Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
BlackShadowMist

9/11 Plane Impacts

1,027 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

BlackShadowMist

I have a question for you guys.Take a look a these photos Ive taken from 9/11 video. We all know two boeing planes hit the towers but, Im just wondering why do the planes in this ABC news footage and 11 Nightly news show something I find strange. We all know what a boeing looks like but why do these planes in particular not look that way. Check out whats under the wing clearly. I paused the video and took the photos and compared. Why do these planea look distinctly different from one another if the same boing plane hit the second world trade center building?? Any explanation? Hypothetically if two different videos of the same plane impact show two clearly different objects what they heck does that mean really hit the world trade centers? 3 different pictures of the same impact show different objects. Why?

post-150955-0-70691000-1412733302_thumb.

post-150955-0-16294400-1412733398_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackShadowMist

Well why does the same plane hitting the second tower look clearly look like a different plane in each video? Even in one picture the plane passes in front of the crane then behind again then into the building. Thats not possible.

post-150955-0-56625900-1412733569_thumb.

post-150955-0-15453900-1412733587_thumb.

post-150955-0-16506500-1412733618_thumb.

Edited by BlackShadowMist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

What's your theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackShadowMist

I mean where is the tail? What is that long thing under the wing? Why is it clearly not in any of the other images? One picture shows an engine and another shows what may actually, hypothetically, possibly, look like a something else...like a missle.Whats your thoughts? How is it possible for one video image in my first post to show a plane hitting the WTC with what looks clearly like a missle or some long object under the wing. My point is this, if in each video shown by the media there appears to be a different plane apparently in each video, then what ever hit the WTC wasn't what you thought. Im not disputing a plane hit the WTC at all but what im pointing out is that if in just ONE VIDEO there is an object that is clearly shown hitting the towers is different from the others which is the supposed to be the same plane yet visibly not the same plane then those videos arent...well just think about it. Video show planes hitting the second WTC...but why in the heck are these images of a plane so distinctly different? If one object hit the tower 2 it follows to reason that the object should look the same from every angle or in part look very similar, they dont. The tail, the wings, the engine, should all be visible from each angle; they aren't. But compare the pictures for yourself; the plane from the first pictures Ive shown is not the same plane in the other images. The first pictures put me in pain when I looked under the wing and compared it to the other videos.

post-150955-0-97249800-1412734292_thumb.

Edited by BlackShadowMist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

I mean where is the tail? What is that long thing under the wing? Why is it clearly not in any of the other images? One picture shows an engine and another shows what may actually, hypothetically, possibly, look like a something else...long. Whats your thoughts?

Where did you link those thumbnails from? That's my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackShadowMist

Where did you link those thumbnails from? That's my thoughts.

I played many different videos of 9/11 then slowed it down and took pictures and compared. Right from windows I just took photos and posted as is. The planes hitting the second tower arent the same. Look at the first images I posted and please compare it to the others. Its different planes but what does it mean. I dunno. The first pictures are what I want an explanation to. Why is there what clearly shows..a long object under the wing of the second plane, not an engine, and the plane has no tail. Yet we look at other images and dont see the same thing like night and day. Wings missing in one video, tail missing, engine visible, then in one video a long missile looking object under the wing? Im not blind ...wow. If one video was altered to show something different from the others then what was there before the video was even altered? Nothing but an explosion?
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Insaniac
I have a question for you guys.Take a look a these photos Ive taken from 9/11 video. We all know two boeing planes hit the towers but, Im just wondering why do the planes in this ABC news footage and 11 Nightly news show something I find strange. We all know what a boeing looks like but why do these planes in particular not look that way. Check out whats under the wing clearly. I paused the video and took the photos and compared. Why do these planea look distinctly different from one another if the same boing plane hit the second world trade center building?? Any explanation? Hypothetically if two different videos of the same plane impact show two clearly different objects what they heck does that mean really hit the world trade centers? 3 different pictures of the same impact show different objects. Why?

Ex-CIA pilot John Lear believes that no Boeings made impact with the TT's. And I seem to recall on-scene witnesses mention that the planes they saw were black or dark in colour. This may help narrow your search.

http://www.neonnettle.com/news/211-ex-cia-pilot-gives-sworn-testimony-that-no-planes-hit-the-twin-towers

Where did you link those thumbnails from? That's my thoughts.

How come that's important?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackShadowMist

Ex-CIA pilot John Lear believes that no Boeings made impact with the TT's. And I seem to recall on-scene witnesses mention that the planes they saw were black or dark in colour. This may help narrow your search.

http://www.neonnettle.com/news/211-ex-cia-pilot-gives-sworn-testimony-that-no-planes-hit-the-twin-towers

How come that's important?

I just want an explanation to those first pictures I posted. Look under the wing, be honest and tell me what you see. Well here the the strange part its not in other videos. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DancingCorpse

I have done hours of research, probably weeks worth, on the various shades and complexities on september the 11th, I believe it was certainly allowed to happen, whether it was by proxy or by feigned ignorance for myriad motives and latent strategic subtleties but the intricate and esoteric details and dark truths of the actual process will remain a mystery for a long long time regardless of analysis outside the inner circle. I don't subscribe to the hologram theory at all but there is intriguing tangents for it, a combination of pre-placed explosives and legitimate planes hit the towers in my opinion, no idea whether they were carrying passengers and terrorists or just for 'show' so to speak but something definitely hit them and the pentagon, there's endless debate on the impact craters and measurements and explosions, this can be batted back and forth all day and all year. Maybe even dummy planes fitting a very vague approximate to stand for as long as those buildings remained upright, you tell many viewers that a flying saucer smashed into them, locals saw a missile and heard an explosion, then you see the replays on tv of a ufo, how many would argue against the relentless media chorus in the aftermath? It wouldn't make much difference in the big picture... I'm not sure if an American Airlines hit a tower cause I wasn't there, I've read reports of apparent locals claiming it was a 757, I've read reports from apparent locals saying they saw a pencil shaped object hurtling over the city, who knows what to believe. Operation Northwoods doesn't read all that different from the events in 2001.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Insaniac
I just want an explanation to those first pictures I posted. Look under the wing, be honest and tell me what you see. Well here the the strange part its not in other videos. Why?

I see a long black thing that is not typically found on aeroplane wings to that length. It's difficult to make out but it's not too far fetched to believe a missile was attached. I mean the walls of the WTC were reduced to dust.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

How come that's important?

If it came from a photoshop file, or equivalent, I'd think that would be significant. Or if it came from another source, other than what the OP has provided, I think that that would be significant too.

Edited by Likely Guy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DecoNoir

Ex-CIA pilot John Lear believes that no Boeings made impact with the TT's. And I seem to recall on-scene witnesses mention that the planes they saw were black or dark in colour. This may help narrow your search.

http://www.neonnettle.com/news/211-ex-cia-pilot-gives-sworn-testimony-that-no-planes-hit-the-twin-towers

Knowing what else John Lear believes, I wouldn't hold his word as gospel.

How come that's important?

What I believe LG is hinting at, and what I believe is responsible for the perceived diffences between the planes (emphasis on PERCEIVED) is the simple fact that the multiple images come from multiple cameras. No two cameras are alike, and subtle differences between even two of the same model can lead to them capturing the same thing differently, to say nothing of two differing models with extremely variable lighting. That's not even getting into various camera settings!

Point is: Cameras can do some really weird crap. If they didn't, our paranormal section here would be mostly inactive.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Insaniac
Knowing what else John Lear believes, I wouldn't hold his word as gospel.

What things does John believe?

What I believe LG is hinting at, and what I believe is responsible for the perceived diffences between the planes (emphasis on PERCEIVED) is the simple fact that the multiple images come from multiple cameras. No two cameras are alike, and subtle differences between even two of the same model can lead to them capturing the same thing differently, to say nothing of two differing models with extremely variable lighting. That's not even getting into various camera settings!

Point is: Cameras can do some really weird crap. If they didn't, our paranormal section here would be mostly inactive.

I think you're grasping at straws to be honest. Multiple images from multiple camera-angles are still going to show the same plane. This happened during broad daylight and the lighting was fine in my opinion. You may have a point on the camera settings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

I just want an explanation to those first pictures I posted. Look under the wing, be honest and tell me what you see. Well here the the strange part its not in other videos. Why?

From that great detail it could be the outline of a gargoyle from an Art-Deco designed building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

Come on. This is like looking at one frame of the Zapruder film and trying to figure out who shot JFK.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DecoNoir

What things does John believe?

Anything and everything. From 9/11 conspiracies, aliens abduction, and a good touch of Apollo denial to list a few. He makes no secrets about his beliefs, you can do a quick search and come up with good reading material for a few hours.
I think you're grasping at straws to be honest. Multiple images from multiple camera-angles are still going to show the same plane. This happened during broad daylight and the lighting was fine in my opinion. You may have a point on the camera settings.

Well that's your personal opinion of course, but I'm curious as to why you think I'm grasping at straws. I make movies as a hobby. (and hope to do so professionally), so I have a pretty good idea what it takes to get something to look "right" on camera. A lot of the time you have to go through a lot of trouble to get something that matches the human eyes (and minds) expectation because the fact of the matter is that other than a few common features the human eye and a camera a very different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DecoNoir

Come on. This is like looking at one frame of the Zapruder film and trying to figure out who shot JFK.

Well you certainly can't tell who, but you can answer what and where if you know a thing about ballistics (and surplus Italian rifles).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

That's for another time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

Copied low grade footage of some stills is all that I see. I'm sorry.

With these, I could see how someone could read into them, anything they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Insaniac
Anything and everything. From 9/11 conspiracies, aliens abduction, and a good touch of Apollo denial to list a few. He makes no secrets about his beliefs, you can do a quick search and come up with good reading material for a few hours.

Well that's your personal opinion of course, but I'm curious as to why you think I'm grasping at straws. I make movies as a hobby. (and hope to do so professionally), so I have a pretty good idea what it takes to get something to look "right" on camera. A lot of the time you have to go through a lot of trouble to get something that matches the human eyes (and minds) expectation because the fact of the matter is that other than a few common features the human eye and a camera a very different.

I believe you are grasping at straws because between 'Image II' in Post 1, and 'Images I & III' in Post 2, they appear to be entirely different planes in shape, and we see both from a side POV.

Unless you regard the plane in Image II (Post 1) is actually traveling backwards whereas in Image I (Post 2) we can see perfectly well that the plane was traveling facing forwards.

It seems to me as if they are two entirely different planes in each picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DecoNoir

Copied low grade footage of some stills is all that I see. I'm sorry.

With these, I could see how someone could read into them, anything they want.

I certainly agree, it would be nice if ChrLzs could voice an opinion. I can deal with the broadstrokes, but he is far more knowledgeable on photography than I am. He can give a more satisfying answer I think.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Ex-CIA pilot John Lear believes that no Boeings made impact with the TT's. And I seem to recall on-scene witnesses mention that the planes they saw were black or dark in colour. This may help narrow your search.

http://www.neonnettl...the-twin-towers

I would like to ask John Lear where this fuselage section came from and from what type of aircraft.

220px-WtcUA175debris.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DecoNoir

I believe you are grasping at straws because between 'Image II' in Post 1, and 'Images I & III' in Post 2, they appear to be entirely different planes in shape, and we see both from a side POV.

Unless you regard the plane in Image II (Post 1) is actually traveling backwards whereas in Image I (Post 2) we can see perfectly well that the plane was traveling facing forwards.

It seems to me as if they are two entirely different planes in each picture.

Which I assume you're talking about the "missing" tail section. Not surprising really, as a camera operates by taking multiple images at a very fast speed. In playback, the brain interprets the images as one cohesive movement. So when you're dealing with a rapidly moving object (several hundred kilometers and hour in this case) your going to lose some data in between frames, same as if you move your arm rapidly during a still photo. If its a digital camera (which I think this is) data can also be lost or manipulated as the images are compressed into a format suitable for storage on the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

I would like to ask John Lear where this fuselage section came from and from what type of aircraft.

220px-WtcUA175debris.jpg

A really big Lear Jet?

Edited by Likely Guy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Lear Jet.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. :w00t:

I have to give you that one! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.