The 9/11 Airplane Video Composites

The 9/11 Airplane Video Composites

by Ace Baker

Introduction

At 9:03 a.m. EDT, on September 11, 2001, two different videos of a flying airplane and the exploding World Trade Center tower were broadcast on live television. These two live video sequences are known as “Chopper 5” and “Chopper 7”. Subsequently, approximately 40 more videos of the same event emerged. At least 4 of these later videos depict an airplane entering the wall of the tower.

Two hypotheses have emerged to explain this:

• The real airplane hypothesis – A real Boeing 767 airplane flew into the tower.

• The video composite hypothesis – The jet crash was faked by inserting airplane images into otherwise authentic video footage.

Objective and Methods

Analyze the available videos, consider the principles of video compositing, Newtonian Physics, logic, and common sense to see which hypothesis prevails.

The Live 9/11 Airplane Videos



1. Nine Extraordinary Compositional Features

I begin by comparing the two live shots. Only 2 different airplane videos are confirmed to have been shown live – news helicopter shots known as “Chopper 5” and “Chopper 7”. Neither one actually shows an airplane hitting anything. They feature a remarkable list of shared compositional characteristics:

• Very brief (<1.5 seconds) appearance and disappearance of plane
• High contrast between sky and tower edge
• Plane path is across sky only
• Plane disappears across straight vertical edge
• All surfaces requiring airplane shadows are hidden
• Actual impact wall is hidden
• Camera is gyroscopically stabilized
• Helicopter is as motionless as possible, drifting very slowly to the left
• No panning, tilting, zooming or focusing while airplane is on screen

As it turns out, these are precisely the characteristics necessary for live video compositing. Absent any one of these nine, real-time compositing becomes impossible. Given all nine, real-time compositing is quite feasible.

(Posted Image)

fig. 1 Chopper 5 – West Coast or “Salter” version

(Posted Image)

fig. 2 Chopper 7 – From Eric Salter


Both live shots are from the shady side of the towers, looking into a bright sky, making for a very high contrast difference between the two. A flying airplane image can be instantly added on top of any shot, but making it appear to pass behind a building requires “pulling a key”. That is, software must be able to accurately distinguish between what is sky, and what is tower.

The simplest type of key is “luminance keying” or “luma key”, in which the software decides what is what on the basis of brightness. Given this very high contrast, and also the razor-straight edge, pulling a key is easy. With lower contrast, or an irregular edge, realistically separating the elements is impossible.

Computer animation software can render very realistic shadows, but doing so requires an accurate model of the object casting the shadow, and also a model of whatever the shadow falls upon. The feasibility of animating shadows depends directly on the complexity of the surfaces involved. A flying airplane casts a shadow on the ground and buildings below, and if it smashed into a tower, it would cast a shadow on the wall in the process. Attempting to render accurate shadows in real-time would be a sure recipe for detection. Far easier would be to compose the shot in such a way as to not need them.

Making an airplane image disappear through a wall is done by masking. A shape can simply be drawn, defining a region of transparency. As the airplane crosses into the mask, it disappears. However, the positioning and timing are critical. Misplacing the mask or the airplane image by even a few pixels, or having an explosion go too early would be a dead giveaway. Compositors would not even contemplate trying to show a plane hitting the tower wall in real-time.

How convenient it was that all of the 9/11 news helicopters, including Chopper 5 and Chopper 7, were positioned north and west of the towers. None could see the south face of the south tower, the wall United flight 175 allegedly crashed into.

News helicopter cameras are mounted in a very sophisticated gyroscopic stabilizer system. Though the helicopter itself is full of vibrations, and cannot hold still, helicopter video is remarkably stable. Attempting to real-time composite the smooth motion of an airplane onto any sort of non-stabilized shot is a non-starter.

Isn’t it strange that neither of the two camera operators followed the motion of the incoming airplane? Inserting an airplane image into a live shot requires the live camera to hold still. Zooming, panning, tilting, or focusing during the shot would expose the composite right away, because the airplane image would not show the same camera action. Compositing onto a moving camera shot is possible, with a process called “motion tracking”, but not in real-time. Real-time motion tracking did not exist in 2001, and even today, is not reliable enough to correctly insert an airplane in this situation.

When United 175 appears on the screen, both Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 are as motionless as possible, drifting slowly to the left. As soon as the plane is gone, both camera operators tilt and pan the camera around.

I invite all to please study other helicopter footage from 9/11, or from any live news event. Note the compositional characteristics. News helicopters are moving around all the time. They zoom in and out, pan left and right, tilt up and down. They follow the action, like, for example, an incoming passenger jet. How likely is it that all 9 of the compositional characteristics required for real-time compositing occur by chance, on both live airplane shots, during the exact time the airplanes are on screen? Perhaps a rigorous study could be made to quantify the answer. For now I am content to say: Extremely unlikely.

Thus, the compositional characteristics of Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 both strongly favor the compositing hypothesis, and make the real plane hypothesis extremely unlikely.

Chopper 5



Several anomalies in the Chopper 5 footage strongly favor the compositing hypothesis, and have no readily apparent explanation under the real plane hypothesis.

The best (only) data we have are the two surviving copies of Chopper 5, both of which were recorded on VHS tape by persons unknown.

(Posted Image)

Chopper 5 – East Coast “Lawson” version

One version originated in the Eastern time zone, bearing the “NY Good Day” logo and a time stamp of 9:03. The other came from the Pacific time zone, has a “Fox 11 News” logo overlaid, and a time stamp of 6:02. The East Coast version I refer to as “Lawson” because Anthony Lawson references it often. The West Coast version I refer to as “Salter” because Eric Salter allegedly obtained the VHS tape from Jim Hoffman and digitized it.

Both surviving copies have been altered. Lawson was de-interlaced with frame-blending, that is adjacent video fields have been combined together, causing a “double vision” effect on each frame. The Salter footage remains interlaced, but has been brightened considerably.

I proceed with the best data we have, while at the same time calling for any and all copies of Chopper 5 to please be released.

2. Down the Memory Hole

Given the well-known penchant of the news media to replay dramatic footage ad-infinitum, it is extraordinary to note that the Chopper 5 airplane footage was never replayed. One, and only one, replay of it was attempted on CNN, a few minutes after the event.

(Posted Image)

CNN Replay of Chopper 5, 9:09 AM EDT.

But the airplane was completely covered up by a huge logo graphic (fig. 4). Other than that, we never saw Chopper 5 again. When the 9/11 news archive was created at archive.org, the Chopper 5 footage had been replaced by completely different video, yet still featured the original voice-over (fig. 5).

(Posted Image)

FOX Broadcast as it appeared on the archive.org archives

It is therefore reasonable to think that FOX television is hiding something on Chopper 5, and it is unreasonable to think otherwise. This behavior on the part of FOX news is consistent with the video compositing hypothesis, and strongly implies that something went wrong with Chopper 5. It is inconsistent with a real plane hypothesis, because FOX and the other networks would have every reason to replay a real plane, and to feature it on the archives, and no reason to hide it.

3. Slowly Drifting Left

At the beginning of the footage, FOX 5 anchor Jim Ryan says, “As you look at the picture from our chopper now arriving at the scene . . .” But what is he talking about? The helicopter is over New Jersey, about 4 1/2 miles from the World Trade Center.

The helicopter begins to hover, drifting slowly to the left. One trade tower is burning and smoking. Why would the pilot not be hurrying toward what is already the news story of the year?

(Posted Image)

Chopper 5 – Arriving at the scene?

This observation is consistent with the video compositing hypothesis, because, as noted above, and detailed in Appendix A, live compositing is not possible on an approaching helicopter shot, but is possible on a gyro-stable, slowly drifting helicopter shot. It is not consistent with the real plane hypothesis, because ordinarily an experienced news helicopter pilot would hurry closer to the story.

4. No Plane in the Wide Shot

There is no plane in the wide shot, and it ought to be there. By taking measurements of the plane at the end of the video, we can determine where the plane ought to be at the beginning.

The nose of the plane enters at frame 407 (fig. 7) and is about to touch the edge of the tower in frame 423 (fig.8). From frame 407 to frame 423 is a time span of 16 frames, during which the plane covers the distance indicated by the red arrow (fig. 8). 16 frames x 26 = 416 frames, so we know that over 416 frames, the plane would cover 26 times the distance that it did in 16 frames. 416 frames earlier than frame 423 is frame 7.

To determine where the plane should be in frame 7, I’ll mark off 26 of the red arrows, at the correct scale, and lay them end to end. I rescale the size of frame 423 to match frame 7. After matching scale (fig. 9), I mark off 26 arrows. So in frame 7, the plane should be in the circle (fig. 10), and it is not.

(Posted Image)
Chopper 5 – Frame 407, plane enters

(Posted Image)

Chopper 5 – Frame 423, plane is about to cross tower edge. Over 16 frames, the plane has traversed the indicated distance.

Visit My Website
Chopper 5 – Frame 423, with distance arrow, is scaled into frame 7.

Chopper 5 – 26 arrows laid end to end
(Posted Image)

Chopper 5 – Enlargement from previous
(Posted Image)

If anything, I’ve over-estimated the distance traveled by the plane during 416 frames. When matching the scale of the towers between the zoomed-out and zoomed-in versions, I left the zoomed-in version (with the plane) a little too large, if anything.

Could the plane still be just beyond the edge of the picture? If we let the video play forward from frame 7, 163 frames (more than 5 seconds) go by before the camera begins to zoom in. That corresponds to about 10 of the arrows, because each arrow is the distance traveled by the plane in 16 frames.

Following is frame 170 (figs. 12 & 13). I’ve erased 10 of the arrows. The plane should now be well inside the picture, in the circle, and it isn’t. The plane isn’t anywhere.

(Posted Image)

Chopper 5 - Frame 170. A real airplane would be inside the red circle

(Posted Image)

Chopper 5 - Frame 170 – Enlargement from previous

(Posted Image)

CBS replay – Alleged plane is nowhere near the smoke

Could the plane be hiding in the smoke plume from the burning North Tower? No. The alleged flight path of this plane, “UA175”, was from the southwest. The smoke was blowing decidedly toward the southeast. Viewed from the north, (fig. 14 above), we can clearly see that the alleged flight path was nowhere near the drifting smoke.

We can use a different method to corroborate the estimate of where the plane should be in the wide shot. We know that the actual distance from the northeast corner of the North Tower to the southwest corner of the South Tower is about 526 feet. Flight 175 was alleged to be traveling 542 mph according to the official government NIST report. That’s 795 feet per second. 416 frames of video is 13.9 seconds. So the plane would go 13.9 x 795 feet or 11,035 feet between frame 7 and frame 423. 11,035 ft./526 ft. = 20.97, call it 21. So, during the time span in question, the plane would travel 21 times the distance across the towers. The towers measure 18 pixels across. 18 pixels x 21 = 378 pixels.

Measuring 378 pixels to the right of the towers places the airplane almost exactly where the other method did - inside the picture, right from the beginning of the video. There is no plane.

Video expert and official story supporter Steve Wright has agreed with the above calculations determining the position of the alleged airplane. His contention is that the airplane is simply too small to appear on video. As an example, he calls attention to the helicopter that is visible, apparently above the towers after the zoom in. Indeed, the helicopter disappears when the camera is zoomed out. However, it is unknown how far away the helicopter actually is. Certainly it is some distance behind (east of) the towers. More importantly, a helicopter is far smaller than a Boeing 767. It is simply a poor comparison.

(Posted Image)

CBS replay – Alleged plane is nowhere near the smoke

Could the plane be hiding in the smoke plume from the burning North Tower? No. The alleged flight path of this plane, “UA175”, was from the southwest. The smoke was blowing decidedly toward the southeast. Viewed from the north, (fig. 14 above), we can clearly see that the alleged flight path was nowhere near the drifting smoke.

We can use a different method to corroborate the estimate of where the plane should be in the wide shot. We know that the actual distance from the northeast corner of the North Tower to the southwest corner of the South Tower is about 526 feet. Flight 175 was alleged to be traveling 542 mph according to the official government NIST report. That’s 795 feet per second. 416 frames of video is 13.9 seconds. So the plane would go 13.9 x 795 feet or 11,035 feet between frame 7 and frame 423. 11,035 ft./526 ft. = 20.97, call it 21. So, during the time span in question, the plane would travel 21 times the distance across the towers. The towers measure 18 pixels across. 18 pixels x 21 = 378 pixels.

Measuring 378 pixels to the right of the towers places the airplane almost exactly where the other method did - inside the picture, right from the beginning of the video. There is no plane.

Video expert and official story supporter Steve Wright has agreed with the above calculations determining the position of the alleged airplane. His contention is that the airplane is simply too small to appear on video. As an example, he calls attention to the helicopter that is visible, apparently above the towers after the zoom in. Indeed, the helicopter disappears when the camera is zoomed out. However, it is unknown how far away the helicopter actually is. Certainly it is some distance behind (east of) the towers. More importantly, a helicopter is far smaller than a Boeing 767. It is simply a poor comparison.

How big would a 767 appear in the Chopper 5 wide shot? A 767 is a little more than ¾ as long as a twin tower is wide. Below, I’ve taken a model 767, adjusted the color to blend (fig. 15), blurred and pixilated the image as would occur in video (fig. 16), and scaled it into the shot (fig. 17). The plane would not be large, but it would absolutely appear.

To create a valid real-world control case, I shot video of an airplane landing at LAX. The conditions were very similar (but slightly worse) than those of Chopper 5. I was 6 1/2 miles from the airplane, compared to 4 1/2 miles in Chopper 5. It was early in the morning, shooting toward the sun, as was the case with Chopper 5. It was a clear day, as was 9/11, and the haze made the background almost white, just like 9/11. I was zoomed out, and using a consumer camcorder, presumably with worse quality optics than a professional Electronic News Gathering (ENG) camera.

The available copies of Chopper 5 were recorded off television onto VHS tape. VHS reduces horizontal resolution by about half. To simulate the effect of the resolution loss in VHS tape, I reduced the horizontal size of my control case to 50%, then stretched the result back to original aspect ratio, now with half the horizontal resolution.

(Posted Image)

A model 767 inserted

(Posted Image)

Model 767 is pixelated

(Posted Image)

Model 767 pixelated, blurred, and scaled. A 767 is ¾ as long as a twin tower is wide.

(Posted Image)

Control case for Chopper 5 wide shot