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

page: 4
59
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by oldschoolsuper star
 




go to any random film school, and theyll teach you about 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation recording. im skeptical too, even though i believe in ETs and had my own sighting. i just think we're all skeptical about different things but we share the same urning for truth.


As a skeptical as you are then you have to agree with me that there is possibility that maybe the first video is "manipulated". For me as a person does not make any sense at all. If you take an Airplane and you turn it to any angle, you always see the 2 wings. Upon that fact i just asked if someone could explain to me, why is it that at first you see the airplane with 2 wings and before it crashes one of the wings just disappeared.


the question might be: "why dont you (or didnt you) share your ET experience with ATS?


Why should i share an ET experience, since i did not had any. Sure i can make one up and post it, but why should i do that??? There is tons upon tons of fake videos and photos about ETs and U.F.O.s, that is almost impossible to separate which one is true and which one is "Manipulated". Please do not misunderstand me I do also believe that there are other Civilizations out there. There is no logical person in this world, that can deny the fact, that there are other Civilizations beyond ours.


the reason is because i am the only one besides my friend (who passed away in a car wreck) are the only ones who shared that experience. i dont expect you guys to believe me or even understand what i would tell you off of just a written account.


I am terribly sorry mate for the loss of your friend. My sympathies to his family. I do also know how that feels




being an ATS member, i know that proof counts and reading a story from a random nobody doesnt mean sh*t unless you have an extremely intriguing credible video to back it up with. which i dont.

but if you know about film and second or third generation shooting, you might know that this video has a reason for not showing a second wing other than the fact that its because of something like project bluebeam.



Me too i am random nobody, so do not worry you are not alone.

Anyway all we have till now is the "fact" that those kind of Videos just happened to be released, for reasons that nobody knows. And until someone has the chance to examine the original videos, all that we can do is make assumptions and discuss upon those assumptions.

About the incident of 9/11 i do also believe that was an inside job. The only sad is that many people died that day. My sympathies to the families that lost their beloved persons that tragic day.




posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I know my next sentiments won't go over too big to some but.......we are wasting so much time looking for problems that aren't there when we should be uniting and figuring out whose behind this event.

Okay. Let's say the plane was CGI'd in. Okay. Now what? How does that change anything? We were still duped that day regardless if the plane was there or wasn't there. We're just chasing our tails here. It doesn't matter.

Bottom line is we should be using our energy to find out whose responsible for changing this country (this world really) that day instead of taking apart scenes that don't really matter in the long run. It's all speculation anyway. And we have enough concrete and tangible crap to piece together as it is.
Like, all 3 buildings imploding.
Like, the Pentagon missing videos.
Like, the vaporized plane in Shanksville.
Like, some hijackers still alive and well.
And on and on and on. There's enough here to tell anyone with an active brain cell, we've been lied to.

Here's how to approach this: Everything in the 9-11 Commission Report?
Disregard it.
And let's take it from there instead of dissecting and adding more to the story.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Your frame grabs are great....and they CLEARLY show the fact that the cameras had trouble adjusting, to show the light-colored wing as it caught the sunlight.

Remember, the hijacker flying the airplane increased his angle of bank (to the LEFT...RIGHT wing UP) at the very last split second, and the lighting changed...and the cameras CCDs couldn't resolve perfectly. My gosh, you can see EXAMPLES in your own home videos!!! Go out and experiment, or just browse through YouTube!!

But...your last bit? Oh. My. Gawd. Really?? Were you serious?? Tell me you're not.....

You showed a photo of a Global Hawk UAV (built by Grumman) and claimed it was "painted gray" (then, took another incredible leap of illogic, into it being "graphically over-laid", or something)....

First of all, it would NEVER be misidentified visually for a Boeing 767! And the "graphics overlay" baloney?? These are amateur videos!!! People KNOW what they filmed, the video has been altered with "fake" images!

Second, the Global Hawk has a wingspan of only 116 feet!. Overall length is only 44 feet!!!. Its wingspan is WAY LESS than the wingspan of a 767!! And, the length?? Fuggitaboutit.

Third, although its published cruise speed is around 400 MPH (350 knots), that is at high altitude....(same as with the published "maximum" airspeed)....look at its wing design! It has virtually no sweep back. Compare to a commercial airliner's wing. Know why the wings have that sweep? It has an effect, aerodynamically, to increases its speed ability, before reaching critical Mach number. (Feel free to Google for more detailed explanation).

Radar data (and even the video evidence, when analyzed) estimates United 175's velocity at AT LEAST 500 knots. The GH would never be able to accelerate to that speed, at that altitude, even WITH the assistance of gravity....not with that wing design.

Fourth....the TRANSPONDER on United 175 was operating, and was also in 'Mode C', so it was displaying altitude information. ATC watched it....because they could, with the transponder info it was squawking. All the hijacker did was change the code, but he left the transponder ON.

This is exactly the sort of wild speculation (absent ANY HINT of factual basis) that shows why the so-called "truth movement" just spins its wheels. These are hare-brained ideas, sorry. The REAL 'conspiracy' is right under everyone's noses....and the intelligence agencies' failures that allowed 9/11 to slip by their attention, and their inability to work together, and to effect the appropriate measures to prevent....THAT IS THE COVER-UP that every one is "sensing"!! These other outrageous schemes are worthy of an "I Love Lucy" episode maybe....but have no shred of reality anywhere near them.


Here, read about the Global Hawk UAV (which, BTW, are all accounted for. The active ones, and any that have crashed since inception).

Also, an video of the ACTUAL personnel at ATC who were involved. Please, deal in facts, and try to understand reality....I sense that many of you may have been very young, ten years ago...and have spent the last years being flooded with this craziness, from the plethora of "9/11 conspiracy" websites out there...most of which are worthless!!!


Google Video Link




edit on 25 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Text



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Holographic glitch?



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

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


AWSOME FIND!!!

You are quite right and this footage validates my original premise and flies in the eyes of those that say it's an optical illusion or camera glitch.


Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Anttyk47
 


I believe that's called panning out in the film world. I don't see two different angles at all.


No way! This is clearly two separate pieces of footage. They are in slightly different locations. Look at the foreground buildings....























So we now have two pieces of footage taken in similar locations corolating with each other perfectly....

of course the debunkers and anti-truthers will come up with something to attempt to disproove what is right in front of their eyes...

This is it guys... something is Definitely up with the 2nd strike. Ohhh What a Can of Worms!!

Korg.


edit on 25-10-2010 by Korg Trinity because: Korg is a DUDE




posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 

I think eNumbra explains this observed phenomena correctly.

Originally posted by eNumbra
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.


Then you reply with this post.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
I think saying that you can't see the wing because of a change in lighting is not the answer because if that was the case then other parts of the plane would look as though they disappeared too....

Well, if you look at the images you posted you will see other parts of the plane seemingly disappear. Take a look at the tail section and see parts of it vanish.



Same phenomena happening at near the same point in time. This certainly does appear to be from the plane rolling to one side and causing the Sun to reflect light off the wing and tail section. The camera cannot distinguish between this reflected light and the background sky so the result is "disappearing wings".

BTW Korg Trinity I accidentally click you as a rival, I went to my profile and unclicked it. If you get an auto message that I named you as a rival you'll know why, was an accident.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I think you're wrong when you said:


First of all, it would NEVER be misidentified visually for a Boeing 767! ...............People KNOW what they filmed, the video has been altered with "fake" images!


This is not to disrespect you at all (please know this) but I'm not sure how old you were in 2001 or if you were old enough that you were listening but.....the FIRST reports being broadcasted to the Sheeple of the world said: They thought the second plane was a small commuter plane or even a missile. The news reporters were saying this based on what THEIR witnesses were saying. That of course quickly changed when they identified the 19 hijackers via that bandanna and 'how to fly a passenger plane book'! (insert sarcasm here)

I will try to locate the sound bites of videos expressing just that but if anything, are you kdding? Everything was misidentified that day. Even the Pentagon missile. Even the Shanksville anomaly.

So, could that have been a drone? You bet it could have been. Everyone was in shock. Every one. Well, maybe not the PNAC executers but everyone else was.

I'll go look for the reports now.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Devino
Same phenomena happening at near the same point in time. This certainly does appear to be from the plane rolling to one side and causing the Sun to reflect light off the wing and tail section. The camera cannot distinguish between this reflected light and the background sky so the result is "disappearing wings".

BTW Korg Trinity I accidentally click you as a rival, I went to my profile and unclicked it. If you get an auto message that I named you as a rival you'll know why, was an accident.


Please review my post just above yours... There are now two separate pieces of footage that show this missing wing effect....

In addition the 2nd footage doesn't show the plane going from light to dark... the plane enters the shot without the wing.... De-bunking the debunk somewhat wouldn't you say??

No worries and no offence taken on being a mistaken foe btw lol hahaha


Korg.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
The oddity of the wing disappearing is on many of the vids if you look closely. I was so caught up in the 911 event that I ran into this event a couple weeks after 911 and thought my eyes were tired and so forth, so I stopped researching and investigating for a couple months.

But it's true, I really think they did some sort of holographic attack that day. Yes, I know it's hard to believe, but the technology that they have and we don't know about would astound us all.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





Fourth....the TRANSPONDER on United 175 was operating, and was also in 'Mode C', so it was displaying altitude information. ATC watched it....because they could, with the transponder info it was squawking. All the hijacker did was change the code, but he left the transponder ON.


Elaborate on that part please. I vaguely remember some story about the transponder codes, but I don't remember the details. Pilots are taught to change the transponder codes for a number of reasons like radio outtage or hijacking.

When and to what did the transponder code change? Or provide a link, I don't mind reading and searching through.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
its like the channelings from salusa and others say-> its a hologram!!!! thats why the wing can disapear.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 





the FIRST reports being broadcasted to the Sheeple of the world said: They thought the second plane was a small commuter plane or even a missile. The news reporters were saying this based on what THEIR witnesses were saying.


You have it backwards. I was glued to the television set that morning, I was locked down near Hurlburt Field when Bush made his first stop before moving on to Louisianna and addressing the nation.

The eyewitnesses were clearly stating that they saw a large jet/airliner strike the building, but the reporters were turning back to the television and saying that surely the witnesses were mistaken, and that it must have been something smaller like a private plane or a commuter plane. Dozens of witnesses were certain that it was a jet/airliner, but the national news was belittling their testimony right in front of them on live TV!

The reporters looked stupid from moments after the first impact all the way up to today!



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

other angle



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Some of you say that most people knew they saw a passenger plane that morning?
I think not. Please listen. There are more videos/sound bites. I'll search 'em out




posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
You simply just don't understand that this is not the original format.
You do not understand compressed video. At least admit that.





By your own logic:
I see inter-dimensional force field worms?!
Are they really there?! Or is it a result of compression and poor quality?!



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
SELECTED EYEWITNESS REPORTS DESCRIBING OBJECT STRIKING WTC2:

A SMALL PLANE
1. "At that point we were still not sure that it was a plane that had hit the tower. There was some talk from the civilians coming down that a plane hit. The consensus was that it was a small plane."- Credited to: Roy Chelson

A CESSNA OR LEAR JET TYPE OR...
2. “Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Lear jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building”. - Credited to: Anthony Bartolomey

A SMALL (TRAINING) PLANE
3. “I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane….no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot a plane, a small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane…, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they worked with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!”- Credited to: Karim Arraki

A CESSNA
4. “I was on my way to work…traffic was excellent…I received a call saying a small Cessna had hit the World trade Center…I was asked to go and man the Office of Emergency Management at the World Trade Center 7 on its 23d floor…” – Credited to: Barry Jennings

LIKE A SMALLER PLANE
5. “I was waiting a table and I literally saw a, it seemed to be a small plane. I just heard a couple of noises, it looked like it like it ‘bounced’ off the building and then I heard a, I just saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down…it just seemed like a smaller plane, I don’t think it was anything commercial.”- Stuart Nurick, LIVE on CBS NEWS

A SMALL, SMALL JET PLANE
6. “…We saw a plane flying low overhead which caught all of our attention. We looked up. It was making a b-line for the World Trade Centre. It was very low, extremely low, not a big plane like an airliner …uh… but not a tiny propeller plane, a small, small jet plane.”- Credited to: Mary Cozza

A LIGHT COMMUTER PLANE
7. "I mean, I hate to admit this, but I'm sitting there hoping that someone has made a mistake; there has been an accident; that this isn't the hijacked airplane, because there is confusion. We were told it was a light commuter airplane." Credited to: (news report)

THOUGHT PLANE WAS MUCH SMALLER
8. "I thought it could have been an accident...I thought the plane was much smaller..."- Credited to: Sid Bedingfield

A PROP JET
9. "I was told by somebody that we had an eyewitness who happened to be an off-duty firefighter who told me that he saw the first building get hit and it was hit by a prop jet, which I think turned out to be the wrong information, but everybody sees things differently."- Credited to: Steven Mosiello

A SMALLER TYPE PLANE
10. "And we went to a high point in our building, which is on the 25th floor, and you had a clear view of both World Trade Centers and the one that was smoking hard, and there was another plane that was flying low, and we just looked at it, and before we know it, it was just kamikaze, boom, right into the other tower... but it didn't seem like a big passenger jet. It was a smaller type plane, because it made some pretty radical turn, and flying low..." - Credited to: Mr. Tractsonburg

A SMALL JET
11. “We’re walking the dogs and we saw a plane flying really low, a jet, a small jet, and it flew directly into the World Trade Center..”- Credited to: (news report)

SMALL CARGO MILITARY
12. I got out of the car, and I told Larry I saw an FBI agent and I was going to start talking to him. I gave him my card, and he gave me a card. I said I thought that that second plane that went into the south tower was a military plane, like a transport or small cargo military. - Credited to: Battalion Chief Brian O’Flaherty

A BOMB....A MISSILE
13. "Hey Grandpa, I'll tell you what woke me up. They bombed the World Trade Centre. I'm looking at it and Mi-Kyung's video taping it. Terrible. I heard, Grandpa, I saw it. It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb...a missile...er...this could be world war three."- Credited to: Mi Kyung Heller

LIKE A MISSILE
14. “…I can only describe as, it sounded like a missile, not an airplane….it was definitely not the sound of a prop plane or anything like that….I grew up on military bases and I know the sound of jets and I’ve been in war zones and heard those kinds of different sounds….the sound itself was not of a prop plane , it was perhaps a jet, but it could have been a missile as well….it was high pitched, but it had a…er…a…whooshing sound, not, not like a prop plane…”- Don Dahler, LIVE on ABC TV

A ROCKET
15. “It was a big fireball or something from the plane I guess, came from across the street in front of our rig, and as we get out of the rig, there's a cop, city police officer, in the street. He's telling us, "I'm getting out of here. I just saw a rocket." He said he saw it come off the Woolworth Building and hit the tower”. - Credited to: Peter Fallucca

SOMETHING - PLANE OR MISSILE
16. “At that point I assumed you can't have two -- it can't be an accident to have two planes. So, I don't know if there's planes or missiles or what but something was hitting this thing. You saw debris was falling down.“ - Credited to: Brian Dixon

NOT A BIG PLANE
17. ”I was saying to him, "That plane is closer to us. It's really not a big plane going towards the building." Two seconds later it rammed into the building. "- Credited to: James Murphy

THOUGHT THEY SAW A MISSILE
18. " Some people thought they saw a missile, now I don't know how they could differentiate, but we might leave open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings ..." Dick Oliver, LIVE on FOX News

LIKE THE SIZE OF A GOLF BALL
19. “I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fireball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions.” - Credited to: Patricia Ondrovic
www.septemberclues.info...



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Good info, but I distinctly remember the reporters on the ground immediately after the first impact and everyone they were speaking to on several different news channels, they were all stating that it was a jet or an airliner. The reporters were arguing with some of the witnesses and then turning back to the camera and discounting what had just been said in the background. I was watching live when the second plane hit, and the reporters were still stating that it was a small plane, although now they were starting to believe it was intentional. There were people on the ground that were adament about the fact that it was a large airliner and even describing the markings on the jets.

I am at work, so I can't pull any videos to support my memory, but that morning I was getting very annoyed with the reporters not relaying what the witnesses were saying!

It does go to prove how unreliable eyewitness testimony is though! I am sure for every person that says jet, there is another one that says small plane, and another one that says missile or ufo, LOL!



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud
You simply just don't understand that this is not the original format.
You do not understand compressed video. At least admit that.





By your own logic:
I see inter-dimensional force field worms?!
Are they really there?! Or is it a result of compression and poor quality?!


Your avatar is very telling of your personality and your post assumes that all are stupid. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... We are not idiots whom cant tell the difference between ghosting, glitch and general weirdness...

Several videos from different cameras from different angles showing the same thing.... Shall I invoke Occam's razor at this point??

Korg.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


So explain the force field worms.
It's there. I see it.
Are you telling me those are not what I say?!

Oh and please tell me what my avatar tells about me.. PLEASE.. U2U me asap.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Don't believe the government fairy tale. Notice how fake it looks when this plane supposedly strikes the outer shell of the building that has beams thicker than an M-1 tank! LOL It just penetrates it like magic! It's a joke, not once piece of wing or tail sheared off, NOTHING! It's impossible if you look at how many beams made up the outer wall of that building. Things break off and bounce off when you hit a solid steel beams with an airplane. They don't just disappear.

Sorry but even at the speed of the jet which couldn't have been even 500 mph without the wings ripping off, solid steel beats flimsy aluminum every time! Very easy to use holographic projectors and then blow the building when the projected image intersects the building. You also know there was some sort of holographic or camera tricks used when you look at this video.

www.youtube.com...

Notice how the nose comes out the other side of the building and then just disappears? The cockpit was never found on the street also and there's no fuel in the nose to explode it either. So why does the nose come out the other side without even slowing down? LOL It's all a big joke.

Dimitri Khalezov agrees it was nothing more than a trick also. You can see all his videos on how a missile hit the Pentagon and the buildings were taken out by nuclear demolition on these videos that have been repeatedly taken off the net by the powers that be. The elites wouldn't keep taking down these videos if there wasn't truth to it. Don't listen to ANYBODY that says it's impossible because the facts are that Controlled Demolition Inc (CDI) go the contact to take down these buildings at the end of their life and determined that only a nuclear demolition charge under the foundations would insure it would come down in it's own footprint be because of the strength of the outer walls of the building. They even put the tunnels under the foundations that would be used when it was time. Funny how you never heard about this on our fake CIA news either huh. Dimitri was informed in Russia of this plan because it was part of the treaty. It explains everything with how it took 6 months to cool down the "hot zone", the 55x level of Tritium at the site which can ONLY be found in a nuclear explosion.

www.project.nsearch.com...





new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join