Wing shaped hole appears in building 6 seconds after plane enters it

jessop1

I keep an open mind on the no planes theories, simply because I believe there are definately a number of unexplained video footage anomalies.

The "september clues" documentary, linked in CB Brooklyns thread here highlight a few interesting ones (eg trajectory of 2nd plane seems to vary significantly on two different pieces of footage, nose cone of second plane seems to briefly appear intact on the opposite side of the building it entered).

But the one I'd like to discuss here is this analysis of the naudets film (the only footage of the first plane) which shows a wing shaped hole appear in the building 6 seconds after the plane enters it. Just prior to the explosion of this wing shaped hole (but after the plane impact), it appears that the part where the wing should have caused a hole is undamaged.

There are a couple of other points raised in this short film, but the analysis of the wing-hole anomoly (the explosion, and the apparant photoshopped black line on the naudets film, but not on the news film shots) is the one I want to discuss here. The piece I'm concerned with starts about 3.5 mins into the film.
What are people's views on this?

BTW, As an interesting aside, if you search google video or youtube, on the first hit of the naudets film for both, the bit that shows this secondary wing shaped explosion is completely obscured by an obviously inserted and crazily moving black banner.. hmm..;)

oscarBravo

Looks like yet another misinterpretation of a low-quality copy of a film that was unsteadily shot with a handheld camera.

oscarBravo

Oh yeah: nice attempt at character assassination on the Naudet brothers.

Gordon

This just proves the fact that even if high quality footage of the pentagon incident surfaced showing a plane visibly crashing into the pentagon - people will still try to disprove it.

Why bother ever showing any form of video ever? Why should anyone believe either sides video evidence?

jessop1

I do find it amusing that the two posters who respond to this so far have done so with sweeping (troll-esque) dismissals, completely avoiding the topic and lo and behold its the same two posters (both mods as well tut tut) who have quite recently issued threats and vulgar insults to others over trolling claims. You're funny.

If there is anyone else who would like to actually discuss the topic or dispute what I'm saying looks like a wing shaped hole exploding in the side of the building 6 seconds after said wing was supposed to have entered the building, followed by the appearance of a strange black line that appears on the naudets video but not any other footage - then please have a look at the video, from about 3 - 3.5 mins in - and let me know your thoughts.
Thanks

Gordon

jessop1 wrote: »

who have quite recently issued threats and vulgar insults to others over trolling claims. You're funny.

Seeing as you brought this up, please link to the posts I made where I issued threats and insults. Thanks mate.

kippy

"Conclusive proof of non existent airplane"
What about all the proof out there to prove that it was an airplane that went into the tower?

I aint gonna get into this again as I had many logical and well formed comments in a similar thread about 9/11. They were pointless to be honest as this is inherently a Non-logical forum. People who want to believe that this is a government coverup or something of a similiar nature will try their damdest to find/make "proof" from whatever scraps of "evidence" is out there without taking into account the bigger picture.

My main issues with this type of theory is:
1. The scale of it.
2. The amount of people who need to be "in on it".
3. The reasoning for doing it.
4. The real people who disappeared on four flights that day.

I was in NYC that day and I can tell you - it was planes that went into those buildings, Whatever about the daft analysis of the video you posted.
Kippy

mike65

Thats just hilarious.

Illogic shaped hole appears in thread as it is opened by jessop1.

Mike.

jessop1

Gordon wrote: »

Seeing as you brought this up, please link to the posts I made where I issued threats and insults. Thanks mate.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54886253&postcount=113
The insulting was oscars.

jessop1

kippy and mike, again with the trolling...:rolleyes:

kippy please feel free to start your own thread to discuss all your evidence of planes and how the whole conspiracy thing is bs. I started this thread to discuss this particular wing hole footage. If you are not interested in discussing that kindly dont post on this thread at all.

Mike, like all of your trolling posts on this board, I have absolutely nothing to say to it.

mike65

You keep starting junk threads on this "topic".

Mike.

Gordon

jessop1 wrote: »

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54886253&postcount=113
The insulting was oscars.

You implied I threatened someone and insulted someone.

It turns out that I warned someone for spamming.

tut tut jessop1, get your facts straight before you start accusing people.

That gash looks like it grew due to melting or falling exterior (aluminium is it?) after severe heat. However, I don't understand how anyone can trust any video evidence now that even hardened believers in the 911 conspiracy can't see planes hitting the towers.

Saruman

I just looked at the video you linked to jessop. I do not see anything but a video artifact appearing and then dissapearing. Its only all the pointers in the video telling you that this should not be there that makes it suspicous.

A plane hit the building, thousands saw it happen, even if they did not get it on camera.
As for second explosions... You know buildings do tend to contain things that can explode.

Now if you want a good conspiracy... sure maybe the US government hijacked the planes themselves but planes did hit the buildings.

zippy 99

Yet more evidence of a 911 setup.

And people continue to believe a man in a cave thousands of miles away masterminded this.

jessop1

mike65 wrote: »

You keep starting junk threads on this "topic".

Mike.

breathtaking hypocrisy Mike, seeing as virtually every post of yours on this board is a meaningless piss take (in other words, junk). Now please stick to topic or go away.

jessop1

Gordon wrote: »

That gash looks like it grew due to melting or falling exterior (aluminium is it?) after severe heat.

I've quoted the only part of your post that relates to topic. Can you elaborate on what you mean here please? It doesnt make sense to me at all. For a number of seconds after the plane enters the building, the exteriour of the building where the wing hole subsequently appears is undamaged, and then a wing hole appears. Your explanation doesnt make sense.

Thanks

jessop1

Saruman wrote: »

I do not see anything but a video artifact appearing and then dissapearing.

Can you elaborate saruman? whats the video artefact you're referring to? are you disputing that a secondary explosion appears?

Saruman

Are you for real jessop? Read my post again.. and keep reading it until it makes sense.
Especially the part about "second explosion"

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote: »

For a number of seconds after the plane enters the building, the exteriour of the building where the wing hole subsequently appears is undamaged, and then a wing hole appears.

How do you know it's undamaged? The video definition is insufficient to tell at that point. Notice that the vertical columns of the tower appear as a uniform grey blur. By contrast, when the wing hole "appears", you can actually count the exterior columns.

In other words, once the video definition is sufficient to resolve individual columns, it's also sufficient to resolve the hole left by the wing.

Pretty obvious, really.

oscarBravo

A quick vidcap to explain my point above:



Notice that the camera is out of focus.

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote: »

Can you elaborate saruman? whats the video artefact you're referring to? are you disputing that a secondary explosion appears?

I believe he's refering to the concept of video arifact data loss due to compression when uploading to youtube. Its a crappy you tube video, serious analysis of whether it is real or not is pointless.

Jessop look at that video. See those firemen who are staring up as the plane hit. They were and are serving NYC firemen, who lost hundreds of friends and colleagues that day. The makers of this little video, and by extension you, are accusing them of being complicit in the murder and cover up of the deaths of their brother firemen, and thousands of innocent civilians.

Do you think thats an acceptable accusation to make without a serious review of the evidence? By serious I don't mean looking at a youtube video. I mean taking the time and trouble to, I dunno, examining a high resolution (dvd quality would do) copy of this video like say here before you accuse firemen, and the Naudet brothers of audacious and heinous fraud.

Alternatively you could whinge and moan about the behaviour of posters who aren't moderators of this forum. Either is good.

On an aside, I'm buoyed by the increased "no planer" activity on this forum, it another sign that the "truth movement" really has peaked, they can wander off to the lunatic fringe along with those nutjobs who think JFK was wacked by his driver.

Saruman

I think the problem i have with all this is... what was the point?? Sure there may be some in the US government that wanted the extra power they got from the terror attacks... however.. why go to such elaborate lengths to do it? If they had "pre planted" explosives in the towers to bring them down, then why not simply use them! It would not have been the first time they were targeted in a bomb campaign. What was the need to hijack 4 planes to do the job? At the end of the day, 4 planes and all the people on them were lost. People saw the planes crash. Air traffic control would have had them on their scopes. There are too many people that had to be involved in a conspiracy like this to make it work... So many people that it makes it impossible to believe anyone would consider it could possibly work. Including, as Diogenes just said, the firemen, two young men with a camera and hundreds of witnesses.

And some guy in cave could not organise it? This guy in a cave was more than likely in some palace somewhere. He has millions of dollars at his disposal, he is not some caveman.