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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?!

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...

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

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.

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 )