Have you guys seen this?

reply to post by 12.21.12


Can you show us the missile platform that you claim it was launched from? Was it launched from the WTC, shoot out 100 meters or so, then stops, turns, and shoots toward the helicopter?

What military missile is capable of that maneuver?

reply to post by Disclosed


That is an excellent question. I can assure you I am looking into it, but I don't have an answer right now.

Originally posted by 12.21.12
Again this has already been discussed,

No, it hasn't. You just posted your opinion, backed by your assertion that you are a video professional.

you can read why I don't believe this is CG earlier in the thread if you doubt that I am a video proffesional. Thanks!

I did read it and that's why I doubt you are a video professional.

I will now (for the nth time on ATS) assert that I am a television producer. I am also a major film fan. I have no problem believing the video is CG.

Watched Battlestar Galactica lately?

How about getting a copy of the Firefly DVDs. Watch the (original, 2hr) pilot (Serenity). Listen to the audio commentary from Exec Porducers (also writers, directors and show runners) Joss Whedon and Tim Minear.

Watch for the Persephone space dock scene. Watch for the totally stable CGI inserted into the hend-held camera shot. Listen to the audio commentary.

Serenity (the Firefly pilot, not the feature film) was produced in 2002. Now, this ad was produced prior to the Sep 11 attacks in 2001.

For another example of stable CG in a moving shot, watch Windtalkers. Specifically the invasion fleet at anchor off the coast. While the framing moves with the ocean's currents, the ships stay still relative to the coast.

The days of chroma key, blue-screening and matte painting and their very serious limitations are long gone. Hell, watch Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet and tell me where they fixed the scratch on the film in the Mercutio's death ("a plague on both your houses")/storm scene.

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


Thats all good, but what's the point? I appreciate film and CG as well. I have seen some very great CG. But this is not the demon Caught on Camera post. This is a very logical point I am trying to drive home. 9/11 was accomplished with computers. Not hijackers with boxcutters.

reply to post by 12.21.12


No, you were (originally) stating that the SciFi channel ad couldn't be CG (main reason, apparently, being the camera motion) and that you knew this because you are a video professional and you "know" Computer Generated Images when you see them.

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


Yeah. It was an amatuer shot. Most likely taken with a digital camera. Again, what is your point?

edit: most likely with a sony Hi-8 cam

[edit on 6-5-2008 by 12.21.12]

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


Honestly if I was a television producer and somebody handed me the footage and said "Hey, I hope you don't mind, but we added a little CG to it." I would have said, "What the hell is this?" and handed it back to them and said "Thanks but no thanks!"

Absolutely no production value in this clip whatsoever!!!

Originally posted by 12.21.12
Absolutely no production value in this clip whatsoever!!!

Assuming that this was a cgi production meant to look like a UFO sighting with a hand-held camera, wouldn't you agree that the "production values" were pretty darn good?

I mean, they've got you convinced.

Originally posted by 12.21.12
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

 

Honestly if I was a television producer and somebody handed me the footage and said "Hey, I hope you don't mind, but we added a little CG to it." I would have said, "What the hell is this?" and handed it back to them and said "Thanks but no thanks!"

Absolutely no production value in this clip whatsoever!!!

Whereas if I was a television producer (which I am) responsible to the marketing department for commissioning and creating new promos and the director came to me and said "I've got this great cinema verite/found footage-style short for the new promo series, take a look and tell me what you think."

I would press play, watch it once and then say "Perfect. Absolutely perfect. I can't even spot the CGI seams on the UFO."

The point here is that this isn't news. It's supposed to look like news and it does look like news. Which makes it

"Perfect. Absolutely perfect."

This was obviously a commissioned piece. You need to find the production house that took the commission, the writer who did the script, the artist who drew the storyboard, the director who chose the crew and the FX house who did the CGI.

A lot more useful than looking for 9/11 material.

Yeah these guys are pretty good.

I've seen a few of their Vids & they have fooled a lot of dumb people on Utube (who often don't read a video descriptoin), before they post...lol

To this day (nearly 14months later), there are still people falling for this one & for the Halo Teasers (the Haiti videos).

There are even some people out there who have spent weeks studying these vids, trying to debunk them..lolololol

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


Yeah, but it's not. I have already supplied this forum mounds of evedince that it was not. So I am not sure why we are still discussing this. Where is your evidence? Besides you claiming to be a TV producer and you numurous examples of Hollywood productions?

reply to post by Tuning Spork


Yeah if it were in fact meant to be a UFO sighting. But how come it looks so much like a secret government operation and NOT like a UFO sighting??

The Peepers sez, its CGI based on The Peepers neural optical scan of the object, acting and camera snap. Than the Peepers used a high tech device called Peeper hearing and detected false voice inflections within the speech of the main actor.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


sorry throat.. you seriously haven't done your homework on this one.. go back over the the film and SHOW me the plane. or.. just click on my links below..

Originally posted by Disclosed
Can you show us the missile platform that you claim it was launched from?

Their is a police report in the 9/11 commission report of a missile being fired from the woolworth building.

Their are police radio transcripts of Port Autority poilce requesting police check out a possible missile being fired from the Woolworth building.

Their is damage to the top of the Woolworth building.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Is that the building pictured in this video? Thats odd, it looked like the WTC towers to me. Show us the woolworth building in the video shown please...can you point it out?

Good find ULTIMA!

www.orbwar.com...

www.lejeune.usmc.mil...

www.wnbc.com...

Originally posted by Disclosed
[ Is that the building pictured in this video? Thats odd, it looked like the WTC towers to me. Show us the woolworth building in the video shown please...can you point it out?

Here is a photo of where the Woolworth building is located from the WTC. Notice what look likes smoke in the red area.
i114.photobucket.com...

Damage to the Woolworth building.
i114.photobucket.com...

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV


HowlrunnerIV, just because something 'looks' like it's real doesn't mean it is and just because something that doesn't look real doesn't mean it's not either. (Not trying to insult you Intelligence just re-stating the basic)

90% of the ppl which look at the footage only see what they're eyes tell them and listening/reading/hearing to a person say it was fake, take that as "ohhh.. ok, well it's CG" and go off on saying .. "well, she said it's a fake , so it must be true.. and since everyone ELSE say's it's a fake.. IT MUST BE FAKE" See what I'm getting at ?

So, we come back to dispelling rumor and speculation over scientific evidence based on This document
IMO, I believe you're looking at through the eyes of a film producer and NOT a engineering editor (for lack of better appropriate titles) Personally, If we finally get to the bottom of this with solid evidence that it was CG... I'M TOTALLY Cool with it ya know? Doesn't matter to me either way.. but what does matter is how did we get evidence?? It's like being in the court room and instead of presenting the evidence, all we have is hearsay....but these day's that's a poor analogy because some Judges allow it in the court.. but it's kinda like that..

12.21.12 is looking and presenting the film from the eyes of a engineer, getting down into the actually pixels of the film .. and not from the surface which is only observation or how well it was done; thats the major part of this thread.

12.21.12~~~I don't believe it was a missile. Why?

~Once a missle is locked on, it will stay locked as long as either the laser keeps it on track to the tgt or...
~ if heat seeking, the heat no longer is trackable or another heat source takes the place of the the original heat source or...
~the craft can out maneuver the missile...in which this is a civi helo and not military .. and it would have blow up the helo.

Originally posted by 12.21.12
Good find ULTIMA!

Thanks, its just due to doing some research.

Now, question is was the missile fired at the buildings or the planes?



[edit on 7-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]