Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Introduction
Truthseeker1234 (Ace Baker) has claimed that the film of flight 175 striking the South Tower is a real-time digital fake produced by superimposing a digital video of a flying airliner on a live video feed of the tower using the WESCAM system. He has claimed as evidence the feature he refers to as "Pinnochio's Nose", stating the following rationale (which I shall refer to as the video superimposition hypothesis):
TruthSeeker1234 posted an animated GIF on this forum which shows a clip of 30 frames from this video as evidence for his claim. I have done some quite trivially simple analysis on this video clip, and it shows that the clip is not consistent with the video superimposition hypothesis.
The video clip
The airliner enters the clip at frame 2 from the right, crossing the field of view to the left. Its nose strikes the tower between frames 5 and 6. The tail is not in shot until frame 8, and vanishes into the tower between frames 11 and 12. Nothing more is visible until frame 21, at which point the feature referred to as "Pinnochio's Nose" emerges from the left side of the tower. This feature moves to the left, followed by what appears to be a faster-moving fireball emerging from the tower, until the clip fades to black. The final visible frame is frame 30, in which my (admittedly subjective) impression is that "Pinnochio's Nose" appears to be falling slightly.
Measurements
In all the analysis that follows I have made no assumptions about the precise direction of movement of the plane or the orientation of the tower. Instead, I have chosen to work with the projection of the velocity vector and the visible side of the tower onto a vertical plane passing through the point of impact. This is a valid approximation assuming that the viewpoint of the video is distant from the tower by a large amount compared with the distances travelled by the airliner in the clip. At all points to follow, terms such as "speed" and "length" should be taken to mean projections of the related vectors on to such a plane, although the simpler terms will be used for clarity.
The width of the nearest face of the tower is approximately 195 pixels.
Although the entire airliner is never visible, I have estimated its length at 134 pixels, based on the following measurements:
Nose to leading edge of engine (from frame 5): 50 pixels.
Leading edge of engine to base of tail (from frame 7): 67 pixels.
Base of tail to upper trailing edge of tail (from frame 9): 17 pixels.
The nose and tail of the airliner can each be seen in four frames (nose, frames 2-5; tail, frames 8-11). Using the nearer edge of the tower as a reference line, I have determined the rate of movement of the airliner in pixels per frame. As this is a differential measurement, I obtained three values from each set of four measurements. Results are 28, 25, 26, 30, 23, 25; average is 26 pixels per frame.
"Pinnochio's Nose" appears in frames 21 to 30, and from these frames I have obtained nine values for the rate of movement in pixels/frame. Results are 10, 5, 8, 6, 5, 5, 4, 5, 8; average is 6.5 pixels per frame.
All these measurements are based on subjective assessments of the absolute position of a feature on a poor quality, low resolution digital image, which accounts for the large random errors observed. However, from the variation in speed measurements I would estimate errors in speed of no more than plus-or-minus 3 pixels/frame, and in position of no more than plus-or-minus 5 pixels.
Discussion
Ace Baker's hypothesis, as I understand it, is that a digital video was superimposed on the live feed, masked such that the airliner and the tower would not overlap, but was accidentally allowed to continue running until the nose of the airliner appeared on the other side. If this is correct, we would expect the speed of the airliner to be unchanged as it passed through the tower. Using measurements from frames 1-11, we can therefore predict the movement of the airliner and determine two key features we expect to see in the remainder of the clip: the specific frame in which we would expect the airliner to emerge, and the speed in pixels per frame at which it should emerge.
The nose of the airliner is first seen 100 pixels from the nearer edge of the tower in frame 2. Projecting the position of the nose forward in time, it can be shown that we would therefore expect to see the nose exit the tower, 295 pixels distant, at frame 14, at which time it would project by 17 pixels. We would expect the tail to exit the tower at frame 19, after which the entire airliner would again be visible on the far side of the tower. This is based on the average speed of the airliner (26 pixels/frame); if we take the lower bound figure, 23 pixels/frame, and assume that all errors in position are additive (giving an overall 10 pixel error), the nose would be expected to exit at frame 15 and the tail at frame 21. In the actual clip, it is not until frame 21 that any object is seen to exit the left side of the tower, and nothing in any way resembling the tail of an airliner is seen to exit the tower in any frame up to and including frame 30. The observed time of exit therefore contradicts the video superimposition hypothesis.
It would further be expected that the plane exit the tower at the same speed as it entered. However, the speed of the plane entering the tower (26 pixels/frame) is four times that of the visible object exiting the tower at frame 21 (6.5 pixels/frame), again contrary to what would be expected from the video superimposition hypothesis.
Both these observations are, however, consistent with the more conventional analysis, which is that the object exiting the tower from frame 21 onwards is a cloud of debris originating from the airliner but broken into small fragments by its passage through the tower. In particular, the deceleration is to be expected, as is the appearance in frame 30 that the trajectory of the debris is beginning to curve downwards under gravity.
Conclusion
The movement of the incoming airliner and of the object subsequently exiting the tower in the 30-frame clip posted by Ace Baker in this forum clearly contradicts his claim that this video was produced by overlaying a pre-recorded video on a live video feed using the WESCAM system. The video clip is fully consistent with the impact of an airliner on one of the WTC towers and the subsequent ejection of debris from the opposite face of the tower.
Dave
Truthseeker1234 (Ace Baker) has claimed that the film of flight 175 striking the South Tower is a real-time digital fake produced by superimposing a digital video of a flying airliner on a live video feed of the tower using the WESCAM system. He has claimed as evidence the feature he refers to as "Pinnochio's Nose", stating the following rationale (which I shall refer to as the video superimposition hypothesis):
TruthSeeker1234 posted an animated GIF on this forum which shows a clip of 30 frames from this video as evidence for his claim. I have done some quite trivially simple analysis on this video clip, and it shows that the clip is not consistent with the video superimposition hypothesis.
The video clip
The airliner enters the clip at frame 2 from the right, crossing the field of view to the left. Its nose strikes the tower between frames 5 and 6. The tail is not in shot until frame 8, and vanishes into the tower between frames 11 and 12. Nothing more is visible until frame 21, at which point the feature referred to as "Pinnochio's Nose" emerges from the left side of the tower. This feature moves to the left, followed by what appears to be a faster-moving fireball emerging from the tower, until the clip fades to black. The final visible frame is frame 30, in which my (admittedly subjective) impression is that "Pinnochio's Nose" appears to be falling slightly.
Measurements
In all the analysis that follows I have made no assumptions about the precise direction of movement of the plane or the orientation of the tower. Instead, I have chosen to work with the projection of the velocity vector and the visible side of the tower onto a vertical plane passing through the point of impact. This is a valid approximation assuming that the viewpoint of the video is distant from the tower by a large amount compared with the distances travelled by the airliner in the clip. At all points to follow, terms such as "speed" and "length" should be taken to mean projections of the related vectors on to such a plane, although the simpler terms will be used for clarity.
The width of the nearest face of the tower is approximately 195 pixels.
Although the entire airliner is never visible, I have estimated its length at 134 pixels, based on the following measurements:
Nose to leading edge of engine (from frame 5): 50 pixels.
Leading edge of engine to base of tail (from frame 7): 67 pixels.
Base of tail to upper trailing edge of tail (from frame 9): 17 pixels.
The nose and tail of the airliner can each be seen in four frames (nose, frames 2-5; tail, frames 8-11). Using the nearer edge of the tower as a reference line, I have determined the rate of movement of the airliner in pixels per frame. As this is a differential measurement, I obtained three values from each set of four measurements. Results are 28, 25, 26, 30, 23, 25; average is 26 pixels per frame.
"Pinnochio's Nose" appears in frames 21 to 30, and from these frames I have obtained nine values for the rate of movement in pixels/frame. Results are 10, 5, 8, 6, 5, 5, 4, 5, 8; average is 6.5 pixels per frame.
All these measurements are based on subjective assessments of the absolute position of a feature on a poor quality, low resolution digital image, which accounts for the large random errors observed. However, from the variation in speed measurements I would estimate errors in speed of no more than plus-or-minus 3 pixels/frame, and in position of no more than plus-or-minus 5 pixels.
Discussion
Ace Baker's hypothesis, as I understand it, is that a digital video was superimposed on the live feed, masked such that the airliner and the tower would not overlap, but was accidentally allowed to continue running until the nose of the airliner appeared on the other side. If this is correct, we would expect the speed of the airliner to be unchanged as it passed through the tower. Using measurements from frames 1-11, we can therefore predict the movement of the airliner and determine two key features we expect to see in the remainder of the clip: the specific frame in which we would expect the airliner to emerge, and the speed in pixels per frame at which it should emerge.
The nose of the airliner is first seen 100 pixels from the nearer edge of the tower in frame 2. Projecting the position of the nose forward in time, it can be shown that we would therefore expect to see the nose exit the tower, 295 pixels distant, at frame 14, at which time it would project by 17 pixels. We would expect the tail to exit the tower at frame 19, after which the entire airliner would again be visible on the far side of the tower. This is based on the average speed of the airliner (26 pixels/frame); if we take the lower bound figure, 23 pixels/frame, and assume that all errors in position are additive (giving an overall 10 pixel error), the nose would be expected to exit at frame 15 and the tail at frame 21. In the actual clip, it is not until frame 21 that any object is seen to exit the left side of the tower, and nothing in any way resembling the tail of an airliner is seen to exit the tower in any frame up to and including frame 30. The observed time of exit therefore contradicts the video superimposition hypothesis.
It would further be expected that the plane exit the tower at the same speed as it entered. However, the speed of the plane entering the tower (26 pixels/frame) is four times that of the visible object exiting the tower at frame 21 (6.5 pixels/frame), again contrary to what would be expected from the video superimposition hypothesis.
Both these observations are, however, consistent with the more conventional analysis, which is that the object exiting the tower from frame 21 onwards is a cloud of debris originating from the airliner but broken into small fragments by its passage through the tower. In particular, the deceleration is to be expected, as is the appearance in frame 30 that the trajectory of the debris is beginning to curve downwards under gravity.
Conclusion
The movement of the incoming airliner and of the object subsequently exiting the tower in the 30-frame clip posted by Ace Baker in this forum clearly contradicts his claim that this video was produced by overlaying a pre-recorded video on a live video feed using the WESCAM system. The video clip is fully consistent with the impact of an airliner on one of the WTC towers and the subsequent ejection of debris from the opposite face of the tower.
Dave
