Plane in the Wide Shot Strengthens the Case

I was wrong. There is an airplane in the wide shot of Chopper 5. It's difficult to see in the Dylan Avery version. And it is very very difficult to see in the Jim Hoffman west coast version. But it's there. 

Since Hoffman's came out first, and Avery's came out after people complained about the missing airplane in the wide shot, I thought they must have added the airplane only into Avery. 

But I was always troubled by this. It didn't make sense. Hoffman's Chopper 5 wasn't released until years after 9/11. Surely they had ample time to fix anything wrong with it. Would they have ever released it without first figuring out there should be a plane in that opening? Of course not. 

Just like they wouldn't release it without fixing the nose out. 

But wait a minute. We still have the nose out. If the nose out was a compositing mistake, where they allowed the nose of the airplane image to slip out the back side of a luma key mask, couldn't they just erase the nose out altogether, and be done?

No.

People saw the nose out mistake. News anchor Jim Ryan saw it, and felt compelled to explain it by saying, "The plane went right through the other tower". Some people at home must have seen it too. They'd remember. This had to be explained away, not erased away. 

"An explosion that took the shape of a Boeing 767!" This was the solution. 

They took the nose out in Chopper 5 and modified it carefully. They left the beginning of it intact. Toward the end of it, they defocused it and made it get a little bigger and bumpier, so we could start imagining it was an explosion of dust. 

To help cover tracks, they added the flame covering up most of the nose, as it starts to blur. This flame has an additional benefit. If the flame were present in the original shot, it would have made this type of video composite impossible. The keyer would not be able to accurately distinguish between flame and sky, and would have likely made the flame go transparent. 

It's still not possible for a dust explosion to take the shape of a Boeing 767. Nor is it reasonable to believe any of the various explanations for the fade-to-black. Nor do we have an explanation for why the cameras held steady shots of the towers, rather than following the plane. Nor do we have a good explanation for the lack of crash physics, nor the missing wake vortex, nor the many eyewitnesses who witnessed no plane, nor the refusal to release original quality video. 

Video compositing still fits the evidence better than any other explanation. In fact, now it fits even better than before. It explains how the composi-traitors were so stupid as to release a version with a missing plane - they weren't, and they didn't.