Humint Events Online: All 2nd Hit Video Plane Paths Reconciled?

Monday, November 08, 2010

All 2nd Hit Video Plane Paths Reconciled?

Regardless of what you might think about "Achimspok", pretty impressive work here:

I *have* in fact in the past pushed the idea that there are conflicting plane paths in the 2nd hit videos. I did some early work modeling the 2nd hit with flight simulator, and it was exceedingly difficult, tedious, time-consuming work. I thought there was some evidence for conflicting paths, such as the video shown here at 3:12. But viewing angles can be extremely misleading and I guess I was wrong about the flight path shown in that video. I guess if you are low enough and close enough to the towers, it can look like the plane ascends in the last few seconds.

This video does a great job of reconciling the different angles, but it's really hard to rule out more subtle differences between paths. Basically, Achimspok is showing a best fit flight path that roughly agrees with the videos he shows.

Even if we assume the flight paths were the same in all videos, this doesn't mean there wasn't video fakery, of course. This just means the fakers were very coordinated and had a centralized process for the flight path modeling.

As far as Achimspok, I don't really know who has the TIME to put together something like this, except without either a life, or an honest job. I always wonder about the people like Achimspok and Genghis, who put together these extensive, really high-tech video presentations-- for what reward? Note, at the end, there are a couple of 33's thrown in, so you have to wonder.

Just to note here, he calculates 527 mph initial speed, going to 624 mph than 581 mph at the end. So obviously very fast; way too fast for an amateur pilot, and maybe too fast for anyone to handle the plane in the manner shown in the videos.

There is an incredible dive in there, which would have thrown everyone around who wasn't buckled in, and certainly it's hard to reconcile that with the official story-- the actual cockpit conditions.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't see any value.

CGI "proving" other CGI?

A job awaits him at Purdue... I just summarized the method and value of the Purdue simulation.

The "zero interaction physics"--for the tower and the plane--article is all that is needed to prove the videos are CGI. If they have a fake non-interaction for the "crash" in a video, it means the video is fake, and no part of it therefore has ANY value. It would be COMPLETLEY DISallowed in a court of law, once any fakery was proven. It would be tossed, NOT further analyzed!

A waste of time...a distraction. A matching of CGIs?

Something the posting of which may have far more value for the regime than is against it.

The following video seems to make a good point, though I have not checked all its facts.

Title, "Believe the real physics laws" by 911Expose03. It's a shadow analysis of "impact" --proving CGI.

IMO not even necessary as the beginning of the video shows a jet crashing into an "impenetrable" wall. Clearly that plane disintegrating (with lots of visible pieces flying off) shows what happens to a plane when it hits something real. There is a real interaction.

2:27 PM  
Blogger BG said...

I appreciate your coverage on this. I'm just seeing this vid you posted for the first time.

I have an overflowing amount of commentary. Not wanting to go off in all directions, I'll try to just take a few points at a time.

1. Hypothesis 1

One or more of these videos are un-manipulated captures of UA 175 with a pilot of some sort and passengers as claimed by UA and other sources.

I think we all know this can't be true, because we all know UA 175 did not fly into WTC 2. If you don't understand this and the reasons for logically ruling this out, your further analysis of this video is not likely to be edifying.

Hypothesis 2:
We agree some flying object flew into WTC 2. All these videos depict a flight path of that object. They are consistent (or alternatively inconsistent) with each other.


I don't think the treatment offered is much help in proving / disproving this. For starters, I would break the analysis down and separate out video which was broadcast live on 9/11 as a subset for examination.

I will admit having a "dog" in this fight, as I am of the belief that their was "TV Fakery" used on one or more of the live feeds. I don't believe the TV Fakery argument is needed to elucidate the nature of the "bomber" which used to perform the 2nd hit.

I am absolutely not in agreement with the "no planer" argument, which suggests that the TV Fakery injected a "plane" where there was no object at all.

Hypothesis 3:
All of the videos are fake to one degree or another, and there is not true plane to witness, nor is there a flight path or speed to be calculated.

IMO, Those that take this approach are loathsome disinfo.

2:59 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

FWIW, the video you liked:
was made by someone called Rasga Saias, who later retracted his findings. He was a DJ Shure ally who started out as a no-planer and converted to pro-plane.

3:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Spooked.

I thought something was funny because, as I wrote, the jet crash shows there was no need for the extensive analysis!

Only goes to show how many in "911 truth" are intel.

6:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those that ignore the logic and physics of the zero interaction physics discourse are clearly "Loathesome disinfo."

7:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Loathesome disinfo" = "Intel Filth"

9:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that was obvious
as well as who is both

11:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone considered the possibility that this CGI 'mapping' was completed prior to the CGI videos for continuity purposes?

1:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"achimspok", whoever that is. i can't imagine anyone who puts that much work into making a professional flightpath analysis to only spread it via youtube.

it is the same with achimspoks "northtower" series and wtc7 collapse analysis.

if all that was done by only one person, achimspok must be a truly versatile expert - including expertise in building engineering, physics, cgi, video editing etc.

i don't buy that. to me achimspok's flightpath analysis is too perfect. probably misleading.

2:55 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

2:55-- I agree. This one video represents an incredible amount of manhours-- it's hard to see one amateur doing this out of the goodness of his heart, or even the desire for "truth".

9:03 PM  
Blogger pteranodon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ALL 9-11 FOOTAGE IS FAKE. fake on fake on fake does not truth make.

6:24 PM  
Blogger pteranodon said...

Level flight would be impossible above 360 mph because of the lift:


2:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger