911-UA175-"Nose Dive" Video - Steeped In Contradiction

"Nose Dive" Video - Steeped In Contradiction

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/

The "Nose Dive" video (courtesy of WNBC) shows a correctly sized and illuminated Boeing 767 apparently diving towards WTC2.

Virtual Camera Positioning

Examination of the video footage showed the aircraft passing between the two towers momentarily. Due to the relative size and position of each tower it was possible to deduce that the camera position was at an exact perpendicular to the north faces of the Twin Towers. Using the north faces of both WTC towers and the Financial towers as further references it was possible to refine the camera position for comparative analysis with the original footage.

The subsequent analysis showed that at 2 seconds to impact the heading of the "Nose Dive UA175" aircraft is 054 degrees magnetic. The nose-down pitch of the aircraft is -5 degrees approximately. These pitch and heading figures put the "Nose Dive UA175" aircraft at odds with other "UA175" videos, but this is best highlighted using the Anthony Cotsifas photograph due its high quality and the accuracy of airframe positioning it affords us because of this.

Anthony Cotsifas / "Nose Dive" Video Analysis

In the image pair below I've positioned the "Nose Dive UA175" (left) aircraft in a similar position to a computer generated Anthony Cotsifas "UA175" aircraft (right) using a generalised flight path derived from the analysis of other "UA175" videos and the more accurate heading figure derived from the "Nose Dive UA175" video. Notice that for the same vertical position the "Nose Dive UA175" aircraft is noticeably higher than the Anthony Cotsifas "UA175" aircraft.

This high fuselage position can not be accounted for from an optical illusion generated by the incorrect horizontal positioning of the camera. The virtual camera would have to be placed unrealistically high (in excess of 1000ft) to generate this kind of an illusion and when it was positioned thus (see below) it strongly contradicted height cues and reference points in the original footage.

Although the "Nose Dive UA175" aircraft contradicts the Anthony Cotsifas "UA175" aircraft in terms of inferred flight path, height and heading the analysis did show that both aircraft were more or less the same distance from the WTC2 tower when using the north west corner of WTC1 as a vertical reference. This point is detailed in the graphic below which shows the "Nose Dive UA175" aircraft as seen from the Anthony Cotsifas position with its respective Anthony Cotsifas "UA175" aircraft.

Park Foreman / "Nose Dive" Video Time Code Analysis

The ‘Time Code’ analysis is achieved by extracting images of the "UA15" aircraft from different video source at the same point in time and attempting to identify any differences between them. This has been achieved with a direct analysis of the Park Foreman video and by using Fs 2004 to ascertain pitch, roll, yaw and height from the "Nose Dive" video and then comparing these obtained datums in order to detect any differences.

Using a frame extract from the Park Foreman Video at a time code of 3.5 seconds to WTC2 contact and a CG paired Boeing 767-200 at the same time code of 3.5 seconds with matched pitch, roll, yaw and height ascertained from the "Nose Dive" video we can see that the Park Foreman "UA175" aircraft was pitched nose down at 4.5 degrees (derived directly from the video) while the (CG visually gauged) "Nose Dive UA175" was pitched nose down at 8 degrees.

There also appears to be a bank angle conflict, although this factor is hard to determine with a great deal of accuracy because of the relatively low quality of the "Nose Dive" Video.

The high pitch angle seen in the "Nose Dive" video can not be accounted for by incorrect positioning of the height of the virtual camera in CG environment. In order for the "UA175" aircraft seen in the "Nose Dive" video to exhibit an apparent 4.5 degree pitch down angle the virtual camera would have to be placed well over 1500ft in the CG environment.

Please note that at the 2.0 second time code the Park Foreman video showed a pitch attitude of -2.5 degrees while the "Nose Dive" video showed a pitch attitude of -5 degrees.

We can conclude with a high degree of certainty that the Park Foreman / "Nose Dive" Video Time Code Analysis is demonstrating that the Park Foreman video and the "Nose Dive" video are showing two different events allegedly from the same time frame. This same conclusion can be drawn from the Anthony Cotsifas / "Nose Dive" Video Analysis. Both analyses represent impossible situations and are clear examples of the WTC2 media hoax.
-------------------------------------

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.