Another "fred" Video To Be Scrutinized, And Something IN IT very interesting. Options

[painter]

I was watching this video last night and taking screen shots of it full monitor because of the "nose out" (not that I believe that is what it is) seen from this opposite direction than the one used in BoneZ's debunk of the NPT. While stopping and starting this at full screen, I noticed something else VERY VERY weird and interesting. First, here is the video:

---

NOTE In slow motion we see the explosive force burst through the opposite side of the tower -- creating this "nose out" shape. Then NOTE what happens at the 00:56 mark. Something shoots downward from what appears to be WTC 2, leaving a dark 'smoke' trail -- moving MUCH MUCH faster than the rest of the material that has exited from WTC 1 -- and on a different trajectory. It shoots by so quickly even in slow motion you have to watch very carefully to see it. To really get it you have to stop, step back, and step forward frame by frame. It is moving at a much higher velocity than the other material. I know I'm not the first person to notice or comment on this anomally -- but this is the clearest I've seen it.

Here are three screen shots. See the smoke trail to the right center, angling down. Watch it move in the video. This is an event that is obviously completely separate from the impact event -- and yet closely timed with it.

(IMG:http://www.offrampstudios.net/pilots/images/streak1.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.offrampstudios.net/pilots/images/streak2.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.offrampstudios.net/pilots/images/streak3.jpg)

We need the original FOX footage in higher resolution than this highly compressed web video gives us. We need to see what that is, where it came from, why it is moving as if it has been SHOT from the roof of WTC 2.

Painter, that "object" is nothing more than an insect or tiny debris near the camera. If it were a real object from the WTC, it would be seen in the clip on the bottom half of this video or other WTC videos. Since it cannot be seen in other videos, we can conclude it was some object/debris/insect flying near that one camera only.

I love how this guy keeps getting his colors mixed up. I guess the dark blue paint scheme of a United Airlines jet could look black from far away or from compressed internet video. I also love how this video claims that the two planes in the two clips are different. Once again they're using compressed internet video to make their "proof". I've said it time and time again "FRED", unless you can get your hands on the unaltered source video, you're absolutely not proving anything. All you have is theories and guesses and assumptions. To keep claiming tv fakery when you have zero proof, other than compressed internet video (which is not proof by a long shot), is called dis- _____ . You can fill in the blank. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Sanders]

First off, I do believe that the plane images were probably faked. Probably, but I'm not 100%certain. Maybe I'm a no-planer? (Or a no-planer/building-hugger/dissinfo suspector - NOBHDS (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) ).

That swiftly moving piece of debris looks like it is moving toward the camera, and closer objects will appear to be moving faster than farther away things. Can't comment any further than that.

As for the clip, if it's made by the same guy that made 'CNN Footage Fakery' then:

The music is MUCH better. Thank you! - (I thought I would kill myself if I had to listen to that digi-drum track one more time).

But it's mostly junk IMO. OF COURSE the plane and the speed of the plane look different, the shots are taken from different angles and, judging from the size of the towers, different zoom/distance parameters (I don't know how else to express it).

In the top footage the trade towers are almost straight, so the plane's wings SHOULD appear shorter, the whole shot is more perpendicular. Shoot the plane from straight on from the side and you won't see the wings at all, duh. The bottom shot is clearly taken from farther below, the towers recede in width upward - the perspective lines tell you this. So yes, the plane's wings SHOULD extend farther outward, the plane is acting as if it is being shot from farther below. Again, duh. Also, the size of the compared towers are different, so you would expect the speed of the plane to be different - slower in the wider shot where the towers are smaller, i.e. farther away, i.e., the bottom shot. As I said, I suspect that the planes were superimposed, but I imagine they have computers that accurately reflect reality (all the movie studios do) - yes it may well have been faked, but the "mistakes" this clip points out are erroneous. Seriously, watching these videos is like watching a magician doing his routine after you know all the tricks. ALL of the implied bizarreness in this and the other things of this sort I've seen lately are all based on comparisons of footage that differ in angle, zoom and/or distance parameters, and the differences in how objects appear in each are exploited to draw erroneous conclusions. This is so obvious to me. I see a couple of weird things in this footage that makes me go hmmmm, but ironically the author doesn't mention either of them. (One is, the plane in the top clip "studders", the frame rate is not smooth). But of course these pop-videos never explain anything, they just imply stuff.

One other thing, mention is made at the beginning that the plane in the top (more straight on) footage is too dark. Look at the towers - both sides are illuminated by the sun. I have seen the full length footage of this clip, and you can see where the plane enters the shadow of the towers before this clip starts and goes "black".

Don't be fooled people, there IS reason to suspect that the plane's themselves (not the explosions IMO) were CGI'd - but this isn't it. Why is this junk-science being purveyed so energetically?

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/nonono.gif)

I believe this is all part of a dissinfo campaign, I believe that the planes were probably CGI'd, I believe this fact is being exploited and that any good disinfo campaign is based on half fact / half fiction (the "terrorist threat" is no different, why should they change this very successful MO??), I know that the DoD has placed special importance on "information technologies" since the neocons took it over, that includes things like planting fake stories in the news abroad to be picked up by domestic papers and producing their own news clips for TV, AND trying to control the movement by participating in these discussions on the web, I think that they are all nervous as hell and getting desperate, I also believe the perps think that if they can get enough people on-board with "crazy" theories they can make fools of us all, and I think that another reason to put out this stuff is so we'll all argue about it till doomsday instead of getting out and demanding change. I think somewhere people are watching us all get our shorts tied up in knots over this stuff and high-fiving each other.

So how do you fight this "half-truth/half-fiction" kind of dissinfo campaign? First we need to see it for what it is.

Don't be fooled people, there IS reason to suspect that the plane's themselves (not the explosions IMO) were CGI'd

I don't see the reason, nor have i still not seen any evidence to suspect the planes were CGI'd. It still brings me back to my main question:

What caused these massive jetliner-sized holes with wing damage? Isn't it easier to say that these were jetliner impacts since the damage, videos, pictures, witnesses and everything else points to jetliner impacts? I'm still not seeing the logic in saying the jets were CGI'd when there is no concrete evidence to suggest as much and totally contradicts all other evidence. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

(IMG:http://bonez.us/pics/1_wtc.jpg)

(IMG:http://bonez.us/pics/1nt_hole3.jpg)

[Sanders]

Because mostly aluminum wings shouldn't be able to do that damage - debris should have rained on the street, which, if the "planes" were not the real deal (drone?) would have been a big problem for the authorities. But if the images were faked, then why the pod?? Why not use a cleaner image? Maybe to keep us arguing?

After looking at how the plane seems to "melt" into the towers, I am suspicious. I also feel that there is a disinfo campaign going on, which so far has been succesful for a couple of reasons. We all need to keep our minds open and try not to fight about this. After all, we all know 9/11 was a ruse and who the real enemies are - that should bring us together.

Because mostly aluminum wings shouldn't be able to do that damage - debris should have rained on the street

I would love to know how you know this. To my knowledge, there hasn't been any extensive study where jetliners are crashed into buildings or other objects to see what happens. If you look closely, the tips of the wings (which would be the weakest) didn't sever steel columns. They only damaged the aluminum facade.

But if the images were faked, then why the pod??

The pod has been thoroughly and easily debunked HERE for several years now. There was no pod, so this point is moot. It's just an optical illusion. Light and shadows highlighting the starboard wing fairing.

After looking at how the plane seems to "melt" into the towers, I am suspicious.

Take a look at the holes in the pictures above. Look how massive the jetliner was compared to the tiny, thin, toothpick-sized perimeter steel columns. Those tiny, thin, toothpick-sized steel columns were no match for a 100,000 pound jetliner moving at 500 miles per hour. I don't know of a steel structured high-rise in the world that can make a jetliner bounce off with minimal damage. It's not possible.

Another thing to think about: Architects and Engineers would be looking vigorously at TV fakery/no-planes if they thought the damage to the towers wasn't consistent with jetliner impacts. This is, however, their field of study. Architects and Engineers "does not endorse" no-planes/tv fakery.

I don't know what else needs to be said here. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

[DaleConners]

What kind of insect looks like that?

This post has been edited by DaleConners: Aug 18 2007, 07:40 PM

What kind of insect looks like that?

Please contribute to the topic or move on, thank you.

[jrnsr]

painter,
Your post, like so many others, seems to be a resolution that plants part of the right side so far into the margin, much cannot be read, so meanings are lost.

The object you mentioned (yellow arrows to "UFO"?) shows up in a small percentage of the South Tower different videos. It appears to be V-tailed craft, drone? There was some investigation into it. It has never been captured on video before entering the smoke. Some views might identify it coming out head on from the North Tower smoke. I've spent a lot of time trying to get a glimpse of it in many of the other views of tower 2, but not a trace. Why show up in a few and not all? No answer. Was it removed from the majority? Doubt it.

The question it raises- are they using drones with "Predator" (Arnold's predator creature) "cloaking" technology? ...and by flying through the smoke, take on a dark complexion???

We may never know... and I doubt it was a real factor in the sabotage.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[FONT=Courier][SIZE=7]OK, from the gist of your conversations, you aren't talking about the UFO, that is pointed out by the yellow arrows. C

This post has been edited by jrnsr: Aug 18 2007, 11:58 PM

The object you mentioned shows up in a small percentage of the South Tower different videos.

Small percentage, meaning one video. If you know of other videos that show this object, by all means post them for us. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[grizz]

Hundreds of actual real life people saw real airplanes hit the real towers with their real eyes. Consequently, the planes were actually there. No doubt about it.

I don't understand why all you very intelligent people are even wasting your time with this.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blahblah1.gif)

Hundreds of actual real life people saw real airplanes hit the real towers with their real eyes. Consequently, the planes were actually there. No doubt about it.

I don't understand why all you very intelligent people are even wasting your time with this.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blahblah1.gif)

Because the no-plane/tv fakery supporters are using deceptive and misleading tactics to "prove" their claims. Since this is the truth movement and the things they peddle are untruthful and claim to be part of the truth movement, someone needs to keep these guys in line and keep the truth movement truthful and accurate. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[Timothy Osman]

It is interesting to see where and how the plane won the battle with the exterior columns with it's momentum. It only took me four years to get my head around. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)
IMO it has to do with the fact that the exterior columns were Vierendeel trusses with the base of the towers having fewer massive exterior columns which separated into three.

(IMG:http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i295/sedman/fig-2-4.jpg)

If the exterior columns were more conventional I think things would have looked more conventional.

[jrnsr]

quote Oceans Flow

Hundreds of actual real life people saw real airplanes hit the real towers with their real eyes.

If you read that or saw it on TV, then it must be true! That "truth" satisfies the masses.

The testimonies "they" showed you, government and network reports, everything on TV must be true, so why bother with this website?


Unless the reports and propaganda fit the evidence and physics, there's a lot of people pursuing many different paths to expose the real terrorists to hopefully prevent episodes like this from happening over and over again.

I'll keep looking at Fred's video and ever other that is available to uncover what are clues in my investigations.

What did these investigations look like 5 years ago, and what will they look like 5 years from now?