Send the video to the CIA, maybe they can track down the bird that was involved with the 911 attacks. Tracking down a bird that flies like that should be a simple task for the CIA. Seeing that they had no idea that the bird was going to attack in the first place.
@martyr2005 A JDAM was only there in your mind. If you tell your psychiatrist you've stopped taking your meds and you've been watching YouTube 9/11 nuts again, I'm sure you'll get the help you need.
This whole shot is fake. The face that should be in shadow is too bright The smoke from wtc1 is white in Naudet and Fairbanks video And where is the top right corner of the right WTC ??? Sleight of hand indeed.
From the camera position, there was no face visible that would have been in shadow.
The appearance of smoke can be radically different depending on many factors; primary light intensity, light source angle relative to the smoke, relative to the viewer, backlighting, smoke density and composition.
The "missing" portion of the tower is an illusion caused by a lack of adequate detail and anisotropic distortion.
never mind about the ufo bullshit....how does an aluminium nose-cone go through the outer steel structure of the tower, then all the way through it ,obviously hitting steel columns and concrete walls and then out through the outer steel structure again clearly intact before it blows up ...?? that has gotta be impossible!
I would agree that such a feat is impossible. Have you ever seen such an event? I haven't.
Following the point of THIS video though, do agree that the black blur is probably a bird in the near foreground and not a fast moving object behind the towers?
People take "UFO" videos near their homes all the time. They often catch bugs and call them "orbs" or "rods". They catch birds, balloons, airplanes, etc, etc, and call them "UFOs".
Yes, in a pedantic definition of the 3 words in UFO, any flying object that is unidentified is a UFO. In the context of this video, UFO means either an "alien spacecraft" or an ultra-advance craft developed by some super-secret govt agency and probably with assistance of alien technology. And when I say that people catch flying bugs and call them UFO's, I mean those people foolishly or fraudulently present them as alien spacecraft. Much like the bird in this video.
Well, Your Holiness, what would you guess the black blur is? Not any object originating from the airplane impact or debris exiting the building. I'm talking about the black blur that originates in the upper left corner in the smoke and travels along a vector roughly 45 degrees downward and to the right.
So you agree that the object is in front of the smoke coming from WTC1 and did not appear from behind the tower?
How close to the camera do think it is? Is it closer to the towers than the camera? How fast do you think it's going? Is it moving on a roughly straight vector or is it moving on a ballistic parabola?
Oh come on! I'm willing to put your theory to scrutiny. I've based my opinion of this object by calculating the speed and size of the object if it were in various points behind and in front of the building. I've determined the position and angle of the camera and studied the types of birds common to NYC just for this video. Tell me where you think the object is and I'll run some numbers to test that theory.
I read that. What are you afraid of? I mean this "UFO" claim is in the fringes of all the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I assume that if you think 9/11 was an inside job, this UFO must belong to a govt agency and not extraterrestrials. Do you think it's known aircraft type like an F15, F117, or F22? Or do you think it's a still secret aircraft? What do you think it was doing in the vicinity?
There is enough information in the video for ME to say that it is not an aircraft of any kind. There is enough information to say that the object is between the camera and the towers, but the object casts no shadow on any buildings. As the object moves, it does not move into bright sunlight, so it has to be much closer to the camera than the towers, and therefor it must be lower than the buildings behind the camera.
If the object is behind the buildings, how do you explain the appearance of the object in the thick black smoke from WTC1?
3) since I assert that the object is the size of a baseball, it appears to stayed shaded by the bldgs behind the camera because the lighting doesn't change.
4) It's not perfectly straight (as you would expect if were a high-speed distant object). But it's not a parabolic curve.
5) it's out of focus bcuz it's moving and the lens is focused on the towers.
3) If it's behind the building, why can it be seen in front of the opaque smoke from WTC1?
4) I meant straight as opposed to a downward arc. It's moving in a manner consistent with a small bird and inconsistent with a fast moving aircraft or falling object.
5) Do you see no single-frame changes within the smoke?
It's not behind WTC. It is visible in front of the smoke before it appears to emerge from behind the building. It only appears to emerge from behind the building because of the frame rate and brightness of the building.
Could someone please respond on WHERE THE FRONT COCKPIT GOES AFTER THE 28.001 TH SECOND?? WATCH IT GOES THREW INTACT.. THEN DISAPPEARS THREW THE FLAMES?
how did it go threw the building at that speed intact then you never see it reappear falling to the ground??????
the goverment was given permission to shoot the plane but it was too late, as the nose of the plane whent through the plane it is possible becouse the speed of the plane
the govt was "given" permission? Who gave the govt permission? And the object in question in this video isn't the flaming mass that exits the building. The object in question is the black streak in the upper part of the frame.
what about this explanation: a bird just past by, much closer the focal plane of the camera. It seems somehow more likely than the fetched UFO explanation that nobody has seen, don't you think??
yeah, or it could be the infamous Martian Bug People using their ability to poop out a plasma blob over great distances... Or maybe it's an object far closer to the camera like the BIM guy says. This is a tuff one... Which one to choose?
has anyone seen the second plane hit video in wich you could clearly see an explotion taking place seconds before the plane crashes, gives you a lot of questions to ask to yourself...
That's why there was a rip in space. We have a REALLY powerful toaster. Sometimes it will cause a rip in space that we don't notice right away. But we are getting better at catching and repairing them.
i dont understand? right after your supposed bird flew by there was a trail behind it that is very strange looking, how a toaster is relevant to this i dont get
Oh. Sorry. I didn't realize you were being serious. OK... Can you give me a precise minute:second within this video that best shows the "rip in space"? Please describe where I should look in the video frame to analyze the "rip".
33 seconds into "this" video after the black thing comes from the building it leaves a trail behind it. it happens right after the black thing comes from the building
"the best time to see it is between 31 and 33 sec"
Ohhh... That is debris from impact that was burning as it left the building and the black streak that lingers is the smoke that was left as the material burned. In the video, you can see that debris burning and then after the black streak, the debris becomes less bright because it probably burned out. But it has no connection to the bird I'm talking about. The 2 objects have different vectors and the 1 @ 33s has a ballistic arc.
you know.. what I don't understand is this. his first postulation. ufo? no.. o.k. fine. who knows.. 'cept technically that's what it is.. an unknown object that is flying.2nd was f-15. he said no because it was going 2000mph.. a simple lookup will tell you that's probalby true. but then he said it was a bird. an f-15 can't go 2000mph but a bird can ? lol.. uh. ok.
Wow, you really are an ignorant dumbass. There is no help so such stupidity. H/ave someone that isn't hitting the pipe explain what he has written and presented in the video. I want to stab my own eye sockets with a pencil after reading your dumbass comment.
LOL! what ?? yeah, learn english and grammar before you decide to post.. yeah, why don't you go ahead and stab your eyes out.. maybe that will keep you from posting ! lol!
gee100, I think what joe was trying to get across is that the video itself and the comments subsequent describe why it is more likely a bird going 30mph near the camera than an F-15 going 2000mph above the towers. I didn't say or imply that the object was going 2000 mph, but it would have to be going that fast if it's above the towers.
LOL! thanks for the translation.. 'cause I didn't get that at all! so here's the thing.. cruising speed for birds.. IS about 20-30 mph.. so that speed would fit.. what doesn't really fit is the projectory of this 'bird'. it is decidely towards the ground.. not a gentle angle most birds would take, but a rather steep decent. some of the fastest birds are ducks.. being chased can fly near 50.. but it's the trajetory that doesn't fit.
The trajectory of the object can only be guessed. There aren't enough frames nor in-focus information to say definitively. From the few frames we have, the object doesn't appear to travel in a stable staight line, which suggests a bird. I'm guessing that the object was not in a steep dive or "decidely towards the ground", but more level and from a point behind and to the left of the camera moving toward the right. I'm guessing it's a smaller species like a red-winged blackbird or smaller.
trajectory can be guessed.. the angle of the object as it stands is 50 degrees. the photographer is certainly not laying sideways to take the shot, thus the object in no way is going level. it is going down. small birds flap their wings about 4 times a second. there are definitely enough frames to see a wing flap. there is none. if the object was a few feet a way from ANYone going 30 miles an hour would you not be startled ? would you not flinch, move the camera, say 'what the hell was that' ?
The angle is relative to the frame. If we assume the camera is 1/2 mile from WTC2, the elevation angle is close to 30 degrees. A bird flying straight and level could easily traverse the frame at a frame-relative 50 degrees.
The shutter speed and depth of field make small bird's wings impossible to make out in a video such as this. Furthermore, I know that highly focused human observers can easily ignore something like a bird at the distance I suspect of this one.
so if you look at :58 of the video you will just start to see the object 'appearing'. if it was a few feet in front of the cameraman the object would appear to be on the building as well. The trajectory passes through part of the building where there is no smoke. you'd see the same 'smudge' of an object there too. The angle it takes clearly would pass visibly in front of the building.there's nothing that indicates the object is in front of the building at :58 but moreso coming from behind.
The smudge appears in front of the building for 1 frame. Because of the blur from focus and motion, all it does is slightly darken a corner of the building, which is all I would expect anyway.
The other thing is that the 'smudge' is distinct in color/texture from the smoke.. at :58 if it WAS in front of the building you would be able to distinguish it from the smoke.. and definitly the building. what do I think it is? I have no idea. I DONT think it's a bird, a plane, a UFO in the extraterrestrial sense, or debris from the building. It's obviously something though. 'what', remains the question.
The blur makes any texture meaningless. A blurry black bird in front of a dark gray to charcoal gray blob of smoke would be almost imperceptable.
I'm wondering more about your opinion than what you know for fact. What do think is more probable? Bird, F-15, UFO, bug, video glitch, best guess? More important, do you think it's anything that supports any conspiracy theory?
The aircraft that strikes the south tower (United flight 175) is actually a 767 and in the 1980's United Airlines changed it's aircraft paint design from all white with an orange and blue stripe to a dark grey with dark blue on the underbelly. That would be why some claim the color is grey "indicating a military aircraft"... That would be incorrect, it is in fact United flight 175.
ummmm arent U.S AirPlanes White??? well how come this one is BLACK? and if you could pause the video right when it shows the plane crashing into the building you could see its black. i might be wrong or colorblind lol. plus like i said if you could catch the plane before crashing it looks to be a Fighter Jet not a commercial plane. but thats just my opinion.
Looks to me like this dark object emerges from behind the building. It's dark, and it first appears at the edge of the visible building, not from the smoke. I'll leave speculation as to what it is up to others (ufo, government black jet, britney spears, etc.)but it doesn't appear to be a close object.
It "looked" that way to me too. Until I watched it at full speed and in reverse over and over again. In this video, do you see the distortion in the smoke along the reverse path? I see it in the smoke, then on the top/right corner of the left tower, and even a little bit at the smoke line of the right tower. Do you not see it?
Observation: The object in question clearly is seen to emerge from behind the building, at 1:23 it is seen barley emerging from the extremly lighted building. Given the size of the obect after it is fully emerged, I am forced to conclude that the omission of the object crossing in front of the lighted face of the building means it was obscured by the building and so behind the building, and that means its a rather large object. That what Im seeing anyway. Bird, no. UFO, yes.
That's because you choose to ignore the object as it passes in front of the smoke. It's a simple optical illusion that is coincidentally enhanced by the recording equipment frame rates, shutter speed, and the luma difference between the tower, the sky, and the nearly transparent "UFO" (due to focus and motion blur). I guess I'll have to reproduce the effect.
Furthermore, if it's behind the building, it obviously and significantly larger than a 767. What is larger than a 767 and capable of 2000+ MPH? Ultra secret and rather large aircraft or some kind of extraterrestrial vehicle.
In the stricted sense, and as a recent Presidential candidate points out, it is an "unidentified" flying object. But in the extraterrestrial origin sense, UFOs are astronomically improbable, but not entirely impossible. In this case, the odds of it being a piece of black liquorish being spit by an amazed eye witness far outweigh an ET UFO.
I would hope you appreciate that I'm not suggesting that there's no such things as flying objects that have not been identified. My reference is to UFOs in the extra-terrestrial sense.
I appreciate your position. As the disbelieving paranormal investigator at Beyond Investigation Magazine, I don't have the option of saying something doesn't exist. I should have put into text the chuckle that your point gave me.
Oh, you're a bona fide disbeliever...and you're paid for it. A professional disbeliever! Now that's a proper job. By the way, I'm sorry to say this, but I've tried to find references to Beyond Investigation Magazine practically all day, but to no avail. I don't believe it exists.
Hmmm, must be a government secret coverup of Beyond Investigation Magazine... I was able to find info all over the web about them. Hey, maybe they work for the government as a disinformation organization... The ba$tards!
Send the video to the CIA, maybe they can track down the bird that was involved with the 911 attacks. Tracking down a bird that flies like that should be a simple task for the CIA. Seeing that they had no idea that the bird was going to attack in the first place.
Mangravyonherface 1 year ago
AHvent u ever heard of debris
PopandCrank 1 year ago
this object is a JDAM
watch pitcures in the net, and you will see
and by the way this JDAM smart bomb....is the one who made the famous inexplicable crater at wtc6
ITS NOT FAKE
it was there
martyr2005 1 year ago
@martyr2005 A JDAM was only there in your mind. If you tell your psychiatrist you've stopped taking your meds and you've been watching YouTube 9/11 nuts again, I'm sure you'll get the help you need.
JJLatBIM 1 year ago
This whole shot is fake. The face that should be in shadow is too bright The smoke from wtc1 is white in Naudet and Fairbanks video And where is the top right corner of the right WTC ??? Sleight of hand indeed.
ProtectAus 2 years ago
From the camera position, there was no face visible that would have been in shadow.
The appearance of smoke can be radically different depending on many factors; primary light intensity, light source angle relative to the smoke, relative to the viewer, backlighting, smoke density and composition.
The "missing" portion of the tower is an illusion caused by a lack of adequate detail and anisotropic distortion.
JJLatBIM 2 years ago
never mind about the ufo bullshit....how does an aluminium nose-cone go through the outer steel structure of the tower, then all the way through it ,obviously hitting steel columns and concrete walls and then out through the outer steel structure again clearly intact before it blows up ...?? that has gotta be impossible!
batterseaspark 2 years ago
I would agree that such a feat is impossible. Have you ever seen such an event? I haven't.
Following the point of THIS video though, do agree that the black blur is probably a bird in the near foreground and not a fast moving object behind the towers?
JJLatBIM 2 years ago
It's debris from the 747.
hairy0pothead 2 years ago
Wow..thats told me maybe i can take some ufo videos at nearby home..
awiee1990 2 years ago
People take "UFO" videos near their homes all the time. They often catch bugs and call them "orbs" or "rods". They catch birds, balloons, airplanes, etc, etc, and call them "UFOs".
JJLatBIM 2 years ago
Airplane is that UFO.
UFO means unidentified flying object.
That can be anything which can fly.
And get you're eyes checked and wake up.
Mesina2 2 years ago
Yes, in a pedantic definition of the 3 words in UFO, any flying object that is unidentified is a UFO. In the context of this video, UFO means either an "alien spacecraft" or an ultra-advance craft developed by some super-secret govt agency and probably with assistance of alien technology. And when I say that people catch flying bugs and call them UFO's, I mean those people foolishly or fraudulently present them as alien spacecraft. Much like the bird in this video.
JJLatBIM 2 years ago
Dude, if that is bird, I'm Pope Joan Paul III.
Mesina2 2 years ago
Well, Your Holiness, what would you guess the black blur is? Not any object originating from the airplane impact or debris exiting the building. I'm talking about the black blur that originates in the upper left corner in the smoke and travels along a vector roughly 45 degrees downward and to the right.
JJLatBIM 2 years ago
I know what are yot talking about.
But it's to fast and to big!
And it's not close!
Mesina2 2 years ago
So you agree that the object is in front of the smoke coming from WTC1 and did not appear from behind the tower?
How close to the camera do think it is? Is it closer to the towers than the camera? How fast do you think it's going? Is it moving on a roughly straight vector or is it moving on a ballistic parabola?
JJLatBIM 2 years ago
I won't bother to anymore.
9/11 IS AN INSIDE JOB!
Mesina2 2 years ago
Oh come on! I'm willing to put your theory to scrutiny. I've based my opinion of this object by calculating the speed and size of the object if it were in various points behind and in front of the building. I've determined the position and angle of the camera and studied the types of birds common to NYC just for this video. Tell me where you think the object is and I'll run some numbers to test that theory.
JJLatBIM 2 years ago
Dude, I said I don't want bother with you anymore.
Mesina2 2 years ago
I read that. What are you afraid of? I mean this "UFO" claim is in the fringes of all the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I assume that if you think 9/11 was an inside job, this UFO must belong to a govt agency and not extraterrestrials. Do you think it's known aircraft type like an F15, F117, or F22? Or do you think it's a still secret aircraft? What do you think it was doing in the vicinity?
JJLatBIM 2 years ago
Dude, I'm not telling that UFO is some today unknow aircraft or space ship, but I telling that we can't indentified what is that.
Can you tell me which aircraft is this. No? Why? It is to fast and low quality video( what a suprise).
Mesina2 2 years ago
There is enough information in the video for ME to say that it is not an aircraft of any kind. There is enough information to say that the object is between the camera and the towers, but the object casts no shadow on any buildings. As the object moves, it does not move into bright sunlight, so it has to be much closer to the camera than the towers, and therefor it must be lower than the buildings behind the camera.
With which of these facts do you disagree?
JJLatBIM 2 years ago
So you're telling me that thing is probably faked?
That would make most sense.
Mesina2 2 years ago
It's not faked. It's a bird. Why are you so afraid? Which of these assertions is not true?
The object:
1) is between the camera and the towers.
2) casts no shadows
3) stays in the shadow of the bldgs behind the camera
4) moves along a straight line, not an arc
5) is blurred due to motion AND focus
6) is NOT behind the towers
JJLatBIM 2 years ago
0 I'm not afraid
1st you need your eyes checked
2nd where is posible to see shadow?
3rd what shadow?
4th that's straight to you?
5th blurred? Please explin, my English is terible
6th you need your eyes checked
Mesina2 2 years ago
Please confirm I understand your answers:
1) You disagree
2) You agree
3) You need clarification
4) You disagree
5) You need clarification
6) You disagree
JJLatBIM 2 years ago
You are correct.
Mesina2 2 years ago
If the object is behind the buildings, how do you explain the appearance of the object in the thick black smoke from WTC1?
3) since I assert that the object is the size of a baseball, it appears to stayed shaded by the bldgs behind the camera because the lighting doesn't change.
4) It's not perfectly straight (as you would expect if were a high-speed distant object). But it's not a parabolic curve.
5) it's out of focus bcuz it's moving and the lens is focused on the towers.
JJLatBIM 2 years ago
3rd or is behind building.
4th then why did you said straight at firs place, was t hard to say curve?
5th I focus and focus, but is still comming behind building
Mesina2 2 years ago
3) If it's behind the building, why can it be seen in front of the opaque smoke from WTC1?
4) I meant straight as opposed to a downward arc. It's moving in a manner consistent with a small bird and inconsistent with a fast moving aircraft or falling object.
5) Do you see no single-frame changes within the smoke?
JJLatBIM 2 years ago
3rd I didn't said it was close to building
5th same in 3rd
Mesina2 2 years ago
OK. In you eyes, the object appears behind the towers and is never seen in front of the towers or in the smoke.
Is that correct?
JJLatBIM 2 years ago
That object was behind tower and smoke.
Unless somebody in media faked it, that happend.
Mesina2 2 years ago
the ufo (orbs) beam weapons can cloak themselves as planes and as birds. it has been photographed all around the world.
sparkoflifemedia 2 years ago
A bird close camera?! Are shitting me?! This UFO is comming behind WTC! And is too big for bird and fast too!
Mesina2 2 years ago 2
It's not behind WTC. It is visible in front of the smoke before it appears to emerge from behind the building. It only appears to emerge from behind the building because of the frame rate and brightness of the building.
JJLatBIM 2 years ago
AN UFO.. YOu gotta be kídding me.
Weitug 2 years ago
a bird at 2000 mph. I dont think so.
semiballpenman 3 years ago
Exactly. There was nothing traveling at 2000 mph in that video. The black blur is a bird traveling at a quite normal bird speed.
JJLatBIM 3 years ago
I see your point.
semiballpenman 3 years ago
Could someone please respond on WHERE THE FRONT COCKPIT GOES AFTER THE 28.001 TH SECOND?? WATCH IT GOES THREW INTACT.. THEN DISAPPEARS THREW THE FLAMES?
how did it go threw the building at that speed intact then you never see it reappear falling to the ground??????
???
???
SecondQuest 3 years ago
Can you prove that what you see is the cockpit and only the cockpit? Can you prove it's intact?
JJLatBIM 3 years ago
the goverment was given permission to shoot the plane but it was too late, as the nose of the plane whent through the plane it is possible becouse the speed of the plane
bugz581 3 years ago
the govt was "given" permission? Who gave the govt permission? And the object in question in this video isn't the flaming mass that exits the building. The object in question is the black streak in the upper part of the frame.
JJLatBIM 3 years ago
It did fire at the plane, but missed. This explains the thermite, the collapse and bld 7. Failed shoot-down.
lol
ogrishTWO 3 years ago
but then how can a bird travel at 2000 MPH
KRISJEB81 3 years ago
because its FAKE
Purplemonkeycowchew2 3 years ago
It's not going 2000MPH. It's going reasonable bird speed but very close to the camera so it LOOKS like it's going much faster.
JJLatBIM 3 years ago
Is it a BIRD or PLANE NO IT'S FAKE
mohjojo123 3 years ago
its superman!!!!
Ackdacka 3 years ago
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha nice lolz
hoodman2007 3 years ago
Looks like the Serpent heading back to hell with the terrorist on board. And they thought they were going to get 72 virgins.
sowhatsthatthere 4 years ago 2
Bush was right the first time. That was one dumb pilot.
sowhatsthatthere 4 years ago 4
what about this explanation: a bird just past by, much closer the focal plane of the camera. It seems somehow more likely than the fetched UFO explanation that nobody has seen, don't you think??
Mussaheem 4 years ago
Isn't that what I said in the video? It was a bird.
JJLatBIM 4 years ago
Beyond Investigation Magazine is very wrong...
crazdayz 4 years ago
Well, thanks for giving us your expertise, knowledge, evidence and overwhelming proof. We are clearly better informed now, thank you for sharing...
joefarthole 4 years ago
BIM has been wrong only once: the time that we thought we made a mistake.
JJLatBIM 4 years ago
yeah, or it could be the infamous Martian Bug People using their ability to poop out a plasma blob over great distances... Or maybe it's an object far closer to the camera like the BIM guy says. This is a tuff one... Which one to choose?
joefarthole 4 years ago
has anyone seen the second plane hit video in wich you could clearly see an explotion taking place seconds before the plane crashes, gives you a lot of questions to ask to yourself...
Karlitoriv 4 years ago
Tell us the link or name of the video, and we'll analyze it.
JJLatBIM 4 years ago
then whats with the rip in space
killakadafi77 4 years ago
"then whats with the rip in space"
That was our bad. Someone left the BIM bagel toaster on HIGH again. Sorry.
JJLatBIM 4 years ago
What???
killakadafi77 4 years ago
That's why there was a rip in space. We have a REALLY powerful toaster. Sometimes it will cause a rip in space that we don't notice right away. But we are getting better at catching and repairing them.
JJLatBIM 4 years ago
i dont understand? right after your supposed bird flew by there was a trail behind it that is very strange looking, how a toaster is relevant to this i dont get
killakadafi77 4 years ago
Oh. Sorry. I didn't realize you were being serious. OK... Can you give me a precise minute:second within this video that best shows the "rip in space"? Please describe where I should look in the video frame to analyze the "rip".
JJLatBIM 4 years ago
try 33 seconds directly after the "bird"
killakadafi77 4 years ago
"try 33 seconds directly after the "bird""
Since I don't have video that far into the event, can you provide a source for such video footage?
JJLatBIM 4 years ago
33 seconds into "this" video after the black thing comes from the building it leaves a trail behind it. it happens right after the black thing comes from the building
killakadafi77 4 years ago
the best time to see it is between 31 and 33 sec
killakadafi77 4 years ago
"the best time to see it is between 31 and 33 sec"
Ohhh... That is debris from impact that was burning as it left the building and the black streak that lingers is the smoke that was left as the material burned. In the video, you can see that debris burning and then after the black streak, the debris becomes less bright because it probably burned out. But it has no connection to the bird I'm talking about. The 2 objects have different vectors and the 1 @ 33s has a ballistic arc.
JJLatBIM 4 years ago
you know.. what I don't understand is this. his first postulation. ufo? no.. o.k. fine. who knows.. 'cept technically that's what it is.. an unknown object that is flying.2nd was f-15. he said no because it was going 2000mph.. a simple lookup will tell you that's probalby true. but then he said it was a bird. an f-15 can't go 2000mph but a bird can ? lol.. uh. ok.
gee100 3 years ago
Wow, you really are an ignorant dumbass. There is no help so such stupidity. H/ave someone that isn't hitting the pipe explain what he has written and presented in the video. I want to stab my own eye sockets with a pencil after reading your dumbass comment.
joefarthole 3 years ago
LOL! what ?? yeah, learn english and grammar before you decide to post.. yeah, why don't you go ahead and stab your eyes out.. maybe that will keep you from posting ! lol!
gee100 3 years ago
gee100, I think what joe was trying to get across is that the video itself and the comments subsequent describe why it is more likely a bird going 30mph near the camera than an F-15 going 2000mph above the towers. I didn't say or imply that the object was going 2000 mph, but it would have to be going that fast if it's above the towers.
JJLatBIM 3 years ago
LOL! thanks for the translation.. 'cause I didn't get that at all! so here's the thing.. cruising speed for birds.. IS about 20-30 mph.. so that speed would fit.. what doesn't really fit is the projectory of this 'bird'. it is decidely towards the ground.. not a gentle angle most birds would take, but a rather steep decent. some of the fastest birds are ducks.. being chased can fly near 50.. but it's the trajetory that doesn't fit.
gee100 3 years ago
The trajectory of the object can only be guessed. There aren't enough frames nor in-focus information to say definitively. From the few frames we have, the object doesn't appear to travel in a stable staight line, which suggests a bird. I'm guessing that the object was not in a steep dive or "decidely towards the ground", but more level and from a point behind and to the left of the camera moving toward the right. I'm guessing it's a smaller species like a red-winged blackbird or smaller.
JJLatBIM 3 years ago
trajectory can be guessed.. the angle of the object as it stands is 50 degrees. the photographer is certainly not laying sideways to take the shot, thus the object in no way is going level. it is going down. small birds flap their wings about 4 times a second. there are definitely enough frames to see a wing flap. there is none. if the object was a few feet a way from ANYone going 30 miles an hour would you not be startled ? would you not flinch, move the camera, say 'what the hell was that' ?
gee100 3 years ago
The angle is relative to the frame. If we assume the camera is 1/2 mile from WTC2, the elevation angle is close to 30 degrees. A bird flying straight and level could easily traverse the frame at a frame-relative 50 degrees.
The shutter speed and depth of field make small bird's wings impossible to make out in a video such as this. Furthermore, I know that highly focused human observers can easily ignore something like a bird at the distance I suspect of this one.
JJLatBIM 3 years ago
gee100, to avoid more back and forth on this ultimately unresolvable detail, what do YOU think it is? Bird, Superman, F-15, or extraterrestrial UFO?
JJLatBIM 3 years ago
so if you look at :58 of the video you will just start to see the object 'appearing'. if it was a few feet in front of the cameraman the object would appear to be on the building as well. The trajectory passes through part of the building where there is no smoke. you'd see the same 'smudge' of an object there too. The angle it takes clearly would pass visibly in front of the building.there's nothing that indicates the object is in front of the building at :58 but moreso coming from behind.
gee100 3 years ago
The smudge appears in front of the building for 1 frame. Because of the blur from focus and motion, all it does is slightly darken a corner of the building, which is all I would expect anyway.
JJLatBIM 3 years ago
The other thing is that the 'smudge' is distinct in color/texture from the smoke.. at :58 if it WAS in front of the building you would be able to distinguish it from the smoke.. and definitly the building. what do I think it is? I have no idea. I DONT think it's a bird, a plane, a UFO in the extraterrestrial sense, or debris from the building. It's obviously something though. 'what', remains the question.
gee100 3 years ago
The blur makes any texture meaningless. A blurry black bird in front of a dark gray to charcoal gray blob of smoke would be almost imperceptable.
I'm wondering more about your opinion than what you know for fact. What do think is more probable? Bird, F-15, UFO, bug, video glitch, best guess? More important, do you think it's anything that supports any conspiracy theory?
JJLatBIM 3 years ago
Oh, sorry for the typing issue, my stubby fingers are murder on a sidekick. Bye the way Einstein, before you
begin correcting others, work on your own typing issues first.
joefarthole 3 years ago
Moving on... So you see the bird flight angle as too steep and further you would expect the camera operator to
react to the bird, huh? You assume the bird near the ground and you assume the bird is near the camera operator.
joefarthole 3 years ago
I would guess that the camera operator was a bit too focused on that little 767 slamming into the building and
the huge fireball that it made, along with the loud BOOM to be worried about a bird that flew by. As for the
"steep angle", it looks more like the bird is
flying from the camera operators left and above and flying away and to the camera operators right.
joefarthole 3 years ago
And yep, I am aware of more spelling issues. Sidekick be damned!
joefarthole 3 years ago
The aircraft that strikes the south tower (United flight 175) is actually a 767 and in the 1980's United Airlines changed it's aircraft paint design from all white with an orange and blue stripe to a dark grey with dark blue on the underbelly. That would be why some claim the color is grey "indicating a military aircraft"... That would be incorrect, it is in fact United flight 175.
BeyondInvestigation 4 years ago
ummmm arent U.S AirPlanes White??? well how come this one is BLACK? and if you could pause the video right when it shows the plane crashing into the building you could see its black. i might be wrong or colorblind lol. plus like i said if you could catch the plane before crashing it looks to be a Fighter Jet not a commercial plane. but thats just my opinion.
KillerZO6 4 years ago
I use that song in some of my videos.
Agumon6533 4 years ago
It was one of those famous New York crack pigeons
spikeyboyo 4 years ago
I've been trying for years to catch one of those NY crack pigeons on tape. Suckers are fast!
yegreskin 4 years ago
Looks to me like this dark object emerges from behind the building. It's dark, and it first appears at the edge of the visible building, not from the smoke. I'll leave speculation as to what it is up to others (ufo, government black jet, britney spears, etc.)but it doesn't appear to be a close object.
1499leoard 4 years ago
It "looked" that way to me too. Until I watched it at full speed and in reverse over and over again. In this video, do you see the distortion in the smoke along the reverse path? I see it in the smoke, then on the top/right corner of the left tower, and even a little bit at the smoke line of the right tower. Do you not see it?
JJLatBIM 4 years ago
Britney Spears??? I knew that b!tch was up to no good again!
joefarthole 4 years ago
Observation: The object in question clearly is seen to emerge from behind the building, at 1:23 it is seen barley emerging from the extremly lighted building. Given the size of the obect after it is fully emerged, I am forced to conclude that the omission of the object crossing in front of the lighted face of the building means it was obscured by the building and so behind the building, and that means its a rather large object. That what Im seeing anyway. Bird, no. UFO, yes.
robweese 4 years ago
That's because you choose to ignore the object as it passes in front of the smoke. It's a simple optical illusion that is coincidentally enhanced by the recording equipment frame rates, shutter speed, and the luma difference between the tower, the sky, and the nearly transparent "UFO" (due to focus and motion blur). I guess I'll have to reproduce the effect.
JJLatBIM 4 years ago
Furthermore, if it's behind the building, it obviously and significantly larger than a 767. What is larger than a 767 and capable of 2000+ MPH? Ultra secret and rather large aircraft or some kind of extraterrestrial vehicle.
JJLatBIM 4 years ago
Plus, one point that hasn't been made and it's the most relevant and compelling point of all: UFOs don't exist
TheDiamond2007 4 years ago
"UFOs don't exist"
In the stricted sense, and as a recent Presidential candidate points out, it is an "unidentified" flying object. But in the extraterrestrial origin sense, UFOs are astronomically improbable, but not entirely impossible. In this case, the odds of it being a piece of black liquorish being spit by an amazed eye witness far outweigh an ET UFO.
JJLatBIM 4 years ago
I would hope you appreciate that I'm not suggesting that there's no such things as flying objects that have not been identified. My reference is to UFOs in the extra-terrestrial sense.
TheDiamond2007 4 years ago
I appreciate your position. As the disbelieving paranormal investigator at Beyond Investigation Magazine, I don't have the option of saying something doesn't exist. I should have put into text the chuckle that your point gave me.
JJLatBIM 4 years ago
Oh, you're a bona fide disbeliever...and you're paid for it. A professional disbeliever! Now that's a proper job. By the way, I'm sorry to say this, but I've tried to find references to Beyond Investigation Magazine practically all day, but to no avail. I don't believe it exists.
TheDiamond2007 4 years ago
LOL! Thanks. I needed that.
JJLatBIM 4 years ago
Hmmm, must be a government secret coverup of Beyond Investigation Magazine... I was able to find info all over the web about them. Hey, maybe they work for the government as a disinformation organization... The ba$tards!
joefarthole 4 years ago 4
"[BIM works] for the government as a disinformation organization"
Try and prove it. I dare you.
JJLatBIM 4 years ago