Have you guys seen this?

letsroll911.org...

www.gallerize.com...

angelsfortruth.com...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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...

The "smoke" in the red area is a light reflection on the smoke cloud, from one of the many helecopters around the towers. Watching the video shows it plainly....however, many CT'ers take just the one still shot , and instantly see missile smoke trail.

There are many sites that discuss the wollworth building in great detail, 12.21.12....you can check those out if you want more info on it. However..they have absolutely nothing to do with what you are showing in your video.

Don't take my word for it, 12.21.12....by all means, check the other sites. You will see I'm telling the truth. I'd rather you see all of the data for your investigation, rather than a very biased one side.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Well I believe I stated earlier that there was two or three different attacks launched in the video, one from the ground or a building, one from the WTC and another one that I only caught a glimpse of.

It appears to me that they were aimed towards the chopper.

Before Barbabra spots the WTC missile you can catch a glimpse of one flying in front of the helicopter from the sky towards the earth, which might explain why she said "Are you getting all this?"

Question is Why?

reply to post by Disclosed


I agree. I am trying to look at all sides of this. But there are so many events that seem to be relative to this video. The location of where the plane actually crashed. Levels of the WTC being closed off prior to 9/11 etc

Ultima is reffering to the events that occured on 9/11. That is when the pictures of the smoke seen from the top of the Woolworth building were taken.

I think he just got a bit confused, as the OP is claiming the Sci-Fi channel object is a missile.

I know from reading ultima's posts on this board that he is way to smart to go along with the OP's idead that this Sci-Fi "viral" commercial is anything but exactly that a fake commercial, intended to entertain the audience.

Again I'll say if this Sci-fi commercial was real, the photographer has super human reflexes, and nerves of steel to keep this object framed the entire time.

If this were a real event, an object, which isn't a missle, look at the screen capture, you can clearly see it alot bigger than any missile, about as big as the helicopter if not bigger, and saucer shaped.

Anyway, an object that size traveling at that speed and coming within a couple feet of the chopper before shooting straight upwards, would have knocked everyone in the chopped on thier collectice arses, if no cause the helicopter to be flipped over, or spun around, and the pilot would have lost control.

I mean really I cannot believe this thread has gotten this long. How anyone can believe this is real is beyond me. It's the most famous of hollywood/tv cgi I think I've seen on the net. Everyone and thier mother knows this was fake, and that it was done as a commercial for the Sci-Fi Network.

It is a great clip, and looks realistic for sure,but start thinking about reality and physics, and the amount of air that would have been thrusted at the helicopter, there is just no way the camera man woulda kept the UFO in frame to capture the Sci-Fi Logo made from the smoke. That is also another dead givaway.

Can we please put an end to this one, it's gone on long enough.

What do you make of the other two viral commercial that we posted, done by the sci- Fi network 12.12.12? You know the picnic invaded by bugs, and the frisbee catch, that gets the guy electricuted on the fence? Do you believe those are real as well?

it was done as a commercial for the Sci-Fi Network.

reply to post by Nola213


Did you not read Barbar's letter to the SciFi network?

To answer your other question, no I do not believe the other videos. But I thought they were entertaining.

I do not think the video from the OP is entertaining. I think it is disturbing.

In any case, this is more less the kind of discussion I was hoping for. I think I will observe from the sidelines for a bit.

Originally posted by Disclosed
The "smoke" in the red area is a light reflection on the smoke cloud, from one of the many helecopters around the towers.

Is this an opinion or do you have evidnece?

Originally posted by Komodo
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..

No. It's like being in the courtroom and an expert witness is called to explain the situation to the jury. The expert witness states his/her qualifications, making it clear why his/her opinion carries weight. That is not hearsay.

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.

No, he isn't and no, it isn't.

As for that document, what makes it any more or less admissable than any of the other evidence presented, particularly Barbara's cv and multiple statements as to the inauthenticity of the video?

Originally posted by 12.21.12
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

 

Yeah, but it's not. I have already supplied this forum mounds of evedince that it was not.

I've seen anthills masquarading as molehills, but I'm yet to see actual mounds...

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?

My evidence is a refusal to force "facts" (that are not apparent) to fit my theory. Why are you so desparate for this to be real? Are you so afraid of losing face? How much money did you bet with your bookie that this was real 9/11 evidence?

The video was staged, the UFO was added in post production. No news cameraman I have ever met is that good.

Here's a response from Barbera's husband taken from the Godlikeproductions message board - (original post is from 2006). The communication was sent via Barry Kramer who runs blondie.net


dear without,
much as i wish the "sci-fi happens" commercial was the real thing it is absolutly 100% fake. made up, cgi etc etc
it was produced for the sci-fi channel together with maybe three other spots that didnt get as much attention since they weren't as well done and didnt involve ufo's at the WTC...
both barb and myself are continually amazed at the attention this thing has gotten, of course the 9-11 connection being the main factor but still it is only a tv commercial... no one questions seeing Subaru's flying through the air etc, this is the same deal sorry
the fact that the hoopla gets so deep as to suggest that we are somehow being coerced into saying this is a fake is just wackadoo
believe me i love the concept of ufo's etc but after about 40 years of lokking for 'em i'm still waiting...
i would suggest re-reading Jungs "flying saucers..." the concept of archetypes is in a way more exciting to me than that of extraterrestrials visiting; we are the aliens
regards
chris


This is just a legit as the supposed statement from Barbera earlier on in this thread.

Oh, and for the record, I don't work with CG, but do produce animations and edited photos for several websites. There is nothing in this vid that can't be reproduced by computer.

As I've stated elsewhere, I believe that usually the obvious answer is the correct on. In this case we have:

1) A flying object just happened to be in the right place at the right time to be filmed by a passing helicopter (although not witnessed by anyone else). It goes on to perform movements which seem to be beyond the abilities of anything humans can build.

Somehow, when it performs its final manoeuvre at a good distance from the helicopter, the sound of it accelerating arrives at exactly the same time it begins to move. No delay whatsoever. Now that really will require a new understanding on how sound waves propogate through our atmosphere.

Also, there appear to be no reports of a lound boom over NY coinciding with this video. I would imagine that a noise at distance loud enough to be picked up by a video camera mike over the sound of a helicopter would have been heard at ground level too.

This footage, rather than making it to news networks, newspapers etc ends up a viral promotion for a minor TV channel.

Or...

2) It's a promotional video made a production company commissioned by the Sci-fi channel for its Sci-fi happens campaign.

Just wanted to clear something up. Looks like nobody has mentioned it since people are still saying helicopter, but if someone cleared it up already then just ignore this.

The people in the Sci-Fi commercial are in a blimp.

If they were in a helicopter, they'd all be sitting down wearing headsets to hear each other over the sound of the blades spinning above them. You wouldn't hear them speaking to each other so clearly and you wouldn't have heard that UFO fly by so clearly. They'd also all be sitting down wearing safety harnesses. I don't know of any helicopter where you could stand up like that without being attached to something.

There's no cameraman that would have been able to keep the UFO in perfect frame like that as it takes off. They would have to have known the exact path the UFO was about to take to be able to shoot it so perfectly. They knew this because they were TOLD where the UFO was going to be at by the people who created the commercial.

Script could've read something like this for the cameraman:

UFO peeks out from behind the WTC tower. Cameraman notices something and zooms in. UFO shoots towards the BLIMP (cameraman zooms out) then speeds off to the right (cameraman tracks it).

I can't believe you still think this video is real 12.21.12. Sci-Fi has said numerous times it's just a commercial, the company who did the effects work has said the same and the actress playing the woman and her husband have said the same thing. There's no conspiracy here. Just a commercial that had some decent CG work for it's time.

Sci-Fi either wrote that letter as Barbara to draw some attention to their site (viral marketing) or someone with nothing better to do is having some fun with them. Kinda like all these people (I believe just one person with too much time on their hands) who have been popping up on here lately saying they have the answers to everything and will answer questions. Only to never come back here.

Anyone remember the original Spider-Man trailer that was used for the first Spider-Man film? It featured a scene where a helicopter is about to crash into one of the towers and Spider-Man makes a web between the towers to catch it? It was also being used in posters. I own one of the huge ones that usually sit outside theaters and it takes up an entire wall. Sam Raimi removed all that after 9-11 happened and only kept the scene of Spider-Man having the towers reflected in his eyes as a small tribute.

I'm bringing this up because I've been surprised nobody has ever brought that up in any conspiracy theory If they have, then it's completely gone over my head.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by nightmare_david]

reply to post by bohica1972


It is customary here to support your evidence with a link. However I looked it up and while I think that is a very credible argument. But it was not realeased until October of 2006. So how am I supposed to take it seriously If Barbara claimed before that what she saw was for real? Many people who came forward evedince reguarding 9/11 later said the exact opposite. That is the nature of conspiracies. That is life. Especially when lives are at risk. I appreciate what you found, but just like anyone on here asking me for more evidence, I am going to have to ask for the same.

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

My evidence is a refusal to force "facts" (that are not apparent) to fit my theory. Why are you so desparate for this to be real? Are you so afraid of losing face? How much money did you bet with your bookie that this was real 9/11 evidence?

The video was staged, the UFO was added in post production. No news cameraman I have ever met is that good.

Not here to FORCE FACTS. Just asking you guys for the same. It's an investigation about 9/11 why should this video clip be overlooked? Real or not.

reply to post by bohica1972

Oh, and for the record, I don't work with CG, but do produce animations and edited photos for several websites. There is nothing in this vid that can't be reproduced by computer.

Good for you, so do I. So how was the CG created? An educated guess would speak for itself.

1) A flying object just happened to be in the right place at the right time to be filmed by a passing helicopter (although not witnessed by anyone else). It goes on to perform movements which seem to be beyond the abilities of anything humans can build.

reply to post by bohica1972


So what can humans buld and what can't they build? I am confused. Humans are responsible for 9/11, but nobody can seem to figure that out either.

Hi,

I'm not getting drawn into a 9/11 debate here. The thread was started about this video that you claim is real.

With regard to how this video was made - have you ever watched a science fiction that features computer generated effects? Or adverts, for that matter. There are countless, better, examples of CG work. As for software, 3DS Max (although it might still have been called Autodesk back then) is a likely candidate.

Rather than me prove computer animation exists, can you prove it doesn't? That contemporary productions where similarly impossible?

Please, though, I'd like to see your view on why the sound of the object shooting up in the sky is audible at the same time it moves.

reply to post by bohica1972


I am not claiming it is real. I am asking for solid evidence that it is not. I don't see anything wrong with the audio. Other than what another poster pointed out. If they were in a chopper there probably would have been a lot more noise.

Hang-on. You're not claiming this is real? Then what is this debate about?

As for the sound - the object is at a good distance from the helicopter. Sound travels at 340ms at sea level. Therefore for the object's 'boom' to be heard at the same it flies off, it would need to be a lot closer than it is in that footage.. Judging by the size of the thing (and the way the camera zooms out just it time to catch its flight - how convenient) it was several hundred meters away. Therefore the video camera would not have recorded any sound until the object was well on its way.

There is no need to prove a TV ad to be what is, a TV ad. You don't feel it's real - so where's the argument here?

Jaysus, even Rense calls fake on this:

www.rense.com...

reply to post by bohica1972


Oh god, not that article again. Anyways the audio sounds fine to me. It's called the doppler effect.

The doppler effect concerns the change of frequency and wavelength of a wave to an observer moving relative to the source. This object was stationary, then emits a boom as it flies up. this boom somehow manages to arrive at the moment the camera capture the object flying off. This means the wave arrived at supersonic speeds, Hypersonic, even. You'd definitely see that on film.

Only you don't. Because this is just an advert. Whatever you choose to investigate in life I really hope you approach it with a more critical eye than this.

I'm dipping out of this thread now. It's pointless.