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

reply to post by weedwhacker


I'm siding with Korg on that one. It was pretty obvious he was being sarcastic and you did kind of go off on an off-topic tangent.

I still think this was just a common video glitch. It probably was an OS plane from all the angles that I have seen, including paint schemes of various airliners. There wasn't anything particularly interesting about the Boeings that hit on 9/11.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Ah....capisce.

Difficult to read sarcasm, sometimes...especially when "TWD" ("typing while distracted")

So, I'll "side" with you on that one, too. (Thing is, once-upon-a-time, those "points" were useful, for certain reasons....BUT, that was three years ago, and I forget that many haven't been on these Boards that long, so aren't aware of that history....)

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
My list of suspects is growing.

Is this list alphabetical order or in order of our appearance?

I wont tell you what list I have you on.

Also, I see crappy compressed digital file along with lighting anomalies. I believe that is what you are seeing in the videos presented.

Fingers crossed that I may be numero uno.

Originally posted by Korg TrinityI 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....

Here is a list of things that I think did NOT hit the World Trade Center: a) not a cheese Steak b) not Leaping Lanny Poffo c) not Jupiter

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...

Gotta love that female UFO "researcher" with a camera asking:
-"What is that?"
-"It´s over there...!"

...and she never thinks about taking a picture

Bad disinfo viral video

Originally posted by OpenEndStr8
Originally posted by Anttyk47

This video clearly shows a different angle and different video all together.
---
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.

is that so? If what you say is true then please show this alleged video that shows the wing is there as you claim.

Of course I know you won't since both video's will show the SAME anomaly.

but thank you for admitting the footage was manipulated and shows CGI..

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.

No, dodging the evidence and arguments about things like crash physics and the nose out phenomenon seem to be the common refuges of retreat for anti no-plane truthers when they can't answer or refute those arguments and whats brought to the table in favor No real planes debate.

Originally posted by xiphias
reply to post by elnine

 

Just because someone said a theory has been debunked, doesn't mean it's been debunked.

So just because someone says No planes theory has been debunked, doesn't mean its been debunked.

Originally posted by xiphias
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.

crash physics are apart of the context in the discussion of the no real planes theory... if you refuse to address all aspects that comprise it, then you have no real interest in seeking or understanding the basics of the theory.

and saying that its "likely" due to compression, is the same failed argument based on speculation that proves or disproves nothing not to mention you ignore the rebuttal argument... balls in your court. PROVE or show exactly how and where the rebuttal is illogical and compression accounts for and disproves all the other aspects and evidence presented.

Originally posted by xiphias
I hereby declare the debunking debunked.

i hereby declare that the claim its been debunked, has been debunked.

Originally posted by tones
I think one of you crazy #s edited it

Correct!

Either goverment disinfo agents trying to make truthers spend time on false edited videos, so the real evidence is drowned in this kind of crap.

Or some crazy truther that just want some attention...just like the clowns who make fake UFO video´s.

No matter what, the MSM always use this kind of videos to make truthers look stupid

Originally posted by eNumbra
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Between those two images, the lighting on the side of the plane seems to have changed, so if the plane tilted a bit it's not out of the realm of possibility that the camera couldn't pick up a very slight difference in color between the reflection on that wing and the sky behind it.
Interesting regardless, as it obviously "appears" to disappear, not as nearly subjective as other video evidence.

Ah yea
The reflection of sunlight from Venus obliterates that section of wing. Thus magnified by the luminescence of the Chinese lanterns just across the bay
Really?????
"Reflection on the wing and the sky blah blah blah"
Really!

I too have reviewed several of the videos in utube of the 2nd plane strike. In this ONE, the wing particall disappears and then reappears, all the way into the building.
What I find suspect, is that this videographer convently zooms out and centers the image exactly where the plane is to strike!
Something isn't right here.
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
Originally posted by elnine

"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.

Sorry, but when this SAME FOOTAGE you claim isn't reliable has been used to sell the OS, RPT and proof of "planes" flight 11 and 175, you have to apply the same logic when claiming no planers argument is nonsense.

You can't have it both ways. what don't you understand?

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
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.

Sorry, but the SAME anomalies cannot occur at different angles and cameras... the probability of such a coincidence defies common sense or logic and ignores the context of all the evidence presented.

you can't pick and choose what only fits your argument and ignore other data or context that must be considered for one to come to an accurate assessment that you claim doesn't prove what has never been proven to begin with.

show a comparable example of artifacting in another video that supports your argument and conclusively disproves NRPT

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
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..

and for that to be anything more than your perception/opinion, you have to refute ALL the evidence thats been presented here and in such analysis like SC and others, point by point and show exactly how and where they're wrong. So you lose just based on "rebuttable presumption" solely due to the fact you haven't been able to rebut the evidence thats been presented which exposes unexplained anomalies and requests for verified raw footage.

the OS about real planes is mostly based upon the same footage you claim isn't reliable... so until you can prove the footage that is claimed as proof of planes, is real, NPT isn't any less credible than RPT.

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
Just because you don't understand what you are seeing, doesn't prove fakery.

just because you claim what you're seeing proves real planes, doesn't prove real planes or disprove fakery especially when you haven't shown exactly how the evidence in favor of NRPT and that contradicts yours, is wrong...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

...for starters.

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
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-

aside from that being a logical fallacy, how can you claim 50+ video clips that can't be verified, is proof supporting what the OS claims about planes hitting the wtc?

and who would be filming or taking pictures of an EMPTY SKY
just before the building unexpectedly exploded ?

Exactly...NOBODY.

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
-not ONE that clearly shows the explosive WTC damage occurring in the absence of a plane.

wut u talkin bout willis? There's many videos that show the tower exploding that shows no plane in it

Something witnesses including news reporters also stated.

The videos of the plane were so unconvincing that the reporters on TV had to keep telling the viewers that the images were real even though they looked more like a 'bad special effect'.

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
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.

You can't get away from the fact that the planes in the 9/11 footage don't behave like planes are expected to behave when they're involved in an accident. On the other hand, they DO behave like the planes in the composite videos. That means we should assume the 9/11 plane videos are composites unless we find compelling evidence to suggest they were real planes.

Another sleight of hand used by the planehuggers is to claim that the burden of proof lies with the no-planers. In both science and law, the burden of proof rests with whichever party is making the most extraordinary claims. Since the archived footage of the 9/11 attacks shows images of planes apparently defying the laws of physics, the theory that the planes were real is an extraordinary claim which has to be proved. Now it's been shown that the videos could have been faked relatively easily using computer software, no planes theory carries the benefit of assumption, which means it's reasonable to assume the videos were faked unless there's convincing evidence to the contrary. The extraordinary claim that aluminium planes flew straight through steel columns needs to be backed up by extraordinary evidence for STARTERS.

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
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".

and if you claim its fake and fail to show footage you claim isn't fake but has the same anomalies, then you're admitting there is no proof of real planes.

sorry

Originally posted by Violater1
I too have reviewed several of the videos in utube of the 2nd plane strike. In this ONE, the wing particall disappears and then reappears, all the way into the building.
What I find suspect, is that this videographer convently zooms out and centers the image exactly where the plane is to strike!
Something isn't right here.
www.youtube.com...

Exactly... the odds of that zoom out is beyond coincidental and when taken in context with all the other coincidental perfectly timed ZOOM OUTS and masterful tracking in other footage, the odds of coincidence is astronomical.

but then we have the audio evidence as well...

listen to the "plane soundtrack" carefully... the roar of the engine continues even after its struck the building.

Really quite funny such simple things are ignored and dismissed by planers.

Originally posted by Varemia
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:

I thought this "might" be important, as people here seem to have forgotten that these things really do happen in video. You just have to be at the right angle and anything on a plane can disappear, apparently.

reply to post by elnine

....the roar of the engine continues even after its struck the building.

Even IF that were accurate, and not exaggerated .... you are aware of the speed of light, versus the speed of sound, correct?

Ever seen a fireworks show?

(This is yet another prime example of how Hollywood entertainment has skewed people's perceptions of how they THINK something should look/sound, and the timings......). **

**In case you didn't know, filmed entertainment takes a lot of liberties with physics, for effect. People don't want to see a building blow up, and then hear the sound 2 1/2 or 4 seconds later, when they are watching "Die Hard" or "Independence Day", for example....

Fun fact: Next time you are seeing lightning, and hearing thunder? Count the seconds from a really good FLASH, until you hear its thunder. For (roughly) every 5 seconds that you count, you know the lightning was actually about ONE mile away.

reply to post by elnine

Sorry, but when this SAME FOOTAGE you claim isn't reliable has been used to sell the OS, RPT and proof of "planes" flight 11 and 175, you have to apply the same logic when claiming no planers argument is nonsense.

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 of fakery. If, however, you believe that video rendering and/or transcoding can randomly generate the image of a 767 flying into an exploding building, then you're right, it all has to be thrown out.

Sorry, but the SAME anomalies cannot occur at different angles and cameras... the probability of such a coincidence defies common sense or logic and ignores the context of all the evidence presented.

Of course they can. Many kinds of cameras process images in the same or similar ways. For example, the DV format uses a 4:1:1 ratio for chroma sub-sampling, meaning 3/4 of the original color information is discarded. Any artifacts resulting from such sub-sampling could manifest among different DV cameras filming the same scene, regardless of model or brand of cameras used. 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.

. . . and who would be filming or taking pictures of an EMPTY SKY
just before the building unexpectedly exploded ?

WTF? Does this need explaining? None of the clips showing the second plane impact were filming an "empty sky". 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. This is why there are NUMEROUS video clips in existence from multiple cameras and angles showing the second plane impacting the south tower--as would be expected. But if these are all fake--why is there not ONE existing video clip showing the explosion of the south tower which does not show a plane? Not one person in all of NYC who was filming this disaster captured what ACTUALLY happened? Did men in black rush in and confiscate those tapes and then erase their memories? Or--was there not one person among the entire production teams of five major news networks, e.g., producers, directors, writers, cameramen, anchors, reporters, technical engineers, sound engineers, editors, gaffers, helicopter pilots, etc.who didn't mind participating in the murder of 3000 people--someone who could have leaked some "real" video footage unaltered by CGI special effects? Where's the "real" footage?

Also--your burden of proof argument is bass-akwards. Only the minority no-plane fanatics believe the footage of the 9/11 attacks shows images of planes apparently defying the laws of physics. The rest of us do not.

reply to post by elnine

listen to the "plane soundtrack" carefully... the roar of the engine continues even after its struck the building.
Really quite funny such simple things are ignored and dismissed by planers.

Another cogent no-planer analysis. Good thing the special-effects experts who faked this video understood the delay of sound due to it's significantly slower than light speed. Otherwise we'd really have a suspicious video.

"Ah yea
The reflection of sunlight from Venus obliterates that section of wing. Thus magnified by the luminescence of th Chinese lanterns just across the bay Really?????
"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 of fakery."

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:

www.youtube.com...

And here are four more amateur videos. Anybody see an airplane in these videos?

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

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.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

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

It isn't my (or anyone else's problem) that you post with such enticing challenges.....



Thing is, given more time, and better search words in YouTube (or any other video Search Engine), there are MANY, MANY, MANY more examples. (This one of course is about the so-called "UFO" nonsense, but it DOES have a nice silhouetted airplane example, of which, as I know, there are plenty of examples. IN FACT, anyone who knows ANYTHING about filming, especially video, will realize....).

This is just too easy.....!!!