Truth Gone Wild... 3 trajectories?

Found this little video of the 2nd aircraft to hit the other tower.

This video shows possibly three different trajectories that one aircraft took..

So which is the correct one? Or are they all wrong?
How could these images be taken from different viewpoints yet provide different results except for the resulting explosion?

Truth Gone Wild

Highly interesting...

What about the last second when they show the plane flying by???

CGI??

reply to post by JFletcher


I think that last plane that flies by is cgi, but done to make a point.

Done to show that that particualr bit of footage af that particular flying plane was done at some other time, some other place and for some other reason..

We would have to contact the makers of this particular short video to ask them why it was added..

Ok, so the trajectory could "fit" to the impact zone no matter which angle it was filmed??

reply to post by JFletcher


Sorda.. Some mistakes were obviosly made. Especialy in the one shot where the plane dives down behind the building and then reappeares for another second flying upwards into the impact site.

Different camera angles can only account for so much. When the plane has both horizontal and verticle approach paths then we have all been lied too.

reply to post by JFletcher


Yes.

The video presents three different angles that the plane comes in at..

One comes down in a tight curve that drops altitude real quick..
Another comes in on a curve but less steep.
Whilst the third appears to be almost level as it flies in.

The point is, something hit that tower.. so why do we have three different flight paths of the suggested same plane?

One bit of footage is from CBS, another is from Fox, KTLA5, MSNBC, NBC and some footage from Moussaui (??)

This bit of NBC/Moussaui/CBS footage is the clincher is this video..
The CBS shows the plane almost level as it comes in just below the tops of other towers before hitting WTC. The other two shots shoe curved descent.

The VH1 footage shows the play low to the right coming in just behind the building to the right of the tower.

And it is incredible to compare all that to the footage that starts at about 3.35... you see the plane come down from the top centre of screen, behind the smoke and then on into tower.

It clearly shows how the footage of a level flying plane could not be possible as we see in other footage. But is it the lelvel flying footage that is correct?
Or none of what we see here?

Yes, some of it depends on your position at the time.. but the lelvel flying footage is just a bit too hard to accept in comparison to all the other footage of a plane coming down at an angle. The extent of the glide and curve would only be determined if you were at correct angle to see it clearly.. the drop in altitude is quite close. All except for the level flyer....

Assuming that the Moussaui video is the "true" one...why in the world would the other stations show their footage as the "true" one...

What are witnesses saying about the "real" trajectory?

I am astonished at some of the responses.

titorite is close, but veers off. Angle of cameras. POV.

First one, CBS: Long lens, tight on the Towers. Airplane is comig AT the camera, from the POV. I counted about 7 seconds, the airplane in view, diving at the begining to pick up speed, levelling off at last seconds, cut to:

FOX: Tighter shot, different angle (POV), shows a from a different directon, airplane in frame for only about 2 seconds.

KTLA: Similar to FOX, but from different part of City, other side POV.

the video maker inserts something labeled 'techmec', looks like an artificial enlargement of some other source, again angle is such that it appears different than the others. Source??

BBC: Similar to the CBS video, same perspective, slightly tighter shot, airplane in frame shorter period of time.


What we have here is the ONE event, UAL175 impacting the second Tower, filmed with different cameras from different vantage points, different perspectives.

I'm puzzled that people would cry "fake!", when you similar things all the time in motion pictures. Allow me to explain:

Not using a "Hollywood" example to imply fakery, but to discredit fakery.

Consider a big action movie, where they have to stage a destruction of a building, or somesuch. A spectaculat car crash. Whatever is in the script.

They get ONE take!! Typically, there are multiple cameras to capture the event. Then, much, much later, it is the editor's job to cut together the different angles and views to make it look cohesive. YOU, the audience, are fooled, because it iws MADE to look seamless.

BUT, if you saw all of the 'rushes', all the unedited shots, you would see what this video is claiming. It would look fake.

Problem is, though your perception. You KNOW that there was only one take, because you were there on the set. SO, when you see the various 'rushes', you take the apparent differences into account, since you are experienced in such things.

You KNOW that the Director and crew didn't secretly go out and shoot other versions!!!

To say nothing at all about the JET BLACK underside in the thrid plane. On stills and in other videos that underside of the plane is normally well lit...

And darn did that thrid plane fly slow. Those birds at the end made me think of something. Brids and people are two things cities have. Yet this is the first time I have ever activly noticed birds flying moments after the time of impact.

A small but insightful observation. Perhaps it would do to look over the old footage and see how often one can see birds flying around in the film... I just noticed here in this vid because the birds flew faster than the plane... Of course that is just a matter of perspect as I know those birds are closer to the lens than the plane... Still this whole trip about birds has me thinking now...

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. I was watching some of these clips a few months ago and the same thought occured to me.

Why do some show a level flight path and others a steep angle of descent?

It seems like James Fetzer has gone over to the no planes theory of late and sided with the killtown version of events.

I think the most likely explanation is that SOME of the differing versions are part of a disinfo campaign to further obscure the truth and divide the 9/11 truth movement on one more angle.

reply to post by titorite


Dude!! The different appearances of the belly is due to the differences in lighting, angles and lenses/camera exposures.

Really, a little bit of photography and cinematography research will answer all the questions posed, here.

That sequence of videos "reveals" nothing new. No 'conspiracy', just several different views of the same thing.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

Why do some show a level flight path and others a steep angle of descent?

I urge you watch again, count the time in each clip when you SEE the airplane in the frame.

It was a dive, to build up as much speed (overspeed) as possible, with the level at the last one or two seconds. See, people talk about the maximum airspeeds, at sea level, but that only assumes LEVEL flight. The addition of the steep descent, just prior, increases airspeed rapidly.

Pilots understand this, we see it every day.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Dude!! I understand different Camera Angles (POV). To say that different locations had different lighting is to say that the OUTDOOR lighting was artificially controlled.

In the photos that show the underbelly it is only in a position to be lit up by sun light. No artificial stage lights at that altitude. Either i9ts all real or its all fake CGI to me.

Their are different angles of approach Stomp up and down all you want about POV and what you think should of happened but what we have here on screen is truth and you refuse to acknowledge it for whatever your reasons.

reply to post by titorite


OK, well...if you wish to believe in impossible/implausible scenarios involving fanciful notions of "instant CGI" or some such other image manipulation, all involving EVERY video camera pointing at the Twin Towers that day, then go right ahead.

It certainly isn't anyone's job to show you how you are being deceived by unscrupulous people who promote this muddy-waters nonsense.

I'll take my reality, and leave others to their illogical fantasies.

All of the different shots do infact line up. Here is the latitude, longitude , and altitude of the last 12 sec of flight.



sec Lat. Long. alt [m] alt [ft]
-12 040° 41' 26.60002 ''N 074° 02' 14.53943 ''W 695.48 2281
-11 040° 41' 32.15081 ''N 074° 02' 07.00888 ''W 651.39 2137
-10 040° 41' 37.70354 ''N 074° 01' 59.48523 ''W 607.26 1992
- 9 040° 41' 43.25822 ''N 074° 01' 51.96978 ''W 563.1 1847
- 8 040° 41' 48.81484 ''N 074° 01' 44.47021 ''W 518.86 1702
- 7 040° 41' 54,37956 ''N 074° 01' 37.00787 ''W 474.42 1556
- 6 040° 42' 00,26511 ''N 074° 01' 29.56831 ''W 436.56 1432
- 5 040° 42' 06,59033 ''N 074° 01' 22.10623 ''W 404.62 1327
- 4 040° 42' 13.15513 ''N 074° 01' 14.66429 ''W 375.17 1230
- 3 040° 42' 19.78176 ''N 074° 01' 07.29712 ''W 347.33 1139
- 2 040° 42' 25.81786 ''N 074° 01' 00.12639 ''W 316.55 1038
- 1 040° 42' 30.96785 ''N 074° 00' 54.77386 ''W 310.52 1018
0 040° 42' 37.95093 ''N 074° 00' 47.47307 ''W 300.03 984

A list of camera positions

POV Latitude Longitude elevation
Fairbanks 40°42'34.92"N 74° 0'42.51"W 0.65m
Foreman 40°41'22.41"N 73°59'35.11"W 32m
Alonso 40°43'17.69"N 73°59'35.38"W 30m
Hezarkhani 40°42'7.33"N 74° 1'0.14"W 6.3m
Taylor 40°42'7.51"N 74° 0'59.89"W 6.3m
Chopper 4 40°44'12.99"N 73°59'33.73"W 540m
CNN/WABC 40°46'17.56"N 73°59'9.31"W 145m
CBS dive 40°46'33.68"N 73°55'43.52"W 70m
Rocerny 40°42'39.42"N 74° 2'23.31"W 4m
Tina Cart 40°42'30.19"N 73°58'4.89"W 12m
Brooklyn Bg 40°42'16.10"N 73°59'38.45"W 1m
Devin Clark 40°45'4.03"N 73°59'32.70"W 67m
Chopper7 40°45'23.01"N 74° 1'3.78"W 400m
CBS GM 40°45'48.66"N 73°58'20.15"W 160m
Courchesne 40°42'31.62"N 74° 0'58.05"W 2m

source


[edit on 18-8-2009 by waypastvne]

I watched the video and didn't see anything particularly weird. Different angles and different focal lengths, yes. Drop in altitude, yes. Conflicting trajectories? No.

Originally posted by titorite
To say nothing at all about the JET BLACK underside in the thrid plane. On stills and in other videos that underside of the plane is normally well lit...

Yeah, I already debunked that in our debate. One of the many reasons why you lost (big surprise there).

You are spreading purposeful disinformation when you talk about that jet being black when you know damn well there are other contrast/color issues in that particular video clip. I specifically point this out to you in our debate and you still peddle it? That is purposeful disinformation, period.

When you say things like "The plane is black with no color! The video must be fake!!!!", it absolutely sickens me to think that a few gullible newbies read that and start thinking that for themselves instead of doing any real research. All because you peddled purposeful disinformation when the real truth is horrible color/contrast from a VHS recorder and tape.



For the rest that haven't had a chance to research:

TV fakery and no-planes at the WTC is a concerted disinformation campaign to damage the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement. Furthermore, TV fakery and NPT are not accepted anywhere in the 9/11 truth movement and is considered blatant disinformation. Many people, up to and including some with "PhD" after their name, have looked at TV fakery and NPT and found it to be purposefully deceptive, blatantly false, and obvious disinformation.

Please don't take the word of the likes of Killtown, Simon Shack/socialservice, and the rest of the disinfo artists that peddle this garbage. Do your own research and believe no one but yourself.




[edit on 18-8-2009 by _BoneZ_]