Totally new 2nd plane impact Video interesting.

This blob again show us that on 911 there was a flu going around video cameras called "bad compression" or pixilation. This video really follows some of the other videos around intensifying the mystery around the second impact. I am also providing a couple of still frame pictures; if someone could provide this video in slow motion I am sure we will be able to find a lot more inconsistencies.



the BLOB



Now in front of the building watch it full speed it looks better.






[edit on 15-10-2007 by piacenza]

strikes me as odd how steady that camera was, considering the circumstances.
i wonder who was videotaping...

A little trick called color.


The way the sun was reflecting off the underside of the wing, caused it to brighten from the dull blue to a more lighter blue, matching the sky color.


Combine that with cell-phone like video quality and you got a recipe for No Plane theories.

Low in fat too, but high in non-sense.


Anyone else vote for youtube videos to become null, and void as evidence for any theory?

Seems this curse called compression is the reason for the No Plane's wing dissappearing, and Liza Minnelli shapeshifting into a reptoid.




[edit on 10/15/2007 by 3rdeye]

[edit on 10/15/2007 by 3rdeye]

This video is such low quality that I find it hard to discern anything much.
The shifting red/blue during the video was distracting as well.
I'll watch it a few more times but I doubt I'll find anything note worthy.
I appreciate the post and always like to see footage that's new to me.

Just what "inconsistencies" are you talking about? It's just another video of UA175 hitting WTC 2.

Nothing surprising there, is there?

Makes you wonder though...6 years later and new videos always seem to come out ..I read somewhere that of the new york incident the fbi confiscated something like 800 videos.

I'm not sure what to think about the no plane theory. When I first heard about the theory, I instantly remembered, that on 911, I watched the second plane fly into the towers on tv, and the first thought in my mind was: "photoshopped", it looked so wrong. I didn't think anything of it at that time.

There are a lot of videos with eye witnesses saying they saw and heard a missile.
I also saw a movie that shows how all the news networks might have pulled 911 of with synchronysing signals and 11 second delays to photoshop and edit, wich they did so poorly that the photoshopped plane's nose appeared on the other side off the tower.
It was called "september clues" and it is linked here on ATS.

[edit on 17-10-2007 by enigmania]

Despite me being at the base that day and not having any video equipment there, I will never believe in the no plane theory.

John Lear has already informed me I am mistaken. There is no way I could have seen a real plane. It was all in my mind and that exactly what they want me to think.

Psy ops my ass. There was a plane and I saw it.

AP, i got your back. these were real planes. i've not seen sufficient evidence that suggests otherwise. this video to me looks like a plane flying into a building. nothing odd about it.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Despite me being at the base that day and not having any video equipment there, I will never believe in the no plane theory.

John Lear has already informed me I am mistaken. There is no way I could have seen a real plane. It was all in my mind and that exactly what they want me to think.

Psy ops my ass. There was a plane and I saw it.

In trying to keep an open mind about all this I don't 100% dismiss the theory, but I can't get past one question concerning the no plane subject.

WHY?

Why fake slamming a commercial airliner into a building as a cover story to cloak a planned CD when you could just LIHOP or MIHOP?

What do you do with the real plane? Destroy it anyway?

What do you do with the passengers & crew? Kill them anyway?

I just don't get it.

2PacSade-

Thanks to the OP for posting this video I'd never seen before.

I don't see any no-plane, hologram whatever theorists explaining that one to be anything other than what it appears to be. The smoke and dust from from WTC1 makes projecting any light beam creation (let alone something requiring 2 or more beams from different locations) somewhat troublesome doesn't it?

Originally posted by 3rdeye
Anyone else vote for youtube videos to become null, and void as evidence for any theory?

Let's just ban thinking altogether!
WE WANT FACTS!

Originally posted by 2PacSade
What do you do with the real plane? Destroy it anyway?

What do you do with the passengers & crew? Kill them anyway?

If you believe the US government was behind it, these questions are irrelevent.
After such a staged act, you WOULDN'T keep the real plane.
And, really, why would the people behind this suddenly feel compassion for a couple hundred passengers, when they just killed a couple thousand others?

the plane the plane!!!!!!!


OK enoguh with all this hologram theory ok because it nonsensical and you dont have any proof of it unless you have a picture of the projectors dont even bother.

and when was the last time anything filemd in the sky did not appear blurry.

if people cant come up with sarp footage of UFO's why should we expect something better from our own planes

Who said anything about holograms I just pointed out the fact that this video, as well as every other one around, as some oddities on it.
I think they have all been tampered in one way or the other. Something hit those buildings but I am 100% positive that at the same time bombs went off. There are plenty of unconfutable evidences that while the second plane struck a bomb went off in the other building. This is a fact.

Originally posted by seanm
Just what "inconsistencies" are you talking about? It's just another video of UA175 hitting WTC 2.

And you know its UA175 because someone told you or do you have evidence?

Where would they hide a projector large enough to project a plane? I mean wouldnt the laser be visible in all the smoke.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Where would they hide a projector large enough to project a plane? I mean wouldnt the laser be visible in all the smoke.

In another plane.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Well where is the evidence that a plane didnt hit the world trade centre? Theres more evidence to suggest it did

Its a little late for the shills to be produceing new videos but once more this video is a total fabircation. The best evidence is the rector building(SP) which is edited into this video but not present in the Hazaricara(sp) footage.

Reality doesn't but the scenarios in the many videos do.