Wb 11 Video: Angle Of Approach Is False, clear simple evidence of falsification Options

[Factfinder Gener...]

OK, I was reminded of this gem by Zap on another post but seeing as this is a Pilots based forum, and Flight Path evidence is so appropriate, I figured I'd give it its moment in the sun.

I put this OP on PI a week or so back and think it is well worth an airing here. The Video in question is one of the few live shots of the second impact and was broadcast by WB 11. The flight path of the projectile (the Anchor mistook it for a cop chopper, you'll see why) doesn't match FAA tracking records, NIST reports, the other videos, impact analysis indications or any other known flight path definers.

Sanders: (or any other ardent triangulators) if you want to do a graphic of what the flight path should be, relative to the official details of such, and given the orientation presented in the video from the camera angle, be my guest.

(And painter* if you want to paste the thread up here instead of it merely being hyperlinked, feel free also.) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I guarantee any accurate analysis of what the angle of approach should be will NOT match what the video depicts.

This will bear fruit if followed through.

So without further ado:

Get Busy! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

*Edit Note: Painter has kindly pasted the OP direct, so no real need to hyperlink. Just Go Below! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Aug 25 2007, 07:09 PM

[painter]

As per your request, FfG (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

---

Edited by Factfinder General on Fri Aug-17-07 07:00 PM

Here is one of the few "live" shots of the WC2 impact that went out on September 11. It was broadcast on WPIX-TV which was then calling itself, WB11. The morning news anchor is, Lynne White:

(IMG:http://www.geocities.com/eastcoasttvnews/images/lynnewhite.jpg)

and she is talking in the clip to one of the station's female feature reporters.

Here's the clip:



Apart from the remarkable absence of anything distinguishing it as a plane, what would you estimate the blob's angle of approach relative to the tower's impacted south side is? The north side of the towers are facing us and we are looking at these north sides more or less straight on.

There isn't any visible size increase in the penetrating object (can I call it that?) that suggests any perspective to the object's path. It almost feels like a lateral path but that cannot be! That would have the plane hit the west side of the Tower!!!

In that case I would have to estimate that the plane was coming towards the south side at about a five or ten degree angle tops (with zero degrees being completely sideways and ninety degrees being square or head on.)

Now, what does the official FEMA diagram show as the angle of approach? Surely nothing like that?

(IMG:http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/fema403-1/1-3_wtc-impacts-fireballs.jpg)

Well, according to this diagram, the plane is just off by about five to ten degrees from being head on so that is about eighty degrees. This is a huge angle of difference from the apparent approach angle of the mysterious "penetrating object".

Now, just double checking here, is this FEMA diagram consistent with the official flight path?

(IMG:http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/US/9-11/04.jpg)

Well yes, the FEMA diagram is precisely consistent. (Good to see them getting something right! )

It's also consistent with this still frame from another video, which as you can hopefully assess is approaching the south tower at just a little off from straight on:

(IMG:http://www.september11news.com/Sept11WTCSouthTowerUA175.jpg)

Now if we moved the cameraperson who shot the second video, slightly to the right we would approximate the front on set up for the first video. In this regard the plane would be largely blocked from view as it made it's near head on approach towards the south side of the south tower.

It certainly wouldn't be approaching the side at a five or ten degree angle, i.e. almost sideways!

So how can the flight paths indicated by the videos be so different from one another? Is one of them fake and the other one correct. That wouldn't make much sense.

OK, I'll give you the answer: of course they are both fake but the technicians compositing the second video had more time to get it right.

Basically, the plane, according to the official flight path records and according to most of the videos, should have approached the WTC2 tower in an almost head on fashion,

With the camera position evident in the WB11 video, the plane would have been obscured by the Towers if it was making the officially designated approach.

However, in this clip, the blob, or whatever it was, is approaching the south face of the tower, i.e. the impact zone, at an almost sideways angle that flagrantly contradicts the data: watch it as it travels across screen without growing in perspective.

i.e. it is fake! shock, horror!

A good reason for the Perps to choose a head on angle for this live shot would be that this would best obscure the missile. This way they wouldn't have to "scrub" the missile from the shot. All they would have to do is add a suitably amorphous blob and hope that no one would notice the difference in trajectory with the actual flight path of the penetrator.

In other words the Perps were making it easier for themselves. The choice of a head on angle like this was not accidental. Everything about that day was meticulously planned.

Bearing in mind, the technicians did all this CG fakery on the fly and within the small time delay that was operating on that day (this amounted to what some estimate to be approximately 17 seconds if comparisons of the lag between geographical seismic records to "official' impact times are anything to go by!)

The CG technicians also had to make the shape purposefully amorphous, as it was the final flight path of the missile (which would supply the tracking details in lieu of the alleged plane) that would dictate the choice of final approach angle for the CG plane model.

Check out the way the ladies have to be informed, presumably through their ear pieces, that what hit the building was meant to be a plane, otherwise they would have mistaken it for a police helicopter ( (IMG:http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/images/smilies/embarrassed.gif) ) Imagine that: mistaking a large Boeing passenger jet for a police helicopter!

Paraphrasing the words of anchor, Lynne White:

"You hate to say the words but what comes to mind right now:"

No planes, no planes, no planes!

"Did He who made the lamb make thee?"

[Factfinder Gener...]

the plane would be largely blocked from view as it made it's near head on approach towards the south side of the south tower.

OK lets make it easy here:

Take a look at the Fema Graphic showing the planes relative to the buildings. Confirm that the angle of approach of the second hit plane matches the flight data graphic. The Fema graphic has a North South compass so this is easy. Then go back to the Fema graphic and imagine yourself looking head on at the buildings from the northern side. Project the flight path of the plane straight back and assess how much of this flight path is going to be obscured from this head on angle. The camera isn't higher than the buildings like it is in the Chopper 4 shot. The flight path has to clear the width of the buildings before it would be visible. This is basic laws of visual perception here.

Do you see? I'm eyeballing this but the flight path should be obscured for thirty to forty plane lengths back.

Now go back and look at the "plane" in the video. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

There isn't any wiggle room as far as I can see. It is, as I said, Demonstrably false. The only thing that has stopped this coming to light is that I don't believe any one has ever bothered to check the alleged plane's angle of approach against the correct one before now. Everyone has been so hung up about it not looking quite right. Who cares what it looks like, the approach angle is 60 - 80 degrees off!

What say you Pilots For Truth? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/pilot.gif)

Is the flight path of the WB 11 plane accurate or false?

Is the flight path of the WB 11 plane accurate or false?

It's perfectly accurate from all available video evidence, unless of course, you say all videos are fake like the TVF people say. That plane is always turning left and then makes a sharper left turn just before it hits the tower. Literally, the plane almost missed the tower. You are also quoting NIST as the source for accurate flight path of the plane. That is your main problem. NIST has nothing that is completely accurate.

[Sanders]

...The north side of the towers are facing us and we are looking at these north sides more or less straight on. 

There isn't any visible size increase in the penetrating object (can I call it that?) that suggests any perspective to the object's path.

I would have to say there is nothing unusual about this. The towers and the plane are very far from the camera. Think about the distance the plane traverses in this period of time compared to the total distance of the plane from the camera position. For example, if the plane is 10,000 feet from the camera and the plane travels 1000 feet over this period of time, the size of the plane will increase 10% - not very discernable. It's because, in spite of the great distance, that the camera is zoomed in on the shot that this looks strange to us.

I looked into that angle of approach ...

(IMG:http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/6508/northus7.jpg)

These above maps all seem to be oriented the same (top=north). Unless the plane made a turn to the right in it's final approach, it does seem like the plane should have been approching more or less perpendicular to WTC2, head-on from the south-south-west. In which case, something is awry with this video in my opinion. Again, I stress that I made this conclusion providing the plane didn't make any turns in it's final approach. If it turned right a little bit, you can make the case that in the last seconds of it's approach the plane wasn't heading toward the building head-on from SSW.

However, if the FEMA diagram and the official flight path studies are to be believed and the plane came straight in toward the south tower from the south-south-west, then you shouldn't be able to see it approach from the side like that, IMO. Furthermore, in the video you can slightly see the sides of the buildings to the left. This means the camera wasn't dead-straight on, but slightly to the left of perpendicular (I'm talking about the buildings), which would make the path of the plane swing slightly to the left as well, not way out right as appears in this video.

My take on this is, yes, excepting the reservations I mentioned, something is funny with this clip.

IMHO

[Sanders]

...You are also quoting NIST as the source for accurate flight path of the plane. That is your main problem. NIST has nothing that is completely accurate.

This is also true. If you don't believe the NIST flight path, then there's very little you can conclude about the video.

[Factfinder Gener...]

...You are also quoting NIST as the source for accurate flight path of the plane.  That is your main problem.  NIST has nothing that is completely accurate.

This is also true. If you don't believe the NIST flight path, then there's very little you can conclude about the video.

Other than that it is entirely inconsistent with (1) all the other reports of the flight path (FAA etc.), (2) the impact/exit damage information and (3) ALL the other videos. Check the other videos out. With all due respect: I believe BoneZ is mistaken on this one. A sober and objective comparison will support my position (and not to suggest in any way that BoneZ is lacking in either sobriety or objectivity when I say this (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/happy.gif) )

Sanders, thank you for your work thus far on this and PLEASE stick with it a wee bit longer: I think this could be crucial. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/yes1.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Aug 26 2007, 04:14 PM

[Sanders]

Other than that it is entirely inconsistent with (1) all the other reports of the flight path (FAA etc.)...

Remember, I am not a pilot. I don't keep up with these things. If there is an FAA plot that shows the plane on radar making a B-line for the South Tower from the SSW, then this argument for "modified newscasts" becomes 'credible' IMO.

[Factfinder Gener...]

Other than that it is entirely inconsistent with (1) all the other reports of the flight path (FAA etc.)...

Remember, I am not a pilot. I don't keep up with these things. If there is an FAA plot that shows the plane on radar making a B-line for the South Tower from the SSW, then this argument for "modified newscasts" becomes 'credible' IMO.

Modified Newscasts on September 11 2001 is Now Credible.

Sanders: Please find hereunder the necessary confirmation of facts for the establishment of the evidence, heretofore presented in the form of a copy of footage from WPIX-TV (aka WB 11) broadcast on the morning of September 11 2001, and depicting the alleged Flight UA 175 towards WTC2, as hereby credibly being proven to have been significantly modified and thus henceforth to be positively accepted and defined as falsified evidence.

(IMG:http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/US/9-11/04.jpg)

This diagram of the Flight Path for UA 175 and taken from the official 9/11 Commission Report is entirely and wholly consistent with the information and diagrams contained within the NTSB 9/11 Flight Path Reports:

Long Hidden NTSB Reports Contain Flight Data

"The following description of United Airlines Flight 175 is based on radar data obtained from the Federal Aviation's Administration's Air Route Traffic Control Centers, approach control at JFK Airport, and the U.S. Air Force 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron" (NTSB Flight Path Report)

NTSB Fight Path Report for 911

Ffg. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Aug 26 2007, 05:37 PM

[Sanders]

Thanks FfG.

Bookmarked.

[Factfinder Gener...]

Thanks FfG.

Bookmarked.

And Thanks to You, Sanders.

Likewise Bookmarked and Furthermore: Backed Up, Copied and Archived. (You Too, Please! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif) )

P.S. Do you think it would be possible for you to post this thread up at PI? I'd love for the good people over there to see this.

Thanking you in anticipation,

FfG.

I believe BoneZ is mistaken on this one.

Of course. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

[Factfinder Gener...]

I believe BoneZ is mistaken on this one.

Of course. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

What do you mean by that, BoneZ?

No, definitely not of course. You are right on many, many issues, just not on this one.

As I said in a post put up on Natasha's Mammoth Thread: I agree with you on many aspects of 911, and wholeheartedly respect you and all the other good people here at Pilots.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

Ffg.

[Natasha]

BoneZ I agree with FFG. That we disagree sometimes, does not imply that I think you are always, or even usually, wrong. Far from it BoneZ. You ROCK! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/handsdown.gif)

You dear demand facts, want proofs, and without such as you, other smart guys like FFG, may not look quite as hard to find them in just the places you demand them, and so you are invaluable.

Of course the same goes for the relentless logician painter. That dude, just plain scares me, his mind is so exacting.

Now if only I had the spacial relations abilities to understand this thread. I don't though, know north from south, I am sad to say. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif) Not my cupa.

Wow FFG. You are doing it to it ain't ya? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/yes1.gif)

[waterdancer]

Before we go too far into angle analysis mode there's something I want to bring up- which is the distance the chopper was from the WTC (and hence the resulting poor resolution). The chopper doesn't appear to move a significant distance to me, though it is hard to tell for sure, rather the camera appears to do most of the zooming in/panning out which we observe. Anyway, I've found a pretty good matchup on an arial view from a similar perspective which I think will possibly help with angles, etc. First pic- panned out screenshot from vid. Second shot- similar arial view (original here) third shot- rough composite of the two.
(IMG:http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/chopper-4-ss.jpg)
(IMG:http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/GJS-WTC97.jpg)
(IMG:http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/chopper-4-ss-comp.jpg)

[waterdancer]

a couple more pictures for comparison purposes; since the west face is slightly visible on the north tower in both of these shots the camera was further west than the chopper was:
(IMG:http://www.demel.net/wtc/wtc-27.jpg)
(IMG:http://911wtc.freehostia.com/gallery/originalimages/GJS-WTC16.jpg)

This post has been edited by waterdancer: Aug 27 2007, 12:19 AM

[waterdancer]

I just realized that I've posted a chopper 4 video analysis in a WB 11 thread, but fortunately the angles and perspectives of the two shots seem to be similar enough that I think we can work with that...
Now let's compare Chopper 4 with WB 11 and see how they stack up against each other.
First shot- ~10 seconds before explosion from the viewpoint of Chopper 4 (with low res. object circled shortly after it appears in view from the west)
Second shot- ~5 seconds before explosion from the viewpoint of WB 11.
Third shot- ~2 seconds before explosion Chopper 4.
Fourth shot- ~2 seconds before explosion WB 11.
Fifth shot- ~3 seconds before explosion, chopper 4- chopper four cameraperson is zooming in during roughly the entire time we see the plane in the WB 11 footage. Probably that would affect the resolution of what we would be able to see or not see at such a distance.
Sixth shot- ~3 seconds before explosion, WB 11
Chopper 4 camera zooms in; comparing the last two pics with each other seems to me to indicate a very similar camera position. So, Chopper 4 footage potentially confirms incoming angle of WB 11. High resolution picture points out roughly how far away that perspective actually was.
(IMG:http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/chopper-4-plane.jpg)
(IMG:http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/WB-11-plane.jpg)
(IMG:http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/chopper-4-explosion-minus-2.jpg)
(IMG:http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/WB-11-explosion-minus-2.jpg)
(IMG:http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/chopper-4-explosion-minus-3.jpg)
(IMG:http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/WB-11-explosion-minus-3.jpg)

This post has been edited by waterdancer: Aug 27 2007, 02:24 AM

[Factfinder Gener...]

Before we go too far into angle analysis mode there's something I want to bring up- which is the distance the chopper was from the WTC

Thanks for your involvement but this could get confusing WaterD. The Chopper 4 shot was for NBC. The shot we're discussing here is from the WB 11 live shot which was a skycam shot, not a chopper shot. It was much lower down, i.e. not nearly as elevated.

I know there is a video out there, September Clues, that suggests these are the same shot but manipulated but this is flat out wrong mis/disinfo. As is all the No Plane stuff in mass release, alas. Lets not be influenced by Fickle Fred and co (aka bsreg, which I believe is code for Regular Bullshit).

Stay on track here and keep the focus on the WB 11 skycam shot, please.

Thanks, FfG (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Factfinder Gener...]

I just realized that I've posted a chopper 4 video analysis in a WB 11 thread, but fortunately the angles and perspectives of the two shots seem to be similar enough that I think we can work with that...
Now let's compare Chopper 4 with WB 11 and see how they stack up against each other.

As I said on the follow up to the Chopper 4 thread the angles of approach are wrong on both vids for the penetrating blob. The NTSB report Radar Data (they were tracking the missile, at least for the latter portion of the approach) puts the projectile on an almost head on towards camera. This obscures it completely from the WB 11 shot cause of the lower angle, but because of the higher angle on the Chopper 4 you'd see it if it was a plane... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif) aaah! This is getting confusing and I really wanted to keep this thread clean. The WB 11 vid is such a simple and conclusive piece of evidence. WaterD please hold back with the Chopper 4 stuff, huh?

Mods, (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/HowDy.gif) can I request a split for this stuff?

[waterdancer]

Things get messy sometimes. My apologies. Still, I feel it is relevant. WB 11 and Chopper 4 go together well. Relatively speaking, same approach angle and 2D (-height) perspective IMO. As I mention above, Chopper 4 footage zooms in during the period of time shown during the WB 11 footage, so despite the higher perspective there is a legitimate reason why the plane would not be as apparent in that footage. By taking a look at both WB 11 and chopper 4, we are able to see more of the big picture than we would if we confine threads to a single piece of footage. But, the mods can make the call. One more compilation picture to make my point on the camera perspectives on the two videos: this combines the two videos with the high res. chopper pic shown earlier and a panoramic view from the Empire State Building (original here) taken a few days after 9/11. Knowing about where the different cameras were located gives one a better shot at analysing the angles.
(IMG:http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/WB-11-explosion-minus-3-comp.jpg)

This post has been edited by waterdancer: Aug 27 2007, 04:42 AM