OMG! HUGE Cache of New 911 footage released !!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Your little theory that the camera is blinded by sunlight reflecting beneath the wing only works if we were dealing with only one camera from one angle. We have four. Your theory does not work, sir. Let it go.

reply to post by SneakySleuth911


You aren't the only one that feels that way.I can also remember that while I was up watching the news that morning I just could not tear myself away from the tv at all that day.It was a surreal feeling watching as the planes hit the WTC. Even now it just doesn't feel real that someone can do this in what was considered the greatest nation in the world at the time.

reply to post by Mr Hanky


Just want to ask if someone can show you four different camera shots that show the wing did not just disappear would you think a bit differenty about the wing disappearing theory? I am just asking, because I am sure there are more than four that will show the wing right before impact. Are you interested in seeing these videos?

Just to let you know I am not a debunker but the wing disappearing never happened. I do think the gov't had a hand in 9/11.

reply to post by Conluceo

Thanks Ethan, It's been covered, and secondly credibility in regards to what exactly?

Credibility in regards to sounding like you've got a clue as to what the heck you're talking about at all. If you get simple facts wrong at the outset it makes anything else you've got to say harder to believe.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


I've seen lots of videos with the plane's wings intact thanks. Right now I'm more interested in these videos that clearly show the wing and tail disappearing. We've already had a video expert on here telling us that the contrast / pixels debunk doesn't work.

So what I'd like to know is wtf is going on?

If that's okay with you.

reply to post by Mr Hanky


Who was the video expert you talk about and what are their credentials? Don't get me wrong but just because someone says they are something doesn't mean that they are an expert. If that's okay with you. Works both ways doesn't it.

So I'm still kinda new here... been watching.. learning .. and reading for a bit - I hope this is not too far out of line (and honesty a lil nervous about posting.. but here it goes)
I have read and watched so many therories about 9-11 - I am by no means an expert in any field... but one thing keeps coming to mind - Almost everyone here agrees that this was a tragedy placed upon us by our own government - wouldnt we be stronger proving this together as a whole? I guess what im asking or wondering is with all the different theories on "plane/no plane" "something flying with the plane" "explosives" etc... are we not running around in circles argueing with each other... which .. i dunno.. seems like something TPTB would want ?

reply to post by boondock-saint


Thank you! You are the only one to have actually come up with a believable explanation. It's idiotic to have 5 different videos showing a wing disappearing and blame all five of them on camera glitches or weather conditions (which are variable that can cause things like these but evidently not in the videos posted here). What's worst, some people believe it's the same saying that the wings disappear and say there were not planes and they were holograms.

I don't believe in the hologram theory and yet it's beyond clear that five videos have been altered (not by compression; compression cannot make objects disappear the way the wing is), so the question is: why?

I put five videos in sync a did a frame grab. This is the result for the frame where the wing seems to disappear in the top two shots. I noticed that when the wing seems to disappear that in the other shots the wing moves into extreme sunlight, which could compound the compression issues. I'll try to upload these shortly.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by guavas
I'm not making a poke at anyone, but I just can't fathom that there's "never before seen" footage of the 9/11 attacks that happened nearly a decade ago?

How is it possible to have never before seen footage of this event?

This video is hardly, "never before seen". The video with the F-15 was part of a separate CNN footage posted elsewhere on Youtube. I know this becuase I've been using that video for a long time to argue with the truthers trying to claim there was a military stand down.

Someone or another just snipped the F-15 part off by itself and declared it was new.

Okay...I never bought into the hologram theory in the past. Viewing the four videos really do make me think. Then I just watched yours about 20 times. It took many tries, but I was able to stop it with about a quarter of the plane inside the building...just before hitting the wing on this side. I could still see the wing on the other side.
I stopped it at several different places and the wing was still there. I do have a couple questions for those of you with more knowledge on photography and maybe able to get better stop frames.

First question is please explain the other four videos. The wind seems to disappear on all four???????
Second, why isn't there any debris, etc. even after the plane is half way into the building? Is it because the time is so quickly passing....like less than a second for the debris to show.

I need help figuring this one out. I just can't buy into the hologram theory. Can I???

This is the frame before where you can see the wing on the top left image.

This is the frame where we lose the wing in the upper photos as the wing in the lower photos moves into sunight.

S&F Thanks for the awesome post.Im sure I will spend hours going over these

I really dont have a clue whats going on here with the missing wings, I really dont

so could someone with expertise please upload some examples of how sunlight or other variables could cause this loss of image on photography? If youre going to throw it out there lets see you defend your stance

Here's the 5 cameras in relative sync (within a frame because of different frame rates)

reply to post by lellomackin


Please, pay attention. At least in the videos posted on the first page, the wing is not there. Not like "it's blending with the background" but literally it's not there. If your theory was correct then if you play with the levels on those frames you would still be able to make out the wing (because the color of the pixels may be pretty close to that of the background but will not be exactly the same). What you have here is a completely blank space where the wing is supposed to be, as boondock-saint pointed out. It's more like someone cloned a portion of the sky and pasted them on top of the wing. The videos are clearly altered.

Okay, sorry to throw all those out there without commentary.

So, looking at this objectively,one thing I can say is that at the point that the wing seems to disappear from the top two images, the wing is moving into a hot spot as far as light is concerned.

The wing is clearly visible, and noticeably lighter, in the images in the lower panels.

This could be, and I say COULD, not is, probably is, or any other variation, due to macro block compression.

The light could have put the color value for the wing into a similar value as the sky causing the compression to not see the differential and render the background as static or unchanged for that block.

Again, not being confrontational as I am agnostic on this at the moment, but just trying to give info in an area that I work in daily.

reply to post by Conluceo


One thing that's always bugged me when I see these impact clips is that you never see ONE PIECE OF PLANE flying through the sky. With an impact that big, you'd expect to see a chunk of wing or a wheel or SOMETHING fly off and catapault in all directions. But nothing, nada.

A brief summary of macroblocking


en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Flighty


If you drove your car into a medium sized building would you expect it to do the same?