Refutation of the "Nose Out" Lie of the No-WTC-Planes Disinformation Gang
The members of the
No-WTC-Planes Disinfo Gang
make various claims
that are obviously lies, and also say that they are 9-11 researchers.
Their purpose is to confuse people into thinking that actual 9-11
researchers are crackpots and that the 9-11 truth movement is bogus.
The biggest absurd lie of the Disinfo Gang is that
"no planes hit the World Trade Center". Anyone who
encounters this claim, and recalls that many thousands of people
were watching the WTC after the first plane hit, and therefore
saw the second one, knows that this claim is a ridiculous lie.
Since dozens of videos also captured the impact of the second
plane, the Disinfo Gang says that all of these videos were given
fake plane images by computer graphics techniques. In support of
that they say that the fake image of plane's nose can be seen
in one of the videos emerging from the far side of WTC2.
They say that this occurred because the computer graphics
operator made a mistake and allowed the fake plane image to
move too far. The gang calls this the "Nose Out" event.
Of course in reality, the nose of the plane could not have
traversed the tower and come through the far side intact. It was
broken into pieces during the collision.
What actually appeared on the far side of WTC2 immediately
after the plane hit it was a plume of dust and flame.
Here are two pieces of evidence, each of which refutes the
disinfo gang's "Nose Out" claim of video fakery.
1. Here is an entirely different video showing the same plume from a very
different angle. Obviously "video fakers" would not make the same exact
mistake in two separate videos!
2. Here is a graph of the position of the plane nose and the dust/flame
plume (both moving from right to left in the video and in the graph)
in the "Chopper 5" video of the WTC2 hit, which is used as (bogus)
evidence for the "nose out" claim in the "September Clues 1" disinfo
The graph shows, contrary to the claims from the disinfo gang,
that the space-time trajectory of the plume does not anywhere coincide
with the projected trajectory of the nose of the plane, and so cannot
be the result of a "mistake in video fakery" that "showed the plane's
nose traveling too far and emerging from the building". Furthermore,
the plane traveled at a constant speed, while the plume decelerated rapidly.