Not the Right Camera Angle for Seeing the Plane Come In
I always wondered if this video (screen capture above), which has blue sky to the west of the towers and never shows a plane before the south tower fireball appears, SHOULD have shown the 2nd plane coming in.
I spent a good amount of time this morning finding the right camera angle in Flight Simulator to mimic this video, and finally got the camera very close to the right position. Because the camera is looking UP a fair amount, a plane coming from some ways out from the west, even on a descending path, would not be seen by the camera.
Thus, Ewing 2001's presentation using this video is simply misleading-- which is unfortunately all too typical of his recent efforts. That is, he merges videos shot from several different angles, and shows the plane coming in a different angles-- and then uses this as evidence of conflicting plane paths. In reality, he is proving nothing.
While it is possible Ewing2001 is right-- that the 2nd plane was pure CGI-- his "9/11 TV fakery" video presentations that he has been pushing at YouTube are sloppy at best, and highly counter-productive to the 9/11 video fakery field at worst.
posted by spooked at 7:45 PM
2 Comments:
I guess the term "cut out" is a little misleading. Certainly any part of the building that got smacked with a big plane out to have broken windows, and pieces of the facade popped off. It ought to look bashed in. While the plane shouldn't cause the whole building to explode, it should at least rough up the exterior of the building noticably, and I would expect the engines to act like giant wrecking balls.
If I understand properly, the scar isn't all that unreasonable, but it doesn't match up too well with the shilouette that you'd have gotten from the plane that was supposed to hit it.
Can you summarize what's wrong with the scar?
Also... could some of the butter planing and lack of hole on the impact video be explained by the camera moving? The whole building looks like a big grey box in the butter plane videos and you can't see the individual collumns of the facade... it's hard to distinguish steel facade from windows, so could that explain the "butterplane" effect? The camera is moving so that the whole thing looks like one big blurry grey building.
Just asking.
Fred
PS, do you really think Nico's stuff is sloppy or bad? I thought it was pretty good myself, but I asked him to dress it up with some graphics showing which angle is being viewed, etc. Those buildings are so boxy they look the same from every angle, which makes it hard to know what you're seeing. (or supposed to be seeing!)
The problem with the scar are:
1) the plane left a silhouette impression of itself, which goes against physics-- since the plane disintegrated inside. That is, the plane could leave a cut-out shape of itself if it broke through the other side reasonably intact, but it goes against physics to have an object slice into a building indestructibly and then disintegrate
2) the last 20 feet of wings on each side disappeared into the building in the videos, but did not bust through the columns-- in fact the wing-tips should have broken off against the incredibly strong steel support columns of the outer wall
3) the tail of the plane did not leave a hole and the tail did not break off upon entry
The videos are low resolution and it is hard to see fine details of the columns, yes. This however does not change the fact that the wings appeared to slice through the building intact and that the plane did not slow upon impact. So the butterplane effect is real.
I think Nico's stuff is sloppy but slickly done. I think his stuff is very misleading and also gives a bad impression because his analysis is sloppy.
The WTC towers are boxy, but once you know what to look for, it is not hard at all to view their alignment and the camera angle. For instance, what is the position of the two towers relative to each other? How much of each face can you see? How well are the mechanical floors at floors 75-76 lined up? Are the tops of the towers level or is one higher than another? All these details give important clues about the position of the camera.
Post a Comment
<< Home