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?
*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?