Jennifer Spell Video - "Spellbinding Fakery"
In comparison to the CG Boeing 767-200 model the Jennifer Spell UA175 aircraft differs in a few ways.
The 'port wing anomaly' seems to be present.
The aircrafts fuselage is slightly narrower than the CG models fuselage.
The port wing and the underside reflective strip should
have been visible but are not, despite favourable lighting conditions.
This is because both the underside reflective strip and the underside of the port
wing were being exposed to sunlight, albeit rather weak sunlight due to its oblique angle.
The absence of these airframe properties could be due to the low resolution of the video camera
but if so I would have expected to see some remnants of the reflective strip and
more detail on the underside of the port wing.
The pitch, roll and yaw angles seen here are in contradiction to many of the pitch, role and yaw angles shown in other UA175 aircraft images throughout this paper. In order for the CG model to match the Spell UA175 aircraft the bank angle was set approximately 40 degrees to port, the pitch angle 1 degree negative and the yaw angle at 6 degrees starboard.
The luminosity of the engine nacelles should not be considered abnormal as computer simulations showed that their curved surfaces were ideal to reflect sunlight through a wide range of angles and that the camera was located correctly to receive these reflections. CG analysis showed that the reflections would be coming primarily from the silver cone-shaped exhaust outlets (red boxes below) and not the blue engine casing. There was a small reflection from the rear of the starboard wing fairing (green box below) that seems to be absent on the UA175 aircraft. This could be caused by the low resolution of the video. Both engine reflections should be identical in size, but in the Spell video the port engine reflection is slightly larger and misshapen:
The pitch, roll and yaw angles seen here are in contradiction to many of the pitch, role and yaw angles shown in other UA175 aircraft images throughout this paper. In order for the CG model to match the Spell UA175 aircraft the bank angle was set approximately 40 degrees to port, the pitch angle 1 degree negative and the yaw angle at 6 degrees starboard.
The luminosity of the engine nacelles should not be considered abnormal as computer simulations showed that their curved surfaces were ideal to reflect sunlight through a wide range of angles and that the camera was located correctly to receive these reflections. CG analysis showed that the reflections would be coming primarily from the silver cone-shaped exhaust outlets (red boxes below) and not the blue engine casing. There was a small reflection from the rear of the starboard wing fairing (green box below) that seems to be absent on the UA175 aircraft. This could be caused by the low resolution of the video. Both engine reflections should be identical in size, but in the Spell video the port engine reflection is slightly larger and misshapen:
If it weren't for the 'port wing anomaly' the Spell UA175 aircraft would be a close,
but not accurate rendition of a Boeing 767-200 with
suspicious illumination under the prevailing meteorological conditions.
The 'flash' frame is included below with motion blur removed and some basic visual enhancement:
The 'flash' frame is included below with motion blur removed and some basic visual enhancement:
Look at the image below that has been enhanced evenly across the entire frame:
The contrast and brightness of the fuselage does not match
the contrast and brightness of other objects in the frame.
The aircraft is "standing out" from its surroundings.
Colour enhancement in Photoshop and image sharpening using FocusMagic revealed a cloud of compression artefacts and noise around the fuselage that is in disproportionate amounts to other structures in the frame. This effect appears in the CNN Best Angle Video and the Park Foreman Video.
Colour enhancement in Photoshop and image sharpening using FocusMagic revealed a cloud of compression artefacts and noise around the fuselage that is in disproportionate amounts to other structures in the frame. This effect appears in the CNN Best Angle Video and the Park Foreman Video.
In the image pair below you can
see that the video camera is effectively static in both the upper and lower frames as
is evidenced by the lack of horizontal and vertical motion blur on the WTC2 tower corner
(green arrows) and the orange foreground building (red squares).
Despite the stability of the video camera (it appears to be
on a dolly as the picture is almost
perfectly horizontal throughout the impact sequence. Not bad for an amateur
impromptu video recording...) the UA175 aircraft exhibits a vast
amount of motion blur as it penetrates the WTC2 (upper frame) in
comparison to frames when the aircraft is on the approach to WTC2 (lower frame).
If you study the video you will see that the speed of the aircraft is more
or less constant, just as it is in other UA175 videos.
This sudden acceleration would have been technically impossible
for a Boeing 767-200 under the circumstances.
By now it should be apparent to the reader that the Jennifer Spell video has either been manipulated or is fake. The aircraft seems to have been added to the video using the same technique utilised for the CNN Best Angle Video and the Park Foreman Video. But it's the motion blur error that gives the game away. How could any forger make such an obvious and clumsy mistake? Did they do this on purpose? Was the forger whistle-blowing?
By now it should be apparent to the reader that the Jennifer Spell video has either been manipulated or is fake. The aircraft seems to have been added to the video using the same technique utilised for the CNN Best Angle Video and the Park Foreman Video. But it's the motion blur error that gives the game away. How could any forger make such an obvious and clumsy mistake? Did they do this on purpose? Was the forger whistle-blowing?
Spell, a Brooklyn resident, claims she received a telephone call
from her room mate who told her that an aeroplane had flown into
the World Trade Centre.
She went outside and began filming the World Trade Centre through
what looks like a wire fence (below left) and apparently captured the
UA175 aircraft as it struck the south wall of WTC2.
Jennifer Spell's witness report and picture HERE
Jennifer Spell
------------------------------------------------
Some of these deficiencies are so obvious it is as if their creator wanted us to know that they are fakes. We could call these people "Whistle Blowers". There is the distinct possibility that more than one person or organisation is responsible for manufacturing these fake videos and fake images and that what we are seeing here are the differences between the forging standards of each respective party.
It should be apparent to the reader that the visual record of the WTC2 strike has been fabricated or tampered with to make us believe that the tower was hit by an aircraft. This is the Media Hoax. The question is, by how much has the visual record been manipulated? Are they all fakes or just a proportion of them? It is very hard to tell. In my opinion the figure could be as high as 100%. This means that we effectively have no genuine visual record of the WTC2 strike.
So why is the establishment trying to conceal the true nature of this attack? Why manipulate and / or fabricate the videographic and photographic record of the event? The witness reports offer us an explanation. None of them reported seeing a United Airlines Boeing 767-200 collide with the tower. They all describe something different like a "grey plane" or a "non-commercial plane" or "a plane with no windows" or a "small plane".
The reason why the establishment is trying to conceal the true nature of the WTC2 attack is because there was no United Airlines Boeing 767-200 impact with the WTC2 tower on the morning of 911.
Jennifer Spell
"...just about 5 minutes after I got outside and was shooting,
the second plane...circled around and it flew over New Jersey and it
came in and just..."
How was Spell able to film the aircraft and watch it at the same time and
why don't we see video footage of the aircraft as
it "circled around" and "flew over New Jersey"?
From '7 Days In September' - 2002 CameraPlanet Inc. Produced and directed by Steve Rosenbaum. ------------------------------------------------
Afterward
Despite the 'official' version of events stating that WTC2 was hit by
a hijacked Boeing 767-200 there is no photographic evidence to support this.
Each picture of the supposed UA175 aircraft analysed in this article shows
that some kind of unexplainable defect, be it a 'pod', a defective port wing,
lighting anomalies or just an airframe that bears no resemblance to a Boeing 767-200.
When the UA175 images are analysed comparatively we see glaring
inconsistencies in airspeed, airframe symmetry, lighting,
descent path angle and airframe attitude.Some of these deficiencies are so obvious it is as if their creator wanted us to know that they are fakes. We could call these people "Whistle Blowers". There is the distinct possibility that more than one person or organisation is responsible for manufacturing these fake videos and fake images and that what we are seeing here are the differences between the forging standards of each respective party.
It should be apparent to the reader that the visual record of the WTC2 strike has been fabricated or tampered with to make us believe that the tower was hit by an aircraft. This is the Media Hoax. The question is, by how much has the visual record been manipulated? Are they all fakes or just a proportion of them? It is very hard to tell. In my opinion the figure could be as high as 100%. This means that we effectively have no genuine visual record of the WTC2 strike.
So why is the establishment trying to conceal the true nature of this attack? Why manipulate and / or fabricate the videographic and photographic record of the event? The witness reports offer us an explanation. None of them reported seeing a United Airlines Boeing 767-200 collide with the tower. They all describe something different like a "grey plane" or a "non-commercial plane" or "a plane with no windows" or a "small plane".
The reason why the establishment is trying to conceal the true nature of the WTC2 attack is because there was no United Airlines Boeing 767-200 impact with the WTC2 tower on the morning of 911.
No comments:
Post a Comment