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

page: 7
59
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by demonseed

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by demonseed



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


Your avatar tells me that you are a Nazi chicken under control by aliens who is friends with Phage(who is probably also under control by aliens).



And it's also easy to see which members of ATS think they are the smartest....



You don't underestimate either players or audience in any circumstances.
-- Peter Maxwell Davies


Korg.

edit on 25-10-2010 by Korg Trinity because: I rock!!



Theres this cool youtube video analyzing this stuff:
www.youtube.com.../a/u/0/ruTlsf7IXMc

3 parts..

I've been saying UFOs/Aliens attacked us on 9/11 for a while but no1 took me seriously.



Laugh.. Go on Laugh...

You are attempting to de-rail the thread with this kind of nonesense.

You will fail!.

Korg.


no man im on your side here.

If you're going to call the planes hologram's then you're talking about just as much non-sense as me.

If you think its just a bunch of people editing videos then i have to ask, what are they editing out?

Also, people on the ground witnessed "something" strike the tower.

You cant just discredit an opinion you disagree with when your own evidence clearly points to it being a possibility.

In 2001 if you told me the US committed 911, i woulda laughed. Today , if you told me they used microwave lasers to take down the towers and alien hologram vehicles to strike the towers, i would consider it a possibility.

To be honest, the towers collapsing do not look like a controlled demolition. They look like a complete disintegration.




posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Text Blackreply to post by Korg Trinity
 


I was there that day. So I guess what I saw was a hoax. I promise you that two very large aircraft flew into the towers. Furthermore being a private pilot it was an easy deal to fly those jets into the buildings. Get off the crap of edited video. Nearly a million individuals saw the planes fly into the towers. That is a fact. Everything else is still up in the air. Personally I think some radical Muslims that do not like America hijack several commercial jets and went for a joy ride. You are beating a dead horse. You will get the truth when we get the truth about J.F.K.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   
I was sitting in my loungeroom early on the morning of 9/11 ( well....10/11 here in New Zealand) watching the terrible events unfold when that 2nd plane struck. It was a plane. No hologram, and if I could summon the right voice Id be calling ' The Plane! The Plane! ' on the Fantasy Island many of you are visiting about now.
edit on 26-10-2010 by annella because: Oops! Dreaded spelling mistake!



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   
The wing of the jet flew into a light source which illuminated the wing and turned it a color that closely matches the color of the sky. During compression of the video, the detail of the wings were lost because the compression algorithm changed the colors to match the sky.

Compression is used to reduce file size. One way of reducing file size is to reduce the amount of colors that are in an image. If a color is close enough to another color, it will change the color to compress it.

For example... imagine each one of these numbers is a color. 255 is white, anything less than 255 is more black.

255, 255, 255, 255, 254, 255, 253, 255, 255, 255

If I compress this how it is, it would look like this...

255(4), 254, 255, 253, 255(3)

But to compress it more, I could just change 254 and 253 so that it is 255 (less colors). The colors are so close, they are practically the same. Some data would be lost, but not much.

255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255

Then I can compress it like this:

255(10)

So, the same thing happened with the wings in this and other videos. The light changed the wings to a certain color which closely matches the sky color, and then compression just got rid of the detail.

It's called lossy compression.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 26-10-2010 by 0ne10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Is the plane suppose to be that dark?

Thanks in advance for the answer.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   


Another angle if it wasn't already posted. It shows the same exact thing as the other. Very strange.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   
I am just guessing, but I think it is very possible that the airliner clipped an antena, or structure of some sort, on the building in front of the trade center. In the second video you can see debri of some sort closely behind where the wing used to be.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

You still want to write, with a straight face, that NONE of the videos show a commercial plnae?? What is in this still frame grab, from a VIDEO??:



O.k. then mr clever cloggs... Can you identify that as a passenger plane from the above image??? I certainly can't and I’m 100% certain not one person could... Cause all you can see is the underside of the plane with what appears to be something weird attached to the underbelly....

Where are the markings that identify this image as a commercial passenger plane????

Korg.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 



We were talking about this back in 2004 a lot.

There are actually 3 or 4 videos from different angles showing the right wing behaving exactly in the same way, at the same time of it's approach.

Nobody seems to ever notice it or care. It's always chalked up to 'artifacts' or resolution.

Nope, it's on several different angles. Go through all the second plane approaches and pay attention to the wing every time you see one.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by cluckerspud


I think what I saw that morning was a big old passenger plane.
Or was my brain hacked?!


I'm calling BS on this.

Please provide proof that you were there and witnessed it first hand. And Prove what you say you saw was what happened....

korg.


BS?! Wow.

I am a NJ Transit employee. Hoboken Terminal is a short 2 blocks (if that) walk from Pier A Park.
Which is where I viewed the 2nd plane hit.

I call BS on your hokey story that a plane covered by a CGI plane hit the world trade center.

I know what I saw. FIRST HAND!!!!!

What did you see? A crap ass, compressed digital video.

Your theory is BS!



Oh reeheeeheeeelllyy??

I'm actually buzz aldrin and I spent more than 12 days in space.... Prove me wrong??

Korg.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:27 AM
link   
As a professional cameraman and producer and editor and running this frame by frame I'll tell ya one thing for free.

All the video artifacts in the world will not suddenly make a wing which is perfectly visible for the rest of the shot disappear as it gets slightly closer and thus larger in frame. If it were an artifact from interlacing it would not occur over many many frames at this resolution which isn't too bad considering it's been .264d and youtube encoded as it was uploaded., only just one or two at most. This is clearly still in shadow with a high contrast background, the wing should be there in all frames, it's not a shadow (it already is a shadow!!).
No amount of compression short of making the plane unrecognisable would be able to do what we see here.

Combined that with other new videos of an extremely hard to see or invisible wing and I think we could possibly be getting somewhere.

Also note that as it impacts, a huge black mark appears below the tower for a single frame..... very very unusual.

Still doesn't change the fact that 9/11 has always been an inside job, high school physics alone proves it, these videos are just extra icing on the cake to inspect..



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0ne10
The wing of the jet flew into a light source which illuminated the wing and turned it a color that closely matches the color of the sky. During compression of the video, the detail of the wings were lost because the compression algorithm changed the colors to match the sky.


I understand compression; I'm now 17 years in on the IT Industry.

And detail can indeed be lost but as I said earlier and the poster above me explains... no way could the detail be lost for a total of 5 consecutive frames... Even if compression was the culprit for a frame or two tell me... what normally happens when compression is used to the point where detail is lost???

The answer is artifacting.

What we actually see is a crystal clear image, no ghosting, no texture corruption, no pixilation....

I thought it important to also state that unless the following two pieces of footage were shot using the same camera at the same settings at the same time and then compressed using the same algorithm your answer has to be incorrect.









There are more videos that show the same thing happening from different angles, degradation of quality due to compression cannot be the answer to all of them.

Korg.



edit on 26-10-2010 by Korg Trinity because: Spelling




posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhostR1der
As a professional cameraman and producer and editor and running this frame by frame I'll tell ya one thing for free.

All the video artifacts in the world will not suddenly make a wing which is perfectly visible for the rest of the shot disappear as it gets slightly closer and thus larger in frame. If it were an artifact from interlacing it would not occur over many many frames at this resolution which isn't too bad considering it's been .264d and youtube encoded as it was uploaded., only just one or two at most. This is clearly still in shadow with a high contrast background, the wing should be there in all frames, it's not a shadow (it already is a shadow!!).
No amount of compression short of making the plane unrecognisable would be able to do what we see here.

Combined that with other new videos of an extremely hard to see or invisible wing and I think we could possibly be getting somewhere.

Also note that as it impacts, a huge black mark appears below the tower for a single frame..... very very unusual.

Still doesn't change the fact that 9/11 has always been an inside job, high school physics alone proves it, these videos are just extra icing on the cake to inspect..


I wish more people with your experience would stand up and be counted.

There appears to be a few people on ATS that think they are IT... That they know everything and anyone whom disagrees with their standpoint is an idiot judging by some of the responses on this thread.

I totally agree with your above statements. Interlacing and compression would have resulted in corruption on alternate frames and artifacting.... It would not result in a wing disappearing for at least 5 consecutive frames.

I suggest what will happen is they will attempt to bury this important information and this thread. I bet you trying to keep this thread going will be difficult now because we have debunked the debunkers... what normally happens to threads that have gone this way is they are swept under the carpet, hoping no one notices.

Korg.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Listening to the video I hear someone saying "THAT'S A BOMB" at the 0:17 second mark. Why would he say this?!>!??!



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
"Those who have eyes to see", as it were.

or, on the flipside, "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king."




posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
I have posted this in the other thread too:

Hi, this is my first post here at ATS, been here reading for quite a while.
I am a graphic designer and i edited some 911 footage to show you
how "easy" this stuff can be edited...



Let me make this clear:

In my opinion, there is no doubt that 911 was an inside job. But i think it is
important for the whole "truther scene" to stay united and dont have a "war"
about if planes, rockets or whatever have hit the WTC in the end...
The Towers have fallen on purpose, thats for sure.

I think the Planes was remote controlled, but that is just my personal opinion.

It took me less than 15 minutes to edit this footage...and why am i doing this?

Well, you can´t believe any video until you have saw the original raw-footage...
CGI and all that stuff, you all know that b*ll#....
Some videos are just strange...keep in mind, some people could have an
agenda in releasing edited footage!

Please forgive my English.

Spread Love,
Hagbart2Celine3



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by nittin
Listening to the video I hear someone saying "THAT'S A BOMB" at the 0:17 second mark. Why would he say this?!>!??!


Actually this woman has been edited in, she has been heard on several videos in several locations saying "OH MY GOD" not it's a bomb.....

This is another pointer to the fact that all the video footage was controlled by a central control area. I suspect this footage was rejected due to the error in compositing.

All the best,

Korg.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by nittin
Listening to the video I hear someone saying "THAT'S A BOMB" at the 0:17 second mark. Why would he say this?!>!??!


Actually this woman has been edited in, she has been heard on several videos in several locations saying "OH MY GOD" not it's a bomb.....

This is another pointer to the fact that all the video footage was controlled by a central control area. I suspect this footage was rejected due to the error in compositing.

All the best,

Korg.



I respect your opinion but upon listening to the video more times; it is clearly a MAN that says "THAT'S A BOMB" at 0:17 second in the video and then again saying "That's a bomb" at 0:21 seconds in the video. Then you hear a lady say "oh my god" after that. Turn up your volume.

Cheers



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by hagbart2celine3
I have posted this in the other thread too:

Hi, this is my first post here at ATS, been here reading for quite a while.
I am a graphic designer and i edited some 911 footage to show you
how "easy" this stuff can be edited...



Let me make this clear:

In my opinion, there is no doubt that 911 was an inside job. But i think it is
important for the whole "truther scene" to stay united and dont have a "war"
about if planes, rockets or whatever have hit the WTC in the end...
The Towers have fallen on purpose, thats for sure.

I think the Planes was remote controlled, but that is just my personal opinion.

It took me less than 15 minutes to edit this footage...and why am i doing this?

Well, you can´t believe any video until you have saw the original raw-footage...
CGI and all that stuff, you all know that b*ll#....
Some videos are just strange...keep in mind, some people could have an
agenda in releasing edited footage!

Please forgive my English.

Spread Love,
Hagbart2Celine3


Nice job, much appreciated.

I think this actually proves a point.... Where is the original content?

If what I suggest is true then the raw feeds would have all be routed to the pentagon....

But again.... there are too many vids showing the same thing. I can understand one video being debunked as video editing in the favour of the anti-truth movement.... but not MOST of the videos....

There are very few video's out there that totally support the OS of the events... most videos have anomalies... this is because however good you are at editing... just like a crime... there is always something missed and so evidence to suggest editing is found.

The purpose of the Truth Movement is to find the Truth... It has been corrupted by various agencies trying to discredit the search for truth.

My version of events is clear.

A drone hit the towers, controlled by base of operations at the pentagon. All media footage was rewired to the pentagon where it was edited and then released on air (an amazing feat of engineering)... The disintegration of the twin towers was controlled by a base of operations in WT7. This was subsequently demolished to destroy the evidence.

The Pentagon was then hit destroying any unwanted planning information.

This is what I honestly feel is the truth... I am not often wrong in my feelings; I have learned to trust my instincts of over the years more.

Korg.

edit on 26-10-2010 by Korg Trinity because: Spelling




posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhostR1der
As a professional cameraman and producer and editor and running this frame by frame I'll tell ya one thing for free.

All the video artifacts in the world will not suddenly make a wing which is perfectly visible for the rest of the shot disappear as it gets slightly closer and thus larger in frame. If it were an artifact from interlacing it would not occur over many many frames at this resolution which isn't too bad considering it's been .264d and youtube encoded as it was uploaded., only just one or two at most. This is clearly still in shadow with a high contrast background, the wing should be there in all frames, it's not a shadow (it already is a shadow!!).
No amount of compression short of making the plane unrecognisable would be able to do what we see here.

Combined that with other new videos of an extremely hard to see or invisible wing and I think we could possibly be getting somewhere.

Also note that as it impacts, a huge black mark appears below the tower for a single frame..... very very unusual.

Still doesn't change the fact that 9/11 has always been an inside job, high school physics alone proves it, these videos are just extra icing on the cake to inspect..






GhostR1der..I have to ask, are you a ET/UFO believer? Forgive me if you have posted your status on these phenomena before, Im pretty new here and not up-to-date. Yet.
I ask because your statement above re being involved with films/filming implies your knowledge on winged/wingless planes counts. In the end, well IMO at least, it counts for nothing as being one eyed is akin to being blind.. Just saying!
lolol...just saw you are a kindred Kiwi!!

edit on 26-10-2010 by annella because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-10-2010 by annella because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
59
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join