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

page: 38
59
<< 35  36  37    39 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ICanThink
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Whatever. If you do not like the word "transparent", use "blending with the sky", it changes nada.
How many times I have to repeat that there is no proof of CGI plane in that video?
I know the mainstream opinion, I am mainstream-proof.

You still haven't answered the question. What evidence is there that the change in color of the plane's wing is due to intentional manipulation? There is none. However, there is plenty of evidence that the wing's change in color is due to the sunlight, e.g., all the others videos and photographs that show the plane's wing just prior to the impact.
Your "transparent wing" theory is therefor no more valid than holograms or CGI mistakes. It has no supporting evidence.




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ICanThink
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Whatever. If you do not like the word "transparent", use "blending with the sky", it changes nada.
How many times I have to repeat that there is no proof of CGI plane in that video?
I know the mainstream opinion, I am mainstream-proof.


What's your point, exactly?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by ICanThink
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Whatever. If you do not like the word "transparent", use "blending with the sky", it changes nada.
How many times I have to repeat that there is no proof of CGI plane in that video?
I know the mainstream opinion, I am mainstream-proof.

You still haven't answered the question. What evidence is there that the change in color of the plane's wing is due to intentional manipulation? There is none. However, there is plenty of evidence that the wing's change in color is due to the sunlight, e.g., all the others videos and photographs that show the plane's wing just prior to the impact.


Exactly. Here's one:



Here's another:



Merely video compression or camera contrast adjustment artifacts.
edit on 10-2-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


There is no evidence in this video alone. It is possible to insert a CGI plane into hundreds of videos from different angles once the flight path is set, with sun and everything. The other videos do not eliminate the possibility of a CGI plane in this video.
You want to drag me into CGI plane/no plane discussion, but not this time. My time is limited. Maybe later.
I know you need the last word so be it.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Wait ... Could this be....



UA 175, registration number N612UA, spotted at San Francisco International Airport on December 8, 1999?



Yup. Very similar. Excellent visual match.
edit on 10-2-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 





posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


While the extreme close ups are good for definition - I cannot tell which tower I am looking at nor can I see any damage - any debris flying out - from the point in time where the plane has actually entered the tower.

Great photographs but they do not provide evidence as far as I am concerned. Could be photoshopped due to being so clear and precise and at such an extreme close up.

Much Peace...



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Amanda5
 

The close-ups are blown-up stills taken from the Scott Myers video:



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amanda5
Could be photoshopped due to being so clear and precise and at such an extreme close up.


Yes, UA 175 could also be hijacked by a team of rabid, cockeyed leprechauns... Who knows, right?

Questions questions....



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Amanda5
 


Thanks to the many outstanding posts above, with the evidence that is usually 'not' seen on the many, many "9/11 conspiracy" sites out there that intentionally use less resolution images and videos, in order to pull their con-jobs on people.


To understand the "JPEG compression" phenomenon, this may see a bit "off-topic", but just compare the many so-called "Reptilian" videos that are so prevalent online.

Those examples, although not usually considered to be the result of missing information, actually are.

Those who wish may 'hate' Wikipedia all they wish, but a challenge to find any incorrect facts in this next article? Please feel free:

Compression artifact

I am sure there are many more scholarly articles that many in the field can recommended, for further explanation.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


I've seen footage from two different angles and combined with the squibs - I still believe that the entire situation was planned well in advance. Architects and Engineers are coming forward with excellent documentary style explanations for the building collapses.

As for the planes - the plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagon - the surveillance tapes from the nearby garage - if the government did not want to arouse suspicion - why not leave the tapes where they were - witnesses say the FBI were in a bigger hurry to get the tapes than they were to assist or collect evidence at the scene.

The planes flying into the buildings are suspicious to say the least. There have been witnesses who have stated some very damning descriptions of what they saw on the day. I have my mind made up - the entire scenario was staged. I have several documentaries and the evidence is all there. The plane in this footage is definitely suspicious. I n many threads on this site I see posters write - photoshopped - why not this one - photoshop the wing back in...


So many liars and so many lies and as JFK stated just before he was murdered - secrets....

There are too many secrets and too much goes on behind closed doors - when governments can sit in public and discuss all business out in the open - then I will begin to believe what I see. Do not tell me the American government did not see the planes coming - were not alerted and their super dooper gee whizz state of the art airforce did not scramble to assist in time. Spare me the details - I am wide wide awake.

Much Peace...



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


You've got great eyes. The world is no longer blind.
NO seriously, great job.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
If you look at MORE footage of the "second strike" you'll see a lot more of this wing anomaly. It happens from different angels and different cameras.

I tried to tell people this for a couple years back in 2004-2006 but it fell on deaf ears. The same anomaly happens around the same moment before impact on other vids. Go look at any website which cahes videos of the second strike. Notice the wing before impact. There's about 5 that show the same thing.
edit on 10-2-2012 by PaxVeritas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by PaxVeritas
 



If you look at MORE footage of the "second strike" you'll see a lot more of this wing anomaly.


You may wish to pay close attention to the factors of resolution of these "MORE footage" examples suggested, in order to understand better.....

...AND, check the provenance of the sources.....many just repeat the same crappy and lossy (It is a REAL term that applies to digital video reproduction, look it up) copies.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skittle
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


You've got great eyes. The world is no longer blind.
NO seriously, great job.


You from the Netherlands?

How tasteful, to make a Dutch SS Nazi propaganda poster your avatar.

All this thread does is pull the wool back over the eyes of people who might otherwise be spending their time and resources on spreading awareness of actual historical facts instead of cretinous disinformation.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


I've seen footage from two different angles and combined with the squibs - I still believe that the entire situation was planned well in advance. Architects and Engineers are coming forward with excellent documentary style explanations for the building collapses.


This is off-topic.


Originally posted by Amanda5
As for the planes - the plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagon - the surveillance tapes from the nearby garage - if the government did not want to arouse suspicion - why not leave the tapes where they were - witnesses say the FBI were in a bigger hurry to get the tapes than they were to assist or collect evidence at the scene.


Off-topic too. There is an abundance of evidence a plane hit the Pentagon.


Originally posted by Amanda5
The planes flying into the buildings are suspicious to say the least.


Nah. Instead, I find no planers and their relentless hoax promotion to be extremely suspicious to say the least.


Originally posted by Amanda5
There have been witnesses who have stated some very damning descriptions of what they saw on the day.


Which witnesses? These witnesses?

I prefer video and physical evidence if I have a choice, though, witnesses are unreliable.


Originally posted by Amanda5
I have my mind made up - the entire scenario was staged.


Of course you've made your mind up. And the more you're proven wrong, the more you'll dig in. It's a natural psychological defense mechanism called 'belief perseverance'.


Originally posted by Amanda5
I have several documentaries and the evidence is all there.


I've seen almost all of them.


Originally posted by Amanda5
The plane in this footage is definitely suspicious.


Nah.


Originally posted by Amanda5
In many threads on this site I see posters write - photoshopped


Argumentum ad populum.


Originally posted by Amanda5
- why not this one - photoshop the wing back in...


Prove it.


Originally posted by Amanda5
So many liars and so many lies and as JFK stated just before he was murdered - secrets....

There are too many secrets and too much goes on behind closed doors - when governments can sit in public and discuss all business out in the open - then I will begin to believe what I see. Do not tell me the American government did not see the planes coming - were not alerted and their super dooper gee whizz state of the art airforce did not scramble to assist in time. Spare me the details - I am wide wide awake.


Your tactic is clear: You are deliberately mixing various angles and avenues of research into your no planer nonsense argument to lend it credence. You mix in AE911Truth (who do not support your no planer claims at all), JFK (Who doesn't like him, and who isn't upset about his murder, right? Very clever) , government secrecy (You know everybody will agree with you on that one) and the failure of the air defenses on 9/11, creating one big soup of memes which attract truthers from various backgrounds, and you hope to associate no planer garbage with things these truthers will find interesting.

Spare you the details? This is low-level discussion which I would normally consider a waste of my time. But I see the insidiousness of the well poisoning disinformation injected into the debate, and now then I will, in fact, spend some of my time responding to it. To see you boast about 'details' though, with such blinders on, is a bit sketchy.

An understanding of details takes effort and meticulous research. Walking the walk. Not something I see reflected in your posts here.
edit on 10-2-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
If you look at MORE footage of the "second strike" you'll see a lot more of this wing anomaly. It happens from different angels and different cameras.

I tried to tell people this for a couple years back in 2004-2006 but it fell on deaf ears. The same anomaly happens around the same moment before impact on other vids. Go look at any website which cahes videos of the second strike. Notice the wing before impact. There's about 5 that show the same thing.
edit on 10-2-2012 by PaxVeritas because: (no reason given)


Yes, you are correct. That's because the disappearing wing anomaly is a typical kind of video compression artifact. This is an argument IN FAVOR of the compression artifact explanation. You would never see such reoccurring "glitches" due to random CGI errors. It just doesn't happen.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by snowcrash911
 



As for the planes - the plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagon - the surveillance tapes from the nearby garage - if the government did not want to arouse suspicion - why not leave the tapes where they were - witnesses say the FBI were in a bigger hurry to get the tapes than they were to assist or collect evidence at the scene.


.



You don't seem to appreciate that collecting cctv tapes from nearby premises IS collecting evidence at the scene and it would have been mighty odd if the FBI hadn't bothered.

So far as the Citgo gas station tapes go they were released years ago and you can watch them all you want on youtube :-


www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
You don't seem to appreciate that collecting cctv tapes from nearby premises IS collecting evidence at the scene and it would have been mighty odd if the FBI hadn't bothered.

So far as the Citgo gas station tapes go they were released years ago and you can watch them all you want on youtube :-


www.youtube.com...


I agree with one caveat....

Why did it take so long for the footage to be released to the public domain?

Korg.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Well the excuse for a long time was the ongoing investigation into, and subsequrnt trial of, Zacarias Moussaoui.





top topics
 
59
<< 35  36  37    39 >>

log in

join