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

Oops. Please delete.

Originally posted by Varemia
Oh, oh, oh, oh! Lookie look look. I found something cool. I know how Korg dismissed the video of the fighter with the wing disappearing, and well, I was watching this Boeing 767 in an airshow on this video. At 2:50, the wings disappear. EV-I-DENCE!

Korg? Have you seen this? I'd like to know what you think. Lifesux's post appears to have metaphorically made mine disappear, so here it is again.

The thing about the video I've shown is that the Boeing actually tilts almost exactly the same way as the one on 9/11, but it does it in the reverse fashion. This made the bottom wing "vanish" rather than the top wing. Plus, the Boeing in the video I showed wasn't even silhouetted, further adding proof to the fact that this is a video artifact, unless they use airplanes edited to look like Boeings in air shows.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Varemia
Oh, oh, oh, oh! Lookie look look. I found something cool. I know how Korg dismissed the video of the fighter with the wing disappearing, and well, I was watching this Boeing 767 in an airshow on this video. At 2:50, the wings disappear. EV-I-DENCE!

Korg? Have you seen this? I'd like to know what you think. Lifesux's post appears to have metaphorically made mine disappear, so here it is again.

The thing about the video I've shown is that the Boeing actually tilts almost exactly the same way as the one on 9/11, but it does it in the reverse fashion. This made the bottom wing "vanish" rather than the top wing. Plus, the Boeing in the video I showed wasn't even silhouetted, further adding proof to the fact that this is a video artifact, unless they use airplanes edited to look like Boeings in air shows.

Sorry, but that example can't be compared to the "plane" in the 9/11 vid at all if not just because of the color contrasts not to mention the backdrop in the 9/11 footage is CLEAR BLUE on a CLEAR DAY... in yours, its GREY ON GREY which blends into the sky almost perfectly on a CLOUDY day. So the optical illusion due to colors and angle going in the opposite direction and wing facing INTO the camera, is logical and expected.

2nd, the "planes" speeds are different, the cameras are different, the angles are different, the motion is different and unlike the 9/11 footage, the footage above depicts FAR MORE REALITY of what a REAL PLANE SHOULD look like in motion not to mention the frame sequences during the wing and rudder disappearance in the 9/11 clip, show a totality different anomaly occurring.

reply to post by Orion7911


Not entirely. The video I've shown fairly conclusively proves that wings can and do disappear. The wings were visible for the entire video until the wing got at the right angle to disappear from the angle that the camera was viewing it.

What about this one? Yes, it's jets again, but air shows are the only place you'll find planes going multiple angles. This one takes place on a blue sky, the wing disappearance at the angle happens right after 2:22 while the plane is banking upward :


This one's not as good, but at 1:53, the fighters break away and the camera zooms out. The zoom-out changes the angle and reception of the lens, and the wings of the crafts disappear, while two on the left almost completely vanish. Again, clear sky:


In this one, once again clear sky, the wing end blends into the sky at 5:34 or so. You can't blame this on thinness of the wing, because many other angles reveal this to not occur again when the wing is straight at the camera. It is a repeatable artifact of video:





But, I'm certain this won't matter, because to a true non-believer, you have to completely reproduce every aspect of an event to the atomic structure of things to make it real. (slight exaggeration, but come on. The type of duplication of events for comparison you are trying to find is impossible to produce, even with an unlimited budget. Someone could probably reproduce everything, and you would say that a pilot can't fly the exact path of another pilot, so the evidence is not exact enough.)

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Excuse me if I don't read the thread completely- I have severe dyslexia
You and Orion are so 53 pages- advanced in your posts, who is claiming HOLOGRAM?
I saw the example "wing disappear videos" from the stunt shows.
NOT one wing disappeared completely. 98% yes, but not completely.

However, I am interested if there is another shot of it on 911. (I have only seen it disappear in this one shot) The one shot showing the wing cut off is at an angle is unlike the examples.
Large, flat easily visible to the camera, it could be anything...

If I may ask for a favor also: The top wing is 50% of it's size in (0:06.10) of the OP video (just before it disappears) The tail/rudder is 50% gone- and remains slightly 20 % visible throughout.

That being said- here is my question. At that point (0:06.50 of the video) is the rudder parallel to the outermost point/flex of the wing?

reply to post by Korg Trinity


These planes are all very bad video overlays, (but they didn't have much time to do a good job) they are superimposed over the real planes that were used, which were cargo planes or remote drones. Go here for proof:
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by jelleepie
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

These planes are all very bad video overlays, (but they didn't have much time to do a good job) they are superimposed over the real planes that were used, which were cargo planes or remote drones. Go here for proof:
www.youtube.com...

Shack is whack. The guy has the analytical sophistication of a six-year-old--everything is interpreted literally. "They're all the exact same shot", "The colors are different", "The bridge is moving", "That building jumped", "The nose went through", "It's a flying ball", "The background is erased", etc. He's utterly ignorant of required knowledge when analyzing video, e.g., parallax, perspective compression, aerial/atmospheric perspective, video compression artifacts, etc. 99% of his fakery allegations are due to folly, negligence, and/or ignorance.

I like YougeneDebs assessment of Simon Shack's work as "auto-debunkery". See why:

Originally posted by brainsandgravy

Originally posted by jelleepie
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

These planes are all very bad video overlays, (but they didn't have much time to do a good job) they are superimposed over the real planes that were used, which were cargo planes or remote drones. Go here for proof:
www.youtube.com...

Shack is whack. The guy has the analytical sophistication of a six-year-old--everything is interpreted literally. "They're all the exact same shot", "The colors are different", "The bridge is moving", "That building jumped", "The nose went through", "It's a flying ball", "The background is erased", etc. He's utterly ignorant of required knowledge when analyzing video, e.g., parallax, perspective compression, aerial/atmospheric perspective, video compression artifacts, etc. 99% of his fakery allegations are due to folly, negligence, and/or ignorance.

I like YougeneDebs assessment of Simon Shack's work as "auto-debunkery". See why:

Oh puhleaazzze... the issue of Parallax doesn't remotely debunk or address even 1/10th of the fakery evidence and argument. In fact, this portion of SC wasn't even an issue I and most would focus on or use as evidence for arguing fakery.

reply to post by Orion7911


He wasn't saying everything was non-faked, he was just showing that the argument that guy posted was, in fact, false.

While I have yet to see any evidence of 9/11 fakery, I'm willing to accept that some people may have some. I just am waiting to see it.

Originally posted by Tribble
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Excuse me if I don't read the thread completely- I have severe dyslexia
You and Orion are so 53 pages- advanced in your posts, who is claiming HOLOGRAM?
I saw the example "wing disappear videos" from the stunt shows.
NOT one wing disappeared completely. 98% yes, but not completely.

its a hologram in terms of CGI and was "dropping out" or poorly done.

so cgi is for all intents and purposes, a type of hologram i suppose.

but there is a totally separate hologram theory though which i'm not sold on yet... however the technology i believe did exist and is theoretically possible.

funny, what better BLUE SCREEN to use on 9/11 than a perfectly blue sky backdrop

Will the OP or someone take the video on page 2 that Weedwhacker posted and do a frame by frame. You will notice the wing does in fact disappears around 0.004 And could someone explain the light on the building that moves?? If someone has posted this sorry if no one has mentioned then could you please do a frame by frame. I don't know how. I don't know how to do a lot of stuff on ATS is defiantly NOT user friendly. But at the very least could someone answer this. I hate posting thing that never get noticed.

Originally posted by Ghrwilson
Will the OP or someone take the video on page 2 that Weedwhacker posted and do a frame by frame. You will notice the wing does in fact disappears around 0.004 And could someone explain the light on the building that moves?? If someone has posted this sorry if no one has mentioned then could you please do a frame by frame. I don't know how. I don't know how to do a lot of stuff on ATS is defiantly NOT user friendly. But at the very least could someone answer this. I hate posting thing that never get noticed.

Indeed. The opposite wing from the OP disappears, because the shaded area entered shaded area. The problem is, these videos are all VERY low quality, and as such video artifacts are to be expected.

reply to post by Varemia


I'm baffled as to why people take these low-quality or highly compressed video clips and assume that what they're seeing is an accurate representation of what was originally filmed. You can't analyze, frame by frame, a clip which has been rendered via a lossy compression codec and not expect to see quirky artifacts--like pixels dropping in and out. It's called "lossy" compression because information is lost--lots of it. There's all kinds of algorithmic pixel blocking, sub-sampling, and interpolating going on--especially in these clips which have been copied and transcoded several times over. It's useless to try to draw any meaningful conclusions based on most of these minor "anomalies" people hunt for in these video clips.

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
So you are trying to say that actual footage showing the plane wing disappear is not odd??

This is not make-believe this is actual footage....

Incorrect statement!!!
It's a compressed digital file of the "actual footage".

2nd generation and possibly more.

And most likely edited...it is so obvios that it would have been noticed years ago, if the video had been "original".

Look at "older" video´s and you will see the wing do not "disapear"!

The "no plane theory" is made up to make the truth movement look silly IMO

Originally posted by OpenEndStr8
So you are trying to say that actual footage showing the plane wing disappear is not odd??
This is not make-believe this is actual footage....
================
Incorrect statement!!!
It's a compressed digital file of the "actual footage".
2nd generation and possibly more.
And most likely edited...it is so obvios that it would have been noticed years ago, if the video had been "original".
Look at "older" video´s and you will see the wing do not "disapear"!

please provide the footage you're talking about because the FACT is that the footage showing the disappearing wing, is from the original and the argument about compression or multiple gen videos has already been addressed and debunked... sorry.

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
reply to post by Varemia

 

I'm baffled as to why people take these low-quality or highly compressed video clips and assume that what they're seeing is an accurate representation of what was originally filmed. You can't analyze, frame by frame, a clip which has been rendered via a lossy compression codec and not expect to see quirky artifacts--like pixels dropping in and out. It's called "lossy" compression because information is lost--lots of it. There's all kinds of algorithmic pixel blocking, sub-sampling, and interpolating going on--especially in these clips which have been copied and transcoded several times over. It's useless to try to draw any meaningful conclusions based on most of these minor "anomalies" people hunt for in these video clips.

there's more than ample footage with clear evidence of fakery along with the issues you're talking about having been addressed and debunked many times.. but more importantly, until you can provide the original footage and show its any more clear than what you claim is not original, your argument is an epic failure.

reply to post by Orion7911


That's certainly a disinformation tactic. You're saying that until we, equal viewers like yourself, come up with the originals of the obviously second-hand or more videos on youtube, that you will continue to oppose the idea that the problems were just reproducible video artifacts. How could we possibly find the originals if you can't? We're on equal grounds in respect to the availability of internet information.

Also, I always hear this. This "we have all the evidence" and "there's overwhelming evidence" and "so much has already been shown" is just fallacy at best. I mean, almost every bit of "evidence" that truthers bring up turns out to be a video glitch due to processing, misinformation, disinformation, and outright lying. Whenever you say that there is evidence, you have to support it. A statement needs to hold its water once it is filled. If it leaks, then it is just an empty statement.

First you have to ask yourself: why would the wing suddenly disappear? Is the video fake? Is the airplane a hologram projected by HAARP? Is the airplane a morphing alien technology? No, probably not.

The wing tilts up and is lit in such a way that it blends into the blueness of the sky. It's the smoothness and geometry of the wing that allows it to blend so well. Don't forget the speed at which it's moving, which definitely plays into the CMOS process in the camera. Also, there are likely frames missing from the video; and the compression on the video plays a big part in the arrangement of the pixels.

Digital video can play tricks on your eyes. It's most likely an optical illusion. Your eyes see what they want to see. Sometimes you have to rely on your brain instead.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Orion7911

 

That's certainly a disinformation tactic. You're saying that until we, equal viewers like yourself, come up with the originals of the obviously second-hand or more videos on youtube, that you will continue to oppose the idea that the problems were just reproducible video artifacts. How could we possibly find the originals if you can't?

I'm saying the OS claims planes hit the towers and those who support their claims, use footage on net that contain anomalies and evidence of fakery, as proof of planes.

so the burden of proving planes hasn't been proven to begin with.

and if the footage can be verified as being directly from the original footage thats used to sell the OS and real planes, then you're admitting by default the NRPT is FACT.

so, are you claiming the footage nrpt's have claimed contains fakery, is in fact not taken from the original?

be careful how you answer

lol

Originally posted by xiphias
First you have to ask yourself: why would the wing suddenly disappear? Is the video fake?

that and cgi.

Originally posted by xiphias
The wing tilts up and is lit in such a way that it blends into the blueness of the sky. It's the smoothness and geometry of the wing that allows it to blend so well. Don't forget the speed at which it's moving, which definitely plays into the CMOS process in the camera. Also, there are likely frames missing from the video; and the compression on the video plays a big part in the arrangement of the pixels.

Digital video can play tricks on your eyes. It's most likely an optical illusion. Your eyes see what they want to see. Sometimes you have to rely on your brain instead.

edit on 15-11-2010 by xiphias because: (no reason given)

an argument thats been totally debunked repeatedly.

clearly most don't have even the most basic common sense to distinguish reality from fantasy.

and this is pure fantasy