Critical Review of Fox 5 Video Fakery Claims
6 September 2007
by Eric Salter
esalter1 [at] mindspring [dot] com

The following is a summarized and updated version of my original article on this subject, a second rebuttal and a new addendum to that article:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/Fox5analysis.html.

Many times in the past several years we've seen dramatic claims before of physical proof of no-plane claims. These previous false-alarms have been exposed as incompetent and amateurish mistakes and Ace Baker's analysis of the velocity of the plane in the Fox 5 footage of the second impact is no exception to this pattern. In that analysis, he claims that the motion of the plane is more variable than expected, and therefore it is a fake overlay poorly synced to the underlying footage. However, proper analysis of the footage shows that there is no excess motion and therefore no evidence that this video is fake.

Determining whether there is aberrant motion in the plane in the footage is a straightforward procedure: First the footage must be stabilized, establishing the vantage point of a stationary observer. At this point, there should only be abnormal movement of the plane if it is fact a badly done fake–a real plane in air could not change it's speed fast enough from frame to frame to be measurable in this video. Second, by overlaying a diagram over the image of the plane over every frame, and measuring the velocity of that diagram, the variations in speed can be determined, and if those variations from frame to frame do not exceed the margin of error in measurement then there is no abnormal motion. (Baker failed to grasp that this was all that was necessary, instead performing an unnecessary and pseudo-scientific exercise in synthesizing velocity data for the non-stabilized video as well. His accusation that I was "hiding" that data in my analysis is also bogus, as that data was meaningless).

Baker claims that the variations in velocity that he measured in the stabilized VHS Fox footage (and also my measurements of those variations) are beyond the expected margin of error, given the lower variability in the measurements of a plane's velocity in his separate control cases, shot on DV video. However, his estimation of the margin of error is faulty. His DV control footage is sharper and lacks the noise and distortion (visible in the wavy, rippled edge of the WTC towers) of the VHS source for the Fox footage. Baker mistakenly thought that tracking calculates the shape, and from that the geometric center, of an object. Because of this misunderstanding, he thought the plane in his control case, because it was smaller, would be harder to track than the plane in the Fox footage. In fact, tracking algorithms only recognize a pattern of light and color in the pixels of an image and track those details from frame to frame. Whether tracking manually by eye or using the software, accuracy depends on finding the exact location of those details, or "features" as described by the After Effects Apprentice:

...you need to show After Effects a "feature region" in the footage to track. The best features have clearly defined, consistent shapes with distinct edges.

Given that the VHS footage is less sharp and the details less consistent, it's not surprising that his control footage would provide better tracking results (and that's not taking into account the possibility of experimental bias on Baker's part). I don't mean to harp on Baker's inexperience, but it's really telling that he embarked on an analysis that centered on motion tracking without knowing how motion tracking actually works. Typical no-planer.

Since Baker's calculated margin of error is not reliable, another attempt to calculate that error must be made.

The following diagram shows 3 possible placements (at 800% magnification) of the wireframe over the image, one in a center position and two other positions moved to the left and right .5 pixel. The size of the pixels can be readily seen.

The center and left positioning are virtually indistinguishable, and the right adjustment only barely looks out of alignment. So the exercise of visual placement alone introduces a minimum margin of error of just less than 1 pixel.

And there are more factors which would add to the margin of error:
•Distortion of the shape of the profile of the plane from frame to frame due to poor quality VHS footage.
•Stabilization software usually make calculations at a sub-pixel resolution. I've seen jumps of a large fraction of a pixel when stabilizing high quality footage, yet the Fox 5 footage is noisy, poor quality VHS footage. Baker and I both stabilized the footage manually which brings in again the problem of subjective visual placement. A good sized fraction of a pixel seems like a conservative estimate of the error from stabilization.

Given the error in visual placement plus these other two factors, the total margin of error per position measurement should be at least 1 pixel and could possibly be higher. A velocity measurement uses two position measurements, therefore the minimum margin of error in the velocity measurement would be 2 pixels or higher.

The following shows the stabilized footage with a wireframe overlay placed over the plane and a timeline showing the change in position and speed of that overlay:

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/fox5velocity.html

Frames 12 and 13 were excluded from the velocity calculations because the plane behind the graphic. Frames 1, 11, 14 and 22 are probably unreliable because not enough of was not sufficiently visible to make a reasonably reliable position measurement, in my opinion. However, I used them anyway.

Now, if the plane is real and moving smoothly, the difference between two velocity measurements should not exceed 2 pixels. This is exactly what is the case, as shown in this graph of the velocity of the wireframe:

The largest change in speed between any consecutive frames is a 1.6 pixels/frame change (corresponding to a .8 pixel error in position, which could be accounted for by the subjective error in positioning alone). Thus, the motion of the plane in the Fox 5 footage clearly matches the smooth, natural motion expected of a real plane.

Baker's measurements of variations in velocity of more than 2 pixels per frame are simply not representative of the Fox 5 footage, and are a result of less accurate stabilization and/or tracking.

When I did the above tracking analysis, I first positioned the wireframe diagram as best I could, and then examined the velocity data. Out of curiosity, I decided to redo the tracking analysis, but this time I deliberately adjusted the position of the diagram while looking at the velocity graph so that the variability in velocity was as little as possible. At the beginning of this exercise, I was concerned that in nudging the diagram to make the data fit might make it look out of alignment, but the exact opposite occurred: the diagram actually looked better aligned afterwards, some slight errors in my original attempt which I had not noticed (that's the problem with subjective visual placement) having been corrected. The misalignments in the original exercise can most easily be seen by comparing the tail of the plane in the old and new versions.

In this new tracking analysis, the maximum change in velocity between any two frames is only 0.4 pixels/sec (which corresponds to a 0.2 error in positioning), which is even within Baker's low estimate of the margin of error from his control cases:

This result is exactly what one would expect of video of a real plane. The no-planers might complain that these results are artificial or biased, but unfortunately for them that is not true. First of all, given that the placement of the wireframe actually improves, these results could have come about naturally simply by doing the exercise as I did it the first time. Secondly, because the validity of the results depends solely on how well the wireframe is aligned over the image of the plane, this new analysis is actually more reliable than my previous one.

After this, there should be no remaining doubt that there is no evidence of video fakery in the Fox footage.

The alleged "nose cone" emerging from the building is not the shape of the nose of the plane: it is very clearly thinner than the nose of the airplane when it first exits the building, then grows in size to approximate the shape of the nose, then continues to widen and starts to move down a bit, which is exactly the behavior one would expect from a smaller piece (or pieces) of debris pulling an expanding cloud of dust or smoke behind it. It simply can't be part of a keyed plane image or CGI model. And even if there is uneven motion in the "nose" it could be explained as variations in air pressure pushing out a cloud of smoke or dust. Of course, none of these facts have stopped Baker from continuing to insist that it is the nose of an overlaid plane image. That's zealotry for you.

So, in summary, all of Baker's main claims are in error:

•Baker's control cases are not equivalent to the Fox 11 footage and don't contribute anything to the calculation of a margin of error
•A conservative estimate of the margin of error in positioning the overlay on the Fox footage must be around 1 pixel or more
•The motion of the plane in the footage is well within this margin of error–in fact it can be measured to within a margin of error of only 0.2 pixel. Therefore, the motion is natural and there is no evidence for an overlay.
•The alleged "nose cone," which changes shape, can't be part of an overlaid plane image and can be easily explained with natural phenomenon.
•Baker's analysis that synthesizes non-stabilized tracking data is unnecessary and pseudo-scientific
•There is statistical proof of my observation, which Baker contested, that the Fox 5 footage does not have any significant shakes or bumps, only a smooth pan to the left.

I've said before that proven video fakery claims would only constitute evidence for video fakery, not no-planes. While this is certainly true, it does not mean that all video fakery claims are plausible. The only video fakery claim that makes any sense is that of a deep cover agent posing as an individual independently capturing footage of the attacks and releasing that footage afterwards. This way, the conspirators can promote the bogus no-plane claims while at the same time being able to dismiss the fakery as the work of a lone hoaxer-obviously a win-win situation for them. On the other hand, live video fakery brings them only fatal risks. First, it couldn't be dismissed as the work of a lone prankster or attention seeker. But more importantly, discovery of the fakery would provide the 9/11 truth movement with incontrovertible evidence of foreknowledge in the media, and it's easy to see that that would lead inevitably to the complete unravelling of the 9/11 cover-up. They would never take this risk simply to promote the no-planes disinfo. They would only do it if they actually were forced to fly something other than a plane into the towers. So supporting any live video fakery claim necessitates supporting no-plane claims lock, stock and barrel.

This is important to understand, because no-plane claims remain laughably impossible. The presence of dozens of pieces of footage of a 767 hitting the South Tower, from various sources, indicate that the conspirators must have either controlled all the cameras filming the towers or confiscated all the footage afterwards. Controlling all the cameras means patrolling and observing every street, window, rooftop, boat and open space in Manhattan, Brooklyn and New Jersey with a view of the attack on the towers, watching for people with cameras and apprehending them immediately. Even with tens of thousands of agents you couldn't guarantee observing every one (unless you care to believe that no one except agents was interested in taking pictures of the tallest building in NY on fire and belching smoke). Confiscation afterwards is even more problematic: You would have to find all the tapes before they were shared to the media, given to foreign governments or posted online. That would mean searching every business, home, and person in the greater metropolitan area, and searching every car, boat, plane, person and package leaving that area and continuing that search for an indeterminate amount of time after the attacks. That's clearly ridiculous, so are we then to believe that the individuals with footage brought the tapes in voluntarily, not concerned at all that they were making themselves accomplices to mass murder by allowing their footage to be doctored? And even if the conspirators could have overcome these issues and accomplished control over all the footage from media and citizens, they could not have prevented foreign intelligence agencies from conducting their own covert recordings of the attacks to use as blackmail (after all, it was common knowledge in many places that these attacks were coming). There was no compelling reason to take on these unsurmountable risks. Certainly not the risk of not hitting the building with the plane, as the no-planers say. First of all, if you miss the building you can turn around and make another approach. And even if the planes never make it to the towers, it's nothing more to the public than a failed terrorist attack, which can still contribute to the terrorist legend even in failure. On the other hand, if you try to fly a missile into the 2nd tower as at least thousands of people and at dozens of cameras are watching, the whole game is up: You've exposed your operation, given away the fraud of faked terror for the rest of time and have a potentially revolutionary situation on your hands. These problems, as well as the amateurish image analyses and bad physics we've seen so far, make the no-plane claims an utter joke.

Given that the no-plane claims are based on such mega-stupidity, and that a live video fakery claim entails supporting those claims, how could anyone assume that Baker's findings had any chance of being legitimate, especially since they were done by a composer moonlighting as a video expert? The only rational conclusion would have been to assume those findings were in error, even if presented in a slick, scientific-looking package. Yet supporting those findings is exactly what Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett have done. Why? Bad judgement, poor standards for evidence, or some other reason? A warning I made about the toxic no-plane bunk more than a year ago bears repeating:

...if this breaks through and embarrasses us like the pod issue did, the real responsibility will be with those who kept forwarding or tolerating the no-plane material in the interest of "dialogue" or "exploration" or "askin' questions" and who failed to use their powers of discernment to see through a baseless argument.

The claim of no-planes at the WTC is not controversial. It's idiotic.