was just about to hit the ground.  What, you expected multiple coverage from different angles?  Kinda lucky even that much was caught.

The pentagon is the most secure facility in the world. I can guarantee you there were multiple cameras filming that spot, and if there was video of a plane hitting the pentagon they would have released it quickly. The fact that they have been so selective in releasing only four frames AND refusing to release anything else should tell you that they are doing that because they don't have footage of a plane hitting the pentagon.

The pentagon is NOT the most secure facility in the world.  There are NOT cameras covering every single inch of land coming up to it.  I suspect that your image of the pentagon is based on a foreigners ( by which I mean an outsider looking in) point of view as well as a civilian point of view.  It is hard for you to accept that anything as important as the headquarters for the entire United States military MUST be as well protected as everyone assumes Fort Knox to be.

I should mention at this point that while I was never stationed at the Pentagon, I know people who were.  Also, I pulled a stint as  a shift security NCO for the III Corps headquarters building in Fort Hood, TX.  I know a bit about both the military, and how the security concept works.

The building security really starts at the lobby. There are barriers outside to prevent people driving car bombs up, but that is it, but the serious security starts when you walk through the doors.  Why?  You have to look at the threats the security was designed to handle.  Prior to 9/11, the major threats against the Pentagon itself were car or truck bombs.  This was handled by making it as difficult as possible to bring a vehicle bomb into range of the building, and by renovationg the Pentagon to be bomb-resistant.  It was that very fact of rennovation itself which helped hold down the casualties at the Pentagon on 9/11.  Other than that simple measure, there is very little security to the exterior of the building.  Why should there be?  Cameras to cover the doorways and fire escapes, yes.  But those cameras would be trained on the ground in front of the door.  Stand 15 feets away and you cannot be seen.  That is so you can see faces and idenitfy people using those access points.  Other than that, what is the point?  There is nothing a person or two can do outside the building to affect them.  Even the cameras in the Parking lot are there more to prevent vandalism and theft to the vehicles than anything else.  Even a sniper or other attack would be handled by the civilian authorites.  There is just no REASON to have cameras to think  "... there were multiple cameras filming that spot."

Also, unless you personally were on a team to actually install those mythical cameras, were a security officer at the pentagon who would view footage from those same cameras of yours, or you were a tourist and took pictures of all of those camera instalations, you cannot "guarantee" anything of the sort.  You can only surmise.

***EDITED to correct a spelling error.

Last edited by imortal (2007-06-23 08:31:03)

JimmyBotswana wrote:

imortal wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

What up with the videotape of "the pentagon impact"? It was hastily confiscated and once released, had nothing on it.

It was released.  It was security camera footage of a parking lot.  The plane was caught on 2 frames of film as it was just about to hit the ground.  What, you expected multiple coverage from different angles?  Kinda lucky even that much was caught.

The pentagon is the most secure facility in the world. I can guarantee you there were multiple cameras filming that spot, and if there was video of a plane hitting the pentagon they would have released it quickly. The fact that they have been so selective in releasing only four frames AND refusing to release anything else should tell you that they are doing that because they don't have footage of a plane hitting the pentagon.

Go to the pentagon, it's not as secure as you might think, but security cameras have a low FPS rate, and a jet moving at 500mph would only appear on one or two frames