Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Ghostplane Study

Under Construction. I need to upload the hi-resolution copy of the video somewhere. 

The Ghostplane
Testing Explanatory Hypotheses 
for the CNN-Hezarkhani Video

By Alexander “Ace” Baker



The CNN video of a Boeing 767 entering the south World Trade Tower was allegedly shot by amateur Michael Hezarkhani from Battery Park, on the southern tip of Manhattan Island. Anomalies have long fueled skepticism about its authenticity. For example, the plane appears to enter the tower effortlessly, with no bending, twisting, buckling, or slowing, hence the moniker, "Ghostplane". Various explanatory hypotheses have emerged. This is an effort to evaluate them.


Determine how Ghostplane was created.


Present the best-quality version of Ghostplane for public examination. Gather and state the existing explanatory hypotheses. Present and discuss all relevant observations about the Ghostplane video. Interview prominent proponents of each hypothesis. Research and discuss all relevant physics and technologies. Compare visual data in Ghostplane to other available videos and photos of the depicted event (Satisfy “requirement of total evidence”). Assimilate findings.

Assign to each observation a value from 0-8 on the basis of how well or how poorly the observation is explained by each hypothesis.

0 = impossible
1 = very unlikely, but not quite impossible
2 = unlikely, but certainly not impossible
3 = slightly less likely than neutral
4 = neutral, that is no determination can be made one way or the other,
5 = slightly more likely than neutral
6 = likely, but certainly not certain
7 = very likely, but not quite certain
8 = certain

To evaluate, insert the above verbiage into the following sentence, for each observation and each hypothesis. The most accurate one prevails, and the corresponding value is assigned.

It is _______________ that this observation is explained by this hypothesis.

Add up the values for each hypothesis. Create tables and graphs displaying results. Decide which hypothesis has the greatest likelihood of being correct, by what margin, and discuss. Solicit review from other interested researchers.

Hypotheses to Test

1. Official Story. Ghostplane depicts Untied Airlines flight 175 crashing into the south face of WTC2 at around 550 m.p.h., killing all on board and causing the observed damage to the tower. The video is 100% authentic.

2. Plane Swap. Ghostplane depicts a real 767 aircraft, but not UA175. The aircraft was specially modified to produce explosions, and/or fire a missile at the tower simultaneous with striking it, causing the observed damage to the tower. The video is 100% authentic.

3. Garage Door. The wall of the tower was pre-weakened in the area of the impact. Ghostplane depicts a real 767 aircraft, either UA175 or other, entering the weakened area. The video is 100% real.

4. Compositing. Ghostplane depicts an airplane image composited onto what is otherwise authentic footage. The observed explosions are real, coming from within the tower. There was no real flying object of any kind.

5. Compositing Plus. A real flying object or objects, such as a Cruise Missile, Global Hawk, or a formation of UAVs struck the tower and caused the damage. Ghostplane depicts an image of a Boeing 767 composited into the footage, covering up the real flying object(s).

6. Hologram. Ghostplane depicts a real flying object, such as a missile, projecting a 3D holographic image of a 767 around itself in real time. The flying object caused the damage to the tower. The video is 100% authentic, in that it is unaltered photography of a live hologram.

7. Future Combat Systems. Ghostplane is completely animated. Not only the plane, but also the sky, the towers, the explosions, the other buildings, the trees and bushes, were all assembled digitally as a multi-layered animation. Ghostplane was fabricated using "Future Combat Systems" (or similar) employing such algorithms as "semantic photo completion". Ghostplane has no basis in reality at all, and could have been created at almost any time prior to 9/11.

Observations to Explain

1. Ghostplane is first shown to the public on CNN after midnight on 9/11, some 15 hours after the fact.
2. At first blush, Ghostplane looks realistic. We see photo-realistic buildings, plants, sky, a plane, and explosions.
3. The bottom of the plane appears to be gray in color, despite being in full sunlight.
4. The plane appears to travel 500-600 mph.
5. A bright flash of light appears for approximately 1/30 of a second, near the nose of the airplane, on the video frames immediately prior to the airplane beginning to enter the tower.
6. A series of discreet, white-colored explosions occur on the wall of the tower. The first two correspond to the placement of the airplane engines, later ones occur at various points along the wall, forming the shape of an airplane.
7. The airplane passes into the wall of the building with no apparent slowing.
8. The airplane passes into the wall of the building with no apparent damage to itself.
9. Video frames which depict the wings of the airplane having passed beyond the perimeter of the tower, show no observable damage to the tower wall.
10. An orange and black “fireball” explodes outwards from within the tower, approximately 1-2 seconds after the airplane appears to have completely entered the building.
11. The fireball appears to expand as explosions normally do. There is no observable rotating air mass within the fireball.

12. After an edit in the video (thus an unknown amount of time), a plane-shaped hole in the tower is observed.
13. During a recorded phone call with researcher Jeff Hill, videographer Michael Hezarkhnai refused to discuss details of his location, etc. on advice of his attorney. Hezarkhani suggested that Hill contact CNN.

Requested Experts

Rosalee Grable
Simon Shack
Anthony Lawson
Jules Naudet
Gideon Naudet
Steven Wright
Jim Fetzer
Morgan Reynolds
Mete Sozen
Voicu Popescu
Eric Salter
Rick Rajter
Fred BS Registration
Jeff Hill
Judy Wood
Steven Jones
Michael Hezarkhani
Gerard Holmgren
Still Diggin
Jeff King
Andrew Johnson
Nico Haupt

Questions for Experts

Do you agree or disagree with each observation?
Do you have any other relevant observations that I have missed?
Please give what you consider the most likely explanation for each observation.
Which hypothesis do you endorse (if any)?
Do you have a different hypothesis that I have not included?
Are there any other experts that you think I should consult?
Please offer any additional comments.

Technical Notes

The video used for this analysis comes from the DVD “CNN – America Remembers”. Ordinary American television conforms to the NTSC standard. It is 29.97 frames per second, and 480 scan lines tall. Each video frame is comprised of two “fields”. Each field is 240 scan lines, one displaying only the odd numbered scan lines, the other only the even. Combining alternating fields is called “interlacing”. Fields are displayed one after the other, 59.94 fields per second.

Digital video may be interlaced, or it may display entire frames at once, known as "progressive". To display correctly on a computer, NTSC must be "de-interlaced" and converted into progressive. There are three basic techniques which may be employed to do this.

1. Line doubling. Each even field is made into a progressive frame by doubling the height of each scan line. Each odd field is discarded. Frame rate remains 29.97.
2. Field blending. Each odd-even field pair is blended together into one progressive frame. Frame rate remains 29.97.
3. Frame rate doubling. Each line in each field is doubled in height, for both odd AND even fields. Each field is made into a complete progressive frame, thus doubling the quantity of frames. Frame rate is now 59.94.

For analysis purposes, the correct choice is number 3, because no video data is lost, and all video data remains discreet, unblended. I have made a progressive frame from each field of the Ghostplane DVD video. This was done by extracting the DVD footage into a “.VOB” file using “Mac-the-Ripper” software. VOB file was imported into “MPEG Streamclip” software and exported as a DV stream, still interlaced. This interlaced DV stream was imported into “Adobe After Effects”, the frame rate was changed from 29.97 to 59.94, and exported as a Quicktime with no compression.

Copyright and Fair Use

Exemption from copyright protection is claimed under the doctrine of “Fair Use”.


u2r2h said...



you include Nico but not me.

Biassed against hologrammes?

I guess you know EXACTLY what I would say:


Just in case you'd like to know what CURRENTLY tickles me...

Spitzer was onto something (washington post article SAME DAY that he...)

"War made Easy" -- MUST SEE (if you haven't seen it yet)
after the film you'd be thinking: THANK GODDESS IT CANNOT HAPPEN LIKE THIS ANYMORE.. WE ARE WISER NOW.. but can't it?

in ITALY they understand what needs to be done. 1 mio people in 220 cities:

Ace Baker said...


I added you as an expert to consult.

No, actually I don't know exactly what you'd say. Feel free to answer the questions and add comments as you see fit.

Anonymous said...

I am a "nobody" so to speak, but been following you guys for a couple of years and completely convinced no planes ever hit the towers.

However an idea I came upon sometime back:

Both cartoon planes emit flashes before hitting right?

Most of people in the truth movement, have sidetracked on explosions and missiles preparing the hole.

I think it is an effect expected in somebody faking the impact of the nose of the plains, knowing this exact second would be very difficult to fake, because of the action reaction that should be present, he added a spark flash just before contact to hide the nose blending perfectly with the buildings. For example when superman smacks an asteroid what you see in the comics? A FLASHHHHH! KABOOOOOM!

Problem solved, and better yet, another proof of tv fakery.How about that?