What could this Be?? 911 - Second Strike Footage... Wing Disapears

reply to post by cluckerspud


This thread has been an eye opener for me. I have never actually took the time to scrutinize any of the videos. Do discussions similar to this happen on all the videos? I simply slowed it down and watched frame by frame.

Why is so hard to understand that the light reflecting would be different from each and every view. Now, the difference might be measurable in milliseconds.... But there will be a difference.

Why am I able to still see the wing through the entire video (at a drasticly reduced speed)? Am I the only one with software that is any good? Do people have such a strong desire to believe that EVERYTHING is wrong with 911?

There are more flavors of 911 conspiracies than there are flavors of Ben and Jerrys!

Also, because I am new to this 911 discussion..... Is it customary to be called childlike and told to "Just shut up" if you do not agree with the posters view and or opinions?

I notice that the mods have a removal banner specifically for "911 madness"..... This is sad and wrong that there was a necessity to have this banner made.

Discussions are like fist fights... Fist fights have been exchanged for guns and knives and discussions by threats and insults.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
And exactly why is that such a ridiculous idea?

Because you have no evidence what so ever of a third party tampering with any footage.
Only crappy, grainy multiple generation, compressed, digital file with no clarity or sharpness.

So it is as you put it.. "an idea"

A "ridiculous" one at that.

Originally posted by laiguana
It's quite easy to disprove this idea that the plane isn't real because the wing is not visible from the shot. Just compare it to other footage of aircraft flying at a high velocity over a plain background. Consider the reflective properties of the plane itself and the angle in which it is being shot. Also something to consider is the resolution of the footage itself. Take a look at this footage for example, from an air show:

You'll notice that it appears that the right wing has dissappeared. It's the exact same anomaly that occurs in digital imaging, all due to a number of factors, including actual distance plus the lighting (shadows/highlights) & (brightness/contrast).

edit on 26-10-2010 by laiguana because: (no reason given)

That's one cool video of a very cool plane... but I watched the whole thing and not once did I see the wings disappear. Yes they did get lighter depending on their angle to the camera but they didn't disappear.

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

Somewhere between:
4:23 - 4:28
It appears that the right wing of the F-22 is missing. Take a closer look....

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
And exactly why is that such a ridiculous idea?

Because you have no evidence what so ever of a third party tampering with any footage.
Only crappy, grainy multiple generation, compressed, digital file with no clarity or sharpness.

So it is as you put it.. "an idea"

A "ridiculous" one at that.

The evidence is the video itself.....

and you say multiple generation.... how do you know this? Other than a youtube encoding it could be the raw footage for all you know. The fact that there are multiple videos showing the same thing seems lost on you.

You think it's a trick of the light... fair enough. But if you can't stump up evidence to say I am wrong and you are right stating my idea is ridiculous frankly doesn't hold any weight.

So if you want to contribute positively to the thread great... if not then please refrain from posting.

Thank you.

Korg.

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Somewhere between:
4:23 - 4:28
It appears that the right wing of the F-22 is missing. Take a closer look....

It's a good attempt but it's not the same thing. The wing doen't disapear it's just the leading edge is pointing directly at the cam and so cannot be seen. a bit like looking at a pencil from the end down and not being able to see the shaft.

BTW the F22 is an Awsome sight huh??

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


All the images presented to discredit the OP show a fading edge of the disappearing object. The wing in both of the views of the plane with one wing show a right angle cut of the wing.

Right angle cuts are not likely to happen due to the sun washing out the wing.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
That's one cool video of a very cool plane... but I watched the whole thing and not once did I see the wings disappear. Yes they did get lighter depending on their angle to the camera but they didn't disappear.

Korg.

Here ya go!!!!
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b694ee4efed7.jpg[/atsimg]

Tada!!!

very compelling video - but explainable.
I haven't read through all the posts and I apologize if this has already been mentioned but I think the anomaly is the result of a combination of different factors - none of which has anything to do with a hologram or some extra-dimensional phenomena.
I think it is a combination of lighting and resolution. The plume of smoke coming from the first tower is casting a shadow. The second plane comes into view passing under the plume but through its shadow. Right before it hits the tower (0:06 seconds) it leaves the shadow of the plume of smoke, allowing sunlight to hit it. From that angle and distance and the angle that the plane is tilted, the conditions were right for a mere optical illusion. That's all it is - in my opinion.

I always wondered about the hologram theory. Why use a hologram? Why not just a real plane? Don't get me wrong, I believe that the entire thing was a controlled demolition - there is overwhelming evidence to support that. But, if it is a hologram, then they would have had to time it perfectly, set charges to detonate in the same direction and speed that the plane was travelling, make sure the hologram was viewable from all angles - - it just seems easier and less complicated to just fly a real plane into the building rather than going through the trouble of orchestrating events so they coincide seamlessly with a hologram. I am willing to accept the fact that our government most likely has the technology to pull it off, but they aren't stupid.....I mean, they wouldn't be so foolish as to take a risk like that.... but then again, if it really was a hologram, no one would believe it. Which, in the end, only helps their agenda.
that's all i got.

reply to post by cluckerspud


Honestly???? Thats quite funny that this is your conclusion!!!

Its plainly obvious (no pun intended) that there is more than meets the eye in this video.

The wing disappears, anyone with a brain can see it and the usual debnking is, video error that, pixel this, gas that...

If this conspiracy is true then take in to consideration that quite afew people would had to be involved and there's always one who eventually spills the beans. It's been 9 years and no one has talked yet!!! HELLO!

Any artist will probably agree that the seeming disappearance of the wing is simply a result of perspective.

If you are convinced that the wing has vanished and you do not have developed artistic skills you may be interested to read up on some basic drawing or art lessons.

I have linked the simplest drawing guide I could find to illustrate some basic points of perspective and form.
Page 9 contains the most relevant information that relates to this particular video, but it may be a good idea to keep this page in mind when you are attempting to interpret video footage of anything at all if you are not well acquainted with the nature of form and perspective.
Many times I have witnessed people interpret things they have seen without having a basic grasp on visual arts to aid them in correctly interpreting what they are seeing.

www.drawspace.com...

reply to post by jrmcleod


His conclusion is funny? LOL then your a comedian with your theory...

I am absolutely dumbfounded by this discussion.... I actually had some respect for those that were debunking 911... But if this video and the discussion that has followed is any taste of what "debunking" your doing... God help us.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
If this conspiracy is true then take in to consideration that quite afew people would had to be involved and there's always one who eventually spills the beans. It's been 9 years and no one has talked yet!!! HELLO!

I can tell you this much, If I knew something and I knew they knew that I knew something.... I'd keep bloody quiet... I would avoid the subject completely... Make out I didn't know what I knew...

Cause this happens...



Korg.

reply to post by MiMobs


God help you for your ignorant arrogance.

Your post adds nothing except that you are better than the rest of us -- not something that most would agree with.

reply to post by MiMobs


I didnt have a theory, i suggested that there is more than meets the eye in this video! The plane doesnt change direction, the light doesnt change the reflection etc, this isnt an optical illusion (IMO). This looks suspicious and since this is a CONSPIRACY site, conspiracies should be discussed when more 'evidence' comes to light! If it is an illusion then fair enough but until someone can prove it adequately, then it still remains open for discussion from the multiple discussions taking place.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


I hope this question was asked in sincerity, because I am able to show exactly the answers, and to educate on the layperson's inability (sometimes) to adequately identify airplanes. I've been flying for coming up on 40 years now, and have the benefit of that experience, so to me it's "old hat".

Can you identify that as a passenger plane from the above image???

This is in reference to a photo I posted...I will not repeat it, and waste Forum Board space, simply refer back to the post, to see it. It IS (one) of the United Airlines paint schemes in use in 2001 (still can see similar examples, too) and it IS the paint scheme that was on the airplane flown as United 175 on 9/11.

That photo, alone, would be arguably difficult to positively identify, but there are MANY OTHER SOURCES as well, and they all comport and agree perfectly, with a United Airlines Boeing 767, in that paint scheme design.

I certainly can't and I’m 100% certain not one person could...

Well, seems you can't, because you lack a lifetime of experience. But, you are "100%" wrong, because many of us CAN see it, and recognize it.

Cause all you can see is the underside of the plane with what appears to be something weird attached to the underbelly....

Again, that is but ONE image, of many. AND, it isn't true that you can "only see the underside". Also, it isn't true that "something weird" is "attached" to the "underbelly"....

That paint scheme, with the lower portion of the fuselage mostly a dark blue, but the blue paint does NOT completely cover the belly. All you're seeing there are sections that are the original unpainted bare aluminum.

This image from "airliners.net" is copyrighted, so can't embed, but here is a link:



A virtual stroll through that website, and you will see many, many other examples.

Where are the markings that identify this image as a commercial passenger plane????

Image, above. Think about the "markings", and their purpose. They are a "moving billboard", in essence, to advertise the airline company, and offer a corporate "look" that people will recognize. It is part of a company's marketing design.

Many airline companies, when they undergo management changes, have huge corporate image shake-ups.....United Airlines, in late 1990s to early 2000s, had many such changes, and thus, you saw several different paint schemes, simultaneously. With a fleet of ~450 (or more) airplanes, re-painting with any "new" scheme that is adopted is a slow process, and is timed to coincide with OTHER regularly scheduled "heavy" maintenance intervals .

(BTW....now, Continental and United are merging. The decision was taken to keep the Continental paint scheme design (a decision I applaud, BTW) and just change the airline name and font on the front top of the fuselage. Replacing "Continental" with "United". So, once again, there will be several years while the original "United" jets get re-painted to Continental's white/gray, gold stripe fuselage, and the blue/gold stylized globe on the vertical fin).

Let's see if I can find examples....ah, that was easy!!:



That is the (former) Continental B-757, Ship number 124 (formerly, under the Continental designation. If you look at the nose gear door, you will see now it has a FOUR-digit ship number, which is the system that United has used for many decades, because of their large fleet size. Essentially, at Continental they simply reserved a "block" of "N" numbers from the FAA, to match what they wanted to use to identify each ship. And, they just did the same thing, for the United designation).

So, this is a former CAL, now showing the "UNITED" name, and new font. Those will be easiest to alter, the rest of the United fleet will take longer.

(BTW...there's a reason I know so much about Continental Airlines. I am very familiar with that B-757, along with all of the others...in fact, I've flown just about everything AT Continental --- except the B-777)....

For those claiming the wing disappeared, it looks intact just before the impact.

1.24 on the youtube video



Source:

Originally posted by jrmcleod
reply to post by cluckerspud

 

Honestly???? Thats quite funny that this is your conclusion!!!

Its plainly obvious (no pun intended) that there is more than meets the eye in this video.

The wing disappears, anyone with a brain can see it and the usual debnking is, video error that, pixel this, gas that...

Funny?! Yikes.
I agree the wing appears to disappear in the file presented, however I have said over and over
that this is not the raw footage. It's compressed for the internet.

So what do you subscribe to?
Hologram or botched edit of overlaying a digital plane over the actual plane?

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
That's one cool video of a very cool plane... but I watched the whole thing and not once did I see the wings disappear. Yes they did get lighter depending on their angle to the camera but they didn't disappear.

Korg.

Here ya go!!!!
[/atsimg]

Tada!!!

Not the same thing at all... take a pencil and look at the top down.... can you see the shaft???

Korg.