World trade center ufo

Dae,

Cabanman did link to "my" video on Putfile, it is this from a different angle.


Spaceman,

Excellent sleuthing from you to find the clip on the net. Here's what I've done

Went to your web link
Right click on blue "HERE"
Save target as
Open the file in Quicktime video player
watch video
Pause when you see the black thing
use the arrow keys (whilst paused) to scroll back and forth
Watch the black thing

When you have done this a number of times take a mental note of what you percieve to be it's path prior to it first appearing at the top of the smoking tower. Then scroll back further and watch the black smudge back along the path at the same speed as you expect it to be there, you will see it is in the video in front of the smoke, at one point it colours (black) the top right corner of the "exploding" tower. You have to use the scroll feature on Quicktime in order to see the smudge moving.

So what is it? We have just proved it is NOT connected with the plane hitting the building. We have proved that it does not come from "behind" the tower. It is not seen in "my" video so we have proved that it is not very high in the sky.

That leaves one possibilty for me, it is a bug flying past the camera lens. It's a pity your video is in slow motion, but we can't have everything!

Thanks for finding it.

Captured a frame. Put it in paintshop pro. Used "Clarify", "Sharp", "Brightness/Contrast", "Moire Pattern Removal," "Jpeg Artifact Removal", and "Hue/Saturation/Lightness". if you put it in your own graphics program and zoom in on it, it does sorta look odd, like it has these nearly translucent loops extending from the main dark portion, at regular intervals, along the length of it. I have no clue what they are.

Originally posted by undo
Captured a frame. like it has these nearly translucent loops extending from the main dark portion, at regular intervals, along the length of it. I have no clue what they are.

Sounds like the penomenom known as Rods in cryptozoolgy, which have been proven to be flying insects, the loops you see are its wing beats.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

eh nevermind.

[edit on 4/19/2006 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Wig

Sounds like the penomenom known as Rods in cryptozoolgy, which have been proven to be flying insects, the loops you see are its wing beats.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You sure about that? It appears to come out from behind the building, which would make it one heckuva huge bug. Also, there are several loops along its body, so it would have to be several wings, along the body of it, from head to tail, basically. `

I slowed it down using the scroll feature on QuickTime and I am convinced that the object is coming from behind the building. Unless the “bug” was in direct proportion to the smoke of the first tower that it seems as though it comes from behind, but even if this object comes from in front of the building it holds unique characteristics. When you pause the movie and go to about 13 seconds the object first emerges. It disappears from screen at 14 seconds. If this object is a bug that would make sense, the only thing that doesn’t make sense about the bug theory is the fact that a common house fly is usually about ¼ to 1/6th an inch (according to this site ohioline.osu.edu... ) Now when you pause the movie at 13 seconds the object appears to cover ¾ to 1 inch of surface, it changes size during the film. This would have to be a very large house fly for it to be a fly. Sure it could be a different kind of bug but the size and shape of the object can only mean that it either has the ability to tuck its wings in or it has no wings. The only bug that I could find that could do that while flying is the beetle. The most common beetle is the darkling beetle, BUT the only thing is darkling beetles cannot fly! Once again it could be any type of bug you just cant see its wings. We’ll never know. Also if it’s a cloud of smoke why does it continue a pretty much straight narrow path out of view? I wasn’t aware that smoke could travel in a uniform way for a large distance. Remember that even though It looks small the distance between the tower and the end of the sceen is a large distance, or at least large for smoke to travel. I cant use putfil for some reason but wig sent me a video of a different angle, if this is the same video then there’s no way that that puff of smoke is the same as the object in the “my” video. The puff breaks apart and disintegrates in the air, almost parallel to the ground, and it doesn’t travel very far. And just to point out if the object is coming from behind the building it is extremely large. Narrowing it down to only a few things.

Originally posted by undoIt appears to come out from behind the building,

If you follow my instructions above you will clearly see the thing comes infront of the smoke, infront of the top right hand corner of the exploding tower, and then out into the blue sky area. It is clearly not coming from behind either of the towers. If I could do screen captures I would illustrate it, but it is easiest to see as a moving image.

Also, there are several loops along its body, so it would have to be several wings, along the body of it, from head to tail, basically. `

If you read about rods you will see the clearly captured ones have several wingbeats, they are single insects but due to the rapidity of the beat and the timing of the camera this is how they turn they turn out.

Spaceman,
Bugs become elongated on video/digital video I can't explain it but it has been proven in one of the threads on "rods" (which many people still believe are some 4th dimension creature or UFO ) If people want to see this effect all they have to do is film bugs at night (obvioously they have to be fast bugs, not every bug is going to appear like this, and you have to focus on something further away too.....it's all in the Rods threads.


[edit on 19/4/2006 by Wig]

Wig,

you said:
"If you follow my instructions above you will clearly see the thing comes infront of the smoke, infront of the top right hand corner of the exploding tower, and then out into the blue sky area. It is clearly not coming from behind either of the towers. If I could do screen captures I would illustrate it, but it is easiest to see as a moving image. "

my response:
I did follow your instructions and it did not clearly come from in front of the smoke. I put it in Windows Movie Maker, so I could advance it one frame at a time, and the thing still came out from behind the building. The area where it emerges from, has a white building surface, where the smoke doesn't cover the reflected surface light of the building, and there's no shadow or blur or anything else to suggest it's passing in front of the building on that white surface when it first begins emerging from behind the building and only its front end is visible (meaning, the other half should be obscuring the white surface but it isn't).


[edit on 19-4-2006 by undo]

At approximately 13.80 seconds, it appears from behind the building for the first time. Here's the shot of it doing just that. Notice the shadowy portion emerging from behind the building is not casting a shadow or a blur on the white reflected surface of the building:




At 13.87 seconds, the very next frame, it has emerged completely from behind the building.




Concerning wingbeats, there's no way a camera would depict wingbeats along the length of its body unless it had wings along the length of its body. do you know of any such bug? Those loops at times, look like they might be wings and at other times, just look like loops of light.

Here's the object, embossed:

What's that weird stuff on the tail end of it ?




[edit on 19-4-2006 by undo]

(removed and replaced in above post)



[edit on 19-4-2006 by undo]

If one goes to the streakingobject webpage there are two screen shots that show the object did NOT emerge from behind the North Tower; which makes sense because it could not have been in front of the South Tower then behind the North. The photos on that page are similar to the one posted above, but the screen capture is a split second earlier and shows it in front of the North Tower.

As for the elongated appearance of the object, that could be due to its extreme speed which would make it appear longer than it actually is with normal shutter speeds.

The original video was on the Fox News site, but yanked about one week after 9/11. Again, the video can seen by scrolling to the bottom of this page: www.sunjambooks.com...

Jubilation: your webpage you posted isn’t coming up (or at least not on my computer)

Wig: what evidence makes you think that it comes from in front of the building? Besides the fact that it looks like its coming from the front. Undo has a valid point there are no shadows on the building and it doesn’t appear in front of the second tower either.

Spaceman,

The streaking object website is a free geocities site so it often exceeds bandwidth limits. That site has an in-depth analysis of the mysterious thing. But here's the pic from that page.

sunjambooks.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Heh, hold on a minute.
Aircraft hit a building, lots of people were killed and many loved
ones were left partner-less or parent-less.
Come on guys, a ufo is the interesting point?

Of course there's debris, wings, glass, fuselage and structure
materials, but I frown that we are considering Roswell Rods,
and the like.

I know I'm being a bit of a 'downer' here but I feel strongly
about this.

Originally posted by IronMan
Of course there's debris, wings, glass, fuselage and structure
materials, but I frown that we are considering Roswell Rods,
and the like.

How does a plane impact a building at a certain speed to have debris fly out of the building at an even greater velocity? Watch videos and compare the impact speed with this thing. A hint: the planes didn't leave blurrs.

I know I'm being a bit of a 'downer' here but I feel strongly
about this.

Why? Because it's time not spent depressed or calling for extermination of Arabs? I don't mean to be a downer but the number of people who died that day isn't that remarkable when put into perspective. Look at car accidents, or the number of civilians we've killed in Afghanistan or Iraq (just to have people on these forums slander those same people who are still being murdered, because of events like 9/11). What's remarkable here is how these people died, which can help shed light on who did it and why. It's interesting to follow.

[edit on 19-4-2006 by bsbray11]

I apologise.
The towers were exploded by military-connected, middle-aged white men
with an adgenda that includes ufo's, aliens and the total destruction of
anyone who doesn't whoop at capitalism.
I know I've probably got this wrong too, but I struggle to analyse images
with blurrs in. images from the net.
If everyone knows that the US goverment did this awful act, then why isn't
something being done about it instead of just 'ranting' on the internet?

Again, forgive me if I've upset anyone.

You left out Bigfoot and Nessie and all of those guys. And don't forget the Martians! And, oh yeah, Hitler (he must still be doing this stuff to don't ya know). And Planet X. Hell, throw in some Dungeons and Dragons stuff and the miraculous Bible stories for good measure.

That'll show us crazy conspiracy theorists! That and non-sequitur arguments. Work every time. Who needs quality information anymore?

But seriously, how do you slam an airplane into a building to have debris rocket out at a much greater velocity? Does impacting tons of steel and concrete have an accelerating effect? That's what I'm wondering. If all you can offer is sarcasm and weak attempts to discredit, then nevermind man. Yeah, a lot of people died. Thanks for the input.

[edit on 19-4-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by undo
I did follow your instructions , so I could advance it one frame at a time,

If that's what you did, then you didn't have a chance of seeing it come infront of the smoke and the exploding building. You have to scroll through the frames quite quickly, just do it in Quick Time and hold the arrow key down as you scroll back and forth.

It is 'as clear as day' once you have seen it, until you see it your brain will try not to see it. Now I have seen it I can watch the film in normal play (it is a slow motion clip anyway) and see the thing coming in - infront of the smoke to the point where it appears in blue sky. Now that I know what to look for I can't stop seeing it.

Ok, if you really can't see it here is a way which might help you to see it, at one point it crosses the top right hand corner of the exploding building , this corner is always the same colour throughout the whole clip a kind of off white grey colour due to the smoke but the corner can clearly be seen through the smoke, In one frame this corner goes a darker grey that is "this thing" passing accross that point. Once you have identified this frame you should be able to scroll (with the arrow keys held down) and keep an eye out for that corner going dark when you see it you should be able to match the speed of the object backwards from the blue sky and see that the corner going dark is this thing passing in front of it. Once you have seen that you should be able to keep following it as it travels its full path (backwards) accross the smoke going upwards to the left.

Once you see this you will kick yourself how you never saw it before.

You mention the top right corner of the other building how it doesn't go dark, I noted that and that is just proof positive that this is an insect. That particular corner is unobscured by smoke so it is a brilliant white. It is a fact that when you are filming a far away object (the towers) and a small object passes close to the lens the blurred effect will be transparent because it is out of focus, this part of the building is so brightly white that it is unaffected by the blurred fly flying past.

You also said it was impossible to have multiple wings seen along the same elongated object if that object only has one set of wings (as most or all insects do - There's no such thing as a chinook flying insect right!) Well I'm afraid this effect does happen, because wing beats can be for example 90 - 100 per second, video frames on NTSC is 30 per second so you have three wing beats per frame of video, the fly is moving fast (as lots of flies do) so there is an elongation across each frame and the 3 wing beats are shown on each frame.

This video clip is poor quality for capturing this effect of the insect flying past, there are other videos which have the effect much clearer and the wingbeats can be seen as a sinusoidal wave pattern (which is optically illusory to look like a spiral).

Spaceman, these instructions are why I say it is infront of both buildings (between the camera and the buildings to be precise).

Jubilations webpage link is saying exactly what I have been saying that the object can be seen to cross the corner of the exploding building, the webpage also gives a green line at the top left to show where in the frame the object first comes into frame. The webpage has not as far as I can tell made the next step of logic and said that it is a fly passing the lens.

YOU STILL CAN"T SEE IT?
Ok try this make sure for the above method the Quick Time player is in double screen size. You still don't see it? Ok hold a bit of A4 paper to the monitor line it up with the trajectory of the bug as it flies in the blue sky portion, do you note that the top right hand corner of the exploding building is also in the trajectory path? ......coincidence? No, fact, scroll backwards now with the paper on the screen, you cannot fail to see this thing go along the edge of the paper!

[edit on 19/4/2006 by Wig]

Yep, I see it now. It casts its shadow for a split second on the upper right hand corner of the world trade center building to the left.

I'm still curious though, what is that weird stuff on its tail end in the embossed and non-embossed version of the first example I posted? That's one heckuva weird tail for a bug. Do you see it?




[edit on 19-4-2006 by undo]

The webpage has not as far as I can tell made the next step of logic and said that it is a fly passing the lens.

Wig,
First, I don’t know what the object is – I do know it’s not debris from the jet or building. But to simply presume the object is a fly (insect, whatever) is not a logical step – it’s a presumption based on what you want to believe. If it can be proved that it’s a fly, then one can logically make the jump.

I think it’s almost given – at least in certain circles – that Flight 93 was shot down near Shanksville, PA. (Debris was found miles from the crash site). That would mean a missile was involved. Many people believe a missile was involved in the Pentagon attack – perhaps an attempt to shoot down the hijacked jet but the attempt was too late.

If missiles were involved in two of the hijackings, it would follow that a missile might have been used in a third hijacking. If one looks at the trajectory of the jet that was crashed into the South Tower, and imagine the path of the plane if the tower hadn’t been there, then look at the trajectory of the object coming out of the clouds in the Fox video, the object would strike the jet, in the same manner as a heat seeking missile.

Quite frankly, I lean toward the insect theory – but that’s speculation, not a logical step.