Humint Events Online: Too Small of a Plane in Both "Live" 2nd Hit Videos

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Too Small of a Plane in Both "Live" 2nd Hit Videos

Here is the famous ABC "live" shot, that I have discussed in the past.

I modeled this shot as carefully as I could using Flight Simulator-- in particular I tried to get the right angle of the building and the right size of the plane:

Interestingly, though, this plane is also quite a ways off from the towers as judged by the "blue plane" video angle:

And way off, according to the "CNN wide" video angle (note, the plane should be on the other, west, side of the building)

And looking from above, the plane is not so far from the south tower, but clearly is not on the right trajectory for the tower.

Keep in mind, that for the simulations above, I have not changed the plane position AT ALL, merely changed the camera angle.

So this finding suggests that the plane is actually MISSING the towers, and flying to the east of the towers.

Now, let's look at the other video of the 2nd hit that was shown live, the so-called Salter video (named for who it came from):

Here's the plane coming into this video:

As you can see, the towers are in near profile, as is the plane.

We know the width of the towers: 208 feet.
And a Boeing 767-200 is 160 feet long.

Since the plane came in at almost a perpendicular angle to the tower, there should be little foreshortening of the plane, and the ratio of the plane to the towers should be about 0.77.

The ratio of the plane to the towers here is 0.69, when only the west wall is measured (the towers show a little bit of northern wall in the photo). This suggests the plane is in fact a bit further away than it should be to hit the towers, and thus is smaller.

I did some modeling of this shot, but going about it a different way than above:

Here is the camera view-- very far away to the west as in the video:

Here is a zoom-in, showing the plane close to the towers, similar to the shot from the video:

You can see the trajectory is just right to hit the south tower in this modeling:

Now, what is the ratio of the plane length to the tower width in this simulation?
Keep in mind we are measuring just the west wall width, not the complete width of the towers.
The ratio is 0.8-- close to the 0.77 ideal ratio.

This indicates that the smaller ratio in the ACTUAL video indicates that the plane was either farther away than it had to be to hit the building-- or the wrong plane was used, or the video was faked somehow.

What is we keep the plane where it is and compare it to the ABC live shot I analyzed above:

It looks very similar! But what about the plane size?
The ratio of the plane to the overall building width here in this model is: 0.37
The ratio of the plane to the overall building width here in the actual video is: 0.34 (in other words, smaller).

In the ABC "live" model from above, the ratio of the plane to the overall building width here in the actual video is: 0.33-- fairly close to the video shot.

Taken together, we have four videos of the 2nd hit now, that were shown early on the morning of 9/11, that show the plane missing the towers and going off to the east.

This suggests either:
1) the plane that hit the towers was not a Boeing 767-200, but a smaller plane, or
2) the videos filmed a Boeing 767-200 flying past the towers then manipulated the video to make it seem as though the plane hit (i.e. cut out the plane continuing on past the towers), or
3) the videos show a computer generated image that is too small for a Boeing 767-200.

A major problem with the official story is that other videos show a plane the size of a 767 hitting the south tower. So at minimum the later 2nd hit videos were edited.

It is not clear why the plane size would be so wrong for the "live" shots if it was CGI-- unless they did it quickly and sloppily.

Another hypothesis is that a plane did fly past the towers at some point, and this was spliced into footage of the towers exploding. This would be somewhat easier than completeley generating plane video from scratch. If so, the question is WHEN did the plane fly past?

NOTE: post modified to remove outdated links on 10/7/06


Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger