CGI in footage of 9/11 plane film?

[mojo]

I never noticed perhaps others did not either? proof of cgi?

JxEXejQZdtg

[KiwiElf]

Raf would be the expert to answer that me thinks. It's certainly possible. But I do think there were real planes that hit the towers (simply because I was watching it live on CNN at the time - sure - not the same as being there and I'm still open to the possibility of it being a clever hologram covering what it really was) and saw the second plane come in (also could have been rigged in advance I guess). What bothered me was the aircraft showed up as completely black when it should have been reflecting metal/silver from that angle.

[ghostrider]

the hologram technology the ptb have can simulate , heat , sound , and everything they need to do a plane hitting a building ... is there any footage of the first plane ??? or just smoke from the first building, and CGI on the second ...

[Ellisa]

It seems to me that even if the video was fake all that proves is that this image itself is faked-- it does not prove that no plane hit the building, it merely proves that this is not a video showing that happening. The fact that it is distributed world-wide does not mean it is, or is not, a fake. As KiwiElf has pointed out the colour of the plane all wrong too. But a fake video of an event does not negate the event's validity. It's just a fake video using possibly CGI or some other form of imaging.

[KiwiElf]

This was the only known footage of the first plane strike (and could also be cgi/hologram):

Ys41jnL2Elk

This 45 min doco claims to have "new" footage of the first plane strike

Nscv_S-5pRI

[KiwiElf]

Also, during the live CNN broadcast - and I've never seen it again in any subsequent doco - was the pall of yellowish smoke coming out of the basement street level of the first tower to collapse - a good 20 - 30 seconds before it actually collapsed :confused:

[crosby]

see this post here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?63221-Flight-175--Rare-Video-Must-See-

it is worth reviewing.....
corson

[Syl]

But a fake video of an event does not negate the event's validity. It's just a fake video using possibly CGI or some other form of imaging.

imo it does, and its 'not just' a video its a video showed to millions and millions of people on that one day and after,. by the MSM,. not just a video,.. but a video with implications.

[Sunny-side-up]

2 Towers hit and burning, burning with all the aviation fuel, that supposedly burnt for so long that it melted beams and girders!

Well flight 737 that hit the pentagon were was all the intense burning fuel?

Shouldn't it have spread through the whole side of the building, burning and burning?

[Spartacus]

I think this video is genuine.

1. The aircraft is seen smashing through the glass facade of the building and the subsequent explosion comes out the other side. The aircraft disintegrated inside the building. Thousands of tons of metal and aviation fuel travelling at 250 mph continued along the aircraft's trajectory.

2. The building behind which the aircraft's left wing passes is actually in the foreground.

[AlaBil]

Paul Craig Roberts had a recent article about this here http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/09/10/too-many-years-of-lies-from-mossadeq-to-911/

I loved these two parts of the article...


Actually, you do not need any of the expert evidence to know that the US government’s story is false. As I have previously pointed out, had a few young Saudi Arabians, the alleged 9/11 hijackers, been capable of outwitting, without support from any government and intelligence service, not only the CIA and FBI, but all sixteen US intelligence services, the intelligence services of Washington’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad, the National Security Council, NORAD, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Traffic Control, and defeat Airport Security four times in one hour on the same morning, the White House, Congress, and the media would have been demanding an investigation of how the National Security State could so totally fail.

Instead, the President of the United States and every government office fiercely resisted any investigation. It was only after a year of demands and rising pressure from the 9/11 families that the 9/11 Commission was created to bury the issue.


Common everyday experiences of Americans refute the government’s story. Consider, for example, self-cleaning ovens. How many American homes have them? Thirty million? More? Do you have one?

Do you know what temperature self-cleaning ovens reach? The self-cleaning cycle runs for several hours at 900 degrees Fahrenheit or 482 degrees Celsius. Does your self-cleaning oven melt at 482 degrees Celsius. No, it doesn’t. Does the very thin, one-eighth inch steel soften and your oven collapse? No, it doesn’t.

Keep that in mind while you read this: According to tests performed by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), only 2% of the WTC steel tested by NIST reached temperatures as high as 250 degrees Celsius, about half the temperature reached by your self-cleaning oven. Do you believe that such low temperatures on such small areas of the WTC towers caused the massive, thick, steel columns in the towers to soften and permit the collapse of the buildings? If you do, please explain why your self-cleaning oven doesn’t weaken and collapse.

In Section E.5 of the Executive Summary in this NIST report http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101019 it says: “A method was developed using microscopic observations of paint cracking to determine whether steel members had experienced temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C. More than 170 areas were examined . . . Only three locations had a positive result indicating that the steel and paint may have reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C.” Analysis of steel “microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degrees C for any significant time.”

[Lifebringer]

S's gonna hit the fan, and Snowden's just he top of the iceberg. Those underdwellers of evil intent, think they are hidden. With the bunker buster technology, they hope to penetrate all bunkers, they know the city codes of depth on the building permits.

The turning over of the chafe, will come, not by their hands, but by Christ, whose the sower of the plan, by the kingdom of heaven. No one know more than he at this time, for he is worthy. Divine femine the balance of love and creation, is about to hit these fools like a V8 slap.

Clink, clink! You're going to jail.
Confession may save the rest of their lives behind bars, but non confession of treason is by their own laws death!

[william r sanford72]

my last clear day light sighting of the craft i posted about on my profile page leads me to believe that there is holographic tech far beyond what is currently known to public and then some.the daylight sighting of the craft over my head was followed by i believe a dc 10 or 9..airplane..over a corn field..across from are house..it looked so real..i could see every detail..they left out 1..crucial detail..no sound..nadda..it appeared to be getting ready to land..at about 1000 to 500 feet it rose slowly up..it was close enough that i know longer needed the binoculars.it should have been rattling windows and scaring the crap outta everyone..it was compleatly silent.before avalon..before the internet..i concluded that it was a craft being made to look or to hide behind the image..due to memorys coming back to me that i surpressed my conclusions have basicly flipped.i dont have proof..just images and memorys that are forever burnt into my minds eye and recall...that was 3 years ago..i still can see it clearly as i write this.i will never forget it.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Come on guys, think!

(sorry if this appears hostile or if i come across that way, just grumpy today so I apologise in advance.)

The whole notion of holograms and CGI fakery is just ridiculous. Why would they need CGI to depict two planes hitting two towers, when they actually have two plains hitting two towers? - unless one is a total nut, and that in reality they believe nothing at all happened in NY on 9/11, and everyone, even the 8million or so who live there are 'in on it'. Bloody hell. Absurd.

The aircraft passed behind the building because that building is in the foreground, and the WTC is in the background. Simple! It's obvious when you review it a few times. I invite anyone who disbelieves that to investigate further, and identify that building on a map of lower Manhattan, then identify the position of the camera in relation to the scene, and then compute the trajectory of the plane. I do believe it would be proven that the building is definitely in the foreground, and the plane (its wing) did pass between this building and the WTC.

Because I say again (ripping hair out as i say it). The whole notion of holograms and CGI fakery is just ridiculous. Why would they need CGI to depict two planes hitting two towers, when they actually have two plains hitting two towers? OMG

Kinetic energy easily accounts for the plane slicing its way into the building, like a warm knife through butter. It's all about Velocity, and Mass: kinetic energy. It's the same process at work that accounts for a minute speck of dust that can penetrate the outer shell of a space craft. Certainly the mass is tiny in that instance, but the velocity (10s of thousands of mph) does the damage. I'm no structural engineer, or physicist, but with my common sense and discernment (ie not being deluded, insane, or just a shill pedalling disinfo and yet further confusion to hide the real truth) a 200 ton mass travelling in excess of 500 mph is not going to simply crumple up like a tin can when hitting this building. If it did, then I would cry fake!

You know a palm leaf can inbed itself into the hard wood of a tree if propelled by enough force, like in a hurricane - an effect which has been recorded. So I would expect this plane to fly right into this building, almost all the way through, until its reduced mas (due to the subsequent destruction) meets enough internal resistance to impeded its progress. And guess what! that is exactly what happened.

sorry again, /rant over

[william r sanford72]

dont know about 911 being a hologram.cant claim to know .i have zero input.i seen what i seen.dont no about anyone else.just seems after what i saw in the field.well it forced me to rethink everything.the plane confused me more than the ufo over my head.use to feel just like star mariner and would to this day if i hadnt seen the plane.whatever 911 was.is.it stinks no matter the spin.deep stink.waves are still being felt from it to this day.

[Arak]

My first impression was:

I think that those anomalities occured in video becouse of the extreme slow motion process. There is a plugin called Twixtor that is designed to slow videos extreamly like that - but it is not perfect and sometimes errors like those presented here do happen. And I know this all becouse I have used that plugin and work as a video editor / compositor.

[toad]

How do you explain all the home video footage? Could everyone have been in on it? Its easy to think that the US gov't was in on the planning and execution and allowed some radicals their day of jihad in order to server there purpose.

[DouglasDanger]

I don't think it matters How it was done or if certain aspects where changed on how it was done after it was done, that can be debated from many angles and has been. What made it happen no longer matters What matters now is that it did happen, some a$$holes created something that killed many lives to further an agenda. Those people will never be able to pull off such a thing again, they will try ( and have),
but in their attempt to pull the wool comforter over eyes they pulled to tight and some could see through the streched out material what was happening, those who trusted what they had previously said and done. IMHO this event was the single event that caused the effect we see today in terms of questioning the truth validity and ridiculousness of the blanket they provide to keep us warm and safe, if they would have gone with something over seas like a bombing or sinking of another boat we would still be snuggled warm under their fear security blanket of lies. ( they cannot even get a heart wrenching crime involving the mass murder of children or women and children to stop people from questioning the lie they are attempting to push , it keeps backfiring and having their agenda questioned, as we have seen with Sandy hook and the Syrian chemical agenda, neither agenda did what was attempting to be done, enrage America to demand the blanket of security and safety be knitted bigger to keep us warmer and safer)


The days of murdering people they deem expendable to further an agenda are over. Now come the days and nights of the warm snuggy of transparency, and this snuggy allows our hands to be free and unbound infront of us so they are easily grasped and held out for the world to see, not to mention be beat down should they need to be spanked and these children do need a whopping to teach them respect for life. Open hand or shall we let them go out and cut thier own switch? should be the debate we now discuss.

[Akasha]

The aircraft passed behind the building because that building is in the foreground, and the WTC is in the background. Simple!

I'm with Star Mariner on this one. Plane passes over shorter skyscraper in the foreground......derrrrrr.

[frozen alchemy]

As far as the gray color of the plane goes, it was a Continental Airlines plane which are painted gray on the underside. They have a rather bright blue tail and it's hard to see that on the video, but it appears to be accurate. Why the underside looks the way it does otherwise though, I have no clue. It's not smooth but seems to have lateral outcroppings on the body of the under plane. There have been thoughts that twin flights were used in all cases, one that the passengers were really on (they were disposed of otherwise and the ones who made phone calls may have been playing a part in what they thought was an exercise), and then remote controlled drones were flown into the buildings. Flight 175 was going at near Mach I speeds for the last 4 minutes and 40 seconds, while going from cruising speed to sea level and everyone on board would have been weightless and thrown back into their seats and unable to move if buckled in, at the very least. The airframe of a commercial jet would NOT have been able to handle those speeds at sea level, it would have broken apart, which further indicates some other kind of plane was used for the impacts.

As far as that building goes, I've tried to go onto Google maps and figure out which building it is, but it appears to be in front of the plane; the shot was taken from quite high up, and from southwest of the location of the south tower.

Something I *would* like a video expert to explain to me is, why on ALL the video feeds of that day is there a blackout of a second or so right at the moment the plane hits? At the time I thought it was because the feed was going through the tower somehow but that appears to not be the case. It's possible it was an EMP effect and that a small nuke was exploded at the same time.

See Jeff Prager's work, 'the anonymous physicist' and Ed Ward, MD for an absolutely final assessment of what really took the towers down. NYC was nuked and don't think they would hesitate to do it again if they need to gin up another war against the enemy du jour.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

I read somewhere (maybe here?) that a psychic or remote viewer was tasked with finding out what happened to the passengers and she reported that they were taken to a holding room at one of the airports and had their throats slit by men in military garb.

If anyone knows where I could find that report again, I'd appreciate it. Rang true to me.

[Bill Ryan]

2. The building behind which the aircraft's left wing passes is actually in the foreground.

I think it is:

http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/tdgh-sep/World%20Trade%20Center%209-11.jpg

http://projectavalon.net/911_plane_wing.jpg

[tnkayaker]

you all can argue all day and night, but i ask you all this, WHERE DID THE THERMITE COME FROM THAT HAS PICKLED GROUND ZERO??? only 2 countries can possess thermite legally in the world, us and russia, so where in the hell did it come from pickling ground zero, when you answer me that question ill listen to all the other hollow rhetoric, peace,dennis

[Atlas]

Hi tnkayaker,

European countries use Thermite as well. See Railroad Thermite Welding in Sweden (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=034_1342023057&comments=1).

[avid]

Reminds me of the good old days on the first Camelot forum - with John Lear and the "No Planes" mega-discussions. They discussed cgi then - when the nose of the plane could not possibly have been where it was shown... hmmmm.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

2. The building behind which the aircraft's left wing passes is actually in the foreground.

I think it is:

http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/tdgh-sep/World%20Trade%20Center%209-11.jpg

http://projectavalon.net/911_plane_wing.jpg

Thanks Bill, that clears that up once and for all!



Something I *would* like a video expert to explain to me is, why on ALL the video feeds of that day is there a blackout of a second or so right at the moment the plane hits? At the time I thought it was because the feed was going through the tower somehow but that appears to not be the case. It's possible it was an EMP effect and that a small nuke was exploded at the same time.

Well I heard a very plausible theory for that. It was presumably due to the towers themselves that had antennas/transmitters on the roof, which would have been used to stream the live footage of the day's events from cameras in situ, and when those towers were hit by the vast impacts of the planes then there was understandably an interruption in those feeds, for a split second. I can’t prove that, I don’t know that. But that was what I heard – and those towers did have transmitters on the roof – so it seemed a good explanation to me.

[mojo]

here's another interesting clip.
ltP2t9nq9fI

[sigma6]

This is just brilliant, if this is an authentic video parsing of the original, this is absolutely brilliant. Ingenious, and that means, just like the author says, we have all been missing the total giveaway for over 12 years!!! I definitely didn't catch it on the first slo-mo showing it.... BRILLIANT observation... almost embarrassing, it is so obvious....

This puts to rest for once and for all... that 10-15% who believe they actually saw a plane (as per September Clues) which itself is actually statistical proof that in fact there was no plane. At any rate there is NO WAY anyone saw this plane, because it has the tell tale bulge that was later explained to be a "CGI ball" that was later camouflaged by the CGI plane but still ended up sticking out... so it all fits...

Check this out...

eL-rU3CCPkc

[ThePythonicCow]

This is just brilliant, if this is an authentic video parsing of the original, this is absolutely brilliant. Ingenious, and that means, just like the author says, we have all been missing the total giveaway for over 12 years!!!
I just merged your new thread with a previous thread discussing this video.

You might find Bill Ryan's Post #21 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?63339-CGI-in-footage-of-9-11-plane-film&p=735244&viewfull=1#post735244), above, interesting :).

[Sunny-side-up]

At point 1:14 1:15 ish of the vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-rU3CCPkc[/url]
where dose the left wing tip go? it goes behind clear blue sky? Avery, very dense heat haze? or just very sloppy masking!

[ghostrider]

I missed it , it took someone else to point it out ... I watched it happen live and still couldn't believe it ... I saw videos on air of witnesses that said they heard an explosion on the first building and no plane ... isn't it neat the news media had a camera in just the right place to film the suspect plane coming in ...

[ghostrider]

2. The building behind which the aircraft's left wing passes is actually in the foreground.

I think it is:

http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/tdgh-sep/World%20Trade%20Center%209-11.jpg

http://projectavalon.net/911_plane_wing.jpg

Thanks Bill, that clears that up once and for all!



Something I *would* like a video expert to explain to me is, why on ALL the video feeds of that day is there a blackout of a second or so right at the moment the plane hits? At the time I thought it was because the feed was going through the tower somehow but that appears to not be the case. It's possible it was an EMP effect and that a small nuke was exploded at the same time.

Well I heard a very plausible theory for that. It was presumably due to the towers themselves that had antennas/transmitters on the roof, which would have been used to stream the live footage of the day's events from cameras in situ, and when those towers were hit by the vast impacts of the planes then there was understandably an interruption in those feeds, for a split second. I can’t prove that, I don’t know that. But that was what I heard – and those towers did have transmitters on the roof – so it seemed a good explanation to me.

sheet metal went right through concrete and steel without breaking until it got inside the building... man was soooo so asleep in 2001 ... a fire half way up melted the bottom steel supports , huh ??? I was ready to go to afganistan and look for a saudi that was hiding in pakastan funded by Israel and trained by the CIA ...lol

[Bill Ryan]

At point 1:14 1:15 ish of the vid

where dose the left wing tip go? it goes behind clear blue sky? Avery, very dense heat haze? or just very sloppy masking!

I THINK -- but am not sure -- that it might be a partial reflection. The right side of the building in the foreground is just visible (at quite a sharp angle to the camera), but looks light-colored and highly reflective. Watch that segment again with the reflection possibility in mind.

The building is definitely in the foreground, though.

[mojo]

Agreed the second one is even more intriguing, they have it as livebroadcast yet the builld 7 is still there?

[Sunny-side-up]

Hi Bill Love and Light




At point 1:14 1:15 ish of the vid

where dose the left wing tip go? it goes behind clear blue sky? Avery, very dense heat haze? or just very sloppy masking!

I THINK -- but am not sure -- that it might be a partial reflection. The right side of the building in the foreground is just visible (at quite a sharp angle to the camera), but looks light-colored and highly reflective. Watch that segment again with the reflection possibility in mind.

The building is definitely in the foreground, though.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-rU3CCPkc[/url]
I have looked again with you point in mind and yes the building is in the foreground, not against that at all!

But the more I study the frames where the planes wing starts to go behind the building I see computer program masking!
The main area to study is the Right Angle area of the building to the right, the wing tip goes behind lumpy, bumpy blue sky masking!
Zoom in on the building/wing frames.

The whole wing behind the building sequence looks very dodgy to me!

And like ghostrider says, the media just happened to have a camera filming a pointless area of space! I,E the building and sky!

[toad]

you all can argue all day and night, but i ask you all this, WHERE DID THE THERMITE COME FROM THAT HAS PICKLED GROUND ZERO??? only 2 countries can possess thermite legally in the world, us and russia, so where in the hell did it come from pickling ground zero, when you answer me that question ill listen to all the other hollow rhetoric, peace,dennis

What are you talking about, people use thermite all the time, in many countries, you can buy thermite kits online.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exothermic_welding

It helps to know a thing or two before you start assuming things. This is why theories like this continue to persist after consistent counter rational. These questions keep getting asked and no one pays attention to the answers.

[DeDukshyn]

It seems to me that even if the video was fake all that proves is that this image itself is faked-- it does not prove that no plane hit the building, it merely proves that this is not a video showing that happening. The fact that it is distributed world-wide does not mean it is, or is not, a fake. As KiwiElf has pointed out the colour of the plane all wrong too. But a fake video of an event does not negate the event's validity. It's just a fake video using possibly CGI or some other form of imaging.

I think you are going to have explain the motivation for spending huge resources to fake something that was real and didn't need to be faked? People don't spend this sort of money without the motivation being strong enough to do so, especially in faking their own videos of something real will be removing credibility of the event's "realness" -- counter productive, that would be. ;)

I have seen in other videos that wing disappear at that exact time with nothing but sky in the background - no buildings around, because the camera shot at a different angle. It is almost as though the plane WAS a hologram positioned over the actually flying vessel, but they had specific camera angles already set in place to compensate -- the amateur videos would have been from angles not expected - hence the that wing disappearing as well at unexpected times.

Interesting to consider. Here is another angle where the wing vanishes from view against the sky -- there are others. Hologram theory: one point. ;)

P2rDeLC31is

[sigma6]

You can now see based on Bills very first picture, that whole section of buildings in the bottom left corner is nothing more then a super imposition... once you look for it it is unmistakable... this sort of thing has been spotted over and over and over... we all know who has the time and resources to manage such a huge campaign of dis-info... All roads lead to Rome...

[Ultima Thule]

Re: the wing disappearing. When an image is created digitally and especially in jpeg format(which essentially is the basis for mpeg video), it is based on algorhitms, not actual data as is the case with analogue old school films. In cases of thin filaments which have low contrast over background it is possible that the algorhitm determines that area as being totally of background color. This happens also when a larger image with thin objects is calculated down to smaller pixel dimensions - thin gets thinner and at some point will be approximated to not being there at all.

This logic imo can explain that wing disappearing. It is much simpler than hologram. I guess occams razor might be used regarding this particular clip.

UT

EDIT: also if the wing disappearance would be due to faulted hologram, it would have to be missing from all the other videos of that particular plane also.

[Spartacus]

Three more views of the second aircraft hitting the WTC.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQuRbAs-JLQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q5nE-k0tUQ

Does anyone really still think these are all CGI?

[ThePythonicCow]

Three more views of the second aircraft hitting the WTC.

...
Does anyone really still think these are all CGI?

Nice finds - thanks.

There is a consistency about them that suggests to me that whatever they are showing was actually present to be seen, not simply some post-production cgi effect.

What I see however has problems. The "plane" seems to melt into the exterior wall of WTC2, followed by an outward high explosive blast. By other calculations, I have also come to understand that the "plane" was traveling faster than possible, without simply breaking up, for that elevation (almost sea level.)

I am suspecting fakery, but using high explosives and real time holographic projections and/or a high speed plane made to appear to be a commercial jet liner, not (primarily at least) using after the fact cgi effects.

[DeDukshyn]

Three more views of the second aircraft hitting the WTC.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQuRbAs-JLQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q5nE-k0tUQ

Does anyone really still think these are all CGI?

Re: Ultima Thule's doubting my hologram post. I already posted another of the wing disappearing against blue sky -- Spartucus 3rd video above shows the same from another angle. I have seen others yet. Someone will have to explain this to me as to why that wing would vanish at the exact same time-point in the exact same way as even in two other videos where it vanishes against the sky (or other background) in the exact same way the video in the OP has it's wing vanish (by computer mistake). It was the exact same "disappearing" -- not just three cases of it, all filmed at different angles; one angle -- the official media one, we can see where and why the mistake was made, which showed up also in all the other videos. This means the mistake was in real-time, independent of video or angle. The only viable explanation is some sort of holography.

I feel that people would not want to believe how bad they may have been duped. The evidence is overwhelming, and I myself wondered how some of the blatant evidence in many videos took so long for most of us to really be able to see for what it was; almost a mass hypnosis ....

[SKIBADABOMSKI]

2 planes (or missiles ) were flown into the towers. (doesn't matter what we see hitting them) There were no people on board the planes or missiles or whatever. ((((They would NEVER of risked using a real hijack))) this had to happen on this day.

Towers burn and fall and then they stupidly pulled another building down and then flew a missile into a field and then another missile into the Pentagon.

Try and find anyone that has relations that died on the planes. Like seriously try and find them. Study the ones whom claim to have lost loved ones on the said hijacked planes. Also those flights didn't actually exist. It's obviously gone way past just knowing it was a staged event.

I know one thing for sure....
A lot of people got a nice slice of this big pie. Lots of crumbs also.. in fact I dare say they made a big apple crumble.. excuse the pun.

[outerheaven]

I honestly wasn't really open to the CGI theory. I live in NYC now and I know one person -- who I count as one of my good friends -- who claims to have seen Flight 175 fly into the South Tower. So the theory that the planes were CGI was a hard one for me to swallow.

That being said, as much as I love my friend, I will admit that he is a serious exaggerator, haha. Seriously, I love him, but he's known for BS'ing in order to tell a good story. I can respect that, it's part of what makes him fun to be around. But after reading this thread and looking deeper into the issue, I'm not so sure about his account.

If you have 45 minutes to spare, I recommend watching the following video. It's kind of hokey in terms of presentation, but I think the guy raises some really great points.

04LCvk2KYfY

The good thing about my friend is that he has a penchant for coming clean when you press him, and he's totally open to government conspiracies and the like. He'll get a big smile on his face and admit he's lying. It's like he doesn't even know he's doing it, he can't help it. But he's still aware enough that if you confront him, he'll realize that he's been spinning a tall tale and come clean.

I'll show him this video next time I hang out with him and see how he reacts.

[Oouthere]

Removed as I don't wish to argue.

[Oouthere]

Removed as I don't wish to argue.

[Ultima Thule]

Could you Dedukshyn take captures of the exact moments where the wing disappears in different videos. If I am understanding what is meant to be the same moment, it seems to me that whatever anomaly it is, it is happening to different wing. To understand exactly what you see, please help me see it.

UT