Mysterious Ball Object Seen Flying Over WTC on 9/11

That's one huge ball. Shot from a helicopter?

Originally posted by wigit
That's one huge ball. Shot from a helicopter?

Nope.
Magic slingshot.

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


Really...as pointed out on the other thread that is trumpeting this "video"...utter nonsense.

A "ball"?

The clips he shows, around the ~3:00 point in the first YT video....that is the footage of UNITED AIRLINES 175, a Boeing 767.

It is not a "ball".

It is an airliner. It is fascinating that some can't see that, clearly.

( Talk about "blind faith", as someone mentioned already. )

Folks....understanding the real events of 9/11 is not a willy-nilly "believing" in the so-called "OS" ( a term, BTW, that was MADE UP, coined by the "truth movement" -- rather recently actually, within the last year or so -- to be a convenient 'strawman' to ridicule....).

There is no "Official Story" in existence, only the various facts, culled from a LARGE number of separate sources, that all fit together to describe the events that morning.


The thing that IS important about that angle of view, showing the B-767 approaching the Towers, as it clearly shows the descent of the airplane...which is what occured. The hijacker flying the airplane used the assistance of gravity to increase his airspeed beyond that which is possible in straight-and-level flight, even at full thrust settings.

There is no "ball"....the primary shape you see is the airplane's fuselage...foreshortened, of course, because of your angle of view. The wings are extremely difficult to see, especially when the airplane is most far away. The poor resolution available, of the original camera that was recording, is also a factor.

(I would think that anyone who owns, or has experience with, video cameras would be aware of this phenomenon).

Wasn't difficult to find examples that pilots have videoed, of other airplanes in the air, crossing their paths, to show some you what I mean.

These have good contrails forming, so it makes the airplanes (and wings) somewhat easier to spot...but, my experience over decades is, the view (depending on angle) is always just about the same...you see a speck, off in the distance ---a blob, and the wings don't resolve as distinct shapes until you get close enough to pick them out...again, depends on angle. They are quite thin, when viewed edge-on.



You can persue YT for yourselves, find other examples....


~~~
(On this next one, I was able to see the 'N' number....N593HA. At first, I assumed it might belong to Hawaiian Airlines, because of the 'HA'...tracked it down, and indeed it does. See here. A B-767-300. I could tell that it was a 767, from the instrument panel, but not the specific version...)



***I'd like to point something out, also in that video. Another ATS thread about the OP's video, and the "ball" had a member comment that thier estimate of "221 MPH" for the speed sounded "good".

Take another look at the video I posted, above. Stop at about :57...you will see the Captain's airspeed indicator. See those white things, on the rim of the insturment? We call those "speed bugs". They slide around, and we set them as visual reminders of certain critical airpeed references. (Speeds are also calculated by the Flight Management Computer, and displayed elsewhere too).

Anyway....you see what's called "top bug"? That's the one set to about 235 knots. THAT was the 'bug' the captain set to indicate his 'clean minimum maneuvering' airspeed. That would have been for his takeoff, at the weight the airplnae was at that point, wherever that was. Probably somewhere on the West Coast of USA, and he's going west/southwest bound, back to Hawai'i.

Reason I mention this, and explain it so thoroughly??

BECAUSE, a flight from the "left" coast of the U.S. to Oahu, Hawai'i is about five hours in duration. Just about the SAME as a flight from Boston to Los Angeles.

Point is....the United 175 would have had a very similar fuel load, as this Hawaiian Airlines airplane...and very similar takeoff weights....so ITS "min manuevering" speed would have been roughly the same.

AND, the "ball" video's creator's claim of "221 MPH"?? That works out to about 192 knots!! Well below the "clean" flying speed, at those gross weights.

As I mentioned in the other thread --- the "221 MPH" claim is ridiculous. And I think that shreds the crediblity of the "ball" video creator. The man has none, and is either a provocateur, or just completely clueless about....well, it seems, about just everything!


The events of 9/11 are SO important, they require more than just a casual 'skip-and-look' --- which is what most "conspiracy theorists" ever give it. OR, they go into it with a bias, and twist everything, whilst ignoring anything that doesn't fit their pre-conceived tendency to the "conspiracy" angles....

It is truly disheartening, the amount of DIS-information out there, spewed by the almost cult-like "conspiracy" loons that make those vile websites, videos, and their equally vile (and incorrect) claims.


~~~~

BTW....many shots to choose from; here's one on the ground, and pretty up close...a "beauty shot" angle, and you can see how hard it can be to spot the wings, even relatively close-up:









[edit on 9 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


I'm not arguing, just food for thought....on the foo fighters btw. (lol)

Honestly, who knows? What we do know if we solely look at the facts is that, whether or not it was a terrorist attack, it could have without a doubt been prevented. THAT'S why I find it ALL suspicious; the WHOLE damn thing.

The most terrifying fact about this is that we don't know why it wasn't prevented from happening.

3d model covering the ball

... pod

or fuselage





[edit on 9-8-2010 by Zeta Reticulan]

Originally posted by noworldorder2012
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

 

I'm not arguing, just food for thought....on the foo fighters btw. (lol)

Honestly, who knows? What we do know if we solely look at the facts is that, whether or not it was a terrorist attack, it could have without a doubt been prevented. THAT'S why I find it ALL suspicious; the WHOLE damn thing.

The most terrifying fact about this is that we don't know why it wasn't prevented from happening.

Thats why we keep asking questions!

reply to post by Zeta Reticulan


Yahh, Zeta....'fuselage'...

or fuselage

Technically, that picture I repeated, above? It's really a B-757, just after 'rotation' on take-off, and lifting off.... Sorry, but I have enough experience to tell from just a glance...

Anywho....the point you made is still valid --- the so-called "pods" are nothing more than the fairings (parts that streamline underneath the fuselage, to "smooth" the joint of the wing/fuselage, and the bumps neccessary to house the Main Landing Gear, when it's retracted. The Main Gear 'bogies", as you see, are quite large, and that little bit of extra room is needed, otherwise they'd have to retract up into the passenger cabin!!!)

Please link to this photo (can't embed, it's copyrighted). It shows the gear in its retraction cycle, just before the gear doors close up. You can clearly see what is described, the entire "bump" that is there....not some alleged "pod"!!



I'll tell you what else is housed under those fairings, as well...the Air Cycle Machines (aka "packs"). These provide the pressurization, as well as heat/air conditioning. They run from the hot, compressed air from the engines, or the APU.

Look forward of the gear, you can see the lower red beacon in center...ahead either side, two air intakes (provides ambient air cooling for the ACMs), and aft of them, just before the wheel wells, the cooling air exhaust ports, from the A/C packs heat exhangers.


I could tell you more, but these are "free lessons," so...

Anyway, I hope this will FINALLY put to rest that nonsense about "pods"!!!

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


Exactly, and in my opinion, when looking at the facts...
-The planes went off course from their destination, nobody in charge did a thing.
-The PLANES hit each tower (not sure about the pentagon though).
-Controlled demolition? Possible but not likely, the buildings were designed to collapse the way they did. I've seen shows on tv about this way BEFORE the attack. (not saying it wasn't possible, I've also seen videos of the beams, and they did look cut...)
...So that's MY theory.

The problem with this video, is that it is presented as scientific proof, but it's very little more than conjecture, and it's riddled with lots of bad science.

The narrator presents several points throughout this video. I'll reference them one by one.


His first point is that we see the "planes nose emerge from the WTC tower" and he asserts that "this is impossible". I agree that this is impossible, but it's mere conjecture that it's the planes nose emerging through the tower side. To me, it looks more like an explosion of debris, possibly brought on by a massive impact to the side of the building. Maybe a plane.

Next, he goes on to say that the plane was digitally edited out using a layer mask. This is pure insanity. First of all, if he's implying that the plane was layer masked out "on the fly", this is not possible to my knowledge. If he is asserting that the layer masking was done before hand and then presented as if it was currently taking place, it seems like a rather large detail to miss. On the whole, this is just ludicrous. Because this also means that the plan would have had to have come extremely close to the building (but not hit it) then be layer masked out as a missile (Trailing behind the plane by three feet) strikes the building...... and I'll just stop there. Because if you need more on this point, you're beyond help.

In my humble opinion, it's much more likely that this video footage was edited by "Rich" so he could have something to talk about.


Then, he starts talking about some "magical floating ball". Again ridiculous. It's painfully obvious that this is a plane. There is very little roundness about it, and indeed it clearly has two protrusions from the sides, making it look like a very fast moving bird. Or perhaps even a plane. And he asserts that none of the people watching the news feed comment on the "flying ball". This isn't really strange, as the plain measures approximately 3 pixels wide at it's largest. If you weren't looking for it, it's easy to miss.



Around 4:33 he begins to present what he calls a "damning Clip". Dumb. Here, the host clearly lies about the footage to make it seem sinister. He presents a side by side comparison asserting that the two pieces of footage are taken from the same exact position (meaning that one has clearly been edited). Now, I'm an artist by profession, and I know a thing or two about perspective, but you don't need to be Da Vinci to see the obvious problems here. These are clearly not taken from the same camera angle, as in one you can see the ground (water, buildings, boats), and in the other you can only see sky. The guidelines he uses to compare and "prove" that they're taken from the same angle is just bad science. When you're this far away from your subject matter, you could move the camera 100 yards and take a very similar picture. This alone should be enough to discredit this entire film, because if one thing is filled with lies/bad science, chances are that everything else is.

He goes on to say that the New York skyline has been digitally removed. Hmmm.... OR, maybe it's just slightly below the camera's frame, as we're now looking up more than we're looking down.


Next he makes a 3d model, and uses some more bad science, and as I'm a 3d modeler by trade, I would've really loved to tear this one apart, but the video ended before he got to his final point and I was too lazy to try and find part 2.


To the OP: Thanks for posting this video, I do believe that the government was 100% behind 911 and many more conspiracy theories. But to say that the WTC was brought down by flying balls isn't a conspiracy theory, it's an absurdity that borders on insanity.

Okay, so my curiosity got the best of me and I decided to find the second part to that video.


And just as I thought, filled with more bad science. Right from the get go, he gets his "second point of trajectory" basically just from watching the video. Which means the best he can do is come up with a very rough estimate. But he can't even do this correctly. Again we get bad science. He says "I estimated that the ball was slightly below the height of the tower, because the camera was slightly above the height of the tower". Wrong. The camera was not "slightly" above the height of the tower, it is very clearly way above the tower. This is evident because of the horizon line in the background. If the camera was level with the tower and looking straight ahead, the horizon line would be center of the screen. However, because the horizon line is almost at the top of the screen and we can see the roof of the tower, that means that the camera is above the tower and angled down (I estimate at about 30 degrees). Which would throw any estimate he had waaaay off.


Just another nail in the magic flying ball coffin.


I stopped watching at 24 seconds. But I'm sure it's filled with more BS from here on out.



[edit on 11-8-2010 by MrSensible] Sorry didn't realize video 2 was already posted

[edit on 11-8-2010 by MrSensible]

reply to post by MrSensible


I dont agree with you i think he done a great job, o an why did yea feel you had to put up vid 2 a second time?

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


How, after all of the points I touched on, detailing the many mistakes and bad science, can you come to that conclusion?

reply to post by MrSensible


Because i think 9/11 was an inside job an you obviously dont!

Originally posted by MrSensible

To the OP: Thanks for posting this video, I do believe that the government was 100% behind 911 and many more conspiracy theories. But to say that the WTC was brought down by flying balls isn't a conspiracy theory, it's an absurdity that borders on insanity.

I think you misunderstood. If I didn't think there was something strange about 9/11 then I probably wouldn't have bothered posting here. I simply think that hard facts should be CLEARLY defined from misconstrued facts/misinformation/lies/fear mongering. Which is what I did above.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by MrSensible]

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
reply to post by MrSensible

 

Because i think 9/11 was an inside job an you obviously dont!

There's a huge difference between thinking it was an inside job and believing the towers were bought down by magical flying balls.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by oxbow]

reply to post by oxbow


Im not a fornicating idiot! I know what I seen since that morning, 2 Towers falling like Mirrioring each other! Building 7 Demolichion Job for sure, an to Mickey Mouse holes one in a Building the other in a Field...

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 11/8/2010 by Mirthful Me]

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

Im not a fornicating idiot!

Are you, or are you not, the author of this thread?

Did you find that film, that "mockumentary" and "analysis", compelling enough to think it merited this thread, and did you think it worthy of a serious discussion??

I have difficulty reconciling your protestations in the sentence I quoted...

[edit on 11 August 2010 by weedwhacker]


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/8/2010 by Mirthful Me]

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE



First of all, when you say you "saw" these things. Do you mean you saw them in person? or you saw them on the news like all the rest of us? Because if you saw them in person, you'd have had to be in two places at the same time.

Furthermore, I resubmit my previous question to you because I didn't receive a satisfactory answer: How, after all the points I painstakingly made, can you still believe that the WTC was taken out by a magic floating ball?

What other points have I, or other posters, not refuted?

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
reply to post by oxbow

 

Im not a fornicating idiot! I know what I seen since that morning, 2 Towers falling like Mirrioring each other! Building 7 Demolichion Job for sure, an to Mickey Mouse holes one in a Building the other in a Field...

You appear to have difficulty accepting other peoples' perfectly valid views without losing your temper. Not everybody is going to agree with you all the time, that's life I'm afraid.


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/8/2010 by Mirthful Me]

what do you guys think of this?

i think this is just another disinformation attempt, obviously the events of september eleventh were not conducted by terrorists, and someone is trying to cover that up

by using disinformation techniques like infiltrating the 'truth' movement and pursuading it's people that 'there were no planes that hit the towers' or 'there was a strange ball ufo during that day' or any other completely irrelevant to the real idea ( expose the cover up ) and distract them from the real pursuit of 'truth' about what happened

not to mention, when those trying to cover the truth about the events of september eleventh throw these crazy ideas out there, it basically makes the whole 'truth' movement look like a bunch of crazy lunatics in the eyes of the masses who either beleive september eleventh was a terrorist attack, or if they are on the fence about it, they likely will take the most logical and sane option on the matter.. which seeing how the 'truth' movement has been infiltrated and made to look illogical and insane, they will just conclude it was probably terrorist, at least they won't entertain the cover up idea too much if it centers around outlandish ideas like ufo's being involved or no planes hitting the towers

beware of these disinformation tactics, as they seem to be used frequently for september eleventh cover up