Sunday, 10 December 2006

Stilldiggin' proves t.v. fakery beyond all doubt

Pinocchio's nose proves the lie

Blog by Stilldiggin'

Monday, November 13, 2006

9/11 TV-Fakery Whistleblower: Pinocchio Exposes Nose-Out Fairy Tale – Part I: The Screw-Up


This article represents an in-depth analysis of what I refer to as the "nose-out" phenomenon. For the unfamiliar, there was one "live" video feed broadcast by FOX on 9/11/01 that shows (if you believe the "official" story we've been told) the fully-intact nosecone of flight UA175 exiting the northeast face of WTC2 after impact.

Although this phenomenon is hardly "new" to most 9/11 researchers, I have yet to see anything written about it that goes much further than to simply state that it is "impossible." While I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment, stopping there opens up the logical question of what it was, if it was not the nose of a plane.

I have read of only three alternative answers to this question: a missile, a hologram, and a computer generated image (CGI). Although these alternatives apparently seem too far-fetched for the majority of 9/11 researchers to accept, I can assure you that all three are more viable answers than the "official" belief (although not equally more viable).

It should be quite obvious to any individual that what "exits" the northeast face of WTC2 cannot be the nosecone of any plane. Ignoring pychological aspects, the only logical reason I can come up with as to why any person would honestly believe that aluminum can pass through steel by osmosis (did a fully-intact nosecone somehow fit through a window?) is the lack of any comprehensible alternative explanation.

The main purpose of this article is to provide that explanation. For the record, you will not find the words "missile" or "hologram" anywhere in this article following the period at the end of this sentence (a missile, or any solid on this planet.for that matter, is ruled out by the fact that there was no "exit hole").

Due to the vast amount of material that the "nose-out" phenomenon ultimately provides upon close scrutiny, I have chosen to break the scope of this article into two parts. Here in Part I, I will strictly be dealing with both how and why the “nose-out” phenomenon occurred.

Part II will focus on the subsequent attempt to cover-up this blunder of epic proportions, and the many errors that were made in that hasty process. My ultimate goal is to bolster the logical explanation I am providing here in Part I with additional visual and physical evidence I will follow up with in Part II.

When all is said and done, it should be perfectly clear that the “nose-out” phenomenon was nothing but another FOX-aired TV-Fakery blooper.


Although this article does not contain very complicated math, it does involve some complicated visuals. I will be examining the effect of “Chopper Drift” as it pertains to the “nose-out” phenomenon observed in three different sources of the same “live” camera footage. These three sources are known as
Saltergate, Loose Change Saltergate, and the same video upon which I have based my last two articles - what I will henceforth refer to as Friedlgate.

Rather than having you watch the entire Friedlgate video yet again, I have created an abbreviated and “enhanced” version for the purposes of this article. In this video, I have excerpted frames 13750 through 14305 from the Friedlgate video. This captures the footage from the first clear frame from the “Chopper 5” video feed until the blackout frames after the “impact” and subsequent “nose-out” phenomenon. For further clarity, I have centered the frame on the “nose-out” location, and cropped the new video accordingly, being careful to maintain the same aspect. Furthermore, I have zoomed in an additional 7X between “impact” and “nose-out.”

This video has only been created to simplify my introduction. All frames referenced and/or presented in this article come directly from the original FriedlGate source. Just in case you still manage to miss the “nose-out” at the end of the video, I have circled it below the video in a screenshot of the frame after which this article has been named: Pinocchio.

Reference Frames

The first frame containing any part of the CGI is frame 14264, which I have named CGI Cue.

The last frame containing any part of the CGI is frame 14305, the last frame before the feed is momentarily cut off. Due to frame distortion caused by a noise bar in frames 14304 & 14305, I will refer to frame 14303 as CGI Cut for the purposes of this analysis.

Although I have carefully examined every frame between 14264 and 14305; CGI Cue, Pinocchio, “Exit” Fireball, and Cut Frame were the only ones I deemed critical enough to bother naming, for reasons which will become evident in the Analysis section much later in this article.


I will quantify “Chopper Drift” based on a frame-by-frame analysis, using a benchmark frame location as a reference point relative to objects moving within the frames. Due to the precise requirements of this analysis, I will toss aside my Vernier calipers and resort to pixel counting. What I refer to as “Chopper Drift” could in actuality be comprised of many factors in combination with actual linear chopper drift, such as chopper rotation, camera movement, and camera stabilization software adjustments.

For this reason, I have capitalized and placed the term “Chopper Drift” in quotes to represent the following definition:

“Chopper Drift”: The cumulative effect of all factors which caused the frame boundaries within the Friedlgate source footage to shift relative to the fixed objects that were being filmed.


There is some prerequisite methodology and research that I need to summarize before I present my analysis.

Prerequisites – Frame Alignment Methodology

I will start by presenting the frame alignment technique used, by including one example graphic to explain the method I will be using later on in this article to quantify “Chopper Drift.”

If you’ve read my previous article, you should already be familiar with these two frames. In the graphic above, I have aligned Eclipse with Zoom3 both vertically (using horizontal black lines) and horizontally (using vertical red lines). I used two reference lines for each axis to ensure there were no changes in either zoom factor or aspect. If there were any change in zoom factor or aspect, I would not have been able to get all four lines to line up.

We can determine the effect of “Chopper Drift” relative to these two frames by counting the number of pixels by which the frame has shifted relative to the fixed tower positions. Since all logos are fixed relative to the frame boundaries, I can use any point on one of these logos as my benchmark pixel.

I chose to use one pixel to the right of the endpoint of the “LIVE” caption underline as my benchmark pixel to determine offset. I could have used either the “HIGH 5” or “Good Day” fixed logos, or even the black frame borders to come to up with the same result. I chose the “LIVE” caption underline because it is a highly contrasted, one-pixel-high straight line which is “out of the way” of what I am trying to draw attention to in the frames.

Using this method, I was able to determine that relative to Zoom3, the frame contents Eclipse have shifted right by four pixels and down by one pixel. The more correct way of saying this is that the frame boundaries of Eclipse have shifted left and up relative to Zoom3.

Bonus Line:

As an added bonus, we can also note that this CGI descended approximately one fuselage diameter (about 16 ft) in 0.4 seconds (12 frames). Even more amazing is that once the “tail” emerges from behind the Good Day logo, it remains completely level until it disappears “into” WTC2 . Of course, it is impossible for ANY real plane (including a fighter jet) to instantaneously “level itself” from a descent rate of 40 ft/s. However, since the scope of this article is limited to the “nose-out” phenomenon, I am only including this physical impossibility as a “Bonus” note.

Prerequisites - Research

Here is where things start to get a little more technical. I am not a video expert by any means, so I had to do a little extra research in order to understand the basics of live CGI insertion technology. Specifically, I needed to understand the parameters by which a CGI would either be seen or obscured.

The easiest example of this technology to research is SporTVision’s "1st & Ten"TM graphics system. The next section is a summary of what I learned in about ten minutes as a result of my research. If you find my summary to be insufficient, I have included links to the sites I visited in the Reference section under “SporTVison Research Links.”

Prerequisites - Live CGI Insertion Technology Research Summary

Basically, multiple cameras in multiple locations constantly (every 1/30s) feed camera data (such as position, aspect, and zoom) to computers that compare their input to a known model of the image they are filming. In the case of the virtual yellow line which represents the first down line in football, the model is the football field. This is (relatively) easy to do on an empty field.

The difficulty arises when there are people and objects on top of the field – such as players, referees, footballs, etc. In order to prevent the yellow line from appearing on these people/objects, they use colors to distinguish between the players/objects and the field.

In order for this technology to work properly, the color of the playing field needs to be “unique.” Problems arise when uniforms are too close to the color of the field. In cases such as these, the virtual line will become visibly superimposed on a player’s body or uniform, rather than that player obstructing the line from view.

After searching the internet for several hours over the past couple of days looking for an example of this case, I came up empty. Luckily, it was a rainy day in Foxboro yesterday as the Patriots lost to the Jets. If I had actually recorded the game instead of just the highlights, I’m sure I could have provided an example with a yellow first down line, instead of the blue line of scrimmage. Rest assured; it’s the same technology, just a different colored line.

The pants and sleeves of the Jets’ uniforms are already somewhat of a dull green. Combine this with a little mud and a little haze and rain, and this is what you get:

I’ve also included a short video clip of the ESPN footage from SportsCenter.

Prerequisites - Live CGI Insertion Applied to TV-Fakery

Early in the morning on September 11, 2001, there wasn’t a cloud in the sky anywhere near Manhattan. Not one “live” shot or replay on that day showed the CGI cross in front of any smoke, either. Because of this graphics system’s requirement of a constant background color, this was an essential aspect of footage shown from any angle on that day.

Of course, as I will get to in Part II of this article, all the later videos could be altered to any editor’s content, since they weren’t subject to this necessary parameter.

Since we know that the CGI would only appear when applied to a sky-colored background, this means that both WTC2 and the fireball that emerged from the “exit” face would have concealed it. Of course, for the fireball to conceal it, it would have had to appear before the CGI “exited” WTC2.

Furthermore, we now know that the motion of the CGI is tied to the frame boundaries (the football field), not the towers (the football players). This is easily validated by calculating the speed of the plane in pixels/frame using two different reference points.

Before I did my research, I was baffled by the varying speed of the CGI relative to the towers. In one frame, it moved 4 pixels closer to WTC2 – in the next, it moved 8 pixels closer… then 6? Essentially, this is (6) pixels/frame (+/-2).

After I did my research, when I ignored the towers and used the right hand frame boundary as a reference, the CGI moved twice as consistently at (5) pixels/frame (+/-1).

This also explains why the velocity I calculated for the CGI in my last article was so high. Because of this “Chopper Drift,” the CGI ended up approaching WTC faster than it was supposed to.

Prerequisites - Live CGI Insertion Applied to the FriedlGate Source Footage

Based on my newfound knowledge of how live CGI technology works, I can immediately think of two main reasons why the CGI did not present itself until after Zoom3 had stabilized in the FriedlGate video:

1.) The CGI could not pass in front of the dark smoke billowing from WTC1, because it would only be visible over sky-colored pixels.

2.) The CGI was a constant size and shape, and therefore could not be subjected to any zoom or aspect change (imagine if you had seen the towers get bigger or smaller while the CGI remained the same size). Because of this, it stands to reason that all camera locations and zoom factors had to be carefully calculated so that each of their CGIs would scale closely with a 767. This process probably required several (non-explosive) practice drills. Of course, they still didn’t get the zooms quite right, which is why many researchers have pointed out that the CGI images do not scale correctly to B767-200s.


Now that we know enough about this live CGI insertion technology, we can finally get down to the business of evaluating the “nose-out” phenomenon. I apologize for the delay, but I felt that the prerequisite material was necessary in order to understand “the rules” of how inserted CGIs interact with real objects when they “cross paths.”

Analysis – “Chopper Drift”

With that taken care of, it is now time to quantify the cumulative effect of “Chopper Drift” on the inserted CGI in this video.

To present this, I will use the same method as I did in the sample alignment. Only this time, I will apply it to CGI Cue and CGI Cut.

In the 1.3 seconds that elapses between CGI Cue and CGI Cut (14264 to 14303), the frame boundaries shift up by (5) pixels and left by (13) pixels (relative to the fixed towers).

Since we know that CGI position is tied to the frame boundaries rather than the towers, we can conclude that were it not for “Chopper Drift,” the “nose” would have ended up 13 pixels to the right of where it actually is in the Cut Frame.

Analysis – “Nose-Out” Characteristics

Now we need to take a closer look at how much of the CGI’s “nose” is visible throughout the entire “nose-out” frame sequence, noting the alignment offset due to “Chopper Drift” of each frame relative to CGI Cue.

Please note that in the previous graphic, each cropped image is exactly the same size and scale. Each cropping was performed using the exact same pixel coordinates. I did not realign the frame boundaries relative to the towers before cropping because I wanted to highlight how slowly the CGI advances in these frames. It has slowed from (5) pixels/frame before “impact” to just (2) pixels/frame after “exit.”

As noted at the bottom of the graphic, there seems to be some sort of a video filter applied to the frame which was probably intended to work as yet another “safety net.” I can only assume that it must have also been tied to the frame boundaries and therefore also out of position due to “Chopper Drift,” since it only obscured part of the CGI’s “nose” for two frames (14301/2). When darkened in frame 14305, it actually served to highlight the nose.

We can also see that the greatest number of visible CGI pixels before the fireball and after “exit” is (9) pixels in Pinocchio (frame 14300). The reason I have named the article after this frame is because it allows us to calculate the maximum amount of “Chopper Drift” that could have occurred before resulting in the “nose-out” phenomenon.

Analysis - Calculations

Since there are (9) observable pixels of the “nose-out” in Pinocchio at a point in time when the frame boundaries have shifted by (12) pixels relative to CGI Cue, quick subtraction (12-9) tells us that a (3) pixel shift was all that could have been tolerated.


The problem with using live CGI insertion from the camera angle in the Friedlgate video is that there is a gap filled with open sky between the two towers. Because no other “live” camera angle showed open sky immediately next to the “exit” face of WTC2, this particular CGI had the greatest risk associated with it.

It seems to me that the “exit-side” fireball was specifically designed to hide the CGI, with an apparent “safety net” being some sort of a filter which was supposed to mask the sky between the two towers. The ultimate fallback plan was to kill the tape-delayed feed immediately if something went wrong. I can only speculate that they waited a split second too long, hence the blackout frames following frame 14305.

I firmly believe that the “nose-out” phenomenon was a product of excessive “Chopper Drift.” More specifically, allowable “Chopper Drift” was exceeded by (9) pixels, which works out to 300% error.

As bad as this seems, it pales in comparison to what would have occurred had the frame boundaries been shifting in the opposite direction. Imagine the immediate fallout had the CGI vanished just before “impact” - or worse yet, a quarter of the way “inside” WTC2. Still, it’s ironic how all their “safety nets” seemed to fail in one fell swoop, all because of the very thing they were trying to protect against. Could it be that that didn’t take the time to fully understand how the technology they were using worked?

From the ironic to the comedic, consider the fact that every single subsequent video that shows this nose-out phenomenon was created as a cover-up for this one “live” FOX chopper footage blooper.

As I will cover in Part II of this article, as is usually the case with most tangled webs, the cover-up only makes the initial mistake more obvious.


SporTVision Research Links - 1st & Ten
Changing The Game (

Thursday, October 26, 2006

9/11 TV-Fakery... Hunt the Boeing (WTC) 2: Pythagoras Exposes Phantom Flight UA175 as a Hoax


It appears that the newer source of the "Jim Friedl" audio has more to offer than meets the ear. In this
newly released video, we are presented with an uninterrupted “live” video feed, which provides us with a reverse version of the magic trick "Now you see it... Now you don't."

At 7:38 of this video, the feed is switched to a different helicopter. A few seconds later, FOX commentator Jim Ryan describes the image from the video feed as "the picture from our chopper now arriving at the scene." This comment seems to validate that this is indeed the same video that was broadcast “live” by WNYW FOX5 on 9/11/01, since the picture correlates with the commentary. In what I referred to in my previous article as the "
original source," the video feed never switches to this helicopter (this would have occurred approximately 2:44 into that video).

Although this matching commentary does not necessarily prove that this newly released video is exactly what was broadcast “live” by WNYW FOX5 on 9/11/01, it does seem to prove that this is the feed that Jim Ryan was looking at as he was commentating.


The objective of this article is to determine whether or not a plane would be clearly visible in any frame prior to its appearance in frame 14269 (see Reference Frames below), approximately 7 minutes and 55 seconds into the aforementioned video.

In order to achieve this objective, it is necessary to determine two major elements for visibility:

1.) The observable size of the “plane” at any given zoom factor
2.) The relative location of the “plane” inside or outside the boundaries of any given frame


I will begin my analysis of this video at the 7:38 runtime marker. My first observation relates to speed of the "arriving" chopper. I will offer a crude guess of no more than a 10mph cruising speed on the towers at the moment of the switched feed, based on viewing the land and river directly below the chopper. However, this chopper is not moving directly towards the scene at all. As a matter of fact, after the first zoom-in, it can clearly be observed to be moving sideways as well. Due to this observation, I have chosen to deem the effect of the camera’s closing rate to be negligible.

Before anyone considers challenging my decision to ignore this factor in my calculations, please consider that at this closing rate and from this distance (approximately 6.5 miles from the tower), it would take well over an hour for the chopper to truly “arrive at the scene,” and that the longest time span I have used in any of my calculations is 6.1 seconds.

In other words, if you were standing 6.5 miles away from WTC2 on that day, and you jogged toward it for 6 seconds, how much bigger do you think it would look from your new vantage point, about 50ft closer?

*Hint: it would seem around 1/8th of 1% larger. Now apply that to 0.625in, and you will then understand why I have deemed it negligible.

Analysis: Reference Frames

For clarity, I will present three critical frames for future reference, two of which I will repeatedly be referring to as Zoom1 and Zoom3 (Zoom 2 is an intermediate zoom between Zoom1 and Zoom3, which offers no real benefit regarding the objective of this analysis). I have chosen to call the third critical frame “Eclipse,” because this is the final frame before the nose of the “plane” disappears behind the south corner of WTC2, just prior to “impact.”

url not found

Please note the frame numbers and run times associated with Zoom1, Zoom3, and Eclipse - as these become critical references for the calculations performed throughout the remainder of this article. Please also note that all measurements were recorded using imperial Vernier calipers (model SPI-2000), as applied to printed screenshots which were extracted using VirtualDub software.

All calculations beyond this point have been rigorously verified by Veronica Chapman, to whom I now owe many favors. Please report any errors for review via the provided comment link (beyond those which are attributable to precision measurement and rounding).

Clarification Note: Reference screenshots have been scaled to 70% of their original extracted size to fit the width of this page. From this point forward, all screenshots have been doubled from their original size.

Please keep in mind that all dimensions labeled on these screenshots have been recorded using the original screenshot size, and therefore should not match the size of the image that appears on your monitor (unless you have about a nine inch monitor or an insanely high resolution setting). Although you may arrive at different values than I have, you should find that the ratio of your own measurements to mine will remain consistent.

Analysis: Zoom3 Measurements

url not found

Analysis: Zoom3 Calculations

I have selected the width of WTC1 as a "measuring stick" for the purpose of determining the distance from the south corner of WTC2 to the right edge of the frame in Zoom1. I chose WTC1 rather than WTC2 simply because it is at less of an angle relative to the camera position.

However, it is still at a slight angle, and so we cannot simply use it's known length of 208 ft. This is because planes (dimensional planes, not Boeings) of objects appear shorter when viewed from any angle that is not direcly perpendicular to them. Using a true length value to measure distances in an auxilary view represents flawed methodology. Since our ultimate goal is to determine as accurately as possible where a fast moving "plane" should appear in Zoom1, we need to address the problem presented by this auxilary view.

url not found

Although there is not a tremendous difference between 206.5 ft an 208 ft, it still compounds to 38 ft/mile. If we had chosen WTC2 and ignored this factor, the error would have been even greater than 38 ft/mile due to the fact that it is at an even greater angle. Due to the high velocities and short time spans we are dealing with in this analysis, I felt it necessary to eliminate every possible source of non-negligible error.

Analysis: Zoom1 Measurements & Calculations

From the calculations above, we can now determine that 1 mile is 25.57 tower widths (5280/206.5). This ratio is a constant from this angle, regardless of zoom factor. After printing out a screenshot of Zoom1, I measured the distance from the right edge of the frame to the south corner (right edge) of WTC2 as being 2.465in.

url not found

My measured width of WTC1 in this frame is 0.09in. Therefore, 1 mile in this frame should scale as 25.57 X 0.09 = 2.3in. This means that the right edge of the frame should be 2.465 / 2.3 = 1.07 miles away from the south corner of WTC2.

If you'd like to verify this, feel free to print Zoom1 and take your own measurements, or measure it on your monitor if you'd prefer. Because we are dealing with ratios, even if your printout/monitor is not the same size as what I am working from, this 25.57 tower widths = 1 mile will hold true.

Analysis: “Plane” Speed

From the graphic in the Zoom3 Measurement section above, I measured the distance between the nose of the plane and the south corner of WTC2 to be exactly 1in. The nose of the plane meets the south corner of WTC2 12 frames later (difference between Zoom3 frame 14269 and Eclipse frame 14281 = 12).

In Zoom3, 1 inch = 330.4ft (206.5 / 0.625). Velocity is equal to distance over time. We've already measured the distance, and the time is easily calculated by counting frames in this 30 frame/s video. 1/30 s/frame X 12 frames = 0.4s. Therefore velocity = 330.4ft / 0.4s = 826 ft/s.

826ft/s X 3600 s/hr / 5280 ft/mile = 563.2mph!

This ludicrous velocity alone should be enough to declare this video as proof of TV-Fakery, especially since this "plane" is supposedly still banking. However, since I have taken the time to perform all of these calculations, I may as well show everyone reading this where this "plane" should have been back in Zoom1.

Analysis: “Plane” Size

Anybody that I haven’t “lost” by this point should comprehend ratios (I hope), so whether we measure pixels or paper, the zoom factor should be simple to explain. My (paper) measurements came out as 0.625in (Zoom3) and .090in (Zoom1) when I measured the width of WTC1.

This yielded a zoom factor (image size ratio) of 6.9444 (0.625 / 0.09). I used this factor to calculate the size of the image we should expect to see in Zoom1 (1/6.9444 = 14.4% of the Zoom3 image size).

Note: One anomaly I have yet to point out is that the “plane” in Zoom3 scales at 144ft, which is 15ft shorter than a B767-200. As this point is irrelevant to the objective of this article, I am simply noting it as a fact.


Due to variance between all purported “plane” speeds, I have decided that the output of my calculations should include where this "plane" should have been seen in a manner which includes a broad range of velocity estimates in addition to the velocity I was able to calculate above.

url not found

With a known drawing scale, it became a relatively easy task to create a velocity chart. Since Zoom1 and Eclipse (when the nose of the "plane" meets the south corner of WTC2) are separated by 183 frames (14281-14098), time is calculated as 183/30 = 6.1s.

Running through the process of how I determined where to draw the line representing 563.2mph:

563.2mph / 3600 s/hr = 0.1564 miles per second
0.1564 mile/s X 6.1s = 0.9543 miles
0.9543 miles X 25.57 tower widths/mile = 24.4 tower widths
Since I measured 1 tower width to be 0.09in,
24.4 tower widths X 0.090 in/tower width = 2.196in

If you are interested in viewing the chart I used to generate the remaining reference lines in the graphic, I have made it available via hyperlink under the reference heading at the end of this article.

Hypothetically, if a plane were visible at the extreme right frame edge of Zoom1, and it's nose were to arrive at the south corner of WTC2 6.1 seconds later, its minimum velocity would be 632mph.

Of course, this entire graphic is hypothetical, since we should all know by now that the image observed in Zoom3 was nothing more than an inserted CGI.


As you observe the graphic above, keep in mind that although my calculations are subject to some small degree of measurement error, I still feel that I am presenting the worst-case scenario (i.e. minimum velocities), due to the fact that this graphic represents a perfectly straight-flying plane, traveling directly perpendicular to the camera's "line of sight." Any other path would result in the "plane" being even closer to WTC than I have presented, for the same reason my measuring stick ended up being less than 208 ft long (angled distances appear shorter).

If any individual wishes to take the time to apply the methods employed in this article using pixel counts rather than paper measurements to achieve more accurate distance measurements, feel free to do so.

Please also note that the scale of the Zoom1 “plane” is actually 14.5% of the size of the Zoom3 “plane” in the green rectangles added at the top left of this graphic, rather than the 14.4% value I calculated in my "Plane" Size analysis. This is only because I exported the screenshot to MS Paint, which only allows scaling by whole percentage values. To achieve the 14.5% value, I doubled the scale of the entire screenshot and then scaled only the “plane” to 29% of its Zoom3 size.


Velocity Reference Line Calculations

Revision History

10/28/06 - 12:45am - Reference screenshots scaled to 70% to fit this page. Original size screenshots available here.

10/28/06 - 11:19pm - Clarification Note added to Reference Frame section.

10/29/06 - 8:45pm - Added LH extension line in Zoom1 Measurements graphic, in line with the south corner of WTC2 (LH extension line missing on previous graphic, LH dimension arrow extented to south corner of WTC1). 2.465in label showing measured value has always been correct - only the LH dimesion arrow was incorrect.

10/30/06 - 8:01am - Corrected WTC1 dimension in Zoom3 Measurements graphic to read 0.075in, as measured (previously erroneously labeled as 0.070in).

10/30/06 - 8:19am - Revision History section added, and revision notes relocated here from main text, so as not to break up the flow of the article.

10/30/06 - 9:54am - "Enhanced" Clarification Note in Reference Frame section.

Friday, November 17, 2006

9/11 TV-Fakery Whistleblower: Pinocchio Exposes Nose-Out Fairy Tale – Part II: The Cover-Up

Part I Highlights

Before we move on to the cover-up, let’s quickly go over a couple of the findings in Part I that are critical factors to take into account when analyzing any one of the many “2nd hit videos,” such as those found at Killtown’s page.

When analyzing any “live” video that was aired on 9/11/01, you must take into consideration that the inserted CGI moves relative to the frame boundaries rather than the objects captured within the frame. This fact alone proves that the object is neither real nor a hologram, since the motion of both of these “entities” would be relative to the objects captured within the frame.

In the Friedlgate footage, this object moves and behaves exactly as a live CGI insertion would, when we consider that the frame boundaries have shifted relative to the towers. This “behavior” includes characteristics such as “velocity” and “descent rate” in addition to the observed “nose-out” phenomenon.

We may also be able to observe this same correlation in later “photoshopped” videos as well (depending on the video editor’s attention-to-detail regarding his/her perceived stability of the footage). Rather than go into detail here about how this correlation can be performed, I will include a sample methodology in the Reference section for any interested video analysts.

One final note that cannot be overemphasized was made in Part I. The fact that there is no hole in the exit face that would accommodate an object of this size proves that the object cannot be real.

According to someone calling himself heiho1, who commented after reading Part I of this article, this is an incorrect statement. His basis for declaring that? That he and the crew had already reached the conclusion "...that it was most likely a pyrophoric material like uranium or similarly active heavy metals,..." which “…could easily, upon exposure to oxygen in the air, burn through steel and concrete.”

Of course, for that to be true, there would have to be missing sections of steel and/or concrete – which there are most certainly neither in any photo or video.

For the record, I also just noticed (between writing Part I and Part II) and therefore must give due credit to Killtown for pointing this out at 911blogger well over TWO MONTHS AGO (09/06/06).

Expounding on what Killtown concluded: Due to there being no hole in WTC2 to account for any protrusion that size, the object we clearly observe in all these videos (“live” or otherwise) is clearly not a solid material of any kind.

Unless someone is desperate enough to start claiming it was a liquid or a gas that flowed around the still-intact steel beams and then formed itself into the approximate size and shape of a plane, we can pretty much rule out anything real altogether.

Introduction – Example of Learning from Mistakes

Upon further analysis, I actually centered my circle in the wrong place when I attempted to point out where the WTC2 “exit-hole” would have been had this “nose-out” actually been anything real. In the revised graphic below, the corrected circle is shown in green (original is in red):

This correction is based on the observable “nose-out” elevation in many videos (many later examples), along with the picture below, which can be found on page 10 of this NIST document.

Analysis - Necessity is The Mother of All Invention

In realizing my original error, the discovery of this new graphic allowed me to visualize the intent of the desired pattern much more clearly.

During my frame-by-frame analysis of all footage filmed from the north, I noticed that without exception, there are two separate “exit-face” explosions that merge to form one huge fireball. Until I saw this picture (and many others in NIST’s various reports), it never dawned on me that based on their spacing and their independent elevations, these explosions were obviously supposed to represent the separate fuel tanks spewing flaming kerosene forward due to its (would-be) momentum.

Here is where the perps showed their ability to improvise:

Because of the most obvious FOX-aired “nose-out” phenomenon, they were forced to copy this blunder into all the other “amateur” footage which would surely have shown it even more clearly than the “Chopper 5” footage did.

To accomplish this, they had to abandon the independent fuel tank explosion explanation for the separate fireballs and use what would have represented the starboard-side explosion as cover for the “nose-out.” Of course, this subsequently placed the port-side explosion out of position. This was only a minor anomaly compared to having to explain how an entire third of the still-intact plane emerged from the backside of WTC2 in that FOX-aired blooper.

Unfortunately for them, they had already dug their own graves. Although this solution bought them some time (about 5 years so far), they had to know that the fact that there was no hole in “exit-face” from which the “nosecone” could have “emerged” was going to be their ultimate undoing. There was no way for them to run up there and create the unplanned hole they now needed to exist, but even if there was, it wasn’t like they could “unbroadcast” the already-aired footage of the fully-intact steel beams.

At this point, they were forced to choose between hoping that nobody figured out this obvious “smoking gun” and providing no amateur footage from the north side at all. If not one person would have captured the “nose-out” on film, that would have rivaled the sheer lunacy of finding Satam Al Suqami’s unscathed passport in the street.

This really wasn’t too hard of a decision for them, for a couple of reasons:

1.) They had already aired “live” footage from the north that shows no sign of the “nose-out.”

2.) The “nose-out” phenomenon was obvious enough that it could be seen even at full-speed. Even if that weren’t the case, it would have undoubtedly been recorded and eventually released on the internet, immediately exposing the amateur videos as containing CGI planes.

And so in essence, the "fitting" logic behind that decision was the exact same logic that they used when they first decided they could get away with this crime in the first place:

Proving that something exists is far easier than having to prove that it doesn’t exist. “Seeing is believing” - no matter that it defies the Laws of Physics. Such is the power of the mighty media.

In this case, it was a far less daunting task to reinforce the physical impossibility that people had seen on television than to convince people that they didn’t see it at all.

As convoluted as that way of thinking may seem, it had to be the ultimate logic behind adding the “nose-out” into the amateur footage.

Analysis - Execution

As far as the execution of that impromptu plan goes, it would have been relatively simple. The matter of adding believable shadows and trying to match the rest of the “nose-out” characteristics would have complicated matters somewhat, but keep in mind that they already had video editors furiously working to add the CGI into every frame of every video anyway. I’m sure all this new “wrinkle” did was delay the release of these amateur videos by a couple of hours or so. To help speed up the process, they could have easily reassigned one or more video editors to work on just the nose-out frames.

So long as the editing time didn’t exceed by too great a factor the amount of time that a “somewhat in-shock” general public would expect to be “reasonable” for an anxious photographer to submit his/her footage of the event to a major network.

As I look back at it now, anything longer than a couple of hours or so seems unreasonable to me, since both parties should have been anxious to find each other, for reasons that almost seem too obvious to mention: instant fame for the photographer and “first scoop” ratings for the networks.


The cover-up of the FOX blooper ends up being much easier to prove than the actual FOX blooper itself. The proof ended up being so simple and so compelling that I felt I needed to publish it immediately.

I am stunned, quite frankly, at the luke-warm reaction to Killtown's original revelation of this concept at 911blogger. One anonymous coward actually replied: "Hate to say it...but that photo looks like a fake to me." I've already linked to one NIST document containing a photo showing no missing steel beams; but just in case, here is another one (see page 89).

Perhaps when accompanied by this analysis, which shows the motive behind adding the "nose-out" into every possible video angle, this easy-to-interpret physical impossibility will help everyone to see that this is irrefutable proof of how TV-Fakery led to video editing.

To clarify, what this ONE PICTURE proves beyond a shadow of a doubt is that EVERY SINGLE VIDEO showing the “nose-out” phenomenon contains a CGI plane.

When combined with the analysis I've presented both here and in Part I of this article, it also proves (by association to the motive) that the "plane" depicted in the FOX-aired "Chopper 5" footage was also a "live" CGI insertion.

By virtue of that proof, it can be promulgated that all other "live" footage from that day must also have contained "live" CGI insertions rather than real planes. This is because any real plane would have been captured by the camera affixed to Chopper 5.

Note: In Part I of this article, I attempted to use the term "osmosis" to explain the concept of a solid "passing through" another solid. Osmosis is actually a term used to define the passage of water through a membrane. Of course, there is no term in existence to describe the concept a solid passing through another solid - simply because it's a physical impossibility. And so in Part II, I have invented the term "Osnosis" to define this fictional event.


The original purpose of Part II was to further prove that what “exited” WTC2 was not any real object, by demonstrating that subsequent video releases showing the “nose-out” phenomenon do not correlate with the “live” footage. Furthermore, I planned on providing numerous examples of “live” footage which did not show the “nose-out” phenomenon at all.

Because what I have written thus far essentially renders my originally-planned approach into an exercise in redundancy, I will include the remainder of what was to be Part II as Reference material, to be updated and formatted "on the fly" until completion.

All that really remains is to go through every single video, documenting the specific proof behind the CGI insertion in each one.


Analysis - (from the department of redundancy department)

There is no other “live” footage that clearly shows the “nose-out” phenomenon. The closest we come to seeing this occurrence from a different angle is over at ABC. ABC’s nose-out is partially hidden behind their “bottom third” graphic.

When replaying ABC’s footage, CNN has to add an extension to their “bottom third” graphic to cover up the same part of the image.

When looking at the following clips (from which the screenshots were excerpted), you will notice the same “Chopper Drift” problem that occurred with the Friedlgate footage. Notice the towers drifting to the right within the frame boundaries just before the “impact,” and then back to the left after it.

This would have served as a convenient reinforcement of the “nose-out” that FOX offered us, except for one rather large problem…

Due to the CGI travel path, this camera angle would have shown the “nose-out” coming out of WTC2 somewhat sideways.

With the exception of these two “live” feeds, all other footage that was broadcast on 9/11/01 show no sign of the “nose-out” phenomenon whatsoever.

Analysis - “Live” Frames

Before I present these screenshots and videos I want to offer great thanks to Killtown, Webfairy, goatpussy, domscd, and others who have taken the time to make these videos available for all of us to analyze. Were it not for their efforts, we would be years behind where we find ourselves today.

The format here is simple. I have provided my usual screenshot notes for each video sequence. To see the source of the screenshot, click anywhere on the graphic for the link.

Live Frames & Notes To Be Added

Analysis - Edited "Amateur" Video

Bonus Note:

Let’s see what trigonometry has to say about this shadow.

In the frame 82 screenshot (above left), WTC2 is 48 pixels wide (black line). The nose-out protrudes out of WTC2 by 7 pixels (red line). Since the actual width of WTC2 is known to be 208 ft, we can apply a quick ratio to determine that the distance of protrusion = 30.33 ft (7 X 208 / 48).

I believe it is widely accepted fact that the sun was shining at a 13 degree angle to this face. Here’s a quickie graphic:

I’ll be generous and say that the minimum distance from the “nose-out” to the far side of the exit face is 190ft (that’s 8ft for the “fuselage” radius plus and additional 10ft from that point the closer corner).

For the shadow to stretch across the entire tower using these assumptions, the angle of the sun would have to be 9.2 degrees. Oops, there I go using the “expert” scientific approach (start with what we “saw,” then move the sun, moon and stars until it works out).

Since the 13 degrees is a given, and the protrusion distance can be measured, we can solve for the correct shadow length (s):

30.33 / s = tan 13°
s = 30.33 / tan13°
s = 131.37

Therefore, the correct length of the shadow for a 30.33ft protrusion should be 131.37ft.

If we wanted to determine how far the “nose-out” should have protruded before its shadow spanned the entire width of the face, all we would have to do is set s = 190 and calculate the appropriate protrusion (p) as follows:

p / 190 = tan13°
p = 190 tan13°
p = 43.86

Therefore, in order for the shadow of the “nose-out” to span 190ft, it would have to protrude 43.86ft from the “exit face.”

In pixels, this works out to 10.12 (48 x 43.86 / 208). Let’s just call it an even 10 pixels. That’s 3 pixels (13.53ft – green line) more than it is shown as protruding in frame 82. The "nose-out" doesn't protrude that far until frame 84 (two frames later).

Of course, since it’s already been proven that this was an inserted CGI, proving that its shadow was incorrectly edited into the footage is somewhat redundant.

More Analysis forthcoming.

No comments: