Shouldn't We Already See The Plane?

*It is regarding 9/11. The poster of the video makes a serious attempt to explain a
curious facet of the footage, so this can not be labelled a hoax and moved to the
hoax bin, unless the staff assert that the footage itself is a hoax.*


www.youtube.com...

It is reasonable to the senses to assume that the plane should already be in shot before the
camera zoom-in. Yet it is nowhere to be found. The youtube poster attempts to, but cannot
explain away this oddity and is only left with the conclusion that the timing of the zoom-ins
is contrived, and that the plane was accordingly added digitally to the scene.
Scientifically and technologically speaking, this is not such a shocking notion but apparently
it does seem to offend the sensibilities of some. If the above conclusion is correct, then
serious questions must be raised regarding all other footage reportedly capturing the same
moments in time and space (And some others besides!).

Who is to say behind which dark alley the truth lies? It is foolish in the extreme to rule out
any pathways (especially obvious ones) when seeking any important truth, no matter how
much it may upset the sensibilities of some? (Assuming no duplicity, of course).

reply to post by pshea38



Why aren't there any 'no shooters' theories of the Kennedy assassination?

Why aren't there any 'no towers' theories of 9/11. That's what I want to know.

I am someone who is on the fence to what actually happened on that tragic day, however, looking at a sensible reason to explain this anomaly, I must ask myself the question: Is it possible that the plane was simply accelerating? This video is based on assumption that the speed was constant, however it is entirely possible that the plane accelerated on its approach to cause maximum damage. Is it not?

White arrow.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by pshea38

 

Why aren't there any 'no shooters' theories of the Kennedy assassination?

Why aren't there any 'no towers' theories of 9/11. That's what I want to know.

-Well there is a theory that there were no actual shooters in Dallas in Nov. '63,
as Kennedys death was faked and nothing but an elaborate hoax!
-Just stupid to talk about a 'no towers' theory.

Are you trying to say that you find the whole line of questioning raised in the video
ridiculous? If so, don't be afraid to spit it straight out and show the world your cards.
Do you live near any dark alleys, by any chance?

reply to post by pshea38


ok - before we start - i want to know what source footage he " analised " < sic >

because - if you tak a screen cap @ 00.00.12 , [ full frame view ] , then 00.00.17 [ zoomed ] its apparent that a plane could easily be in view @ 12sec - but not discernable

compare the two "frames " i cite - and honestly tell me - can you resolve the pyramidial roof of the building to the left of 1 of the WTC towers - or the " step " or is it a smaller building behind the building to the right of the other WTC tower ?

at the distance involved - with no contrail , ground haze and no direct sunlight reflecting off the fuselage - i would honestly not expext to be able to resolve a plane at that distance and resolution

second - his methology is flawed , he is using measurements at one focal leggth - and attempting to project them onto another focal legth - this is a recepie for disaster - as the tiniest error is magnified - also what asoect ratio was the footage shot in - and analised in ?

i would contend that the correct way to do a legitimate analysis of the clip is to use the locateion of the bridge in the foreground to calculate the bearing at which the cipt was taken - that bearing allows us to calculate the percieved distance between the outer corner of each WTC tower - and armed with that distance - calculate the distance from towers to right frame edge

biut like i said in point one - a study needs to be done on a HI-RES copy of the clip - not some of the tv or youtube bastardisation

reply to post by pshea38


I feel like the conclusions of the analysis in that video would only be applicable if it was known that the path of the plane was exactly perpendicular to the angle (i.e.. the camera is pointed towards the -z axis and the plane is coming from the +x axis, 90 degrees).. Otherwise the distances are inconclusive without trigonometry.. But that's just me..

Originally posted by waypastvne
White arrow.

I have been through the relevant section frame by frame at 200% zoom, and I cannot
discern the object you indicate with the white arrow.

reply to post by pshea38

Hardly a surprise, if the resolution is anything like the video in the OP

Originally posted by LogicalThinker88
I am someone who is on the fence to what actually happened on that tragic day, however, looking at a sensible reason to explain this anomaly, I must ask myself the question: Is it possible that the plane was simply accelerating? This video is based on assumption that the speed was constant, however it is entirely possible that the plane accelerated on its approach to cause maximum damage. Is it not?

The plane reportedly impacted the tower at maximum speed (some say at an impossible speed
at sea-level). He uses this maximum speed (distance per frame) as a template to retrace the
planes previous positions. This video is based on the assumption that the speed was constant
at its maximum. Any error will be on the side of caution.

I sometimes have difficulty discerning planes at a distance while using my eyes. It will take a higher resolution video to choose whether you can see the plane from a distance.

Originally posted by LogicalThinker88
I am someone who is on the fence to what actually happened on that tragic day, however, looking at a sensible reason to explain this anomaly, I must ask myself the question: Is it possible that the plane was simply accelerating? This video is based on assumption that the speed was constant, however it is entirely possible that the plane accelerated on its approach to cause maximum damage. Is it not?

If you suppose the plane was accelerating on approach then it would have to be even closer to the towers in frame 1 than in the constant speed hypothesis because at slower speeds it would cover less distance.

Ten years and the sheep still cling to the outrageously ridiculos official story. I don't know what happened but am damn certain that 3 men in a cave in Afghanistan had nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by linux2216

Originally posted by LogicalThinker88
I am someone who is on the fence to what actually happened on that tragic day, however, looking at a sensible reason to explain this anomaly, I must ask myself the question: Is it possible that the plane was simply accelerating? This video is based on assumption that the speed was constant, however it is entirely possible that the plane accelerated on its approach to cause maximum damage. Is it not?

If you suppose the plane was accelerating on approach then it would have to be even closer to the towers in frame 1 than in the constant speed hypothesis because at slower speeds it would cover less distance.

Ten years and the sheep still cling to the outrageously ridiculos official story. I don't know what happened but am damn certain that 3 men in a cave in Afghanistan had nothing to do with it.

Could you point me to where the 'official story' claims that was the case? Just curious

Originally posted by linux2216

Ten years and the sheep still cling to the outrageously ridiculos official story. I don't know what happened but am damn certain that 3 men in a cave in Afghanistan had nothing to do with it.

Which 3 men?

2nd