Recently I’ve seen a “super slow motion” video of Flight 175 striking WTC2 on September 11th which claims to prove that the plane in the video is a computer-generate fake.
Does it prove that the plane was never really there?
No. It doesn’t prove that at all.
Why doesn’t it prove it?
There are two claims in the video – the most objective one is that the wing of the aircraft passes behind a building that’s “clearly behind the World Trade Center” and indeed the video does appear to show that the wing passes behind that building.
The problem is that the building isn’t behind the WTC at all, and this would be immediately obvious from even a cursory glance at the video. The shot it zoomed in, from a low angle, looking up. It the building were behind the WTC it would have to be huge – probably even bigger than the WTC towers. Clearly it wasn’t.
The other issue with this video as a whole is that it’s artificially slowed down. It’s not as if someone happened to be filming the crash with a high-speed camera that day. Instead the video has been slowed down in software.
In the unedited source video the plane’s wing passes behind that part of the building for 5 frames. 1/6th of a second. In the “slow motion” video the same pass takes about 70 frame. For every one real video image there is of the plane’s wing passing that building there are 13 frames that have be generated by computer software guessing what they should show.
Here is a comparison video I’ve created that compares the “slow motion” video with the actual frames in the source video
What about the physics? Plane vs steel!
I’m not a physicist. What we see in the video appears to be a 230,000lb jet aircraft flying at nearly 600mph into a building. At that point I don’t think it really matters what the materials are.
Regardless, in the video we see the plane collide with the building, and many eye witnesses claim to have seen the same thing. Simply claiming it can’t doesn’t seem like much evidence.
Is it deliberately misleading?
It’s hard to understand why someone would believe that building was behind the WTC – for one thing the scale would be wrong, and even a brief look at Michael Hezarkhani’s raw video would make it clear that the building was in the foreground.
I personally find most 9/11 conspiracy theories to be implausible, but the No Planes theory seems completely absurd. Are supporters of the theory now deliberately lying about the facts of their evidence to support their assertions? A much longer video I’ve seen about the technology involved in “faking” the plane crashes certainly makes many false statements about video technology.
A handy reference image…
I’ve created this handy reference image to help illustrate the approximate locations involved.
The red line indicates Flight 175’s approximate flight path, the blue indicates the approximate camera position and field of view during the “wing clipping” moment. The buildings just north of the part are the structures visible in the video.