It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UA 175 Flight Paths Reconciled: No Inconsistencies Between Video Angels

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 

I believe you are mistaken. He shows the video as soon as the plane is visible in the frame. The pointer in the side video shows the location of the plane when it's out of frame.

Are you just assuming that?
I mean, are you sure?
Did you check from the original video frames yourself?
I'm not trying to be mean to you or anything, I understand that a piece of work as we are discussing is very impressive and we can not attribute any bad motives to the person who made it. But I believe it is what I say, research based on a presumption that all the videos are of one, single plane.
Now, my assumption, when I started my personal research, was that what I saw on 911 could very well have been fake and made ahead of time in case the news cameras missed the actual crash, and they could produce this video to play on TV for shock value, to soften the minds of the viewers preparatory to the barrage of brain washing to ensue.
The result of some years of research tells me that what I saw was in fact real, and not fake, and that being so, then there had to be two flying objects that hit the south tower, and not one. I knew which one was an actual jumbo jet, airliner type plane, and what was something else, because I saw the big Boeing looking plane on my TV, as it happened, and as I have spelled out on other threads, was being transmitted locally where I was that morning, in Sarasota County, Florida, where coincidentally President Bush was, at a local elementary school.
Anyway, back to this video we are discussing as the topic of this thread,
"You can't get there from here."
Tell me how that plane gets from where it is in the screen capture,
to where I described as the position when it first appears in the original video.

edit on 16-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Sorry, Agit8d, but this is utter fantasy:

I realise that is not addressed to me.
I'm not here to get in fights, just to present my own opinion about
WTC Tower II and what happened to it.
I don't agree with Agit8d, or anyone else exactly, for that matter,
otherwise I would not bother posting on this section of ATS.
My opinion is based on actually seeing the plane in extreme close up.
That was because it was by way of some sort of video camera that
was up-linking to a Satellite feed, and had a zoom lens which was
made good use of and the plane practically flew right over
this camera on its way to its end.
Bottom line, it was a grey color. Other than that, it did have side
windows for passengers, just like a regular airliner. But no
identifying logo's and no two-tone paint job.
edit on 16-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 

I believe you are mistaken. He shows the video as soon as the plane is visible in the frame. The pointer in the side video shows the location of the plane when it's out of frame.

Are you just assuming that?
I mean, are you sure?
Did you check from the original video frames yourself?
I'm not trying to be mean to you or anything, I understand that a piece of work as we are discussing is very impressive and we can not attribute any bad motives to the person who made it. But I believe it is what I say, research based on a presumption that all the videos are of one, single plane.
Now, my assumption, when I started my personal research, was that what I saw on 911 could very well have been fake and made ahead of time in case the news cameras missed the actual crash, and they could produce this video to play on TV for shock value, to soften the minds of the viewers preparatory to the barrage of brain washing to ensue.
The result of some years of research tells me that what I saw was in fact real, and not fake, and that being so, then there had to be two flying objects that hit the south tower, and not one. I knew which one was an actual jumbo jet, airliner type plane, and what was something else, because I saw the big Boeing looking plane on my TV, as it happened, and as I have spelled out on other threads, was being transmitted locally where I was that morning, in Sarasota County, Florida, where coincidentally President Bush was, at a local elementary school.
Anyway, back to this video we are discussing as the topic of this thread,
"You can't get there from here."
Tell me how that plane gets from where it is in the screen capture,
to where I described as the position when it first appears in the original video.

edit on 16-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)





I don't have to tell you how the plane get's there, achimspock shows you with the 3D animation. That's the point. The plane was in a dive, then leveled out. Originally you said, "You notice that over on the right he does not show the corresponding video. . . ." This is incorrect. The video is there, but it is aligned with the 3D model. You see a portion of the left side of the frame showing the side of the building on the right. That's where the camera was pointed before it pans left and the plane comes into the frame.

Did you watch the "refined" version? It's shown more clearly with video overlay:



This angle is shown at 6:15.
edit on 16-12-2010 by brainsandgravy because: Added video.

edit on 16-12-2010 by brainsandgravy because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2010 by brainsandgravy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 
I was watching the two videos at the same time
(the last 12sec and the rooftop) to get a better idea of
what's going on. By the numbers (feet?) the plane
gets a frame at 8440. Before that, the camera goes
above the plane. It only briefly catches it when it
drops down.
Like you said, by then it is leveled so you would not
expect to be able to catch it earlier.
So maybe this simulation has no relevance to my
theory, or opinion. And the video is rather ambiguous,
just as I thought earlier.
Oh, well, never mind.


edit on 16-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Ok, ten hours later from my last post, and some sleep
and time to think about this, I want to make a comment
that is not really on topic but it has to do with this little
eleven second bit of video of this plane closing in on
the south WTC tower that I have been discussing.
There is, in my opinion, some missing frames in the
video when the camera is going back and forth.
If anyone is following any of this and are looking at
this (brainsalidandgravy has it posted right above)
video might want to take a close look and see what
I am talking about. See what you think. I think there
are things that were going on right around the time
when the impact occurred that we are not supposed
to know about.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I downloaded the clip and watched it frame by frame--from youtube as well as a higher quality avi from another source--taken from "America 911" by CameraPlanet.com, 2001 and uploaded to megaupload:

www.megaupload.com...

I saw no evidence of missing frames--no jump cuts anywhere. It would be difficult to conceal such a cut with the camera moving all over the place like that. What are you seeing?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 


What are you using to play that video?
That's the second time I downloaded it
and can not get it to play.
There might be a buffering problem
when I play the copied version from
YouTube when I stop and start it, that
makes it jump with Real player.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


VLC worked for me.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 

Thanks for the recommendation.
I did not know about that player, and now it is working.
I had downloaded that video earlier from the link at
911conspiracy.tv and was wondering if it was a bad file.
This looks like the stabilised version and cropped down
to just when the plane comes into view.
It's really hard to watch these things when you are
streaming it on the internet and a lot better to play it
directly from the memory on your computer.

edit on 18-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
The guy who made these videos trying to prove no plane hit the South Tower is an incompetent woo-woo who lives in a world of tinfoil hat make-believe.But let him enjoy his five minutes of internet fame amongst his fellow woo-woos. It seems to be all that so-called "9/11 researchers" want these days.


So why is it that you can show a shred of evidence to support that claim? The videos lay out a very concise and detailed analysis with evidence and facts to support their argument. Its just so funny you nor anyone can offer any intelligent line by line counter-argument showing exactly how their analysis is wrong. The only criticism those like you have is based on Opinions and ad homs or iow, Epic Fail



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by elnine
 


Sorry, but intelligent people can watch those videos and see them for the crap that they are.

due to the illusion and the camera angle, it APPEARS that United 175 is descending at a steep angle in the final few seconds.

When "Rich" calculated the "3D" trajectory (as the video shows his computer image camera "moving" around the building) the resulting trajectory "angle" is pure fiction.

He COMPLETELY IGNORES all of the other camera angles, that clearly are in disagreement with that "steep" angle he represents, in the computer "recreation". What total bollocks!!


If that were true, you'd be able to present examples and supporting evidence showing exactly how his data is wrong, and yours is correct.

So go right ahead and present an argument that contains more than just assertions, opinions and empty claims.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
The man is a con artist, pure and simple, preying on the gullibility that is so common, nowadays, in the uneducated masses. Either that, or he is just a delusional loon....lost his marbles.


And MANY say the exact same thing about those who launch your type of attacks without ever producing evidence or arguments to the contrary.

The difference is, those being attacked are the only ones that present evidence to support their claims.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Inaccurate comparisons; but it's the same footage.

I noticed later-on in the thread, a member was trying to refute the assertion of comparisons not being valid in previous videos and provides a video source as evidence to support this claim. The evidence provided to refute is invalid; the comparison video was comparing the same footage. One piece of footage seems to have been placed higher in the frame than the other, but why?

The evidence is invalid since it is the same piece of footage from the same camera and not from another source?

I have applied a filter to illustrate the error. Please refrain from making wild inaccurate points about errors. This promotes disinformation and has the appearance of impropriety. Multiple credible sources is what is needed to logically arrive at the truth.

The following image was of the YouTube video, was applied a filter for brightening, and a copy was over-layed and its layer opacity set to "difference." The final result was moved to the left, which resulted in the conclusion the two comparisons are of the same piece of footage and negates the comparison.





posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by lord9
 


Oh, for crying out loud!! How silly:


...those being attacked are the only ones that present evidence to support their claims.


The ONLY ones who are "being attacked" are presenting [ahem] "evidence" that is faulty, and easily proven to be grossly in error.

Going on (apparently) about that ghastly piece of junk that is sometimes called the "ball" video? The one by "richplanet"....the so-called "3D Analysis"?? As I (thought) I'd already pointed out, as is usual with those sorts of "evidence", they cherry-pick and use very selective angles and points of view, in order to "state" their cases. (There is another equally atrocious video out, called "September Clues". IT has been thoroughly dismantled already, and the "richplanet" junk should be getting the same treatment soon, I hope, by the same gentleman).

Specifically, I recall (in that "rich" video) a case of a 3D camera "travel" sequence. We all are familiar with that, right? In general?

This person, "rich", alleges that he can accurately portray the "three dimensional" path of (what is actually, indisputably, United 175...but he calls a "sphere", or "ball"...or even a "UFO") ....but he uses the ONE angle (from not sure which source(s)...Fox news video/NYC Channel 9??) that is a long shot, and nearly head-on viewpoint....so that the descent of the airplane, from quite a distance away as it approached, is clearly seen. By comparison, many of the other video angles only show the airplane at the point where it enters the (variously) narrow frame view of the cameras....so, by that time, and for that portion of the geometry of its descent and approach, it was flying nearly level.

So, this "rich" guy, he takes that "Fox News" angle long-shot nearly head on, and then??? Makes up a completely NONSENSE "3D re-creation" of the descent angle......completely ignoring the fact that the airplane greatly reduced its rate of descent, and nearly levelled off moments before impact!!! Instead, the bogus "3D" line shows a straight shot, from impact point, and up and southwards.....and the angle IS EXAGERRATED!!!

A compilation of many angles, showing the final split seconds of flight before impact....nearly level, in terms of descent profile:



Here is the DC-Area Channel 9 local CBS affiliate version, the "long-shot" (note, it also is illusory, as it's a "forced perspective" image. If you don't know what that means, try looking it up, in photography or cinematography-related topics).



(The image of the airplane is clear as can be in that one. DIFFERENT from the version used by "rich", as this one has more resolution per video pixel).

It has also, unfortunately, been totally misunderstood by many, many...as you will see when looking at it ON YouTube, and reading comments. These misunderstandings come from people who have no flying experience, and no concept about flying, other than a distorted view usually gained from Hollywood movies. If you pay close attention (and use a stopwatch) you can see it all times out accurately, and is consistent with the other videos....it is only the perception as you "eyeball" it that cause an illusion of a "great dive".

In fact, the rate of descent that the airplane underwent, in the portion just before he levelled it out (mostly levelled) is absolutely NOT excessive, nor unusual. What WAS unusually was the fact that, in the descent, he also had the thrust up to full...thus, accelerating well beyond the maximum "placarded" ("legal") airspeeds....this to achieve maximum kinetic energy, and momentum, and impact force.

I have finally found a YouTube example to show what I have only been able to describe, before. THIS is a Boeing 767 that is demonstrating a dive, with power at "normal" engine settings (so as not to damage them....a concern the hijackers certainly did not share). In the dive the speed will increase to the point of "Vmo"....that is the "placarded" maximum of 350 knots indicated airspeed. That is where the "OverSpeed Warning" hi/low siren sounds. (Unlike in most cases, this siren cannot be silenced like other instances where it sounds....not until speed is reduced). Pay note to the airplane attitude. This means, its pitch angle (or, nose "up"/"down" angle), relative to the horizon. You will see that it is never excessive, nor even "odd"....a passenger in the back wouldn't even notice:



I know, you can't see outside! Too much glare....you'll have to use the instruments, just as we do----

IN front of the Captain are two CRT screens. The top one is the Attitude Indicator....also known as "artificial horizon". Airspeed is directly to left....the airspeed needle is right where it should be for speed 350 knots. Looking again at the A/I, to the right and down a bit (below the Primary Altimeter), is the Vertical Velocity Indicator. Its range of scale is +/- 6,000 feet per minute. It is shown, at the start of the video, "pegged" at max down, so it's at least (maybe more) 6,000 fpm down. (BTW, to the right, you can see a stack of the three "Standby Instruments"...another A/I, Airspeed and Altimeter).

When the pilot begins to "recover" from the procedure (the "dive" to excess speed, with power), you see he simultaneously reduces thrust, and gently raises the pitch attitude to more level with the horizon. i can also tell you that, based on the scale of the A/I, the most his attitude is "nose down", right in the beginning of the video, is 5-7 degrees. As he "levels off", it is easy....no fuss....and descent is stopped when pitch is roughly 2-3 degrees "nose up" (this is normal indications for the B-767..."level" is slightly nose "high").

NOW....only reason the speed decreased? Levelling off AND reducing thrust initially....followed by the use of the speed brakes as well. The United 175 pilot/hijacker did NOT want to slow down, so he kept power up, and only moderated his descent at last moments in order to impact nearly level.......




edit on 26 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

. . .it is only the perception as you "eyeball" it that cause an illusion of a "great dive".
In that video you embedded in your post, 911 CBS 175 Dive Bomber Full, watch close early on in the video and you can see the plane high up above the tower. That's a pretty steep drop.

Another thing not directly related to your post, so much but something I found today, a brand new video from the NIST FOIA data dump release. If you go to four and a half minutes into it there is the best shot I've seen yet of the hole in the west wall of the south tower.




edit on 27-12-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by trekwebmaster
Inaccurate comparisons; but it's the same footage.

I noticed later-on in the thread, a member was trying to refute the assertion of comparisons not being valid in previous videos and provides a video source as evidence to support this claim. The evidence provided to refute is invalid; the comparison video was comparing the same footage. One piece of footage seems to have been placed higher in the frame than the other, but why?

The evidence is invalid since it is the same piece of footage from the same camera and not from another source?

I have applied a filter to illustrate the error. Please refrain from making wild inaccurate points about errors. This promotes disinformation and has the appearance of impropriety. Multiple credible sources is what is needed to logically arrive at the truth.

The following image was of the YouTube video, was applied a filter for brightening, and a copy was over-layed and its layer opacity set to "difference." The final result was moved to the left, which resulted in the conclusion the two comparisons are of the same piece of footage and negates the comparison.







Wow--nice attempt at image manipulation, however, you failed. I encourage you to watch the original broadcasts from the archives. It's obvious the two cameras that you (and Richard Hall) claim are from the same angle, are NOT. One is stationary--the other is mounted to a chopper and moving quite conspicuously. Also--your attempt to refute the video I posted is laughable. The video points out visual displacement of the tops of the towers due to vertical parallax. I'll post two DIFFERENT stills from the same two camera angles. Please explain again how they're filmed from the same position.






If you still think you are seeing roof-top surface on the WTC's north tower from NBC's stationary roof-mounted camera--watch the following video--then look up "reification" in Gestalt Psychology :



edit on 27-12-2010 by brainsandgravy because: Added video.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by trekwebmaster

I noticed later-on in the thread, a member was trying to refute the assertion of comparisons not being valid in previous videos and provides a video source as evidence to support this claim. The evidence provided to refute is invalid; the comparison video was comparing the same footage. One piece of footage seems to have been placed higher in the frame than the other, but why?

Wow--nice attempt at image manipulation, however, you failed. I encourage you to watch the original broadcasts from the archives. It's obvious the two cameras that you (and Richard Hall) claim are from the same angle, are NOT. One is stationary--the other is mounted to a chopper and moving quite conspicuously. Also--your attempt to refute the video I posted is laughable. The video points out visual displacement of the tops of the towers due to vertical parallax. I'll post two DIFFERENT stills from the same two camera angles. Please explain again how they're filmed from the same position.


You completely missed the point of my post. Please READ the top paragraph carefully; apparently you jump to conclusions without reading the exact point I was making. It is this video which I am illustrating is taken from the same source and misrepresented as two separate source videos. No manipulation at all, just proof the side-by-side comparison is invalid. Nice try at your disinformation, but I can see a and smell a fart in church.

Just for your viewing displeasure, the YouTube video I am referring to is below. Prepare to eat your crow.

The two "apparent" clips being compared at time index 4:54 show a red line comparing the height of the towers. This is the same video source. Look at the explosion, it is the same source video; the right clip has been "shifted" down a few pixels to make it "appear" it is lower or the other is higher. This is the same SOURCE footage from the same angle. There is no "forced perspective;" the smoke rising from the tower roof gives the appearance of an upward angle, which is plainly false and NOT forced perspective. It is an ILLUSION of perspective.

It is the same source and matches up exactly when overlayed on top of the other. Nice comparison but invalid.

Camera 1 and camera 2 videos are intriguing, at best. One camera appears to be from a "cam" with a "weathered" plastic dome or covering, which explains the "blown-out" appearance. I doubt seriously that NBC "faked" this shot or removed the background. The probably got a chopper to take higher quality video for broadcast since the "other source" was so "blown-out." But they are so similar in perspective and angle as to make them "identical." Just one is of a higher quality than the other. I am not trying to pad the pocket of either side, just offering a professional opinion, since I have several college degrees in film and computer science. Perhaps the "persistence of vision" is allowing everyone to "see" what they wish to see when nothing is there in the first place.


edit on 27-12-2010 by trekwebmaster because: additional

edit on 27-12-2010 by trekwebmaster because: corrected time

edit on 27-12-2010 by trekwebmaster because: additional

edit on 28-12-2010 by trekwebmaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by trekwebmaster

Originally posted by trekwebmaster

I noticed later-on in the thread, a member was trying to refute the assertion of comparisons not being valid in previous videos and provides a video source as evidence to support this claim. The evidence provided to refute is invalid; the comparison video was comparing the same footage. One piece of footage seems to have been placed higher in the frame than the other, but why?

Wow--nice attempt at image manipulation, however, you failed. I encourage you to watch the original broadcasts from the archives. It's obvious the two cameras that you (and Richard Hall) claim are from the same angle, are NOT. One is stationary--the other is mounted to a chopper and moving quite conspicuously. Also--your attempt to refute the video I posted is laughable. The video points out visual displacement of the tops of the towers due to vertical parallax. I'll post two DIFFERENT stills from the same two camera angles. Please explain again how they're filmed from the same position.


You completely missed the point of my post. Please READ the top paragraph carefully; apparently you jump to conclusions without reading the exact point I was making. It is this video which I am illustrating is taken from the same source and misrepresented as two separate source videos. No manipulation at all, just proof the side-by-side comparison is invalid. Nice try at your disinformation, but I can see a and smell a fart in church.

Just for your viewing displeasure, the YouTube video I am referring to is below. Prepare to eat your crow.

The two "apparent" clips being compared at time index 4:54 show a red line comparing the height of the towers. This is the same video source. Look at the explosion, it is the same source video; the right clip has been "shifted" down a few pixels to make it "appear" it is lower or the other is higher. This is the same SOURCE footage from the same angle. There is no "forced perspective;" the smoke rising from the tower roof gives the appearance of an upward angle, which is plainly false and NOT forced perspective. It is an ILLUSION of perspective.

It is the same source and matches up exactly when overlayed on top of the other. Nice comparison but invalid.


edit on 27-12-2010 by trekwebmaster because: additional

edit on 27-12-2010 by trekwebmaster because: corrected time

edit on 27-12-2010 by trekwebmaster because: additional


I did not misunderstand you. I knew exactly what you were referring to. The two clips ARE NOT from the same source. The stills are positioned to align the top of the north tower in order to demonstrate that the south tower's top does not match between video clips. Re-read my above response and try not to gag on YOUR mom's very large, foul smelling crow.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 


Touche' Brains. I doubt I will be eating today. I finally "get" what you are referring to and I agree. They are trying to make it seem they are the same but they are not. Perhaps the difference is one camera had a digital zoom (Rockefeller Center) and the other is a optical zoom; this difference in hardware is a BIG DIFFERENCE and yes I agree those are not the same sources. Perhaps I misconstrued the frame of the video and it was the comparison (red line) which pricked up my ears and made me suspicious. Now I realize what I am looking at. They are the SAME or almost the same perspective and almost the same angle. A couple of degrees off in height which makes the paralax shift slightly, but no cigar. I see what you are saying. And yes, I agree with it. Now we can both throw out that crow and agree. So now what? OH, what aspect ration do you think those two sources are? That can be a big difference, as well.
edit on 28-12-2010 by trekwebmaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by trekwebmaster
 


I'm sort of disappointed--I've never had crow.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by trekwebmaster
reply to post by brainsandgravy
 


Touche' Brains. I doubt I will be eating today. I finally "get" what you are referring to and I agree. They are trying to make it seem they are the same but they are not. Perhaps the difference is one camera had a digital zoom (Rockefeller Center) and the other is a optical zoom; this difference in hardware is a BIG DIFFERENCE and yes I agree those are not the same sources. Perhaps I misconstrued the frame of the video and it was the comparison (red line) which pricked up my ears and made me suspicious. Now I realize what I am looking at. They are the SAME or almost the same perspective and almost the same angle. A couple of degrees off in height which makes the paralax shift slightly, but no cigar. I see what you are saying. And yes, I agree with it. Now we can both throw out that crow and agree. So now what? OH, what aspect ration do you think those two sources are? That can be a big difference, as well.
edit on 28-12-2010 by trekwebmaster because: (no reason given)


I disagree that the angles are even close. It's not just the buildings that have shifted from parallax--look at the horizon.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join