|
VIDEO
PROOF THAT NO HIJACKED PASSENGER JET HIT THE NORTH TOWER OF THE WORLD TRADE
CENTRE March
15 2005. THIS IS A
PLANE
THIS
IS NOT A PLANE Both
of these images are taken from videos. The video containing the left image was
taken about 8 miles from Sydney Airport with a very cheap digital camera, not
even a dedicated video recorder. The image on the right is from a video taken with professional video gear. It
is the object which attacked the Nth tower of the WTC on Sept
11. The
Sept 11 attacks began at 8.46 am when an explosion tore a hole in the North Tower of the
WTC. We
are told that the impacting object was a hijacked Boeing 767—American Airlines
flight 11. It
has been conclusively demonstrated that this is a lie. 1) Video evidence shows that the object was not a large passenger
jet or even a conventional plane of any kind. 1 2 2) Official flight logs from the US bureau of transportation say
that the allegedly hijacked flight did not
exist. 3) The lists of passengers supposedly aboard the doomed flight,
published by the media, purporting to represent official flight manifests are
proven
fabrications. In
response to these irrefutable proofs, defenders of the Govt story have flown
into a panic in their attempts to maintain the official myth and have resorted
to some truly curious “reasoning” in their desperation to support the claim that
the object seen approaching the WTC is in fact a Boeing 767 or very similar type
of aircraft. One
of the more outrageous of these attempts was an hilarious piece of
buffoonery from Eric
Salter.
The
basis of Salter’s argument is that he claims to be a video professional which
apparently disqualifies anyone other than him or people who agree with him from
looking at an ordinary video and deciding whether or not they can see a plane.
Salter boasts of 11 years experience in video editing, claiming that the strange
looking object seen approaching the WTC is “what we would expect” a plane to
look like on video. As a video expert, Salter claims that no known video
technology can take a video of a plane which actually looks like a plane.
Extrapolating from this astonishing revelation, Salter goes on to claim that the
fact that we can’t see a plane in the video actually proves that there’s one
there—because if there was one present we wouldn’t be able to see it. Therefore,
the fact that the video shows no plane proves the existence of
one. When
asked several times to produce any other examples of plane videos which look
like the Nth tower object, Salter refused to do so, simply continuing to trumpet
the assertion that plane looked as one would “expect.” The debate linked
here
ended very badly for Salter and his tellytubbie partner, his brother
Brian. Since
Salter refused to provide any examples of plane videos, I decided to snap a few
myself. I happen to have a cheap digital camera, which as a bonus function, can
take very low quality videos. 10 frames/sec, a maximim of 30 secs at a time at
full size, to be precise. Before
linking to these videos, lets review what Salter claimed in relation to the
infuriating inability of even the finest video equipment to make a plane look
like a plane. Professional
video cameras, such as that which captured the WTC strike, run at between 25 and
30 frames/sec. These are the cameras about which Salter made the following
claims. “It
is the nature of video to blur very small details. As is clear in this image, an
object has to occupy at least several pixels to start to register any detail,
and judging by the size of the plane, the wing tips might be as little as one
pixel in width. Hence, they are not visible. This does not mean that they are
not there and that the object is not a 767.” http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html
And “Video
does not have good resolution, and moreover it does not handle edges well, so
something as tiny in the frame as the airplane is going to look distorted and
unrecognizable. I've been working with freeze frames of video for 10 years, and
what I see in these frames is pretty much what I would expect an airplane to
look like.” (In
response, I asked for five such examples, to which he could only reply
) “Again,
the way the plane looks in the video is how you would expect it to look, given
what video does to small details.” http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=68 (Archived debate ) Later
in the very same debate, Salter suddenly changes his mind. It seems that video
actually has no problem in making a plane look like a
plane. “The
Naudet video clearly shows a plane roughly the size of a 767.”
After
Eric got himself in a tangle and quit the debate, brother Brian jumped in, and
promptly reverted to Eric’s original position that video is incapable of clearly
showing a plane. Suddenly it seemed
that once again the Naudet video didn’t
“clearly show a plane roughly the size of a 767 “ after all. In Brian’s
words it was “mediocre and low resolution. “ characterised by “very poor visibility of the wings.” and
goes on to say that Eric “has
shown, by applying a full professional knowledge of video, that what appears in
the Naudet video is completely within the normal bounds of what a 767 (or
airliner of very similar size, to be technical about it) would be expected to
look like on video in this limited context, given the technical constraints of
video and the circumstances of the filming, and that there is no aspect of the
appearance of the plane in this footage which is outside of these bounds or
surprising in any way.” And
laments that “
looking at the video will still be as inconclusive as ever before
“ http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=68 (Hmm..
So the video manages to be both “clear” in showing a 767 or similar, but
simultaneously “inconclusive.” Make
up your minds, guys…) Since
it appears that the argument is all about what we “expect a plane to look like
on video “, then lets have a look at some videos. These
were taken with a Canon Powershot A85, the specifications for which are
here. As
you can see, it’s a nice little camera for the $A300 or so that it cost($US200),
but it’s video functions are hardly what they’d use for Hollywood, the TV news
or even a low budget student documentary. In fact, even a tourist with more
money than my meagre resources would probably want something better than this
for their holiday video showings at home. And just in case the Salters get
desperate enough to accuse me of lying about what I took the video with, you can
right click on the file and it will tell you the specs. And
here’s the videos which it has taken of planes in flight—most of them nowhere
near as low in altitude as the object in the Naudet Video. Heh ! It seems that
the Naudet boys wasted their money on all that expensive video gear, when my
$300 Canon—not even a dedicated video camera— with the pathetic frame rate of 10
per second—achieves what Eric Salter claimed was not possible even with the best
video gear. Firstly,
here
is the Nth tower object—taken by professionals with fully professional
gear. Now,
here is what I—a photographic novice - took by pointing my $300 camera into the
sky. It
was taken about 8 miles from Sydney airport, with the plane flying directly over
my head, so if the Naudets had actually videoed a large two engine jet flying
low overhead, it should have looked somewhat similar to this. The reason the
plane appears to spin around is that I had to pivot around with the camera to
follow its path. avi is the original format but it will only
play with quicktime and may not work on Macs, so if it doesn't work for you,
then use the mpeg file. Be patient with the mpegs.On my system, using media
player, each one takes about a minute to load. http://911closeup.com/planes/1727.avi http://911closeup.com/planes/1727.mpg Just
to show how much detail we can capture with this modest camera, here is a low
flying prop plane. You can even see the prop blades and clearly make out the
Qantas logo. http://911closeup.com/planes/1724.avi
http://911closeup.com/planes/1724.mpg Here’s
another 2 engine jet, a little further away than the first
one. http://911closeup.com/planes/1723.avi
http://911closeup.com/planes/1723.mpg And
this link will automatically bring up some videos
showing a variety of planes, heights, distances, angles and lighting conditions.
They clearly show details as fine as wingtips, prop blades and company logos.
It’s quite simple. Each of my videos shows a clearly visible plane. The Naudet
video does not. |
