Conflicting Plane Path-- Critique and Reply

Regarding this post, where the second plane is coming in at different angles in two different videos, a reader has asked:

“You are attempting to determine the slope of a line in 3 dimensions using 2 dimensional pictures. A line which is perfectly horizontal in reality, like the roof line of building, will appear slanted if viewed from any angle other than perpendicular to the face of the wall, and at the same altitude as the line.

Notice how in your top picture, the roof line of the South Tower appears slanted. The roof lines and floor lines from the buildings you have chosen as reference would not necessarily be level in a 2D picture.”

Marcus Icke, who did the original analysis, responds in an email to me:

A geometric analysis of the Foreman video shows that the aircrafts flight path is perpendicular to the net optical axis of the camera just prior to aircraft impact. Thus rotating the frame using the WTC2 tower as a vertical reference when it is more or less in the center of the screen will allow us to effective identify the vertical and horizontal reference axes at the time of impact.

The east top side of WTC2 is not in the same spatial axis the flight path of the Foreman UA175 aircraft which is why that visible top of the tower and the flight path of the aircraft do not align. This mismatch is by about 15 degrees and is ACCENTUATED further by the surface being HIGHER than the camera.

These are technical points which were considered in the conception of the Ghost Gun article.

In both cases for the “Unknown” Video and the Park Foreman video simply extending the horizontal plane of the Mechanical section of the WTC2 tower at the impact point will be sufficient enough to gauge the flight path of any nearby approaching object as long as that geometric axis does not extend so far out from the tower that it falls under the influence of spatial and optical distortions introduced by the video recording and/or video replay/transmission technology.

Both the “Unknown” video and the Park Foreman video (in particular)
satisfy these criteria to make them reliable enough to detect flight path discrepancies.

Readers should take note that in the “Unknown” video the UA175 aircraft is actually in a slight ASCENT. Both videos also show different speed and different lighting properties and different airframe pitch angles at the time of impact thus the aircraft from each respective video is different in many ways with no rational explanation for the measured discrepancies under discussion.

None of these points in any way infer a Hologram was used at WTC2 on 911.

They only confirm the fraudulent nature of some or all of the WTC2 videos.

I would not have used this example in the Ghost Gun article if it were not technically sound and my ethos applies to all my work at:

www.911research.dsl.pipex.com

My thanks to Truthseeker1234 for raising this anticipated point. It is in the minds of intelligent and analytical people like this that articles like “Ghost Gun UA175” are built.