Angle of Attack
The first two clips of the second hit shown by CNN were very similar to these clips:
1) Video 1.
(this footage essentially is the same as the first shot of the second hit-- the "live" shot, shown by both ABC and CNN. This footage was disrupted by an inexplicable close-up of the north tower that separated the clips of the plane and the clip of the explosion. It is interesting to speculate that the reason they broke the shot up was because the timing of the plane and explosion was so off in the quickly done animation.)
2) Video 2.
(this video is essentially the same as the second shot of the second plane CNN showed-- same exact angle, this is just a different source)
In ANY CASE, what is interesting is that the approach of the plane is very similar-- a sharp southwest approach-- in both video clips.
But check out the banking angle of the plane between the two clips-- they are significantly different:
It may be a little subtle to see, but the lower plane has more sharply banked wings. Look how much lower the port wing is in the bottom picture versus the top picture. Both videos are shot from a similar height, and the plane is horizontal in both clips. Thus, I don't think this difference is a perspective issue. The banking angle of the plane never changes in either clip. So this would appear to be a clear contradiction. (If nothing else, you should be able to see here how cheesy these plane images are-- particularly the lower one, it hardly looks real at all.)
Moreover, the sharp southwest approach in these video 1 and 2 is quite different from this long shot CNN video, video 3, where the plane comes essentially from the south.
If the plane really came from the southwest, as in videos 1 and 2, then in video 3,
which is taken from a southeast view of the WTC, the plane would be MUCH smaller in the beginning of the video as at the end. However, the plane length NEVER changes in video 3, and so the approach angle flatly contradicts video 1 and 2 (which also came from CNN).
...just another discrepency in a long line of video sloppiness with the second hit.
1) Video 1.
(this footage essentially is the same as the first shot of the second hit-- the "live" shot, shown by both ABC and CNN. This footage was disrupted by an inexplicable close-up of the north tower that separated the clips of the plane and the clip of the explosion. It is interesting to speculate that the reason they broke the shot up was because the timing of the plane and explosion was so off in the quickly done animation.)
2) Video 2.
(this video is essentially the same as the second shot of the second plane CNN showed-- same exact angle, this is just a different source)
In ANY CASE, what is interesting is that the approach of the plane is very similar-- a sharp southwest approach-- in both video clips.
But check out the banking angle of the plane between the two clips-- they are significantly different:
It may be a little subtle to see, but the lower plane has more sharply banked wings. Look how much lower the port wing is in the bottom picture versus the top picture. Both videos are shot from a similar height, and the plane is horizontal in both clips. Thus, I don't think this difference is a perspective issue. The banking angle of the plane never changes in either clip. So this would appear to be a clear contradiction. (If nothing else, you should be able to see here how cheesy these plane images are-- particularly the lower one, it hardly looks real at all.)
Moreover, the sharp southwest approach in these video 1 and 2 is quite different from this long shot CNN video, video 3, where the plane comes essentially from the south.
If the plane really came from the southwest, as in videos 1 and 2, then in video 3,
which is taken from a southeast view of the WTC, the plane would be MUCH smaller in the beginning of the video as at the end. However, the plane length NEVER changes in video 3, and so the approach angle flatly contradicts video 1 and 2 (which also came from CNN).
...just another discrepency in a long line of video sloppiness with the second hit.
posted by spooked at 5:38 PM
3 Comments:
Nice. Your use of the term "angle of attack" in this context demonstrates your vast knowledge of aviation terminology.
BTW, have you finished wiping yourself off the wall from the absolutely stunning slam you received from Sid in the Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience Group? Specifically:
"Many of us are trained in the sciences...where peer review is how research is evaluated. That is the standard that I look for when evaluating extraordinary claims. Many of the claims in your forum, frankly, do not meet that standard, in my opinion."
But, I suppose he's just another one of your shills you like to rant on about. "Peer review" from the wacked-out moonbat denizens of the Sept 11th DU forum and your quaint yet equally wacked-out following here means having other wacked-out moonbat denizens agree with you, so I guess you got THAT going on!
Oh....and before those threads were locked and closed down faster than a virgin's legs at a party full of naval aviators, I noticed where you said you were a scientist!
This just gets better and better! Why am I so blessed to have you all to myself???
A scientist. Guffffffah.
Hey pinchy...when I grow up, can I be a paid Government SHILL just like you??
hehe
:-P
Post a Comment
<< Home