Michael Hezarkhani Video / CNN Best Angle

"The Money Shot Files For Bankruptcy"

A close look at the comparison image above reveals that the airframe of the UA175 aircraft is correctly proportioned for a 767-200 bar a slightly shorter 'chord' length at the wing root. When the 'virtual' UA175 aircraft was released from its 'virtual' freeze in Flight Simulator it flew straight into the tower hitting at almost exactly the same point as shown in this video and other video footage. In other words the aircraft exhibits the correct attitude that produces the trajectory seen in the video recording. I consider this point to be in favour of image authenticity as it suggests that the aircraft is more likely to be a real flying object conforming to the laws of physics as opposed to special effect dubbed onto the film. The alternative to this argument, is of course, that the film is a well made forgery.

You can see that Flight Simulator has produced the 'pipe' illusion that is attributed by some 911 researchers to the phenomena of 'specular highlights'. The pipe illusion has in fact been caused by an unpainted section of the underside of the aircrafts fuselage. This reflective stripe is thus part of the aircrafts livery. The reason specular highlights wouldn't explain the pipe illusion is because the camera is in the wrong position to receive these specular highlights.

I decided to reproduce the 'nose contact' frame and scale the images by using the tower's width for a comparative visual analysis. During the creation of this image set I found it impossible to orientate the POSKY model to match the Hezarkhani nose contact frame without betraying almost every other image of the UA175 aircraft shown in photographs or video. For some reason the Hezarkhani filmed UA175 aircraft had an attitude all of its own just prior to impact.

In order to get the apparent fuselage length correct and the bank angles matched I used 3 degrees positive pitch and 35 degrees port bank. These bank and pitch datums are inconsistent with datums obtained from more accurate sources, like the Brooklyn Heights Photograph (41 degree bank angle with 1 degree negative pitch) and the Evan Fairbanks video (11 degrees yaw) for example:

It is conceivable that the alleged pilot of the UA175 aircraft could have pulled up hard at the last moment and this caused the sharp change in attitude seen in the film, but then this new attitude is contradicted by other UA175 images of this same moment in time as just mentioned. If the attitude remained more or less consistent throughout the video clip then we would have to conclude that the length of the fuselage had magically shrunk throughout the sequence giving the false impression of the aircraft pitching up at the moment of impact, an unlikely scenario for a hijacked Boeing 767-200 to say the least and a clear sign of video forgery.

Not only do we have attitude discrepancies at impact, we also have airframe discrepancies. The port wing and port tail fin seem to be melting away and a significant portion of the leading edge of the starboard wing between the root and the engine pylon looks as if it has been removed. The explanation that the starboard engine is casting a shadow over this part of the wing is incorrect because in other captures from the same piece of film we can see that the same piece of wing is not missing. Also in the 'flash' frame we can see a clear line marking the boundary between the face of the tower and the sun-lit portion of the wing which confirms the absence of this part of the wing.

While reviewing the images for this section of the article I noticed a murky and colourful haze around the UA175 aircraft as shown in this enhanced color and contrast image:

The distortion of colour and contrast around the airframe looks very similar to the compression artefacts generated by the conversion of an image to JPG format or the conversion of video from one compressed format to another. The effect could be the result of a poor quality original or by-product of the conversion to DVD format but if you look closely the effect is more pronounced around the airframe than any other object or structure in the image.

It has been suggested by some that the aircraft has been added in post production as well as the sound track which exhibits incorrect 'Doppler shift'.

During tower penetration the UA175 aircraft becomes luminescent, especially where the port engine nacelles appear to be impacting against the towers facade:

But the entire south wall was darkened by a 13 degree wedge of shadow cast by the tower over itself and the UA175 aircraft during its impact (the shadow cast by the starboard wing on the fuselage has not been shown in this graphic):

How can the airframe remain illuminated when it was in shadow? This evidences, documents and proves that the UA175 vehicle, its jet engines and its starboard wing could shine like a lamp, unlike any Boeing airplane.

The image below shows 2 frames taken from the CNN DVD. On the left we can see a foreground building with an antenna attached to its right hand side, while on the right we see the UA175 aircraft as it passes behind that foreground building.

In the right hand image notice that the foreground building antenna is in front of the port wing as we would expect, but also that the port wing is partially in front of the foreground building - which is not what we would expect. The wing should be behind the foreground building and not in front of it.

If the building and its antenna are in the foreground then how is it possible that the port wing can be in front of the building and behind the antenna at the same time?

What we have here is a technical impossibility for a real aircraft and a strong sign of video forgery. It looks as if the video has been composited from 3 layers - one layer with the UA 175 aircraft, a second layer with the foreground structures and a third layer with the WTC towers. The words that spring to mind here are 'blue screen keying', 'chroma keying', 'luma keying'...etc...etc... Perhaps this explains why the video is full of edge effects, color distortions, visual noise, ghosting effects, excessive compression artefacts, vertical streaks and many other visual aberrations - the video has probably been subject to a significant amount of manipulation which becomes evident under close examination.

The approach path of the UA175 aircraft is an almost perfect straight line while the aircrafts airframe appears to decrease in size as it flies away from the camera, which is what we would expect from a real object:

If this film were fake then why did the perpetrators go to all the trouble to include the 'pipe' and the 'flash'. Why did they allow parts of the fuselage to disappear just prior to impact? Why didn't they cover up bizarre the lighting anomalies that occur during the collision? Why does it appear to track a smooth flight path and conform to the laws of perspective so well?

If, hypothetically this film is genuine then why is the aircraft's attitude at impact different from other video footage of the same incident? Why does the sound track have faulty 'Doppler' shift? Why is there a multi-coloured cloud of what looks like compression artefacts around the UA175 aircrafts fuselage?

For conclusive proof that the Michael Hezarkhani video is fraudulent please refer to the 'Rob Howard' section of this article.

Next - Carmen Taylor Digital Photograph - "Revenge Of The Money Shot"