Have you guys seen this?

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


Well I can tell alot of you are here to debunk 9/11 theories. That movie thouroughly documented it's sources and the planes stilll being in existence came from a legitimate source. They are listed as still being in use, which means that they are still being used.

Wrong. They are listed in the FAA database as destroyed and deregistered. You can look them up for yourself on the FAA webpage. They have records for every registration number and serial number of every plane that was registered.

I believe you, but at one time they were not all listed as destroyed.

Because it took time for the paperwork to be sent in to get them deregistered. The airlines usually wait, and send in all their registration paperwork in a group, so they don't send it in all scattered throughout the year. Many of their planes come due about the same time too.

It is clear that 9/11 will never get the investigation it deserves. The only way we can bring 9/11 to justice is to prove without a reasonable doubt that it was carried out by people withing our government for political reasons. This is just oine avenue of many that have not been thouroughly investigated. I don't know if this video is a hoax or not, but if it isn't it would sure answer a lot of questions don't you think?

I checked the video out a few more times. The girl says, "Are you getting all this?" right from the getgo...well, I'm thinking..."getting all what?" Did something extraordinary happen earlier and the camera dude just happened to turn on the camera AFTER "ALL THIS" went down? Hmmmm. As far as the images are concerned I find them to be intuitively unrealistic, but I am not an expert. The OP, however, is--supposedly. So OP, can you provide us with any technical analysis that would backup your premise that this is real? Honestly, I'm a bit curious...I'm not asking for a simple semantic reply from you; rather I ask SINCE you are an expert in this field, can you provide us with some technical analysis why you believe this?

Originally posted by Threadfall
I checked the video out a few more times. The girl says, "Are you getting all this?" right from the getgo...well, I'm thinking..."getting all what?"

I'm guessing she's talking about the view. Are you getting this beautiful view?

The in depth dedicated discussion of what was a television commercial as being anything more is an example of why the "truth movement" isn't taken seriously. When such a pie in sky "what if" is given consideration and some of the posts in this thread fall short of calling it a hologram test although the thought is there, or would eventually be mentioned as such makes for the serious 9/11 questions seem just as insane as the speculation that this promo is remotely real live footage.

But by all means keep up the good work here, Bush might just hand out awards for swiftboating that pesky "truth movement" for him.

reply to post by _Phoenix_


I could see that, honestly...

Am I the only one that it looks awfully spacious for a helicopter though?

Originally posted by subject x
It's a promotional vid for/by the Sci-fi channel.

It's been around for quite a while. Looks cool, though.

Ya it does look cool, very real looking... If you didn't know better you'd believe it was real...

reply to post by Threadfall


I don't have a high quality version of the video to review and I wonder if there is more to this video than what we have already seen. One thing that tells me it was not superimposed are the sharp movements of the camera. The video itself seems very amatuer, probably shot with a lightweight consumer grade camera. I don't know what kind of camera was used but if it was a Canon it might have an orange tone to it if it was a Sony it should have a pretty good optical zoom and a somewhat clear picture.

Anyhow, the editor who I quoted earlier mentioned that he did have a high quality video to look at. One of the things he mentioned was pixelation. This is one clue you can look for if you are trying to decide whether a video has been super imposed or not. One thing that I noticed is that the pixelation of the object as it is exiting WTC is that it maintains the same consistency of the quality of the rest of the video. It is actually a bit blurry around the edges which makes me think that it was not superimposed. If it was super imposed you would see crisp smooth edges around the object.

Another thing to look for is interlacing. On a TV motion is captured by interlacing. IN other words even horizontal fields would be on frame two while the odd fields would be on frame one. This is easy to notice when you hit the pause button but hard to see when it is playing at regular speed.

If you scrub the clip to the part where the object is closest to the chopper you will notice that it is interlaced and also blurry. The blurriness is due to the speed the object was moving, the interlacing is just normal though but it leaves us a clue that this was not just photoshopped in or added in.

Also when you are working with keying, you can tell the computer to ignore certain colors. The most commonly used are Blue Screen and Green screen or a luma key which keys out white or black.

Usually it is easy to tell if something is green screened because you will see color around the edges and they will often be aliased meaning that you can see little squares or missing pixel data aroun the edges.

I did not see any of this, so if this was CG they did a really good job. Furthermore if it was CG'd the frame where the projectile is closest would not have been blurry, unless they had the forsight to go in and make it look that way. The object in motion is consisten with the rest of the video, which makes me believe that this was not superimposed.

There is one more thing I can try however. I can pull the video into my editor and apply a couple different filters to it, that should give me a visual clue if the video has been manipulated or not.

On another note if this was a video clip that was superimposed it would be very dificult to match the object to the motion of the camera. Its not like watching the weather when the weather guy has a teleprompter and a monitor to look at.

I really really hope that the OP does not come across the Haiti ufo footage..

That would really bake his noodle !

Originally posted by bloodcircle
I really really hope that the OP does not come across the Haiti ufo footage..

That would really bake his noodle !

Everyone knows the Haiti footage was the practice run for the Pentagon attacks.. . It had nothing to do with the WTC

at this thread.

"Denying Ignorance" was an epic fail.

Anything one is shown by ANY station on the T.V. is part of the propaganda machine. Ask your selves why there are shows on the "History" channel like UFO Hunters or Conspiracy. The overall plan of manipulation is to take a legitimate issue and turn it in to entertainment, thus reducing the validity of the serious work/research conducted in such areas. In this clips case, if that was reality, and I was in that chopper, i'd have to change my pants!

Sometimes I feel as if some of us are trying a little too hard. There are many obviously real issues to be dealt with out there. Lets try and stay focused. I don't claim to know if this video is or is not CGI but I really doubt that it's actual live footage. As was mentioned before, I highly doubt that this would be easily covered up had it been an actual event. Also, aren't all missiles "cigar shaped"?

Here is a vid of what I believe to be an ACTUAL ufo filmed during the 9/11 attacks, apologies if this has already been posted.



Note that while the jet that crashes into the tower is moving at very high speed, It is absolutely dwarfed by the speed of the ufo. Also interesting is the flight path of the object, it almost seems to conform to the curvature of the earth as it flies.

I wholeheartedly agree with member 12.21.12. Clearly this was a conspiracy in which someone from the future (John Titor, perhaps) went back in time and convinced the Sci-Fi network that this was merely a promotional commercial in which a UFO is seen near the World Trade towers. In reality it was actually a video taken 9/11/2001 by the time traveler.

Also worth noting, the plane that went down in Pennsylvania was supposed to hit the White House as a coverup for the UFO activity there. The time traveler gave Roland Emerich video footage of the W.H. being blasted by a mothership, which Emerich incorporated into his film Independence Day (Bet you all thought that was CGI, too!). Thankfully, due to the infinite timeline theory, in our timeline the alien pilot of the mothership hit some turbulence and accidentally spilled scalding hot moon coffee into his lap, forcing him to abort the mission.

In all, 100% seriousness, it's threads and people like this that make those of us who believe the official story of 9/11 basically unwavering in our dismissal of conspiracy claims. Everytime I start to question even a tiny piece of the official story, I see something like this where a guy is so determined that this was a conspiracy he's trying to prop up a science fiction advertisement as some sort of support for the conspiracy angle, and I stop and say to myself "What in the blue hell are you doing?" and realize you really have to have some crossed wires in your brain to buy into these implausable theories that the government sold us up the river on September 11th. Pretty much every theorist I've seen gets progressively more disbelievable and progressively more off their rocker until you reach the king of loons, Alex Jones.

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplENote that while the jet that crashes into the tower is moving at very high speed, It is absolutely dwarfed by the speed of the ufo. Also interesting is the flight path of the object, it almost seems to conform to the curvature of the earth as it flies.

Which one? At 0:10, going leftward (looks very much like a bird to me), or at 0:29, going down-right? Did I miss something else? If not, these UFOs indistinguishable from pigeons are inconclusive.

As a CGI expert myself, I won't bother commenting the sci-fi channel video. Tying this video to 9/11 is as ludicrous as believing King Kong is responsible for the WTC collapse by damaging its structure (the 1976 film was obviously based on real footage, since CGI didn't exist).