The reflection of sunlight from Venus obliterates that section of wing. Thus magnified by the luminescence of th Chinese lanterns just across the bay
"Reflection on the wing and the sky blah blah blah""
Works for me. Makes a lot more sense than the loads of garbage these cookie cutter debunkers are spouting. By the way, never underestimate the power
of Venus and Chinese Lanterns.
1) The metallic wing blended in with the sky blue background. Now that's a good one! Took you guys nine years to come up with that rubbish?
2) Video compression: yeah sure...aside from the wing of the plane, the rest of the video seems to have pretty good resolution and is perfectly fine.
I thought video comprssion affected the pixels for a good portion of the screen, not just a select few pixels, which in this case miraculously just
happens to be a wing.
3) Video artifact: randomly just pops up and makes only the wing disappear. Now what are the chances of that?
"I did not say that compressed video footage was not any kind of reliable evidence at all. What I said was that certain ANOMALIES seen in the video
clips, i.e., quirks, distortions, missing detail, etc.--artifacts that can manifest via the process of video compression--are not reliable as evidence
When all of the pixels in the video are fine, except for the pixels which create the wing, this is not only reliable evidence of fakery, this is a
tell tale sign of fakery. Video artifacts are randomly created. The chances of it just occurring on a wing must be over one million to one.
"In both photography and video many kinds of compression artifacts are considered typical because they commonly show up in similar kinds of
conditions regardless of the camera being used. "
Regardless of the camera being used and regardless of the angle it is being shot from? That's funny - because I thought if you shoot the same scene
from a different angle using a different camera, the lighting would be completely different and you would not get the same "artifacts". Thanks for
trying to enlighten me, but I'll pass on the Kool Aid this time around.
"I'm saying that MANY video cameras would be (and were) pointed at the towers when the second plane hit because WTC 1 WAS ENGULFED IN FLAMES and
people were dying."
How do you know how many real amateur photographers were pointing their cameras at the Towers at that time? Were most people who were commuting to
work that day armed with cameras which were functioning? Why do you make such an assumption without providing any proof, since there were only 16
short minutes between the two impacts. Not really a heck of a lot of time for people to run home and get their cameras.
What I do know is that there is at least one well known "alleged amateur video" out there which jump cuts just prior to the second impact. Yeah, I
know, they must have quit filming to change the film or battery and turned on the camera a split second before the second impact. Ha! Ha! Go to 1:47
of the video below:
And here are four more amateur videos. Anybody see an airplane in these videos?
And I'm sure there are more videos which DO NOT show a second plane. In fact, the only evidence of a second plane are from the fake amateur and media
videos which contain a dark non-reflecting shadow cartoonish looking plane. For such a brilliant clear day, is there any reason why a metallic plane
would not be reflecting light all the way around?
Next time you're near an airport on a clear sunny day, take a look at the airplanes in the sky and see how much light they're reflecting all the way
around. If you see a commercial airliner which looks like a dark cartoonish shadow (like the phony bluescreen CGI garbage they showed us on 9/11),
please take a photo or video of it because I'd love to see this.