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

page: 3
59
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Oddly enough though, your screenshot shows 4 different angles of entry. A small variation could be point of reference, but one of those screenshots shows the plane wings perpendicular to the ground, while the others vary between 30 and 45 degrees.

Like I said before, I fully believe the eyewitnesses on the ground that saw large jetliners hit the buildings, but I am not too sure if I believe any of the video evidence.




posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by brizellious
Mystery Solved haha


I am dumbfounded that there is such odd footage come to light and all you lot can say is whatever you truthers etc etc....

I am about to do some analysis and will hopefully be able to put the cat amongst the pigeons


Korg.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76
An interesting assumption but since i am a very skeptical person honestly, i do not know what to believe. All i see are videos showing that plane in different angles.
At the first video it seems that the wing is disappearing. On the other video the same footage but at different angle with both wings. I can clearly see that the Airplane makes or is on a left turn upon hitting the building. My question is why i cannot see the right wing point upwards on the first video, but i can clearly see the left wing point downwards as the plane making a left turn.

I would be glad if someone explain that to me.



go to any random film school, and theyll teach you about 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation recording. im skeptical too, even though i believe in ETs and had my own sighting. i just think we're all skeptical about different things but we share the same urning for truth.

the question might be: "why dont you (or didnt you) share your ET experience with ATS?

the reason is because i am the only one besides my friend (who passed away in a car wreck) are the only ones who shared that experience. i dont expect you guys to believe me or even understand what i would tell you off of just a written account.

being an ATS member, i know that proof counts and reading a story from a random nobody doesnt mean sh*t unless you have an extremely intriguing credible video to back it up with. which i dont.

but if you know about film and second or third generation shooting, you might know that this video has a reason for not showing a second wing other than the fact that its because of something like project bluebeam.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I am not sure how to embed a video yet, but "Peskin 04" on you tube is a good video of the second plane hitting...and to me, it hardly looks like an airplane struck the builing, as much as an explosion from the "inside" as indicated by some of the structure bending "OUTWARDS". Just my take on this.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Whatever the video 'shows' is more easily explained as a quirk than explaining someone, somewhere, very quickly graphing a plane into the film.
I do believe Occam's Razor may apply here folks.

This is NOT to say, there's a lot more to 9-11 than was told. That is a given. An absolute given but don't create more drama than need be. We have enough on our Truth-plate.

I liken this to people saying "Look! That anchor-lady is morphing into a reptile on TV". I mean really. It's threads like this that really do the Truth Movement a real disservice.

But....carry on. Keep digging and but don't add. We have enough "WTF" as it is..so don't add to the WTF pile.
Just remember: 9-11 was an inside job.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
This footage actually makes sense, somewhat. In every video of the second plane hitting in which a person is not seeing it silhouetted against the sky, just before the plane hits, it tilts and the right wing lights up bright white from the sun.

Ironically, a video I found that allows you to see the lighting change very clearly is also one that claims it was a hologram. :p Oh well, just focus on the lighting and compare the part that gets lit up to the part of the plane that disappears in the OP's video:




posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Whatever the video 'shows' is more easily explained as a quirk than explaining someone, somewhere, very quickly graphing a plane into the film.


second generation filming is known to produce "quirks" in film.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Interesting. The wing does seem to disappear, if it was a editing gaffe it's one hell of a schoolboy error. If it is some sort of optical illusion or something, I have no idea how it could happen. I'm more inclined to believe the former provisionally, providing this footage is genuine and hasn't been tampered with. I know a lot of people chuckle incredulously to themselves when they hear the "no plane" theory, but if we are doing proper science we must endeavour to exhaust all possibilities - thoroughly.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I agree that the op's vid seems strange, but posting a video of a supposed hologram really does nothing for your case, I'm sure your not a believer of "that" theory......watch your vid again and focus on the building as the plane hits.

A hologram does not rip through reinforced concrete like that.....


Nothing personal.


edit: in fact, i apologise, that video quite clearly shows the right hand wing hit and explode on impact....so thanks for clearing this thread up.
edit on 25/10/10 by chupa-chups because: because



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
O.K. here it is frame by frame..

























I don't think you can claim its caused by the camera not being able to catch the wing because of a light change from dark to light because the stability of the Invisible wing is 100% for a total of 5 consecutive frames... the entire time from when it disappears to when it can no longer been seen.

Food for thought.... Oh and for those that re claiming I think this is a hologram... nope not what I think at all... I think what hit the trade center was a one of these



Painted grey with high explosives on board to create the initial bang.... The images of the plane we have footage of was composite graphics overlaying the original image. I believe the reason these videos are surfacing now after nearly 10 years is because these have been leaked... they are rejects from the compositing process that would have given the game away had they surfaced too early.

The plane was being controlled at the base of operations at the pentagon... to make sure there was no way for a trail to lead to the center... the pentagon was hit destroying the evidence.... the controlled demolition of the twin towers base of operations was WT7 and that is why that was demolished also.

That's my take on it.

Korg.

edit on 25-10-2010 by Korg Trinity because: Cause I rock!!




posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Nah !! sorry dude I for one believe theres a cover-up but I have seen many video's, even shortly after that clearly show commercial airliners, yeah sure your entitled to your opinion, but just watching them actually hit the buildings and the shape of the initial impact, (width of airliner) just like the hologram vid posted in this thread.....you can quite clearly see the imact and what it does to the building......I am in no way saying it was a hologram, just a good example of initial impact.......



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by chupa-chups
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Nah !! sorry dude I for one believe theres a cover-up but I have seen many video's, even shortly after that clearly show commercial airliners, yeah sure your entitled to your opinion, but just watching them actually hit the buildings and the shape of the initial impact, (width of airliner) just like the hologram vid posted in this thread.....you can quite clearly see the imact and what it does to the building......I am in no way saying it was a hologram, just a good example of initial impact.......


Good technique agree a little then discredit the lot


Not conversing with an average Joe.... Listen, I understand you will take the opposing standpoint... after all it's your job.

The truth will be known eventually and there is nothing the purps can do to stop it from happening.

Korg.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
Oh and for those that re claiming I think this is a hologram... nope not what I think at all... I think what hit the trade center was a one of these



Painted grey with high explosives on board to create the initial bang.... The images of the plane we have footage of was composite graphics overlaying the original image.




I think what I saw that morning was a big old passenger plane.
Or was my brain hacked?!



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Excellent job!!!!!! That took a lot of time to do and I for one, appreciate your effort! However......I do believe it's an optical illusion because if you look at the stabilizer/tail, that too looks like it's upside down.

But I still stand on my laurels and say:
I do not believe United Airlines flight 175 hit the second tower. Nor do I believe American Airlines flight 11 hit the first tower. All four planes probably met up in Newburgh NY and were taken, somewhere.....

I do believe some sort of disguised missile (perhaps a drone, similar to the photo Korg inserted above) were used but I cannot even begin to entertain that some CGI computer geek, stood by and was ready to insert a fake plane...just in the nick of time! That is too absurd even for me and trust me, I am the biggest cynic roaming this planet!

Again Korg, great job at painstakingly breaking down those frames!
edit on 25-10-2010 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Yeah, my post with the hologram video was used solely for the purpose of demonstrating the light change. Even in the OP's video, you can see the ghostly outline of the wing and tail, which may mean there was some kind of automatic or video-editor correction done on the color that was meant to take out noise or something. I in no way support the idea of holograms or alternative planes. Unless you know of a way to disguise another plane as a massive jetliner...



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
i watched the first 15 seconds of this video atleast 20 times now,
and to me it dose not look like that plane moves at all, (look at the other wing)
and the whole "maybe the camera couldnt pick it up" "reflection of light bs"
well i wonder why it was just that one part of the wing, because the whole thing dose not dissappear! its just the tip

so right now, i belive that this video was edited or something else has happend.
and the editing makes the most sense to me, why? not sure hmm



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayXBraun
i watched the first 15 seconds of this video atleast 20 times now,
and to me it dose not look like that plane moves at all, (look at the other wing)
and the whole "maybe the camera couldnt pick it up" "reflection of light bs"
well i wonder why it was just that one part of the wing, because the whole thing dose not dissappear! its just the tip

so right now, i belive that this video was edited or something else has happend.
and the editing makes the most sense to me, why? not sure hmm



I deal with video editing from time to time, and because of the blurry quality of the video, it could be safe to assume that a noise remover was used. When the wing and tail lit up (as evidenced by the video I posted earlier) in the same areas that became translucent (but not completely) in this video (as evidenced by the pictures posted by the guy earlier in this thread), it stands to reason that a computer's logic determined it to be noise and blended it with the surrounding color.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I think this may be apropos. So, where's the plane's wing? It's a great example of yet another optical illusion.

This photo was taken of a Lufthansa 747 and a United Airlines 757 that were on simultaneous approaches to runways 28L and 28R at San Francisco. The separation requirement for flying parallel and simultaneous approaches is 225 meters (738 feet).




So not everything is what it appears to be and much to our chagrin, some anomalies are explainable (but not all of ;em For it that were the case ATS couldn't exist
)



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
GUYS I'M WRITING IN CAPS BECAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR DEBUNKING


Please check

This video clearly shows a different angle and different video all together.
Look between 0:02 and 0:03



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Anttyk47
 


I believe that's called panning out in the film world. I don't see two different angles at all.





 
59
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join