Something has always bothered me about the work of StillDiggin. Here we
have a case of an individual who has the means to not only model the exact
layout of the WTC towers (Flight Simulator 2004 and the New York Objects patch are
all public domain), but also to overlay accurate freeware POSKY and iFDG Boeing
767-200 plane models on top of the inserted CGI’s in the fake 911 videos.
I’ve often wondered what he could have achieved had he been bothered to buy a copy of Fs2004 and put it to good use. Instead of using hearsay and guesswork to pedal wishy-washy “no-plane” speculation across the web, he missed the golden opportunity to regurgitate my own work as detailed in “The WTC2 Media Hoax”, work that would demonstrate the fraudulent nature of the WTC2 videos and photographs.
Well, rather than waiting for StillDiggin to heave his sorry ass off to the
local computer store, I decided to analyse his work myself using Fs2004 and
find out how good it was.
Messin’ Up The Angles Part 1 – Takin’ On Water
Let’s provide the reader with a typical example of StillDiggin’s work. In the article “9/11 TV-Fakery: 45 Degree UA175 Flight Path Discrepancy?” StillDiggin analyses some CBS video footage and informs the reader that:
“We can calculate the camera angle relative to WTC2 by counting the number of pixels of each face. I counted 8 pixels for the east face and 39 pixels for the north face from frame 6868. This works out to an angle of about 11.5 degrees (tan 11.59 = 8/39).”
It looks as if StillDiggin has taken a measurement of the blooming (or maybe even the open space between the towers mixed in with the blooming) from the beveled corner of WTC2. A lesser example of blooming from the corner of WTC2 appears in CNN’s “Michael Hezarkhani” video:
But it gets worse for StillDiggin because he’s missed an obvious clue that
would reveal the true bearing of the camera from the WTC. It’s that large
structure on the right-hand side of the frame commonly known as the “
Here’s that same camera viewpoint in Fs2004:
The north-south axis of WTC2 aligns with approximately 041 degrees magnetic in the simulation. Fs2004 revealed that the camera bearing from WTC2 to the approximate location of the Empire State Building was approximately 043 degrees magnetic, making the relative camera bearing from WTC2 approximately 2 degrees.
So that’s a 9.5 degree difference between StillDiggin’s calculation and my calculation ascertained using Fs2004.
Messin’ Up The Angles Part 2 – Listin’ To One Side
StillDiggin makes a similar mistake in “The Earth Is Not Flat” using another source of CBS footage. I’ve shown a DVD video capture of the same source below.
“Well, according to my calculations, the difference between these two camera angles is only about 6 degrees”
Here StillDiggin is referring to the difference between the “
StillDiggin has previously given us a camera bearing of 11.5 degrees for
So what about the camera bearing in the “Rapid Descent” video?
Fs2004 gave an approximate bearing of 059 degrees magnetic for the “Rapid Descent” video compared to the “
But StillDiggin claims the relative bearing between the two camera viewpoints is about 6 degrees, that’s an error of 10 degrees!
Messin’ Up The Angles Part 3 – Switchin’ On The Bilge Pump
Now let’s tie everything together and find out if the CGI’s in the previously mentioned fake UA175 videos are in the correct places they should have been had they been real. I’ve used Fs2004 to extract latitude/longitude, altitude, heading, pitch, roll and yaw data from the CGI in the WNBC footage (see below). I have chosen this video because the quality is good enough to obtain pitch, roll, yaw and height of the “plane” with a sufficient degree of accuracy. I will then use the information taken from the WNBC footage and use it as a kind of “measuring stick” for testing other WTC2 videos.
Shown below are
the previously discussed StillDiggin screen captures with the Fs2004 generated WNBC
equivalents below them using a 3.5-second-to-impact time code. Do you notice any difference
between the StillDiggin “
I don’t either.
What you may discern is that the CGI model is placed much higher up and pitched down a few degrees more in the simulation in comparison to CBS “video reality”. This is due to the fact that the CGI aircraft data was taken from the WNBC video, a video of which shows the “plane” making a high approach with a pronounced dive at the WTC in a fashion we don’t see in other videos.
Putting this height / pitch error aside the Fs2004 test would seem to contradict StillDiggin’s assertion that…
“Given the speed of the plane and the distance of the camera, these would have to be two different planes for these videos to be real.”
Messin’ Up The Angles Part 4 – That Ol’ Sinkin’ Feelin’
In “9/11 TV-Fakery: 45 Degree UA175 Flight Path Discrepancy?” StillDiggin informs the reader that the camera bearing from the WTC2 tower in the CNN “Ronald Pordy” video (DVD capture shown below) is 23.5 degrees.
This time StillDiggin scores a direct hit as Fs2004 gives a bearing of approximately 23 degrees (approximately 064 degrees magnetic). Luckily for him the camera angle was quite broad and the quality of the video he’s using was good enough to get a reliable figure.
However StillDiggin seems to compound his previous mistakes by claiming that the CGI “plane” should be much closer to the WTC2 tower than it actually appears in the video given the time code.
For comparison here’s the Fs2004 equivalent of the “Ronald Pordy” video using a similar time code (the image is not at the same dimensional scale as StillDiggin’s):
So according to Fs2004 there is nothing unusual about the distance of the “plane” from WTC2 in the “Ronald Pordy” video, yet StillDiggin would have us believe otherwise.
Messin’ Up Them Angles Part 5 – Down To Davey Jones Locker
To end this analysis I’ve cobbled together a range of different Fs2004 screen
captures based on data gleaned from the WNBC footage using the 3.5-second-to-impact time code. This montage includes
the “Ronald Pordy” view, the “
The Earth Is An Oblate Spheroid
The technique I use in “The WTC2 Media Hoax” to analyse information from a WTC2 “plane” video or photograph involves visually transposing the camera bearing, aircraft location and aircraft attitude from the “authentic” footage into the Fs2004 environment.
It’s a difficult and time consuming process that will only yield a conclusive result with at least 2 good quality video or photographic sources. When a good quality video or photographic source is used it’s often difficult, if not, impossible to extract 3 dimension information from the 2 dimensional source, even when accurate time frames are involved.
However, when reliable data has been extracted from 2 or more videos or photographs it is possible to compare height, pitch, roll, yaw, length, width and heading data from 2 transposed CGI’s inside the Fs2004 simulation.
StillDiggin claims that:
“Something has always bothered me about the work of Marcus Icke and Stephan Grossman. Here we have a case of individuals having the wherewithal to not only model the exact layout of the towers, but also overlay accurate plane models on top of the inserted plane CGI’s.
I’ve often wished that I had that model at my disposal so that I could use it properly... the first thing I would do with that model is to flip to a plan view (view from directly above). From there, I would be able to demonstrate how vastly different all the flight paths of these cartoon planes are.”
In that case it’s time to put StillDiggin out of his misery. The simple answer to the inferred question of ‘why don’t I use Fs2004 to check flight paths’ is because...
The quality and limitations of the video sources are too great and Fs2004 would need to be adapted for that specific task.
I could develop a case for differing flight paths from one video or photograph to another but I’d need to rely on interpolation and assumptions in my calculations and therefore I don’t think the results would be accurate enough to warrant any attention.
But there are reliable ways to demonstrate video forgery.
One such method is to imply differing flight paths of the “plane” from one video to another. Using captures from videos where the CGI “plane” is very close to, or touching, the WTC2 tower is its possible to quite accurately gauge airframe attitude and dimensions as the dimensions of the B767-200 and WTC towers are known.
Here’s my favorite example from “The
WTC2 Media Hoax”. The analysis compares aircraft data from the “CNN Best Angle” or “Michael Hezarkhani” video with data from the “
As the yaw and roll are different in both cases it follows that both “planes” must have had different flight paths. So here we have some pretty hard evidence for video manipulation or outright fakery (as if the differing roll and yaw didn’t make it obvious…). Having spent about 2 years analysing as many good quality videos and photographs as possible I have been able to produce pitch, roll and yaw summaries for the videos below:
CNN Best Angle (Michael Hezarkhani Video) / Carmen Taylor Digital Photograph
Pitch = +3 degrees at impact
Roll = 35 degrees port at impact
Yaw = 5 degrees starboard at impact
Pitch = -1 degree at impact
Roll = 41 degrees port at impact
Yaw = Undetermined
Robert Clark Photograph
Pitch = -2.5 degrees
Roll = 37 degrees port
Yaw = Undetermined
Park Foreman Video
Pitch = -2.0 degrees at impact
Roll = Undetermined
Yaw = Undetermined
Evan Fairbanks Video
Pitch = Undetermined
Roll = Undetermined
Yaw = 11 degrees starboard at impact
Cheney Hit / Courchesne Video
Pitch = Near horizontal at impact
Roll = 42 degrees port at impact
Yaw = 9 degrees starboard at impact
Jennifer Spell Video
Pitch = -1 degree at impact
Bank = 40 degrees at impact
Yaw = 6 degrees starboard at impact
The WTC2 event could only have happened one way, and one way only. It therefore follows that either:
- All of the sources mentioned above are fakes.
- Only one of them is genuine and therefore the remainder are fakes, thereby implying a very high incidence of visual fakery.
We could add to this by analysing the shape of the “plane” in each image and comparing it to a CG model which is known to be identical to a real Boeing 767-200 with a United Airlines livery. This has been done in “The WTC2 Media Hoax” and it can be shown quite clearly that a significant number of the “planes” do not look like one another and many bear little or no resemblance to a real Boeing 767-200.
Ignorance Is Bliss
Analysis of the WTC2 videos and photographs in isolation is both difficult and unreliable. The analyst runs the risk falling for optical illusions or rushing towards a mirage created by his or her own inadequate or inaccurate methodologies and practice’s. Even obvious mistakes can slip through the net, mistakes that could have been easily detected using software like Fs2004 with an objective operator and a reliable comparative methodology.
My personal view is that determination, or attempted determination, of flight paths as a means of detecting video fakery is an inferior methodology to other methodologies that could have been employed by a more resourceful and objective researcher.
“The WTC2 Media Hoax” can be viewed here.
“The WTC1 Video Hoax” can be viewed here.
| Permafrost | Comets