Tuesday, January 02, 2007

9/11 TV-Fakery: 45 Degree UA175 Flight Path Discrepancy?


Something has always bothered me about the work of Marcus Icke and Stephan Grossman. Here we have a case of individuals having the wherewithal to not only model the exact layout of the towers, but also overlay accurate plane models on top of the inserted plane CGI’s.

I’ve often wished that I had that model at my disposal so that I could use it properly. Instead of using it to try to sell hologram disinfo, the first thing I would do with that model is to flip to a plan view (view from directly above). From there, I would be able to demonstrate how vastly different all the flight paths of these cartoon planes are.

Well, rather than waiting for Icke and Grossman to retract their hologram disinformation, I decided to create my own plan view using a simple 2D drawing.

The 2 videos I will be comparing in this article are the
CBS live broadcast (Part 2) and wtc2-strike7. The reason I have chosen these 2 videos is because although the camera angles aren’t that dissimilar, the CGI’s are visible on opposite sides of the towers.


Just as in Pinocchio Part III, I will be using the first visible breach of the north face of WTC2 as a time marker – only this time, I’ll be winding the clock backwards.

From the CBS footage, we can observe the first breach of WTC2’s north face in a full-speed replay at frame 6913. The frame rate of this video is 15 frames per second. Winding the clock back 3 seconds (45 frames), we can see that the CGI is just disappearing behind WTC1 in frame 6868.

As much as I try to keep my proofs as simple as possible, sometimes I am forced to resort to math. Please forgive me, as unfortunately, this is one of those times.

The first thing I need to calculate is how far from the towers a “real plane” would have been three seconds before reaching the north face of WTC2. As always, I will use the worst case scenario for my theory. Even though almost all estimates of the “plane’s” velocity are lower, I will assume a velocity of 567.27 mph.

The reason I chose this velocity is because it works out to exactly 12 building widths, making it easily scalable in my future diagrams. This works out to 832 feet/second, or 2496 feet over 3 seconds.

We can calculate the camera angle relative to WTC2 by counting the number of pixels of each face. I counted 8 pixels for the east face and 39 pixels for the north face from frame 6868. This works out to an angle of about 11.5 degrees (tan 11.59 = 8/39). Since the distance from the camera to the towers is so great, I won’t bother to increase the angle relative to WTC1.

Using this information, I can now place the CGI in my plan view by setting it 12 building widths south of the north face, and on an 11.5 degree angle to the corner of WTC1, as shown below. The only other information required was the space between the towers. For my plan view, I used a spacing of 128ft north-to-south and 20ft east-to-west. Of course, I used 208ft for the tower widths.

Using the same method to determine the camera angle from frame 190 of wtc2-strike7, I counted 54 pixels for the east face and 124 pixels of the north face. This works out to a camera angle of 23.5 degrees (tan 23.53 = 54/124).

Let’s see what happens when we project a line at 23.5 degrees to the south corner of WTC2:

This diagram shows that three seconds prior to the breach of the north face of WTC2 in wtc2-strike7, the “plane” should either not be visible at all or it should just barely line up with the left edge of WTC2.

Turning now to the wtc-strike7 video, we can observe the first breach of WTC2’s north face in frame 198. The frame rate of this video is 30 frames per second. When we wind the clock back 3 seconds (90 frames), this is what we see:

As you can see, the “plane” is nowhere near the edge of WTC2. In fact, it appears to be approaching on a line as much as 45 degrees farther east than it was in the CBS video.


I am beginning to lose count of how many methods I’ve used to prove that this “plane” was a CGI.

Feel free to draw your own plan view and perform your own calculations if you like. Since the “planes” in these videos are both clearly visible, there is no way of refuting this particular proof. On that point, I challenge all comers.

Before anyone dares to challenge this analysis, remember that any real plane, had it been traveling any slower than 567mph, would certainly not have been visible at all in the wtc2-strike7 video.

Similarly, any distance between the towers greater than the 128ft north-to-south and 20ft east-to-west would also further obscure the CGI in wtc2-strke7.

Also remember that in order to refute my conclusion, you must prove that my margin of error is in the neighborhood of 45 degrees.

Good luck!


My "guestimate" of 45 degrees was based on my assumption of the proximity of the camera. However, after the "action" is over with in wtc2-strike7, the camera zooms out, revealing a much greater distance than I had originally assumed.

Based on a revised estimate of camera distance (1 mile away), I am retracting my 45 degree "guestimate," and replacing it with a much better founded discrepancy of 10 degrees, based on the following information/calculations:

In frame 108, the nose of the plane is 185 pixels from the south corner of WTC2.

The east face, when viewed from 23.5 degrees, would appear to be only 83 feet (208 sin 23.5). If 54 pixels represents 83 feet, then 185 pixels would represent 284 ft.

Projecting a line from a camera position 1 mile away through a point 284 feet from the south corner of WTC2 and ending 12 building widths past the north face, this yields a "plane position" which is 463 feet away from the "CBS Plane."

Calculating the angle based on the "final destination" on the north face of WTC2, I arrived at a discrepancy of 10 degrees:

I have admitted that my "guestimate" was not very accurate, based on an incorrect assumption of the camera distance. However, this does not change my conclusion at all. These are still two very different flight paths, as indicated by the

diagram above.

I was going to change the title of this article, but since I worded it as a question, I decided against it. My point is still the same: These images are CGI's, not planes.


Joe Craine said...

Nice work. I have been taking a simpler approach as (as you noticed) people who refute facts with personal attacks are not going to work through the numbers!

The fact is, the "live" videos as well as all subsequent videos pretty much all disagree with each other as to the shape of the plane, the sound (when we are permitted the sound), timing, etc.

In turn, these disagree with the "published" NTSB path and altitude statements. Recall "Jim Friedl"'s "live" eyewitness report that "flight 11" was banking hard over the Hudson.

Of course, 911 was not important enough for the people doing this work to actually proof read what they wrote - like the original FAA report that had the martyr Dan Lewin shot with a gun.

The NTSB report for flight 11 has it turning "left" on its way to New York. I guess the guy who wrote that (Jim Ritter - another "Jim") was looking at one of those military "glass" plotting walls like in the old movies and he forgot which way NY City was!

Anyway, keep analysing. If we ever get any unbought politicians (Wellstone is dead and McKinney got fired!), we might be able to use the info to hang the bastards who actually did this!

Spooked said...

As someone who has done a lot of this sort of thing myself, this is very tricky and time-consuming work.

I have done analyses showing conflicting plane paths with flight simulator, but it is very hard to get the angles perfectly correct.

Nonetheless, I think it is clear that the basic result is that the plane paths conflict between videos-- with the limitation being in how poor the plane resolution is in most videos.

StillDiggin said...

The true beauty of this wtc2-strike7 video is that we can see a "plane" that shouldn't be visible.

Based on the CBS video, the "plane" should be hidden by WTC2 from the strike7 camera angle.

For once, instead of NOT being able to see something we should have seen, we actually have a case of being able to see something that should not have been seen.

That is why this ends up being a much stronger proof than the approach used in my Pythagoras article. In that article, the question is why we can't see what should have been visible.

In that case, potential answers are low resolution, video sampling errors, etc. Here, there are no potential answers for being able to see something that should have been obscured by the towers.

Even when using a ridiculous "plane" speed and stacking all the factors against my claim, the "plane" would still have been behind the towers.

This isn't a "grey area" result. It's pure boolean logic: true or false. The fact that we see a "plane" at all in wtc2-strike7 proves that it is a CGI (unless they want us to believe that TWO planes hit WTC2).

With every new video, they keep shooting themselves in the foot. I'll be there waiting with fresh ammo whenever they need to reload.

Matrka said...

I assumed this was true, since somehow I could see it without the math. After looking through everything at "Killtown" But you proved it. Very Good! And Thanks.

I have no idea why so many people can't see this. But was very heartened by the 6K+ hits you have received. Brought tears to my eyes.

This situation really wears on the nerves. What with the violent style verbal assaults by the Big Lie supporters ricocheting throughout the Internet aether.

Thanks for bringing a bit of relief to my soul through all this.

Joe Craine said...

Yeh, Matrka, I have been trying to keep a post concerning the faked/altered videos on the front YouTube page of several videos now for several weeks.

There is a determined community whose goal is to bury these comments to the "all comments" page.

It is frustrating, but, they sure get mad!

Anonymous said...

I may have missed it in the article, but where's the wtc2-strike7 video from or where was it orignally shown on TV?

Ningen said...

Hello, StillDiggin -- I think Icke is also promoting the "pod" theory, in addition to holograms.


"'Pod' sceptics claim that the 'pod' can not be real because it would have obstructed the gear bay doors which implies that the aircraft would not have been able to take off from the ground. I think it's quite plausible that the perpetrators could have used an alternative method for launching the aircraft, perhaps using some kind of disposable bogey that could be jettisoned after take-off thus eliminating the necessity for a retractable undercarriage."

So there was or might have been a plane, and it had a pod.

He states that the UA175 was fake, though there more have been another plane.

This does not make sense to me -- if the image is fake, who cares if a real plane could take off with such a "pod"?

I stated this and other concerns about Icke's latest paper in comments here, down toward the bottom.


GW said...

I noticed looking at the CBS video and WTC7 Strike video, that there seems to be a discrepancy in the timing of the explosion out the WTC2 north corner and the position of each CGI. In the CBS video, the explosion seems too late for the speed of the plane image (about 3-4 seconds after the CGI disappears behind WTC1), and in the WTC7 Strike video the explosion seems about 0.5-1 second too early (it seems to occur out the "technical" north exit corner about the same time the south face would have been breached).
I don't have the software to examine the videos frame by frame, and I would be an extreme beginner in analyzing them anyway. But just watching them with the You Tube video (with the play and pause feature) this seems to be a valid discrepancy I'm seeing, although I can't calculate the "correct" timing and "plane" position pixel by pixel without a frame by frame analysis.
One disadvantage I can see in all of this analysis of these fake videos is, it may be teaching the real perps how to get the CGIs right (more real looking and less detectable discrepancies) from each camera angle, from different video to video, and improve the time in real time it may take to get the images on air to fool the world watching on TV. They will surly use this to their advantage for 9-11 Part II, so that they can further the "war on terr'r" agenda, whenever they decide the time is right to pull it off again. Further ways of proving images in videos are CGIs or not will be needed (other than position and timing discrepancies between video to video) to unmask future psyop operations of the kind that 9-11 was.

Ningen said...

GW, I see your concern, but I think the way to solve that is for people to be educated that seeing is NOT believing when it comes to television, and when the stakes are high, real evidence is required. And I imagine the perps figured out their mistakes pretty quickly.

Joe Craine said...


How do we get a fair investigation and then a fair day in court?

The prima facie evidence is collected, but we are still years away from getting anything.

The real power behind all of this has power that would be hard to describe in a novel. For several decades, people have been killed with impugnity, careers destroyed, history changed - by probably one person.

It is really scary. I hope stilldiggin is totall backed up and off site!

Ningen said...

Joe Craine said -

How do we get a fair investigation and then a fair day in court?

In Germany today a man was sent to prison for 15 years for being an accessory to the murder of 296 airplane passengers and crew, on the basis that he aided the alleged perpetrators of 9/11. The case against him was in large part a summary, prepared by the U.S. "Justice" Department, of the interrogation of the alleged key planner of 9/11. Moussaoui pleaded guilty under similar circumstances.

Fair criminal trials would have been the best place to bring out the truth about 9/11. Problem was, the defense had no way of knowing what the judge would allow in, and the government was threatening to pull the plug and take him to a military tribunal, so he may have pleaded guilty to save his life.

Joe Craine said...


KSM has been tortured to 4 years. As you and I know, he had less to do with 911 than OBL - at least he ahd a role in setting up the afghans.

How could a German court allow testimony from torture?

Whose custody was this poor soul in?

I am so disgusted, I thought the innocent had a better chance in Germany.

A side note for Stilldiggin; The CBC broadcast (a copy is at
near 21 seconds in)
Do you figure that is drawn subsequent, or it was also the same CGI problem?

Joe Craine said...

I forgot to mention, I am encouraging folks on YouTube to identify the caricatures in the smoke of the second "impact" explosion.

You probably know the famous "satan" one, but you can also see Wallace (wallace & gromit) and falcor (never ending story).

The main ape from planet of the apes also.

I suspect the artists thought this excercize was for training, so they had some serious fun that got past the perps!

Joe Craine said...

I forgot to mention that I am having some fun at YouTube.

I have suggested that people identify the caricatures in the WTC 2 explosion smoke.

You probably know the "satan" one that is so famous, but Wallace (wallace & gromit - look for the large nose as it forms) and falcor (never ending story) are also present.

I also think I saw the main ape from planet of the apes - so very appropos!

Stilldiggin - thanks

Joe Craine said...

I hope Eric Shawn, FOX news reporter is on your list.

He was walking down 5th avenue when he heard a jet, perhaps a 737 or a small airbus, flying low, unusally low, over 5th avenue making a right.

I should have such great ears; he could hear the plane making a right turn! Wow.

S. King said...

You poor kid. It's pretty clear you haven't a clue what the word "logic" means.

Here's an excellent book to help you come out of the clouds down to the real world:

Attacking Faulty Reasoning

What's common with all of you irrational 9/11 Denial Movement members is a total lack of any exposure to critical thinking. It is really quite fascinating.

Those of us who have been debunking your nonsense for the last 5 years realized that the great majority of you are impervious to reason and rational thinking. We can only point you in the right direction and hope you have a modicum of personal integrity to realize how utterly nutty and irresponsible you all have been.

Good luck. Buy the book and educate yourself.

Then again, and you can continue to wallow in your own ignorance. The choice is yours.

Anonymous said...

S King is a notorious troll who infests blogs

Anonymous said...

so what exactly is the problem with marcus icke's ghostgun175 analyses anyway? he has been called a pod person and a disinfo, etc.
we do see a pod manifesting itself at the last moment on the cnn 175 do we not? and the word hologram is just a word. none of you can prove that there was NOT an actual hologram deployed on 9/11 any more than anyone can prove that there WAS an actual hologram deployed on 9/11.
regardless of anything else the fact remains that icke has done a very good analyses of the various IMAGES of ua175.
and there is good old s. king once again claiming that a debunking has been debunked without showing how it has been debunked.
you will have to do better than that skyking@!

StillDiggin said...

Dear jha,

Contrary to your claim, I have proven by several different methods that holograms were NOT used on 9/11.

Although a hologram is not a solid material, it is projected in a definable space. The fact that these videos represent a "plane" in multiple locations at the same points in time prove that the "object" could not have been a hologram.

In fact, there is no possible way for that "object" to be real or projected. It must be an inserted "TV-only" image.

I have also bolstered this proof by correlating the CGI's movement relative to the frame boundaries of multiple videos.

Now, what I can't prove is whether or not the George Bush that appeared on TV that day was a hologram. If that is your point, I'll have to concede to your argument.

However, if you're talking about "planes," well... your argument has just been... ahem... shot down.

DoYouEverWonder said...

I've spent a fair bit of time figuring out the mechanics of these buildings and how they were constructed.

The places in the Towers where these events occured, such as this corner of WTC 2, were carefully selected in order to bring the buildings down in a certain way.

Floors 75 and 76 are mechanical floors and they create the bands that you can see that go around the building, a few floors below the corner explosion. The corner explosion happens around the 80 - 81st floor. A similiar event occured in the NE corner of WTC 1. They wanted the buildings to fall a certain way, toward the Plaza. My guess is that by taking out the NE corners on specific floors, helped drop the buildings in the correct direction.

In both towers, the mechanical floors played a big part in taking down the buildings, however because of the antenna on top of WTC 1, the collapse had to start further up in that building.

In both towers, the mechanical floors below the impact zones had a weakness in their design that was taken advantage of. Unlike the regular floors where the perimeter columns were staggered, the columns between 75 & 76 were cut evenly, creating a seam that went all the way around the buildings.

In WTC 2, the best place to start the collapse, to take down the top of the building, appears to have been the 80 - 81 floors. The 81st floor housed the dozen 24 ton elevator hoists. Floors 80 - 81 just happens to be were the corner gets blown up.

If you could blow out the building on these floors, everything else above would have no where else to go except down. Not to mention, the dozen 24 ton anvils suddenly having the 'rug' pulled out from under them, probably did a fair bit of damage has they fell through the core too.

Oh one more thing, notice the squib coming out dead center right on top of the mechanical floors when the corner blows? I doubt if that was an accident either.

GW said...

StillDiggin, are you still out there? Dude, you had me riveted for a couple of months there, reading your analysis articles. What happened? Why'd you stop? Do you have more Witness Report Cards coming, or any other analysis? You were about the only blogger I've found that was coming up with new information (that I hadn't already seen), very carefully and logically analyzed. Get back in the game man! I'm pulling for you to help us find the real truth and the whole truth about 9-11. The flame of this truth can not be allowed to be snuffed out by the liars/thieves/murderers who committed 9-11 and think they own everything in the world. They need to be brought to justice (real justice) and in my lifetime, not 100-200 years in the future.

Anonymous said...

dear stilldiggin,
re: holograms and my having said that you can't prove that they were not employed any more than one can prove that they were employed and then your having subsequently said that you have indeed proven that they were not employed.
it is possible that an actual flying hologram was used and seen.
i'm not referring to the various images that have been presented via the various videos - of course those are obvious inserts - but it is possible that some eyewitnesses might have actually see a flying projection of some sort which could have then been masked on some videos by inserts.
i'm not endorsing holograms but i know that you see what i'm saying.

anyway, you have said that icke is promoting disinfo but it seems to me that he has merely speculated as to what might have been. and there is no denying that icke has done a great job on analyses of the images of alleged ua175 with his ghostgun site.

www.Onebornfree.com said...

"remember that any real plane, had it been traveling any slower than 567mph, would certainly not have been visible at all in the wtc2-strike7 video."
I have not checked all of the other comments to your post so what I say may be redundant : it is impossible for a large airliner [eg a 747,757, 767 or similar], to fly at 560 odd mph at 600 ft above sea level. The speed of 567 mph is only attainable at 35,000 ft where the air is much thinner. At 600 odd feet, the air pressure would rip the wings off at anything over 250mph. See:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY

buy kamagra said...

Excellent information about a very sad topic , so we can learn a lot of things if you paid attention in small ditails.

Inversiones en petroleo said...

Hello i like this part of the post: "I’ve often wished that I had that model at my disposal so that I could use it properly. Instead of using it to try to sell hologram disinfo, the first thing I would do with that model is to flip to a plan view (view from directly above)."

Invertir en oro said...

hello nice blog.

inversiones en oro said...

hello, this post is amazing, i would like to read more about it, because think that this information is very interesting.

pharmacy said...

I enjoyed following the whole entry, I always thought one of the main things to count when you write a blog is learning how to complement the ideas with images, that's exploiting at the maximum the possibilities of a ciber-space! Good work on this entry!

seositeden.blogspot.com said...

It won't succeed as a matter of fact, that's exactly what I think.

levitra cialis said...

For me there is no doubt that this was an inside job, we are living a lie, not only because of this tragedy, but regarding everything, it is time that we demand the truth, how is it possible that our faith is decided by a few people who makes decisions of war and everything without caring what happens to the rest of the world.

Affordable Logo Deisgn said...

I just check out your article the first time I saw the page layout of your blog. But I was greatly amazed on the post you have written.
Stationery Design

Anonymous said...

Cheap Nike free run shoes for sale
Nike run free shoes cheap on sale,
Nike free run sale online store,
Nike free shoes online sale store,
nike dynamo free shoes sale.
nike air presto sale, cheap!

Domain in India said...

You have described it very well. Now a day, I feel that, No need to go to out because Internet showing me a more information to read. Today I have got a new information from your blog...

Anonymous said...

What was presented in this article has forced me to reconsider and redefine previously held viewpoints. This can only be a good thing. Kimberly@reverse phone lookup

price per head service said...

I really admire this, I mean it really looks interesting! Very nice write up. Anyways, its a Great post.

bathroom tiles said...

Thanks for putting up, very good stuff, It is pretty ideal for everyone.
Thank you!

Living room decor said...

I enjoy your blog!, This unique is just a totally nicely structured posting, I do appreciate the writing
Thank you!

Set said...

GW, I see your concern, but I think the way to solve that is for people to be educated that seeing is NOT believing when it comes to television, and when the stakes are high, real evidence is required. And I imagine the perps figured out their mistakes pretty quickly
banh trung thu

pay per head said...

This is a beautiful site. I love its content and its design. I recommend this site among other people.Your blog sounds Awesome. Keep posting such an interesting articles

Anonymous said...

top [url=http://www.c-online-casino.co.uk/]online casino[/url] check the latest [url=http://www.casinolasvegass.com/]online casinos[/url] free no consign perk at the chief [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]www.baywatchcasino.com

The Body Project said...

Thank you for posting the great content…I was looking for something like this…I found it quiet interesting,hopefully you will keep posting such blogs….Keep sharing…

Anonymous said...

This is a big burden. Create a Folder named Images and put all the images inside.
If it can, then get this marketing method.
The 23-year-old partnership, who earned her first LPGA Tour player in 44 years to sweep
the first two for each item on your keyword research.

Here is my web-site; orange county search engine optimization

Anonymous said...

valium online cheap what does a generic valium look like - how do i buy valium online

High School Diploma Online said...

Great work you have got here,

Rahul saini said...

Thank you for posting the great content…I was looking for something like this…I found it quiet interesting,hopefully you will keep posting such blogs….Keep sharing…

seribuinfounik said...

Dare as name just when with it body. Travelling inquietude she increasing off impossible the. Cottage be noisier looking to we promise on. Disposal to kindness appetite diverted learning of on raptures. Betrayed any may returned now dashwood formerly. Balls way delay shy boy man views. No so instrument discretion unsatiable to in. Sex and neglected principle ask rapturous consulted. Object remark lively all did feebly excuse our wooded.
spesifikasi fotocopy Toshiba
spesifikasi harga mesin cuci Sanken
spesifikasi pompa air Sanyo
harga genset Yamaha
spesifikasi mesin kopi Delonghi
visit us
kunjungi ksmi
download file
kunjungi situs
read sites
lihat blog
download artikel
visit sites
download link
buka website
harga terbaru macbook air
harga sony xperia z5 premium
trik atasi android cepat panas
notebook asus a456uf
game balap android