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.