Three Videos, Three Plane Paths
Video 1-- a shallow descent and approach from the SW.
Video 2-- a rapid 200 foot descent and turn and approach from the south:
Video 3-- a flat ascending approach to the south tower from the south.
As far as I am concerned, this is PROOF that all the 2nd plane videos were faked.
If one video disagreed with two other videos that agreed with each other, there is a chance that the one anamalous video was just an isolated fake. But if three videos don't agree on the plane path IN A VERY OBVIOUS WAY (this is not subtle folks), it is clear that all three are fakes. In fact, every known 2nd hit video has something fake about it, and an extremely careful study of all of these 30 videos would reveal scores of anomalies, I am sure.
Perhaps MOST significant is that video 1 and video 2 are from early network footage the morning of 9/11, from "news" helicopters. Yet they are FAKED videos of planes (NOT holograms, but computer animations) that must have been PLANNED IN ADVANCE. So it is clear the networks were in on the 9/11 plot at some level (probably one or more networks were infiltrated by military intelligence; this is known to be true for CNN).
I am now convinced that no real plane hit the south tower on 9/11.
160 foot long planes don't slide into 200 foot buildings without slowing and without showing signs of breakup but then completely disinegrate once inside.
The physics is this-- either the plane slows and breaks up as it hits the building, or it hits intact without slowing and then emerges roughly intact out the other side.
That is simple physics.
I think the reason they did video fakery is because the perps:
1) did not want to use the real UA175 for the attack (for various reasons)
2) knew there were a lot of random cameras pointed at the WTC that would capture a strange plane
3) knew that if the building exploded without a plane flying into it, most cameramen would be taken by surprise and would therefore not film the fact that there was no plane
4) knew they could saturate TV and the internet with videos showing a plane hitting the tower, which would convince most people there was a real plane involved in the attack
I think most people who say they saw the second hit, really only saw the building explode and never saw a plane. Several thousand people probably saw the tower explode with their own eyes. Interestingly, I know of at least four witnesses who specifically say they saw the building explode and never saw a plane (but were in a position to see it). Many witnesses whave been completely corrupted by repititious TV imagery of the plane, and are completely unreliable at this point about what they saw.
If you have a serious critique with this scenario, let me know. Calling me crazy is not a serious critique.
Video 2-- a rapid 200 foot descent and turn and approach from the south:
Video 3-- a flat ascending approach to the south tower from the south.
As far as I am concerned, this is PROOF that all the 2nd plane videos were faked.
If one video disagreed with two other videos that agreed with each other, there is a chance that the one anamalous video was just an isolated fake. But if three videos don't agree on the plane path IN A VERY OBVIOUS WAY (this is not subtle folks), it is clear that all three are fakes. In fact, every known 2nd hit video has something fake about it, and an extremely careful study of all of these 30 videos would reveal scores of anomalies, I am sure.
Perhaps MOST significant is that video 1 and video 2 are from early network footage the morning of 9/11, from "news" helicopters. Yet they are FAKED videos of planes (NOT holograms, but computer animations) that must have been PLANNED IN ADVANCE. So it is clear the networks were in on the 9/11 plot at some level (probably one or more networks were infiltrated by military intelligence; this is known to be true for CNN).
I am now convinced that no real plane hit the south tower on 9/11.
160 foot long planes don't slide into 200 foot buildings without slowing and without showing signs of breakup but then completely disinegrate once inside.
The physics is this-- either the plane slows and breaks up as it hits the building, or it hits intact without slowing and then emerges roughly intact out the other side.
That is simple physics.
I think the reason they did video fakery is because the perps:
1) did not want to use the real UA175 for the attack (for various reasons)
2) knew there were a lot of random cameras pointed at the WTC that would capture a strange plane
3) knew that if the building exploded without a plane flying into it, most cameramen would be taken by surprise and would therefore not film the fact that there was no plane
4) knew they could saturate TV and the internet with videos showing a plane hitting the tower, which would convince most people there was a real plane involved in the attack
I think most people who say they saw the second hit, really only saw the building explode and never saw a plane. Several thousand people probably saw the tower explode with their own eyes. Interestingly, I know of at least four witnesses who specifically say they saw the building explode and never saw a plane (but were in a position to see it). Many witnesses whave been completely corrupted by repititious TV imagery of the plane, and are completely unreliable at this point about what they saw.
If you have a serious critique with this scenario, let me know. Calling me crazy is not a serious critique.
posted by spooked at 10:48 PM
17 Comments:
what about idiot? does calling you an idiot count as a serious critique? just kidding. nice job with the observations! i doubt if this post will draw any serious critique; i mean really it's right there before ones eyes isn't it? i'm still trying to find a critique of janedoe's billiardballs, but she seems to be too smart for everybody.
I've already explained the apparent difference between the first and second videos in a response to your last post.
As for the third video, the camera angle is in front of and much lower than the plane. Given this perspective, a "straight" path actually has a downward component to it.
Maybe you should do some reading on basic camera work and techniques so that you better understand how different shots of the same scene can recreate very different images?
I've already explained the apparent difference between the first and second videos in a response to your last post
yes you did - and he then explained why your explanation does not actually account for the apparent difference.
Anon-- it is easy enough for the 1st and 2nd videos to create models with the towers and the plane, and then see if the plane as it appears in one video appears the same as in the other. I have done this, and the planes are at very differnet positions in the 1st and 2nd videos. The 3rd video is sort of a combination of the 1st and 2nd-- with the direction of approach of the 2nd and the much flatter descent of the 1st.
If you don't want to accept my conclusions, fine. I am presenting what I think is very strong evidence that the videos don't agree and therefore that the videos were faked very early on by the news networks. If this is too weird for you, or whatever, fine-- you are free to think what you want.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heck, anon-- you don't even need to do models. Just draw it out on paper. Due to the line of sight being blocked by the south tower in video 2, there is only so far west you can position the plane. And when you look at the plane in this position from the 1st video POV, it simply is too close to the towers to agree with the 2nd video-- where the plane is at least 3 tower widths from the north tower.
i suspect that there's probably no one who has pondered all of this as much as spooked has, so my opinion is that he is an authority on this subject. i think he's right, but even if anon's explanation were correct there are still many other aspects of the images of 175 that can only be explained with the word phony.
yes you did - and he then explained why your explanation does not actually account for the apparent difference.
And then I explained why he was wrong.
@Spooked - I don't need models to see what's going on in the videos. If you're going to effectively model this kind of thing though, you need a pretty good understanding of trigonomety as well as a the exact distances between some of the objects (the camera point, the tower, and the plane). Unless you have those kinds of numbers, there is no way you could have made accurate models of the event.
@jamesha - Someone can spend a lot of time talking about something and that doesn't make them an expert on it. Bush spends a lot of his time giving speeches about how staying the course in Iraq is going to lead to good things. I bet you don't treat him as an "authority" on the subject of nation building.
who are you going to believe, anon-- me or your lying eyes?
:)
There is a thing called perspective, and we can tell how far out the planes were by their size.
The videos show different approaches. Deal with it.
There are many other reasons to think the videos are cartoons-- I went over some of this in the post. But, this three video three paths thing was simply the nail in the coffin for me.
Well I thought that if someone actually tried to discuss your ideas with you and point out things that don not add up in your analysis, instead of just calling you an idiot, you might be reasonable.
Instead, you just claim that I have "lying eyes."
Unlike you, I'm looking at this situation with an open mind, which allows me to see what's actually happening in these videos. You on the other hand have already made your mind up that 9/11 is a conspiracy so no matter what anyone tells you (like my pointing out the different time frames in the blog entry before this one), you are going to stick with what you believe.
You're being about as intellectually dishonest as possible by starting out with a predetermined conclusion and then looking for a way to justify it (even if doing so isn't at all logical).
I never called you an idiot about your points raised here.
The "lying eyes" thing was clearly a joke. That is what the smiley face means-- :)
I am being intellectually honest here. I have listened to your POV and I disagree. You have not refuted anything I've said in a meaningful way.
My conclusions were NOT pre-determined on this. I took a long time to come to the conclusions here. I weighed the evidence, and now I firmly believe the 2nd hit videos were all faked.
Unless you can show some sort of visual proof that the plane paths actually AGREE, I see no point in arguing with you on this.
I will post what I think the plane paths show in a new post.
anon:
allows me to see what's actually happening in these videos. You on the other hand have already made your mind up that 9/11 is a conspiracy....you are going to stick with what you believe.
anon, spooked IS an authority on this just from dwelling on it so much. it would be nice if an expert did weigh in on this but so far all he gets is anons. 911 WAS a conspiracy even if contrived by 19 arabs and your use of that word reveals YOU to be the one without an open mind, not spooked.
he says it's video fakery.you say it's NOT video fakery and infer that he is no expert, yet at the same time you also infer that he is unreasonable for not replacing his conclusion with that of YOUR OWN inexpert one.
anon, i remain un-swayed by your argument; i still agree with spooked that it was video fakery. but the fakers can rest assured that my opinion means as little as your own.
I'm not claiming to be an expert at all. Nor am I demanding that spooked replace his view of the situation with mine. What I am claiming is that the burden of proof in this situation lies on those who are putting for a massive conspiracy theory.
The real argument here is who should have to do the leg work to prove the other side wrong. Spooked has posted some videos and claimed decisively "This is a fake!" I have looked at the same videos and don't see what he means. He has refused to prove any of this and has simply claimed that his perspective is all he needs.
It seems quite clear that if someone wants to disprove a belief held by a large group of people, the burden of proof is on them. I will honestly believe what ya'll are saying if someone who has all the actual distances, speeds, etc., can plug them into mathematical models and prove it's all a hoax. Sorry, but "I've looked at these videos a lot, so my judgment is better than yours," simply isn't a convincing argument.
Then again, perhaps you aren't interested in convincing people...maybe you just do this for shits and giggles.
the burden of proof in this situation lies on those who are putting for a massive conspiracy theory.
ok, if that is the case then i will point out that the conspiracy theory that was presented by the govt/media involving 19 boxcutters itself remains unproven. and just because it is a belief held by a large group of people does not mean that it has been proven. not by any means.
anyway, if we assume that you are correct and there are no discrepancies between those 3 flight paths, there remains the rest of the images, both video and stills to consider. and there are discrepancies and inconsistencies with virtually every one of them that indicate video fakery. and many of those have already been addressed by spooked, so that is no doubt why he would seem to have his mind already made up in this instance of 3 flightpaths.
anon, if you are unfamiliar with much of this video fakery "nonsense", then a good place to start looking at it would be here.
Perhaps MOST significant is that video 1 and video 2 are from early network footage the morning of 9/11, from "news" helicopters.
Spooked, I don't believe video 1 is from a helicopter. What news network footage do you have from 9/11? I am using the MPEG2 source from here for analysis. CNN was showing video 1 on 9/11 and it looks as if it's a stationary camera. There are several points during the morning where the video 1 perspective is shown focusing both towers burning after the impact, yet the field of vision is identical both shots is the same. Either the helicopter doesn't move for a long time and hovers perfectly or it's a stationary rooftop shot. I never see video 1 show signs of helicopter filming, like the WCBS shot does. I have also noticed that Video 2 was shown on FOX and Video 1 on CNN. FOX does not show video 1 and CNN does not show Video 2 (atleast between 9.00AM and 10.00AM). I cannot tell for certain where Video 2 is shot, either helicopter or rooftop, but if Video 1 is stationary, and I believe it is, than you have a point of origin combined with the common reference points between Video 1 and 2 - WTC7 and triangle topped building to the right of it.
160 foot long planes don't slide into 200 foot buildings without slowing and without showing signs of breakup but then completely disinegrate once inside.
This is really what set me off and made me start looking a little closer at you 'pesky no planers'. Somehow the claim 'but it's going so fast' just doesn't work. It's a friggin' commercial jet liner!
anon: What I am claiming is that the burden of proof in this situation lies on those who are putting for a massive conspiracy theory.
ha: ok, if that is the case then i will point out that the conspiracy theory that was presented by the govt/media involving 19 boxcutters itself remains unproven. and just because it is a belief held by a large group of people does not mean that it has been proven.
Can you see his point anon? (how 'bout you choose a handle already!) What proof is there supporting the official story? Your claim that Spooked provide actual distances and speeds that you can plug into mathematical models makes it sound like you're looking for some hard evidence. Is that correct?
Anon, what hard evidence do you have to support the official story (boxcutters, bandanas, and UBL)? If you've got anything good, you should let the feds know because I hear they have no hard evidence connecting UBL to 9/11!
Strange dichotomy, isn't it?
anon seems to be well read and able to figure things out on his own and i suspect that he has his doubts about the 911 fairytale or he would never have found his way to this pariah blog in the first place. so....what's up with that anon? if you believe the govt/mcmedia 911 fairytale then you should come right out and say so. anything less is disingenuous. if you stick it out then please grab a handle so you're not mistaken for any other wandering anons.
Shep--
I think video 1 was from a helicopter as I saw a zoomed out shot from the same angle and the point of view was over the Hudson river. I don't know if I can find it again, but I'll look.
Post a Comment
<< Home