The Case of the Missing Helicopter, Continued
UPDATE: Helicopter found in some other videos (see below)
Check out right after the 2nd hit in this video-- at 0:47, a helicopter comes out from behind the North tower.
I have been unable to see this helicopter, which would have had a great view of the 2nd hit, in any other 2nd hit video.
For instance, look at this video of the second hit, which clearly shows the west side of the North tower, and no helicopter in that position for any time after the hit.
This is clear evidence of video compositing. Particularly interesting is that the first video, which doesn't show a plane, shows the helicopter, indicating that the helicopter was deleted from videos with the plane.
(Cross-posted at DU here and added to the no-planer reason list here)
UPDATE--
this video (below) shows a helicopter at the right position, roughly for the one in the first (top) video above. The perspective of the top video is tricky, since it is far below the towers and the chopper may be much higher than it seems. If this is true, than the chopper at 18 seconds into the second video may be the chopper in question. Still not clear why this chopper isn't seen in videos from the south or where exactly the chopper was when the plane officially went by, but still, there may not be a discrepancy in these three videos after all.
UPDATE 2--
these two videos from the east should have shown the helicopter, but don't.
A helicopter is seen in the "Brooklyn bridge" video; the plane flies right below and in front of the chopper, which lags behind in speed. The chopper is not seen in the same position as in the top video here, but is on a trajectory to get there.
Check out right after the 2nd hit in this video-- at 0:47, a helicopter comes out from behind the North tower.
I have been unable to see this helicopter, which would have had a great view of the 2nd hit, in any other 2nd hit video.
For instance, look at this video of the second hit, which clearly shows the west side of the North tower, and no helicopter in that position for any time after the hit.
This is clear evidence of video compositing. Particularly interesting is that the first video, which doesn't show a plane, shows the helicopter, indicating that the helicopter was deleted from videos with the plane.
(Cross-posted at DU here and added to the no-planer reason list here)
UPDATE--
this video (below) shows a helicopter at the right position, roughly for the one in the first (top) video above. The perspective of the top video is tricky, since it is far below the towers and the chopper may be much higher than it seems. If this is true, than the chopper at 18 seconds into the second video may be the chopper in question. Still not clear why this chopper isn't seen in videos from the south or where exactly the chopper was when the plane officially went by, but still, there may not be a discrepancy in these three videos after all.
UPDATE 2--
these two videos from the east should have shown the helicopter, but don't.
A helicopter is seen in the "Brooklyn bridge" video; the plane flies right below and in front of the chopper, which lags behind in speed. The chopper is not seen in the same position as in the top video here, but is on a trajectory to get there.
posted by spooked at 8:45 AM
3 Comments:
Not sure what to make of this helicopter matter, except that videos of "plane hits" we know are CGI. They wouldn't or couldn't have added (real) helicopters to those.
One thing important to add is in the first video above. RE the flashes just after tower destruction began.
It seems clear that some of the flashes are from rotating objects that flash, then don't, then flash again. So the most likely explanation of these IMO is that parts of windows or other objects were blown out and are periodically catching sunlight, as they also rotate.
Other videos may contain the same thing, that is blown out windows or other objects that are along the line of sight, and appear to be within the smoke, but may really be closer to the observer. There are also issues of distance and/or zoom (magnification.)
I am not claiming this pertains to all such flashes, but the top video is instructive.
See about 2:15.
Anonymous Physicist
I agree some of the flashes are just from sunlight glinting off shiny debris; the key is some flashes being in shadow or being in the tower.
You may be missing my point? What I am saying is that it may be possible for something to APPEAR to be in the "shadow"/tower but may really be outward (more towards the observer), but is in the line of sight.
This problem plagued astronomers for a long time.They could not be sure just where (distance) some objects were along the line of sight.
Still some people in the field who disagree on some things to this day.
Observational limitations...
A.P.
Post a Comment
<< Home