A (botched) perspective on an old 9/11 video.

NeoParadigm
Do people really feel this is what a plane would look like as its front half has made contact with a steel building?

No deformation whatsoever.

And where is the giant hole and how did it form a second later? Note that parts of the wings have already passed the exterior wall.

It's a fake and a low quality one.

Here a vid that shows how easy it is to create a bad special effect.

What "people feel" is entirely irrelevant since I can safely assume that 99,5% of people are not qualified to make even a remote assumption what it is "supposed to look like" when a plane impacts such a structure.

As for the exact moment in the image, what is the front part of a plane else than a hollow tube with a rather light structure, materials like plastic etc. NOTE that midsection, the ENTIRE wing and and most importantly the ENGINES have not even penetrated the structure. You say it for yourself "parts of the wing" have passed the exterior wall. A plane is not a solid and rigid structure which would IMMEDIATELY create a big hole in those 1/100th of second captured in your image, those fractions of a second where merely a hollow tube and the beginning of the wing *have barely* penetrated...MIND YOU - A STEEL STRUCTURE. Planes are astonishingly light-weight (mostly), that just a side-note, and the impact and the sequence of events would be exactly what I would expect. Nothing to debunk here.

NeoParadigm
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Absence of deformation, strange the plane was destroyed

I see that you are not even going to try to make an attempt at an on topic debunk regarding what I lined out in the post I refered you to.

NO you and others are trying to make claims of what you assume you see from a 30 fps video when ENGINEERS/SCIENTISTS study high impact high speed collisions they don't use bog standard video cameras do they!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


Weak cop out. It doesn't matter how many fps, the fact is that the one frame I posted shows an impossible situation which points to cgi.

wmd_2008

NeoParadigm
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Absence of deformation, strange the plane was destroyed

I see that you are not even going to try to make an attempt at an on topic debunk regarding what I lined out in the post I refered you to.

NO you and others are trying to make claims of what you assume you see from a 30 fps video when ENGINEERS/SCIENTISTS study high impact high speed collisions they don't use bog standard video cameras do they!!!

I'm not into the whole fake planes stuff. But even at 30 fps, you can clearly see a projectile launched into the building from under the plane. Do you have any idea what would cause the cloud of smoke created under and behind the ring wing before the real plane impacts the building?

quad screen shot of 175

So this is my first reply in about 3 years on ATS.. everything looks quite different so I hope this posts ok.

I know this is a little late in the conversation, but I thought it might be of some interest! Cheers

Guys...I understand the belief that 9/11 was a hoax. I'm confident that parts of it were. Our government lies to us all the time so it makes sense that there is a conspiracy within 9/11 but...planes did hit the towers. You can believe that explosives took them down...you can question who (if anyone) flew the planes...etc. But planes did hit the towers. You can't fake that.

Sorry OP. The video you posted isn't accurate in it's take on the visual. But thanks for posting. I never saw that one before.

And since I'm posting...our government looks for events that really happen and then injects things into them to exploit them. I'm sure they also make some things happen to begin with...but the best situation is to exploit a real situation. You don't have to cover up as much. "Tell a little truth with every lie" is a line from a DIO song and fits this well. Just food for thought.

Example (not that I believe this): Hey...terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Centers. Quick...get a plane to hit the Pentagon in this specific location to destroy that evidence we've been wanting to get rid of.

That video has been put through a program called Twixtor which is designed to take normal speed video and create ultra slowmotion video. It does this by calculating frames in the video in between the original frames. It has to guess and predict what those frames will look like and then it renders them. It's not fool proof and it's easy to spot errors if you know what to look for. www.revisionfx.com... here are examples of what it can do. Look at the first one with the BMX bike and look through the wheels in the bike when he is jumping in slow motion. It distorts the background. Twixtor is made for special effect videos and a lot of people that record game play for youtube use it for 'bullet time' scenes. It is not meant as a forensic tool like the video in OP

Interesting. Is this how slow motion videos of sporting events is done? Like the replay of a fumble in football game that is disputed? I saw one posted from the Titans game that was super slow-like the op-and clear as it can be. I couldn't help but wonder just how they did that-and did it in a matter of seconds so the replay officials can determine the correct call.

spooky24

That video has been put through a program called Twixtor which is designed to take normal speed video and create ultra slowmotion video. It does this by calculating frames in the video in between the original frames. It has to guess and predict what those frames will look like and then it renders them. It's not fool proof and it's easy to spot errors if you know what to look for. www.revisionfx.com... here are examples of what it can do. Look at the first one with the BMX bike and look through the wheels in the bike when he is jumping in slow motion. It distorts the background. Twixtor is made for special effect videos and a lot of people that record game play for youtube use it for 'bullet time' scenes. It is not meant as a forensic tool like the video in OP

Interesting. Is this how slow motion videos of sporting events is done? Like the replay of a fumble in football game that is disputed? I saw one posted from the Titans game that was super slow-like the op-and clear as it can be. I couldn't help but wonder just how they did that-and did it in a matter of seconds so the replay officials can determine the correct call.

Broadcast quality cameras are a lot better than the camera used in the OP video and if YOU want really high quality slo-mo you use a HIGH SPEED camera I know it sounds silly but for example if your camera can work at 250 fps then the video is played back at 25 fps you will see everything 10x slower.

This is the approach of the plane in one vid, the last 8 seconds.






It is clear that the plane comes from a higher elevation than the top of the towers.

In this vid however,






it doesn´t seem to change altitude and it seems like it was never higher than the towers, in the exact same timeframe. (8 sec to impact.)

I don´t think it is a matter of perspective..........

NeoParadigm

I don´t think it is a matter of perspective..........

It is perspective.

NeoParadigm
This is the approach of the plane in one vid, the last 8 seconds.

It is clear that the plane comes from a higher elevation than the top of the towers.

Honestly do some people on here really consider what they see, the camera is in a helicopter looking down towards the towers, the aircraft is in the distance and as already stated it's a trick of perspective you could even use some objects at home and check that for yourself.

Its clear to see on here how conspiracies can start when simple things like this confuse people.

waypastvne

NeoParadigm

I don´t think it is a matter of perspective..........

It is perspective.

Did you even watch the video you posted to debunk my claims? If anything that vid supports my claims. Did you read the description?

There are huge discrepancies in the speed estimations, in the description of the impact angle and flight path. At the same time there is very little description about the way these data were analyzed. The high decorated MIT described it but used a method that added failure on failure (horizontal path, straight path, POV rectangular, Doppler effect...). Every conclusion was the assumption for the next conclusion (and so on) and increased the error of the result. Finally, the MIT result of 503 mph had an error of about 100mph. The NIST result was about 50mph better but still bad. Btw, they estimated the overground speed of a straight line - no wind, no descend, no turn... The reality looked a bit different.

Thanks for the support!

reply to post by wmd_2008

Its clear to see on here how conspiracies can start when simple things like this confuse people.

It is clear how the perps get away with these conspiracies cause morons believe the lies even though their own eyes can see that stuff doesn't add up.

Perspective my ass.

Honestly do some people on here really consider what they see, the camera is in a helicopter looking down towards the towers,

But you do agree that it was higher than the towers 8 sec before impact? I mean it is safe to conclude that from that helicopter perspective.

In some other vids it is clearly not higher in the last 8 seconds before impact. Check the vid that the other poster posted for instance.

NeoParadigm
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Weak cop out. It doesn't matter how many fps, the fact is that the one frame I posted shows an impossible situation which points to cgi.

Again you jump to conclusions, what people believe is the impact of a projectile is part of the plane work out yourself how much it would travel between frames that's why fps is VERY IMPORTANT when looking at high speed collisions.

If it was doing 450 mph then that is 660 feet per second so in one frame that's 22 feet, now to give you an idea if when the nose of the plane hit the building was shown on one frame the next frame would be 22 feet along the aircraft so the FRAMES PER SECOND are very important to what you can see!!!

Wizayne

wmd_2008

NeoParadigm
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Absence of deformation, strange the plane was destroyed

I see that you are not even going to try to make an attempt at an on topic debunk regarding what I lined out in the post I refered you to.

NO you and others are trying to make claims of what you assume you see from a 30 fps video when ENGINEERS/SCIENTISTS study high impact high speed collisions they don't use bog standard video cameras do they!!!

I'm not into the whole fake planes stuff. But even at 30 fps, you can clearly see a projectile launched into the building from under the plane. Do you have any idea what would cause the cloud of smoke created under and behind the ring wing before the real plane impacts the building?

Want to point out what you saw on this video

reply to post by gladtobehere

It's baffling that this "fake planes" stuff is re-surging. This clip was one of the most widely re-played clips on CNN on 9/11. Does it not occur to people to take a look at the original clip? Unedited and without the motion interpolated slow motion? It's clear to see where the brown building is in relation to the towers in the raw footage:


There's nothing fake about it.

NeoParadigm

waypastvne

NeoParadigm

I don´t think it is a matter of perspective..........

It is perspective.

Did you even watch the video you posted to debunk my claims? If anything that vid supports my claims. Did you read the description?

There are huge discrepancies in the speed estimations, in the description of the impact angle and flight path. At the same time there is very little description about the way these data were analyzed. The high decorated MIT described it but used a method that added failure on failure (horizontal path, straight path, POV rectangular, Doppler effect...). Every conclusion was the assumption for the next conclusion (and so on) and increased the error of the result. Finally, the MIT result of 503 mph had an error of about 100mph. The NIST result was about 50mph better but still bad. Btw, they estimated the overground speed of a straight line - no wind, no descend, no turn... The reality looked a bit different.

Thanks for the support!

edit on 16-9-2013 by NeoParadigm because: (no reason given)

The description does not support your claim. Did YOU watch the video? There is NO discrepancy among video angles with regard to the plane's flight path.

What the video description says is "There are huge discrepancies in the speed estimations, IN THE DESCRIPTION of the impact angle and flight path. At the same time there is very little DESCRIPTION about the way these data were analyzed."

He's talking about descriptions of the flight path, angle of impact, etc. in official reports, e.g. NIST, FEMA, NTSB, MIT, etc. What he's shown in the video is the plane's flight path plotted into a 3D model of Manhattan with geo-refferenced coordinates and a comparison of the model with video overlays from various camera angles. There are no discrepancies.

reply to post by gladtobehere


O my god, that is the best thing I have ever seen (evidence) how was this not picked up on before.

Good find!

reply to post by lunarasparagus

What the video description says is "There are huge discrepancies in the speed estimations, IN THE DESCRIPTION of the impact angle and flight path. At the same time there is very little DESCRIPTION about the way these data were analyzed."

BS.

If it was like you say it is it would be, "There are huge discrepancies in the speed estimations AND in the description of the impact angle and flight path. At the same time there is very little description about the way these data were analyzed."

Usually when people sum up three seperate things they use a comma after the first thing, then use an "and" after the second thing in order to make it perfectly clear to almost anyone that they are talking about three seperate aspects.

He's talking about descriptions of the flight path, angle of impact, etc. in official reports, e.g. NIST, FEMA, NTSB, MIT, etc.

Yes indeed, he is saying that there are huge discrepancies in them. Do you think that the word "description" he used in combination with "angle of imapct" somehow changes anything? I'm not sure where you think you are going with this.

There are no discrepancies.

There obviously are. The maker of the vid seems to agree. He even calls it the alleged flight U175

hknudzkknexnt
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

O my god, that is the best thing I have ever seen (evidence) how was this not picked up on before.

Good find!

Before you go hunting mr Owl GET your eyes tested.



The building is in FRONT not behind the tower as claimed in the video.