A (botched) perspective on an old 9/11 video.

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by eNaR
 


Hi there!

If you will have a look at the post directly above yours, you will notice a description of the process used by a program to render super slow-mo videos.

Aside from the original frames, the simulated frames are not real - they are forgeries, based on what the program 'thinks' the images should look like. It is a similar principle as the software used to render a detailed image from a blurry part of an individual frame (like smudged moon images). This is a great tool to use when a true slow-mo camera wasn't used for the original recording, but a super slow-mo rendering is desired.

A CGI effect may be possible when a standard frame rate video has been processed through this software - the software may have problems 'guessing' how to create certain aspects of the simulated images. The problems in these simulated frames could be what gives the impression of CGI.




posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 





Just not sure why you are trying to silence and attack others?


I am not trying to "silence and attack others"

I am fed up with what I see quite frankly as stupidity taking over the 9/11 forum. 12 years on, at what point did it become acceptable to say whatever the hell you want about 9/11 not matter how stupid or how hurtful it may be.

This video is a classic example, "oooo look the wing disappears behind that building soooo...... I I GUESS IT MUST BE CGI!!!!"

Its stupid because the guy in the video claims that building is behind WTC-2 when its actually in front of it yet CGI is still strongly implied

Its hurtful because to the families that means that someone, who is again a idiot (not talking about you btw, i am talking about the guy who made the video), is claiming that the 60 or so people on that plane did not die in crashing into the towers. It implies to the likes of the family of Peter Hanson's family that no he did not make that last phone call to his father because it was all GCI.

That why i "attack" threads like these, its not you, its the buffoon who made the video I am out to "silence"

I also happen to think that members of ATS who lets face it almost all claim to have some in depth knowledge of 9/11 having studied and researched for a decade should know better than to post stuff like this.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Bottom line is IT HAPPENED, it was seen on LIVE TELEVISION, WITNESSED by MILLIONS OF PEOPLE on their televisions, not to mention the thousands of people in NYC that heard/seen the planes fly thru and plow into the towers.
If the video author thinks this is a worldwide conspiracy, him and everyone that thinksthis was cgi, needs their head examined.
2 planes plowed into the twin towers. Bottom lie. End of story.
edit on 9/12/2013 by HomerinNC because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


but its also a severe injustice to the families of the deceased if people don't question and scrutinize the blatant lies told by politicians about the original story.

I don't believe the planes hitting the towers is a lie...my stance on it is those planes did hit the towers to cover up the fact that those buildings went down by controlled demolition.

Over 3000 people were murdered that day and the real culprits are still at large probably planning other atrocities as we speak.

when a story stinks it needs questioning...ALWAYS...and the original story reeks like dog shi!t covered rotten eggs in a pool of sour milk



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Silicis n Volvo
 


I have no problem with people questioning anything

If you want to say "how did WTC-7 fall the way it did?"

I have no problem with that, i think its a very reasonable and justified question to be asking

But there is a huge difference between asking reasonable questions and perpetuating some wacky idea that the planes were CGI.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
The building is in front of WTC. However, it seems clearly obvious to me that a missile is being fired from under the right side of the plane as it hits the tower. Same flash seen on the video of the first plane strike.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Wizayne
The building is in front of WTC. However, it seems clearly obvious to me that a missile is being fired from under the right side of the plane as it hits the tower. Same flash seen on the video of the first plane strike.


WHAT!!

This is what i mean people!

Where the hell are you seeing a missile!?!



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


It's because it's NOT a super slow motion video. It's using software to interpolate between the frames to give the illusion of super slow motion. It's just an artifact of such a process that should have not been used for something where the detail of the video is so incredibly important. Google 'twixtor'



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
All I see is the plane, passing over the top of the building being disputed. then crashing into the Wtc. It is very clear to see. Although I dont buy the official version of what happened, I cannot ignore the obvouis



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
So the vid in the OP was allegedly shot by Hezarkhani.

In the later versions you can hear him, or someone, say, or rather, read from a script, "Omg, a plane just hit the building, I cannot believe it."

But when it first aired on tv it had all the audio except for Hezarkhani's comment.



They at least messed with the audio.

This is a pic of the ghost plane as it is halfway in the building.



Do people really feel this is what a plane would look like as its front half has made contact with a steel building?

No deformation whatsoever.

And where is the giant hole and how did it form a second later? Note that parts of the wings have already passed the exterior wall.

It's a fake and a low quality one.

Here a vid that shows how easy it is to create a bad special effect.






edit on 12-9-2013 by NeoParadigm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin

Wizayne
The building is in front of WTC. However, it seems clearly obvious to me that a missile is being fired from under the right side of the plane as it hits the tower. Same flash seen on the video of the first plane strike.


WHAT!!

This is what i mean people!

Where the hell are you seeing a missile!?!


Thanks for keeping me honest. My eyes are pretty good so I apologize to those less fortunate. I will take screen captures if you truly can't see what I'm talking about.

Stop the op video at 27 second mark and watch the bottom right side of the plane fire a missile into the building as it hits. The smoking gun for this is the white puff of smoke that comes from the launcher under the plane. You can see it clearly from 24 seconds until the plane hits the building at 27 seconds. It is in the spot where the wing attaches to the plane clear as day goes from nothing there and increases in whiteness before the plane makes contact.

I don't want to have to take screen captures when its clearly on that video. But I will if I have to. puff of smoke clearly becomes visible prior to contact with the building.


I respect your view and hope you can see things my way in time.
edit on 12-9-2013 by Wizayne because: Goofed the quotes...



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizayne
 


Sorry but as a rule of thumb i have several topic that i simply do not discuss

these include any and all conspiracies that suggest victims were faked

your "missile" theory falls into this category and i wont lower myself into discussing the possibility that victims were faked.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Wizayne
 


Sorry but as a rule of thumb i have several topic that i simply do not discuss

these include any and all conspiracies that suggest victims were faked

your "missile" theory falls into this category and i wont lower myself into discussing the possibility that victims were faked.



I'm sorry you feel the need to link my very rational visual observation with a silly "Fake Passengers" theory. I clearly didn't say that. It's odd to me that you would link those two things that way. And, you quoted me asking where I saw a missile. So I guided you to the spot I saw the missile with great detail.

Now, are you going to locate the spot I described and comment on what you think is taking place on that plane prior to hitting the building or should I do screen captures and show the group for you? You did ask where I saw the missile.

I say it again, there was a projectile launched from the plane at the moment of impact. It's clear as day.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   

NeoParadigm
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


A guy named Hezarkhani allegedly shot it.

You are right, the building is in front of the WTC.

Like all 911 footage, it is fake though. For a myriad of reasons, like applying the laws of physics and common sense.

I will be back for more in depth


So how does soft lead penetrate harder metals/material when it's a bullet does that have something to do with it's mass and velocity as in applying the laws of physics



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Wizayne

OtherSideOfTheCoin

Wizayne
The building is in front of WTC. However, it seems clearly obvious to me that a missile is being fired from under the right side of the plane as it hits the tower. Same flash seen on the video of the first plane strike.


WHAT!!

This is what i mean people!

Where the hell are you seeing a missile!?!


Thanks for keeping me honest. My eyes are pretty good so I apologize to those less fortunate. I will take screen captures if you truly can't see what I'm talking about.

Stop the op video at 27 second mark and watch the bottom right side of the plane fire a missile into the building as it hits. The smoking gun for this is the white puff of smoke that comes from the launcher under the plane. You can see it clearly from 24 seconds until the plane hits the building at 27 seconds. It is in the spot where the wing attaches to the plane clear as day goes from nothing there and increases in whiteness before the plane makes contact.

I don't want to have to take screen captures when its clearly on that video. But I will if I have to. puff of smoke clearly becomes visible prior to contact with the building.


I respect your view and hope you can see things my way in time.
edit on 12-9-2013 by Wizayne because: Goofed the quotes...


I suggest you get an eye test then that is the nose of the aircraft impacting the structure.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   

wmd_2008

Wizayne

OtherSideOfTheCoin

Wizayne
The building is in front of WTC. However, it seems clearly obvious to me that a missile is being fired from under the right side of the plane as it hits the tower. Same flash seen on the video of the first plane strike.


WHAT!!

This is what i mean people!

Where the hell are you seeing a missile!?!


Thanks for keeping me honest. My eyes are pretty good so I apologize to those less fortunate. I will take screen captures if you truly can't see what I'm talking about.

Stop the op video at 27 second mark and watch the bottom right side of the plane fire a missile into the building as it hits. The smoking gun for this is the white puff of smoke that comes from the launcher under the plane. You can see it clearly from 24 seconds until the plane hits the building at 27 seconds. It is in the spot where the wing attaches to the plane clear as day goes from nothing there and increases in whiteness before the plane makes contact.

I don't want to have to take screen captures when its clearly on that video. But I will if I have to. puff of smoke clearly becomes visible prior to contact with the building.


I respect your view and hope you can see things my way in time.
edit on 12-9-2013 by Wizayne because: Goofed the quotes...


I suggest you get an eye test then that is the nose of the aircraft impacting the structure.


Thanks for your input. I thought that too when I first saw it, now I strongly disagree after watching 50 or so times. Also, you failed to notice/mention the white smoke puff clearly coming from the launcher BEFORE impact. And the same cloud becomes visible along with the engine impacts just after the plane disappears into the building. I will be home from work later and can screen capture and show more clearly what I believe is happening. Thanks again.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





So how does soft lead penetrate harder metals/material when it's a bullet does that have something to do with it's mass and velocity as in applying the laws of physics


It doesn't.

Armor piercing rounds for instance have a hard metal core. A plane is also not a completely solid object, it is not a real good comparison.

Furthermore, I was refering to the absence of deformation in the plane, for instance, like I pointed out in my previous post.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

NeoParadigm
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





So how does soft lead penetrate harder metals/material when it's a bullet does that have something to do with it's mass and velocity as in applying the laws of physics


It doesn't.

Armor piercing rounds for instance have a hard metal core. A plane is also not a completely solid object, it is not a real good comparison.

Furthermore, I was refering to the absence of deformation in the plane, for instance, like I pointed out in my previous post.


Absence of deformation, strange the plane was destroyed



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





Absence of deformation, strange the plane was destroyed


I see that you are not even going to try to make an attempt at an on topic debunk regarding what I lined out in the post I refered you to.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Mianeye
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Wings is clearly behind the building

The building is between the filmer and the plane, which is obvius to see, unless you are blind.

If the plane(wings) didn't make the cut, what did?
edit on 11-9-2013 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)


I agree that the building is obviously in the foreground and not in the background!
I don't know why people want to make something out of nothing cause there were tens of thousands
of people that saw these planes even some that I know! So are we all brainwashed about these impacts?
Is it not enough that the official 911 story that the federal government portrays has many holes in it?
I really don't believe that building 7 was totally demolished at free fall speed because of fire!
Then the way this event was used to oust dictators in nations that had nothing at all to do with 911!
Then the country that did have everything to do with 911 (Saudi Arabia) was not even implicated!
The money trail was ignored! Any eye witness reports were omitted! I mean I can not make this stuff up.
So why is it that we have to try and promote ideas with no substance, validity and ignore the hard hitting
stuff which has more veracity? Sounds like shills promoting propaganda to discount the facts with nonsense!





new topics
top topics
 
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join