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

reply to post by wmd_2008


I find it strange and intriguing. Earlier I stated "There is a plausible explanation why a wing would disappear.", "This video cannot be used to prove no-planes theory", but still some people come and trying to prove me something that I am already agree with

Originally posted by ICanThink
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I find it strange and intriguing. Earlier I stated "There is a plausible explanation why a wing would disappear.", "This video cannot be used to prove no-planes theory", but still some people come and trying to prove me something that I am already agree with

I think its because you also said:

"I think it was done by purpose. You can be sure they would not release a video with such obvious mistake.
Also when you use the video composing software, you have to make it to disappear, it cannot happen by chance.
The video was released for 2 purposes:
- to show nose shaped explosion, to counter the famous "nose-out" case.
- to initiate debates about no planes and to demonstrate one more time that no-planers claims are ridiculous."

It has been demonstrated that the disappearing wing is an artifact resulting from lossy data compression. It was not done intentionally. You don't seem to understand that.

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
It has been demonstrated that the disappearing wing is an artifact resulting from lossy data compression. It was not done intentionally. You don't seem to understand that.

You seems to be not good with logic. It CAN be done intentionally. It may happen unintentionally. There is NO WAY to prove that it was not done intentionally.

Originally posted by ICanThink

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
It has been demonstrated that the disappearing wing is an artifact resulting from lossy data compression. It was not done intentionally. You don't seem to understand that.

You seems to be not good with logic. It CAN be done intentionally. It may happen unintentionally. There is NO WAY to prove that it was not done intentionally.

Okay--but you stated, "it cannot happen by chance". Now you say, "It may happen unintentionally." Which is it?
You seems to be not good with logic.

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by ICanThink

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
It has been demonstrated that the disappearing wing is an artifact resulting from lossy data compression. It was not done intentionally. You don't seem to understand that.

You seems to be not good with logic. It CAN be done intentionally. It may happen unintentionally. There is NO WAY to prove that it was not done intentionally.

Okay--but you stated, "it cannot happen by chance". Now you say, "It may happen unintentionally." Which is it?
You seems to be not good with logic.

And now you seems to be not good with reading. I said: "When you use the video composing software, you have to make it to disappear, it cannot happen by chance."
"The straw man fallacy: Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions" @Wikipedia

Originally posted by ICanThink

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by ICanThink

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
It has been demonstrated that the disappearing wing is an artifact resulting from lossy data compression. It was not done intentionally. You don't seem to understand that.

You seems to be not good with logic. It CAN be done intentionally. It may happen unintentionally. There is NO WAY to prove that it was not done intentionally.

Okay--but you stated, "it cannot happen by chance". Now you say, "It may happen unintentionally." Which is it?
You seems to be not good with logic.

And now you seems to be not good with reading. I said: "When you use the video composing software, you have to make it to disappear, it cannot happen by chance."
"The straw man fallacy: Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions" @Wikipedia

WTF? The context doesn't change my point. It CAN happen by chance even if you are using "video composing software". It can happen by chance if you compress the clip.

Look, video compression has been shown to create the artifact. All known clips that show the wing disappearing are on the internet in a compressed format. In the uncompressed version of the clip available on the web, the wing is still visible. Since you are a logician, what does that tell you? Is the disappearing wing do to compression, or due to intentional editing?

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
Is the disappearing wing do to compression, or due to intentional editing?

It is possible to create intentionally a video that after compression may give that effect.
It is impossible to prove that the effect in the video of topic is just accidental.
So theoretically we may have intentional editing that makes wing to disappear after compression.
Is it so difficult to understand?

If you are not logician in the conspiracy theories, you may finish believing in almost everything that officials say, being a conformist, or in contrary, believing in every weird theory that pops up from time to time, being a tinfoil hat freak or how do you call them...

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
It CAN happen by chance even if you are using "video composing software". It can happen by chance if you compress the clip.

And no, it cannot happen. If you use the software and inserted a plane model, the wing does not interfere with sun and sky in the way like a real one and remains very evident.
In the original uncompressed video the wing is still looks transparent, not like the other visible "bottom" wing.
So if you want that effect in you CGI plane,. you have to make it.

Originally posted by ICanThink

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
It CAN happen by chance even if you are using "video composing software". It can happen by chance if you compress the clip.

And no, it cannot happen. If you use the software and inserted a plane model, the wing does not interfere with sun and sky in the way like a real one and remains very evident.
In the original uncompressed video the wing is still looks transparent, not like the other visible "bottom" wing.
So if you want that effect in you CGI plane,. you have to make it.

No, if you wanted your CGI plane to be consistent with the lighting in all the other videos of the second impact (they all show the right wing becoming illuminated by the sun just prior to impact), you would create the sunlight effect artificially, and then when you compressed the final version for the web, the wing would disappear--by chance.

But this is off the point. I agree that "there is NO WAY to prove that it was not done intentionally", but there is NO evidence that it WAS done intentionally since the wing is visible in the uncompressed clip. Therefore it's illogical to infer that the wing was intentionally erased. There is no evidence to support your conclusion.

Its a bright sunny day and the sun is reflecting off the wing of the plane. It is also not the best quality footage and the plane tilts ever so slightly after the frame with the wing in, making it look as though it has dissapeared.

I do not believe the offical story but like others here believe planes hit those towers that day. Who was flying them and who planned it ? I don't know , but I can only say from the lack of action taken by the armed forced to stop these planes that they were intended to hit those towers without any interferance.

I have a morbid fixation with 9/11 and once i start looking into it all again the more it saddens me, because the evidence is there to say the us government either had prior knowledge of the attack and let it happen, or that they were involved in the preperation of the attack. We do not live in this comic book world where 'bad guys' hatch Die Hard type attacks under the nose of what is supposed to be the most powerful country in the world.

Originally posted by eyesdown
... but I can only say from the lack of action taken by the armed forced to stop these planes that they were intended to hit those towers without any interferance.

What lack of action?

We do not live in this comic book world where 'bad guys' hatch Die Hard type attacks under the nose of what is supposed to be the most powerful country in the world.

I guess you've never heard of asymmetric warfare, Gotcha.

reply to post by lunarasparagus


Artificial sunlight effect will not make the wing transparent. Anyway, nobody would say something in case if the wing did not disappear.
In case of CGI hypothesis nothing can be incidental because in such case they would control the results very well, including the effect of compression.
It is impossible to prove that it was done intentionally basing just on this video. The only way is to prove no-plane theory (without the video), which is too big to be in this topic.

reply to post by trebor451


I am not here for debate because quite frankly my 9/11 knowledge is no good. I am just trying to throw in a bit of opinion. But i was under the impression that when aeroplanes go off course it is usual procedure to scramble a jet to investigate.

And no I haven't until now, but what is your point?

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Great post. I recall studying this film footage from a different angle and the same thing happened - the wing disappears. We are watching a hologram/holograph. It is a glitch in the programme.

Then there are the squibs - professionals who wire up explosives to bring buildings down will explain to you - very clearly - that squibs - are puffs of white smoke that are expelled as the towers came down. Watch the towers come down and in slow motion you will see that the squibs are clearly visible - puffing out of the building - before the descending tower reaches it.

Also I have seen posters describe the colour of the smoke in a fire that clearly distinguishes a petrol fire from a wood fire etcetera. The missing wing is a mistake and as a poster shared with me once - a friend of mine told me that evil always outsmarts itself.

I imagine that the wing is missing - just like the plane from the pentagon is missing - just like the closed circuit television film is missing from near the pentagon.

The wing is missing because the computer programmer messed up - there was no plane - there were no passengers either. There is film footage available on the internet that shows the 'planes' involved in the twin towers act of evil - were actually holograms/holographs and one morphs into a drone looking craft. It was actually described by an onlooker - with military experience that it was a bomb plane - sorry cannot recall the technical name.

The 9/11 act of evil took many innocent lives and I will not forget them - I am not an American but I feel the loss of innocent lives because the wing disappearing on the plane - is just one of many mistakes made by very evil people.

Much Peace...

Originally posted by eyesdown
reply to post by trebor451

 

I am not here for debate because quite frankly my 9/11 knowledge is no good. I am just trying to throw in a bit of opinion. But i was under the impression that when aeroplanes go off course it is usual procedure to scramble a jet to investigate.

Jets were launched as soon as situational awareness was achieved to the point that people knew what the hell was going on.. You need to read up on the matter.

And no I haven't until now, but what is your point?

re: asymmetric warfare, far be it from me to educate you on the nuances of how any power - super or not, today or a hundred years ago - will have social/military/economic centers of gravity that are inherently vulnerable to any number and types of attacks. The fact that we (then) spent $250 or $300 billion or whatever per year on a defense budget means nothing when those air force wings and carrier battle groups and army battalions are excluded from whatever attack is waged upon us. Fielded forces on a battlefield is one thing - having a nation as firmly based on individual liberties as America is something totally different when that freedom is used in a harmful and detrimental manner - hijacking civilian aircraft and flying them into buildings. We did not (then) / do not circle our cities and military bases and and those important centers of gravity with surface-to-air missiles (certain areas in DC do have them now, however). When the Soviet Union imploded and they stopped flying Bear and Badger and Backfire and Blinder aircraft up and down the east coast and Alaskan coast, it took us 10 years, but we reduced our alert posture for those types of events to a handful of aircraft. Our NORAD capability and self-defense organizations were *always* oriented outward - to an attack from the east or from the north or from the far northwest -not from an internal threat based on our own transportation infrastructure.

I'm sorry you have chosen to not educate yourelf about these facts, but your comment of "We do not live in this comic book world where 'bad guys' hatch Die Hard type attacks under the nose of what is supposed to be the most powerful country in the world." shows such a gross misunderstanding of the realities of the event and what our world was like in Sept of 2011 that I think it would be best if you just kept on simmering in your own soup of ignorance.

Originally posted by ICanThink
reply to post by lunarasparagus

 

Artificial sunlight effect will not make the wing transparent. Anyway, nobody would say something in case if the wing did not disappear.
In case of CGI hypothesis nothing can be incidental because in such case they would control the results very well, including the effect of compression.
It is impossible to prove that it was done intentionally basing just on this video. The only way is to prove no-plane theory (without the video), which is too big to be in this topic.

I get your point and it is valid. This is one of the fatal flaws of the "fakery" theory. When creating CGI, one has total control of the final product. It makes no sense that someone would got to the trouble of inserting computer animated airplanes into the the video footage and then just ignore some major glitch in the final product. Not only are such glitches highly unlikely, but fixing them would be simple. In the case of a random error, you would need to simply re-render the clip. It is not enough to deem video footage "fake" because of some apparent anomaly, it must also be demonstrated the anomaly is a likely effect of intentional editing and/or CGI.

reply to post by lunarasparagus


As I said, this video cannot help with proving CGI theory.
But I am absolutely fine with inserting a transparent wing in the video intentionally.
Some may say: "Look, the wing has disappeared! This is a fake plane!" - as it actually happened in the thread.
Then comes other guys and say: "You fool, it is an effect of video compression!" - as it actually happened in the thread.
The "no-planers" ashamed. Profit.
This was one theory. Another one - genuine footage. There is no third one.
This video alone cannot prove any of the theories.

I like the first theory more. I think the 9/11 planners are genii, evil of course, but they are very smart.

Originally posted by ICanThink
reply to post by lunarasparagus

 

As I said, this video cannot help with proving CGI theory.
But I am absolutely fine with inserting a transparent wing in the video intentionally.
Some may say: "Look, the wing has disappeared! This is a fake plane!" - as it actually happened in the thread.
Then comes other guys and say: "You fool, it is an effect of video compression!" - as it actually happened in the thread.
The "no-planers" ashamed. Profit.
This was one theory. Another one - genuine footage. There is no third one.
This video alone cannot prove any of the theories.

I like the first theory more. I think the 9/11 planners are genii, evil of course, but they are very smart.

What evidence is there that someone inserted a "transparent wing" into the video? Have you watch the clip in HD? There is no transparent wing either. See it below. The wing brightens when it hits the sunlight. Why try to complicate a simple explanation? Have you heard of Occam's razor?
(Watch the clip in HD quality)

reply to post by Amanda5


Sigh.......so many things wrong:

I recall studying this film footage from a different angle and the same thing happened - the wing disappears. We are watching a hologram/holograph. It is a glitch in the programme.

There are friggin' eyewitnesses to the actual airplanes!!

The videos suffer from lossy compression artifacts. Do the research, especially into JPEG compression losses.

Then there are the squibs - professionals who wire up explosives to bring buildings down will explain to you - very clearly - that squibs - are puffs of white smoke that are expelled as the towers came down.

Totally incorrect......there are no "sequentially occurring" charges exploding.

Seems someone is accepting junk "explanations" from a variety of junk websites?

What are seen are merely ejections of the trapped air from inside the buildings.....random patterns, as would be expected, in a collapse.


This next is just more of the nonsense from junk websites, and ill-informed "friends":

Also I have seen posters describe the colour of the smoke in a fire that clearly distinguishes a petrol fire from a wood fire etcetera. The missing wing is a mistake and as a poster shared with me once - a friend of mine told me that evil always outsmarts itself.

I imagine that the wing is missing - just like the plane from the pentagon is missing - just like the closed circuit television film is missing from near the pentagon.

There is no "missing airplane" from the Pentagon!!

The debris, the wreckage, the passenger and crew DNA< the Cockpit Voice Recroder and the Flight Data Recorder, and eyewitnesses confirm the impact at the Pentagon!

Try to get your facts straight.

reply to post by lunarasparagus


Whatever. If you do not like the word "transparent", use "blending with the sky", it changes nada.
How many times I have to repeat that there is no proof of CGI plane in that video?
I know the mainstream opinion, I am mainstream-proof.