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.

 

Fox's Chopper 5 wide angle shot. Where's the plane?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Just a quick question about the second impact of Flight 175. Why isn't the plane visible in the wide angle shot before it zooms in?

I couldn't find any information on it and the ATS search tool is horrible.

Edit: Also I find it odd that it just happens to zoom in just in time for the impact.


edit on 15-9-2010 by Pipebomb24875 because: (no reason given)




edit on 15-9-2010 by Pipebomb24875 because: oops




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I think it was hiding behind a cloud and then came out and attacked the tower.. I am sure thats what they said..

Maybe it was a hologram? a messup in the matrix? a glitch in reality?

Or maybe it was not even there in the 1st place?

Either way I am not commenting because I am not putting myself in a situation that I have no clue about and cant prove...



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Pipebomb24875
 


When the clip starts the Boeing 767 is out of frame.

The clip has the zoom-in at the three-second point....firther narrowing the frame and field of view for the camera.

Rather obvious, I would think?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Very strange indeed. I haven't seen this clip before. S and F

Even more strange, look at 5 to 10 seconds on the clip. At around 12' o clock above the one tower, there is something very small moving over the tower. What is that?


VVV


edit on 15-9-2010 by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
"I think it was hiding behind a cloud and then came out and attacked the tower.. I am sure thats what they said.."

It would have made a great story...unfortunately there were no clouds on that day. Also, the plane appears to come in well underneath the smoke, so there was no way the smoke could have been obscuring it.

Look at the flying object which is moving at a very rapid rate of speed from the lower left corner of the screen at :21 seconds. I didn't know police or news helicopters moved so rapidly. That object appears to be going as fast as the plane.

And by the way, have you ever seen the sky look so gray, dismal and smog filled on such a clear beautiful day? Despite all that, I am sure there is a reasonable explanation to all of this.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Yes that thing moving at 21 sec is the same thing i mentioned moving at between 5 and 10 seconds in the clip.

What is that?

VVV



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
i think its a good question. one would assume it would have been visable in the wide angle. I think it should have been visable. furthermore, I find the actions of the chopper 5 to be rather bizarre at times.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 


No, two different objects. The first one (10 seconds) is just a helicopter. There were several there, after the first impact (AAL 11).

The other one, at 21 seconds? The film resolution is so poor, hard to tell. Could be an object closer to the camera, and therefore its apparent speed seems faster. Anyone watching movies will see this phenomenom.

SO, a bird, fairly close to the FOX helicopter, coming into frame would look "bigger" and "faster" due to its proximity, and perspective.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Trying to find "something" wrong just by looking at one video is pointless. There are multiple angles, and multiple cameras that all captured the event simultaneously:



And,




edit on 15 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Videos



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weedwacker,
the sky was blue that morning, in the video it is murky milky white.
the plane is not visible on the zoom out shot due to ___________.
the nose of the plane comes out of the opposite side of the building undamaged.

much better link of this video from chopper five.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...#!v=bfDg2rX9JgE&feature=related
www.youtube.com...#!v=jasojNAvrIU&feature=related
www.youtube.com...#!v=rKYxM6hk_NU&feature=related
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...#!v=eCn4BH7bYlE&feature=related
www.youtube.com...#!v=mWcp2rB_i8k&feature=related
www.youtube.com...#!v=B65M_smGewo&feature=related
www.youtube.com...#!v=ymf30rN4Mxo&feature=related
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


edit on 15-9-2010 by slugger9787 because: added more films GOD



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I'm going to do something I never dreamed I'd ever going to do- I'm going to HELP you conspiracy people, if only to tone down this three ring conspiracy circus of yours...

Irrefutable iron clad rule number 1) Never, EVER, just take one single video, pick out something, and then scream SMOKING GUN. By the time of the second impact every camera in Manhattan was covering the WTC so there are many, many, MANY videos of the impact so if one video will have it, then other video will have it. If you find something interesting, fine, but you gotta corroborate it with another video. If you see somethign odd in your video taken from five miles away, but you don't see it in any video taken a mile or even a 1/2 mile away, the problem isn't with all the other videos. The problem is with your video.

Irrefutable iron clad rule number 2) If you don't agree with the 9/11 commission report, fine, but it becomes your responsibility to provide an acceptable alternative scenario. If you don't think passenger jets hit the towers, then explain what it was that DID hit the towers, and explain why everyone else in creation is seeing passenger jets hitting the towers. Simply saying "no planes hit the towers" and then running away giggling is a guarantee that noone will take you seriously.

Irrefutable iron clad rule number 3) Stay the hell away from circular logic. Saying that "no planes hit the WTC" and then accusing all the witnesses of being gov't disinformation agents covering up the no-planes is NOT proving anything. You're just expanding the original conspiracy claim and restating it in different terms to try and justify itself. This is like saying, "In the Bible it says the Bible is true, therefore the Bible must be true", and I know you people aren't falling for THAT stunt.

Personally, I'm laughing my [censored] off that you conspiracy people are all but getting into fistfights among yourselves over what this "blatantly a conspriacy" even is, so accept or ignore this at your own cost. Insisting on bolting a square wheel onto that conspiracy car of yours is only going to stop YOU from getting anywhere with it.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 



the sky was blue that morning, in the video it is murky milky white.


Due solely to poor quality of camera, and possibly from the fact this is a multiple generation copy.


the plane is not visible on the zoom out shot due to ___________.


It is not visible form a combination of distance, resolution, lens focal length, and framing of the shot versus actual airplane position at the time....in the first THREE seconds of that particular clip.


the nose of the plane comes out of the opposite side of the building undamaged.


Incorrect, and completely erroneous. That comes from that dreck "video" made by "Simon Shack".

Google "September Clues Busted" to see a better examination of that POS video, and the shenanigans enployed by "Shack" when he made it.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
if the aircraft was calculated at moving at a speed in excess of 500 miles per hour, and there is 9 seconds from the wide shot to the impact, i think.

math is not my subject.

so if a plane is travelling at 500 miles per hour, how much distance does it travel in 9 seconds?

how far out does that wide shot cover.

answer these questions, and maybe ....



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I think the cloud theory works better here..

Go somewhere else and peddle your OS claims.. The cloud his the plane and snuck up on the tower and said BOO!!!

To all those who dont know me I am a 9/11 truther and I do mostly take this stuff serious, in 9 yrs I have never cracked a joke about this so this is the only 1 time i have done so.. If anyone is offended then well Sorry about that.. (Actually no im not.. I fight the good fight so..)

To Dave.. WE know things are not right with that day and we do know that to many coincidences leads to many things.. And that my friend is why we have conspiracies.. Also the fact that we talk about things that end up coming true speaks volumes.. RFID vaccinations and so on and so forth.. So... I am sure sooner or later this will be one of them things the [SNIPPED] will be right on yet again.. This you can quote me on.


edit on 9/15/2010 by ThichHeaded because: Added a comment to something i should have added before so if I added this comment I wouldnt have added this comment to the edit comment section to comment on why I edited this comment.(Comment much?)




edit on Wed Sep 15 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: Due to member demand, the 9/11 forum is now under close staff scrutiny.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
if the aircraft was calculated at moving at a speed in excess of 500 miles per hour, and there is 9 seconds from the wide shot to the impact, i think.

math is not my subject.

so if a plane is travelling at 500 miles per hour, how much distance does it travel in 9 seconds?

how far out does that wide shot cover.

answer these questions, and maybe ....


If those numbers are correct, and if my math is correct, it would be 1.25 miles. If in "excess" of 500 mph, than the distance is further, making it more likely it is out of the frame. Hard to tell what the distance is in the zoomed-out part of the shot at the beginning. Also, the plane could be in the shot but just hard to see due to the video resolution.


edit on 15-9-2010 by Monsieur Neary because: changed "there" to "in the shot"




edit on 15-9-2010 by Monsieur Neary because: clarified distance



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
ok just to make it clear here...i am one that believes it was an inside job of a great scale...but i also look at things with logic and truth.

ok this time i am going to debunk this op's video...cause the more lies that do get brought into the subject the further we get from the truth.

i do believe planes hit the tower...i dont believe planes brought down the towers.

ok but this vid is fairly easy to explain...the plane traveling at apprimately 500mph

that translates to aproximately 6miles/second.

now at the two second mark in the videos...i translated the width of the tower to the outside of the frame of the shot..aproximately 60 towers...

width of the tower being 208ftx 60=18240ft which is just over 3miles

so the plane would have been out of the frame of reference in the zoomed out shot.

lets not give the debunkers ammo to call the truthers illogical shall we.



edit on 043030p://f29Wednesday by plube because: plural oops



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Pipebomb24875
 


come on the aircraft was flying a hundreds of mph, wouldnt be in the wideshot as its moving too fast !

Why threads like this are allowed to exist beats me

Wee Mad Mental



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


GoodOlDave.

I don`t believe in the American governments account on 9/11.
Does that make me a conspiracy theorist ?
Do you believe them ?
Because the governments conspiracy began on the day of 9/11 without any investigation and hasn`t changed since.
So in my view that would make them conspiracy theorists.
So why people who are looking for a new investigation into this massacre should be labeled with that name is beyond me.

I have loads of theories but can`t prove any.. as have you and many more.
The US government still hasn`t proven ANYTHING to match their conspiracy theory.
I think planes did hit the towers...... but were they the actual planes those people boarded ?
I really doubt that.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
ok just to make it clear here...i am one that believes it was an inside job of a great scale...but i also look at things with logic and truth.

ok but this vid is fairly easy to explain...the plane traveling at apprimately 500mph

100 mph is @150 feet er second. 500 mph is @ 750 feet per second. Your figure of six miles per second would mean this 6 mps x 60 seconds in a minute =360 miles per minute and 6 mps x 3600 (seconds in an hour)=21,600 miles per hour
500 mph is divided by 3600 seconds per hour is 0.13888 miles per second

that translates to aproximately 6miles/second.

now at the two second mark in the videos...i translated the width of the tower to the outside of the frame of the shot..aproximately 60 towers...

width of the tower being 208ftx 60=18240ft which is just over 3miles

so the plane would have been out of the frame of reference in the zoomed out shot.

two seconds before impact the plane would only be 1500 feet from the tower using my correct math.

lets not give the debunkers ammo to call the truthers illogical shall we.



edit on 043030p://f29Wednesday by plube because: plural oops




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave precicely and exactly
what about the OS do you
doubt, or question or even not believe?




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join