Humint Events Online: Funny Little 2nd Hit Video Discrepencies

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Funny Little 2nd Hit Video Discrepencies

So, I counted the number of frames it takes for the plane to enter the tower and the number of frames it takes for the first little nose-out pimple to appear. I did it for three videos, where both sequences can be readily analyzed. Screen shots are shown for each video. The last one is the famous Chopper 5 shot.

In this video, it takes 6 frames to go through the length of itself in air, 6 frames for the plane to go in and 7 frames for the first little nose-out pimple to appear:

In this video, it takes 6 frames to go through the length of itself in air, 7 frames for the plane to go in and 6 frames for the first little nose-out pimple to appear:

In this video, it takes 6 frames to go through the length of itself in air, 5 frames for the plane to go in and 10 frames for the first little nose-out pimple to appear:

Apart from the issue of the differences in timing through the tower, I think it's pretty awesome how in the second video, the plane (or plane debris) actually goes FASTER THROUGH the tower than the speed at which the plane entered-- which is particularly striking as the width of the tower is about 30% longer than the length of the plane.

The caveat to all this is the lack of high-resolution footage available for analysis. But I think even at this resolution there are some real differences than can be seen that point to video fakery.


Blogger engineer said...

what is frame rate?

What speed does this resolve?

4:02 PM  
Blogger BG said...

In the whole of 9/11 video, there are instances on TV Fakery and video Fakery on 2nd hit. However, all of these vids seem authentic: they show the military aircraft and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) which was launched into and exited out of WTC 2.

9:07 PM  
Blogger nickname said...

Did the TV networks not have high resolution cameras they could have used to videotape the Big Show?

7:54 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

The frame rate is 28 per second. This gives an air speed of about 509 mph.

And of course the networks had high resolution cameras-- the problem is they have never released any high-res footage.

2:26 PM  
Blogger engineer said...

Why would you drive at 500 mph with zero chance of hitting the target when at 125 mph you have a 1 percent chance?

More rhetorical questions.

But it was fake so a fake 500 mph. But why did they not use 1000 mph? Even more impressive. Sure ticket to Afghanistan. 125 MPH Arabs just aren't that mean.

All so absurd!

4:53 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

Good pcomment, engineer! I like that-- 0 chance vs 1% chance. It IS all too absurd but sadly so few people seem to see it.

8:18 AM  
Blogger BG said...

Engineer, You are annoying me.

Spooked, you are disappointing me.

Please answer some questions:

1) Are we all in agreement that Flt 175 didn't hit WTC 2?

My answer: Wasn't a commercial jetliner.

2. Do you see how stupid it is to argue about the speed if it is a military type aircraft which could easily go 600 mph.

My answer: Many people like Fetzer, whose job it is to obfuscate, want to make a Federal case out of the "impossible" speed

3. Do you see how the "nose out" is not "fakery" and is consistent with the SDB?

My answer: Maybe not a SDB, but a missile / bomb of some type which was able to penetrate WTC 2.

You assholes pretty much ignored my first comment. Watch some video, please:

The flying object is a "bomber". It IS going that fast. Understand it. Plenty of people describes it as not a Commercial passenger jet.

9:30 AM  
Blogger spooked said...


I disagree with your scenario. I have seen those videos; in fact one of them was analyzed in my post. Those videos don't prove your point.

Calling us assholes is not helping to win people over.

There plenty of reasons to think there was video fakery, that no planes hit the towers, and that people were fooled by a fly-by plane.

10:03 AM  
Blogger BG said...

And so we agree to disagree.

10:06 AM  
Blogger BG said...

It's the totally of the video and photos, not these specific ones, which should serve as a foundation for the assertion about what happened.

Clearly, some videos do have fake planes. Videos of 2nd hit have approach paths that are which contradict each other. If you don't think one of the approach paths is real, and some of the video is real, I ask you whether you think the pyrotechnics on the opposite side of WTC 2 were faked as well.

Please google "small diameter bomb" and watch what those bombs are capable of.

I'll try not to hang around and argue, as it seems like your opinion is not subject to revision.

I have spent more time on this than you seem to give me credit for. I admit that I could be wrong, ever after exhaustive study.

10:15 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

BG-- I won't claim I know exactly what happened and I am certainly open to new evidence. I have no idea how much time you've spent on this, but you haven't made much of a case here. If you have your idea presented in more detail somewhere else, I'll be happy to look at it.

It doesn't make much sense to me that they would make some videos fake and allow some real videos to be shown-- particularly videos showing the plane with some detail.

I don't think the explosion was faked digitally, but I am open to that idea.

11:05 AM  
Blogger BG said...


I respect where you stand. Thanks for explaining.

I don't have a presentation (video / web) to lays it all out.

Each person has to make up their own mind.

I'll come back when I have a presentation which I think should convince a reasonable person.

11:28 AM  
Blogger BG said...

You may have seen this:

I know eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. However there really were 10 plus people (I'll have to document that) who reported seeing / hearing the 2nd object (and there account isn't based on what they "saw" on TV).

10:43 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

115 reasons for no planes

8:28 AM  
Blogger BG said...

The "115 reasons" does a really poor job of clarifying the no big passenger jetliner argument from the no planes / missiles etc. argument. I can only conclude you wish to avoid the real argument as you toss it in so casually.

8:52 AM  
Blogger engineer said...

10 plus witnessed? A real plane as described in the OV would have had 10,000, 100,000?

You can not judge altitude in a decent at high speed. The target altitude has to be achieve miles out, like a final approach. This would not have gotten witnesses?

1:29 PM  
Blogger BG said...

You do realize you are full of crap, engineer. One of my key points is that the aircraft was not "a real plane", meaning not Flt 11 or Flt 175.

I'm talking about witnesses on record, ass hole.

2:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger