I have seen that video quite a few times over the years. What I have noticed is that the plane has the same issue as the spaceships in the movie 2001. They all look 2-D.
There is no wobble showing any change in perspective and no change in perspective either as the plane moves across the field of view.
Everything photographed at a distance looks 2-D. Remember the old TV images of football games where the people in the foreground seemed the same size as the people in the background? At long distance, everything looks to be the same distance. Just a fact of photography. Thus also, no change in perspective. How could there be?
But it was a handheld camera. The line of sight does move around a bit if you watch the complete video at true speed. No reason to expect wobble, if the guy holding the camera was healthy and not subject to tremors.
I didn't mean camera wobble but plane wobble and the perspective would change as the plane moved past but I agree that would depend on how far away the plane was.
It might just be me seeing something that isn't there but I could easily believe that someone had obtained a still image of a plane at that angle and then just added it to a video of the buildings.
Here are some planes landing you can just see them wobble if you look closely - and they are trained pilots trying to keep the plan level for landing.
There is not much to see. If you are thinking the planes in the video you shared were "wobbling" you are a very picky pilot. But that is happening in a completely different flight condition where the flaps are deployed, speeds are slow, the pilot is trying to maintain a fixed bank angle (zero!), and the airplane is in ground effect, which tends to amplify wing-induced roll effects. The 9/11 airplane was at high speed, no flaps, and was in a freehand banked turn (no wobble due to pilot corrections). Those conditions tend to produce smooth dynamics.
Look at the right wing just before it enters the building. Then look at the direction the Sun is shining. As the wing gets closer it should be thrown into shade the closer it gets, yet it actually gets brighter.
The wing is mostly a flat surface. It will produce a strong "specular" reflection when the angle between the viewer, the wing, and the light source is appropriate. What is happening is that the optimum reflection angle is attained just before impact.
The left wing thru the smoke looks fake too. Well wow wow wow. And the videos from the gate ground level and up high angle from the hotel during the pentagon event clearing showing a missile, not a plane….
Would you be surprised to learn that an engineer who had worked with aircraft so called "black box" data most of his life was able to get hold of one of the few data sets for one of the 4 aircraft involved that day.
As soon as he opened up the data he was sent by the then US Gov, he realised he was looking at a data set for a black box bench test set as he had worked with them many times.
He explained that when the aircraft is still in the hangar being built, when the "black boxes" are fitted, the first time power is switched on through the aircraft busbar and powers up the black boxes its very first job is to assign a unique identifier to the boxes ROM (read only memory) which can never be changed as the point is if several aircraft were involved in an accident they must have the way to identify each black box to each aircraft.
He could instantly see that the data set he was given was never assigned to an aircraft from the 00000 serial number which would be usually an ID.
Lot's of other anomalies arose, (thinking about it, the data set was alleged to have come from flight 93 and the "let's roll" 757 at Shanksville) because again what most will never know is that on every cabin door there is a micro switch, and every time that door is opened or closed the microswitch would display on the data set, it never showed so it was never opened in flight by anyone.
I believe flight 93 was destined for building 7, but the remote takeover software fitted malfunctioned (and yes this remote takeover software existed way before 911) and the aircraft crashed in Shanksville, triggering the use of explosives which clearly took down WTC building 7 at 17:20pm that day.
If you want a comparison of what a large commercial aircraft does to a high rise building, go look for the crash in Amsterdam which hit a block of flats, most pictures have been scrubbed, certainly the good ones, and using google won't help, but there are a few out there for comparison.
2nd point first: wing vs. distant building. Here is a public issuance of the video by Michael Hezarkhani (see below), as #10 in the vignettes, appearing at about 5:24 in the timeline. It is devilishly difficult to start and stop this to glimpse the same frames, but it becomes clear that the image of the aircraft is split between frames, and the port (left) wing has very low darkness as it passes before the building. Hard to discern from the darkness level of the building. I suspect the video posted by Purkiss80 is a fake---but one that has been "cleaned up" to present a depiction of a CGI falsehood. It would be a peculiar falsehood if it only replicated a building that indeed was there.
1st point second: airplane vs. twin tower. Of course it is possible for an airplane to smash through the hanging wall of the tower, which was not its primary structure. This is basically the same thing that happened with a B-25 bomber when it crashed between the 78th and 80th floors of the Empire State Building on July 28th, 1945. Complete penetration into the building. Lots of damage internally. The narrator is clearly not an aeronautical or civil engineer to make such an assured denial that this could happen. What was the airplane supposed to do? Flatten out like a cartoon character? No, there was a lot of mass and momentum and it would not be stopped without the airplane driving into the building and getting minced (and then it was stopped).
This is a world in which people invested in a fixed point of view are not above tampering with evidence to make a point. This includes 9/11 "truthers."
Man, are you glowing! Or you really have no clue. But you found your way to this site. So I'm going with glowie. Everyone knows 9/11 was an inside job. Ask DJT!
"Inside job" covers a lot of territory. There could be some bad associations from the organization of the attack. But that the attack did what it did is unmistakable, and trying to invent occult reasons for the physical events is stretching bias into wish-fulfillment.
Your ineptitude also shows in that your failure to understand the physics of the collapse impels you to call me a "glowie," when all I am is an aeronautical engineer who knows better. What "everybody knows" is mostly nonsense.
What occult reasons? Huh? You are an aeronautical engineer that thinks a plane wouldn't crash into a steel building and fall to the ground leaving the majority of the building unharmed? An engineer that thinks a plane can bring down a steel skyscraper? It was a controlled demolition and the planes were made up, just like the no plane at the Pentagon. Aeronautical engineer. LOL!
What is so wonderful about your reply is that it confirms without doubt that you are not an aeronautical engineer. Nor a historian.
It may interest you to know that in 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber flew into the Empire State Building, penetrated into the building, and caused a fire. So, the reason I think that this could happen again is because it happened a first time. (And easier this time because of the way modern buildings are constructed, with non-load-bearing curtain walls.)
As for bringing down a skyscraper, all that takes is for the column strength of a given floor to drop below a critical point. Then it is a rapid chain reaction (at the speed of sound in hot steel) when all the columns buckle. The overburden (upper floors) then collapse onto the next floor, and the process repeats, except faster, all the way to the bottom.
No controlled demolition necessary, or even provable. The planes were real (engines were found, etc.). There was a plane at the Pentagon; fuselage fragments and engine components were found, etc.
Anon? LOL!!! You are great at massaging your own preconceptions, but terrible at finding out anything true.
This is a world in which people invested in a fixed point of view are not above tampering with evidence to make a point.
Again, what are you trying to insinuate?? I have never and never will 'tamper' with evidence...the Truth always speaks for itself and doesn't give a shit about your feelings...this includes 9/11 "deniers"
No, I am saying it is a fake. I have no idea where you got it. But it is "cleaned up" compared to the identical original video. In my viewing of the original video, I could just barely see the left wing because it had a darkness very close to that of the building beyond. This is the kind of circumstance that could lead to a spurious "correction" of the building being in front of the wing. How do you explain the double image of the plane in the original footage? That somehow got cleaned up.
What would be the point? There is plenty of corroborating footage that the airplane crashed into the building. And there is no question that it could have done so in that way, since a past occurrence did the same thing.
Actually, this guy says so. It turns out that building is actually located between the camera and the airplane, so the wing did pass behind it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdMKimP0S8 If anons would spend more time doing background confirmatory research instead of bias confirmation exercises, they might earn their name.
This is the guy that shot this video is Michael Hezarkhani. The only information I found relevant is that he refuses to talk about the video. Kinda Odd huh? If this footage was legit, why wouldn't he want to talk about it. It's suspicious, no?
Consider for a moment that this video was purposely edited in this way so it would cause confusion, and disagreement. As you see that's exactly what it's doing. I conclude this video is a red herring, purposely made conspicuous to run interference, to get investigators, and researchers looking in the wrong place.
I've spoken to people that had first hand accounts of seeing the airplane fly into the buidling. I strongly believe they flew something into the building, but I definitely don't believe it was some inexperienced hijackers. I conclude they were military drone aircraft flown remotely, or robotically
That tends to be where I am at on this as well. I mean, the DS doesn't mind killing people in mass quantity, why wouldn't they do both planes and bombs in the buildings?
Also, if the planes were all CGi why not do one for building 7 too? What I think was a major lie was that plane damage brought the buildings down, that was definitely demo charges.
The good news is we'll know the truth soon enough and the assholes responsible will pay.
Hey DeathRayDesigner, the YTube link you included with the Michael Hezarkhani video clip is the same video as OP posted. Turn the speed down to .25 and open it up to full screen (I have a 27-inch 4k monitor) and it indeed shows the same situation where the wing disappears behind the far building, confirming that it is a hologram or CGI.
Better yet, it turns out that the building is actually between the camera and the plane, so the wing was actually behind the building. As debunked by an otherwise sympathetic observer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdMKimP0S8
Not a hologram or a CGI. (It could never have been a hologram.)
Did you view the debunk video? The building was between the camera and the plane, so the wing actually did pass behind the building. You have to realize that when you are viewing things photographed at a far distance, there will be no perceptible distance dimensionality (telephoto lens effect). It will seem like everything is all at the same distance. I used to marvel at this effect when I was a little kid watching football games on television.
Spend more time looking at telephoto video. Why should you think that building is behind the airplane, and not in front of it? With telephoto shots (anything imaged at a long distance from the viewer) the visual perspective is foreshortened. All the images look like they are at the same distance. The football audience members look as big as the football players. The perspective foreshortening that you observe when you are close to things no longer obtains.
And besides, the guy had the gumption to identify the buildings and find out where they were located. It is unmistakable that the path of the airplane was behind that building.
And if there was some funny business with an image insert, it would have had to have been the insertion of the building, since it is very tricky to matte in a moving image so closely to a pre-existing static image. But why insert the building, since it was already there? This idea doesn't at all establish that the airplane part of the image was fake.
You have to sort out what convinces you. Facts or feelings? The big lesson from this is that when it comes to the realities of nature, "common sense" is often misinformed.
There's another video from a street worker that shows the 2nd plane going into the tower. Completely different angle from this video.
Airplane wings, that are designed to slice through the air, going 200+ MPH hitting a stationary object can slice through concrete and steal. Also, how do we know the plane didn't actually crumble AROUND the steal beams and concrete and all go through the glass windows? Wouldn't be able to tell amongst all the smoke and debris.
The wing 'anomaly' can be a natural light refraction...but I could also easily take the top part of that small building and put it in front of the plane's wing on purpose and fake this video..making is so obvious it's a fake that people think the entire plane hitting the building was fake. There are hundreds of actual eye-witnesses who saw the 2nd plane hit the building.
I have seen that video quite a few times over the years. What I have noticed is that the plane has the same issue as the spaceships in the movie 2001. They all look 2-D.
There is no wobble showing any change in perspective and no change in perspective either as the plane moves across the field of view.
Everything photographed at a distance looks 2-D. Remember the old TV images of football games where the people in the foreground seemed the same size as the people in the background? At long distance, everything looks to be the same distance. Just a fact of photography. Thus also, no change in perspective. How could there be?
But it was a handheld camera. The line of sight does move around a bit if you watch the complete video at true speed. No reason to expect wobble, if the guy holding the camera was healthy and not subject to tremors.
I didn't mean camera wobble but plane wobble and the perspective would change as the plane moved past but I agree that would depend on how far away the plane was.
It might just be me seeing something that isn't there but I could easily believe that someone had obtained a still image of a plane at that angle and then just added it to a video of the buildings.
Here are some planes landing you can just see them wobble if you look closely - and they are trained pilots trying to keep the plan level for landing.
There is not much to see. If you are thinking the planes in the video you shared were "wobbling" you are a very picky pilot. But that is happening in a completely different flight condition where the flaps are deployed, speeds are slow, the pilot is trying to maintain a fixed bank angle (zero!), and the airplane is in ground effect, which tends to amplify wing-induced roll effects. The 9/11 airplane was at high speed, no flaps, and was in a freehand banked turn (no wobble due to pilot corrections). Those conditions tend to produce smooth dynamics.
Yes, you could well be right. I might be trying to invent things in my mind that should not exist anyway.
I need no more to complete the evidence that the world was played. Gibbets for the lot of them.
How did they get all of that CGI into witnesses' eyes?
There is a big shading issue here as well.
Look at the right wing just before it enters the building. Then look at the direction the Sun is shining. As the wing gets closer it should be thrown into shade the closer it gets, yet it actually gets brighter.
Amateur job at best.
The wing is mostly a flat surface. It will produce a strong "specular" reflection when the angle between the viewer, the wing, and the light source is appropriate. What is happening is that the optimum reflection angle is attained just before impact.
The left wing thru the smoke looks fake too. Well wow wow wow. And the videos from the gate ground level and up high angle from the hotel during the pentagon event clearing showing a missile, not a plane….
But now you will have to account for all the passengers that day. Including the “let’s roll hero.”
Would you be surprised to learn that an engineer who had worked with aircraft so called "black box" data most of his life was able to get hold of one of the few data sets for one of the 4 aircraft involved that day.
As soon as he opened up the data he was sent by the then US Gov, he realised he was looking at a data set for a black box bench test set as he had worked with them many times.
He explained that when the aircraft is still in the hangar being built, when the "black boxes" are fitted, the first time power is switched on through the aircraft busbar and powers up the black boxes its very first job is to assign a unique identifier to the boxes ROM (read only memory) which can never be changed as the point is if several aircraft were involved in an accident they must have the way to identify each black box to each aircraft.
He could instantly see that the data set he was given was never assigned to an aircraft from the 00000 serial number which would be usually an ID.
Lot's of other anomalies arose, (thinking about it, the data set was alleged to have come from flight 93 and the "let's roll" 757 at Shanksville) because again what most will never know is that on every cabin door there is a micro switch, and every time that door is opened or closed the microswitch would display on the data set, it never showed so it was never opened in flight by anyone.
I believe flight 93 was destined for building 7, but the remote takeover software fitted malfunctioned (and yes this remote takeover software existed way before 911) and the aircraft crashed in Shanksville, triggering the use of explosives which clearly took down WTC building 7 at 17:20pm that day.
If you want a comparison of what a large commercial aircraft does to a high rise building, go look for the crash in Amsterdam which hit a block of flats, most pictures have been scrubbed, certainly the good ones, and using google won't help, but there are a few out there for comparison.
catbox no open for me @ work.
Here you go... https://www.bitchute.com/video/NCMm7h7AMtBU/
I don't buy this argument.
2nd point first: wing vs. distant building. Here is a public issuance of the video by Michael Hezarkhani (see below), as #10 in the vignettes, appearing at about 5:24 in the timeline. It is devilishly difficult to start and stop this to glimpse the same frames, but it becomes clear that the image of the aircraft is split between frames, and the port (left) wing has very low darkness as it passes before the building. Hard to discern from the darkness level of the building. I suspect the video posted by Purkiss80 is a fake---but one that has been "cleaned up" to present a depiction of a CGI falsehood. It would be a peculiar falsehood if it only replicated a building that indeed was there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ
1st point second: airplane vs. twin tower. Of course it is possible for an airplane to smash through the hanging wall of the tower, which was not its primary structure. This is basically the same thing that happened with a B-25 bomber when it crashed between the 78th and 80th floors of the Empire State Building on July 28th, 1945. Complete penetration into the building. Lots of damage internally. The narrator is clearly not an aeronautical or civil engineer to make such an assured denial that this could happen. What was the airplane supposed to do? Flatten out like a cartoon character? No, there was a lot of mass and momentum and it would not be stopped without the airplane driving into the building and getting minced (and then it was stopped).
This is a world in which people invested in a fixed point of view are not above tampering with evidence to make a point. This includes 9/11 "truthers."
Man, are you glowing! Or you really have no clue. But you found your way to this site. So I'm going with glowie. Everyone knows 9/11 was an inside job. Ask DJT!
"Inside job" covers a lot of territory. There could be some bad associations from the organization of the attack. But that the attack did what it did is unmistakable, and trying to invent occult reasons for the physical events is stretching bias into wish-fulfillment.
Your ineptitude also shows in that your failure to understand the physics of the collapse impels you to call me a "glowie," when all I am is an aeronautical engineer who knows better. What "everybody knows" is mostly nonsense.
What occult reasons? Huh? You are an aeronautical engineer that thinks a plane wouldn't crash into a steel building and fall to the ground leaving the majority of the building unharmed? An engineer that thinks a plane can bring down a steel skyscraper? It was a controlled demolition and the planes were made up, just like the no plane at the Pentagon. Aeronautical engineer. LOL!
What is so wonderful about your reply is that it confirms without doubt that you are not an aeronautical engineer. Nor a historian.
It may interest you to know that in 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber flew into the Empire State Building, penetrated into the building, and caused a fire. So, the reason I think that this could happen again is because it happened a first time. (And easier this time because of the way modern buildings are constructed, with non-load-bearing curtain walls.)
As for bringing down a skyscraper, all that takes is for the column strength of a given floor to drop below a critical point. Then it is a rapid chain reaction (at the speed of sound in hot steel) when all the columns buckle. The overburden (upper floors) then collapse onto the next floor, and the process repeats, except faster, all the way to the bottom.
No controlled demolition necessary, or even provable. The planes were real (engines were found, etc.). There was a plane at the Pentagon; fuselage fragments and engine components were found, etc.
Anon? LOL!!! You are great at massaging your own preconceptions, but terrible at finding out anything true.
Hey, dont forget 'dem intact passports bruh
Good point. And engine components. And luggage pieces.
You don't have to...
Are you insinuating that I faked this video??
Again, what are you trying to insinuate?? I have never and never will 'tamper' with evidence...the Truth always speaks for itself and doesn't give a shit about your feelings...this includes 9/11 "deniers"
No, I am saying it is a fake. I have no idea where you got it. But it is "cleaned up" compared to the identical original video. In my viewing of the original video, I could just barely see the left wing because it had a darkness very close to that of the building beyond. This is the kind of circumstance that could lead to a spurious "correction" of the building being in front of the wing. How do you explain the double image of the plane in the original footage? That somehow got cleaned up.
What would be the point? There is plenty of corroborating footage that the airplane crashed into the building. And there is no question that it could have done so in that way, since a past occurrence did the same thing.
Ok, if you say so...
Actually, this guy says so. It turns out that building is actually located between the camera and the airplane, so the wing did pass behind it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdMKimP0S8 If anons would spend more time doing background confirmatory research instead of bias confirmation exercises, they might earn their name.
This is the guy that shot this video is Michael Hezarkhani. The only information I found relevant is that he refuses to talk about the video. Kinda Odd huh? If this footage was legit, why wouldn't he want to talk about it. It's suspicious, no?
This is my only source saying he doesn't want to talk about it. https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/pumpitout/michael-hezarkhani-9-11-videographer-t1883.html
Consider for a moment that this video was purposely edited in this way so it would cause confusion, and disagreement. As you see that's exactly what it's doing. I conclude this video is a red herring, purposely made conspicuous to run interference, to get investigators, and researchers looking in the wrong place.
I've spoken to people that had first hand accounts of seeing the airplane fly into the buidling. I strongly believe they flew something into the building, but I definitely don't believe it was some inexperienced hijackers. I conclude they were military drone aircraft flown remotely, or robotically
That tends to be where I am at on this as well. I mean, the DS doesn't mind killing people in mass quantity, why wouldn't they do both planes and bombs in the buildings?
Also, if the planes were all CGi why not do one for building 7 too? What I think was a major lie was that plane damage brought the buildings down, that was definitely demo charges.
The good news is we'll know the truth soon enough and the assholes responsible will pay.
Hey DeathRayDesigner, the YTube link you included with the Michael Hezarkhani video clip is the same video as OP posted. Turn the speed down to .25 and open it up to full screen (I have a 27-inch 4k monitor) and it indeed shows the same situation where the wing disappears behind the far building, confirming that it is a hologram or CGI.
Better yet, it turns out that the building is actually between the camera and the plane, so the wing was actually behind the building. As debunked by an otherwise sympathetic observer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdMKimP0S8 Not a hologram or a CGI. (It could never have been a hologram.)
You aren't serious are you??
Did you view the debunk video? The building was between the camera and the plane, so the wing actually did pass behind the building. You have to realize that when you are viewing things photographed at a far distance, there will be no perceptible distance dimensionality (telephoto lens effect). It will seem like everything is all at the same distance. I used to marvel at this effect when I was a little kid watching football games on television.
Yeah, I'm still not convinced by this video...
Thanks for linking it.
Spend more time looking at telephoto video. Why should you think that building is behind the airplane, and not in front of it? With telephoto shots (anything imaged at a long distance from the viewer) the visual perspective is foreshortened. All the images look like they are at the same distance. The football audience members look as big as the football players. The perspective foreshortening that you observe when you are close to things no longer obtains.
And besides, the guy had the gumption to identify the buildings and find out where they were located. It is unmistakable that the path of the airplane was behind that building.
And if there was some funny business with an image insert, it would have had to have been the insertion of the building, since it is very tricky to matte in a moving image so closely to a pre-existing static image. But why insert the building, since it was already there? This idea doesn't at all establish that the airplane part of the image was fake.
You have to sort out what convinces you. Facts or feelings? The big lesson from this is that when it comes to the realities of nature, "common sense" is often misinformed.
Did no one have cameras that day?
Here are some more vids:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7hApRZ_7v2A
There's another video from a street worker that shows the 2nd plane going into the tower. Completely different angle from this video.
Airplane wings, that are designed to slice through the air, going 200+ MPH hitting a stationary object can slice through concrete and steal. Also, how do we know the plane didn't actually crumble AROUND the steal beams and concrete and all go through the glass windows? Wouldn't be able to tell amongst all the smoke and debris.
The wing 'anomaly' can be a natural light refraction...but I could also easily take the top part of that small building and put it in front of the plane's wing on purpose and fake this video..making is so obvious it's a fake that people think the entire plane hitting the building was fake. There are hundreds of actual eye-witnesses who saw the 2nd plane hit the building.