In Chopper 5, some object appears to come out of the back (north) side of the tower (fig. 20).
Nose Out Multiple Choice
This object looks remarkably similar to the nose of the Boeing 767 airplane that appears to fly into the building. In fact, the object is indistinguishable from the nose. In fig. 21 below are 8 enlargements. Some are noses, some are the exiting object. Which are which?
Under the video compositing hypothesis, Pinocchio’s Nose is simply the nose of the airplane image, escaping the back side of the luma key layer mask, as I’ve demonstrated.[#_ftn3 ]
It Slows Down
Real plane supporter Dave Rogers has pointed out that the airplane image appears to slow down considerably while “inside” the tower. He suggests this is proof of a real plane, evidently assuming that a composite airplane image would have to fly a constant speed.
Steve Wright made the same claim on the Hardfire program. He tracked the motion of the airplane, continuing the motion of an outline through the building at a constant speed. The outline emerged well before Pinocchio’s Nose.
But this doesn’t prove a real airplane. An animated image can be made to change speeds any which way, of course. Steve Wright’s own educational video, in the very first lesson, demonstrates compositing by overlaying, of all things, a jet airplane. He applies a “velocity curve”, the jet enters the screen fast, then slows down in the middle of the picture.
Knowing the approximate visual location of the towers in the shot, there is a very good reason why the 9/11 airplane animations would be pre-made to slow down in the middle of the picture: It would simulate the deceleration of a real airplane crash.
Under the real plane hypothesis, the exiting “nose-out” object would be something real. Various explanations have emerged:
- The object really is the nose of the airplane
- The object is an engine
- The object is a landing gear
- The object is a dust explosion
Airplane Nose ?
The nose of an airplane is ruled out. A Boeing 767 nose is hollow, it is plastic, it is not meant to withstand any sort of collision. The mere thought of it surviving intact through a dense grid of steel box columns, twice, is just absurd. Kai Simonsen, who was the camera operator aboard Chopper 5, and who is also happens to be a video compositing expert, agreed that it looked just like the nose of the airplane. He asked interviewer Jeff Hill, “Why do you say it’s impossible?”[#_ftn5 ]
Engine or Landing Gear ?
To explore whether Pinocchio’s Nose could be a real event, we’ll next consider the 2nd generation of videos, which emerged in the hours after the event.
Despite being a poor quality copy, the Gamma Press video clearly shows a gray, metallic, cylindrical object emerging. The engine and landing gear are both heavy, solid objects made of strong metals such as steel and titanium. We might imagine that one of these objects could penetrate two sets of perimeter steel box columns.
I’ve overlaid a model 767 to scale,[#_ftn6 ] and added motion blur (fig. 23). We can see that the emerging object is much too large to be an engine or a landing gear. The size and shape of the Gamma Press nose-out is consistent with a fuselage, which is consistent with Chopper 5.
In Gamma Press, after the Pinocchio’s Nose event,a strange, very bright, 2D looking flame gobbles up the object, it disappears, and is never seen again. StillDiggin named this the "Venus Plane Trap” [#_ftn7 ]
In fig. 25 above I’ve darkened and shifted the color balance of the Gamma Press image. The entire image was processed equally. Notice how the Venus Plane Trap sticks out and looks so distinct from the other flame. It is much brighter than the rest of the fireball explosion. This is consistent with adding a fake flame into a real shot with a real explosion. In compositing, color-matching can be tricky.
In Gamma Press, we have additional video data that seem to support the idea that the Chopper 5 nose-out is some solid object. But there are four terrible problems with the idea that Pinocchio’s Nose was a solid object:
- The nose-out object is far too big to be either an engine or a landing gear.
- According to the Gamma Press video, a flame completely destroyed the object in a fraction of a second. Fire can’t do that to steel or titanium.
- Other, later videos, such as Naudet, show a dust explosion (see fig. 27 below).
- There are no broken columns where the solid object would have exited (see fig. 26 below).
Dust Explosion ?
Next, I consider the third generation videos, those that emerged days or weeks after the event.They show a dust explosion, not a metallic cylinder.The clearest example of this is Naudet (see fig. 27 below).
The Naudet footage shows a dust explosion for Pinocchio’s Nose, and it looks nothing at all like the fuselage of a plane, or an engine, or any solid object. This dust explosion would be moving at more than 300 mph. It seems impossible that any sort of dust explosion could maintain its shape in the face of a 300 mph headwind. It’s dust.
How would a dust explosion (or anything else for that matter) form itself into a size, color, and shape indistinguishable from the nose of a Boeing 767?
Also, we have the Venus Plane Trap flame event from the Gamma Press video. While we might imagine a solid object could explode into flame, how could a dust explosion, which by definition has already exploded, itself explode into flame?
The frames of Naudet that would show the Venus Plane Trap have been edited out. This editing is highly suspicious, especially considering it corresponds with the fade to black in Chopper 5. The Naudet Brothers are called upon to release unedited, original quality footage so that we may examine the sequence that was edited out. And if you have not yet signed the petition requesting broadcast-quality video from the networks, why not do so now?
Thus, the totality of the video evidence is completely inconsistent with Pinocchio’s Nose being any real event.The solid objects are ruled out because there is no exit wound, because steel/titanium objects can’t burn up, and because the apparent object is too big. The dust explosion is ruled out because it cannot maintain its shape in the face of a 300 mph headwind, nor can it explode. Both are ruled out because the various videos are completely inconsistent with one other, some showing a metallic object, others showing dust.
As impossible as it is to reconcile Pinocchio’s Nose with a real event, it is quite easily understood under the video compositing hypothesis. The nose of the airplane image was accidentally allowed to come out from the back side of the luma key layer mask in Chopper 5, the other videos are subsequent attempts to explain it away.
The composite works by placing video images on layers, in this case a total of three layers. The tower shot is duplicated and placed on two of the layers. The top copy of the tower shot has had the sky made transparent with an effect called “Luminance Keying” or “Luma Key”. When these two layers are combined, it looks identical to the original shot.
Sandwiched in between the two tower layers is the airplane layer. It is an airplane image on an otherwise transparent layer. Below I’ve inserted a model 767 at way too large a scale, to demonstrate the presence of layers.
If the flying airplane image is not made to stop at the correct time, having it appear to pop out the back side of the tower is precisely what will happen. Evidently, it did happen, despite the precaution of having the pre-made airplane image slow down once “inside”. I have given a detailed explanation of how the live 9/11 composites must have been created, and inserted a 2nd flying airplane image into the Chopper 5 video. [#_ftn8 ]
Under the compositing hypothesis, the Venus Plane Trap flame event was added to videos to attempt to explain the fate of Pinocchio’s Nose. The mismatching flame color is consistent with compositing.
Therefore Pinocchio’s Nose is perfectly consistent with the hologramme and the compositing hypothesis, and impossible under the real plane hypothesis.