This is an obvious Missile!!!! watch!

reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation


Not a hologram, not a missile, it's a plane. My dad saw it, and he said it was a plane, I saw it, and saw it was a plane. ANd if you REALLY look carfully, you can see wings. It's like waving your hand, you can see through it due to high speed, but you know it's a hand:

I was trying to get that same picture but never did figure out how to copy it.
What I did was started the video and then clicked right below video "controls" and watch it in slow motion. Then i also paused it right there and saw that. That looks like a missle to me. The hole when it goes in is to small for a plane hole.

Wow! You and your dad saw that plane slamming into the S. Tower? What a thing to see. I'm sure it will haunt you for the rest of your life and I'm sorry you had to witness that.

My question is, how fast was that plane going? I'm only asking because maybe due to it's speed and that blurring effect you mentioned... maybe that's why some people think it was maybe a missile of some sort instead of a plane.

What I'm confused about, as far as all of these video's of that plane slamming into the tower is -- how so many of those amateur video's show the plane's as clear as day... with no motion blurs even -- or those usual gaps one see's in vid's of fast moving things that have been slowed down in editors -- we see none of that in so many of these GOOD video's of that plane. And as someone here pointed out, it's very difficult to take photo's of things like super fast aircraft and race cars zipping by at hundred's of miles per hr., yet here we are seeing so many video's taken by amateur photographers, like tourists, who just happened to have their video-cams on hand to record all of that while they were recording the first building burning. And those video's are National Geographic clear.

The fact is, there are far too many video's online now to say that they are all legitimate. I remember how it was in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 where at that time there only seemed to be a few amateurs who captured that plane where they admitted to waiting which news org. would be the highest bidder for their video or photographs.

So just like we are so discerning when it comes to UFO video's and photographs, shouldn't we be the same for alleged 9/11 photo's and vids of that plane going into the S. Tower?

Shouldn't we be asking whomever posts a You Tube video of that scene here -- that they should know the name of the person who recorded that video? There are not that many authentic one's out there. I'm sure of that.
The one's the media recorded should be easy enough to identify. But whatever the case may be, all of the authentic vid's and photo's of that event have copyrights.

I thought it was funny that one member here said that he only trusts the raw photo concerning a 9/11 conspiracy video, yet in the post before that, he showed a You Tube video that he said clearly shows a plane slamming into that building .. yet, there was no information at all about who recorded that video!! The people speaking in French ... but that's all we know.

Oh well, just rambling on here.


Eyewitness -- You've given us much food for thought in your post here! Am printing that one out too for reference. You've pointed out a number of things for us to ponder over!

Should add that I'm just in the research stage of all of this... The only thing that I want to find out is how WTC 7 came down because I think it's smoking gun for 9/11... at least at this particular time. Really do have to be careful about information overload as there's just so much here in regards to what happened on that day. No doubt about it that we are not being told the truth about so many things... I've totally lost count of that.
Most people though, don't give a hoot about any of this -- much like how most Americans don't even give it a passing thought that millions of children in 3rd world country's die every year due to disease and starvation... it's the same thing. If it does not affect them personally in terms of job status and lifestyle, then they simply do not even think of national and global issues.


[edit on 15-9-2007 by Palasheea]

The video the OP posted is the same angle, and camera, as this video:



There are many differences. Which one is the original?? This video above is showing color changes, as if there was an error or splice in the film. Also the OP's video is more stretched, and faster frames.



[edit on 15-9-2007 by IWatchYou]

reply to post by Palasheea


I saw the plane for a split second and my dad saw it all. We weren't together. I was sick with the flu, and when I heard of the 1st plane on the tv, I climbed up a hill in Staten Island, and saw it hit. My dad was at work and saw it. Sad day.

Originally posted by IWatchYou
The video the OP posted is the same angle, and camera, as this video:



There are many differences. Which one is the original?? This video above is showing color changes, as if there was an error or splice in the film. Also the OP's video is more stretched, and faster frames.



[edit on 15-9-2007 by IWatchYou]

So I ask... who recorded those video's?? Who recorded the video you've got in your post? -- I agree that it's definitely been edited... it's got those color special effects in it and it's been spliced in a few areas and SO ON....
Plus that plane is gliding in like a sail boat on a pristine lake... well, nice to know that they at least got a nice scenic view of NYC before slamming into that building... this video has been tampered with.

The OP's vid somehow rings more true to me if only because it's obviously an amateur video ... recorded by someone with a videocams most of had back then to record family birthday parties... Plus, that object is coming in as fast as it's been reported everywhere... Real super fast! This video segment is showing that and that's why most of us really had to take the time to isolate that object coming into that frame.



[edit on 15-9-2007 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Palasheea

 

I saw the plane for a split second and my dad saw it all. We weren't together. I was sick with the flu, and when I heard of the 1st plane on the tv, I climbed up a hill in Staten Island, and saw it hit. My dad was at work and saw it. Sad day.

Wow! That's amazing! Thanks for sharing and great that you're here to tell us about it!

Originally posted by Vikki
I was trying to get that same picture but never did figure out how to copy it.
What I did was started the video and then clicked right below video "controls" and watch it in slow motion. Then i also paused it right there and saw that. That looks like a missle to me. The hole when it goes in is to small for a plane hole.

Thanks for the tip! I didn't know that page had that feature on it and I'll check it out. I had to slow it down in Studio 8.

But I agree with you... no doubt about it, it looks like a missile and that hole is just as you say it is. I'm sooooo confused.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Palasheea

 

I saw the plane for a split second and my dad saw it all. We weren't together. I was sick with the flu, and when I heard of the 1st plane on the tv, I climbed up a hill in Staten Island, and saw it hit. My dad was at work and saw it. Sad day.

With all do respect, you & your father would've still seen an airplane if it was holographic. However, there are accounts of people on the other side of the city that claims to have seen a single engine cesna, or a missile.

Does anyone have the capability to post the US missile that has small wings on it? I don't know how to post pics. But the missile is long and large and has small wings, which could easily be the blured wings in the vid.

Paleashea, makes a good point about all the clear as day videos of a prestine image of the airplane entering the building, just as a holograph would look. Where are the blurs there?

AAC

Originally posted by Tuning Spork

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I look forward to see what the debunkers who are against the inside job theory say about this.

spacevistor,

I think we'd be better off examing and discussing the raw footage rather than a manipulated presentation. Methinks we oughta make up our own minds.

Tuning Spork,
I don’t know your opinion in this, but what is your opinion then of the official released footage by the government about the pentagon crash?
Do you find that the raw footage or a manipulated presentation?

This was a good read.

Sorry for the one-liner. Hope everyone is in good health and happiness today.

AAC

reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation


Well with all due respect, the last time I saw a missle the size of a plane with wings was in a book about V2s, Missiles of that size wouldn't need wings, they'd be big enough for their own size for making stability. AND, a turning plane would look like it had smaller wings, as an angle.

JAASM Picture

I know sometimes people don't visit links. Is it possible for someone with the technical savvy to post this picture for me on the thread?

This picture would suffice for the small blur wings, if in fact WTC attack wasn't an airliner. Again, the hologram over this missile would cut the blur and show a crisp shot of an airliner, like most people saw.

Remember the initial small entry hole...

AAC

reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation




The angle is near perfect for minimizing the wingspan of this aircraft. I froze the frame, zoomed in, made it B/W and adjusted the brightness and contrast. I have captioned the points of interest.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
JAASM Picture

I know sometimes people don't visit links. Is it possible for someone with the technical savvy to post this picture for me on the thread?

Will that do?

This picture would suffice for the small blur wings, if in fact WTC attack wasn't an airliner. Again, the hologram over this missile would cut the blur and show a crisp shot of an airliner, like most people saw.

But it is considerably smaller than a 767 (as here it is below an F-16), and as such would be distinctly obvious. And to the idea of a hologram, if they have that advanced technology, I should think they have the capability to crash a real 767 into a building.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by apex]

Not only was it a Missle that can be clearly seen in frame 0.29.5 secs but also in frame 0.17secs no plane is visible when the 1st Tower was hit. A plane that large would show up on the video and yet all we see is just an explosion. On the other hand, a missle like the one that hit the 2nd building would be too narrow to be seen from that distance and would explain why nothing shows hitting the 1st building.

If the video is authentic then it certainly proves that the broadcasts from the News channels were tampered with or were prepared well in advance.

A false flag operation on this scale involves too many people to pull off, I expect that someone with a lot of guiltiness in his heart will one day reveal the truth on who really did it and why.

With what I have seen so far during my research on 9/11 I am 100% convinced that it was an inside job and has taken away any trust I had towards the present American Government.

I just hope that the American people, whom I love dearly continue the struggle until the whole truth finally comes out.

reply to post by apex


Thanks alot apex.

I am meerly playing devils advocate here, but remember some witness's said the saw a cesna. I am aware of the other frames that obviously show a airliner, it's just when I saw this footage, I finally understood how people could consider it (given the tech for holograms exist).

AAC

Well I think it looks quite a bit like a missile AAC.

And I'm open to the theory. Who knows. You can see it in like 4 - 5 frames and I can't seem to make out any kind of aircraft wing.

I think it at least diserves a closer look.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
With all do respect, you & your father would've still seen an airplane if it was holographic.

True, but how do you prove that? How do you look at that plane and say "nah, it's holographic". How do you get to that point? The only way you could tell that it was a hologram is if they screwed up with the imagery. They didn't. So saying it's a hologram is just pure speculation and only shows that you want to believe it is a hologram. I'm not saying that's what you want to believe, but anybody that does want to believe it will ignore the fact that you can't prove that it was a hologram, and assume it is anyway.

reply to post by Palasheea


No need to apologize, man. I wasn't able to see your original post that you are apologizing for because I wasn't able to get online. But it's all good.