Could This Be Real Proof "THE 9/11 PLANE WAS A HOLOGRAM"

[Savwafair2012 Profile]

Watch carefully, especially the left wing.

All I have done is slow down this video, zoom in, and freeze some frames -- I have not modified this footage in any other way.

Scientists who are experts in the holographic projection field and have viewed this footage say that there is no way that this could possibly be a real plane, but it is definitely a holographic projection, and that the mysterious disappearance of the left wing of the supposed "plane" was caused by part of the smoke plume getting in the way of the satellite-mounted holographic projector.

Bush administration officials have come up with a few lame excuses.

However, none of their excuses explain why the left wing clearly disappears before impact, while the right wing remains visible until it supposedly enters the building.

Take careful note that there is an explosion to the left of the supposed "fuselage" that occurs where the left wing would have been, but there is no left wing entering the building at all because there was no plane -- it was a US military missile, poorly disguised using holographic technology.

Upload to Disclose.tv

[Mumin Profile]

Hello there!
i really don't know how to say this so that it doesn't sound like I'm attacking you, but here I go:
As this is a forum, it means that somebody puts something up, with an idea, and then it's open for discussion, and people can give their opinions or just tell the original poster what they missed...
This footage was recorded with a digital camcorder. Digital camcorders use an image compression algorithm to save space that has the same basic underlying principle as MP3 compression. The algorithm is set out to ommit the information that is deemed not perceivable during "normal" watching or listening of the recorded media. In this case, the fast moving wing, when its colour gets close enough to the background, has its information just and simply "removed" to save precious space.
It's because this algorithm is not optimized for producing videos that will be reviewed in low speed and magnified. The resulting encoded videos would not be able to fit on the camcorder's recording media...

[Savwafair2012 Profile]

This is one trippy Video someone please debunk this.

You all understand this could be the straw. We already have proof that the Pentagon was never hit by a large passenger plane and now this...

It's because this algorithm is not optimized for producing videos that will be reviewed in low speed and magnified

Intresting but isn't digital video all the same? On my Handicam the images are crystal clear when I pause and go frame by frame. Because of this fact I'm having a hard time buying your explanation. But this was 2001 and maybe the cam he was using is as you say.

Upload to Disclose.tv

[Mep630 Profile]

garbage dis-info.

[Savwafair2012 Profile]

garbage dis-info.

No not really cause the Title ask's "Could This be?"

[Mumin Profile]

This is one trippy Video someone please debunk this.

You all understand this could be the straw. We already have proof that the Pentagon was never hit by a large passenger plane and now this...

Intresting but isn't digital video all the same? On my Handicam the images are crystal clear when I pause and go frame by frame. Because of this fact I'm having a hard time buying your explanation. But this was 2001 and maybe the cam he was using is as you say.

Upload to Disclose.tv

My work is directly connected to digital imaging and video post-processing. (main reason I am at DTV all the time... to see what's out there in image and video post-processing and manipulation). I see these artifacts as they are called all the time. They are directly connected to the bitrate of your final video and how much detail is moving around in the video at a given time frame.
And in this case, plane's wing is:

1) small compared to the rest of the frame
2) moving with high speed
3) very close in colour hue to the background when it disappears

add the fact that there is moving smoke in the frame (VERY bitrate intensive) and you have the perfect situation to encounter lots of artifacts and lost information.

[Siriusc Profile Website]

Yeah I was thinking it could be color saturation or some shit

[Mep630 Profile]

it is dis info, trust me.

it is digital video,which is easy to edit/fake

and it is meant to be dis-info about building 7.

building 7 was not hit by a plane and failed due to fire and collapsed. This is to make people think when you say building 7 wasnt hit by a plane was this hologram garbage.

I think it i safe to say something hit the towers, so I think you can rule out any holograms.

[Christoff522 Profile]

This is one trippy Video someone please debunk this.

You all understand this could be the straw. We already have proof that the Pentagon was never hit by a large passenger plane and now this...

Intresting but isn't digital video all the same? On my Handicam the images are crystal clear when I pause and go frame by frame. Because of this fact I'm having a hard time buying your explanation. But this was 2001 and maybe the cam he was using is as you say.

Upload to Disclose.tv

My work is directly connected to digital imaging and video post-processing. (main reason I am at DTV all the time... to see what's out there in image and video post-processing and manipulation). I see these artifacts as they are called all the time. They are directly connected to the bitrate of your final video and how much detail is moving around in the video at a given time frame.
And in this case, plane's wing is:

1) small compared to the rest of the frame
2) moving with high speed
3) very close in colour hue to the background when it disappears

add the fact that there is moving smoke in the frame (VERY bitrate intensive) and you have the perfect situation to encounter lots of artifacts and lost information.

sadly this is correct, take into account blurring, colour bleeding etc

i had a camera from 2006 and it had the same issues. and it was sony.