It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What could this Be?? 911 - Second Strike Footage... Wing Disapears

page: 21
59
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 



Finding it tough going, so going off on a tangent?


...do you know how much steel was in the wtc?? 200,000 tons of steel.... Where did the steel go???? It was turned to dust....


It was posted (and apparently IGNORED) just a few hours ago. Read up-thread.

The citation was a figure of about 185,000 TONS OF STEEL was shipped to New Jersey, as the Ground Zero clean-up progressed. Why did you ignore that post,and ask that question?? Surely, not to "feign ignorance", I hope??

YOU asked about "200,000 tons" of steel (source?)....and another pointed out "185,000 tons" of steel being calculated as retrieved at the collapse sites. SO, difference of ~15,000 tons. Assuming YOUR source, and the OTHER source are exactly spot on....I see no problem, it's close enough to thoroughly demolish your attempt at distraction and deflection of (I believe) your own thread?

>shrug< Seems you are just doing it to be arumentative, for no other good reason. Prove me wrong?



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Most of the dust you see is

1) Sheetrock THOUSANDS of mtrs sq in each tower did you not think about that.

2) The thin lightweight concrete in each floor slab smashed as they drop a few hundred feet


Back to you!



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I am not really sure what this will contribute really, except for the furthering of the conspiracy surrounding the 9/11 attacks and many of you may have heard this already, but many theorists contend that the planes themselves were 3-D holographic illusions. I have no formal training in the inner workings of holographic technology, but I do know, as many do, that the technology exists. With that being the case, would it be so absurd, considering this footage of the plane wing disappearing, that maybe this is a good piece of evidence to support such claims? It has been proven by many experts that there was secondary explosives residue within the dust and debris from the towers and now this footage has come to light from separate recording devices. It just seems to me that the cards may finally be falling in the favor of those who aren't willing to accept the "official" explanation, I hope so, for my own peace of mind and for the peace of mind of the families of the victims. Anyone who has any information on "holographic technology", I would love to hear more about, I am clueless on the subject really.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MrAnnunaki
 


I am sick of this BELIEVE EVERYTHING or your not in our camp...

We all agree .. the OS is BS.. but this topic and subject is as realistic as the first OJ verdict. PERIOD!!!!

Even the intelligent folks here agree that somehting is wrong with 911... But from what I am picking up ..others share my qualities.

I am bright enough to see the inconsistancies and intelligent enough to know, not everything about the day is some CGI/fantasy factory conspiracy.

We are on the fence about facts, but have seen enough of the lies and deciet to know that "the jury is still out"...Something is NOT right!!!
I will continue to look into all of the claims and stories and eventually, maybe, I will be able to tell you decisively exactly what happened that day... But until I am sure, I wont be making a fool out of myself and just spouting off claims that have ZERO proof and or evidence.. PERIOD!!!

All of you people stuck on instant gratification... Why cant you sit back and keep analyzing the data. Then collectively the open minded thinkers will eventually connect the dots...There is a conspiracy to uncover... But I assure you, it is not a missle with overlayed wings (on live feed TV.. LMFAO!!!)

It seems so easy.. But in every investigation you always have the "look at me, look at the proof I found first " group that are unable to analyze the data and consider all aspects before stating opinions as facts.

To everyone reading this...... THE OP HAS STILL NOT ANSWERED ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS - INSTEAD OF BICKERING BETWEEN OURSELVES.. LETS HOLD HIS FEET TO THE FIRE..... ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OP.. or simply admit that you are not so well versed in this subject.. I already know that is the case.. would be nice to see you say it.

Grasping at ridiculous theories makes us all look bad.
edit on 28-10-2010 by MiMobs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
This footage actually makes sense, somewhat. In every video of the second plane hitting in which a person is not seeing it silhouetted against the sky, just before the plane hits, it tilts and the right wing lights up bright white from the sun.

Ironically, a video I found that allows you to see the lighting change very clearly is also one that claims it was a hologram. :p Oh well, just focus on the lighting and compare the part that gets lit up to the part of the plane that disappears in the OP's video:



I believe this is correct, but there is one piece of info left out. In every clip showing a decent shot of the plane hitting the tower, you will see the plane enter the shadow of the thick smoke from tower one making it appear black against the skylight. However, just prior to impact as the plane is banking, it re-enters the sunlight. Because of the plane's tilted orientation, that right wing lights up with the sun's reflection. Depending on the type of camera being used and the exposure setting, that lit-up wing might just match the color and brightness of the sky. If this happens, the digital compression process (depending on how lossy it is) will interpret the wing as part of the sky and simply smear it out completely. This is especially common with lossy compression codecs, but can happen in-camera as well.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
This footage is alarming. But surely the US Government would have seen this and either fixed or deleted the footage before releasing it to the public?

I have no idea what happened that day. But it certaintly isn't what it's been made out to be.

The footage of the towers falling should have been alarming to the whole world.. No way can an airplane cause a building to drop like that.. Let alone happen twice in the same day!

I wonder how the world will see these events in 100 years. I hope humanity won't have to be subjected to the same lie we are being told right now.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainsandgravy

Originally posted by Varemia
This footage actually makes sense, somewhat. In every video of the second plane hitting in which a person is not seeing it silhouetted against the sky, just before the plane hits, it tilts and the right wing lights up bright white from the sun.

Ironically, a video I found that allows you to see the lighting change very clearly is also one that claims it was a hologram. :p Oh well, just focus on the lighting and compare the part that gets lit up to the part of the plane that disappears in the OP's video:



I believe this is correct, but there is one piece of info left out. In every clip showing a decent shot of the plane hitting the tower, you will see the plane enter the shadow of the thick smoke from tower one making it appear black against the skylight. However, just prior to impact as the plane is banking, it re-enters the sunlight. Because of the plane's tilted orientation, that right wing lights up with the sun's reflection. Depending on the type of camera being used and the exposure setting, that lit-up wing might just match the color and brightness of the sky. If this happens, the digital compression process (depending on how lossy it is) will interpret the wing as part of the sky and simply smear it out completely. This is especially common with lossy compression codecs, but can happen in-camera as well.


Exactly.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by nittin

Originally posted by nittin

Originally posted by waypastvne


How many times do the wings, horizontal stabilizers, and vertical stabilizers disappear in this video?

(pause it every second or so.)
edit on 27-10-2010 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


Why is it that in the video you posted; you can clearly see a transition of the wings going from solid to invisible, yet when in the video posted by the original poster the wing disappears within a millisecond, and no transition is seen? Not to mention I would think it would be more difficult to see a transition in the video you posted considering they are traveling and turning much faster than a normal airplane, yet I still see it morphing from visible to invisible, not disappearing..


No answers anybody?




yet I still see it morphing from visible to invisible, not disappearing.


Wouldn't the process of going from 'visible' to 'invisible' be considered disappearing?!
This statement is confusing. Transition time is irrelevant. Both videos show an illusion of disappearing wings.


Yes there is a difference between something disappearing and something morphing from visible to invisible. Morphing as you can actually see it transform from a full wing to invisible, you can even at least still see a silhouette of the wing of the fighter jet when it does "disappear" in the video above.. Unlike OPs video..
edit on 28-10-2010 by nittin because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-10-2010 by nittin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne



Originally posted by nittin


Why is it that in the video you posted; you can clearly see a transition of the wings going from solid to invisible, yet when in the video posted by the original poster the wing disappears within a millisecond, and no transition is seen? Not to mention I would think it would be more difficult to see a transition in the video you posted considering they are traveling and turning much faster than a normal airplane, yet I still see it morphing from visible to invisible, not disappearing..



No answers anybody?


The answer to your question is simple and obvious. UA175 is traveling towards the WTC at 510 Knots. It comes out from under the shadow of the smoke into the light of the sun within a millisecond. The wing that was dark wile in the shadow is now in the light. A millisecond ago it was dark and now it's bright and very near the color, hue and shade of the sky behind it.

The low quality of this youtube video simply blends the wing with the back ground sky. Simple. Obvious.

In the Tina Cart video a similar effect is observed but the wing is still visible through the whole video

Wile we are on the subject of smoke and shadows lets see what kind of problems these would present someone wanting to fake a video or project a hologram.

These are the things that would need to be predicted before hand to make a convincing fake;

The direction the smoke travels.
The altitude of the smoke.
The thickness of the smoke
The color of the smoke.
The angle of the sun.
The speed of the plane
Correlate all of the above to decide on the time that the plane should emerge from the shadow, or if it should even be in a shadow and how much of a change in light there should be.

There are just to many unpredictable variables.



edit on 28-10-2010 by waypastvne because: Because I wanted to



" The direction the smoke travels.
The altitude of the smoke.
The thickness of the smoke
The color of the smoke.
The angle of the sun.
The speed of the plane
Correlate all of the above to decide on the time that the plane should emerge from the shadow, or if it should even be in a shadow and how much of a change in light there should be."





That's at least how to fake a video
edit on 28-10-2010 by nittin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous Acorn

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


So...I find most of these videos of OMG 9/11 PROOFS!!!111 to be really lame, but I am seeing exactly what you are seeing.

The plane goes in and then the wing "disappears". I don't know if it's an optical illusion or what, but it's there, then it "isn't"

Very interesting...


As crazy as this sounds... and saying it is against my better judgment... because I've never even heard anyone else mention this before... but is it possible that what we actually witnessed on 9/11 was a hologram portrayed as an attack just before the buildings fell under a controlled demolition??? Not saying that's what I believe... just wondering what others might suspect after watching this video???
You are not the first to conclude that the planes are just hologram. There is already a guy who made an analysis of it based on the videos produced by MSM. He is saying that what actually hit those towers is a spherical ball with a plane superimposed on it. That is why there is a thing that looks like a bomb at the bottom of the plane. That is the actual thing that didn't fit inside the hologram plane.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by nittin

That's at least how to fake a video
edit on 28-10-2010 by nittin because: (no reason given)


Now how do you predict the unpredictable?


The direction the smoke travels.
The altitude of the smoke.
The thickness of the smoke
The color of the smoke.
The angle of the sun.
The speed of the plane
Correlate all of the above to decide on the time that the plane should emerge from the shadow, or if it should even be in a shadow and how much of a change in light there should be.



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by wavemaker

Originally posted by Anonymous Acorn

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


So...I find most of these videos of OMG 9/11 PROOFS!!!111 to be really lame, but I am seeing exactly what you are seeing.

The plane goes in and then the wing "disappears". I don't know if it's an optical illusion or what, but it's there, then it "isn't"

Very interesting...


As crazy as this sounds... and saying it is against my better judgment... because I've never even heard anyone else mention this before... but is it possible that what we actually witnessed on 9/11 was a hologram portrayed as an attack just before the buildings fell under a controlled demolition??? Not saying that's what I believe... just wondering what others might suspect after watching this video???
You are not the first to conclude that the planes are just hologram. There is already a guy who made an analysis of it based on the videos produced by MSM. He is saying that what actually hit those towers is a spherical ball with a plane superimposed on it. That is why there is a thing that looks like a bomb at the bottom of the plane. That is the actual thing that didn't fit inside the hologram plane.


Can a hologram do this?



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by nittin

That's at least how to fake a video
edit on 28-10-2010 by nittin because: (no reason given)


Now how do you predict the unpredictable?


The direction the smoke travels.
The altitude of the smoke.
The thickness of the smoke
The color of the smoke.
The angle of the sun.
The speed of the plane
Correlate all of the above to decide on the time that the plane should emerge from the shadow, or if it should even be in a shadow and how much of a change in light there should be.


Wtf? It's called a computer simulation. As in the video I posted.
Man the technology to be able to do the things you listed must be 100 years from now am I right folks?..
edit on 29-10-2010 by nittin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
Can a hologram do this?


Nope.... But explosives can....

The icing on the cake there would be that it actually sounds like a bomb....

Korg.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by nittin

That's at least how to fake a video
edit on 28-10-2010 by nittin because: (no reason given)


Now how do you predict the unpredictable?


The direction the smoke travels.
The altitude of the smoke.
The thickness of the smoke
The color of the smoke.
The angle of the sun.
The speed of the plane
Correlate all of the above to decide on the time that the plane should emerge from the shadow, or if it should even be in a shadow and how much of a change in light there should be.


It's called augmented reality, and was only needed for the single live feed we had on that day.

Every other footage was released after the event, giving them enough time to create from the many pre-prep'd templates I’m sure they had to release realistic looking footage.

Subsequently the department that created this footage at the Pentagon was destroyed, destroying the evidence.

Korg.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


You get more and more desperate with each reply the plane was full of fuel what do you think it would sound like
pop



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
Can a hologram do this?


Nope.... But explosives can....

The icing on the cake there would be that it actually sounds like a bomb....

Korg.

 

I disagree. Most of the debris is blowing out of the north side of the building. If this was caused by pre-planted bombs, it would swing (propel) the building primarily to the south as it blew. This is not the case. The building is clearly jolted to the north as if hit from the opposite side.

edit on 29-10-2010 by brainsandgravy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


You get more and more desperate with each reply the plane was full of fuel what do you think it would sound like
pop



Every post I have read of Korgs so far is a sensible and thought provoking and it is nice to see Korg counter every stupid statement such as yours with actual logic rather than resorting to insults..



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
reply to post by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by brainsandgravy
Can a hologram do this?


Nope.... But explosives can....

The icing on the cake there would be that it actually sounds like a bomb....

Korg.

 

I disagree. Most of the debris is blowing out of the north side of the building. If this was caused by pre-planted bombs, it would swing (propel) the building primarily to the south as it blew. This is not the case. The building is clearly jolted to the north as if hit from the opposite side.

edit on 29-10-2010 by brainsandgravy because: (no reason given)


Not sure if you know about shaped charges and how they work, and really not sure why you think the swing would be to the south??

Besides, I actually think that whatever it was the hit the wtc was itself a bomb. Whether you interpret that as an actual missile or a drone filled with TNT.

I lived in Japan for a while many years ago and one thing I can tell you about high rise buildings is they sway. It's part of the design. If they didn't they would collapse. this is Doubly true of Japan since it is constantly being hit by tremors.

The fact that it swayed in the direction it did means it was hit by something that much I agree, what I am saying however is that it certainly wasn't a commercial 767-200.

And if it wasn't a 767-200 then the entire 911 OS falls completely appart. Like pulling the the thread from a pullover.

Korg.

BTW - Love your avatar - Eraserhead is one of my most favorate films... Got to love David Lynch!!
edit on 29-10-2010 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
"NO PLANE HIT I SAW IT THE BUILDING EXPLODED" at 2:20 minutes in..

How can anyone explain what is said in this video?



And how does the guy not see a plane??? FFS people.
edit on 29-10-2010 by nittin because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join