pre911 WTC UFO

S

Skull

Registered Senior Member
This maybe old news to some...
*this is not the bird/ufo or even the bird/angel seen on 'Sept11' as the second plane hits, but yet another fateful day in '94.

For those people who have seen it, see below... For those who haven't... GET IT, GET IT NOW!
best evidence i've found in over 110 meg of downloads on the subject and similar.

UFO WTC pre911, 5+meg SciFi.com version (as far as i can discern, now only available on KazaA.com- file sharing).

(edited from post at SciFi/happens)
i seen the complete scifi version for the first time 2 weeks ago(now). Chills down my spine... i had to know more and searched the net. all i found was moronic opinions that hold no weight when moving step by step through the footage.

1. does the object arrive while lady has here back to the wtc talking to the cameraman? a question i pose to any analysts
2. the object is clearly seen between the two buildings.
3. the lady sees the object as she is about to take a photo of the wtc herself(with her camera). then she points, obviously noting the object in HER cameras viewer. she says, "whats that?" (video camera starts the zoom in)he says "its a blimp", shes says "no its no... its over there". the camera swings to follow.
4. as the object moves out over the city, the pilots head is turned to the right, as if attempting to follow the object himself(himself...note the short hair and headset, left side of head is all black-'hair' while the right side is skin colour-'skin', suggesting that the pilot was tracking the object as well)
5. (now a little logical conjecture)the guy with the video is not looking through an eye piece(viewer) but a flip open screen. thus he has little difficulties tracking the object. but in sayng that i feel it was predominantly luck capturing the object soooooooo well, especially the final frames(get to that in a minute)
6. as the object hurtles toward the helicopter multiple things happen at once.
6a. first you notice the object dip on its approach toward the helicopter, creating a turning arc. Which can be calculated.
6b. now if you keep a close eye on the window frame of the helicopter against the horizon you will plainly see the pilot put his craft into evasive manuvers(the helicopter clearly starts to dip down and to the left- funnily enough...is toward the wtc which somehow, at such close proxiemtry, i don't think would be normal 'joyflight operations' for an experienced pilot, nor the law) all of which is consistent with a professional pilot. don't know what i mean? the pilot is responsible for everything that happens to his passengers & craft. Anything that happens to his craft is essentially his fault, or his life.
6c. as the object 'buzzes' the helicopter, clearly the occupants of the helicopter expressed shock verbally(woe!(shock), not WoHoo!(champion))
6d. now the last part of my conjecture, the final movements of the object that was captured on film was, no if's, no but's, LUCK. A shock reaction on behalf of the cameraman anticipating a collision.
7. the "smoke"---ever heard of windsheer?
7a. No sonic boom? Check again.
8. once realizing that the helicopter does take evasive(6a), the line of trajectory taken by the object has an altered appearance in trajectory due to a 2d format, such as video. The angles of both craft are not constant, so one pure arc of tajectory would not be applicable in this instance, your point of reference is altered, the camera is not immobile, thus giving the appearance of a altered/touched up trajectory.

now that i have given u something to think about, i'll tell you a few things i found. i happened upon an analysis performed on the footage, a two or three page document which simplified said that all objects captured in one image, beit frame or picture, would have consistent pixcilisation through out the image. as is true with the footage in question. the person went so far as to add a stealth bomber to the image(obvious, but not entirely out of place), until the image is zoomed in on at a high resolution rate. then the stealth sticks out like the proverbial. Conclusions: if a fake George, Stephen and Gene(if still alive) need to sign him/her up- as it sure makes the fakery in Startrek-Starwars-ETC, look like a lame effort.
(also found on KazaA.com under documents-"analysis WTCpre911"- is 4+meg)

During my search i have yet to find an intelligent, viable explaination as to WHY it is a fake, when all considerations are accounted for. but i do realize some people are just not going to let the "smoke" go, so, taking the footage for what it purports to be. (so for arguements sake, we accept it IS a intelligently controled vehicle) Then is it too far fetched to think that an intelligence, obviously aware of us, has the sense of mind to confuse/cloud(sorry 4 the pun) our judgement by turning on the smoke jets? when we know full well a ufo doesn't operate with jet engines hence no emition of smoke via an exhaust as thats not possible. lets face it, we feeble humans have been using camoflage and deception in an attempt to decieve for numerous years if not centuries. (just remember the age old argument for the non-existence of UFO's Aliens etc, etc-specifically travel. "if we can't do it neither can anybody else" well it therefore stands to reason, "if we can... they can"). and we haven't even touched on the subject of entertia and how it effects a human pilot- look up "splattered like jam/jelly against the wall of your vehicle while trying to go '0 - to - mark3' in .002 seconds". which i'm assume would be a relative 'guess-timate' of the objects acceleration capabilities.

the worse excuse for why its fake i've heard to date is,
"how come the colour in the footage is all greyish, when at times the colour seems to be so brilliant on the back of the ladies shoulders... it therefore must be touched up!" apparently the person hadn't noticed the windows in the roof of the cabin letting in the sunlight, nor did they consider the fact that N.Y is one of the most smog polluted city in the world, hence the grey.
Opinions are like arse/assholes... everybodies got one, but there aren't many brain cells stored in that part of the anatomy.

There are witnesses to the event, their testimonials can be found at NUFORC in the archives(have no copies sorry).

Why is it a FAKE? :confused:
 
I was interested to see your recent post about this subject. Thought it had been completely forgotten.

At the least it was an odd coincidence. Like the French parachutist who became entangled on the torch of the Statue of Liberty a week before 9/11.

I spent some time looking into this in the Spring of 2001. I spoke to the manager at the leading tourist helicopter service, Liberty Helicopters, and got his response and that of the pilots working there. None of them remembered that tourist and they believed that it was faked: 1. They thought that the woman passenger was moving around too much; 2. They scoffed at the whooshing sound of the object as it passed by the helicopter and 3. They thought that the motion of the helicopter in the wake of the speeding UFO would have been much more dramatic with jerking and dropping. They believed that a private helicopter had been chartered for the video passengers (something that is far beyond the price range of most tourists).

After that I looked at the video frame by frame. The remarkable close up of the UFO in one frame was certainly odd. It looked like it had been designed by a civilization that had a close relationship with nature- It resembled a skate or perhaps some type of bottom dwelling fish from an ancient geologic era.

The final nail in the coffin, though, was that the UFO in the sci-fi happens commercial suddenly re-appeared in a Mountain Dew commercial during the Super Bowl this year.

That being said: I found this analysis by a professional video laboratory today and it is convincing in its position that the video was not faked.

"Analysis of VIDEO SHOT OF UFO AT WORLD TRADE CENTER PRE 911!
... ANALYSIS OF VIDEO OF UFO AT WTC PRE 911! No clear signs of Digital manipulation! ... Again,
this pixelation difference is NOT IN THE WTC VIDEO! ...
www.realufos.com/wtcopinion.shtml - 10k - Cached - Similar pages Center and the Planetarium. It is also easily accessable from picni"

The url doesn't work directly but if you select cached on your Google browser the text will appear.

Now I'm not so sure of my earlier conclusions. I would like to find out if the advertising agency that produced the sci-fi happens commercial is the same one that did the Mountain Dew commercial. That might give us a source.
Did they use the still from the sci-fi commercial (with a real-life video?) to model their Mountain Dew UFO?

I'm definitely open to hearing more info about this .
 
Real?

So is it real or what? :bugeye: Nice links :eek:

What do you guys think? Who is this "Sonnog" psychic fellow? :bugeye: :eek:

He full of crap?
 
Uhh, eye withnesses?? A helicopter flying close to WTC would have been watched by hundreds of people at any one moment. There would have to be LOTS of independent eye withnesses. There were 30,000 people working at the WTC. Anybody who happened to glance out of a window would be very likely to let their eyes follow a helicopter flying nearby at least for some moments. Plus the many thousand people in the surrounding city and in the streets below. We should have had the media buzzing with reports shortly after, but we only have this video ... long after the alleged date. I smell a rat!

Hans
 
One other problem

I'll admit the video is intriguing but one BIG problem I saw, from a physical standpoint, is an object of that size moving at that speed that close to a helicopter would have produced enough turbulence to damn near rip the helicopter out of the sky.
 
This video specialist's testimony is nonsense. Pixel mismatch occur when two images with different pixel grids are merged. We see it in the Spiderman pic because the picture is razor sharp, and nobody tried to avoid it. After all, nobody believes Spiderman really exists?

Maybe that expert doesnt know how to avoid the problem, but I do: You need to scale the insert so the pixels match. That cannot be done with Spiderman, since he must be scaled to match the surrounding objects, but since nobody knows the exact size of an UFO ---

Anyway the blow-up of the UFO picture is so blurred that you cant discern any pixel details at all (how come this ALWAYS happens to UFO pictures??).

The Stealth plane insert sure stands out, since its done so primitively that most kids in third grade could do it better (--expert??!).

Of course the psychic fellows "testimony" is totally loony: Soo people from a devastated future (with fantastic technology) came back to avert 911 in order to change history? Well, of course the only sensible thing for them to do was arrive years ahead of time, hover around the impact spot, buzz a tourist chopper, and whizz off into space. I simply cannot imagine how the US Government could have missed that message.

And of course, the main catch remains: How could a large, clearly visible UFO hover around WTC in broad daylight without anybody in WTC or the rest of busy Manhattan spotting it or reporting it? That pilot experienced whats called a near-miss in flight terminology; it was his duty to report it. Apparantly he didnt.

I have a guess at the source of that video: Its pro work, some part of one of the countless movies in progress that had to be binned after 911.

Hans
 
is it real??

A quick analysis of the video in my opinion concludes that it is a fake.

Unless your stupid the analysis on scif.com is rubbish, and my first impression is that they have paid someone to make it up, cause he trys to fool you into believing that he is an expert, but he don't explain anything expertly. Its clearly obvious when he inserts that stelath bomber. you see he just used photoshop to cut out the image, so it looks jagged around the edges. Its a totaly different technique than a digital effect. Ever used Maya or Softimage. You can make pretty convincing fakes.

Also in the video- 1.why does the woman point and say "its over there" as if she has jedi knight reactions. Because the fake ufo shot over to the right in less than a second, she reacts and points far to quickly. 2.Why does the jet sound of the ufo arrive before it has actually zoomed past?? When at that speed it would easily of over taken its own sound waves. 3. Why no sonic boom. 4. thats damn good camera work for him to catch the final view of it going into orbit. And 5. I know that contralil effect it looks greaT don't it, standard partical effect in 3DS MAX.
 
OMFG that was funny!

Well, of course the only sensible thing for them to do was arrive years ahead of time, hover around the impact spot, buzz a tourist chopper, and whizz off into space.
Click to expand...

LOL!

I laughed my a** off when I read that!

Hee-hee!
 
One philosophy (that I do not subscribe to) is that UFOs are timetraveling historians. Going with this theory maybe they were just taking a few last second photos.
 
OK, but wouldnt they be a tad more discreet? I mean, why draw attention to yourself by buzzing a 'copter? Anyhow, "explaining" an unlikely story with an unlikely theory will yield an extremely unlikely explanation.

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top