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:
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:
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.
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?
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 are contained
in the 'Witness Reports' section of this article.
Next - "Nose Dive" Video - Steeped In Contradiction