By Mark Conlon
In this short analysis I am studying an anomaly captured in 12 frames taken from the Naudet Brothers video footage of the "alleged" 2nd plane just before it impacted the South Tower. In the video footage it captures the plane's wing disappearing for 6 of the 12 video frames. See below:
Some
researchers believe that video compression is responsible for the plane's
wing disappearance, while others say it is because of the reflection of the sun light off the wing. I explore this more in my two previous blog articles here: The Disappearing and Reappearing Wing Study and The Disappearing Wing Study (2)
I demonstrate that from other different video camera locations which captured the same anomaly, however in some videos the plane's wing is only disappearing for one frame only, whereas in higher quality video cameras such as the one the Naudet Brothers used the plane's wing is captured disappearing for 6 frames. This does make me question whether this was the reason why we have
never seen any professional news camera crew footage of the 2nd plane from
the ground? Were the news media camera teams kept away in case they
captured more anomalies like this of the plane in their higher quality
video recording equipment, which would have shown more detail of the anomalies with the plane?
It is interesting to note, that a number of eyewitnesses that witnessed the 2nd airplane describe it as exactly what we see in the Naudet analysis image below: (a smaller looking airplane).
"We saw a plane flying low overhead which caught all of our attention.
We looked up. It was making a b-line for the World Trade Centre. It was
very low, extremely low, not a big plane like an airliner …uh… but not a
tiny propeller plane, a small, small jet plane."- Credited to: Mary
Cozza
“We’re walking the dogs and we saw a plane flying really low, a jet, a small jet, and it flew directly into the World Trade Center..”- Credited to: (news report)
“I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane….no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot a plane, a small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane…, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they worked with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before”- Credited to: Karim Arraki
"At that point we were still not sure that it was a plane that had hit the tower. There was some talk from the civilians coming down that a plane hit. The consensus was that it was a small plane."- Credited to: Roy Chelson
The Complete Impossibility of Video Fakery, CGI Planes & Video Compositing...
It is interesting to note, that a number of eyewitnesses that witnessed the 2nd airplane describe it as exactly what we see in the Naudet analysis image below: (a smaller looking airplane).
“We’re walking the dogs and we saw a plane flying really low, a jet, a small jet, and it flew directly into the World Trade Center..”- Credited to: (news report)
“I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane….no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot a plane, a small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane…, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they worked with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before”- Credited to: Karim Arraki
"At that point we were still not sure that it was a plane that had hit the tower. There was some talk from the civilians coming down that a plane hit. The consensus was that it was a small plane."- Credited to: Roy Chelson
The Complete Impossibility of Video Fakery, CGI Planes & Video Compositing...
Many researchers attempt to explain many of these anomalies suggesting that the planes were inserted CGI graphic planes or composited planes into the TV media footage or the amateur video footage later. A question I have regarding this theory is: Why would the perpetrator's insert CGI planes which were NOT convincing enough or full of glitches? This is illogical. Also another difficulty is, how did they control all of the eyewitnesses in NYC of those who witnessed a planes hitting the buildings, and please note, before even seeing anything on TV or media coverage? I believe this would be impossible. At the same time we are yet to see any videos put into the public domain showing no plane at all in the video footage. One would think at least one video slipped through the net over the last 18 years and surfaced on the internet on at a public gathering. No matter what anybody tells you their are reliable witnesses who seen what they took to be a plane in the sky. The "video fakery" promoters never confront this issue, only to make empty accusations calling all the eyewitnesses, videographers and photographers liars, crisis actors or part of the conspiracy. They provide no credible evidence to support their "bogus" claims.
Image Projection Technology
As many may know we have already established with research by Richard D. Hall and his 3D Radar Analysis, Andrew Johnson, Chris Hampton, Conspiracy Cuber and myself, that the planes on 9/11 were most likely the result of some type of advanced "image projection" technology which were videoed and photographed by various eyewitnesses in NYC and also used at the Pentagon and Shanksville. However this technology was not without faults as captured in the 2nd plane videos, such as the crash physics and anomalies with its wings and tail section. From my own research I have already demonstrated that various 9/11 researchers are "falsely" promoting "video fakery" as the answer to many of the anomalies captured in the 2nd plane impact videos. The promotion of "video fakery" was a clever "Psychological Operation" which was circulated to "cover-up" the existence of the "advanced" image projection technology. It has been the aim by those 9/11 researchers to promote this "false" explanation to conceal such technology.
For further study in this area, I suggest watching the above documentary film by Chris Hampton: 9/11 Alchemy "Facing Reality".
