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: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 


500 mph is 750 feet per second
times nine seconds is 1.21 miles.




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


you know what...i made a mathematical error and your right....i am close to the distance infrom the towers...so i glady stand corrected....



So therefore that plane should have been in the wide shot also cause it would have taken that plane aprox 10s to travel each mile and it was 9s from the 2s mark to the 11s mark when it hit the towers.

so from the wide shot it would have taken 30s+ inorder for it not to be in the shot......thanks for that slugger.

but check my figuring for the distance from the 2s mark of saying approx 60 tower widths from the right tower to the outside edge of the frame.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
i did it again at the 4s mark and it ia approx a mile out out the towers to the edge knowing the towers are 208ft wide before it zooms in again so the plane i would think would appear in that shot too.

but please check it out...that is before it zooms in again at the 4s marks so that leaves 7s to impact.

but check it out again.please. it is approx 25 tower width to frame edge at that point.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pipebomb24875
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




Holy freaking shiz this is a joke film you made right! look at frame 11 and pop back and forth you can stop it at a point where a nose section goes through to the other side without any damage to the building, then it blows late on the right as the nose just dissappears. WTF kind of joke is this.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


The plane should be visible in the zoom out shot.

the plane is approaching from across the river, not at an exact right angle.

This means the plane coming into the tower is approaching from say 45 degrees to the right of 0 degrees

Put an imaginary compass on the top of the tower with 0 degrees pointing perpendicular from the camera lens. This means relative to the tower the camera is at 180 degrees. To the right is 90 degrees and to the left is 270 degrees.

The plane approaches the tower from about halfway between 0 degrees and 90 degrees or 45 degrees to the right of 0 degrees, or 135 degrees into the lens of the camera.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I'm not saying that no plane hit the tower. It just seems the plane should be obviously visible. Even with the poor quality video, clouds and speed of the plane. Don't turn it into a flaming name calling thread.

Thanks to the few who tried to do the math. That's what I was looking for.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
The math does work out to where the plane would have been well inside the frame.
The plane does not actually go into the smoke from the first tower, but it does create a problem where there is not enough contrast between the plane and the background.
From that distance the fuselage of the plane would have been 1 1/2 pixel thick, so good contrast is essential to having it even register.
An alternate explanation for me personally is that the plane that we think is there really isn't.
Not that there wasn't any plane, just a different plane. The reason we would expect there to be a plane in that particular spot is because of this thing called The Orb. When first seen, which was a live chopper shot from the North of the towers, where there was just enough of a something visible to where you knew there was something moving towards the WTC. The explanation was that it was a low resolution feed for the transmission for live broadcast, and once the chopper was on the ground and the recording medium could be retrieved, the higher resolution showed a Boeing 767, as would be expected to fit the hijacking scenario. But suppose it was something smaller and they just added a nice, bigger image, right over the smaller, real image?
That's what I think happened. Why? Because I saw the 767 that hit the South Tower, from the lower end of Battery Park, and had a really good look at it and where it came from and how it flew to get to the tower, and it was not along the Orb path.So the explanation for the Chopper 5 video is, the plane on that path, that would have been visible if it was a 767, was not, because it was not a 767. The real 767 was flying right along the west edge of Governors Island and came from the Verrazano Bridge, at the narrows, at further east from the Orb, and a lot slower and a lot lower, like almost a thousand feet lower.


edit on 15-9-2010 by jmdewey60 because: add punctuation



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   


White arrow



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne


White arrow


/end thread



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Sorry i taught i saw a trailer for a new ps3 game are you trying to say there real planes



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Segador

/end thread
These are video artifacts attached to a particular location of the camera and is not a plane and do not move anywhere or are related to anything out in the environment.
Below is a little composite I just made from the best quality version of the Chopper 5 video.

Here is these set on top of each other and lined up so you can see the relationship between the artifact found in these two sequential frames. I blew it up to 1200% so you can see the individual pixels.




edit on 15-9-2010 by jmdewey60 because: add pictures



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


the message did not come through
or else i am not understanding it



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Here I got two videos to show yah, though I'm sure you've already seen them before. These videos go right along with the OP. Don't you just love the no plane theory? (FACT)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


the message did not come through
or else i am not understanding it
A fuzzy youtube version of the Chopper 5 video is not proof that there is in fact two frames showing a plane at the edge of the frame. A good version, like what I think I have, which is the DVD called 40 Hits, shows a different story, which is two frames with an artifact that is in essentially the same spot and is a short straight line.
With the fuzzy version, one could imagine whatever they want from it, like a plane.
A sharp version shows it for what it is, a artifact.


edit on 15-9-2010 by jmdewey60 because: posted to quickly and did not finish my thought.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Well, it certainly doesn't help matters that Paul Smith, the chopper pilot for ABC who filmed the "International Shot" was killed in a freak accident, being run over by a cabbie who was cut off by an unidentified black car in October 2007.
I mean, what a coincidence.
In a long line of weird deaths.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
I thought mods prevented stuff like this loony stuff saying there were no planes involved? Notice the OSers having a field day with this? hmmm...



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
Notice the OSers having a field day with this? hmmm...




No Planers ROCK!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by dragnet53
Notice the OSers having a field day with this? hmmm...




No Planers ROCK!
I'm a Two Planer,
and I think two planers rock, even if I am the only one.
Fake plane, fake plane videos? Yes, but not because there was no plane, but that one was an airliner type plane, and the other was something else. When the "something else" ended up showing a discernible trace on live network TV, then the video of the airliner was quietly buried, seeing how it would be not only redundant, but contradictory to the fake version of a video to explain that "something else". Easier to modify video of that to make it out to be an airliner than to explain why there was a second plane.
How do I know this. I saw the video of the airliner, before it got buried. It was the same video W. watched in his presidential limo, in the school parking lot in Sarasota Florida on 911. You don't think he had a camera man prepositioned to record the even? If you say, No, then you are a fool. I am speaking rhetorically so don't take offence. I don't mean you, specifically, but think about it for a minute. If it was an inside job, wouldn't they know when and where to video it? I am not speculating because I watched it, but I invite the reader to consider this possibility.


edit on 17-9-2010 by jmdewey60 because: fix typo's



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
No Planers Rock! Two Planers Rule!!!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Good ol dave and DISINFO go hand in hand...

Easy to see if you know the signs.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join