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 letsroll911.org 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.
Conclusion
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.
Afterword
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.
Reference
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.
