It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

World trade center ufo

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:
Wig

posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 04:13 AM
link   
It is a logical step, it would be even more logical if we could see the footage at normal speed, reasons why:

1. The thing is not seen in the other video so we know the thing was not anywhere near the towers.

2. The thing is blurred out just like a fly would be

3. The thing casts no shadow on the brilliant white part of the smoking tower, a characteristic of something very close to the lens.

4 It has wing beats along it's length like other RODS do (which are bugs).

5. It looks like a ROD (which are bugs)

6. If this was a Bug this is what it would look like.

Logic tells us it's a bug. And your heat seeking missile theory......... If you follow the path of the plane and the speed of the plane, this thing misses "it" by a long shot. And I'm not to sure a missile is programmed to overshoot it's target in that way, (afaic they hone in on the target always correcting their path as they go along), Also the missile (if heat seeking) would go for the explosion as the plane hit the tower.

Undo,
Each frame containss a fast moving object (relative to the frame of the video...i.e. it's not travelling physically fast but it is crossing the video frame fast because it is close to the lens) each frame has multiple wingbeats, the object is hugely out of focus so no decerning features will be visible. the image is a fast moving blurr it stands to reason that the image at whatever resoloution whatever video trickery is applied the image will remain a blurr.

As someone else on these forums said, this is not Hollywood you cannot zoom in on a blurr and apply video trickery and suddenly come out with anything tangible.

At least we all agree it does not come from behind the tower

[edit on 20/4/2006 by Wig]

[edit on 20/4/2006 by Wig]




posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Wig,
To address your points:

“. . .the thing was not anywhere near the towers “ and it “casts no shadow. . .” which you consider “proof positive that this is an insect.”

1 & 3: But the towers were not parallel on all elevations. The North Tower was roughly 200 feet further west – further from the camera – so any shadow cast would either be lower on the North Tower or nonexistent, dependiing on time of day, of course. Plus, the air was full of smoke particles which would affect light and shade – cameras at different would each record something slightly different. And I’m not fully convinced that the “shadow” on the upper right corner of the South Tower is a shadow – it could be smoke kicked up in the wake of the object and proximity to the towers would affect how the turbulence is seen or not seen.

“The thing is blurred out just like a fly would be.”
2: Or just like a missile would be.

“It has wing beats. . .”
4. I’m not sure what you mean by that, but missiles create vortexes along the sides and more so from the tail fins. The smoky atomosphere would function like smoke in a wind tunnel that allows the effects of swirling air to be seen.

“It looks like ROD . .”
5. So what? It looks like a cigar too. It also looks like a missile.

“If this was a bug this is what it would look like.”
6. If this was a missile, this is what it would look like.

“And I'm not to sure a missile is programmed to overshoot it's target in that way,”
7. It didn’t overshoot, it was homing in, but the tower put a quick stop to the jet. One can’t expect a missile to suddenly stop. The jet was traveling at something like 350 mph (whatever) and a missile can cruise in the neighborhood of 2,500 mph.

“Also, the missile (if heat seeking) would go for the explosion as the plane hit the tower.”
8. Obviously, the explosion didn’t happen until the jet hit the tower. Again, a missile doesn’t stop suddenly in mid-air – they can and do lock in on a target and make adjustments in flight, and it appears that the object did just that. It comes down from the smoke about 30 degrees from vertical then curves to meet the jet’s projected path. The trajectory is not a straight line. If it was a missile, and if it locked on to the target via heat as opposed to another method, then I imagine that the heat from the already burning North Tower would affect it somewhat in the final seconds. The object may have struck 7WTC and caused a fire there. Or 7WTC was the target.


In another post you wrote, “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).”

First, you haven’t shown the object to be an insect. You mention “other videos.” Do you have another video of the object or are you referring to videos of bugs?



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Wig: All right you got me convinced that it’s coming from in front of the building, but I had to adjust the brightness and contrast before I could see it. If you have windows media player then go to left corner and click on the now playing objects. Adjust the brightness to 68. Then you can clearly see it coming in front of the smoke. Does anyone know how I can save the version I have or save a frame from the video and put it on here? I still don’t think it’s a bug though. Just because it’s blurry doesn’t mean it’s close to the shooter of the video. It could just be going extremely fast. I’ve never seen a fly dive like that either. If it is a fly it’s diving at a 35 to 40 degree angle. That’s a pretty extreme dive for a fly. Any way you proved your point extremely well and have me convinced that it is indeed coming from in front of the building.


Wig

posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Jubilation,
For a start you ignored the other video, indeed loads of videos which don't have this on, but the other one mentioned in this thread is a good place to start.

The "shadow" I didn't mean a shadow, (I know I said shadow but that's just the way I do things) I meant that it does not show up crossing the brilliant white part of the tower. The very reason "undo" was adamant earlier that it comes from behind the tower. This is the "shadow" I meant and I alluded to this being what I meant by pointing out it does not appear on the brilliant white part of the building. It doesn't appear there because it is close to the camera and heavily out of focus. If it were something close to the towers it would appear at all points.....this is what I call proof positive.......Yes.

"just like a missile would be" But a missile would be visible at all times unlike something which is close to the lens which passes a bright source of light.

It didn't home in, if this is a missile it clearly was on a collision path ahead of it's target, I'm saying a missile heads directly for its target it does not aim ahead of it, it always follows it directly, because of its great speed it doesn't have to worry about aiming ahead it heads straight for it, and corrects it's path as it goes, if the plane hits a building the missile would hit the building aswell.

And it is a straight line you can see this by putting a stright edge onto your monitor, not that this is in anyway important.

Yes I'm reffering to images of bugs which some people think are UFOs and unknown species.

Spaceman,
The camera is pointing up into the sky, the fly is probably flying on the straight and level, not that flies don't dive
anyway if it makes it easier for you to accept it is a fly, imagine pointing a camera Upwards, and imagine what a fly would look like if it passed accross from one corner diagonally to the other corner. it doesn't have to be diving to do this.

[edit on 20/4/2006 by Wig]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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]


Well! I'm surprised at your reply sir.
I certainly wasn't going to mention other 'conspiracy theory' subjects such as
Nessie or Bigfoot, no animal has been identified has existing in either subject
and therefore remains in the 'wish for' category.

I understand that people want to find reasons why such an atrocity took
place, but I just thought that blurred images of... possibly a fly or even a
piece of something from the impact could possibly be the answer rather
than a voyeristic alien in a spaceship.

"Who needs quality information anymore?", I don't understand this.

Again, I apologise if you feel offended, but there's no actual evidence to
indicate that anything happened except what has been reported.
Thanks for your input sir.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Not to interfere with this little argument or anything but isn’t that the purpose of this site? To try all possible possibilities and leave none let out? To bring every aspect from a questionable video or story. The reason I joined was because I could freely discuss and debate about objects of paranormal questioning and not be ridiculed as a crazy loon. Just trying to figure out what a object on a video is. No one knows so we are bringing out the first possibility that was already presented by other sites. Then people bring out different ideas and theories and create a reasonable explanation that most people agree on.


Wig

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Also if it were a missile there'd be a heck of a lot of white smoke trailing behind it.

So IMO it has to be either a space alien UFO or a fly, because of my reasons before I think it is a fly.

I encourage all to keep posting clips and pics of what might be unexplainable, in no way do I want to sound as though I'm ridiculing the user. (spaceman, I know you didn't mean that I was, I just thought I'd add that disclaimer onto my post).



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Wig wrote, "Also if it were a missile there'd be a heck of a lot of white smoke trailing behind it."

Actually, the exhaust of missiles in flight isn't usually visible. Most pictures of missiles are shot at launch when there is a visible exhaust. Two links are below.

However, farting flys have been known to leave wide contrails of methane gas in their wake, but such sightings usually happen in Mexico.

Wikipedia

Defense Dept.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join