It appears that the newer source of the "Jim Friedl" audio has more to offer than meets the ear. In this newly released video, we are presented with an uninterrupted “live” video feed, which provides us with a reverse version of the magic trick "Now you see it... Now you don't."
At 7:38 of this video, the feed is switched to a different helicopter. A few seconds later, FOX commentator Jim Ryan describes the image from the video feed as "the picture from our chopper now arriving at the scene." This comment seems to validate that this is indeed the same video that was broadcast “live” by WNYW FOX5 on 9/11/01, since the picture correlates with the commentary. In what I referred to in my previous article as the "original source," the video feed never switches to this helicopter (this would have occurred approximately 2:44 into that video).
Although this matching commentary does not necessarily prove that this newly released video is exactly what was broadcast “live” by WNYW FOX5 on 9/11/01, it does seem to prove that this is the feed that Jim Ryan was looking at as he was commentating.
Objective
The objective of this article is to determine whether or not a plane would be clearly visible in any frame prior to its appearance in frame 14269 (see Reference Frames below), approximately 7 minutes and 55 seconds into the aforementioned video.
In order to achieve this objective, it is necessary to determine two major elements for visibility:
1.) The observable size of the “plane” at any given zoom factor
2.) The relative location of the “plane” inside or outside the boundaries of any given frame
Analysis
I will begin my analysis of this video at the 7:38 runtime marker. My first observation relates to speed of the "arriving" chopper. I will offer a crude guess of no more than a 10mph cruising speed on the towers at the moment of the switched feed, based on viewing the land and river directly below the chopper. However, this chopper is not moving directly towards the scene at all. As a matter of fact, after the first zoom-in, it can clearly be observed to be moving sideways as well. Due to this observation, I have chosen to deem the effect of the camera’s closing rate to be negligible.
Before anyone considers challenging my decision to ignore this factor in my calculations, please consider that at this closing rate and from this distance (approximately 6.5 miles from the tower), it would take well over an hour for the chopper to truly “arrive at the scene,” and that the longest time span I have used in any of my calculations is 6.1 seconds.
In other words, if you were standing 6.5 miles away from WTC2 on that day, and you jogged toward it for 6 seconds, how much bigger do you think it would look from your new vantage point, about 50ft closer?
*Hint: it would seem around 1/8th of 1% larger. Now apply that to 0.625in, and you will then understand why I have deemed it negligible.
Analysis: Reference Frames
For clarity, I will present three critical frames for future reference, two of which I will repeatedly be referring to as Zoom1 and Zoom3 (Zoom 2 is an intermediate zoom between Zoom1 and Zoom3, which offers no real benefit regarding the objective of this analysis). I have chosen to call the third critical frame “Eclipse,” because this is the final frame before the nose of the “plane” disappears behind the south corner of WTC2, just prior to “impact.”
Please note the frame numbers and run times associated with Zoom1, Zoom3, and Eclipse - as these become critical references for the calculations performed throughout the remainder of this article. Please also note that all measurements were recorded using imperial Vernier calipers (model SPI-2000), as applied to printed screenshots which were extracted using VirtualDub software.
All calculations beyond this point have been rigorously verified by Veronica Chapman, to whom I now owe many favors. Please report any errors for review via the provided comment link (beyond those which are attributable to precision measurement and rounding).
Clarification Note: Reference screenshots have been scaled to 70% of their original extracted size to fit the width of this page. From this point forward, all screenshots have been doubled from their original size.
Please keep in mind that all dimensions labeled on these screenshots have been recorded using the original screenshot size, and therefore should not match the size of the image that appears on your monitor (unless you have about a nine inch monitor or an insanely high resolution setting). Although you may arrive at different values than I have, you should find that the ratio of your own measurements to mine will remain consistent.
Analysis: Zoom3 Measurements
Analysis: Zoom3 Calculations
I have selected the width of WTC1 as a "measuring stick" for the purpose of determining the distance from the south corner of WTC2 to the right edge of the frame in Zoom1. I chose WTC1 rather than WTC2 simply because it is at less of an angle relative to the camera position.
However, it is still at a slight angle, and so we cannot simply use it's known length of 208 ft. This is because planes (dimensional planes, not Boeings) of objects appear shorter when viewed from any angle that is not direcly perpendicular to them. Using a true length value to measure distances in an auxilary view represents flawed methodology. Since our ultimate goal is to determine as accurately as possible where a fast moving "plane" should appear in Zoom1, we need to address the problem presented by this auxilary view.
Although there is not a tremendous difference between 206.5 ft an 208 ft, it still compounds to 38 ft/mile. If we had chosen WTC2 and ignored this factor, the error would have been even greater than 38 ft/mile due to the fact that it is at an even greater angle. Due to the high velocities and short time spans we are dealing with in this analysis, I felt it necessary to eliminate every possible source of non-negligible error.
Analysis: Zoom1 Measurements & Calculations
From the calculations above, we can now determine that 1 mile is 25.57 tower widths (5280/206.5). This ratio is a constant from this angle, regardless of zoom factor. After printing out a screenshot of Zoom1, I measured the distance from the right edge of the frame to the south corner (right edge) of WTC2 as being 2.465in.
My measured width of WTC1 in this frame is 0.09in. Therefore, 1 mile in this frame should scale as 25.57 X 0.09 = 2.3in. This means that the right edge of the frame should be 2.465 / 2.3 = 1.07 miles away from the south corner of WTC2.
If you'd like to verify this, feel free to print Zoom1 and take your own measurements, or measure it on your monitor if you'd prefer. Because we are dealing with ratios, even if your printout/monitor is not the same size as what I am working from, this 25.57 tower widths = 1 mile will hold true.
Analysis: “Plane” Speed
From the graphic in the Zoom3 Measurement section above, I measured the distance between the nose of the plane and the south corner of WTC2 to be exactly 1in. The nose of the plane meets the south corner of WTC2 12 frames later (difference between Zoom3 frame 14269 and Eclipse frame 14281 = 12).
In Zoom3, 1 inch = 330.4ft (206.5 / 0.625). Velocity is equal to distance over time. We've already measured the distance, and the time is easily calculated by counting frames in this 30 frame/s video. 1/30 s/frame X 12 frames = 0.4s. Therefore velocity = 330.4ft / 0.4s = 826 ft/s.
826ft/s X 3600 s/hr / 5280 ft/mile = 563.2mph!
This ludicrous velocity alone should be enough to declare this video as proof of TV-Fakery, especially since this "plane" is supposedly still banking. However, since I have taken the time to perform all of these calculations, I may as well show everyone reading this where this "plane" should have been back in Zoom1.
Analysis: “Plane” Size
Anybody that I haven’t “lost” by this point should comprehend ratios (I hope), so whether we measure pixels or paper, the zoom factor should be simple to explain. My (paper) measurements came out as 0.625in (Zoom3) and .090in (Zoom1) when I measured the width of WTC1.
This yielded a zoom factor (image size ratio) of 6.9444 (0.625 / 0.09). I used this factor to calculate the size of the image we should expect to see in Zoom1 (1/6.9444 = 14.4% of the Zoom3 image size).
Note: One anomaly I have yet to point out is that the “plane” in Zoom3 scales at 144ft, which is 15ft shorter than a B767-200. As this point is irrelevant to the objective of this article, I am simply noting it as a fact.
Conclusion
Due to variance between all purported “plane” speeds, I have decided that the output of my calculations should include where this "plane" should have been seen in a manner which includes a broad range of velocity estimates in addition to the velocity I was able to calculate above.
With a known drawing scale, it became a relatively easy task to create a velocity chart. Since Zoom1 and Eclipse (when the nose of the "plane" meets the south corner of WTC2) are separated by 183 frames (14281-14098), time is calculated as 183/30 = 6.1s.
Running through the process of how I determined where to draw the line representing 563.2mph:
563.2mph / 3600 s/hr = 0.1564 miles per second
0.1564 mile/s X 6.1s = 0.9543 miles
0.9543 miles X 25.57 tower widths/mile = 24.4 tower widths
Since I measured 1 tower width to be 0.09in,
24.4 tower widths X 0.090 in/tower width = 2.196in
If you are interested in viewing the chart I used to generate the remaining reference lines in the graphic, I have made it available via hyperlink under the reference heading at the end of this article.
Hypothetically, if a plane were visible at the extreme right frame edge of Zoom1, and it's nose were to arrive at the south corner of WTC2 6.1 seconds later, its minimum velocity would be 632mph.
Of course, this entire graphic is hypothetical, since we should all know by now that the image observed in Zoom3 was nothing more than an inserted CGI.
Notes
As you observe the graphic above, keep in mind that although my calculations are subject to some small degree of measurement error, I still feel that I am presenting the worst-case scenario (i.e. minimum velocities), due to the fact that this graphic represents a perfectly straight-flying plane, traveling directly perpendicular to the camera's "line of sight." Any other path would result in the "plane" being even closer to WTC than I have presented, for the same reason my measuring stick ended up being less than 208 ft long (angled distances appear shorter).
If any individual wishes to take the time to apply the methods employed in this article using pixel counts rather than paper measurements to achieve more accurate distance measurements, feel free to do so.
Please also note that the scale of the Zoom1 “plane” is actually 14.5% of the size of the Zoom3 “plane” in the green rectangles added at the top left of this graphic, rather than the 14.4% value I calculated in my "Plane" Size analysis. This is only because I exported the screenshot to MS Paint, which only allows scaling by whole percentage values. To achieve the 14.5% value, I doubled the scale of the entire screenshot and then scaled only the “plane” to 29% of its Zoom3 size.
Reference
Velocity Reference Line Calculations
Revision History
10/28/06 - 12:45am - Reference screenshots scaled to 70% to fit this page. Original size screenshots available here.
10/28/06 - 11:19pm - Clarification Note added to Reference Frame section.
10/29/06 - 8:45pm - Added LH extension line in Zoom1 Measurements graphic, in line with the south corner of WTC2 (LH extension line missing on previous graphic, LH dimension arrow extented to south corner of WTC1). 2.465in label showing measured value has always been correct - only the LH dimesion arrow was incorrect.
10/30/06 - 8:01am - Corrected WTC1 dimension in Zoom3 Measurements graphic to read 0.075in, as measured (previously erroneously labeled as 0.070in).
10/30/06 - 8:19am - Revision History section added, and revision notes relocated here from main text, so as not to break up the flow of the article.
10/30/06 - 9:54am - "Enhanced" Clarification Note in Reference Frame section.
14 comments:
Hehe. No planers, bah.
Theres just one thing I'd like to add. Large objects, in the sky, appear to move slowly. Ever see a plane looking like it was just hanging there? It's actually going quite fast.
The reverse is small birds who seem to fly at incredible speeds.
For an object to appear to be moving that quickly, would mean it was moving very quickly indeed.
Its an optical illusion, to do with the time it takes for the end of the object to reach the front. Moving through it's own length.
Thanks brian.
And, with respect, the relevance to this article, which shows NOTHING in the sky where it should be - by virtue of mathematical calculations, based on the Laws of Dynamics -is ....?
Lol I love how you use the most shitty video in the world to do this work. Your results are only as good as your methods and your sources. Your methods are dubious, but that footage is also very bad. Good luck mate. And speeds as high as 700 mph are not out of the question on a suicide run for a jet aircraft.
Johnny, please tell our audience what our contestant Alex has won...
Why yes, its.... Public ridicule!
Dear contestant:
If this is the "most shitty video in the world," where does the Saltergate version of this *same* (almost) footage rank? I'll be more than happy to look at a "better version." Just tell me where I can find it after they make the new one.
And ah yes, those dubious methods of mine. Pythagoras, Euclid, Fermat, Descartes, Pascal, Einstein, Newton... all dubious enemies of the soon to be extinct planehuggers.
Are you "laughing out loud" because you don't understand or because you have nothing on which to base a counter-argument?
If nothing else, I've managed to evoke a claim that 767's being capable of flying 700mph is "not out of the question."
The closest I can come to finding a basis for this claim within its surrounding context is that the sheer will of a kamikaze pilot caused it exceed it's maximum speed (at elevation) by 100mph.
Even if this were the case (as I stifle my own LOL), why the CGI kamikaze then slow down by 140mph on approach? Cold feet?
And if he decelerated at all, wouldn't that mean he'd initially have to have been going WELL OVER 700mph to not appear in the Zoom1 frame?
When is the last time you were in a plane that decelerated 140+mph in under 6 seconds?
Out of a possible 10 points, I'll give the strength of your argument a 1 (for spelling your name correctly - I hope).
Do me a favor and kick your own ass to the curb from now on. I'm done with you.
Who's next?
Hey Alex! Great comment!
Do you think that if the "driver" had put his foot down he could have cranked 800, or even 900mph out of that 767?
Let us know what you think. It's very important.
On the other hand it could be said that the video wasn't 'chosen' for its 'shittiness'. It was OBSERVED that the videos in question showed ANOMALIES, and that's why these ANOMALIES were ANALYSED.
Is that concept too complicated for you, Alex?
One important point is that officially the plane wasn't approaching from due south, it turned northwards from a northeast heading, and thus the plane should have been even closer to the helicopter at the beginning. Another absurdity is how the helicopter pilot/cameraman seems oblivious to the plane until it suddenly appears in the last zoom-in.
It's sheer craziness and since it came from plane-hugger extraordinaire Salter I've gotta wonder if he's not in deep in the whole scam.
Spooked, I'm confused. Eric Salter originally released this footage? How is it authenticated? Was this footage shown on 9/11?
Hey, don't be so hard on poor Alex: give him the benefit of doubt. Let's assume he's twice as clever: that he can both spell his first name AND read the email he received from the perps.
I don't s'pose he can do both at the same time, though, so I'd give him no more than a 2. Just keep on Diggin: the Alexes out there are slowly coming round.
I wonder what you are using to view the video. Video is made up of 30 frames per second as you have stated, but each frame is made up of 2 fields. Many VCRs will step through fields, not frames. This would give you 60 fields per second, thus bring the speed of the airplane down to around 281.6 mph. As for the 14 feet difference in length of the aircraft, a 10% error isn't bad considering if you are off by just 2 pixels you have more than made up the difference in the length.
Interesting analysis, but I would be interested to know if the time elements of the calculation, from which you estimate the aircraft velocity, can be relied on. You use the number of frames to establish your "Clock". This assumption, in my view, needs to be justified. The camera may??? have fed a slower frame rate to the News, which was subsequently broadcast at a faster rate? I believe that this is standard practice in "Live" broadcasts, in order to introduce a slight delay for the video editors. Live broadcasts are never in "Real Time", they are always slightly delayed.
what we need to do is
"This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."
The YouTube video has been deleted, where can I find it?
-Jonas
- Great joB overall and pretty good 'speed of the incoming plane ' calculation
- I love This Part : If nothing else, I've managed to evoke a claim that 767's being capable of flying 700mph . . .
- The contestant like the officials who clocked the speed at 540 mph had no idea that the cruising speed of B 767 - 200 is 530 mph and THAT can only be achieved , maintained and fuel eficient at the altitude over 32.000 feet . - To maintain that maximum speed while descending that particular plane would have to do some diving at least 40* in relation to horizontal line and if to believe the official flight patern , the 767 of Flight 175 was speeding at 540 mph at practically Sea Level air dencity of 1.000 feet for the last 30 miles of the flight . - 540 mph is 0.8 Mach or only 20% less than the speed of sound . That's 3 minutes of extreme overload ! - To be short , That type of plane would have fallen appart never reaching the target. . .
Post a Comment