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

reply to post by waypastvne


He is an amazing man... He has added a time machine, facts, truths...

He has also done away with the need for facts in the world. He has found a way to take what a situation ISNT and used that to prove what it IS.. Its mind boggling to watch him work!

Genius if you ask me!

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Korg Trinity


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.

Carefully reading the above statement, I can only conclude that you have decided to add a Time Machine to your Conspiracy Theory.


Dude You Rock!!!

edit on 29-10-2010 by waypastvne because: Because I wanted to

You're hilarious.....

If it was an inside job they knew before hand what was going to happen... Duh

Korg.

Originally posted by MiMobs
reply to post by waypastvne

 

He is an amazing man... He has added a time machine, facts, truths...

He has also done away with the need for facts in the world. He has found a way to take what a situation ISNT and used that to prove what it IS.. Its mind boggling to watch him work!

Genius if you ask me!

Pathetic!

I see you have ignored my vid post earlier.... do you refute anything in those clips??

Korg.

Well, here we have it. I came on to this thread because I was genuinely interested in it. I even posted about the idea that the plane wing disappearing "could have been" due to a type of glitch in the "hologram technology" that some have said, was "allegedly" used in the 9/11 attacks. I personally have no evidence for or against the possibility. I've put certain phrases and words in quotations, so there is no misunderstandings from other posters as to what I am saying, I have no interest in being badgered or harassed nor do I have an interest in joining anyone's "camp". But you know what I find interesting now, as opposed to what I found interesting about this thread at it's inception? It's no longer the strange anomaly of the plane wing "disappearing" for whatever reason, my interest now lies in the fact that after a 4-day thread, MiMobs and Korg Trinity are still engaged in some ridiculously repugnant "pissing contest". I am a relatively new member to ATS and was just wondering, is this how grown adults operate around this site? If so, I think the moderators need to send some of these "man-children" to time out until they can learn to act like real grown-ups.

reply to post by openmind444


Here is what I find outstanding about the current thread situation.. I was delusional. I thought a person with such a "open mind" and such a free thinker would be more willing to discuss his or her claims.

I agree, it has gotten out of hand. I am 50% at fault. But only for continuing to expect a rational response to any of my questions.

My questions have been very very simple. I can only guess that he does not have the answer to the questions... or he just doesn't like me and will not answer any questions I ask... Then I looked and was able to find 38 questions through out the thread that he has dodged and not answered.

Question #1 - OP has stated - to prove that this is light reflection - one must duplicate the situation EXACTLY to actually test the theory.

My question was.. If above said statement is correct, then why can the OP claim that a missle hit the pentagon without duplicating the exact situation? So, to say that a missle hit the pentagon, and that there is, as he stated, evidence to PROVE that a 747 did not hit the pentagon.. Wouldn't a person have to duplicate the crash to prove anything?

We all know that this is not going to be tested and duplicated. My question was pointed and was put forward to show that his claim about the reflection of light can be proven without duplicating the exact scenario.

Question #2 There are SEVERAL videos of the 2nd plane. What makes this video accurate and the others not valid?
This seems like an easy question... This too has gone unanswered.

Question #3 Why are all of the eye witnesses to the plane hitting the building insignificant? Why are they being disreguarded? He doesn't claim it is a hologram. he is stating that it is a Overlay in the video. If this is an overlay, there would be boat loads of people coming forward saying that they saw a missle.

Another poster asked - Since doing an overlay on a LIVE VIDEO is next to impossible now, and was in 2001 how was this accomplished?

Question #4 There are well over 20 videos from citizens that show the 2nd plane hitting.. How did they get a hold of joe schmoes camera and add the overlay?

Question #5 My mom has a friend that lost her son and daughter -in - law on the 1st plane. If this was a missle hitting WTC.. What happened to the folks on the plane?

Question #6 The Op has posted videos of missles with wings.. If this wing is an overlay... if the wing disapreared from a glitch in the software.... Wouldnt the wing from the missle have been visible?

Question #7 quote from OP

An intelligent thought as it addresses why multiple cameras from that angle saw the same anomaly... Except we have other angles that clearly show that there was no vapour on the so called wings.

How can you see if there is any vapor on the wings? And if you start to answer that, then I ask, on what wings? Remember this is a wingless missle.... But yet every picture and or video you have posted, is a remote controlled missle with wings.. It is all so confusing to try and wrap my head around. Even your own theory goes around and around in circles.

Question #8 You say that the towers turned to dust... I have given you proof showing that 185K tons of steel were recovered. You then stated that the WTC took 200K tons of steel to build. That leaves 15K tons unaccounted for. Myself and another poster pointed out that 3 aircraft carriers worth of steel was recovered.
If there was 90% of the steel recovered - How can you say that the towers turned to dust?
There are also pictures showing the steel wreckage pile reaching nearly 100ft in the air..
How can you say that the towers turned to dust?

Mean what you say and say what you mean. I found that allot of your statements were factually incorrect. Finding these inconsistancies leads me to believe that you are either misled or lying.

You see my questions as attacks... I am not meaning to insult you. I am simply pointing out, that it took 5 to 6 posts for you to comprehend the difference between WTC and Pentagon. If it took you 5 posts to comprehend my meaning, I fear that you are missing allot of the meaning in allot of the posts. Either you do not care to hear what others have to say, or you are just reading them too fast to take it all in..

Originally posted by openmind444
MiMobs and Korg Trinity are still engaged in some ridiculously repugnant "pissing contest". I am a relatively new member to ATS and was just wondering, is this how grown adults operate around this site? If so, I think the moderators need to send some of these "man-children" to time out until they can learn to act like real grown-ups.

It's called thread derailment.

As I have attempted to stop it several times by not rising to the sniping. But as you can see it has wrecked an otherwise perfectly sound thread.

It's such a shame ATS removed the ignore button it truly is.

And I totally agree with you, I wonder if ATS should have age verification and a watershed to stop the obvious adolescent behavior from detracting from the adult talk.



Korg.

Originally posted by stucoles
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Digital overlay whats???

Firstly do some basic research into what and what is not possible when manipulating live feed.

Second. Have a look at ALL the 911 plane impact footage online of the (better still ask to see a friends footage of the event, I know I did) and tell us then that ALL of it has been re-comped.

Third. Then tell us the GOV has a crack team of underground special effects (maybe ex-ILM) agents working round the clock to fudge the footage.

I could go on...

You and so many others are dissecting choice footage only, not all of it.
You have no case, none what so ever

except the facts and evidence prove otherwise...

one doesn't necessarily have to see or dissect ALL footage to prove fakery although doing so actually does show important context and evidence supporting fakery...but it only just takes one un-debunked video to prove fakery.... and its been done.

there IS evidence and is possible for live feeds to be manipulated

what friends footage are you talking about

and to assume the gov doesn't have a "crack" team you're talking about, is beyond naive.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

You're obviously not blind, so can rule that out.

Are you being obstinate on purpose, then?? With statements like this:

All the videos that are around.... none of them actual looks like a commercial plane.

....crediblity goes to zero. There is a sort of blindness at work here, perhaps....blind to reality.

You still want to write, with a straight face, that NONE of the videos show a commercial plnae?? What is in this still frame grab, from a VIDEO??:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb2d7a62d1d6.jpg[/atsimg]

its a FAKE PLANE ... anyone that can't see its fake, is blind to reality.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GlennCanady
Don't believe the government fairy tale. Notice how fake it looks when this plane supposedly strikes the outer shell of the building that has beams thicker than an M-1 tank! LOL It just penetrates it like magic! It's a joke, not once piece of wing or tail sheared off, NOTHING!

lol! You're completely right! The plane didn't "shatter" any windows upon impact. An object in motion doesn't stay in motion. Screw physics! A plane going 450+ mph can't cause damage to anything! After all, steel is harder than aluminum. No way bolts could come loose. The Trade Center was all powerful!

I'm ending my sarcasm now. Seriously, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that the plane smashed, not sliced, through the wall. You can literally see in a couple videos how the engines of the plane slide backward for a moment. That's because the wings were weaker and getting shredded through the steel before the engines impacted and helped push on through.

show me where there's any real "physics" going on here, any video where the engines slide backward or sheering happening.

you people are in such denial its sad



its truly amazing that anyone with a shred of real common sense or intelligence can look at this image and say its real...yet the bizarre reality is they do.

it would be comical if it weren't so sad

reply to post by Orion7911


I must be blind. This looks like a plane to me... Now I have never seen a plane hit a high rise building hundreds of feet in the air.... But it sure looks exactly like what I would assume it would look like.

Originally posted by Orion7911

show me where there's any real "physics" going on here, any video where the engines slide backward or sheering happening.

you people are in such denial its sad

its truly amazing that anyone with a shred of real common sense or intelligence can look at this image and say its real...yet the bizarre reality is they do.

it would be comical if it weren't so sad

edit on 29-10-2010 by Orion7911 because: (no reason given)

Explain what you mean about the engines what piece of reasoning are you using to justify your statement.

A video for you a soft object destroys a hard object.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by MiMobs
reply to post by Orion7911

 

edit on 29-10-2010 by Orion7911 because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by MiMobs
reply to post by Orion7911

 

I must be blind. This looks like a plane to me... Now I have never seen a plane hit a high rise building hundreds of feet in the air.... But it sure looks exactly like what I would assume it would look like.

it might look like a plane, but not a REAL plane.

for anyone to say these images depict a real plane or haven't been tampered with, is either in denial, has no common sense, is a shill, or can't distinguish reality from fantasy.

reply to post by Orion7911



Nothing in that post proves "no plane"!!!

I watched the Courschne video, and saw the first clip was very poor quality (looked like multiple generation copy), and the other clip (same video) was simply better resolution, because it hadn't suffered from the re-copying.

Otherwise, we see the airplane impacting the building at roughly 500 knots airspeed. Ever looked at a physics calculator, to understand the amount of force and energy involved, here? Physics: Momentum. Force.

This is online, it looks like it's designed to estimate vehicle repair or something, but it's handy to plug in the numbers, and see the results. www.crashdamagerepair.com...

I forget the actual airplane estimated weight at impact, but I low-balled it and plugged in 250,000 pounds, and round number 450 MPH (also a bit low). Result?? 846,753 TONS of force. 1,693,506,000 pounds. (This is the figure assuming an instant stop, which of course did not happen...but, at initial impact, this is the kind of force that the object (airplane) has....due to velocity, mass, momentum and inertia.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
Hi there,

I was schmoozing over at this thread OMG! HUGE Cache of New 911 footage released !!! and spotted a major discrepancy in one of the new vids...

If you look at the 2nd plane as it comes in the Wing disappears just before it strikes..... As if it was vid edited incorrectly.

The wing just dissolves just before the strike.... at about second 5-6.

What do you guys make of that???

This vid has me going nuts...

Korg.

You 9/11 truthers are out of control is what I think.Absolutely absurd conspiracy nonsense.It just gets worse and worse and worse with this nonsense.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Mr. Weed,

I am going to need you to step away from the computer ... Do you have any weapons or drugs on your person? No? Ok, hands on the wall and spread em.. ::pat:::::pat:::::pat:::::pat:::::pat::: What in the hell is this? Were you trying to hide this from me? This sure looks like logic to me! Where did you get this logic? If I search your hard drive am I going to find more of this logic? Ok spread em wider... ::pat:::::pat:::::pat:::::pat:::::pat::: And what in the heck is this? Is this common sense? Do you know how much trouble you would be in for possesing this? Do you know that it is illegal to have logic or common sense on your person in this thread? I'll let you off with a warning this time. Please be more careful with your logic and common sense next time. Imagine if this found its way to some of your fellow posters...

Have a nice day Mr. Weed... Ill be watching you Mr.

reply to post by Orion7911


Your YouTube quality picture:



A higher quality one:



And here is the Courchesne video in decent quality (just the plane hitting and a little after):

www.megaupload.com...

Here is the Courchesne video before the plane hits and after:

So what are we saying here that 911 was a big hologram, and all the people in the building were abducted by jins and used for food?

Some random .gifs of the plane:













So these are all fake then Korg? This isn't even a fraction of all of the clips that are available. If you need/want me to provide more, are links to source material, let me know!

And I guess these are all fake too?