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.

 

New video showing the second Tower impact

page: 8
31
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2mayavision
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


I became a member of AE911Truth almost at the beginning. While many were still sleeping, The Toronto Hearings [ torontohearings.org... ] presented their consistent, best evidence to a panel of four international judges. They are working on the final 9/11 report and will be distributing to many governments and NGOs around the world with the aim to finally fulfill the demand for a full-supoena under-oath full independent reinvestigation of 911. It's time.

Edit: This 4-day across-the-spectrum hearing of evidence can be viewed here www.sonic.net...
edit on 30-9-2011 by earth2mayavision because: add link for videos


I wonder, would your country's findings (assuming they WILL find a ton of discrepancies) even hold up to this country's acceptance?

I can just see THAT being a reason to call this 'more truth movement hype' opposed to a legitimate investigation, research and final report by professionals.

By the way, who are you hoping to present this evidence to?


I see how very little this country reacted to the UFO disclosures from other
countries and I think that'll happen again here. The United States will simply ignored it. And as long as it isn't in the news (which they control) then no one will be the wiser.

I hope that doesn't happen with your Canadian efforts but I am indeed expecting that though.
It's tough fighting the cabal. But on behalf of me and my peers, I thank you VERY much.
(I'd donate but Obama keeps taking all my money!)




posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I am tired of studying these videos since it is obvious that airliners hit the towers. Can a few conspiracy theorists post a MRI scan of your brain on this thread? I am sure we would all prefer to study how and why you come to the conclusions that you do? I would also like to add some CGI technology to the scan so I can make you think you have a missile stuck in your head. Come on, it'll be fun! I don't care what you think about me or any other NORMAL person on here. I am really astonished by your thoughts. It's almost like there is an area of your brain that prevents you from seeing the real world through your eyes. To ask, "How can the nose of a plane go through a building?" Come on, the windows were glass, not steel. "Pods under a plane?" Where else will they insert the landing gear?

There are SIMPLE answers to all of your questions but you cannot get a grasp or complete understanding of what you are seeing. I am truly interested in how you think. I don't think you people are crazy at all. Maybe your brains are just different. The illusions of your minds are truly astonishing.

Alright, begin your attack on me...I am ready. I want to see how those with illusions react to my curiosity.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ckitch
 


I dont or cant qutie say i agree with fakery crowd but i agree on one point that didnt sound like a normal boeing aireliner, i did see a few footages when the second plane hit the second tower on a bridge people all on the bridge were saying that wasnt boeing jet that a wasnt boeing jet, but people like in this video had no reactions at all when the plane hit, some people need to realize that factor it reminds of this photo.





Plane is hitting the tower, yet no reaction from the guy nor is he earing the sounds from it.

Thats pretty much strange, wouldnt you agree?
edit on 30-9-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by malachi777
 


malachi777 read my reply to ckitch with a image where the plane is hitting no reaction from the guy only when the explosion started, i do believe something did hit.


I guess we will never know if someday there will be a investigation into this matter unfortunately CGI or not


I am still waiting for more videos on the first tower plane strike.

with respects agent.

edit on 30-9-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-9-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by ckitch
 


I dont or cant qutie say i agree with fakery crowd but i agree on one point that didnt sound like a normal boeing aireliner, i did see a few footages when the second plane hit the second tower on a bridge people all on the bridge were saying that wasnt boeing jet that a wasnt boeing jet, but people like in this video had no reactions at all when the plane hit, some people need to realize that factor it reminds of this photo.





Plane is hitting the tower, yet no reaction from the guy nor is he earing the sounds from it.

Thats pretty much strange, wouldnt you agree?
edit on 30-9-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)


*No, it isn't strange. It appears he is listening to music with a music player.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777
I am tired of studying these videos since it is obvious that airliners hit the towers. Can a few conspiracy theorists post a MRI scan of your brain on this thread? I am sure we would all prefer to study how and why you come to the conclusions that you do? I would also like to add some CGI technology to the scan so I can make you think you have a missile stuck in your head. Come on, it'll be fun! I don't care what you think about me or any other NORMAL person on here. I am really astonished by your thoughts. It's almost like there is an area of your brain that prevents you from seeing the real world through your eyes. To ask, "How can the nose of a plane go through a building?" Come on, the windows were glass, not steel. "Pods under a plane?" Where else will they insert the landing gear?

There are SIMPLE answers to all of your questions but you cannot get a grasp or complete understanding of what you are seeing. I am truly interested in how you think. I don't think you people are crazy at all. Maybe your brains are just different. The illusions of your minds are truly astonishing.

Alright, begin your attack on me...I am ready. I want to see how those with illusions react to my curiosity.



I don't want to go fist to cuffs with you, cause that is the furthest from my intent
but I think the average thought-provoking, critical-thinking, self-confident, open-eyed person sees that that day does NOT add up.

So most people know on one level or another, they are withholding something. The mere fact that Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath (which is so barbaric and dumb anyway...) to me, speaks volumes.

So, my point is, suspicion is abound. And rightly so.

Because even a portion of a lie still isn't the whole truth. So people are just trying to crack-this-case and that means, a hundred different opinions from a hundred different schools of thought.

And I agree with the other poster, if anyone purports to know emphatically what happened that day then, you place yourself on the same rung as the government. Because there is no way of ANYONE knowing exactly what happened unless they were a person involved. Short of that, it's only your strong opinion. So don't spin THAT into facts.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
lol@ the pod/anomaly under the plane. Pause at 1:46

Anyone who believes those were the normal airliners... Well, yeah.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by missiongal
reply to post by Varemia
 


I've seen lots of videos of 9/11 but this one takes some beating please explain how a plane can fly into a building with only one wing so yes i believe it was a hologram we all know it was blown up for the money
www.youtube.com...


Watch what happens to the starboard (right) wing of this Boeing 757 doing a display? Note at around the 0:16 mark the outer portion of the wing 'disappears'? Now you know the wing hasn't disappeared as you can see it has two at the start of the pull up, so how do you explain it apparently vanashing on that portion of the video?



Watch what happens to the port wing (left) of this Boeing 757 being displayed at the 02:30 mark? Now you know that the wing didn't fall off or disappear as you can see it is still attached in the landing footage.



This 'disappearing wing' has already been explained on ATS. When you deal with low quality video/still images, poor resolution, bright conditions/reflections/angles, etc you will get all manner of anomalies.

See following thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

TJ

edit on 30-9-2011 by tommyjo because: Additional info added



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


I remember seeing a broadcast that day and government officials knew something was going to take place but could not figure out exactly when or where. I read on other threads that the government was doing anti-terrorism exercises in New York that day too. I see it like this: They knew something was planned in New York that day and decided to have those exercises there to scare the terrorists (but didn't work). I also believe there are conspiracies among friends, students, co-workers and government etc... What I do not believe is this garbage about false flags, secret government and so on.

I do believe the war in Iraq was intentional because I understand Bush and Cheney owned stocks in military hardware and for every weapon bought and used, they made money on it. Now, if you prove to me they did not own any these stocks, I would admit I was incorrect and happily go about my way.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Originally posted by mayabong
Very strange that there was no reaction when the plane hit.


I noicted that aswell sadly


Has nobody here ever had something happen to them they just became speechless?

The silence of shock, that is the "reaction".



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by Teebs
I'm taken aback by some of the reactions in this thread. Fake video?

I want the truth, nothing else. I don't think the government is giving us the truth about what happened on that day.

That being said, the people who claim these videos are 'fake' have no idea what they are talking about. I work with video/audio effects, compositing, etc., and I just don't understand what exactly people think is fake. Sure, audio and video can be manipulated - but I don't see or hear anything that would suggest this video is anything other than what it presents itself to be: real aircraft slamming into real buildings, videotaped by real people.


Seriously??
Well explain this.


And I am sure many here will eagerly await your explanation, you being a professional.
I say that the whole thing is CGI.


I will assume that you are referring to how the wing of the plane appears to disappear?

I'll happily explain as best I can, but it's going to be quick because I don't want to spend too much time on this.

First of all, two very important things to understand:

1. Camera's do not capture instants in time, they capture intervals of time. Line segments of time, rather than points.
2. Camera's give you an interpretation of reality, their interpretation. It's never an exact replication of reality!

The first factor: An object in motion against a stationary background.

A camera uses a shutter to let in light. The amount of time the shutter is open is determined by various factors, including environmental factors such as lighting condition, and camera settings like the size of the aperture. The shutter is always open for some amount of time. A lot can happen in a split second - especially when an object is moving at a high rate of speed.

I'll give you a real world example, light-writing. Using a long exposure (30 seconds), I can walk in front of the camera and 'write' things in the air with some LED lights. You can't see me clearly, but I was there - moving lights in the air to 'write' these words. I just wasn't bright enough, or stationary long enough to show up well in the camera's interpretation of what happened. No CGI involved. I know because it's my photograph.



If you can understand why this happens, you can begin to understand the difficulty a camera might have in accurately interpreting an object moving at hundreds of miles an hour across a stationary background. It's just giving you it's best guess of what happened.

Next factor: Color and light contrast

Grey building, grey plane.

This similarity makes it more difficult for the camera to distinguish the difference between the grey (left) wing of the plane from the grey background of the building, as compared to the bright blue sky that juxtaposes the right wing.

Dark building, bright sky. The dark left wing 'disappears' into the grey building, just as the right wing 'disappears' into the white cloud behind it when it catches the sun's reflection. These two anomalies happen for the same reason: Because that is how the camera interpreted the data, within its limited ability to discern dynamic range.

You have to understand that, compared to the human sense of vision, the dynamic range of a camera is severely limited. Without special techniques, it can't capture scenes that contain very dark areas, juxtaposed with very bright areas nearly as accurately as we can see them in real life. Check out HDR photography to see what I'm talking about.

Next factor: Data compression

Lossy compression or processing of any kind has the potential to remove data from the image, including chrominance (color) and luminance (brightness) data. This can occur anytime from when the original footage is captured, all the way up to the point that it's encoded by youtube. Data gets sucked out at each step along the way. Things that were kind of dark, are suddenly black. Things that were bright, are now totally white. There is simply not enough 'resolution' (in respect to chroma and luma depth) to differentiate between subtle shades of grey, or bright areas of white clouds or reflecting sunlight from the wing. These details are easily lost (assuming they were ever even captured in the first place by the limited abilities of the camera).

Check out Chroma Subsampling

Next factor: Shutter type

A rolling shutter will produce all kinds of unexpected anomalies when objects in motion are involved. www.abovetopsecret.com...



Alright, I guess I failed on the 'quick' part of my explanation. No time for interlaced vs. progressive scans.

I hope you will continue to research and learn more on your own. Good luck.
edit on 30-9-2011 by Teebs because: typo



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by l_e_cox
 


You get 2 different cameras either video or still, photograph or film the same item at the same time and guess what the colours etc WONT be the same for both cameras!

Here is an example

www.dpreview.com...

A studio still shot move the little dotted box on Martini bottle in the image (right mouse button allows you to move it) over an area with one main colour say the green object in front of the Martini bottle or the colour chart NOW compare the colour from the different cameras! The shades of green /colours are not the same are they?

So do you expect all the videos to be 100% identical from different cameras from different distances and viewpoints?

Thats what happens when people talk about subjects they dont really know anything about they jump to conclusions to back up their preconceived ideas of what things should be like!



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
if this were a UFO video everybody would be crying CGI due to the (non)reaction.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


Not at all.

I'm ex Navy and have spend most of my childhood and adult life as an aviation hobbyist.Do you know what a B-52 is? its a rather large bomber I saw one clearly pass down the port side of my ship one day while on ops in the North Atlantic and when I asked the lookouts they all went "D'uh we didn't see anything". People become focused and shut out all kinds of sensory input. Add to this that when something is seen its often not long enough for untrained observers to properly sort what has happened, you get all these crazy stories.

As a second point I believe there is picks after the one you posted with the gentleman pictured clearly reacting.

When I watch these videos I clearly see a passenger liner impacting the building. No doubt about it.

Its horrifying.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Teebs
 


Teebs, you are awesome!! Thank you! I'll have you know, you are going to get many who will doubt your explanation. You have also given me the answer to my question about how these truthers think. It all has to do with a malfunction in the shutter(their eyelids) and the lack or color insight in their brains.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by malachi777
 


sadly i am not seeing any music players between his ears
do you see any cd players? i sure didnt.

and let me re state my postion on this.



I guess we will never know if someday there will be a investigation into this matter unfortunately CGI or not

edit on 30-9-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777
reply to post by Teebs
 


Teebs, you are awesome!! Thank you! I'll have you know, you are going to get many who will doubt your explanation. You have also given me the answer to my question about how these truthers think.



[sigh]

I AM a 'truther'.

As in, I want the real truth. The thing is, it's harder to find the truth when you have a bunch of so-called 'truthers' muddying the waters with ridiculousness like CGI planes and holograms.

Why is this so hard to understand? I'm not on any 'side', and I don't care about being 'right', I just want to know what REALLY happened.

Label me however you please, I don't care. I'm on a quest for the truth, and if you get in my way, be you a 'Truther' or an 'Offical Story believer', I care not which - I will do my best to take you down.
edit on 30-9-2011 by Teebs because: formatting



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by ckitch
 


I dont or cant qutie say i agree with fakery crowd but i agree on one point that didnt sound like a normal boeing aireliner, i did see a few footages when the second plane hit the second tower on a bridge people all on the bridge were saying that wasnt boeing jet that a wasnt boeing jet, but people like in this video had no reactions at all when the plane hit, some people need to realize that factor it reminds of this photo.





Plane is hitting the tower, yet no reaction from the guy nor is he earing the sounds from it.

Thats pretty much strange, wouldnt you agree?
edit on 30-9-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)


Good grief. What is strange about it? You are trying to analyse a still image. See the video from where the still was taken from at the following link, View from 08:29. Is that reaction enough?

www.911conspiracy.tv...



Doesn't sound like a normal Boeing? Did it ever pass your thought process that the hijackers had the engines maxed to the limit? The general public have very poor aircraft recognition skills. I was serving in the military at the time and watched the footage on TV. I was trained in aircraft recognition and the airliner was easily recognisable as a widebodied airliners in the class of the Boeing 767. When the close-ups were shown it was instant Boeing 767 recognition.

TJ


edit on 30-9-2011 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-9-2011 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


They are time travelling truthers from the year 2101, they are still trying to find evidence of an inside job/controlled demolition



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


Ok, those jets were real but...............................................................those buildings were CGI!





top topics



 
31
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join