Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 35
59
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
HA HA! Of course it's the "wrong angle, wrong lighting. wrong background. wrong everything"--it's the filming of a different event.


I rest MY case


Originally posted by brainsandgravy
It is similar though in that it shows distant banking airplanes against a clear blue sky. The question though, is can video compression artifacts cause the apparent sudden disappearance of detail such as an airplane wing.


yes and no.

in general, perhaps yes it can. But in the case of 9/11, NO IT CAN'T where there's unusual circumstances, evidence needed to be examine, and context to incorporate/consider/factor in before one can conclude what you'd like most to believe that its as simple as COMPRESSION artifacts.

But No, it isn't even SIMILAR at all... so unless you can show a COMPARABLE example, your argument is irrelevant and proves or disproves nothing.... The entire clip of that video is filled with artifacting due to far more compression affecting even the cloudy sky. Not true in the 9/11 vids... totally different dynamics are occurring and involved.


Originally posted by brainsandgravy
Obviously, as is demonstrated here, it can--unless you believe this clip is also fake.
How do you explain in this clip one wing on both plains completely vanishing?


You continue to dodge several posts that have addressed and debunked the compression issue which you've failed to logically refute or explain away how its possible the SAME anomalies show the same right wing disappear at the exact same time, while being recorded in totally different position, angle, and height....

the hologram/cgi around the "thing" that hit the tower, failed at the last moment.

edit on 25-11-2010 by elnine because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by elnine

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
HA HA! Of course it's the "wrong angle, wrong lighting. wrong background. wrong everything"--it's the filming of a different event.


I rest MY case


Originally posted by brainsandgravy
It is similar though in that it shows distant banking airplanes against a clear blue sky. The question though, is can video compression artifacts cause the apparent sudden disappearance of detail such as an airplane wing.


yes and no.

in general, perhaps yes it can. But in the case of 9/11, NO IT CAN'T where there's unusual circumstances, evidence needed to be examine, and context to incorporate/consider/factor in before one can conclude what you'd like most to believe that its as simple as COMPRESSION artifacts.

But No, it isn't even SIMILAR at all... so unless you can show a COMPARABLE example, your argument is irrelevant and proves or disproves nothing.... The entire clip of that video is filled with artifacting due to far more compression affecting even the cloudy sky. Not true in the 9/11 vids... totally different dynamics are occurring and involved.


Originally posted by brainsandgravy
Obviously, as is demonstrated here, it can--unless you believe this clip is also fake.
How do you explain in this clip one wing on both plains completely vanishing?


You continue to dodge several posts that have addressed and debunked the compression issue which you've failed to logically refute or explain away how its possible the SAME anomalies show the same right wing disappear at the exact same time, while being recorded in totally different position, angle, and height....

the hologram/cgi around the "thing" that hit the tower, failed at the last moment.

edit on 25-11-2010 by elnine because: (no reason given)


Okay yeah I get it--compression artifacts don't apply to 9/11 videos because of all the other fake stuff like moving bridges, walking buildings, differing colors, noses in and out, mysterious anti-gravity balls, and all the other incontrovertible proof of fakery. Never mind.

By the way--when you say, "I rest my case"--you're not supposed to continue blathering, because . . . well, that's not really resting your "case".
edit on 25-11-2010 by brainsandgravy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 

Its smoke.
The wing enters a diffused smoke and seems to disappear.
I saw the plane hit from the rear on the news live on that day.
The wing was there and i will never forget the feeling.
There is no conspiracy. Government isn't smart enough to cover up a blow job in the white house, let alone 2 planes killing many, some of who i knew and did business with.

Think a bit before posting kindle that can start a fire.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelwerks
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 

Its smoke. The wing enters a diffused smoke and seems to disappear.


too bad you didn't address the evidence that debunked that reasoning, nor have any real evidence to support it.


Originally posted by Angelwerks
I saw the plane hit from the rear on the news live on that day.


In other words, you DIDN'T SEE a plane other than what you were TOLD and SHOWN via fakery,
to be a plane.


Are people still this gullible? even on a forum that has mountains of irrefutable evidence thats addressed, discussed, and debunked the "PLANES HIT THE TOWERS CUZ I SAW IT LIVE ON TV" assertion.

I'd be willing to accept the possibility that you haven't done any research on the subject you're criticizing, but with all the information available here and else where by even the most basic research, its a bit hard to believe you haven't seen anything at all. And if you have, why not present an argument, or ANY ARGUMENT with evidence to support what you're asserting?

its truly bizarre tbh.


Originally posted by Angelwerks
The wing was there and i will never forget the feeling.


right... in some of the fake footage, the cgi didn't fail.


Originally posted by Angelwerks
There is no conspiracy. Government isn't smart enough to cover up a blow job in the white house, let alone 2 planes killing many, some of who i knew and did business with.
Think a bit before posting kindle that can start a fire.


think a bit? ur kidding right? the sad thing is, i don't think you are.

may i suggest you take your own advice and consider other perspectives and sides of the argument than just your own? That is one of the main purposes of this forum you know; for debate which should be objective and more about evidence facts and proving ones opinions than making empty claims. Only someone in denial who doesn't "think" much or who that hasn't done any real research into the evidence and facts, ever make such statements.

Of course though, there's no conspiracy and nothing to see here folks...
seems those who've uncovered the TRUTH and taken the time to seek it, always encounter many like you who haven't or don't want to for fear of finding how ugly it is and how easily they were deceived.

Go back to sleep America, take it from Angelwerks, with all the evidence to the contrary, there was no conspiracy on 9/11 other than the OS aka the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY which AW finds nothing wrong with.


wow. just wow.

This non-chalant mentality/attitude is exactly why the perps were able to pull off 9/11, may never be brought to justice and helps to perpetuate the ignorance and disinfo that keeps the Truth hidden.

In the age of information, this is perhaps the most ignorant generation in the history of the world.

-L9



edit on 26-11-2010 by elnine because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by elnine
 


So, your evidence that it can't happen is backed up by the fact that the events that day have never been replicated to the exact detail of every single factor? It's as if nothing can convince some of you that some details of 9/11 were innocent byproducts of nothing.

Someone shows the video artifact of wings disappearing under particular angles multiple times. I'VE shown video artifacts of wings disappearing, going to the trouble of even singling out clear-sky days. I'm told that all those videos must be faked or that they aren't close enough to the day of 9/11 to be counted as proof of the possibility of wing disappearance in video? That's just plain ignorance.

We're not trying to challenge you guys' beliefs in a 9/11 conspiracy. We're just trying to say that this video is insignificant. Literally that it means nothing. There are far more important aspects to be investigating than a video artifact, and the fact that you are vehemently fighting for this is borderline ridiculous, really.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   


I'm wondering if the particle-beam theory as postulated by Judy Wood and others has been considered in possibly explaining the missing wing phenomenon observed in this and other 9/11 video clips. Above I have illustrated how this might have been done.

Any thoughts on the plausibility of this?



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
Any thoughts on the plausibility of this?


Very Mature...

Very telling, you know they say silence speaks volumes... maybe you should take notice of that?

As I have already said, I DO NOT believe alien technology was used on 911… I believe new tech in terms of explosive charges.. i.e. nano thermite etc… But this thread is not about the obvious controlled demolition, it is about the fact that CGI was used to overlay whatever truly stuck the wtc.

Korg.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous Acorn

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


So...I find most of these videos of OMG 9/11 PROOFS!!!111 to be really lame, but I am seeing exactly what you are seeing.

The plane goes in and then the wing "disappears". I don't know if it's an optical illusion or what, but it's there, then it "isn't"

Very interesting...


As crazy as this sounds... and saying it is against my better judgment... because I've never even heard anyone else mention this before... but is it possible that what we actually witnessed on 9/11 was a hologram portrayed as an attack just before the buildings fell under a controlled demolition??? Not saying that's what I believe... just wondering what others might suspect after watching this video???


Exactly my thoughts.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by stimmy

Originally posted by Anonymous Acorn
As crazy as this sounds... and saying it is against my better judgment... because I've never even heard anyone else mention this before... but is it possible that what we actually witnessed on 9/11 was a hologram portrayed as an attack just before the buildings fell under a controlled demolition??? Not saying that's what I believe... just wondering what others might suspect after watching this video???


Exactly my thoughts.


The main issue I have the hologram theory is that for a hologram to manifest you need some medium for the light to coherently form a shape. In other words you need something to project onto.

I did quite a bit of research in holography a while back and so far we haven't been able to produce a free from projection surface hologram as far as I am aware.

There is of course the argument that the technology exists but hidden as some secret black project (project bluebeam) but I highly doubt that.

I just think that whatever was used to hit the trade centre was not the commercial airliners that they said, it may very well of been a jet plane but certainly not the flight numbers quoted.

Any video evidence that has been shown to support the OS I believe has been edited to include CGI and other techniques to disguise the truth.

Korg.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


WAIT a minute!!!!

ARE YOU trying to slither away from an earlier claim????

From this side of the keyboard/LCD monitor it sure looks that way!

Let's see....you JUST there admitted that a "hologram" requires a medium of some sort....something the EVERYONE has been saying, all along!

But, weaseling out with the pathetic "oh, 'no airplanes hit the WTC'" crap?? WHEN THERE IS DEBRIS?? AND, DNA??? And photos to document the c]debris?? AND, witness testimony???

Get over it, take your head out of the "9/11 conspiracy" websites' quicksand, and walk into the light of reality......



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
"I'm wondering if the particle-beam theory as postulated by Judy Wood and others has been considered in possibly explaining the missing wing phenomenon observed in this and other 9/11 video clips. Above I have illustrated how this might have been done."

You have a point. It would make a lot more sense to use something as advanced, expensive and unproven as particle beams to accomplish the WTC attacks, instead of using something not as expensive, precise and more reliable such as bluescreen CGI and missiles/bombs.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


WAIT a minute!!!!

ARE YOU trying to slither away from an earlier claim????



Ermm... have you got the wrong thread? or wrong poster??

I never said that I thought that holograms were used on 911.... Please explain why you thought this??

And I stand by my original premise that what hit the WTC was not the commercial air liners that the OS stated. It was something else and then was covered over using post editing techniques.

How could I be any clearer??

Korg.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   

And I stand by my original premise that what hit the WTC was not the commercial air liners that the OS stated. It was something else and then was covered over using post editing techniques.

How could I be any clearer??

Korg.


How likely is it that 50+ videos clips were CGI embellished? Who did this? Was it done during a Bush family get-together? And what happened to the amateur clips which survived unaltered? Who can believe this?

Additionally--how many photographers lied about their videos and photos? Why would they do this? 3000 people were murdered--did they just willingly go along with it?

As shown below, the still-photo evidence is strong. I'm wondering how so many no-planers and hologramers explain all this away.








posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...

can someone explain this, I see both wings?
edit on 10-12-2010 by bl2k10 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-12-2010 by bl2k10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


This thread is before my time, but I found it interesting when I read it a few months back. Now it seems it has finally been debunked and put to rest. Maybe some of you will find this interesting also.



Here's the description:


As the plane approached the south tower, it entered the shadow of the thick smoke from tower 1 (see the Park Foreman footage to watch this happen: youtu.be... ). This is why the plane looks black. It's shaded from direct sunlight. Seen from the ground, the bright blue sky acts as a back-light causing the plane to be seen in dark silhouette. However, just prior to impact as the plane is banking, the right wing emerges from shadow into direct sunlight. This can be seen happening in all videos of the second plane which have the right wing in view just before impact.

So why does the wing disappear in some videos? It's due to lossy digital video compression. From this east side angle the sunlight reflecting off of the underside of the wing is so close in color to the backgroud sky that compression algorithms don't distinguish between the two. The wing therefore becomes part of the pixelated blue sky. Videos posted for viewing on the internet are always heavily compressed to conserve bandwidth. Lossy compression codecs, even a high quality mpeg2 used for comercial DVD's, discard the majority of the original video data. Typical lossy compression codecs will:
- Reduce color nuances within the image.
- Reduce the color resolution with respect to the prevailing light intensity.
- Remove small, invisible parts of the picture.
- Compare adjacent images and remove redundant image data that are unchanged between them.

In this video I used an uncompressed copy of the video footage and added some contrast to it after zooming in. The wing can still be seen. Even though the original video is in standard definition, I had to convert it to HD before uploading it to youtube. Why? Because even when I uploaded a high-quality AVI in original format, the flash video compression used by youtube kept erasing the plane's wing!

Set your youtube player to HD quality for the clearest image of the "missing wing".

Note: I discovered after making this post that someone else had already up-loaded this same clip in HD format back in July. See it here:
youtu.be...
Can you see the wing?

Get the uncompressed clip here:
911datasets.org...:3FFVH7GCZ7HHIJP2K57GLVUXT3SERM4U

(I made this video when I came across "9/11 Vanishing Wing in HD (Best Video Ever)WOW!!! Debunk This" (youtu.be...). So I accepted the challenge since similar videos are still getting lots of hits on youtube.)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Very interesting... care to explain the nose of the plane coming out of the building seemingly completely intact???

Korg...



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 



care to explain the nose of the plane coming out of the building seemingly completely intact???


Except it wasn't the nose of the plane.....

What happened was a con artist aka Simon Shack blow up a super - slo motion shot of the debris cloud as
it come out the opposite side of the building

Then proclaimed it was the nose of the plane and by the way how could something like that happen?

Must be the plane is fake.....

Then all the credulous cretins began to parrot this without doing any logical analysis of the scene

Now are you a credulous cretin who believes everyoff the wall claim ?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Very interesting... care to explain the nose of the plane coming out of the building seemingly completely intact???

Korg...


Wasn't this thread about the disappearing wing? Any thoughts on that?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 



care to explain the nose of the plane coming out of the building seemingly completely intact???


Except it wasn't the nose of the plane.....


No it wasn't the nose of the plane, it was the penetrator concealed within the plane. In some of the higher resolution footage shot from the east it appears solid and sharp like a lead pencil. I guess they set the delay a few milliseconds too late because it doesn't explode until it's passed all the way through. The scenario is reminiscent of happened with the US Cole with the speed boat and the concealed missile, or the typical car/truck bomb deception but on a grand scale. The plane was probably loaded with special munitions too.

I'd say the wings of the plane disappearing are due to low resolution, video compression, colour format changes, re-encoding, resizing, reflecting the blue sky and all the other processing that can be done to videos directly at the source and after that cause various artefacts and lossy encoded distortions.
edit on 25-1-2012 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Any link to those high resolution images?

Something hit that second building, and my guess is it was a drone.

The people in the hijacked planes probably went to sleep nice and easy, somewhere up on high altitudes, while firecrackers and drone planes did the job on the ground.

The real question is, who and where are all the the people that must have been involved in all of this today? As a human I can only refer to myself, but what I have learned through life is that people are people, and we are really bad at keeping secrets.
Where are the whistleblowers? I mean... someone must have done the paintjob on that 737 drone, right?

hmmmm....

Regarding the topic, my guess is that its either the sun reflecting, or smoke covering, the "vanishing" piece of the plane. no "bad" cgi here, sorry.
edit on 25-1-2012 by reef75 because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
59
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join