Jennifer Spell Video - "Spellbinding Fakery"
In comparison to the CG Boeing 767-200
model the Jennifer Spell UA175 aircraft differs in a few ways. The 'port wing
anomaly' seems to be present. The aircrafts fuselage is slightly narrower than
the CG models fuselage. The port wing and the underside reflective strip should
have been visible but are not, despite favourable lighting conditions. This is
because both the underside reflective strip and the underside of the port wing
were being exposed to sunlight, albeit rather weak sunlight due to its oblique
angle. The absence of these airframe properties could be due to the low
resolution of the video camera but if so I would have expected to see some
remnants of the reflective strip and more detail on the underside of the port
wing.
The pitch, roll and yaw angles seen here are in contradiction to many of the
pitch, role and yaw angles shown in other UA175 aircraft images throughout this
paper. In order for the CG model to match the Spell UA175 aircraft the bank
angle was set approximately 40 degrees to port, the pitch angle 1 degree
negative and the yaw angle at 6 degrees starboard.
The luminosity of the engine nacelles should not be considered abnormal as
computer simulations showed that their curved surfaces were ideal to reflect
sunlight through a wide range of angles and that the camera was located
correctly to receive these reflections. CG analysis showed that the reflections
would be coming primarily from the silver cone-shaped exhaust outlets (red
boxes below) and not the blue engine casing. There was a small reflection from
the rear of the starboard wing fairing (green box below) that seems to be
absent on the UA175 aircraft. This could be caused by the low resolution of the
video. Both engine reflections should be identical in size, but in the Spell
video the port engine reflection is slightly larger and misshapen:
If it weren't for the 'port wing anomaly'
the Spell UA175 aircraft would be a close, but not accurate rendition of a
Boeing 767-200 with suspicious illumination under the prevailing meteorological
conditions.
The 'flash' frame is included below with motion blur removed and some basic
visual enhancement:
Look at the image below that has been
enhanced evenly across the entire frame:
The contrast and brightness of the
fuselage does not match the contrast and brightness of other objects in the
frame. The aircraft is "standing out" from its surroundings.
Colour enhancement in Photoshop and image sharpening using FocusMagic revealed
a cloud of compression artefacts and noise around the fuselage that is in
disproportionate amounts to other structures in the frame. This effect appears
in the CNN Best Angle Video and the Park Foreman Video.
In the image pair below you can see that
the video camera is effectively static in both the upper and lower frames as is
evidenced by the lack of horizontal and vertical motion blur on the WTC2 tower
corner (green arrows) and the orange foreground building (red squares).
Despite the stability of the video camera
(it appears to be on a dolly as the picture is almost perfectly horizontal
throughout the impact sequence. Not bad for an amateur impromptu video
recording...) the UA175 aircraft exhibits a vast amount of motion blur as it
penetrates the WTC2 (upper frame) in comparison to frames when the aircraft is
on the approach to WTC2 (lower frame). If you study the video you will see that
the speed of the aircraft is more or less constant, just as it is in other
UA175 videos. This sudden acceleration would have been technically impossible
for a Boeing 767-200 under the circumstances.
By now it should be apparent to the reader that the Jennifer Spell video has
either been manipulated or is fake. The aircraft seems to have been added to
the video using the same technique utilised for the CNN Best Angle Video and
the Park Foreman Video. But it's the motion blur error that gives the game
away. How could any forger make such an obvious and clumsy mistake? Did they do
this on purpose? Was the forger whistle-blowing?
Spell, a Brooklyn resident, claims she
received a telephone call from her room mate who told her that an aeroplane had
flown into the World Trade Centre. She went outside and began filming the World
Trade Centre through what looks like a wire fence (below left) and apparently
captured the UA175 aircraft as it struck the south wall of WTC2. Jennifer
Spell's witness report and picture are contained in the 'Witness Reports' section
of this article.
