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

Originally posted by scraze
reply to post by Puzzlemaniac

 

Originally posted by Puzzlemaniac
reply to post by scraze

 

Are you saying four people were in the same place taking a video of the plane hitting all at the same time? "IF" that is what you're saying, please explain further how that could have actually happened.
[..]

Thank you so much for the detailed explanation of the disappearing wing.

I tired to locate a certain video to refer to, but there are so many I have decided to do my best here with a video. Besides we have all seen them to the point that they're planted in our brains.

One or two of the videos that show the "disappearing wing" also show a shadow. When I first saw what appears to be shadow of the "disappearing" wing I thought maybe it was from the tail and I moved on. Now that I think about it, I shouldn't have questioned my first opinion of that shadow. Holograms don't make shadows.

Also, while being educated on holograms that the latest technology (that we know/knew about) requires a mist or vapor for a 3-D hologram to be projected into or onto open air. How could they have "sprayed" (or however they do it) a mist in order to form this huge, moving hologram? I know they have incredible technology, but I just can't see them doing this when so many other means ways and means are available.

I'm new here and I don't know how to just enter a portion or quote in a reply to a quote. I tried with this one but I'm not sure it will work. So, I want to put it here, "most answers are hidden in a sea of speculation". Hope you don't mind if I use that quote in the future. I love it.

I've relaxed from this now. I tend to obsess on things until I can understand or figure them out...I'm not a quitter. I can be a bit tenacious. As for the debris, I'm still a little puzzled about why it appeared so long after impact. Maybe it just seems like a long time because I'm watching in slow motion. There has to be a fraction of time, even if it is only half a second or even less, after the plane hits for the smoke and debris to come billowing out. When I watch it at regular speed the time element isn't as apparent. And what you said about the construction being such that it would be forced inward vs outward sounds feasible. I've seen and read about how the building was first constructed and I can recall something about the inner beams and overall structure of the building being different that other buildings due to their height. There was something about consideration being given regarding the debris that would hit the ground and people below; it would be tremendous. IF in fact this was done, it would probably result in the construction being such that an outer impact would implode inwards. Anyways, in the end it sure did "implode" vs explode.

Thanks again for taking the time to explain this to me. I love learning. And I love intelligent people. ATS is wonderful. Take care. Time to get back to my other puzzle. Blessings!


That's quite close to what I'm saying, there is just one nuance: the people weren't in the same place, but they were all at a position where the intensity of the sunlight reflecting off the wing matched the background.

Say you're shining a flashlight at a mirror; the light will reflect generally in a straight line, meaning that you can only receive the light if you're on that straight line. However, the light from the flashlight contains many rays of light; a cross-section (i.e. the shape you get if you put a sheet of paper in the beam of light) of the beam of light leaving the flashlight would show a circle. Light is usually divergent, so the circle of the beam of light would get larger as it travels, but for the sake of this mental experiment we can assume that the flashlight works like a laser, in the sense that light from the flashlight is divergent nor convergent, but direct; the bundle of rays are all perfectly parallel when they leave the flashlight. This means that you cannot see the flashlight itself nor it's light unless you're actually in it's path of light (it's like a superspy flashlight, now that I think about it). However, the mirror is less perfect; like all objects in real life, the light it reflects is divergent. This means that a small portion of the rays of light gets shattered in different directions by diffuse reflection, deviating from the normal angle of reflection; so even when you are not in the path of the reflected light, you can faintly see the spot created by the flashlight thanks to the few rays heading your way. You'd still not see the flashlight itself though, nor the beam of light created by specular reflection.

When you shine straight at the mirror, the shape of the reflected light stays the same as it was when it left the flashlight, i.e. a circle. The divergence from the reflection however creates a larger, less intense circle around the 'original' beam. This divergent circle becomes larger as the light travels. The shape remains the same though, as the bundle of light left the mirror at the same angle as it hit it (i.e. perpendicular).
Now imagine panning the flashlight to the right or to the left - or rotating the mirror (these are equivalent): the lightbeam hitting & leaving the mirror is now shaped like an oval instead of a circle. The more the flashlight gets parallel to the mirror, the more the reflected beam of light gets stretched in the dimension you're panning in. That is to say, if you pan the flashlight to the right, the cross-section's shape - the circle - will be stretched horizontally, and if you pan the flashlight upwards, the circle will be stretched vertically.

Let's say we play a game in this scene, where another wields the flashlight, and you try to catch the reflected beam of light whilst keeping 100 feet distance from the (huge) mirror. There is no other source of light, so the only thing you can see in the darkness is that faint spot on the mirror.

As long as you're facing the mirror frontally, the shape of the faint spot on the mirror can tell you at which angle the flashlight is shining. If the spot on the mirror is round, all you have to do is to stand right in front of the spot on the mirror (the light magically shines through the other player and the flashlight, of course) and you will catch the light. But if the spot is stretched, you know the light is hitting the mirror at angle. Initially, you're left with two possible paths - you can't see which way the light flows, whether the light is hitting or reflecting. However, the reflected light is now stretched out (oval shape), so instead of trying to find a tiny spot, we can look for a streak of light. This is made even easier by the divergence caused by the reflection: since there is a large 'lighter area' around the streak, it's quite easy to find the core of the lightbeam. This area's intensity basically fades in to the streak of light.

But our opponent is sneaky, and opts to rotate the mirror 22.5 degrees downwards. You can't see that; you can only see the faint spot, stretched horizontally, but not vertically. So by the looks of it, your opponent is shining from one side of the mirror, but not at an angle upwards or downwards from the mirror's point of view. Little do we know, the spot is actually stretched both horizontally and vertically. Catching the light will be a real tricky thing; the reflected streak is now a bit larger than before (vertical stretch added), but it is also diagonal. So you'll have to move vertically and horizontally to get to the streak.

Of course you won't let him win that easy, and invite a couple of friends to catch the light. Everyone takes a vertical stroke of the field defined by the 100ft distance to the mirror, and travels it from left to right; when someone finds the 'lighter area', he keeps moving until the core of the streak is found. When everyone is done, their positions show where the streak is - it's diagonal. Congratulations - you won!

Now the final manipulations of our mental scene: imagine that the flashlight is so large (though no brightert), that its faint spot covers the whole mirror. The core of the streak is a bit larger, and the divergence ('lighter area') scaled up as well. Now, it's not even a hard job to catch - but there might be a lot of 'lighter area' to wade through. When we look at the mirror, it's light simply because of the spot, covering the whole mirror. The closer we get to catching the light, the deeper we get into the lighter area, making the mirror appear brighter. Then finally, when we hit the core, we're essentially looking right into the flashlight.

The point of this never-ending story is that the brightness of the mirror depends on where you are in relation to the mirror, and where the mirror is in relation to the flashlight. From most points of view, it looks kind of dull. Nearing the specular reflection, the mirror gets brighter; and when we receive the specular reflection directly, it's as bright as the flashlight.

Translating this to the video of the missing wing; there is a formidable amount of videos of the second plane from a lot of different positions. Since the wing is at an angle in relaton to the sunlight, the sun's specular reflection is stretched at least vertically. The wing however isn't a mirror (though close), so it has a weaker specular reflection, and a higher diffuse reflection.

Considering the "palette of brightness" available for the wing and the total number of videos, I think it is not just plausible, but above all likely for some of the cameras to be at exactly a position where the brightness of the wing matched the background, though at different positions and angles. Having only saturation and hue to work with, repeated compression did the rest to make the wing seemingly disappear.

I have no idea why I couldn't just say that in fewer words, like "the reflection is stretched out diagonally, the combination of specular and diffuse reflection make up for a lot of different brightnesses, of which some match the background" - I don't even know whether you wanted me to explain this, or rather the technical aspects of the repeated compression - I'm sorry..

But I hope you enjoyed the mental experiment.


As for your other questions, I really haven't looked into that yet. The debris not coming out seems normal to me; the weaker outer columns (which weren't actually on the outside) of the WTC buildings don't seem to be able to stop a plane that size and eject debris outwards. More importantly, if you want to keep the building's structure intact, the best way is to spread the impact by breaking apart internally - a bit like a car's crumple zone. That way, the building may sustain a lot of superficial damage, but the core will still stand. A plane hitting the inner columns is a different story. Anyway, I'm just speculating here though. Just try to take it easy.. The best way to look at contradicting information is in a relaxed state of mind; when the cognitive dissonance from the contradiction starts influencing your state of mind, try to care a bit less. I know it sounds stupid, but I think it's the only way to deal with the fact that most answers are hidden in a sea of speculation.

reply to post by Puzzlemaniac

dah...I meant to do my best without a video. I shouldn't have skipped dinner.

Originally posted by aethron
The hologram idea seems crazy to me.
Why would anyone deploy high-tech wizardry that could fail for a multitude of reasons when remotely controlled REAL jets do the job perfectly well?

The physical phenomena (oscillations, explosions etc) are fully consistent with a jet liner impact.
Even the sound of the jet in the videos is Doppler shifted according to the position of the videographer.
How could a hologram do that?

Hey, I work in television and this is what I know about holograms. You cannot project a solid 3D image in the middle of the sky. If you could, movie theaters wouldn't need the white screen. Holograms are shot in front of a green screen and then manipulated with environment in edit or the control room, then sent to your television. You can't walk into a studio and see a hologram, you can only view it from a television or a monitor. Maybe the government has some crazy secret graphics program I've never heard of, but I have heard rumors that Sony is testing a 3D television that doesn't require the glasses, that would be cool. I am so off topic now. sorry.

Originally posted by Rahjian
Did you all seriously skip over my post and continue on with this nonsense about it not being a plane?

I KNOW SOMEONE WHO WAS ON THE SECOND PLANE THAT DIED.

Jesus christ people.

It is not worth getting upset over. Some people really believe the sky is falling and the government is behind it all.

Planes hit the towers, and I am sorry for your loss. This site has MANY mentally handicap people running around questioning everything to invent new conspiracies that dont exist. If even 1 pixel of a crappy CCTV is not perfect, then the object never existed.

Leave them be as there is no way to get truth in their ears. People question too much and skip over simplicity.

reply to post by Eavel


Yes people do know people whom have died on the planes..and it is very upsetting...but there can be explainations for that too....and it has been stated before...the point is that the OS has lied to people..and things are not as they seem...and there are many victims families that are searching for the truth too...they do not believe the Official Story that has been laid out.
I have family fighting in afghanistan for two false flag wars started over this...and i personally want answers...I am a structural Engineer and those building...being made of a steel frame construction with a Extremely robust Central core...Especially building 7 should not have suffered any kind of global collapse..due to impact of the fires that were supposedly so hot that the fire figthers actually got to the seventy eight floor and stated there were only pockets.....
One day it will be explained...but there are still deaths of people occuring because of this...and there shouldn't be.

With respect Sir, I suggest you head back to your Sock Drawer....

Or take the time to do a little research....theres a lot more wrong here than a few pixels mate...

You don't need a blue/green screen for a hologram.

The reason they would have used holograms is because they didn't want to take any chances with a real plane in case the plane didn't make it inside the tower to do the damage necessary to take the huge buildings down.


it's called "not taking any chances".

Just my opinion though.

Originally posted by scraze
reply to post by Puzzlemaniac

 

Originally posted by Puzzlemaniac
reply to post by scraze

 

Are you saying four people were in the same place taking a video of the plane hitting all at the same time? "IF" that is what you're saying, please explain further how that could have actually happened.
[..]

Hope I'm doing this right....Here is what Scraze said on another thread. He really made me think and now with your video...I'm 99.9% sure the wing didn't just disappear. It was the lighting, angles, position of videos and other things that made it look like they disappeared. GREAT VIDEO...you really made a point. Thanks...P OH, and of course our govt. is at least 20 years ahead of the general populace in technology...even further! I don't like to call people debunkers....I prefer educators. I learn a lot from those that try to prove something. Thanks again....WOW...Think I'll send this video to Scraze. It really does say a lot.


From Scraze
That's quite close to what I'm saying, there is just one nuance: the people weren't in the same place, but they were all at a position where the intensity of the sunlight reflecting off the wing matched the background.

Say you're shining a flashlight at a mirror; the light will reflect generally in a straight line, meaning that you can only receive the light if you're on that straight line. However, the light from the flashlight contains many rays of light; a cross-section (i.e. the shape you get if you put a sheet of paper in the beam of light) of the beam of light leaving the flashlight would show a circle. Light is usually divergent, so the circle of the beam of light would get larger as it travels, but for the sake of this mental experiment we can assume that the flashlight works like a laser, in the sense that light from the flashlight is divergent nor convergent, but direct; the bundle of rays are all perfectly parallel when they leave the flashlight. This means that you cannot see the flashlight itself nor it's light unless you're actually in it's path of light (it's like a superspy flashlight, now that I think about it). However, the mirror is less perfect; like all objects in real life, the light it reflects is divergent. This means that a small portion of the rays of light gets shattered in different directions by diffuse reflection, deviating from the normal angle of reflection; so even when you are not in the path of the reflected light, you can faintly see the spot created by the flashlight thanks to the few rays heading your way. You'd still not see the flashlight itself though, nor the beam of light created by specular reflection.

When you shine straight at the mirror, the shape of the reflected light stays the same as it was when it left the flashlight, i.e. a circle. The divergence from the reflection however creates a larger, less intense circle around the 'original' beam. This divergent circle becomes larger as the light travels. The shape remains the same though, as the bundle of light left the mirror at the same angle as it hit it (i.e. perpendicular).
Now imagine panning the flashlight to the right or to the left - or rotating the mirror (these are equivalent): the lightbeam hitting & leaving the mirror is now shaped like an oval instead of a circle. The more the flashlight gets parallel to the mirror, the more the reflected beam of light gets stretched in the dimension you're panning in. That is to say, if you pan the flashlight to the right, the cross-section's shape - the circle - will be stretched horizontally, and if you pan the flashlight upwards, the circle will be stretched vertically.

Let's say we play a game in this scene, where another wields the flashlight, and you try to catch the reflected beam of light whilst keeping 100 feet distance from the (huge) mirror. There is no other source of light, so the only thing you can see in the darkness is that faint spot on the mirror.

As long as you're facing the mirror frontally, the shape of the faint spot on the mirror can tell you at which angle the flashlight is shining. If the spot on the mirror is round, all you have to do is to stand right in front of the spot on the mirror (the light magically shines through the other player and the flashlight, of course) and you will catch the light. But if the spot is stretched, you know the light is hitting the mirror at angle. Initially, you're left with two possible paths - you can't see which way the light flows, whether the light is hitting or reflecting. However, the reflected light is now stretched out (oval shape), so instead of trying to find a tiny spot, we can look for a streak of light. This is made even easier by the divergence caused by the reflection: since there is a large 'lighter area' around the streak, it's quite easy to find the core of the lightbeam. This area's intensity basically fades in to the streak of light.

But our opponent is sneaky, and opts to rotate the mirror 22.5 degrees downwards. You can't see that; you can only see the faint spot, stretched horizontally, but not vertically. So by the looks of it, your opponent is shining from one side of the mirror, but not at an angle upwards or downwards from the mirror's point of view. Little do we know, the spot is actually stretched both horizontally and vertically. Catching the light will be a real tricky thing; the reflected streak is now a bit larger than before (vertical stretch added), but it is also diagonal. So you'll have to move vertically and horizontally to get to the streak.

Of course you won't let him win that easy, and invite a couple of friends to catch the light. Everyone takes a vertical stroke of the field defined by the 100ft distance to the mirror, and travels it from left to right; when someone finds the 'lighter area', he keeps moving until the core of the streak is found. When everyone is done, their positions show where the streak is - it's diagonal. Congratulations - you won!

Now the final manipulations of our mental scene: imagine that the flashlight is so large (though no brightert), that its faint spot covers the whole mirror. The core of the streak is a bit larger, and the divergence ('lighter area') scaled up as well. Now, it's not even a hard job to catch - but there might be a lot of 'lighter area' to wade through. When we look at the mirror, it's light simply because of the spot, covering the whole mirror. The closer we get to catching the light, the deeper we get into the lighter area, making the mirror appear brighter. Then finally, when we hit the core, we're essentially looking right into the flashlight.

The point of this never-ending story is that the brightness of the mirror depends on where you are in relation to the mirror, and where the mirror is in relation to the flashlight. From most points of view, it looks kind of dull. Nearing the specular reflection, the mirror gets brighter; and when we receive the specular reflection directly, it's as bright as the flashlight.

Translating this to the video of the missing wing; there is a formidable amount of videos of the second plane from a lot of different positions. Since the wing is at an angle in relaton to the sunlight, the sun's specular reflection is stretched at least vertically. The wing however isn't a mirror (though close), so it has a weaker specular reflection, and a higher diffuse reflection.

Considering the "palette of brightness" available for the wing and the total number of videos, I think it is not just plausible, but above all likely for some of the cameras to be at exactly a position where the brightness of the wing matched the background, though at different positions and angles. Having only saturation and hue to work with, repeated compression did the rest to make the wing seemingly disappear.

I have no idea why I couldn't just say that in fewer words, like "the reflection is stretched out diagonally, the combination of specular and diffuse reflection make up for a lot of different brightnesses, of which some match the background" - I don't even know whether you wanted me to explain this, or rather the technical aspects of the repeated compression - I'm sorry..

But I hope you enjoyed the mental experiment.


As for your other questions, I really haven't looked into that yet. The debris not coming out seems normal to me; the weaker outer columns (which weren't actually on the outside) of the WTC buildings don't seem to be able to stop a plane that size and eject debris outwards. More importantly, if you want to keep the building's structure intact, the best way is to spread the impact by breaking apart internally - a bit like a car's crumple zone. That way, the building may sustain a lot of superficial damage, but the core will still stand. A plane hitting the inner columns is a different story. Anyway, I'm just speculating here though. Just try to take it easy.. The best way to look at contradicting information is in a relaxed state of mind; when the cognitive dissonance from the contradiction starts influencing your state of mind, try to care a bit less. I know it sounds stupid, but I think it's the only way to deal with the fact that most answers are hidden in a sea of speculation.

Here's a link to the thread if anyone wants to read more:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by eurotrash

Originally posted by aethron
The hologram idea seems crazy to me.
Why would anyone deploy high-tech wizardry that could fail for a multitude of reasons when remotely controlled REAL jets do the job perfectly well?

The physical phenomena (oscillations, explosions etc) are fully consistent with a jet liner impact.
Even the sound of the jet in the videos is Doppler shifted according to the position of the videographer.
How could a hologram do that?

Hey, I work in television and this is what I know about holograms. You cannot project a solid 3D image in the middle of the sky. If you could, movie theaters wouldn't need the white screen. Holograms are shot in front of a green screen and then manipulated with environment in edit or the control room, then sent to your television. You can't walk into a studio and see a hologram, you can only view it from a television or a monitor. Maybe the government has some crazy secret graphics program I've never heard of, but I have heard rumors that Sony is testing a 3D television that doesn't require the glasses, that would be cool. I am so off topic now. sorry.

They don't necessarily need a green screen. All they need is a vapor screen. I no longer buy into the disappearing wing theory. Check out these two links. I got the video from another post in another thread. It convinced me...no disappearing wing. The other one is just an article on holograms. I don't know much, but I've learned a lot the last few days. These links are meant for everyone and not just aimed at any one certain person. I'm a bit scattered tonight.

www.youtube.com...

thefutureofthings.com.../59/

Learning is fun.

reply to post by benoni


no need to be snippy, nobody believes the official story. I personally just dont take all the lame brain reasons people invent these days. The guy lost a family member and is close to the story, I feel for him and his missed. I have served in the sand box over this mess myself, and still might have to go back.

No need to comment to me, I was just letting the guy know hes not the only one that can see simplicity regardless of how many self pronounced skyscraper engineers with a side job of explosive ordinance and chemistry majors.

EUFF SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by Rahjian

Originally posted by WanderingThe3rd
the "plane" comes into view, it just appears out of no where, notice there is no tail?.. it looks like a flying saucer, and then when it hits the building, there is no explosion or damage, until the object is completely inside the building.

its weird

the only way i can thing of there not being a tail is that the plane was slowing down that and the explosion doesn't look right it would have exploded the moment the wings broke off not when it was in the building, very strange indeed and whats with the f-16 flying around in one of the vids

Some folks who worked at Skunk Works were very interested in the Ghost Mansion at Disneyland. In 1975, which 24 years before rudimentary hologram work was being done by the military in Nevada.

When the UFO was spotted at O'Hare airport in Chicago, some folks also saw a white heavy in the vicinity.

The problem that we have here is that 99.99% of saw anything related to 9-11 through
a TV. And anything that goes through TV can be manipulated.

Just saw this piece of technology posted on another ATS thread:


Think about technology back in 2001.
Think about what we didnt know about digital technology.
How many people even had even HD televisions sets back then?
How many people had cell phones that could take video?
Or even video cameras handy?

Its all pretty elementary, 99.99% of us initially trusted what we saw on
television that day. The shock of the event was so huge, we didnt have
time to take a step back and think about what we were seeing.

The first thing I thought of when I first saw the news feeds of planes hitting the
buildings was, 'that looks just like a movie.' And I recall many of my friends
saying the same thing.

But thats the problem, and thats the clue, it looked like a movie.
The way the airplanes flew into the buildings like they were flying through a mirage,
the way the buildings collapsed like they were made from a deck of cards.
The way the President, who normally fumbled with his words, gave a rousing speech.
On and on.

What I'm saying is this,
Im not even surprised anymore about the NO PLANE theory.
And I understand how thats possible. And at this point, its the most logical theory out there for all kinds of reasons. Because I simply cannot verify the content that was presented from limited news outlets that day.
And neither can 99.99% of us. And that small % who can, do they have a voice? Have they connected the dots? Can they be trusted?

And when people ask, what about the passengers on the planes?
I say, the best answer I've heard, their airplane was shot down over Pennsylvania.
The only real air disaster that day.

reply to post by FoosM


Dude, there is a big difference in something what we all saw on screen and a few thousand others in real life, and in something we only can see trough a screen and NOT IN REAL LIFE...

Originally posted by Grifter.be
reply to post by FoosM

 

Dude, there is a big difference in something what we all saw on screen and a few thousand others in real life, and in something we only can see trough a screen and NOT IN REAL LIFE...

is call Hologram

CNN Hologram TV First


Ooo One More



And PLANES!?????

[yvid][/yvid]

reply to post by HYADEAN2025


Oh, yeah!! SO convincing..... (can you detect the sarcasm???)

Jessica Miller, in first video...."There are 35 high definition cameras..."

THIRTY-FIVE CAMERAS!!!!!

Give me a break and come back to Earth (and reality).......

reply to post by HYADEAN2025


You realise CNN didn't actually use holograms, right? You realise CNN even admitted to this, right? You know it was just a fancy chromakey trick, right? And Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer couldn't see either of the people, right?

Lets assume the government faked the planes hitting the towers.

Why didn’t they fake the weapons of mass destruction months/years later? Surely they could fake video of nerve gas weapons to prove the need to go back into Iraq.

The truthers are grasping at anything to try to bolster their paranoid view of the world.