The MissileGate Frames mysteriously
appeared as credentials for ertstwhile Webfairy debunker Eric Salter.
http://questionsquestions.net/WTC/WTC767images/WTC1hitzoom.mov
He claims their genesis as deinterlaced frames from the N911 Dvd,preposterous
since the MissileGate frames include many shots excluded from the DVD,
and at much higher quality.
These unblemished frames provide
the clearest evidence so far that the object in question is NOT A PLANE.
These stills are presented 12 to a page. Each page represents roughly
half a second in real time.
Click image for close up, 200%
made with Fireworks internal algorithm.
Notice
there is continuity from frame to frame.
The differences from frame to frame are gradual.
This section of the approach has no loss of continuity, the camera is panning smoothly, bringing us the closest vision yet of the object in the air.
To be a "plane", this
object must violate the law of perspective.
This is not the sort of law as a traffic ticket, but the sort that is
visable in daily life, and mathematically codified besides.
Closer things look bigger than the same thing farther away.
You can check this out by looking at your thumb close and far. This effect is one of the constants we count on, just like gravity.
The object in the air maintains
the same size throughout it's journey.
From that, perspective tells us that the object is maintaining the same
distance from the camera.
We are told the plane flew over the head of the cameraman, and that it's path was long and low.
Instead, we see an object of consistant size decending at a sharp angle.
This
object has none of the visable attributes we think of as a "plane."
We see no wings. We see no body. We see no engines. Salter's page can't tell the difference between wings and engines, tho wings and engines are otherwise dramatically different in size.
The
History Channel recreation of the event shows what a plane flying long and
low would look like.The History Channel animation shows wings and other plane-like features.
The "tail" is represented as a single line, while the part identified as a "tail" on the Salter Analysis shows the same size and shape as the "fuselage."
It
is not possible to see a side of a tail and the body straight on at the
same time.
This would violate more than just perspective.
If the tail were fatter than
the body, it wouldn't be a tail, at least not a tail of a plane.
A beaver has a tail fatter than it's body. Maybe it's a beaver.
The
object is supposed to be coming closer to the building now, but we have
seen no change in it's size. There is an object in the scene of known
dimension. It is the shiny spot on the corner of the building.
Salter made an EXCELLENT rendition
of the entire first hit sequence.
http://questionsquestions.net/WTC/WTC767images/northtowerhit.mov
The last frame shows this object fairly clearly.
There
is a similar or identical object on the corner of the second-hit building.
This building is farther away, so the object looks a little smaller, but
not much.
So we have objects of knowable dimension to compare the first-hit object with. Both are from the last frame of Salter's movie, at 100%
This object has the same apparent dimensions as the object identified as "tail" and as the object identified as "fuselage."
If the whatzit is closer to the camera than the fixed object is, as it would if it's flying away from the camera, toward the building, then the objects are actually smaller than the similarly sized object more distant.
