CGI / Hologram / No Planes

[StillDiggin]

Since nobody else is jumping in, I'll update my opinion for whoever happens to venture into this forum.

I conjured up my theory of "doctored steel in the impact area" in an attempt to validate the existence of planes. At the time, the only other option I was aware of was holograms.

After reviewing some of the material regarding "eyewitness" accounts, as well as the option of CGI implants, I no longer believe in the theory I presented in my previous post.

I would remove it, except that it contains elements that are common to my current beliefs.

My current belief is that the planes we see in any video, including Naudet's, are CGI inserts.

The common elements from my original theory are based on accessibility and concealment.

The only thing that is different is the "doctoring" aspect. Replace "removing or cutting steel" with "planting explosive charges," and voila!

Even the structural considerations I mentioned would still be plausible.

[StillDiggin]

For some reason, there are many people who lack the common sense/visual ability to understand that the nature of the WTC "plane impacts" are physically impossible.

People either "get that" or they don't. Those who don't, keep getting hung up on the speed of the plane - thinking if a weaker object hits a stronger object fast enough, not only can it overcome it - it will remain completely intact.

So the next time I find myself barreling toward a steel building in my car, I have to remember to hit the gas, so my car won't get damaged until I'm inside the building.

And that's just my common sense. When you add in all the other evidence out there, it's just so obvious to me that I'm dumbfounded that people still haven't agreed on this point.

Maybe that's why "no planers" seem to be so adamant. No matter how hard they try, they can't seem to get their point across to the majority of the movement.

The helicopter that captured the only "live" shot of the second plane was equipped with a WESCAM system. This is the same technology that is able to superimpose a first down marker on a football field, while not appearing on a player who crosses it. Subsequent replays showing the plane could also have been "ready to go." As for the rest of the 16 or so total videos and the Naudet film, they had all kinds of time to create those.

See WESCAM in "FOX?" chopper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiq66fdSTM4

Think about it. All the helicopter had to do was stabilize, line up the shot, insert the plane/first down marker using a couple of test runs off air, and then detonate the explosion, timing it with the on air image. This would be pretty easy to time if the detonator were in the same helicopter as the camera.

This is the same reason why nobody can ever get all the plane approach angles to line up. Because of the position and angle of the helicopter shot, they never had to line up the plane with the hole, nor did any of the early videos that don't show the impact face. Editors of the later videos had to actually line up the plane with the hole; they needed more time to synchronize everything. When did the first video that showed both the hole and the plane first get released? Not anytime soon, I'll bet.

No matter how hard they try, the subsequent angles will never line up with the "live" shot, because the "live" shot wasn't accurate enough, because it didn't need to be (nor did the early replays that didn't show the hole). In fact, the early replays probably show the greatest approach discrepancy, due to the lack of time they would have had to "process" what the "live" footage actually portayed.

When you add this analysis in with the varying plane-speed calculations between different videos, it makes for an awefully compelling argument.

Of course, this logistical analysis is based on assumptions - but they're pretty logical assumptions in my opinion.

I have to do some research to find out when they first released a video with both the hole and the plane.

Stay tuned for updates.

[StillDiggin]

So far, I've scanned through the first 16 parts of CNN's "As it Happened" footage on Google Video. Each of these segments being approx. 10 minutes long; let's call that 160 minutes. No video replay shows both the plane and the hole at the same time. I seem to have run out of parts, but I'll keep looking. If anyone knows where I can find more footage, please let me know. My guess is that those replays weren't aired until 9/12/01.

Getting to the subject line of this post: "Seeing is believing," take a look at this screenshot from "In Plane Sight" and see if you can point out what's physically impossible about the picture.

http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/?action=view&current=impact.jpg&refPage=&imgAnch=imgAnch1

Where is the hole in the building between the engines and the fuselage that the wings would have made?

Certainly, this plane wasn't travelling so fast that it entered the tower by osmosis!

I urge everyone who has "In Plane Sight" or any other video souce of this impact angle to go ahead and look for yourselves.

Also, can someone PLEASE tell me how to get the photo itself to appear in the post, so I can stop making people link to it?

[Continuity]

StillDiggin said:

[StillDiggin]

Thanks!

[StillDiggin]

Sorry for all the posts, but these ideas keep flying out of my head. I have another coincidence/logical assumption to back up my theory.

The affected floors of the "plane impact" with WTC2 were 78 thru 85. I've often asked myself if there was a reason for this. I've looked through tenant lists looking for a pattern or a target, but I'm starting to think now that I was looking in the wrong place.

I was evaluating the inside of the building for potential targets. What if these floors were targeted for their outside characteristics?

I'm sure everyone who has been around the 9/11 truth movement long enough has noticed the the two dark "rings" around each tower, seemingly dividing it into thirds.

Notice how the bottom (port) wing of the "plane" that "struck" WTC2 happens to be level with the top of the upper "ring."

(great thanks to Continuity)

I mentioned in my original "WESCAM analysis" post that the helicopter cameraman probably "lined up the shot." However, from that distance, it would be extremely difficult to line up the plane without a highly visible frame of reference. Counting floors from the top down would certainly be a tedious task.

And so I have now expanded my theory to include the assumption that the elevation of the "impact" was pre-selected in order to allow the cameraman to more easily line up the shot by using the upper dark "ring" as a reference point. This got him "in the ballpark," but not close enough to escape the scrutiny of the eagle-eyed "no-planers."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=U4AlmPyQ4IU

Of course, one might argue that they could have chosen the middle or bottom of the dark "ring" just as easily as the top. This is true, and I cannot begin to guess why they did choose the top. Surrounding building clearance issues? Structural considerations? Didn't want to kill the guys at Morgan Stanley? Arbitrary coin flip? I'll leave that question for someone else to figure out.

[StillDiggin]

This new argument speaks to both the timing and level of involvement of the media. Perhaps in some other post, I will try to ascertain exactly which of the two roles the media played on 9/11 - the chicken or the egg. So many directions I could go and so much literary fun I could have with that analogy, but for this post - I will focus on the "impact hole" and the "plane."

Unlike my previous posts, I am not directly referring to "impact" itself, when I ask the question "what came first...?" I have already provided visual evidence that the physical hole didn't manifest itself until the "plane" had fully "penetrated" the tower.

In this post, I'm referring to the planning stage of this operation. I will endeavor to answer the question: Why did the second plane hit on an angle?

This is by no means a new question. However, I will be providing a new answer.

Make no mistake, this was a carefully orchestrated "show." For the plotline of this show to be even remotely plausible, they had to provide us with at least one "plane" that was "live" enough to convince people that it couldn't possibly be faked.

Not only did it have to be "live," it had to be unmistakable. Now imagine if instead of a banking "plane," we had seen a level view of this dark object hurdling toward the south tower. We would all have this image of a dark cylindical "blob" etched into our minds forever.

So what is the most identifiable visual characteristic a plane? Why the wings, of course. We have to be able to see the wings.

In my earlier posts, I've already established that the "live" camera location (including elevation) and subsequent camera angle were deliberately and carefully chosen so as to obscure the merging of the "plane" and the "impact hole."

So the perspective of millions watching on TV is unchangeable due to this necessity. The problem is that from that perspective, a straight-flying "plane" would not provide visually irrefutabe evidence. No, we needed to see its wings.

And so they had to make it bank, so it could scream at us : "Look at me, I'm a plane!"

And of course, pulling out of that bank at 500mph in such a short span of time before "impacting" the tower would be awfully tough to convince us of, let alone any pilot.

And so the angled "impact hole" was "born." Date of birth: 9/11/01. Date of preparation: 9/7/01 to 9/9/01. Date of conception: Unknown, but certainly after the mandatory angled "plane."

In summary, the necessary visual perspective of the audience (us) is what forced the "plane" to bank and subsequently "impact" the south tower at an angle. Sequential logic also proves that just as in the case of the observable "physical" impact, the "impact" hole came after the "plane" with regard to its conception as well.

[Webfairy]

Great to see someone with an open and free mind doing their own research.
Gotta catch one error tho, cos it's a prevalent one like it was setup as a schnookie catcher.

[brianv]

I too believe that this is exactly what happened on /911. Can't post right now, have to go. I will be back tomorrow. Regards to WF.

[StillDiggin]

Nice to see someone finally joining in the discussion.

I did state my belief that all planes in these videos, including Naudet's, were CGI inserts.

These beliefs are based on logical, but not infallable assumptions. The only analysis I've done of the Naudet film can be found here:
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7485&highlight=#7485.

In this analysis, I question two things. The first is the image in the top right hand corner near the end of the video, which changes dramatically in three consecutive frames. The second thing I question is the behavior of black objects which appear to be birds.

My conclusion was that these objects could not be birds, based on their movement speed. I also couldn't see how they could be planes, because of their speed, erratic movement, and my inability to perceive their purpose. And so I assumed, due to my lack of any other ideas, that they must have been inserted after the fact.

Perhaps I did fall into a trap by leaping, based on that conclusion, to the assumption that the plane was also inserted.

This is the danger of rushing through analysis. Each event, just because it appears similar to another event, cannot be assumed to be identical.

I will be more careful to separate events in the future and avoid generalizations.

In the meantime, it looks like I have some reading to do.

I have briefly visited webfairy, gallerize, and 911TVfakery during my research. These sites have been my muse, so to speak; helping me to make sense of what I first observed while watching slow-motion footage from "In Plane Sight" (great resource video - when muted).

Unfortunately, I lack the software (and quite frankly, the work ethic) to simulate, overlay, and analyze the released videos as thoroughly as the people at these sites do.

Thanks again for the feedback.

I gladly welcome any critique of my "bird analysis" as well (linked above).

[StillDiggin]

[Veronica]

I’m also a fan.

I don’t wish to disturb your train of thought, but there are reasons to suspect that the Naudet film was staged – note, not faked – staged.

Why? Well that’s pretty obvious. And then the ‘plane impacting’ the South Tower, transfers (by Faux News, CNN & ABC osmosis) to the ‘plane that hit the North Tower’.

Whereas, as you are beginning to discover, there are serious doubts about ‘a Big Boeing’ in either case.

I would just like to say KeepDiggin StillDiggin! Because it seems that you are adding different slants and nuances to the research that WebFairy & Co. have already produced. All to the good, in my humble opinion.

Absolutely loved this:

[Veronica]

By the way, the “3 rings” you mention are, I believe, because the Towers were basically constructed as “three buildings on top of each other”. I understand that the “rings” are the ‘changeover points” between the sections.

An interesting perspective on the construction of these Towers is given by this picture contained within this article on LewRockwell.com.

(BTW: I take no credit for this observation, only for pointing it out here).

The thing to notice is that, because of the sunset, the ‘structure of the Towers is apparent i.e. hardly any ‘structure around the edges, all load bearing concentrated in the centre (where the elevators and central columns were). Thus belying any argument about the ‘outer walls giving way’ to support any collapse theory based on their outer strength.

(A little bit off topic here, but relevant to the ‘impact holes’, and the “3 rings” contexts)

[StillDiggin]

Dear Veronica,

Actually, I refer to two rings - which divide the towers into thirds.

Also, as an engineer, I find your analysis of the load-bearing capabilities of the WTC towers using only the sun and a photograph to be quite fascinating. And to think, all this time we've been using force equations...

Please submit your resume to Dr. Stephen E. Jones.

Thanks for the picture - and for the link to the site of the confused man from which it came.

Aw... dammit - now I gotta wipe all this sarcasm off my screen.

On a more serious note, I did find significant value in your previous link with regard to the staging of the Naudet video. A tad long for my taste - but certainly a worthwhile read.

[Webfairy]