Fl. 175's Speed: Fairbanks [290+ mph] or Fox [540 + mph]?

Another "Plane" Fact : Contradictory Video Plane Speeds:

 The pre- strike plane speed  for Fl. 175 that I previously calculated via the Fox 5 footage as being 540+ mph , is directly contradicted by the Evan Fairbanks "amateur"footage - which shows a speed of either 148 mph, 296 mph., or 591 mph. depending on the claimed frame speed of the camera purportedly used :-) .

That previous post established the fact that at a video speed of 30 frames per second, the Fox 5 network footage showing Fl.175's alleged flight and collision with WTC2 reveals an [altogether physically impossible for plane] air speed of 540 +mph. as calculated frame to frame.

[N.B. "official " plane speed was/is 520 knots, or 598  mph :-) ].

A 9/11 Video "Evidence" Fact: For Plane Speed Calculations, There Are Only Two Useful Video Sequences

There are only two Fl.175 flight/impact videos that I am aware of with sufficient camera/ viewer perspective of close to 90 degree [i.e. close to 90 degrees perpendicular to the planes path] that allow for a reasonably accurate calculation of frame to frame plane speed .

These two sequences are:

1]: The original Fox 5 national TV network broadcast sequence, as examined in my previous post :

Fig 1: frame 372 of Fox5 video  [ nose of Fl. 175 enters frame, circled in red]

                           Fig 2: frame 378 of Fox5 video [i.e 6 frames, and 1 plane length later]

and ....

2] The er, "amateur"sequence [ i.e never part of a "live" "as it happened", 9/11 US network broadcast ] purportedly captured by pro videographer "Evan Fairbanks", which was subsequently shown on a major US network later the same day, for the first time:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXxZNHrtyuU

                           

Speed Check

So, in order to double check on the plane speed I have calculated as being 540+mph in the Fox 5 sequence by measuring distance travelled per frame, at an assumed 30 frames per sec. camera speed, I then used the   "AIR VERSUS. SKYSCRAPER" analysis of the Fairbanks sequence, which handily slows the sequence down to reveal individual frames of that sequence:

                    

Plane Speed is Only 296 mph in Fairbanks Sequence?

If we ignore the main purpose of the Killtown analysis , and instead just concentrate on the number of frames the plane image takes to travel its own length, it will be seen that Killtown's frame by frame analysis of the Fairbanks sequence reveals the plane taking 11 frames to travel its own length:

                        

Plane Length= 159 ft.  

According to Wikipedia, Flight 175 was a Boeing 767-200, 159 ft. long

Fairbanks Camera's Frame to Frame Speed ? 

The frame to frame speed of the camera used for the Fox5 sequence was apparently 30 frames per second.

I did a superficial search for technical details of the Fairbanks sequence, but drew a blank for frame to frame speed, so I've done my plane speed calculations using three different, most common speeds.

From what I understand, these most common frame to frame speeds are:

1] 15 frames per second

2] 30 frames per second [the industry standard, even in 2016 , as far as I'm aware]

3] 60 frames per second [n.b. I'm not sure if this camera speed was even available in 2001, but included it anyway].

Plane Speed =14.45 Ft. Per Frame

If the plane takes 11 frames to travel 159 ft, it travels 14.45 ft per frame.

Therefor:

1] at 15 frames per sec.: 14.45 ft per frame =216 ft per sec= 13,009 ft. per minute=780,545 ft. per hour:

= 148 mph

2] at 30 frames per sec. , 14.45 ft per frame = 434 ft per sec= 26,010 ft. per minute, = 1,560,600 ft. per hour:

= 296 mph.

3] at 60 frames per sec., 14.45 ft per frame = 867 ft per sec= 52,020 ft. per minute = 3,121,200 ft. per hour :

= 591 mph. 

Impossibly Slow, Or Impossibly Fast- Or, Both Fake? 

So there you have it , dear reader, according to the Evan Fairbanks video sequence Fl.175 was either traveling at an impossibly slow [to do what it next supposedly did] 148 mph, [at 15 frames per sec.]contradicting the Fox 5 plane speed of 540+ mph, and the official speed of 598 mph.

Or, an impossibly slow [to do what it next supposedly did] 296 mph,[ at 30 frames per sec.] once more contradicting the Fox5 plane speed of 540+ mph., and the official speed of 598 mph.

or.....

An impossibly fast 591 mph,[ at 60 frames per second, if that camera speed was available in 2001],  which was/is just as impossibly fast as the Fox5 plane speed of "only" 540+ mph [and  just as impossible as the official speed of 598 mph.]

Assume 30 Frames Per Second for Fairbanks Video?

If I assume that the Fairbanks video was shot at the same camera speed as the Fox5 sequence,[ a not unreasonable assumption, I believe], then the Fairbanks video, with its airspeed of 296 mph., directly contradicts the Fox5 sequence, which shows an airspeed of 540+  mph.

Question:

So Who do You Believe: 11 Frames Or, 6 Frames For Plane To Travel It's Own Length ? 

If we assume a camera speed of 30 frames per sec. for , the Fairbanks video shows Fl.175 traveling its own length in almost twice the number of frames as it takes in the Fox 5 sequence. :-) .

And, don't fergit, as the Pilots For 9/11 Truth video clearly demonstrates:

                                

                                       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs5RQ_5nu4k

... that at anywhere near the official collision speed of  598 mph., [ or even at Fox 5's  revealed speed of 540 mph], or even at  "only" 500 mph........

 at that altitude [1000 ft. and below], the plane would have simply broken apart pre-strike due to the forces exerted on it by the 4x denser [than at 35,000 ft.], air mass.

And, from what I understand [as a non-expert in these matters] - even at 296 mph [ i.e the recorded speed of the E. Fairbanks video, assuming 30 frames per sec.], the plane would still not have been able to endure the massive forces acting on it via 4x air density, descent, and turning maneuvers , and would have therefor broken up, long before any attempted building strike.

Conclusions? 

So, based only on the plane speed issue [i.e. excluding any/all other technical and physical impossibilities shown in either video] :

1]: either the Fox5 sequence is genuine, and the Fairbanks sequence is a fake.

Or,

[2]: the Fairbanks sequence is genuine, and the Fox sequence is a fake.

Or,

[3]: [ horror of horrors], they are both [bad] fakes.

Or,

4] They are both genuine, because you are out of your tiny mind :-) [ get help]

False In One False in All- An Idea For You to Consider ?: 

To close, a legal principle for you to perhaps consider, dear reader:

"False in one , false in all" 

Regards, onebornfree

The WTC2 Top-Tilt Scam

So, In Which Direction Did The WTC2 top really tilt - North, South, or To the East? 

[This post, as with most in this blog, was inspired by the 9/11 research of Simon Shack, specifically, his February 21st, 2014, 5:13 pm post titled "WTC2 ROOFTOP TILT ANGLE(S)" ]

Well, the answer is, it depends on which  "genuine" WTC2 top tilt photo" you happen to be looking at at any particular time :-) .

To start us off on our brief little WTC2 top -tilt direction investigation, here is the "award winning" famous [so it must be genuine, right?]  WTC2 top-tilt photo by one "Amy Sancetta"[ and please don't fail to notice the almost perfect, pyramid-shaped smoke pattern above the WTC2's top. If you cannot see it please visit here]

Fig.1: The "genuine", "award-winning" Amy Sancetta photo clearly depicts the top of the WTC2 tilting due South, yes?

Next up , another er, "genuine" WTC2 top-tilt photo  :

Fig. 2 : WTC2 Top-tilt photo taken from almost due- North of the WTC complex. Notice how, for this particular "genuine" WTC2 top-tilt photo, the top is shown to be clearly tilting due East, not South.

N.B.  Professor Judy Wood's Blatant Photo Contradictions:

 The above  two photo's [Figs. 1 and 2], showing the WTC2 top-tilt directly to the South [Fig. 1], and at the almost exact same moment in time, due East [Fig. 2],  appear SIDE BY SIDE on Judy Wood's 9/11 research site. 

Q: so which is it Ms Wood, did the WTC2 tilt due South, as per Fig. 1, or did it tilt due East, as per Fig. 2? enquiring minds want to know ! [ Don't tell me, it tilted in both directions, simultaneously, right ? :-) ]

My Mistake- I Take It All Back- It Tilted Neither Due South, nor Due East, but Due North! : 

Fig. 3: No no no, you fools! OBVIOUSLY,the WTC2 tilted North!

Fig. 4: No, it was South I tell you!!

Fig.5 : No, you frickin' idiots! Quite clearly there was NO WTC2 top tilt  at all!! 

Regards, obf.

More About "Onebornfree":

"Onebornfree" is a personal freedom consultant , a problem solver, and a musician. He can be reached at: onebornfreeatyahoodotcom  .

Music Info: 

Onebornfree's [aka Fake-Eye D"] Music channel 

Home studio recording example "Somewhere Over The Rainbow Blues":Youtube link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2oS9iI2zWU

Live solo example [own composition "Dreams [Anarchist's Blues]:

Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o-C1_LZzk

Onebornfree Personal Freedom Blogsites: 
                                                                                         
 Onebornfree's Financial Safety blog

Onebornfree's 9/11Research Review blog

Onebornfree's Freedom Network Mythbusters blog

The Freedom Network

The Problem-Solver

9/11 Scams: Real N.Y.C. Images Vs. Fake MSM 9/11 Media Broadcast Footage- Random Examples.

This post is mostly a reference file for some real pre-9/11 photos and videos that I have come across to date.

The only thing to note/compare really here is the superb resolution, clarity and detail of all of these original genuine images, even those  depicting the WTC's construction in black and white, and also, the complete absence of the strange, single or double black lines around  any of the scenery, unlike these two randomly selected stills immediately below from the alleged live 9/11 network footage.[Both image analyses , fig.s 1 & 2 below courtesy of Simon Shack . Click on images to enlarge].

Remember that these examples [Fig.s 1 and 2] of the alleged live network footage of  9/11 were supposedly captured via  network TV cameras where the cameras lens alone routinely cost between $8000 and $20000[!] [ Click on images to enlarge]:                                                          

                                                                     

                                                                              Fig.1

                                         

                                                       Fig. 2  

Above: An analysis of two "stills" taken from original, allegedly "live" network video feeds.[i.e.Typical MSM 9/11 image quality. Click on images to enlarge.]

                         
                                                                    Youtube link to video

Above- Fig. 3 A genuine pre-9/11 home movie. Note the complete lack of double black lines or similar, plus the overall clear resolution of all imagery in this video.



















     
Compare, Compare, Compare:                                                                                                                                                      

Now try and see if you can get anywhere near the same sort of image quality and resolution as captured by this small, handheld video camcorder in a genuine amateur video above, from
any  allegedly "live" 9/11 network video sequence depicting the Twin Towers etc. 

Remember in 2001, a "state of the art" camcorder was a probably a Sony camcorder costing maybe $2000 [ a guess], with nowhere near the capabilities of studio network cameras, where, as I mentioned before, the lens alone on those monsters cost anywhere between $8,000 and $20,000]!  

For example, as well as Figs. [1] and [2] above, see this gif file below from NBC's original "live" feed showing the collapse of WTC 2, : 

Fig. 4: An $8,000 to $20,000 NBC network camera lens in action on 9/11? [gif. made by Simon Shack from the original highest resolution MPEG format version of NBC's 9/11 archives, now re-archived in a lower {flv?}resolution format here]

Fig. 5 Still shot from MSNBC's "Live 911 footage" archive. A  state of the art network camera costing in the region of $20,000 [at least], took this ! This is after 9am on a clear sunny day, and yet it looks more like the break of dawn than anything else, here.

Below: various, random real, pre 9/11 photos [ Click on any image to enlarge it]:

   

                 

                            

               

                              

                                         

                                 

                            

                                     

                                         

                                               

And again , as a reminder, this [below] is just one completely atypical example [i.e. not an aberration] of the image quality from various alleged live network feeds broadcast on 9/11: 

This gif file was  made from an archived, supposedly genuine NBC "live, 9/11 video" sequence. Yeah, right. This  sample of the typical 9/11 MSM broadcast image quality [check for yourself] is so obviously fake its not even funny! [Or, it's funny to me, if you still believe it is actually a gif from genuine real time MSM footage, I suppose :-) ]. 

Study, Study, Study:

If you still believe it and others like it, are genuine, go back through the numerous real photos I have posted here, click on them at random to enlarge, then study them and compare the picture quality when compared with that of this gif or that of the two photos that started this post [Fig.s 1 and 2 ]. 

Conclusion: All of the "live" US MSM broadcast video footage of 9/11, for all channels, [CNN, CBS, ABC,NBC, Fox,], all 102 minutes of it , as now officially archived here, is in fact fake, pre-manufactured [on computer] imagery, not real live footage, as we were, are, and always will be, led to believe. 

Are we "there" yet? 

 Not "There" Yet? : The Sum of All The Evidence:

The poor quality of all of the "live" MSM 9/11 footage compared to regular live broadcasts [don't take my word for it- study the archived footage, closely yourself {officially archived here },  and compare with your own selection of genuine, pre-9/11 imagery] alone does not prove wholesale media fakery.

 Other factors must be seriously considered, such a the remarkably fortuitous timing of various alleged "live" edits and camera "zooms" in and out to capture the alleged live imagery  events of 9/11, or the repeated presence of doubled, or "ghosted" images, and the presence of large black lines around many buildings in numerous "live" original MSM archived sequences. 

Then there is the whole question of imagery [i.e the Verrazano Bridge]seen to be moving in stationary camera sequences, or appearing to be double or triple its actual size relative to other buildings in those sequences.

As an attempt at a "sum of all the evidence" type argument, I will post examples of these further types of proof of media fakery on 9/11,  either here as  updates, or in separate posts in the future.

                                  Regards, onebornfree.

Update 09/03/13: 
See related post on 9/11 MSM broadcast image quality : 

9/11 Scams:The Faked "Live" CNN WTC1 Collapse Footage

EVERY Pixel Of This Plane Flight Video Was Artificially Created!

[full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsxsDwFj6nE  ]

Many thanks to clues info forum researcher "Nonhocapito" for bringing this video to my attention. 

To directly quote Nonhocapito: 

"Everything is computer-generated in this video. The author labels this "very dangerous software in the wrong hands", but it is a coy comment. We know (and he knows) this has been "in the wrong hands" for quite a long time. [obf's emphasis] The only difference is that such a level is now available to anyone, or at least to anyone willing to put enough knowledge, time and money into it. 

On one hand, this could almost be good news, in the sense that with time a more compelling perception of the real depths of fakery could reach a wider public (at least the one educated in computer technology and video techniques). On the other, it can be discouraging to think how difficult it is becoming to pinpoint rendering flaws."

The creator of this video " The Faking Hoaxer" says : 

" A small test using new software. Nothing here is real apart from the sound. My god, very dangerous software in the wrong/right hands.  I think the sound makes it more real than it isn't." 

So the question remains, dear reader, do you really believe that this type of software [perhaps not as sophisticated but good enough] was not available to the military and government in 2001? 

regards, onebornfree.

4 Real 9/11 WTC2 Collapse Photos- Or..?

9/11 Video and Photographic Fakery-The Sum of All The Evidence- a Demonstration

[Original photo research by Simon Shack and "Equinox"]

Below are 2 allegedly real photographs [the first below is actually a video "still" from an alleged live video by a "Ben Reisman"], depicting an alleged early moment in the miraculous, almost instantaneous [under 20 sec.s]  collapse of  WTC2 on 9/11. Notice both are taken from near identical angles/perspectives and at almost the exact same instant in time. Yet one displays a lamp-post and the other does not. 

If you think that the nearer viewpoint of the 2nd photo [Sancetta] would explain that, try making a screen shot from the Reisman still that successfully excludes the lamp-post, and yet still includes the exact same portion of the pyramid-shaped roof and gold ball on top for the [lower]building situated directly in front of the black building, as is seen in the second photo [Sancetta]. Good luck with that! 

Still Not Convinced Something's Wrong?

Now if that does not convince you that something is wrong- I understand, after all it is possible that Sancetta was in front of the lamp-post when that shot was taken and that accounts for the difference. 

However, now compare both Sancetta and Resiman's photos with another alleged photo depicting the same event from a similar angle, the Nilsson photo [1] below]. [Forget about photo 2 below for the moment].

 Notice anything odd? 

Last of all,  compare the Nilsson photo[1] above, with the Samoilova photo [2] above. 

Are we there yet? Remember-  in the big picture, it's the sum of all the evidence that leads to an ultimate conclusion- not one piece of evidence in particular. 

Regards, onebornfree.

Addendum/Update 11/17/12: 

Yet more versions of the WTC2 collapse "family" of photographs, such as these two , as compared by September Clues researcher "reel deal" take special note of the marvelously cloned smoke pattern on the left side of the smaller photo that gets overlayed onto the larger one! : 

"you forgot to comp the streetlight & flagpole."

"dont matter, cloned the tree & dustcloud instead..."

  

Update 11/29/ 12:  Same Scene Now 8 Authors!

Would you believe that as revealed by September Clues forum researcher "Equinox", there are now at least 8 slightly different versions of  almost exactly the  same famous Sancetta image seen above [2nd. image from top], all somehow miraculously capturing the exact same moment in time? 

Below are stills of some of these additional images. Some stills are from new, allegedly live video that was released by N.I.S.T. in 2010 as part of it's "Cumulus" information release, supposedly as the result of  Freedom of Information [F.O.I.A.] motion by some person or group [if you can believe even that!]

A question for you: do you believe that it is at all likely that 8 different photographers all happened to be in almost the exact same spot on 9/11, and that all 8 [and possibly more!] happened to shoot the almost exact same event/moment in time as depicted in these photos and stills from various videos? And what about the conflicting scenery shown? How do you explain that? "Perspective issues" perhaps?

Regards, onebornfree.