A Curious lack of Interest in the "Live" 2nd Hit Plane
...the one that was shown "live" on three major networks at 9:03am on 9/11: CNN, FOX and ABC.
This shot:
Clearly, if ANY 2nd hit plane image was untampered with, it would be this one, as the footage was shown LIVE.
So what does this plane look like?
Basically, it is not a normal 767-200-- though like most images of "UA175", it is close.
In the diagram below, I took a flight simulator comparison Marcus Icke made between a Boeing 767-200 and the "live" "UA175" image, and I added the colored lines to highlight similarities and differences.
The "UA175" image we were shown on TV has a much stubbier nose than a bona fide 767-200, which makes the starboard engine protrude in a more obviously (compares diagonal purple lines at the front of the plane):
All lines are the same length in each of the two images in order to allow easy comparison. Click to enlarge image.
One possible explanation for the starboard (rear) engine protruding more frontward in the "live UA175" is that the plane is actually pointing at a slightly different angle, more towards the camera, such that we are seeing a slightly more frontal view of the plane. This would bring the starboard engine out more and explain the overall foreshortening of the fuselage. However, this still presents a problem with the "live UA175" since this rotation of the plane more frontwards completely throws the angles of the wings off from what we see in this "live" image.
In other words, in terms of the airframe itself, what we are seeing with the "live UA175" plane is either a Boeing 767-200-like plane that has too short of a fuselage or a Boeing 767-200-like plane with wings at completely abnormal angles.
Although this in fact, is only part of the problem with this "live" plane image.
The larger problem is that the if the plane is anywhere close to the size of a normal 767-200, it is not on the right trajectory to hit the tower. This fact is shown in the following analysis I did using flight simulator:
Here is a top view of the flight simulator plane in the same position as shown above. Simply put, a Boeing 767-200 with the same proportions to the WTC as we were shown on "live" TV is on a trajectory to MISS the south tower!
(Click to enlarge)
This phenomenon arises because the plane is too small in relation to the towers, and thus flight simulator puts the plane further away from the camera when I try to match the "live UA175" image.
Here is what the ratio of the plane to the tower SHOULD look like if it is on line to hit the tower. The difference in ratio is small, but very significant:
Here is the top view showing the plane is on the right trajectory to hit the tower:
I also wrote about this issue before here. Interestingly, one another "live" shot shows too small of a plane for a Beoing 767-200.
So--- where is the interest in this video?
Where is the interest in the 9/11 "truth" community even?
Isn't this video footage one of the most CENTRAL ASPECTS of all of 9/11?
Shouldn't the abnormalities I've described been used in a court of law to charge the film-makers as being part of the 9/11 conspiracy by now?
This shot:
Clearly, if ANY 2nd hit plane image was untampered with, it would be this one, as the footage was shown LIVE.
So what does this plane look like?
Basically, it is not a normal 767-200-- though like most images of "UA175", it is close.
In the diagram below, I took a flight simulator comparison Marcus Icke made between a Boeing 767-200 and the "live" "UA175" image, and I added the colored lines to highlight similarities and differences.
The "UA175" image we were shown on TV has a much stubbier nose than a bona fide 767-200, which makes the starboard engine protrude in a more obviously (compares diagonal purple lines at the front of the plane):
All lines are the same length in each of the two images in order to allow easy comparison. Click to enlarge image.
One possible explanation for the starboard (rear) engine protruding more frontward in the "live UA175" is that the plane is actually pointing at a slightly different angle, more towards the camera, such that we are seeing a slightly more frontal view of the plane. This would bring the starboard engine out more and explain the overall foreshortening of the fuselage. However, this still presents a problem with the "live UA175" since this rotation of the plane more frontwards completely throws the angles of the wings off from what we see in this "live" image.
In other words, in terms of the airframe itself, what we are seeing with the "live UA175" plane is either a Boeing 767-200-like plane that has too short of a fuselage or a Boeing 767-200-like plane with wings at completely abnormal angles.
Although this in fact, is only part of the problem with this "live" plane image.
The larger problem is that the if the plane is anywhere close to the size of a normal 767-200, it is not on the right trajectory to hit the tower. This fact is shown in the following analysis I did using flight simulator:
Here is a top view of the flight simulator plane in the same position as shown above. Simply put, a Boeing 767-200 with the same proportions to the WTC as we were shown on "live" TV is on a trajectory to MISS the south tower!
(Click to enlarge)
This phenomenon arises because the plane is too small in relation to the towers, and thus flight simulator puts the plane further away from the camera when I try to match the "live UA175" image.
Here is what the ratio of the plane to the tower SHOULD look like if it is on line to hit the tower. The difference in ratio is small, but very significant:
Here is the top view showing the plane is on the right trajectory to hit the tower:
I also wrote about this issue before here. Interestingly, one another "live" shot shows too small of a plane for a Beoing 767-200.
So--- where is the interest in this video?
Where is the interest in the 9/11 "truth" community even?
Isn't this video footage one of the most CENTRAL ASPECTS of all of 9/11?
Shouldn't the abnormalities I've described been used in a court of law to charge the film-makers as being part of the 9/11 conspiracy by now?
posted by spooked at 2:34 PM
20 Comments:
9/11 Truthers Disrupt Dallas Anti-War Protest
BNN News Alert - Wednesday, March 21, 2007
This is the problem with the Internet - some clowns think that actual research is done by viewing YouTube videos.
..."think that actual research is done by viewing YouTube videos."
no. actual research is done by ANALYSES of youtube videos and analyses of every other aspect of 9/11, which was an obvious inside job, as you well know.
of COURSE it was an inside job! I mean, what ELSE could it be since the two 110 story buildings DISAPPEARED into dust in less than 11 seconds, hardly enough time for a bowling ball to hit the ground after being dropped on my head!
Wait...I mean hardly enough time for a bowling ball to hit my head!
Ummm....wait....for a bolwing ball to.....
Turned to DUST in less than 11 seconds!
DAMN good point - only a fool and an idiot or someone from Spooks place (but I repeat myself) would try to apply any sort of scientific analysis to a fuzzy, blurry, hazy video image off a computer and state categorically that such-and-such is the case.
such and such is the case? right. actually, measurements are measurements.
and when different views of an event shot from several different yet still close to each other locations all show the same ridiculous shadowy flat black even in the direct sunlight silhouette of a so-called plane that has a disappearing stub for a right wing and exhibits a phony nose-out from the other side of the tower yet does not leave any hole where said nose out was observed nosing out from what do you call that - business as usual?
you have a pretty good memory - but each tower turned completely into dust in only 10 seconds which is 11 floors per second. yes, a bowling ball dropped from the same 1/4 mile height would reach the top of my head on the ground in the same amount of time.
don't forget that some 1400 cars were oddly and unexplainably burned and melted as well.
once again you make a comment that only serves to reinforce the fact that you couldn't possibly believe the official 9/11 fairytale. it is almost as if you get paid for merely pretending that you believe it.
so what do you suggest? that we just let it go and allow 9/11 to be swept under the rug? why?
...try to apply any sort of scientific analysis to a fuzzy, blurry, hazy video image off a computer and state categorically that such-and-such is the case.
1) you work with the data you have-- and in this case we CAN in fact make specific measurements that tell us things since the image may be fuzzy but it is not particularly blurry and we can clearly make out distinct parts of the plane
2) the analysis was NOT done from a YouTube version of the footage, but from an official DVD version
3) it is in fact so much easier to write off any conclusions for trivial reasons than it is to actually deal with the analysis or the conclusion, isn't it? Your bias, or whatever it is that drives you people, is keeping you from thinking clearly.
""is keeping you from thinking clearly""
oh spooked, i think that they have been thinking very clearly indeed.
throughout their constant denigrations they have never once even tried to refute even 1 part of any of your analyses which proves that they know what the score really is as surely as we do.
there can only be one reason for their continued distractions.
i think that their true failure is misinterpretation of the ultimate intentions of this blog.
hey /tards,!
it isn't about justice any more.
in the future, the names of BUSH, CHENEY et al will be categorized with the likes of STALIN, HITLER et al. it is as simple as that.
h is for ha!
"Shouldn't the abnormalities I've described been used in a court of law to charge the film-makers as being part of the 9/11 conspiracy by now?"
How could they? The entire government, media, courts and military are "in on it". Hint, the answer can be found at Area 51...
wow area 51...
that has got to be one of your all time best comments!
i especially admire the 3 trailing off periods...(...)
i think that the 3 trailing periods should henceforth be referred to as the "/tard effect".
"This is the problem with the Internet - some clowns think that actual research is done by viewing YouTube videos."
NIST used videos to analyze aircraft speed, oscillation of the South Tower after plane impact, etc. Are they clowns?
Oh gawd... spook is playing video games again.
hey spook, have you seenb the latest commercial for MS flight sim? You know... the one that tells you that the gameplay us so realistic that you need to slap yourself and repeat that you are not a pilot?
what are the distortions in the sky around the edges of the plane in the flight simulator version?
but these distortions are absent in the live TV version.
and yet the distortions are very prominent in this video
what are the distortions in the sky around the edges of the plane in the flight simulator version?
but these distortions are absent in the live TV version.
Congratulations on discovering that real life doesn't look like video games.
and yet these video game type images are the very proof that a plane really hit the tower?
thanks sword!
ok there were 2 shots of this "plane" shown on tv in real time on 9/11/01 - and the flightpath/trajectories contradict each other.
"real life!"
No they don't.
Screenshots of a video game are hardly evidence of anything.
not screenshots of video games. the 30 some odd videos, each more foolish than the last, that all show an image of a plane shaped silhouette that is supposed to be ua175. they are all obviously and ridiculously fake.
h.
----
tell me sword - after all this time you still don't make any arguements either for or against 9/11 having been an inside job - so what is your function here?
only 2 clips of "ua175" were shown in real time on 9/11 and the flightpath/trajectories of the "plane" in these 2 clips contradict each other.
First, there are thens of thousands of eyewitnesses to the jet impacts. There's no technology that can fake that.
Second, you may think the footage is fake because it doesn't match screenshots of video games. But for those of us with more than 3 brain cells to rub together; video games are not real life.
Third, 9-11 was not an inside job you Osama cock sucking whore.
first, it doesn't matter what any eyewitlesses did or did not see -
even if there was a plane that hit wtc2 it was masked in the media videos by false tv fakery images.
second, i couldn't care less about your little distractive references to video games - that there was tv fakery on 9/11 has been well established.
third, every aspect of 9/11 can and has been shown to be false so it can be nothing other than an inside job. and obviously so.
and watch your mouth you fag!
again; what is your function here?
Post a Comment
<< Home