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

reply to post by Orion7911


I'm not sure what you're referring to as fantasy in that video you posted, but I see no clear evidence of editing in the original video.

What I do see however is a fast moving object within a digital video stream on a website which utilizes an extreme amount of lossy compression; compression which is based almost entirely on color and motion. Not only are there compression artifacts, but YouTube is also notorious for dropping frames. Not to mention, the compression artifacts may have been compounded from other sources (other websites, the input device, the camera itself, etc.) Essentially what we're watching is nothing anywhere near close to the original video feed. The extra frames and the lost quality can speak volumes.

If someone can pull up an unconverted version of this video, then we are on grounds to either prove or debunk the theory. Otherwise, chalk it up to YouTube and/or wishful thinking/seeing.

Originally posted by Orion7911

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.

A higher-resolution still from the original video clip. I believe I see a wing:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/815420b624fe.jpg[/atsimg]

Also, even the original footage could show similar artifacts. The most common video formats such as DV, HDV, MPEG2, and many others use chroma sub-sampling ratios of 4:1:1, or 4:2:0, (as opposed to 4:4:4 which is true lossless color resolution) meaning that 3/4 of the original color information is discarded--in camera. Intermediate pixels either take on the value of the nearest sampling point or their value is computed by interpolation. The final result is usually negligible--but still, codecs can make "mistakes". Noticeable artifacts sometimes manifest depending on the nature and complexity of the original image. So what you see is never what was originally filmed.

Originally posted by xiphias
reply to post by Orion7911

 

I'm not sure what you're referring to as fantasy in that video you posted, but I see no clear evidence of editing in the original video.

What I do see however is a fast moving object within a digital video stream on a website which utilizes an extreme amount of lossy compression; compression which is based almost entirely on color and motion. Not only are there compression artifacts, but YouTube is also notorious for dropping frames. Not to mention, the compression artifacts may have been compounded from other sources (other websites, the input device, the camera itself, etc.) Essentially what we're watching is nothing anywhere near close to the original video feed. The extra frames and the lost quality can speak volumes.

If someone can pull up an unconverted version of this video, then we are on grounds to either prove or debunk the theory. Otherwise, chalk it up to YouTube and/or wishful thinking/seeing.

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
Originally posted by Orion7911

A higher-resolution still from the original video clip. I believe I see a wing:

Also, even the original footage could show similar artifacts. The most common video formats such as DV, HDV, MPEG2, and many others use chroma sub-sampling ratios of 4:1:1, or 4:2:0, (as opposed to 4:4:4 which is true lossless color resolution) meaning that 3/4 of the original color information is discarded--in camera. Intermediate pixels either take on the value of the nearest sampling point or their value is computed by interpolation. The final result is usually negligible--but still, codecs can make "mistakes". Noticeable artifacts sometimes manifest depending on the nature and complexity of the original image. So what you see is never what was originally filmed.

Sorry, but you can't attribute or account for all the anomalies and lack of crash physics to compression when the same issues appear in even the clearest versions of that footage and several have debunked your argument in this and other threads that has gone un-rebutted. The only way you can logically and fully dismiss these anomalies and what that footage shows, is if this footage isn't the same as what was broadcast! And if there is an "original" version which your argument is essentially claiming/implying wouldn't have this "LOSSY" artifacting, then if it DID, you'd have to admit and accept by default, the original premise of fakery/cgi.

You can't have it both ways. The compression loss you're talking about, should not be an issue in the originals or
higher res versions of that footage and the same anomalies cannot occur in different video's that were taken by different camera's and angles . But I submit the originals/higher res versions, contain nearly the same issues and therefore is irrelevant in terms of what is clearly seen and not seen and cannot be used as evidence of planes or proving the OS.

This is among one of the videos that was used to sell the plane theory. If that or any of the video's contain fakery, then the entire theory is suspect and must address and disprove the evidence that exposes it. And this is the quagmire/canard that the OS and RPT is confronted with. Just one example of TV fakery is enough to prove TV fakery. And no one to date has ever shown a video that shows concrete proof of real planes or flight 11 and 175 or any clear impact with any signs of crash physics that would be expected; all footage is inconsistent, contradictory, anomalous, and overall dodgy.

But Suppose we had one photo showing a plane with parts really missing, and another photo showing a plane with parts that only appear to missing. How would we know which one was which?

Originally posted by elnine

Sorry, but you can't attribute or account for all the anomalies and lack of crash physics to compression when the same issues appear in even the clearest versions of that footage and several have debunked your argument in this and other threads that has gone un-rebutted. The only way you can logically and fully dismiss these anomalies and what that footage shows, is if this footage isn't the same as what was broadcast! And if there is an "original" version which your argument is essentially claiming/implying wouldn't have this "LOSSY" artifacting, then if it DID, you'd have to admit and accept by default, the original premise of fakery/cgi.

You can't have it both ways. The compression loss you're talking about, should not be an issue in the originals or
higher res versions of that footage and the same anomalies cannot occur in different video's that were taken by different camera's and angles . But I submit the originals/higher res versions, contain nearly the same issues and therefore is irrelevant in terms of what is clearly seen and not seen and cannot be used as evidence of planes or proving the OS.

This is among one of the videos that was used to sell the plane theory. If that or any of the video's contain fakery, then the entire theory is suspect and must address and disprove the evidence that exposes it. And this is the quagmire/canard that the OS and RPT is confronted with. Just one example of TV fakery is enough to prove TV fakery. And no one to date has ever shown a video that shows concrete proof of real planes or flight 11 and 175 or any clear impact with any signs of crash physics that would be expected; all footage is inconsistent, contradictory, anomalous, and overall dodgy.

But Suppose we had one photo showing a plane with parts really missing, and another photo showing a plane with parts that only appear to missing. How would we know which one was which?

edit on 16-11-2010 by elnine because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-11-2010 by elnine because: (no reason given)

"Sorry, but you can't attribute or account for all the anomalies and lack of crash physics to compression . . ."
I have never mentioned crash physics or "all the anomalies". I'm referring only to the apparent "missing wing" in this video and possibly in other similar videos. My point is, as I stated earlier, It's useless to try to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding these kinds of "anomalies" when the footage being analyzed has been reproduced, transcoded, and compressed an unknown number of times. The original information is gone, rendering such evidence meaningless.

You say, " . . . the same anomalies cannot occur in different video's that were taken by different camera's and angles". Why so? Similar cameras or cameras employing the same type of compression codec could certainly produce similar artifacts.

You say "And no one to date has ever shown a video that shows concrete proof of real planes or flight 11 and 175 or any clear impact with any signs of crash physics that would be expected; all footage is inconsistent, contradictory, anomalous, and overall dodgy". That's merely your own perception/opinion. I would posit that no one to date has ever shown a video that shows concrete proof of fake planes or any intentional "fakery" on the part of the television news media.. Just because you don't understand what you are seeing, doesn't prove fakery. There are perhpas 50+ video clips showing planes impacting the towers--why is there not ONE clip in existence, from a camera in proper position, showing no plane? Not one leaked video from any member of the entire news production teams of five major networks--or--from a resident of the most populated city in the U.S during an event that occurred in broad daylight, with all eyes watching--not ONE that clearly shows the explosive WTC damage occurring in the absence of a plane. Where's the REAL evidence? You have nothing, just allegations of holograms, CGI, differing colors, moving buildings, pixel blips, conflicting witness accounts, what "should" or "should not" have happened in "real life", etc.

Regarding your comment on the photograph--therein lies the true beauty of the video fakery theory--it can't be refuted. Any refuting evidence presented in response to these fakery claims, can simply be dismissed as more "fakery".

reply to post by elnine


Just because someone said a theory has been debunked, doesn't mean it's been debunked. The crash physics have nothing to do with this thread. I see no evidence of editing, or any clear debunking effort in this thread. All I see is something I've seen a thousand times: a moving object disappearing, likely due to compression artifacts.

I hereby declare the debunking debunked.

After seeing all the evidence and how fake the planes must magically melt into the steel building like butter and seeing the "Nosed Out' video where the cockpit goes through the entire building without a scratch and then just poof disappears LOL, I don't think a plane hit at all. I think it was either a hologram or a camera trick. I don't know which one, but disappearing wings were NOT caused by cameras when we see it from multiple views so that is absurd.

If you notice on this thread, it's always the same people pushing the official fairy tale and examining their other activity shows that the vast majority have no other hobbies or interest than pushing the "company line". Isn't that amazing! LOL

9/11 Truth continues to gain ground. Even Geraldo Rivera, the scumbag had to admit that Bldg 7 makes no sense and that he is basically a truther now. Over 70% of Australia no longer believes the official government fairy tale and the last I head it was over 60% in the US don't believe the government story any more.

Keep investigating and spreading the truth. It makes no sense at all for wings to disappear and for nose of airplanes to go POOF and disappear in mid air LOL Clearly the official story is absurd and it's completely falling apart. Remember to keep posting truth on ATS and go get 5000 friends on Facebook too and post there too! The new world order HATES it when you don't let Shills change your mind or waste your time and instead you go out and tell 5,000 new people about all their lies! You can't stop the truth! It ALWAYS wins in the end no matter how many paid bloggers they pay to spread lies and disinfo.

reply to post by GlennCanady


"Shill" insinuations, crash "physics" and the alleged "nose out" phenomenon seem to be be a common refuges of retreat for "no-plane" truthers when they can't answer to whatever else has been brought to the table.

Originally posted by Anttyk47
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

The video is posted at youtube october 5th 2010, so that is absolutely no evidence of anything...other tha CGI was used to remove the wing.

Go find the same video posted many years ago and the wing is there.

Crap video made to make truthers look stupid.

The "New York No Plane Theory" is made up so people forget about all the other important subjects regarding the myth of 911.

It is a waste of time looking at new "evidence" from the World Trade center attack´s...unless there comes some pictures or video of the 25% they say was destroyed at WTC7.

Or the video of the plane that went down and "disapeared" in a hole...the one Dick Cheney shot down with a misile.

Or all the video of what hit Pentagon...why won´t they release all that fotage?

The 911 truthers should get back on track...

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
reply to post by GlennCanady

 

"Shill" insinuations, crash "physics" and the alleged "nose out" phenomenon seem to be be a common refuges of retreat for "no-plane" truthers when they can't answer to whatever else has been brought to the table.

Ever wonder why that might be?

Could it be that there is nothing the ANTI-truth people can do to debunk those facts?

And I second what has been said here... I wonder if it would be against the ATS Ts&Cs to produce a list of members I believe are directly or indirectly agents of TPTB....

Perhaps give them a chance to answer why they always have a "nothing to see here move along" attitude.... for if they are just ordinary people whom believes everything told to them by the main stream then why are they here on ATS???

The Facts are undeniable, there are to many things that don't add up about the OS, this missing wing business from multiple cameras and angles is a tiny slice of all the things that are wrong with the official standing of the event.

When I'm working on a large calculation and most of the equations don't equate to what I want, If I wanted I could hide the mistakes or change the results at the micro level to show the correct values in the final calculation, but the moment you take a closer look at it, it all starts to fall apart. This is exactly what has happened with 911.

Korg.

Geez. is this thread really still going on?

Originally posted by stucoles
Geez. is this thread really still going on?

Well done you have really added to the discussion with that comment!!

You have made your opinion known; you think it was a compression artefact. I stated that even if it was an artefact of that nature then that means that multiple cameras and camera angles that captured this must have been edited by the same process, which in turn is evidence of a single source for these videos....

do I really need to follow this train of thought for you or can you complete where that leads to??

My list of suspects is growing.

Korg.

This video, regarding a UFO seen by a helicopter enthusiast in NY, always struck me as odd. Because the craft they tend to see, is traveling along the same path as the ones used to smash in the World Trade Centre.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by stucoles
Geez. is this thread really still going on?

Well done you have really added to the discussion with that comment!!

You have made your opinion known; you think it was a compression artefact. I stated that even if it was an artefact of that nature then that means that multiple cameras and camera angles that captured this must have been edited by the same process, which in turn is evidence of a single source for these videos....

do I really need to follow this train of thought for you or can you complete where that leads to??

My list of suspects is growing.



Korg.

Firstly you don't know what my opinion is.
Secondly I really don't need you to "think" for me, thank you very much.
I have already commented on this thread about your theory and about your lack of 'fact' based evidence.
It just muddies the water.

I suspect the only reason this thread is kept going (by your kind self) is that you are rather enjoying the attention. As do most conspiracy theorists.

Enjoy it while it lasts.
S

Originally posted by stucoles

I suspect the only reason this thread is kept going (by your kind self) is that you are rather enjoying the attention. As do most conspiracy theorists.

Enjoy it while it lasts.
S

Well... seeing as there was a period of 15 days 7 hours and 35 posts by multiple members in between my posts, the whole "he is just keeping the thread alive" theory doesn't hold much water now does it!?!?

I would say your glossing over and selective analysis of the details is very typical of 911 Anti-Truth vocalists. All the details are important... it actually is what creates the bigger picture!!

In this case you don’t agree with what I am saying yet you have no evidence to substantiate why you don’t agree, so instead you try and make out that the thread is still going because I must be keeping it going without first analysing the actual circumstance. Just like the data I presented in my OP, you think it’s one thing, yet lack the ability to prove what you think is correct and what I propose is not. So rather than objectively looking at the details you set about trying to devalue my point of view.

I like the idea of stating what you think then letting other people make up their minds, rather than attacking people that don’t happen to think the same as you.

And anyway, it was you that bumped the thread with the comment why is this thread still here??.... So your logic is a little skew whiff...

Korg.

Originally posted by TheDolphinSings
This video, regarding a UFO seen by a helicopter enthusiast in NY, always struck me as odd. Because the craft they tend to see, is traveling along the same path as the ones used to smash in the World Trade Centre.

www.youtube.com...

You are correct. That video shows the same kind of top secret, remote-controlled, exploding, anti-gravity ball that was used to strike the WTC as was elucidated by expert scientific researcher, Richard D. Hall of RichPlanet.net. The government reserves this technology for malicious, media collusive psyops and other kinds of clandestine democide.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


stucoles didn't "bump" this thread, from obscurity where it should have been allowed to die a quiet, dignified death.

This nonsense post "bumped" it: www.abovetopsecret.com...

From same person with other agendas, to push the most ridiculous fantasies possible,and drive traffic to his website. That is all.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

stucoles didn't "bump" this thread, from obscurity where it should have been allowed to die a quiet, dignified death.

This nonsense post "bumped" it: www.abovetopsecret.com...

From same person with other agendas, to push the most ridiculous fantasies possible, and drive traffic to his website. That is all.

edit on 19 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the bump Weedwhacker my ATS Points keep on racking up and it was stucoles whom accused me of keeping the thread alive I was responding to... again use of selective detail... One of the main tools of an Anti-Truth vocalist.

Are you sure it wasn't this www.abovetopsecret.com... from two days earlier?? Or what about the 33 other posts that came before that???

I'm detecting a little envy at the thread stats by some members... come on get over it... and please get back on topic...

I have stated I think that whatever hit the WTC was a)not the OS airliner b) not a hologram c)not an alien space craft....

What I have said is that whatever hit the WTC was covered up using video editing and augmented reality to fit in with what the OS wants you to believe.

IF that is not what you think, then that's fine...

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


"points"????

OK, whatever man. Enjoy your 'points'!

I mean...wow! Trade them in for Green Stamps? Fine, let's keep posting, you get one point (I think) for each post in every thread you author. Great. "Spend" them wisely!

Maybe you can buy a Mercedes Benz with them, once you accumulate enough??

BUT, IF this is the reason you've been so adamant to not (apparently) "understand" logic and reason, about video compression effects, and you keep perpetuating this blatant NONSENSE about "wings disappearing:...for points???

Well, at least you're honest about it, and people can now take your "opinions" and put them on the proper shelf that they deserve.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

"points"????

OK, whatever man. Enjoy your 'points'!

I mean...wow! Trade them in for Green Stamps? Fine, let's keep posting, you get one point (I think) for each post in every thread you author. Great. "Spend" them wisely!

Maybe you can buy a Mercedes Benz with them, once you accumulate enough??

BUT, IF this is the reason you've been so adamant to not (apparently) "understand" logic and reason, about video compression effects, and you keep perpetuating this blatant NONSENSE about "wings disappearing:...for points???

Well, at least you're honest about it, and people can now take your "opinions" and put them on the proper shelf that they deserve.

Ermm.... you need to review this... Sarcasm

My reference to ATS points was meant as a sarcastic comment for those posts above claiming i'm bumping or that they appear a little jealous of the apparent success of the thread...

Seeing that you didn't see the subtleness of my comment speaks volumes to me about you and I have a little understanding now as to why you couldn't contemplate anything other than what the 911 OS tells you.

Not everything in writing is meant to be taken litrally.... Learn to read in between the lines... yeeesh...

Korg.