Can YOU Debunk This?

[TheLoneBedouin]

Maybe video expert Mangoose can?

6cdJSHwtsIM

[Grizzly Bear]

Maybe video expert Mangoose can?

6cdJSHwtsIM

Oh! OH! I have a question!!! =O
Did he intentionally ignore the plane at the very end of the video? :)

[dtugg]

Why are these evil conspirators always faking video of events that all kinds of people saw?

[Thunder]

waaaaay too much time on your hands.

[Sizzler]

First of all, I didn't see a plane in that video; just a fireball.

The producer of the video is essentially claiming the fireball is faked.

So this leads me to wonder why the video faker(s) didn't just add a plane to the faked video.

Anyhow, can anyone here tell me why his analysis is wrong. Why isn't the fireball different sizes in each video?

[Pardalis]

What is the focal length of each camera TLB?

[defaultdotxbe]

pentascam? are they seriously ripping off pentacon now?

[Grizzly Bear]

First of all, I didn't see a plane in that video; just a fireball.



Toward the very end you see the plane, though they start the clips on the one frame that the plane comes into view:

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/152/1110200881531pmcy5.jpg

[Sizzler]

Toward the very end you see the plane, though they start the clips on the one frame that the plane comes into view:

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/152/1110200881531pmcy5.jpg

From that video alone, it is not apparent that it is a plane. I admit I see a thin white thingy which seems to be traveling at a high velocity, but using this video alone, I cannot say it looks like, or is a plane, beyond a reasonable doubt.

If one adds eye-witness testimony and debris found at the crash site, it becomes more likely that the white thingy is the front end of a plane.

I guess my point was, if the video is faked, why not add an image of a plane that is more easily distinguishable from analysis of the video alone?

Any ideas as to why the fireballs appear to be the same size?

[Brainster]

Toward the very end you see the plane, though they start the clips on the one frame that the plane comes into view:

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/152/1110200881531pmcy5.jpg

That's not the plane that you have highlighted; it's the smoke coming from the starboard engine. At the very far left of the area you highlighted you can see the tail of the plane.

As for the OP, calculate how far away the two respective cameras were from the point of impact, then tell us how different the fireballs should look. I'm guessing that the fireball from the forward camera should be maybe 1% or so larger than the fireball from the guard shack; too small a difference to be observed on grainy video. And that's before we talk about the effects of the fish-eye lens.

[gumboot]

One word.

Perspective.

When you conspiracy theorists grasp this concept come back and we'll talk. The person that made that video has no grasp of lens theory.

[Grizzly Bear]

From that video alone, it is not apparent that it is a plane. I admit I see a thin white thingy which seems to be traveling at a high velocity, but using this video alone, I cannot say it looks like, or is a plane, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The videos are crap quality... but the youtub video doesn't acknowledge them in the footage. It's my nit pick for the day...

[Thunder]

That's not the plane that you have highlighted; it's the smoke coming from the starboard engine. At the very far left of the area you highlighted you can see the tail of the plane.

As for the OP, calculate how far away the two respective cameras were from the point of impact, then tell us how different the fireballs should look. I'm guessing that the fireball from the forward camera should be maybe 1% or so larger than the fireball from the guard shack; too small a difference to be observed on grainy video. And that's before we talk about the effects of the fish-eye lens.

when object A is 200 feet away from camera 1...and 190 feet away from camera 2...the difference in size of the two images is negligable.

debunked.

:D

[Drudgewire]

Can YOU Debunk This?


Beyond "it's being posted by TheLoneBedouin?" I can't imagine needing more evidence than that. :D

[Slayhamlet]

Maybe video expert Mangoose can?

6cdJSHwtsIM

Considering the minimal distance between the two cameras compared with the great distance of the impact from each camera, the difference in the size and perspective of the fireball would be quite negligible. Debunked.

Edit: Parky beat me to it.

[MIKILLINI]

Debunk what? There's nothing to debunk here. Obviously you haven't considered what is the difference of anything seen at a much further distance.
Is this all you have?

[Thunder]

wow...debunking is getting easier and easier. too bad this guy probably spent like 23 hours putting this nonesense together.

i suggest volleyball, softball, hiking, knitting, bird watching, rock climbing,....

[bje]

Maybe video expert Mangoose can?

According to CIT's flight path and Rob Balsamo's animated video, eyewitnesses should have seen and heard this as AA 77 flew towards, over, and away from the Pentagon:

6bFh2NeD32Y

Can you debunk CIT and P4t?

[Thunder]

"Negative Maverick..the flight deck is full".

:D

[gumboot]

According to CIT's flight path and Rob Balsamo's animated video, eyewitnesses should have seen and heard this as AA 77 flew towards, over, and away from the Pentagon:

6bFh2NeD32Y

Can you debunk CIT and P4t?


They are self-debunking. Just add water.

[Mangoose]

Notice that props given by the video author:

WORD UP:
NICO HAUPT, SIMON SHACK, BSREG, YOURRROOM101, POLLENb, HEAVYPLASTICIAN, GENGHIS,CNN911FAKES,THEONLYREALAZZ,PHOTO FU


No further evidence needed to show that Pentagon crash deniers are just another breed of no-planers.

I don't quite get what the video is trying prove. It doesn't attempt to establish the distance between the two cameras; from using Google Earth, that seems to be about 20 feet. The distance to the car for video A was about 5 feet, the distance to the car for video B was about 25 feet. That involves a difference between the two of about 80%. But the distance to the impact site respectively was about 644 and 665 feet -- involving a difference of only 3.2%. And the "background object" used as a reference point in the video (the penthouse of the Potomac at River House) was respectively 4,290 and 4,310 feet -- involving a difference of only 0.5%. So why should one be surprised to find almost no perceptible difference between the placement of the "background object" in the two videos, a small amount in the case of the fireball/smoke plume, and a huge amount in the case of the car just a few feet away from the camera in video A?

[Mangoose]

From that video alone, it is not apparent that it is a plane. I admit I see a thin white thingy which seems to be traveling at a high velocity, but using this video alone, I cannot say it looks like, or is a plane, beyond a reasonable doubt.


If you are talking about video A, look at what is in front of the "thin white thingy". Our own RKOwens4 made a video intended to point it out:

Z8v8ai2-S0Q

I don't agree 100% with his analysis (I have provided mine elsewhere), but I am convinced that the plane is visible in the frame -- though it blends in with the background. In my own analysis, I have observed how the patterns of light and dark fit together well with what can be observed in the buildings in the background. And of course the same feature corresponding to the vertical stabilizer is visible in both videos.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96597&page=2

[Sizzler]

If you are talking about video A, look at what is in front of the "thin white thingy". Our own RKOwens4 made a video intended to point it out:

Z8v8ai2-S0Q

I don't agree 100% with his analysis (I have provided mine elsewhere), but I am convinced that the plane is visible in the frame -- though it blends in with the background. In my own analysis, I have observed how the patterns of light and dark fit together well with what can be observed in the buildings in the background. And of course the same feature corresponding to the vertical stabilizer is visible in both videos.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96597&page=2

Thanks for the link to the video. I haven't seen that before. I think it is very interesting, yet I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane indeed does blend in with the background.

[CurtC]

The producer of the video is essentially claiming the fireball is faked.

How can you tell that? I watched it and have no idea what the point was. If the point was to somehow show that the fireballs were fake, what was all that other stuff with the car and the big white vertical bars? That made no sense.

[TheLoneBedouin]

I don't quite get what the video is trying prove. It doesn't attempt to establish the distance between the two cameras; from using Google Earth, that seems to be about 20 feet. The distance to the car for video A was about 5 feet, the distance to the car for video B was about 25 feet. That involves a difference between the two of about 80%. But the distance to the impact site respectively was about 644 and 665 feet -- involving a difference of only 3.2%. And the "background object" used as a reference point in the video (the penthouse of the Potomac at River House) was respectively 4,290 and 4,310 feet -- involving a difference of only 0.5%. So why should one be surprised to find almost no perceptible difference between the placement of the "background object" in the two videos, a small amount in the case of the fireball/smoke plume, and a huge amount in the case of the car just a few feet away from the camera in video A?

What latitude and longitude are you using for the security cameras?

[lee5]

What latitude and longitude are you using for the security cameras?

After making your post look retarded, that is all you have to say?

And why don't you look for yourself?

Do you have any rebuttal for what he said?

edit...

using my best guess as to where the cameras are I got this....

38.872694, -77.058273 for the camera furthest away and 38.872654,-77.05827 for the closer camera.

What is your point?

Do me a favor and take two pictures. One 20 feet closer than the other. Tell me how much closer things in the background appear vs. things that are close by. Then, try this with a fish eye lens.

Please come back with your results.

Gawd are truthers really this stupid? I mean, I knew they were stupid but really?

[gumboot]

Gawd are truthers really this stupid? I mean, I knew they were stupid but really?

That's nothing

One of them once measured the height of the barrier in the Pentagon video footage and then applied it to the background to prove the "airliner" was too small to be an airliner, but must in fact be a cruise missile. Of course, following his logic, the Pentagon was about 15ft high.

Yes, that's right. He made no attempt whatsoever to take into account perspective. No, I'm serious.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Sigh.

Posting truthervideos on the internet has turned into graffitti of the -00's - just a way to get your tag up.

[lee5]

That's nothing

One of them once measured the height of the barrier in the Pentagon video footage and then applied it to the background to prove the "airliner" was too small to be an airliner, but must in fact be a cruise missile. Of course, following his logic, the Pentagon was about 15ft high.

Yes, that's right. He made no attempt whatsoever to take into account perspective. No, I'm serious.

:boggled:

Wow, seriously, that is 6th grade material, if that.

[facepalm]

[JoeyDonuts]

One of them once measured the height of the barrier in the Pentagon video footage and then applied it to the background to prove the "airliner" was too small to be an airliner, but must in fact be a cruise missile.

I don't suppose this gentleman was kind enough to elaborate on what type of cruise missile it might have been...or why the damage at the Pentagon was completely inconsistent with the blast pattern and dynamics of a unitary HE warhead.

[double facepalm]

[nicepants]

A 5-minute, 20-second Argument from Ignorance

Next.

[lee5]

I think we are all underestimating the power of youtube.

It seems to have magical powers that convince people that what they see is real and truth, no matter how much it defies logic.

I really need to make a youtube video. :)

[JoeyDonuts]

I'd like to make one where it's all medieval and stuff...then I hit this guy in the shoulder with a sword for no reason and he goes down all slow and stuff. Then this blacksmith gives me a different sword that looks exactly the same as the first one. I'd walk around all slow and dramatic swing it in circles awkwardly...and I'd do it all with greasy black hair and a fur pelt because I would be Ronnie James Dio.

End of Derail.

[TheDaver]

What the **** is this?

No, seriously, what the **** is this?!

[Thunder]

Gawd are truthers really this stupid? I mean, I knew they were stupid but really?

it does appear so. our education system really needs help.

[Crazytimes]

Ahh....another moron pointing out that the plane is not very visible in the video. *** Newsflash *** - The video is shot at 1 frame per second. The plane was traveling at 750 feet per second. Why are they still suprised they dont see the plane fly smoothly through the video ??

My god....

[16.5]

That's nothing

One of them once measured the height of the barrier in the Pentagon video footage and then applied it to the background to prove the "airliner" was too small to be an airliner, but must in fact be a cruise missile. Of course, following his logic, the Pentagon was about 15ft high.

Yes, that's right. He made no attempt whatsoever to take into account perspective. No, I'm serious.

Dude that was Terral! One of last year's stundie finalists:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104033

He was awesome!

[Bobert]

wow...debunking is getting easier and easier. too bad this guy probably spent like 23 hours putting this nonesense together.

i suggest volleyball, softball, hiking, knitting, bird watching, rock climbing,....
........watching grass grow, paint peel, counting tiles......

[Bobert]

Aaaaaaaah the Wooooo is strong within this one!

[Thunder]

Aaaaaaaah the Wooooo is strong within this one!

"I sense......a brain, somewhere, Skywalker!!! You have intelligence...you have logic....but you dont use them. "

[Mangoose]

What latitude and longitude are you using for the security cameras?


38°52'21.52"N
77° 3'29.82"W (camera A)

38°52'21.73"N
77° 3'29.70"W (camera B)

using my best guess as to where the cameras are I got this....

38.872694, -77.058273 for the camera furthest away and 38.872654,-77.05827 for the closer camera.


That's close to what I got. The main difference is that you place camera B at the southwest corner of the shack at the entrance to the Pentagon Mall Terrace Parking Lot, whereas I have it halfway across the south face of the shack. The problem is that there aren't any great closeup photos of the shack. This 9/11 image by Mike Garcia is the best I've got (although I didn't check my files completely):

http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/3886/623me9.jpg

There is a feature halfway across the top of the south face that might be the location of the camera. The 9/14 image by Cedric Rudisill is the next best image and shows two objects that look like they might be cameras on the roof at the northwest and southeast corners (in addition to the feature mentioned above) but these are absent in the photo given here. Because the Rudisill photo was taken from a helicopter looking across a large distance, I think it is more likely that these two objects are litter on the ground. But it is possible that the camera might be at the southeast corner.

In either case, I fail to see the problem that "greatbenwa" imagines.

[Mangoose]

Here is a linkie for the kiddies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

"Nearby objects have a larger parallax than more distant objects when observed from different positions."

[Thunder]

This MUST be photo fakery!!! We ALL know an airplane can't be this big!!! And the moon isnt this small!!.....Um....is it??? Oh my golly!!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/1/128299534_3f45b7015c.jpg?v=1155273592

[Bobert]

"I sense......a brain, somewhere, Skywalker!!! You have intelligence...you have logic....but you dont use them. "
:D

[TheLoneBedouin]

Coordinates (Decimal Degrees)

Camera 1 (Far):
38.872694, -77.058273

Camera 2 (near):
38.872639, -77.058281

Corner of Pentagon Ridge (near):
38.871940, -77.058106

Corner of Pentagon Ridge (far):
38.870713, -77.058385

Distances (Approximate)

Camera 1 - Camera 2:
19.85'

Cam1 - Impact:
627.85'

Cam2 - Impact:
603.08'

Cam1 - Near Ridge:
273.45'

Cam2 - Near Ridge:
254.12'

Cam1 - Far Ridge:
720'

Cam2 - Far Ridge:
700'

Summary of Calculations


Object D1 D2 Diff. Displacement (Degrees)
Car 25' 5' 80% Not Measured

NRidge 270' 255' 7% 15 (105)

FRidge 720' 700' 3% 3 (93)

House 4,390' 4,310' 0.05% 0 (90)

Explosion 630' 600' 4% 0 (90)



Distances in the above table are approximations- the exact figures previously listed were used for calculations.

D1 = Distance From Cam 1
D2 = Distance From Cam 2
NRidge = Corner of Ridge Nearest Camera
FRidge = Corner of Ridge farthest from Camera
House = Background Marker/ Penthouse

Degree of displacement measures the disimilarity in position when the camera images are superimposed. The two images are alligned and a point locating a specific object is placed in each image (The point was assigned to recognizable figures. The image was magnified until a pixel signifying a corner or line signifying an edge could be determined.). The angle of the resultant line is measured (measurements are in parentheses in table) and the degree to which the angle differs from 90 is the angle of displacement.

Greater differences between D1 and D2 correlate with greater displacements.

The explosion should have had a displacement between 3 and 15 degrees, but miraculously has a displacement of 0. Also note that the only displacemnent of 0 is for an object 7 times farther away from the camera than the explosion!* Therefore we can conclude that the tape was manipulated.

*I used the point of impact in these calculations, but had I used the explosion front, the difference between distances and subsequent displacement should have been even higher!

Images

Example of a "Ridge"- the structures which protrude from all sides of the Pentagon (http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk233/Janusaur/600px-Pentagon.jpg)

Ridge Front (http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk233/Janusaur/pentvid1.jpg)

Ridge End (http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk233/Janusaur/pentvid2.jpg)

Explosion (http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk233/Janusaur/doubleline.jpg)

[Trojan]

This reminds me of the moving bridge youtube crap ...

[Mangoose]

Degree of displacement measures the disimilarity in position when the camera images are superimposed. The two images are alligned and a point locating a specific object is placed in each image....The explosion should have had a displacement between 3 and 15 degrees, but miraculously has a displacement of 0. Also note that the only displacemnent of 0 is for an object 7 times farther away from the camera than the explosion!* Therefore we can conclude that the tape was manipulated.


FAIL!

Zero displacement, huh?

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/6782/regpent4aob6.jpg

[TheLoneBedouin]

FAIL!

Zero displacement, huh?

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/6782/regpent4aob6.jpg

Uh, that's neither the picture nor the object in question.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_26184491a4e063c992.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14272)

You don't even have to superimpose the images- Just align them properly. As you can see, the ends of the explosion form a perfect 90 degree angle. Download the image and draw a line connecting the edges of the background images from the two videos- it forms a 90 angle too but is over 7 times the distance from the camera!

Errata: House diff. should equal approx. 0.5%. House D1 = 4310, D2 = 4290.

[16.5]

Uh, that's neither the picture nor the object in question.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_26184491a4e063c992.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14272)

You don't even have to superimpose the images- Just align them properly. As you can see, the ends of the explosion form a perfect 90 degree angle. Download the image and draw a line connecting the edges of the background images from the two videos- it forms a 90 angle too but is over 7 times the distance from the camera!

I have no idea what you are talking about. Taking into account the minimal difference you are talking about, they are different. Look at that "H" shape right above the ridge. Just eyeballing it you can tell it is elongated to the left of the photograph, hell, the whole thing is elongated to the left.

[gumboot]

Degree of displacement measures the disimilarity in position when the camera images are superimposed. The two images are alligned and a point locating a specific object is placed in each image (The point was assigned to recognizable figures. The image was magnified until a pixel signifying a corner or line signifying an edge could be determined.). The angle of the resultant line is measured (measurements are in parentheses in table) and the degree to which the angle differs from 90 is the angle of displacement.



Um... I hate to pee in your teapot, but you don't know the focal length of either camera so this entire step is meaningless. In fact, your entire process is meaningless. You clearly don't understand anything about cameras.

[Mangoose]

Of course you think the two images create "a perfect 90 degree angle" -- you're working off a crappy quality Youtube video!

But if you register the two videos (such that there is no parallax with the background objects), and then duplicate the image directly below (thereby avoiding alignment errors between the two images), you can easily see that the angle formed is not perfectly 90 degrees:

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/8440/pentregcompkh8.jpg

[MIKILLINI]

Once again, another drive down twoof avenue, same result:
http://www.ebibleteacher.com/images/twreck2.jpg

[beachnut]

Maybe video expert Mangoose can?


7 years, the dolt who did the video failed to learn about lousy parking lot camera lenses. Why do idiots post crap about stuff they have zero education, experience and abilities in. Why did you post a dumbed-down video showing the 9/11 truth movement is pure anti-intellectual claptrap?

Ignorance on lousy parking lot camera lens is not a crime, and making yourself look stupid is not either. His complete ignorance is protected by the constitution or something.

At least SPreston rubber stamped his work.

Dirt dumb video and support to match.
Next time bring out the optics theory and use some math instead of messing up math, and displaying a disrespect for science.

[MIKILLINI]

This MUST be photo fakery!!! We ALL know an airplane can't be this big!!! And the moon isnt this small!!.....Um....is it??? Oh my golly!!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/1/128299534_3f45b7015c.jpg?v=1155273592

Here's an even better photo fakery...and it's really faked! Truthers would argue the moon doesn't look like that. :p

http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/medias/nmedia/00/02/36/52/et5.jpg

[bje]

Here's an even better photo fakery...and it's really faked! Truthers would argue the moon doesn't look like that. :p

What moon (http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm)?

[MIKILLINI]

What moon (http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm)?

The stupid of that site really burns...Wow!

Someone's been putting up fake imagery and called it the moon all these years?
Imagine that! A hoax since...hmmm..well since someone looked up to the sky and decided there had to be a thing called a moon and decided what it should look like. How did they do that?

Or, most likely, it could have been different things at different times and different places, depending on the technology available to the conspirators and the culture and beliefs of the population being deceived.

That explains it; truther logic.

[Thunder]

Here's an even better photo fakery...and it's really faked! Truthers would argue the moon doesn't look like that. :p

http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/medias/nmedia/00/02/36/52/et5.jpg

dude...who rides a 10 speed anymore?

i call fakery!!!!!!

[MIKILLINI]

dude...who rides a 10 speed anymore?

i call fakery!!!!!!

:dl:

More like a one speed, but the front looks modified. I think it's a fake bike.:D

[A W Smith]

Here's an even better photo fakery...and it's really faked! Truthers would argue the moon doesn't look like that. :p

http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/medias/nmedia/00/02/36/52/et5.jpg


Nobody noticed that the wheelbase of that bike is over 350 miles?
about how many Lincoln town car front grilles is that?

[MIKILLINI]

Nobody noticed that the wheelbase of that bike is over 350 miles?
about how many Lincoln town car front grilles is that?

Depends on the model year of the Lincoln.;)

[X]

The stupid of that site really burns...Wow!

Someone's been putting up fake imagery and called it the moon all these years?
Imagine that! A hoax since...hmmm..well since someone looked up to the sky and decided there had to be a thing called a moon and decided what it should look like. How did they do that?


Not only that, they uncovered the truth behind 9/11 (http://www.revisionism.nl/Sept11/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm)! All our work keeping the gubmint sheeple and truther sheeple chasing after false stories, and now they've gone and exposed it.



Depends on the model year of the Lincoln.;)


By a strange coincidence, it measures 350 Lincoln grills.
What can I say? The '68 is a BIG car.


Actually, if anybody does care, the 1968 Lincoln Continental is 79.7 inches wide (and 220.9 inches long). So 350 miles would be equivalent to 278,243.4 1968 Lincoln Continentals placed side-by-side (or 100,389.3 placed end-to-end).

[chillzero]

Straying off topic here, guys. Please remember to discuss the topic at hand.

[Bananaman]

Edited for Rule 12.

[Steve]

Straying off topic here, guys. Please remember to discuss the topic at hand.

Well, Chill, it looks like you've managed to kill this thread :D (although, noticing that the last post before yours was over 4 hours prior, perhaps it had already died a natural death).