Strange "Cheney Hit" Video - UA175 without wings

[kerry_s]

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.


Those frames were saved from CBCNEWS documentary about Dick Cheney at 9/11. It's hard to be found on the web so I will post this movie on my "putfile" site in few days.

Notice some things:

a. there is no wings on pic.4
b. there is no left wing on pic.5

c. the camera was "locked" on the target. The operator wasn't searching for the plane on the sky such as in the Naudet Video. He hold a view on exactly that area/point where the plane hit without moving/panning etc.. How could he know where the plane would hit?

d. notice the amount of destruction of WTC1 south wall in background ('exit demolition hole' of first plane)

Questions:
1. Is this video staged? How do you think?
2. If so, is the fireball similar to other 2nd hit videos or it is faked? (it is possible that somebody was screening standing tower before the hit and then the plane and fireball were computerly added to make "a new terrific 9/11 movie")
3. Is the smoke similar to other 2nd hit videos? (different time: different smoke and shadows, sun position etc.)

(and sorry guys for my english, but I'm from Old Europe...:))

[file83]

1. What is the format of your source video? DVD? VHS? WEB?

[kerry_s]

16. Is it the matter?

What's your point? That this video was somehow, in some way altered before it was put on the web or maybe "that's not dvd... so we can't draw any sensible conlusions"?

The resolution is high enough to see that there are no wings on the very end of the flight, or that the one wing is blinking and disappearing.

Answering your question: its .mpg.

You can download this video form links posted below.

[file83]

26. I was just asking because I wanted to get a copy for myself. Jeez...

If you would have posted a link in the OP, I wouldn't have asked. Thanks for biting my head off.

[kerry_s]

27. sorry

I misunderstood your question.

Links has been posted below an dwe have .mpg, divx5 and xvid rips of this movie. Check them or simply use google.

[killtown]

2. I've made an animated gif on this video

And in most of the videos taken of the 2nd hit, most of the videographers all coincidentally seemed to know when to zoom in or out right before this "plane" flies in!

[menschmaam]

3. Naudet Setup Shot

The setup shot for this second hit cartoon is at
<http://911foreknowledge.com/setup.htm >

marcus icke's flight simulator version is at
<http://thewebfairy.com/911/marcus/perspective>

There is another version of this footage with the colors numbed down supposedly found by Karl Schwarz, who claimed that this footage was exclusive to a Canadian 911 Feed.

Bluescreening is what makes the wings disappear. Actually, any part that is reflecting the same color as the background will vanish.

[killtown]

4. Yep, blue screen!

that would explain it!


"Sky Captain's blue screen magic

Sci-fi adventure film Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is the first major movie to be made using entire sets created with "blue screen" digital technology."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3686084.stm

[kerry_s]

17. Thx!

many thanks for these links!!!

everybody should check them!!!

and now i will try to find somewhere naudet brothers dvd or exceptions from it. By the way, do you rememeber these idle firemen sticking around, doing nothing (yep, there was a GAS LEAK) and waitning for the first plane...

ps. you have beautiful avatar:)

[petgoat]

5. Welcome to DU, kerry.

Your English is fine. And certainly it's gobs better than my Polsku!

[kerry_s]

19. :)

have you heard about "kiełbasa" or "wyborowa"?:) And last but not least, we have the most beautiful women in the world!!! :)

[petgoat]

25. Kielbasa I've heard about. Wyborowa is a new one on me.

I agree the women are gorgeous--many bloodlines make for pretty women.

Somebody said the Poles are the most literate people in the world--not only
can they read, they do read.

[mirandapriestly]

6. more pics on terrorize

you can see a delineation between the space around the plane and the background, like a line where it was pasted in kind of effect. Another possibility is they were cutting something out they didn't want you to see. But, what's weird is the plane disappears into the building, then a hole neatly appears in the next frame.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit9/

[Kevin Fenton]

7. Your English is fine

You can find the video in Loose Change (2nd edition) at 35:09. The cameraman sure aint' locked on target.

The engines are visible in all the frames. Are you suggesting they photoshopped engines in, but forgot the wings?

I don't see any destruction to the south wall of WTC 1 - it's obscured by smoke.

[kerry_s]

20. I disagree

"The cameraman sure aint' locked on target."

Perhaps we have different copies of LC2ed :) LC has 24 seconds of cheney hit video, its from 34.58 to 35.22, the plane is heared (but not very loud as for plane flying 50 meters above the ground or so).

And this guy is really deaf! He is centering his camera on the upper part of WTC2 all the time.

"He was filming smoke!" Hahaha. everybody in his situation will look up for that deafeninng noise, but not him.

So I think HE WAS DEAF AS A LOG.

"The engines are visible in all the frames. Are you suggesting they photoshopped engines in, but forgot the wings?"

We are talking about wings. But regarding your poin tof view yes, they were or are dump and they think that other people are so dump as they are so it is possible. It is an amateur work. i fyou think that this is a veeery bad copy so we still have a problem with the cameraman. He isnt shooting cars or flowers or windows or people. He have an iron arm and stopped ears.

"I don't see any destruction to the south wall of WTC 1 - it's obscured by smoke."

I see a big black hole obscured by the smoke like by an octopus.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. How did the cameraperson know where the plane would hit?

Apparently the second jet came in over lower Manhattan and the noise was very noticable, especially since jets normally never fly directly over Manahattan, they always go around it. Since the first tower was already on fire everyones attention was already focused there.

[Kevin Fenton]

9. He didn't

He was fliming the fire in the North Tower from the south. Judging by the movement of the camera, he seems to have heard something a second or two before the plane hit.

[seatnineb]

11. Perhaps he heard the roar of this UFO which did not hit the WTC!

[Kevin Fenton]

12. Good resolution!

I can even see the "UFO" flapping its wings.

[seatnineb]

13. Well at least that UFO has wings!........unlike flight 175!

[Kevin Fenton]

14. If it doesn't have wings...

... then what's holding the engines on?

[seatnineb]

15. Probably the pixels!

[rman]

10. How does this fit with other footage (some of it live), that does show

a plane with wings?

[Woody Box]

18. The logical trap of the bluescreen theories

Please answer this question:

If the Second Plane crash was only a doctored video, if the plane didn't exist in reality -

Why have the doctors been so sloppy that video researchers are able to spot numerous frames where the wings disappear?

The task to produce a perfectly faked video is much more simple than to send a remote-controlled airliner into a tower, I hope we can agree on that. So why were the doctors so sloppy?

This is the big logical flaw in every detection of video irregularities.

Anyway, kerry_s, I noticed you changed your mind!?

[kerry_s]

21. A very simple answer

"If the Second Plane crash was only a doctored video, if the plane didn't exist in reality"

I'm not talkin about "no ua 175 at all". I'm expressing the fact that this perticular video has been faked: the plane and I think the fireball also. We got probably a proof: The baground has been taken from naudet brothers shot, there are the same discolourations:





I think that "cnn breaking news video" is real. I believe that there were planes, but there were swapped (as we can see on flight tracker videos - two blips on one time) and there is no need of "holograph missiles".
There were planes but there were swapped with remote controlled boeings (not missiles) full of explosives, this is why they desintegrated on impact!!!!!
But this video is clearly a FAKE!


"- Why have the doctors been so sloppy that video researchers are able to spot numerous frames where the wings disappear?"

Why the real perpetrators of 9/11 were so sloppy that you were able to make all your researches of Cleveland, twin planes etc? why there were so dump that they make a shankville crater without any plane debrises? Why there were so dumb that they left so many clues, so many tracks?


"This is the big logical flaw in every detection of video irregularities."

Think about that famous pentagon 5 frames released in 2002 y.- they aren't doctored? They are true and flawless? But where is the plane?

There is another, better question: if WTC videos are fake, why they don't make at once a fake pentagon video??? Maybe it isn't so easy to do...


"Anyway, kerry_s, I noticed you changed your mind!?"

In which way? I don't understand:)

[kerry_s]

22. voice of naudet brothers in background???

Check this divx5.1 version:

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit9/911.wtc.2.hit.southwest.below.2(divx5.1).avi

And this has 28 sec and voice of cameramen!!!!:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit9/911.wtc.2.hit.southwest.below.3.avi

And tell me, in which language they are speaking? I dont understand them at all. Arent they talking in french!!??

(source site: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit9/)

[Woody Box]

23. Okay, sorry...I probably got you wrong

I got the impression you're proposing noplane/bluescreen scenarios. I didn't realize your argument is restricted to this particular video.

I stand behind the principle of my objection, however. Faking videos is pretty easy, so why are there so many flaws?

Why the real perpetrators of 9/11 were so sloppy that you were able to make all your researches of Cleveland, twin planes etc?

This is a difference. It's much harder to hide an emergency landing of an airplane than to fake a video - that's why there are so many hints left behind, if you look properly.

[kerry_s]

24. so why are there so many flaws?

I can turn back your question:

If this is a non-faked up video, why there is so many flaws???

Remember these faked osama bin ladens in 2001 and 2004 ??? There were also flaws and everybody was happy! We got them caught red-handed! Remember nick berg no-blood video? Flaws flaws flaws.

So I disagree that "making a fake video is very easy". As we see almost all fake up video are full of flaws, made by "amateurs"... They probably think that world is full of ignorants (and they have a right:() so they needn't make perfect fakes.

And check "lotr: return of the king" fx: flaws, flaws, very poor blue-screen with artefacts, digitalized horses nad mumakils. If in 11 oscars movie we can found amateur effects why not in simple fakery?