Ghost Gun UA175
Holograms, Whistleblowers
and the 9/11 Media Hoax
and the 9/11 Media Hoax
Revised 9/11/2005 | Updates @ bottom | w/radio show
With minor edits and adjustments made by: Wolf Clan Media
I do no agree with the conclusion of "pre-planted explosives" creating the airplane shaped holes in the Twin Towers.I strongly feel this was done using un-conventional technology.
See my article on this --->
http://wolfclanmedia-research.blogspot.com/2018/03/911-phantom-warfare.html
Most 9/11 (no-plane) researchers promote falsehoods about the video & photographic evidence from that day.
Some highlights of research from 2005 which makes some very great observations and helps to prove that an object was in the sky on 9/11.
Many links are now broken :(
Unfortunately, the UA175 illusion (WTC2, morning of 9-11-1) was not 100% successful.
Unfortunately, the UA175 illusion (WTC2, morning of 9-11-1) was not 100% successful.
Foreword (by Dr. Stefan Grossmann):
I have been asked to describe what the name ‘Ghost Gun’ (as used in the title of this article) stands for. The Pentagon, under control of the shadow government, has a huge black budget for its hyper-tech skunk works such as underground near Area 51 or in Adelphi , Maryland Disneyland ’s Haunted House, only extremely realistic for fighting purposes. The U.S. Congress is funding this research under the SAP (Special Access Project) name ‘Ghost Gun’. Early research can be traced back to the 1970s. Around 1994, the Clinton
There is a web site (http://www.orbwar.com) that is in part dedicated to documenting this Pentagon hyper-technology of mid-air illusions, deceptive but not fully perfect (in case of scalar secret weapons, highly energized for explosions). The skin of the proposed flight UA175 (which is the wrong UA175) looks in many respects just like that, especially: its false shine and false shadow, its false lack of details and colour and its blinking and often transparent wing-illusions. I am convinced that the visible outside skin of the wrong flight UA175 is such a ‘Ghost Gun’ like the holo-cloak of the stealth fighter because it enters the building like an unreal ghost and the entry hole is much smaller than the ghost. I interpret this as a roaring small missile riding (with a toggling missile flight path) inside a specially imaged large holographic cloak depicting with 98% accuracy a Boeing 767 (plus small tell-tale marks to be looked out for, such as in this article by eagle-eyed Marcus Icke). Others who have followed this ‘hologram theory’ (or ‘Ghost Gun’ theory) are Webfairy (Rosalee Grable) and Gerard Holmgren. Many more flying things were in the air around the Twin Towers Woolworth Building into the World Trade Center North Tower
Altogether, the media of record for 9-11-1 are so strikingly different from a real Boeing that they give us all the certainty we could possibly need.
The pod is evidently not an illusion of the light, it does not hamper and obstruct the bay doors for the landing gear, and it is an authentic sign that something is wrong with the proposed ‘plane’. See below towards the end of the article. The cute term ‘pod people’ is used by certain fakers who are apparently scared to have this truth come out into the open. But why be scared? I believe that the truth is our best friend.
Also see my dissenting opinion in the ‘Results’ section below, with the conclusion:
Aircraft and Tower Performance Issues:
The UA175 aircraft that struck WTC2 was travelling at an airspeed at least 100 mph outside its operational envelope.
Assuming the hijacked Boeing 767-200 was able to maintain structural integrity at this high airspeed the crew would have been under a great deal of pressure to navigate and maintain control of the aircraft during the final stages of the approach to WTC2. A group of Arab hijackers lacking the years of experience gained by a professional crew of 767 pilots would have been an unlikely choice for the command and execution of this suicide mission, especially since passenger lists show no Arab boarded the aircraft and seven of the alleged hijackers survived. We can therefore say with a high degree of certainty that this aspect of the ‘official’ version of events is incorrect.
Next is the impact of the alleged hijacked Boeing 767-200 with the WTC2 tower. Computer simulation and mathematical analysis of the impact by MIT, University of Purdue and others indicate that upon impact the wings of the 767 would have shattered and the fuel ignited outside the towers facade, the aircraft would have lost about 25% percent of its kinetic energy on impact and that the tail fin would have sheared off due to torsional forces. In layman’s terms this means that the aeroplane would have decelerated sharply, crumpled up and exploded against the tower’s wall with only heavy objects like the engines and undercarriage puncturing the towers facade. No film or photograph of the impact and aftermath shows any of these predicted effects.
We also have a report confirming the current existence of N612UA, the very aircraft that was operating Flight UA175 on the morning of September 11th 2001 - in other words the aircraft that was supposed to be destroyed in the WTC2 attack is still in service.
With these important issues in mind we have reasonable certainty that the object that was shown to collide with the Tower 2 of the former World Trade Centre Complex was not a real Boeing 767-200 under the command of Arab hijackers.
The apparent impact of the supposed Boeing 767-200 is the foundation for the ‘Hologram Theory’ and the ‘Media Hoax’ theory which means that the UA175 aircraft was either a hologram hiding a smaller aircraft or the Boeing 767-200 was added to live footage of the crash or added in post production.
In this article we will consider only certain images of the UA175 aircraft.
Computer Simulation of a Real Boeing:
In order to analyse the airframe and flight paths of the respective UA175 aircraft images I have utilised Microsoft’s ‘Flight Simulator 2004 - A Century of Flight’ with the ‘New York Objects’ scenery kit which rebuilds the former World Trade Centre Complex along with the Project Opensky (POSKY) 767-222 aircraft model for Flight Simulator 2002. I also used an International Flight Design Group (iFDG) 767-322 United Airlines aircraft model and an iFDG 767-200 American Airlines aircraft model to assist in the analysis.
The ‘Flight Simulator 2004 - A Century of Flight’ program ran on a Windows XP Operating System with the following hardware specifications: CPU - 1.56Ghz Athlon 1800 XP, Memory - DDR SDRAM 1GB, Graphics Card - Gforce 4 Ti 4200 128mb, Disk - 80GB Maxtor at 7200rpm with 8mb cache, Monitor - Sony Multiscan E250.
‘Flight Simulator 2004 - A Century of Flight’ features ‘dynamic reflectivity’ which means that compliant aircraft models can reproduce light reflections from their airframes with a significant degree of accuracy. One example of this ‘dynamic reflectivity’ property is shown below with a Boeing 727-200 wearing an American Airlines livery:
You can see an illusion of what appears to be pipes running from the nose tip back down the fuselage to the tail section. Also note that the wing fairings look distended giving the appearance of a ‘pod’ under each wing and a ‘mini-pod’ in between the rear mounted engines. Flight simulator does have some limitations. The most important one is that an aircraft model’s airframe will not cast a shadow over itself. To illustrate this point consider the graphic below which shows an approximation of the sun’s orientation relative to the simulated UA175 aircraft on the morning of September 11th 2001:
Flight simulator is suggesting that the starboard engine nacelle is shadowing the area where the famous ‘pod’ is believed to have been located. Unfortunately because Flight Simulator will not calculate the shadow cast by the engine nacelle onto the wing fairing we cannot use the simulation to test the ‘specular highlight’ argument offered by some as the explanation for the appearance of the ‘pod’. We must bear in mind that the graphic above is only intended to give the viewer a rough idea of the sun’s orientation when considering the points raised throughout this article. Where necessary, sun angles have been calculated with a higher degree of accuracy.
The graphic below shows the UA175 / WTC2 strike scenario from the suns point of view. This graphic gives us a good idea of how the airframe should have been illuminated by the sun, in terms of where shadows would have been falling and how bright or dark any given part of the airframe would have appeared to the ground positioned cameras.
For the purpose of this article we will consider the Boeing 767-200 in accordance with the ‘official’ version of events. I have superimposed the POSKY 767-200 on top of a photograph of a real Boeing 767-200 to show the reader how accurate the model is:
It’s a close fit, the discrepancy in engine size could be down to a power-plant option chosen by the respective operators. What must be noted is that the POSKY model has wings that are marginally longer than the real aircraft; and this will be factored into the analysis. It’s a small point and even if we ignored it the outcome of the analysis would remain unchanged.
MAIN PART – A COMPARISON
THE MODEL VERSUS THE FLYING HACK JOB
(SECTIONS a-r BELOW):
THE MODEL VERSUS THE FLYING HACK JOB
(SECTIONS a-r BELOW):
The more one looks the more tragic the truth becomes. The model of a real plane is different from that hideous flying hack job that the media hammered into our minds incessantly on 9-11-1 and in the days following. The authors have reason to suspect that they are hot on the trail of the biggest fraud scam yet in this early 21st century, of the likes of the Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor and the JFK assassination.
In order to analyse the film and stills photography the exact camera position, aircraft position, aircraft attitude and sun position were reproduced in Flight Simulator and were used to provide a visual reference image to judge the respective UA175 picture. Due to the accuracy of the Flight Simulator environment it is possible to gauge the UA175’s airframe and its flight path. We thus have a reliable method of authenticating the aircraft as a Boeing 767-200 and at the same time verifying its trajectory. All of the captured images from Flight Simulator were taken from the camera’s point of view and were then scaled to match the original using only their respective fuselage lengths. This seemed appropriate as it was the longest and easiest airframe dimension to measure; and in many of the stills and photographs analysedthe aircraft bore a striking resemblance to a Boeing 767-200 from nose to tail, but not by any other airframe attribute. We also have the ‘official’ version of events that states that the aircraft was a Boeing 767-200. Where appropriate I have touched up some of the images but have been very careful not to add or remove any visual information from them that might affect the outcome of the analysis. Some of the images are presented as GIF animations to help the reader identify the aircraft’s airframe anomalies more easily and to save screen space.
a) CNN Best Angle Video:
A close look at the comparison image above reveals that the airframe of the UA175 aircraft is correctly proportioned for a 767-200 bar a slightly shorter ‘chord’ length at the wing root. When the ‘virtual’ UA175 aircraft was released from its ‘virtual’ freeze in Flight Simulator it flew straight into the tower hitting at almost exactly the same point as shown in this video and other video footage. In other words the aircraft exhibits the correct attitude that produces the trajectory seen in the video recording. I consider this point to be in favour of image authenticity as it suggests that the aircraft is more likely to be a real flying object conforming to the laws of physics as opposed to special effect dubbed onto the film. The alternative to this argument, is of course, that the film is a well made forgery.
You can see that Flight Simulator has not reproduced the ‘pipe’ illusion that is attributed by some to the phenomena of ‘specular highlights’, but it has reproduced the airframe illumination just beneath the starboard tail fin. The reason the ‘pipe’ illusion is absent is simply because the camera is in the wrong position to receive these ‘specular highlights’. The ‘pipe’ in the CNN video is unreal.
Here are some details on the unreal pipe. This technical discussion of the nuts and bolts underlines with a very high likelihood that the pipe shown in the CNN video is in fact unreal, a definite anomaly, a second reality apart from the official version:
I used geometry to calculate that in order for the camera to see the reflected sunlight of the airframe the aircraft would have to be turned approximately 19 degrees to the right from its original position. In this new attitude the angle of incidence from the sun to the airframes perpendicular would be identical to the angle of reflection from the airframes perpendicular to the camera viewpoint thus allowing the camera to directly receive the reflected sunlight from the aircraft’s fuselage. I also predicted that the ‘specular highlight’ beneath the starboard tail fin would disappear because of this new attitude.
We should note that the camera’s position below the aircraft’s airframe and the sun’s position above the airframe do not affect this analysis. Their position would only move the ‘pipe illusion’ up the airframe or down the airframe depending on their respective positions. In the image below I’ve used the lengthy airframe of an iFDG 767-322 with its United Airlines livery to test the theory. The airframe has been rotated by 20 degrees to the right from its previous ‘real-world’ heading of 053 degrees magnetic.
As you can see the pipe illusion has been faithfully reproduced as predicted by the geometric calculation along with the absence of the airframe illumination beneath the starboard tail fin. My calculation predicted the most prominent ‘pipe’ illusion would occur at 072 degrees magnetic. The most prominent ‘pipe’ illusion occurred at 073 degrees magnetic according to Flight Simulator. Further experimentation with the aircraft’s attitude revealed that the ‘pipe illusion’ disappeared at 064 degrees magnetic and 082 degrees magnetic respectively.
The argument that the ‘pipes’ are being caused by reflected light from the Manhattan terrain below is incorrect because the light is coming from 360 degrees all round the airframe and 180 degrees from nose-tip to tail from below the airframe. Any such ambient light would not be bright enough to produce significant airframe reflections and is not localised enough to generate a precise reflection. If we could see the terrain below reflected in the airframe it would simply be the murky blur of buildings covering a large portion of the aircraft’s underside. Only a bright and small light source could create a ‘pipe’ illusion.
The simulation therefore confirmed the theoretical analysis and shows that the ‘dynamic reflectivity’ feature of Flight Simulator 2004 is a powerful tool for the purpose of verifying the ‘specular highlights’ hypothesis, a tool of which has been used prolifically throughout this article.
If 9-11 researchers who endorse the ‘specular highlights’ concept don’t embrace the laws of physics when conceiving their analyses then they run the risk of misleading their readers, the act of which verges on disinformation. Each and every video still or photograph must be mathematically analysed and then tested using physical models or computer simulation to confirm the existence of these ‘specular highlights’.
Continuing with the CNN footage I decided to reproduce the famous ‘flash’ frame and scale the images by using the tower’s width. During the creation of this image set I found it impossible to orientate the POSKY model to match the CNN ‘flash’ capture without betraying every other image of the aircraft shown in photographs or on video. For some reason the CNN filmed UA175 aircraft had an attitude all of its own just prior to impact.
In order to get the apparent fuselage length correct and the bank angles matched I used 5 degrees positive pitch and 38 degrees port bank. These bank and pitch datums are inconsistent with datums obtained from other sources, like the CNN ‘Brooklyn Heights
If the attitude remained more or less consistent throughout the video clip then we would have to conclude that the length of the fuselage had magically ‘shrunk’ throughout the sequence giving the false impression of the aircraft pitching up at the moment of impact, an unlikely scenario for a hijacked 767-200 to say the least and a good sign of video forgery.
Not only do we have attitude discrepancies at impact, we also have airframe discrepancies. The port wing and port tail fin seem to be melting away and a significant portion of the leading edge of the starboard wing between the root and the engine pylon look as if it has been removed. The explanation that the starboard engine is casting a shadow over this part of the wing is incorrect because in other captures from the same piece of film we can see that the same piece of wing is not missing. Also in the ‘flash’ frame we can see a clear line marking the boundary between the face of the tower and the sun-lit portion of the wing which confirms the absence of this part of the wing.
While reviewing the images for this section of the article I noticed a murky and colourful haze around the UA175 aircraft as shown in this enhanced color and contrast image:
The distortion of colour and contrast around the airframe looks very similar to the compression artefacts generated by the conversion of an image to JPG format or the conversion of video from one compressed format to another. The effect could be the result of a poor quality original or by-product of the conversion to DVD format but if you look closely the effect is more pronounced around the airframe than any other object or structure in the image.
It has been suggested by some that the aircraft has been added in post production as well as the sound track which exhibits incorrect ‘Doppler Shift’.
During tower penetration the UA175 aircraft becomes luminescent, especially where the port engine nacelles appear to be impacting against the tower’s facade:
But the entire south wall was darkened by a 13 degree wedge of shadow cast by the tower over itself and the UA175 aircraft during its impact (the shadow cast by the starboard wing on the fuselage has not been shown in this graphic):
So how can the airframe remain illuminated when it was in shadow? This evidences, documents and proves that the UA175 vehicle, its jet engines and its starboard wing could shine like a lamp, unlike any Boeing airplane.
Extracted from the CNN video and shown below we have a sequence of 4 stills that show the ‘pod’ area of the airframe impact marked with a red arrow.
This suggests that the ‘pod’ was a solid object that was causing physical damage to the tower as it passed through its outer wall and therefore could be cited as evidence for the existence of the ‘pod’ and authentication not only of the media itself, but of other UA175 images that also show the ‘pod’. On the other hand, measurement from the CNN commemorative DVD footage (from the above picture sequence) shows that the length between the wing tips and the tail winglet tips was not shortened, so this alleged „plane” did not even crumple one foot when hitting the steel-column wall of the WTC south tower, strongly indicating that the outer skin of the plane could have been no solid object.
One of several problems with this piece of videographic evidence is when the UA175 aircraft first comes into the camera’s view there is no sign of a ‘pod’ under the starboard wing, at least not a ‘pod’ that is any larger than the wing fairing:
But the ‘pod’ does appear later on in the sequence a few frames prior to impact.
We also have the false ‘pipe’ structure attached to the fuselage that is consistent with the Der Spiegel image and the Letsroll9-11 image (both reviewed later) that emit an orange ‘flash’ from the pipes nozzle at the instant prior to tower penetration as shown in several videos.
If this film were fake then why did the perpetrators go to all the trouble to include the ‘pipe’ and the ‘flash’? Why did they allow parts of the fuselage to disappear just prior to impact? Why didn’t they cover up bizarre the lighting anomalies that occur during the collision? Why does the ‘pod’ seem to have an explosion of its own?
If, hypothetically this film is genuine then why is the aircraft’s attitude at impact different from other video footage of the same incident and why does the sound track have faulty ‘Doppler’ shift? Why does the ‘pod’ only show up just prior to the UA175 aircraft’s impact? Why is there a multi-coloured cloud of what looks like compression artefacts around the UA175 aircraft’s fuselage? Who photoshopped CNN’s footage? What is the CNN footage cleverly trying to hide?
b) Carmen Taylor Digital Photograph:
The Carmen Taylor digital photograph, distributed by Associated Press and a web site of the State Department, looks so similar to screen captures from the CNN Best Angle video at impact that we’d be forgiven for thinking they were imaged with the same device. I’ve shown the closest possible frame from the CNN Best Angle video below for comparison:
Just like the comparative CNN still the UA175 aircraft has a partially missing tail fin and slightly fading port wing / port tail fin.
In both the CNN Best Angle capture and the Carmen Taylor photograph the area of wing between the port engine nacelle and the fuselage is almost completely missing, not to mention the absent bottom half of the tail fin! Being so similar to the CNN Best Angle video it faces the same problem, which is that the aircraft attitude shown in the image is inconsistent with other images of the UA175 aircraft taken at the same time. In order to get an optical match I had to tilt the nose up to about 6 or 7 degrees above horizontal and rotate the airframe over to the left to such an extent that it contradicted not only the official attitude data, but also my own data pulled from other video and stills photography. Other CNN footage, taken from the side off a Brooklyn Heights rooftop, shows a straight horizontal entry mode and no last-instant ‘pulling up of nose’ of the ‘plane’, in flat contradiction to the ‘nose-up’ anomaly of the CNN best angle and Carmen Taylor graphics.
It is unlikely the ‘pod’ is an optical illusion caused the reflection of the engine nacelle in the starboard wing fairing given the relatively small size and curved shape of the fairing and the rather obvious fact that the ‘pod’ itself appears to be larger than the wing fairing. We also know that there is no rational explanation for the appearance of what looks like pipe-work attached to the starboard side of the UA 175 aircraft’s fuselage.
Neither of these observations can be explained using the ‘specular highlights’ argument; they remain something of a mystery, but they do strongly suggest that the aircraft seen in this digital photograph and in the CNN Best Angle video was not a normal Boeing 767-200. ‘Pod’ issues will be discussed later on in ‘The Pod Illusion De-bunked’ section of this article).
c) CNN Brooklyn Heights
For the CNN ‘Brooklyn Heights’ photograph the ‘specular highlights’ effect has been authenticated by Flight Simulator and has correctly reproduced the highlights from both engine nacelles. This does not mean that the reason for ‘pipe’ is due to ‘specular highlights’, it’s just one possibility that could be used to explain the phenomenon. It may be the case that there is a large silver pipe running down the side of the fuselage and that that is responsible for reflecting the sunlight. How can we be sure which scenario is correct? The ‘pipe’ on the aft section of the fuselage has an abrupt and rounded rear end to it while the front of the ‘pipe’ on the forward section of the fuselage ends in a sharp point. Neither one of these features was reproduced by Flight Simulator which showed slow fading out of the reflections at both ends of the fuselage and a much longer ‘pipe’ on the forward section of the fuselage.
The CG model used here was ‘locked’ onto the original photograph from the trailing edge of the starboard tail fin to the tip of the starboard wing and down to the starboard engine nacelle. A bank angle of 41 degrees to port and a near horizontal pitch were derived from the CG model based on this photograph. There are plenty of airframe discrepancies revealed in this image as the GIF animation below shows:
You can see that the port wing is swept back a little too much for a Boeing 767-200. I call this the ‘Port Wing Anomaly’. We can also see two oversized and overly prominent blade antenna on the underside of the aircraft. The aft blade antenna is correctly placed when compared to the Microsoft simulation, but the forward blade antenna is out of place. Many of these points could be attributed to aberrations introduced into the image by product of its reproduction, but this cannot apply to the ‘Port Wing Anomaly’ that stands out in other UA175 images as well. The tell-tale port wing anomaly runs consistently through UA175 photographs like a silver thread. The trusty consistence of this same anomaly in many photographs would tend to support that the photos are authentic documents of a given reality that was present in the air before South Tower
Another problem with this photograph is the shadow detail.
In order to generate the Brooklyn Heights CG Shadow Simulation Image below I used the schematics of a Boeing 767-200, accurate sun positioning data courtesy of the NASA/JPL ephemeral generator and my best possible measurement of the pitch, bank and yaw of the UA175 aircraft using the Brooklyn Heights photograph itself and other UA175 images taken at roughly the same time.
As Flight Simulator will not render shadows cast by the airframe on to itself I have had to use an alternative methodology to calculate where the shadows would be falling on the fuselage in real life. I’ve used Photoshop to add these shadows to the virtual Boeing 767-200 model with a United Airlines livery in the exact attitude as shown in the Brooklyn Heights
According to my calculations the shadow from the starboard engine nacelle is just covering the ‘specular highlight’ on the starboard wing fairing, but it didn’t cover the area of fairing where the gear bay doors were located and there was ample illumination of the remainder of the underside of the fuselage, including the underside reflective strip. The shape of the shadow cast by the starboard engine nacelle and its pylon on the original photograph differs from the respective interpolated shadow on the CG model.
There is also a lack of ‘specular highlights’ from the parts of the starboard wing fairing that were being exposed directly to sunlight, bogus illumination and shadowing of the port wing and a shadow cast by the starboard wing on the fuselage that should be longer than it appears.
The photograph is suggesting that the sun angle is higher than it actually was on the morning of September 11th 2001 at approximately 9:02am local time at the World Trade Centre. Not only does the shadowing conflict with the interpolated shadowing on the CG model it also conflicts with the shadowing seen on other UA175 aircraft images discussed in this article, especially the in Der Spiegel image.
Further look very closely at the starboard tail fin section. It has a distinctly artificial look to it. The fin has a sharp and smooth appearance when compared to the rest of the airframe photograph. There is also a black line down the trailing edge of the surface which is too prominent compared to the rest of the pasty looking image.
How can this be? It’s as if someone had worked out what a real Boeing 767-200 should have looked like, then generated a technically correct image of the tail section and pasted it back into the original. Why would someone do this? What was wrong with the tail fin in the original picture?
I believe that both of the blade antenna have been grafted on in addition to the starboard tail fin. These antenna are much too large and are orientated at the wrong angle to be reflecting sunlight directly at the camera.
My research on the positioning is inconclusive. The only way to be sure would be to study the tech logs and maintenance schedules of N612UA in order to find out where these radio/navigation antenna were located on the aeroplane.
d) Der Spiegel Image:
The Der Spiegel image has been attributed to a man named Rob Howard (freelance photographer, WTC eyewitness and Popular Mechanics consultant on the 9-11 Conspiracy) and is rumoured by some to be a fake.
There are questions over image pixelation and building positioning. My concerns lie with the aircraft itself which has a bizarre bent back port wing when seen in comparison to the starboard wing - the ‘Port Wing Anomaly’. On a more positive note you might just be able to make out a minute amount of motion blur on the presumed aircraft which would suggest that whatever it was in fast motion at the time it had its picture taken. We are of course assuming that this motion blur has not been added to the image to increase its authenticity.
I’ve reproduced the Der Spiegel image as a GIF animation to highlight this obvious defect with the aircraft. For good measure I’ve bolted on the tail section back on as the original didn’t have it and I filled in the textures using visual interpolation. The predicted Flight Simulator wings were grafted back onto the original and then these two images were rolled together into the animation below. The question we should be asking ourselves therefore is:
„Why is the port wing bent back so much?“
Take a look at the strange structure beneath the starboard wing that is referred to by many as the ‘pod’, something like a dark pipe, in the photo: ca. horizontal above the middle dark mass of shadow, something that appears as structured where the underbelly of a real plane is normally aerodynamic and smooth:
Judging by the shadowing seen in this image we can see that the starboard wing fairing is being illuminated by the sun. So the ‘pod’ is as real as it appears, looking like an addition to the airframe, or perhaps something partially inside the outer skin of the aircraft.
I also find the ‘specular highlights’ argument a little difficult to accept in this case even though Flight Simulator places the ‘pipe’ illusion in exactly the same place as the ‘pipe’ on the UA175 aircraft. In comparison to this simulation the ‘pipe’ seems to be extending too far down the tapered ends of the fuselage and has a distinct outline, not a gradual fading out of the reflection that you would expect to see from a curved surface. For the pipe on the aft section of the fuselage the simulation suggests a pointed end to the highlight, whereas on the UA175 aircraft it looks like a solid structure with a blunt end. If you study the ‘pipe’ on the forward section of the aircraft you can just make out some reflection detail that suggests that the ‘pipe’ has a curvature of its own and is therefore a real physical object that has been added to the fuselage. In other words the ‘pipe’ appears to be partially embedded within the skin of the UA175 aircraft and has a much smaller diameter than that of the fuselage section. The same can be said for the reflective stripe on the underside of the fuselage, it too seems to be partially embedded in the aircraft’s skin relief-style and bulging outward from the fuselage with its own curved appearance. The real UA175 only had paint markings with no such bulging reliefs. The front of the ‘pod’ has a ‘butt’ or a ‘stub’ to it which is reflecting a vast amount of light. The ‘pod’ does not look like a ‘pod’ but more like two miniature pipe sections attached to the slightly enlarged wing fairing. The port wing root looks gigantic, bulging and over-sized in comparison to the simulation and this feature manifests itself in other photographs of the UA175 aircraft as well (but not on the many airliner photographs of the authentic UA175 aircraft and other photographs of Boeing 767s).
I’ve noticed that the airframe illumination in this image differs from that of other UA175 images, especially the Brooklyn Heights
Please note that I have introduced motion blur and appropriate airframe shadowing to the CG Boeing 767-200 in the image below:
Another problem is that lack of airframe detail shown in the Der Spiegel image. When compared to a real Boeing 767-200 this point becomes self-evident. Where are the flaps, ailerons, nuts, bolts, rivets, flap hinges, aileron hinges, inspection hatches, leading edge devices, gear bay doors, safety labels, identification numbers, pitot heads, cargo bay doors, static wicks.. etc...etc..?
The Der Spiegel image makes the UA175 aircraft look like a child’s toy with a defective wing and strange pipe-work attached to its fuselage. It bears no resemblance to a real Boeing 767-200. Just simple sketchy and not the real thing.
e) Letsroll9-11 Image:
This image uncovered by Phil Jayhan of Letsroll9-11 bears a striking resemblance to the Der Spiegel image. I’ve examined them closely and as far as I can see they are identical, bar the fact that the cropping is a little more severe on the Letsroll9-11 image and its picture quality is noticeably lower.
What is confusing is that Flight Simulator indicates a different camera position and a different aircraft position for each image respectively. Based on this I’d be inclined to say that these images came from different cameras and were taken at slightly different times. But when you consider its amazing similarity to the Der Spiegel image and the idea of forgery I’d say it’s quite likely that someone has copied the aircraft from the Der Spiegel image and used it create a new image.
But there is evidence that these two pictures are authentic. For both I noticed that when their virtual equivalents were released from their ‘virtual freeze’ in Flight Simulator they both flew straight into the tower hitting at almost exactly the same point as shown in WTC2 impact video footage. In other words the aircraft shown in both the Der Spiegel image and the Letsroll9-11 image exhibit the correct attitude that produces the trajectory seen in video recordings of the incident. This point swings the argument strongly in favour of authenticity. If any of these images were fake then whoever manufactured them was obviously thinking things through.
Perhaps we have two unique and genuine photographs clearly showing the UA175 aircraft that have been carefully touched up for purposes of sale, presentation to the public or reproduction in the media.
f) Anthony Cotsifas Image:
FEMA photographed and published what surprises all: This was not flight UA175! At a first glance the viewer of this FEMA photo (Anthony Cotsifas) could easily be forgiven for thinking that the UA175 aircraft was real life Boeing 767-200:
A close comparison between the Flight Simulator model and the original FEMA photograph reveals the known clever 98% similarities between the forward blade antenna, starboard wing, the entire tail fin section, cockpit windows, aircraft livery, and the United Airlines logos. Any discrepancies between the two images could quite easily be attributed to small errors in the POSKY model or human error in the pre-production of the animation.
Once again, the differences start to come into focus when we pinpoint the port wing and its engine nacelle. The wing has a greater sweep back angle than it should have. This is another tell-tale example of the ‘Port Wing Anomaly’ that so many photos prove beyond doubt; and the engine is accordingly misplaced. You can see this in the animation above as the port wing flapping backwards and forwards as the animation runs. Please note that the UA175 aircraft in this image has no flap runners on the port wing (the two protrusions on the underside of the wing which house the mechanisms which deploy the flaps). These structures are quite obvious on the CG model and also appear in other UA175 images discussed in this article.
But the real problem with this aircraft is the extent of the port wing root deformation. It is so massively deformed and bloated that it rises up to the line where the passenger windows would be and continues down in a curve to a point beyond the port engine pylon. It’s a miracle that this aircraft ever got off the ground let alone maintained straight and level flight with this aerodynamic defect. If UA175 were real the pilot would have to have his foot pressed hard on the right rudder and have the ailerons hard right to counter the left yaw generated by the drag from the severely deformed aerofoil.
When we consider these handling issues being dealt with by an inexperienced crew who are trying to navigate their cumbersome aircraft with pinpoint precision 100 knots over its operational airspeed limit directly into WTC2, it suddenly becomes obvious that the aircraft shown in this picture cannot possibly be a real Boeing 767-200 piloted by Arab hijackers.
In case the reader is concerned about perspective issues in the Fs 2004 simulation take a look at the image below which shows the comparison between the original Anthony Cotsifas image and the Fs2004 rendition of the same photograph. Please not that the CG model has not had its pitch properly adjusted as the image is for demonstration purposes only. The Financial tower on the right hand side of the simulated picture is part of the default scenery for Fs 2004 and is slightly misplaced. The WTC towers however, were custom made for the purposes of this investigation and they were created and positioned using plans of the WTC complex by an independent Flight Simulator scenery designer.
What becomes apparent from this image set is that the UA175 aircraft appears to be significantly larger than the Boeing 767-200 in the simulation, perhaps this is more evidence of image manipulation or outright forgery of the photograph.
Having used Flight Simulator since the Fs 98 version I’ve always been amazed at how well the program renders images with such precision, especially the way in which the program accurately emulates the virtual camera which allows the user to move inside the virtual word viewing the aircraft from many different angles.
Some critics have suggested that the excessive port wing deformation seen in this Anthony Cotsifas image was an aerodynamic consequence of the recovery from high speed dive (around 550mph) while the aircraft was either banked to the left or in the process of banking to the left.
In order for an aircraft to turn to the left the pilot typically turns the control yoke to the left. This causes a control surface or combination of control surfaces (there is no evidence of any control surface deflection in the photograph, although this could be down to the relatively low resolution of the image) on the starboard wing to physically modify the aerofoil to such an extent that the lift coefficient of the wing is altered causing it to generate more lift than it would in a straight and level flight scenario. The right wing would be aerodynamically forced upward and the left wing would fall correspondingly. This change in airframe attitude would allow the pilot to initiate a stable and balanced turn to the left.
So, in the case of this image the starboard wing should have been more deformed than the port wing because it had to be generating more lift than the port wing because it was in the process of banking to the left. If the port wing was generating a disproportionate amount of lift in comparison to the starboard wing at that point in time, then in the instant after the photograph was taken, the port wing would rise up sharply and without correction by the pilot would push the aircraft into a right bank attitude which would ultimately alter the heading of the aircraft, perhaps causing it to fly into the right hand side of the tower or miss it altogether. We see no sign of this scenario in any of the UA175 photographs or videos.
One of the other shortcomings of this ‘high speed dive recovery’ argument is that ignores the port tail fin (not to mention basic aerodynamics) which is equally as distorted as the port wing. The control surfaces on the tail fin of an aircraft normally work across both the starboard and port sections so there is no aerodynamic reason why the port side seems to be experiencing so much deformation when the starboard side is not. Personally I find it highly unlikely that the tail fin section would have remained attached to the fuselage with this much flexing, especially when most of the deformation seems to be occurring at the root of the aerofoil.
Even if this supposed ‘real’ aircraft was pulling out of a high speed dive as is seen in some of the videos of the UA175 aircraft’s approach then both wings would have been creating the same amount of additional lift to recover from the dive. i.e. both wings should have exhibited the same amount of flexing. The fact that the UA175 aircraft was in a left bank throughout the dive recovery is irrelevant because the increased port wing dihedral angle seen in the photograph should have been equal across both wings and even if it was in the process of banking to the left the right wing should have been experiencing more upward flexing because it was creating proportionally more lift to create the left bank attitude seen in the photograph.
The ‘high speed dive recovery’ argument used by some is not based on the ‘Principles of Flight’ and falls apart completely when we consider the front view of the UA175 aircraft as filmed by ‘Ronald Pordy’.
g) Ronald Pordy Video:
You can see from the image set below that both the port and starboard wings of the UA175 aircraft are experiencing just as much deformation as each other (if any at all) and that the dihedral angle of the wings is identical the dihedral angle of the wings on the CG model. The image used here was taken at roughly the time as the previous Anthony Cotsifas image. There is no port wing deformation due to the effect of a pull out from a high speed dive while being banked to the left.
The UA175 aircraft’s attitude and trajectory are acceptable while the airframe is an almost perfect match for the CG model except for a slightly different fuselage length, a misplaced port engine nacelle and suspicious airframe illumination given the prevailing lighting conditions.
Just like the CNN Best Angle video there appears to be an abnormal amount of compression artefacts around the airframe relative to other objects in the captured image, which is surprising given the relatively high resolution of the video.
h) NOVA Video:
In this section we will take a close look at the UA175 impact as seen from footage in the NOVA DVD „Why The Towers Fell“.
The impact sequence is notorious for its ‘flash’ or fireball seen just after the nose of the UA175 aircraft makes contact with the wall of WTC2. This ‘flash’ frame has been reproduced below and has been composited from the preceding frame in the sequence to show more of the rear of the aircraft. It has been optically enhanced and color corrected to make the image look as positive and realistic as possible:
Look back at the CNN Best Angle section and compare the CNN ‘flash’ frame to the NOVA ‘flash’ frame. The two events look different. The NOVA video shows a large fireball whereas the CNN Best Angle video shows some orange coloration on the right hand side of the fuselage which bleeds horizontally over onto the towers facade. Perhaps the event we are witnessing in both of these videos was so brief and intense that the CNN video missed the action and only caught either the aftermath or the build up to the fireball which we see so clearly in the NOVA video. If this is not the case then we have evidence of manipulation or forgery in either or both of the respective videos.
Our next image shows evidence of the ‘Port Wing Anomaly’ that has been exposed in UA175 aircraft images throughout this article. Look closely at the port wing in UA175 image and you will see that the wing root is enlarged and the sweep back angle of the wing is greater than it should be when compared to the CG model:
At a quick glance of this NOVA UA175 aircraft it looks as if the airframe is longer than it should be for a Boeing 767-200 series. Testing showed that the fuselage dimensions were much closer, if not perfectly matched too, a Boeing 767-300 series. For the purposes of this section I have assumed that the UA175 aircraft was a Boeing 767-300, though I must point out that the official version of events tells us that it was Boeing 767-200 that struck WTC2.
In the comparison image below I’ve removed all of the ‘specular reflections’ from CG model and added the appropriate shadowing in order to ‘visually’ match the two airframes as best as possible. The top picture of the UA175 aircraft has been composited allowing us to see the fuselage in its entirety.
My tests did reveal a prominent ‘pipe’ illusion down the fuselage that looked identical to ‘specular highlights’ seen in the Brooklyn Heights CG Shadow Simulation Image shown previously. This effect is not visible in the NOVA video when technically speaking it should be.
A close look at the engines on the UA175 aircraft in comparison to the engines on the CG model show that the engine nacelles are longer, thinner and appear to be protruding further forward from the wings than they should be. The horizontal motion blur in the image has been considered in this observation.
What struck me as being odd was the rectangular reflection on the fuselages nose which many belive is a missile being fired from a ‘pod’ beneath the starboard wing of the UA175 aircraft. Video interlacing effects can cause this rectangular reflection to appear to be launching itself forward of the aircraft, but if you de-interlace the video and study it field by field this is not the case. It is simply a reflection off the fuselage that moves with the aircraft. The problem is that Flight Simulator doesn’t show this reflection. There’s no way the curved surface of the fuselage would produce that shape of reflection, it would be smoother and more rounded. The rectangular reflection defies explanation.
To make matters even worse consider the image below which shows the NOVA impact as a panoramic in comparison to its CG equivalent. I’ve placed the CG UA175 aircraft in the appropriate position to make them as realistic as possible. The viewing angles and camera heights are virtually identical and the towers relative dimensions have been matched.
Take a close look at the relative size of the UA175 aircraft in the video panoramic to the CG UA175 aircraft below it:
The NOVA UA175 aircraft is far too small, at a guess I’d say its about 30% smaller than it should be. If you think the error is in the simulation then jump back to the CNN Best Angle ‘flash’ frame comparison at the beginning of this article and see for yourself. Both the CG Boeing 767-200 I’m using and the WTC patch are very accurate.
The NOVA video is a sick joke, because it shows an undersized and defective version of the wrong type of aircraft with a host of absent reflections and what looks like a rectangular panel bolted on to the front of the fuselage that doesn’t show up in any of the other UA175 aircraft images.
i) Park Foreman Video:
Yet again the ‘Port Wing Anomaly’ is present and we have the ‘pipes’ which could be attributed to reflected sunlight as discussed previously. At this point in the paper it is safe to assume that the port tail fin has a sweep back angle that is greater then it should be, just like on the port wing. This feature appears frequently in UA175 images often occurring with the ‘Port Wing Anomaly’:
Just like other images of the UA175 aircraft captured from the same CNN DVD the airframe has a cloud of compression artefacts around it in disproportionate amounts compared to other structures seen in the same frame.
j) Evan Fairbanks Video:
To our surprise the Even Fairbanks video shows a symmetrical aircraft that bears a striking resemblance to a Boeing 767-200. (However, the airframe is most peculiar - its seems to be melting away on the sun lit side and the starboard wing looks like it’s extending downwards to fill the gap!)
The port wing and port tail fin are a little faint, the starboard wing root looks significantly over-sized (this could be caused by a video phenomena known as ‘blooming’) the fuselage looks very thin and there seems to be a great deal of reflection from the forward section of the fuselage and a rather obvious absence of the underside reflective strip which should have been adequately illuminated by the sun. Flight Simulator reproduced ‘specular highlights’ on the forward section of the fuselage, but not to the extent that we see in the video. Perhaps this is evidence for the ‘pipe’ on that forward section.
My main concern lies with the prominent bulge under the starboard wing. A ‘pod’ of this shape, size and position does not appear in any of the other images analysed for this article except in the Pavel Hlava film. I do not believe that this is an illusion generated by reflected sunlight of the airframe and the wing fairings because the sun is not in a favourableposition to create such an illusion, nor do I belive that we are simply looking at a shadow cast on the airframe by the starboard engine nacelle and its connecting pylon. If you look closely at the Fairbanks
If the ‘pod’ illusion was being generated from the shadow cast by the engine nacelle and its pylon on the underside of the starboard wing then the pod would appear to be further forward than it is and it would bridge the gap between the starboard engine and the fuselage. This effect is self evident in the CG UA175 aircraft image shown above, but is absent from the comparative frame form the Fairbanks
More importantly the wing fairings on the Boeing 767-200 are not large enough to generate such a huge ‘pod’ illusion, the size of which is similar to that of one of the aircraft’s engines as seen in the captures used for this analysis. Consider the size of the wing fairings in the Boeing 767-200 montage below:
Having studied the DVD captures used here I can conclude that the appearance of the ‘pod’ cannot be explained as a shadow cast from the starboard engine nacelle. Nor can it be attributed to a compression artefact or any other distortion introduced into the image by the process of conversion, re-sizing or compression. The aircraft is represented in the frame by a significant number of pixels to eliminate all of these factors.
Another problem with this video is that when the UA175 aircraft hits the WTC2 tower we see no signs of shadows being cast on the fuselage by the tower. As discussed earlier there is approximately a 13 degree wedge of shadow being cast by WTC2 that the airframe must pass through before making contact with the facade. In the image below the starboard wing should be partially in shadow but for some reason it remains luminescent as does the starboard tail fin in later frames:
The Evan Fairbanks footage has other qualities not to be discussed here, such as documenting beyond doubt that the purported aircraft melts into the steel high-rise instead of colliding with it that the impact explosion is magically delayed for nearly one second after ‘impact’ and of course the all mysterious ‘flash’ seen just after the nose tip of the UA175 aircraft makes contact with the tower’s wall:
This effect has been dubbed the ‘Scalar Flash’ or the ‘Garage Door Opener’ and is believed to be the effect of some kind of energy weapon whose purpose is to quickly melt through the towers’ wall allowing the airframe uninhibited passage inside the structure.
k) Pavel Hlava Video:
According to Flight Simulator the Pavel Hlava video was indeed showing a Boeing 767-200 series. The ‘Port Wing Anomaly’ was suspiciously absent leaving the airframe with a symmetrical appearance as you can see from the image set below:
A closer inspection showed that the airframe was surprisingly dark and unevenly lit in comparison to other UA175 images. Airframe attitude and trajectory tests showed that the aircraft in the Hlava video would hit the WTC2 at roughly the right point as seen in other UA175 videos and photographs.
There was a small but missing ‘specular highlight’ from the rear of the fuselage and we have to question the absence of the underside reflective strip of the United Airlines colour coding on the UA175 aircraft.
During the approach to WTC2 the starboard wing and the starboard tail fin of the UA175 aircraft momentarily blinked out for a flew frames.
l) Cheney Hit Video – The „Wingless Wonder“:
The Cheney Hit video (named from the program where the footage appeared) shows a fairly convincing image of a Boeing 767-200, if it were not for a slightly misplaced port engine nacelle, various aerodynamic surfaces blinking on and of throughout the sequence, the port wing and port tail fin partially absent during the impact...
...the absence of the port wing root/port fairing and a peculiar highlight down the entire right hand side of the fuselage that was not reproduced by Flight Simulator and therefore cannot be a ‘specular highlight’.
More surprisingly the ‘pod’ is absent from the frame shown here but it did appear earlier in this same clip when the UA175 aircraft first came into the camera’s field of view. The ‘pod’ should be visible in this piece of film because we have a clear view of the underside of the airframe at all times from the aircraft’s appearance to its ‘vanishing’ into WTC2.
The airframe has a ghostly appearance, is devoid of colour and does not look like a real object:
If we ignore the suspicious trajectory exhibited by the ‘aircraft’ in this video and the ‘Wingless Wonder’ phenomena that the aircraft exhibits in rolling film it might just pass for a real Boeing 767-200 with a silver livery.
m) William Nunez Photograph:
Just like the aircraft seen in the Evan Fairbanks video the aircraft seen in the William Nunez photograph bears a striking resemblance to a Boeing 767-200.
It has what looks like the correct United Airlines livery and good proportions for the Boeing 767-200 aircraft. Both the attitude and trajectory seen here would result in the aircraft hitting the WTC2 tower in roughly the right place. You will notice that the airframe is slightly blurred, I suspect this is motion blur as the aircraft has been reported to be travellingat around 550mph. The most important observation about this photograph is the absence of the ‘Port Wing Anomaly’ which seems to be quite prolific throughout UA175 images from 9-11-1.
There are three observations that convince me that this photograph does not show a real Boeing 767-200:
Firstly, the fuselage is lacking in contrast giving it a slightly ghostly appearance, this is more noticeable on the port engine nacelle which looks like it has partially disappeared.
Secondly, the underside of the airframe around the wing fairings area is noticeably enlarged in comparison to the CG model. The starboard wing fairing in particular seems to be extending outward quite noticeably.
Thirdly, there does not appear to be an underside reflective strip on the aircraft that is consistent with the United Airlines livery.
n) Gedeon Naudet WTC2 Strike:
Just like the aircraft seen in the Evan Fairbanks video and in the Pavel Hlava video, the aircraft seen in the GedeonNaudet video bears a striking resemblance to a Boeing 767-200 and has many of the qualities of those two videos, namely:
1 - Aircraft appearing to be in shadow when exposed to direct sunlight and many other lighting anomalies.
2 - Temporarily missing starboard aerofoils.
3 - Temporarily luminescent starboard aerofoils.
4 - Missing underside reflective strip.
Unlike the Pavel Hlava video the UA175 aircraft seen in the Gedeon Naudet video does not seem to have a ‘pod’, though it should be pointed out that the UA175 aircraft in the Pavel Hlava video didn’t have a pod either when it was as far out from the tower as seen here.
Both the attitude and trajectory of the UA175 aircraft seen in the Gedeon Naudet video are correct and in some ways the aircraft is vaguely believable as a real Boeing 767-200.
o) Those Blinking Wings:
A wing blinks off and back on!
In certain clips of the proposed UA175 on its attack run we see that some of the aerodynamic surfaces become momentarily ‘absent without leave’ as shown in this image set below extracted from various amateur sources. Typically one of the wings will become truncated at the engine pylon and/or one of the tail fins will disappear.
(This includes at least one of the high-resolution versions of the Evan Fairbanks footage as well.)
None of these ‘missing wing’ images lend any support to the official version of events. A real Boeing 767-200 would never behave like this because flashing your wings on and off at amateur cameramen before vanishing into a skyscraper is a poor way to convince anyone you’re a real aeroplane and only lends support to the ‘hologram’ theory. We should note that these effects as photographed and on video are not merely a trick of the light or an optical illusion. The wings only blink out for a frame or two when viewed from the video footage played in slow motion. This proves that the aerofoils’ absence cannot be due to changing lighting conditions, an optical side-effect of shifting attitude and orientation from the camera’s viewpoint or a by-product of low image resolution.
p) Shadow Anomalies:
Throughout the visual record of the UA175 aircraft strike we have some perplexing images showing the proposed shiny-painted UA175 aircraft as shadowy while being exposed directly to bright summer morning sunlight:
Sceptics (and disinformation artists whose names are known) might try to explain this as the smoke cloud from WTC1 casting a shadow over the UA175 aircraft, but this is untrue as the video still below shows:
With the sun’s angle at 27 degrees above the horizon and the aircraft’s close proximity to WTC2 there is no possible way the smoke cloud billowing from WTC1 can be casting a shadow across the aircraft prior to its impact with WTC2. This aircraft disobeys the laws of physics for a solid object by failing to reflect light appropriately (and while truly in shadow, shining like a lamp, wings vanishing and reappearing etc..). It is as if the airframe were absorbing light and not reflecting it. Again this shows us that the UA175 aircraft cannot be a real hijacked Boeing 767-200; but is some kind of airborne optical illusion.
Despite that fact that the proposed UA175 aircraft was in shadow when it impacted against the outer wall of WTC2 the airframe shined up luminescent like a lamp as if being lit from within. The lighting anomalies exhibited in photographs and video captures of the UA175 aircraft in its final moments of flight and impact contradict and disprove the official 9-11 theory of an Arab conspiracy; but the lighting anomalies lend strong support to the ‘hologram theory’ and the ‘media hoax’ theory suggested by others.
q) The ‘Pod’ Illusion De-bunked:
To solve the ‘pod’ mystery I rigorously tested the CNN Best Angle Video, Pavel Hlava second hit video and the Evan Fairbanks video using the Boeing 767-200 model. For the purposes of this section I have assumed that the starboard engine nacelle was not casting a shadow over the starboard wing fairing and therefore if the camera was in the correct position it would be able to see this ‘specular highlights’ illusion.
The ‘sun view’ picture below demonstrates this point. Notice that from the sun’s point of view the starboard wing fairing is being exposed to sunlight:
On the CNN Best Angle video I found no trace of ‘specular highlights’ from the starboard wing fairing except for an insignificant reflection off the rear of the fairing which was well behind the wing and was so small it was questionable if the video camera would be able to detect it in the first place. The same applied to the Pavel Hlava video except this time the tiny reflection was directly beneath the trailing edge of the starboard wing. The Evan Fairbanks video did show some reflection from the front of the fairing and the nose tip but again they were very small and the fairing reflection was in front of the wing, not beneath it.
Even if the starboard wing fairing did reflect sunlight in accordance with the ‘specular highlights’ principle the pod would only be the same size as the fairing itself and would not look like an engine strapped under the wing as seen in the Hlava and Fairbanks videos.
The ‘pod’ cannot be the reflection of the starboard engine nacelle in the section of fuselage beneath the starboard wing because due to the curvature of this piece of fuselage the reflection of the engine would be unnoticeably small.
To demonstrate this, try looking at the reflection of the same object at a fixed distance in a flat mirror and then in a curved surface, like a drinking glass for example. You will notice than the reflection of the object in the drinking glass looks relatively smaller than the reflection of the object in the flat mirror. The more curved the surface the proportionately smaller the reflection of the object will be. The reflection can be no larger than the reflective surface itself so if the starboard wing fairing were reflecting light from the starboard engine nacelle then that reflection would only be as big as the fairing itself and not extending outward beyond the fairing as we see in CNN Best Angle video captures taken just prior to impact.
The other problem with this argument is that just like in the ‘specular reflection’ geometric analysis discussed in the previous CNN Best Angle section the camera would have to be in the right position to receive the light from the engine nacelle reflecting of the fuselage, so in this case the argument that the ‘pod’ is the reflection of the starboard engine nacelle in the area beneath the starboard wing or of the wing fairing itself, is false.
The ‘pod’ and ‘pipe’ illusions should occur together because the pod is elongated and in line with the surface of the fuselage section. In other words the ‘pod’ and ‘pipe’ illusion can only occur together because they are one and the same. Lighting conditions permitting, the ‘pod’ should be a join between the front and rear ‘pipe’ illusions.
One final point, when we consider the ‘pod’ illusion we must only consider it in the context of the ‘pod’ images being analysed. A lot of ‘pod’ sceptic sites are reproducing images of Boeing 767s from varying angles that show the full relief of the wing fairing in advantageous lighting conditions or are simply using alternative lighting conditions that were different to that on the morning of 9-11 in an attempt to pass off the ‘pod’ a trick of the light.
This is both unrealistic and unscientific.
A case in point - in the Carmen Taylor digital photograph shown previously the viewing angle does not allow us to see the starboard wing fairing in relief against the sky or against the starboard wing, it only allows us to see the fairing inside the profile of the airframe and therefore there is no reason for that fairing to be protruding as much as it appears to do so in the image.
The issues considered here raise serious questions over the
I must point out is that it is extremely difficult to know what the precise bank angle of the UA175 aircraft was immediately before impact. Fortunately we do know (courtesy of NASA/JPL and Fs2004) that the sun was 27 degrees above the horizon and approximately 21 degrees off the UA175 aircraft’s nose. Allowing for small errors in the bank angle it may be the case that the engine nacelle was partially shading the wing fairing which would result in partial ‘specular highlights’ or the engine nacelle had shadowed a significant area of the starboard wing fairing which would eliminate any ‘specular reflections’ from that area and would therefore eliminate the possibility of seeing any ‘pod’ illusion in the Fairbanks, Hlava and CNN Best Angle videos.
For the image above I’ve assumed that the shadow cast by the starboard engine nacelle was just covering the starboard wing fairing and as you can see there are partial ‘specular highlights’ as a result. Curiously the original photograph does not exhibit this important detail which implies that the sun’s angle of incidence was not suitable to produce ‘specular highlights’ from the starboard wing fairing or the photograph has been subject to manipulation in that area.
The argument that the position of the ‘pod’ would obstruct the gear bay doors is incorrect as demonstrated by this 767-200 graphic:
Even if the ‘pod’ did obstruct the gear bay doors it would not have been impossible to use an alternative method for launching the aircraft or perhaps using some kind of ‘disposable gear’ that could be jettisoned after take of thus eliminating the necessity for a retractable undercarriage.
As you can see the ‘pod’ illusion argument is flimsy because if the sun were higher or the bank angle lower the starboard engine nacelle would cast a shadow directly over the area where the ‘pod’ is seen and therefore making it largely unable to produce ‘specular reflections’. If the lighting conditions and airframe attitude were suitable then the camera would have to be in the correct position to pick up the ‘specular reflection’ from the wing fairing. The only good quality picture that does this is the Brooklyn Heights
The airframe illumination seen in the Evan Fairbanks video is in direct contradiction to the airframe illumination displayed in this Brooklyn Heights
The two lighting scenarios discussed previously both result in no ‘specular highlight’ pod illusion for the Pavel Hlava second hit video, the Evan Fairbanks video and the CNN Best Angle Video - the ‘pod’ is no trick of the light.
It is unlikely to be an illusion created by compression artefacts, blooming, ringing or just low resolution as ‘pod’ scepticswill claim.
Note for the Hlava and Fairbanks videos: Judging from the Hlava and Fairbanks
If this aircraft is holographic in nature then it is very likely that what we are looking at is a virtual structure generated spuriously by the holo-projector, or perhaps the ‘pod’ is the holo-projector itself.
r) Results:
Having looked over films and photographs of the UA175 aircraft and considered Boeing 767-200 performance issues I can safely say that the UA175 aircraft was not a production model Boeing 767-200 manufactured in Seattle
1.
|
The UA175 aircraft may be a structurally reinforced psuedo-767-200 which might explain why we see it cutting through WTC2 as if it were butter. The passage of the airframe through the tower may have been assisted by the destruction of the interior structure with explosives at the moment of impact.
|
2.
|
If we are not dealing with a structurally reinforced pseudo-767-200, then there remain two possible explanations, either as an alternative or complementing each other:
|
a)
|
The UA175 aircraft may have been added to the film during transmission or after transmission/reproduction to cover the absence of any aircraft or to conceal an aircraft that was not a Boeing 767-200.
|
b)
|
There is a strong possibility that the UA175 aircraft is a hologram, the technology of which would have been developed and deployed for 9-11 by the
|
3. The following details are identified in the foregoing article as being particularly important for deciding what actually happened:
a) Any image of the UA 175 aircraft the exhibits the ‘Port Wing Anomaly’ is fraudulent. This conclusion is based on the premise that the Fairbanks and Hlava films are genuine because we have no reason to doubt their authenticity. For both Pavel Hlava and Evan Fairbanks we have a face, a story and video footage showing an over-speeding „Boeing 767-200“ with blinking wings and a ‘pod’. We can therefore eliminate the following: DerSpiegel, Letsroll911, CNN Brooklyn Heights
b) It is my belief that a crew of photographers were deliberately stationed in Brooklyn by the perpetrators for the sole purpose of recording images of the UA175 aircraft which would later be manipulated of modified to deliberately deceive the masses as to the nature of the UA175 aircraft.
c) Any image of the UA175 aircraft that shows an orange flame during the impact is fraudulent. This is because the UA 175 aircraft images that I have analysed in this paper which exhibit an orange flash near the time of nose tip penetration would invariably show the ‘Port Wing Anomaly’.
d) Any image of the UA175 aircraft that shows a faint airframe/momentarily missing aerofoils, a missing underside reflective strip and distortions of either or both of the wing fairings is genuine. Therefore the following are genuine. Evan Fairbanks, Cheney Hit, Pavel Hlava and William Nunez. This is based on my own analysis of the situation and the theory that it would be impossible for the perpetrators to fake every video and photograph of the UA175 aircraft’s approach and impact.
e) The CNN Best Angle video and the Carmen Taylor Digital Photograph are the ‘Dark Horses’ from the analysed media because the UA175 aircraft shown in the film/photograph does not exhibit the Port Wing Anomaly but does show an orange flame at impact and does show an underside reflective strip. To complicate matters it exhibits an attitude and trajectory that appear correct for frames early on in the sequence yet displays incorrect attitude at impact in comparison to other media and my datums derived from computer simulation. I can only assume this video is showing some kind of fake/authentic hybrid.
f) My only explanation for the ‘Port Wing Anomaly’ is that the UA175 aircraft seen in any photograph is a deliberately modified model of a Boeing 767-200 and any rolling film of the UA175 aircraft that shows the ‘Port Wing Anomaly’ is probably a real or ‘virtual’ model of a modified Boeing 767-200 that has been dubbed into the film. The orange ‘flash’ could have easily been added at a later stage. I consider both the Port wing Anomaly and the orange ‘flash’ to be examples of ‘whistle blowing’ by disgruntled perpetrators involved in the creation or modification of photographs and rolling film.
Judging by what I’ve seen from the video and photographic evidence presented herein and elsewhere there seems to be a virtual production line of manufactured UA175 images.
The UA175 aircraft was not Flight UA175 but a clever 98% look-alike double. The exact nature of this double as judged by the picture material is obscured by photo and video tampering on a broad and orchestrated scale.
4. Stefan Grossmann submits the following dissenting opinion as to the results of this article:
a) I disagree with Marcus Icke’s premise (above, 3(a)) that the Fairbanks and Hlava footage is undoubtedly authentic. Nothing here is undoubtedly authentic. The Fairbanks
b) Based on clear physical evidence, we can exclude a limine any structurally reinforced pseudo-767-200. This explanation does not fit the fact that the length measurement between the wing tips and the tail winglet tips remained constant at impact, excluding any and all crumple-up of the alleged plane. There is not even a shake and tremble even though the plane is coming in about 13 degrees off a straight (right angle) hit line. The impact hole cannot be shown to match a real plane, see on the 9-11 home page at
www.gallerize.com (9-11 section) with items ##5 through 7 and #17.
Additionally, any real aircraft in the size of that which is shown would have engaged in a shock-like slow-down which, however, is consistently absent in all the evidence. Further, such cutting-through would have been accompanied by a display of sparks, and the question of exploding wing fuel tanks is immediately raised. Hence, we are on physically safe grounds to conclude that we are not dealing with a structurally reinforced pseudo-767-200 but with something more deceptive and difficult to understand.
c) In a discussion of the remaining explanations 2(a) (media hoax theory, Scott Loughrey, Webfairy) and 2(b) (hologram theory, Webfairy, Gerard Holmgren, Stefan Grossmann), we might consider the following arguments:
aa) I believe the Cotsifas/FEMA photograph is authentic. It shows a plane that is too big and has certain distinct signature anomalies (different than the tell-tale lighting anomalies which are also very clear, but are not subject of the Cotsifas photograph). Marcus Icke was unable to impeach this photograph, and I concur in that. The FEMA photograph shows that there was some flying object in the air; it was real and not a pure media hoax.
bb) A crew of photographers stationed in Brooklyn Heights
cc) Altogether, the ‘hologram theory’ is more adequate for explaining the glitches in the sad hack job than the ‘media hoax theory’. Holograms are more difficult to concoct than images inside a computer; of the given type, they are secret military hyper-technology. It does not convince me that media hoaxers would build-in to their fabrication such rather obvious footprints of fraud as: ‘Port Wing Anomaly’, garage door opener yellow flash, missing aerofoils, missing reflective strip, screw-ups regarding pod and pipe, missing detail (such as in the Der Spiegel photograph which I hold to be authentic, even if possibly a patch-quilt from various parts of original photos). I do not believe in Marcus Icke’s‘disgruntled whistleblowers’ because we have no independent evidence for them. I grant that the ‘dark horses’ (CNN Best Angle, Carmen Taylor) and other images do show traces of media manipulation (inside a computer, or with a silk screen); but the fraud is not explainable through such photoshopping media manipulation alone (see (aa) and (bb) above, and my Foreword above, plus my 851 page multimedia PDF e-book ‘T MINUS 9-11, An Insiders’ Attack On America’ at www.gallerize.com - (9-11 section) in the download center linked at the bottom of the page - the largest private documentary of the true 9-11).
The strongest counter-argument against the hologram theory is that (and I merely quote:) consistently, we see a model plane having been photoshopped over a still background. That counter-argument cannot be proven based on the media material and cannot be assumed correct.
On the other hand, there is much subtle evidence indicating the use of U.S.
www.gallerize.com item #8 („What is the Hologram Theory?”, heavily illustrated)
Since there are only two possible theories to explain these strangenesses (the „media hoax” and the „hologram” theories) and the media hoax theory is not sufficient to provide a full explanation, I hold on to the hologram theory for its explanatory values.
dd) I feel obligated to communicate observations penned by Webfairy in a research e-mail. They go in a direction of the mysterious ‘holographic insert’ that is mentioned on the internet and could link with documentation of many smaller flying objects. I quote the following passage by Webfairy for the information of the reader:
I think we are seeing some sort of video insertion technology.
The “fishtail“ effect seems to be from a motion blur algorithm. It is
seen in other footage as well, notablyhttp://thewebfairy.com/911/krash
Both this footage and Krash footage show no perspective.
Real objects always show perspective: something closer looks bigger than
something farther away.
Objects in motion are always closer or farther, depending on direction,
and consequently show the appearance of getting larger or smaller.
Neither of these footages manages any sense of perspective at all.
A longer version of the JetCrash footagehttp://thewebfairy.com/911/video/collected/singleshot.avi
shows the action starting from farther away, and still the plane does
not recede into the distance, instead looking like it’s a god’s eye view
flying alongside.
The “fishtail“ effect seems to be from a motion blur algorithm. It is
seen in other footage as well, notablyhttp://thewebfairy.com/911/krash
Both this footage and Krash footage show no perspective.
Real objects always show perspective: something closer looks bigger than
something farther away.
Objects in motion are always closer or farther, depending on direction,
and consequently show the appearance of getting larger or smaller.
Neither of these footages manages any sense of perspective at all.
A longer version of the JetCrash footagehttp://thewebfairy.com/911/video/collected/singleshot.avi
shows the action starting from farther away, and still the plane does
not recede into the distance, instead looking like it’s a god’s eye view
flying alongside.
d) In all fairness, let me say that the question which of the two theories (above, 2(a) and 2(b)) is better suited to explain Ghost Gun UA175 cannot be finally resolved (update see paragraph e below). Most likely, both explanations must be used together to come as close as possible to what truly happened when millions of viewers were shown that „an Arab conspiracy rammed a plane into south tower” in the morning of 9-11-1. What truly happened: The shadow government rammed a holographically cloaked hack job missile into south tower, added pre-planted explosives, further doctored the pictures up in computers through teams with slightly different tastes of how the thing should look, and then hammered the resulting media garbage into the minds of the world together with a threadbare Arab conspiracy theory. Today they are taking a-hold of the world like Ian Fleming’s SPECTRE goon Ernst Stavro Blofeld. It’s a real-life SPECTRE nut house cabal!
e) Please read my Afterword to Marcus Icke’s new article on the small aircraft that hit WTC1, new item nr. 0 on the 9-11 home page at www.gallerize.com. There is conclusive reason in logics and observation to give the hologram theory the preference, in principle if not in every detail, over the media hoax theory. I consider this last open basic question of 9-11 research thus resolved. SG, June 9, 2005
6. The UA175 aircraft was not Flight UA175 but a clever 98% look-alike double. The exact nature of this double as judged by the picture material is obscured by photo and video tampering on a broad and orchestrated scale, excluding the „Arab conspiracy theory” that the government and media are selling to the world.
Exposing A Typical Fake Image:
I have included an image below which shows an example of a UA175 video capture and a CG comparison model:
In comparison to the CG model the fake UA175 image differs in many ways:
1 - The starboard wing on the UA175 aircraft is the wrong shape.
2 - The ‘Port Wing Anomaly’ is evident - a true sign of Whistle Blowing fakery.
3 - The trailing edge angles on both wings on the UA175 aircraft are incorrect.
4 - UA175 aircraft has a deformed tail fin section.
5 - The relative position of the wings on the UA175’s airframe are incorrect.
6 - There are absent specular highlights from rear airframe section and starboard wing fairing (not clear on CG model).
7 - There is no evidence of the underside reflective strip on the UA175 aircraft despite favourable sun illumination.
8 - The airframe of the UA175 aircraft is much too dark given the prevailing lighting conditions.
In this film there is an orange flash of light from the nose tip of the aircraft at the moment of tower penetration. The orange flash is different to the other orange flashes from the NOVA video and CNN Best Angle video. The NOVA video is as fake as this one and the CNN Best Angle video is suspicious to say the least. Other videos which we know to be genuine do not show this orange ‘flash’ but only a small white ‘puff’ at the moment tower penetration. The orange flash is as much a sign of fakery as the ‘Port Wing Anomaly’ is.
Closing Statement:
I appreciate that readers may find my observations and conclusions about the UA175 aircraft images both surprising and disturbing. The photographic record of the WTC2 strike speaks for itself.
The ‘Port Wing Anomaly’ is objective physical evidence, and only people with ill intentions will brand it and its many evident companion give-away tracks a ‘conspiracy’. The only „flying object“ that could have featured this was a clever video forgery of Flight UA175 and not the real thing. This fits with other evidence that 9-11-1 was a psyops attack utilising military holographic technology. The larger picture is up to the reader to assemble in her and his mind. 9-11 may have been an operation to ‘bomb the U.S.A.
The following statement, as I see it, is the only possible explanation for what we see in the visual documentation of the UA175 strike at WTC2 on the morning of 911:
While planning the 911 atrocities the Perpetrators realised that flying a real jet into the WTC2 tower was not going cause enough damage to publicly justify the collapse of the structure with the ‘burning jet fuel’ theory.
As the Perpetrators needed 911 and the eyes of the world were going to be focused on the Trade Towers
The only choice was to use some form of hi-tech optical illusion to fool the masses into thinking that a real jet had hit WTC2 and then use pre-planed explosives to create believable structural damage and a impressive pyrotechnic display.
The problem was that the Perpetrators couldn’t get the optical illusion to look 100% realistic so in order to conceal this weakness they used a media hoax to ‘plug the gap’ and leave the masses with believable live footage and/or pre-fabricated/modified footage of the event.
The UA175 illusion however, was not 100% successful for 3 reasons:
Firstly, the hi-tech trick was exposed by a few amateur cameramen and photographers that caught the optical illusion either videographically or photographically and their evidence surfaced in the months that followed, but it never had widespread exposure and consequently escaped the eyes of the masses.
Secondly, someone in the loop blew the whistle by producing defective fakes that could easily be discerned from a ‘real’ fake and then mixed them in with the remaining media. Under close scrutiny these deliberate fakes can be exposed, but to the layman they remain invisible.
Thirdly, the witness reports didn’t add up. Some did see something that resembled a passenger jet flying into WTC2 but couldn’t positively identify it as a Boeing 767-200 with a United Airlines livery. Others didn’t see or hear anything at all,they just saw the explosion ‘happen’ and thought it was a gas pipe exploding inside the tower.
Afterword (by Dr. Stefan Grossmann):
Got it? It’s a murderous and treasonable hoax of what many call the fascist shadow government! Patsy planes were used for the biggest coup d’état of all times.
I believe that M.D. Justin A. Frank’s book „Bush On The Couch, Inside The Mind Of The President“ (HarperCollins, 2004) provides a perfect overall explanation for the lies of the media and government surrounding the mass murder of over 3000 people on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. With the teetering greenback currency propped up by the American oil industry defending it against the euro currency and possible collapse (see below), a second Pearl Harbor was needed in order to trigger a chain of oil wars against enemy nations, such who have oil fields, opium fields and/or oil pipeline options for the black gold under the Caspian Sea.
The unelected pretender that some call Herr Adolf Bush, an alleged Satanist and sexual deviant of apparently feeble mindset, is a tool in the hands of destructive forces dominating within the plutocracy. It is well-known that upon hearing of the alleged „terrist attacks“ Herr Bush did – nothing, continuing to read the story of a pet goat with grammar school children at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. In face of such a blatant nonfeasance of presidential duty, my friend in the media will forgive me for believing that the media are lying. I forgive him personally for he is not an evil man. Now, on top of this and many other things, the above – a calamity of the first magnitude is exposed beyond any reasonable doubt, through photos taken by the faker media and even the government (FEMA) itself. What they show is the wrong UA175, as Marcus Icke demonstrates above. All told, I find particularly impressive the FEMA photo (Anthony Cotsifas) with the bulging left (port) wing root. I do not believe that this is the aircraft tail number N612UA that has been flying Americans since 1983/4 because this is utterly impossible for aerodynamic and other reasons (see above). I myself verified through informed contacts in New York that this is a photo of „FEMA Interest“ and that the above rendition (the dark-gray windowless flying vehicle with the bulging left wing root) is true and authentic. This is not flight UA175! That is the truth in a nutshell. The truth shall make us free (Saint John the Baptist).
The true tragedy lies in the fact that all of the above has resulted from the best of intentions, from an avowed spirit of Christian charity in an effort to save the U.S.A. America
Where are the US$6,000,000,000,000 (six trillion U.S. dollars) of the social security pension fund that were safe-housed at Citibank? Answer: Gone! Where are over US$3,000,000,000,000 (three trillion U.S. dollars) from the HUD (Housing and Urban Development) program of the federal government? Answer: Gone! Where are over US$20,000,000,000,000 (twenty trillion U.S. dollars) that have disappeared over the last 30 years into the Pentagon black budget unaccounted for? Answer: gone. What happens to bankrupts shortly before their financial stroke fells them? They become frenzied and start raving lunatic stuff. Such as the myth that on 9-11-1 „hijacked planes“ were used and the attacks were an act of 19 Arab student clowns piloting those planes – suicide hijackers seven of which are still alive today, the FBI has admitted they left no paper trail, the passenger manifestos prove they (all using their real names and real passports) never boarded any of the proposed planes, two of the proposed planes never left the airport according to the government database of flight departures and landings, and so on ad nauseam.
When a high court in Hamburg , Germany , asked the U.S. government to provide evidence in two trials against alleged helpers of 9-11-1 „terrorist“ Mohammed Atta, the U.S. U.S. Iraq , namely regarding the so-called „Niger
Lunatic stuff – that is exactly what the oil-soaked spy-riddled monopoly media are blowing into our ear day in and day out. Especially about 9-11-1. I contend that 9-11 was an inside crime. Together with Lenny Bloom of the Cloak And Dagger Talk Radio show in Toronto, I have compiled the largest private documentary of 9-11-1, a multimedia PDF e-book entitled „T MINUS 9-11, An Insiders’ Attack On America“ (per March 2004). It is for sale and instant download at my web site,
Many intricacies of the political mafia who perpetrated the treason crime are divulged in that book. Further evidence transpiring throughout the year 2004 is collected in additional writings and an NTSC format video DVD on my site. My research implicates strongly America’s Zionist Al Qaeda of false Jews („Hofjuden“) around the corona of Larry Silverstein (building 7, admitted to have been „pulled“ on 9-11-1), Henry Kissinger and his longest and best-paying client Maurice „Hank“ Greenberg of AIG insurance behemoth, and their backers Blackstone Group and its associate Carlyle Group. The respective $7 billion suspect insurance fraud is before New York
Lunatic stuff – that is what it is all about: To cheat the people out of their right to know the truth. That is why I agree with the name „Herr Adolf Bush“. The ugly beast of tyranny has once again reared its head, this time to engulf our entire planet. The right of the people is the right to resist and to overthrow the Beast.
Note: Marcus Icke distances himself from my (S.G.’s) name for Bush.
Credits:
Analysis : Marcus Icke
CG modelling : Marcus Icke
Images : Marcus Icke
Author : Marcus Icke
Co-author : Dr. Stefan Grossmann
CG modelling : Marcus Icke
Images : Marcus Icke
Author : Marcus Icke
Co-author : Dr. Stefan Grossmann
May 2005 - Version 2.9 (revised on 6-9-5, updates see below)
Many thanks to Dr. Stefan Grossmann (www.gallerize.com) for his time and help.
pa28112@hotmail.com
Many thanks to Dr. Stefan Grossmann (www.gallerize.com) for his time and help.
pa28112@hotmail.com
Updates (per 9-11-5, compiled by Stefan Grossmann):
More good news – here’s what’s new:
The subject still keeps boiling. Nothing has come to surface that would change anything basic in our findings. However, interesting details emerge that strengthen and confirm our findings.
Update 1. The Plane Speed Issue:
The measurable speed of the plane-in-the-videos is different in different sets of the videos. This news was first disclosed in a one-hour talk radio show at www.cloakanddagger.de with Lenny Bloom, Marcus Icke and Stefan Grossmann on August 11, 2005.
Marcus Icke states clearly that in different videos the plane is flying at vastly different speeds. That is additional strong evidence of fraud in the videos, by some kind of video tampering before the TV stations broadcast these trash films in a shock-and-awe psyops to terrorize the American people.
Marcus Icke has summarized his crucial findings relating to the plane speed issue in this article, version at his own site,
Marcus Icke’s text there reads as follows:
Computer simulation and mathematical analysis of the UA175 impact by MIT, University of Purdue and others indicate that upon impact the wings of the Boeing 767-200 would have shattered and the fuel ignited outside the tower’s facade, the aircraft would have lost about 25% percent of its kinetic energy on impact and that the tail fin would have sheared off due to torsional forces.
In layman’s terms this means that the aeroplane would have decelerated sharply, crumpled up and exploded against the tower’s wall with only heavy objects like the engines and undercarriage perhaps puncturing the facade. The entire airframe would not have glided through the outer wall and would not have left a large hole roughly the same shape and size of a Boeing 767-200.
If a Boeing 767-200 had hit the tower it would have exploded externally and bent the facade inward noticeably while depositing pieces of fuselage, wings, tail fins...etc in the streets below. There would have been some column damage but it would have been virtually impossible for any of the lighter airframe sections to pass completely through the tower.
The apparent impact of the supposed Boeing 767-200 is the foundation for the ‘Hologram Theory’ and the ‘Media Hoax’ theory which means that the UA175 aircraft was either a hologram hiding a smaller aircraft or the Boeing 767-200 was added to live footage of the crash or added in post production.
For the purpose of the following speed analysis I have assumed that the UA175 aircraft was travelling at a height of approximately 1000 feet at the time of impact and that the air temperature was approximately 20 degrees Celsius at that altitude. Under these environmental conditions the speed of sound (Mach 1.0) would occur approximately at 767 mph or 666 knots. Here is a list of UA175 speeds issued from official bodies that were presumably calculated using video footage of the WTC2 strike:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - 503 mph / 436 knots / M0.653
Royal Air Force - 575 mph / 500 knots / M0.750
Federal Aviation Administration - 586 mph / 510 knots / M0.765
Federal Emergency Management Agency - 590 mph / 514 knots / M0.771
Royal Air Force - 575 mph / 500 knots / M0.750
Federal Aviation Administration - 586 mph / 510 knots / M0.765
Federal Emergency Management Agency - 590 mph / 514 knots / M0.771
As you can see there is a difference in speeds from one UA175 video to another, which does not make sense because the UA175 aircraft could have only been travelling at one speed prior to its collision with WTC2.
Not entirely happy with these official speed figures from MIT, RAF, FAA and FEMA I decided to calculate the approximate speed of the UA175 aircraft myself using 3 different video sources in an attempt to clear up the speed inconsistencies demonstrated by the official calculations and hopefully to identify one universal speed.
To calculate the approximate speed of the UA175 aircraft from any given video I simply cloned together two images of the UA175 aircraft at a known time interval from the same video footage and then measured the distance travelledbetween the two UA175 aircraft clones using the WTC2 towers east wall as a horizontal reference for measuring distances. With the time frame known and the distance travelled calculated it is possible to obtain a reasonably accurate speed for the UA175 aircraft for each different video.
For my analysis I used the Park Foreman video (below), the Evan Fairbanks video and the „Unknown“ video.
The Park Foreman video is arguably the best choice for a speed analysis because:
Firstly - The UA175 aircraft’s flight path is more or less perpendicular to the optical axis of the video camera so the speed calculation will be less subject to errors generated by unfavourable camera viewing angles.
Secondly - The Park Foreman video provides a good quality, well illuminated and reasonably high resolution view of the east side of WTC2 which provides an accurate horizontal reference to measure horizontal distances by.
Thirdly - The UA175 aircraft is in the camera’s field of view for a relatively long period of time and accordingly travels a significant distance within that time frame. These factors proportionately increase the accuracy of the calculation over the Fairbanks
All media used for my calculations came directly from good quality NTSC DVD sources. The results were as follows:
Park Foreman Video - 619 mph / 537 knots / M0.806
Evan Fairbanks Video - 565 mph / 490 knots / M0.735
„Unknown Video“ - 492 mph / 428 knots / M0.642
Evan Fairbanks Video - 565 mph / 490 knots / M0.735
„Unknown Video“ - 492 mph / 428 knots / M0.642
As with the official calculations there is quite a variation in speeds obtained from one video source to another according to my analysis, but we can comfortably group together the RAF, FEMA, FAA, Park Foreman Video and the Evan Fairbanks video figures to produce a speed range between 560 mph and 610 mph.
The variation in speed from the differing video sources could easily be due to small errors in the calculations by each respective party and as the calculated speeds in this group are quite close, this could be one possible explanation.
However, the calculation performed by Eduardo Kausel at MIT and my own calculation using the Unknown Video are well outside this 560 mph to 610 mph speed bracket, yet Kausel claims to have used various publicly available video recordings and states that the velocities for the two WTC planes were in excellent agreement with the flight data based on RADAR information provided by the NTSC.
How can MIT’s Eduardo Kausel be producing a UA175 speed that are at such odds with FEMA, RAF, FAA and my own set of calculations?
Moreover Eduardo Kausel draws our attention to another important point...
„...the above data indicates that the terrorists flew towards the WTC close to the ground at nearly the full cruising speed of the planes, which is about 900 km/h (560 mph) at a normal altitude of 10km (33,000 feet). It is surprising that the inexperienced pilots that the terrorist were could still steer the planes at those speeds and hit their target head on. Also, considering that the air at low altitudes is much denser than that at normal cruising height, the pilots greatly exceeded Vne („Velocity Never Exceed“) and thereby risked disintegration of the aircraft by air friction.“
I spoke to a former Boeing 767-200 Captain about the aerodynamic limitations of the Boeing 767-200 aircraft and he stated that it would be unwise to exceed an indicated airspeed of 400 knots (460 mph at sea level) at any altitude.
As mentioned before, the airspeed of 400 knots at sea level is well outside the maximum operating speed of the Boeing 767-200 and therefore the pilots would run the risk of either total structural failure or localised structural failures, namely wing fairings breaking off, engine cowlings breaking off, control surfaces breaking off or becoming inoperative and handling difficulties. None of these structural failures and handling issues would be of any benefit to the crew, so why did the alleged hijackers chose to operate their usurped aircraft at such a dangerously high airspeed such that it could have prematurely terminated their mission through complete structural failure, or made it unnecessarily difficult or even impossible to execute through partial structural failure and aircraft handling difficulties?
The high speed approach to the WTC2 target as seen in the visual records of the event would have created a vast flight deck work load at a critical point in the mission, while making navigation to the WTC complex unnecessarily difficult for the hijackers who were not renowned for their skills and experience operating large passenger aircraft like the Boeing 767-200! When you consider the fact that the Boeing 767-200’s airframe would have smashed to pieces on the towers façade during impact under any speed condition you have to wonder what the alleged hijackers had to gain by choosing this high speed approach and high speed collision.
I was also informed by the former Boeing 767-200 Captain that there would NOT be any adverse effects on aircraft handling or performance as a result of nearing or achieving transonic airspeeds.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from this UA175 airspeed analysis is that the video recordings are all giving us different speeds because the UA175 aircraft was actually travelling at a different speed in each video!
The fact that all the videos apparently show a structurally intact Boeing 767-200 in controlled flight prior to its collision with WTC2 travelling at such a ridiculously high airspeed is another indicator that whatever the UA175 aircraft was, it was not a production model Boeing 767-200, or it was simply something that has been added to the video recording in post production either to conceal what the video recording originally showed, or to add something to the recording that should have been there, but was in fact absent from the original recording.
We should consider the possibility that there is more than one person or group responsible for the forgery and / or manipulation of any given UA175 strike video and that there is seemingly a lack of accordance between these groups or individuals which could account for the speed inconsistencies demonstrated by the videographic record.
Update 2. Fraud in the CNN Best Angle Video:
In his version 3.0, Marcus Icke has polished and highlighted the fraud issues. Not being a video specialist, Stefan Grossmann was a bit skeptical about the „wing in the foreground” argument but now is convinced after looking many times closely. Here is the relevant text by Marcus Icke with two graphics:
The image below shows 2 frames taken from the CNN DVD. On the left we can see a foreground building with an antenna attached to its right hand side, while on the right we see the UA175 aircraft as it passes behind that foreground building.
In the right hand image notice that the foreground building antenna is in front of the port wing as we would expect, but also that the port wing is partially in front of the foreground building - which is not what we would expect. The wing should be behind the foreground building and not in front of it.
If the building and its antenna are in the foreground then how is it possible that the port wing can be in front of the building and behind the antenna at the same time?
What we have here is a technical impossibility for a real aircraft and a strong sign of video forgery. It looks as if the video has been composited from 3 layers - one layer with the UA 175 aircraft, a second layer with the foreground structures and a third layer with the WTC towers. The words that spring to mind here are ‘blue screen keying’, ‘chromakeying’, ‘luma keying’...etc...etc... Perhaps this explains why the video is full of edge effects, color distortions, visual noise, ghosting effects, excessive compression artefacts, vertical streaks and many other visual aberrations - the video has probably been subject to a significant amount of manipulation which becomes evident under close examination.
The approach path of the UA175 aircraft is an almost perfect straight line while the aircraft’s airframe appears to decrease in size as it flies away from the camera, which is what we would expect for a real object:
If this film were fake then why did the perpetrators go to all the trouble to include the ‘pipe’ and the ‘flash’. Why did they allow parts of the fuselage to disappear just prior to impact? Why didn’t they cover up bizarre the lighting anomalies that occur during the collision? Why does the ‘pod’ seem to have an explosion of its own? Why does it appear to track a smooth flight path and conform to the laws of perspective so well?
If, hypothetically, this film is genuine then why is the aircraft’s attitude at impact different from other video footage of the same incident and why does the sound track have faulty ‘Doppler’ shift? Why does the ‘pod’ only show up just prior to the UA175 aircraft’s impact? Why is there a multi-coloured cloud of what looks like compression artefacts around the UA175 aircraft’s fuselage? Who photoshopped CNN’s footage? What is the CNN footage cleverly trying to hide?
Update 3. Brooklyn Heights
Here is an alternate, non-animated graphic highlighting the fraud in the Brooklyn Heights
Update 4. The Robert Clark Photograph (New Section):
There is a new section by Marcus Icke on the famous Robert Clark photograph, to wit (M. I.’s presentation):
Press photographer Robert Clark’s photograph shows what look like a near perfect picture of a Boeing 767-200:
This photograph was awarded the prestigious World Press Photograph 1st Prize 2001 after being published in ‘Time’ only a few days after the attacks, along with other photographs from the series. At a quick glance we can see that there is no ‘pod’ or ‘port wing anomaly’. The presence of two specular airframe reflections were validated by Flight Simulators ‘dynamic reflectivity’ function and the dimensions of the fuselage are roughly in the correct proportion and size for a Boeing 767-200:
A closer analysis of the UA175 aircraft using the CG Boeing 767-200 comparison model does show a few differences.
The red part of the United Airlines logo seems to be ‘slipping’ of the tail fin and The underside reflective strip is absent (the image below shows a real United Airlines Boeing 767-200 with its two underside strip sections marked up with red arrows and the tail fin logo showing correctly).
The starboard engine nacelle doesn’t appear to be casting a shadow on the underside of the starboard wing. Although the airframe shows the expected differential lighting it is surprisingly dark given the observable fact that it is being exposed to direct sunlight as evidenced by the two specular highlights on the airframe. These two specular highlights seen on the nose tip and on the starboard wing root are very slightly misplaced. Most significantly there is a very faint turquoise haze around the aircraft and the airframe itself is a little too high in comparison the CG model, it is quite possible that the entire aircraft has been added to the photograph.
Some of these observations could possibly be attributed to low image resolution, over or under exposure of the film, ISO/ASA film speed, inaccuracies in the simulation set up and so on , but others have no rational explanation and imply forgery.
The Robert Clark UA175 aircraft photograph would be a very convincing image of a United Airlines Boeing 767-200 if it weren’t for the lighting contradictions, signs of manipulation and other anomalies as mentioned above.
Update 5. The Anthony Cotsifas Photograph:
Here is an alternate graphic for the Anthony Cotsifas photograph:
What we are talking about here is the root of the left wing, i.e. where the left wing grows out of the main body (fuselage) of the purported plane. The Anthony Cotsifas (FEMA Interest) photo of alleged flight UA175 is the one on the left. The port wing root (left wing root, in the image the root of the wing on the right side) is so large and bulging that not even a beginner will believe it is authentic.
Stefan Grossmann believes that the photographer took a real photo of a fake flying hologram (cloaking a much smaller U.S.A.F. cruise missile inside). Marcus Icke believes that this photo could be a photoshopped hoax image of something that was not in the air. Stefan Grossmann counters this argument with the question, why would the perps plant something so obvious if even the most basic flight simulator software renders better results than that? That question has not been definitively answered. Marcus Icke’s answer, that we see hints planted by „disgruntled perps” is a humanly satisfactory possibility but is actually only speculative.
Update 6. Fraud in the Park Foreman Video:
Marcus Icke highlights a similar „before and behind building” glitch in the Park Foreman video, in Marcus Icke’spresentation:
Just like the image of the UA175 aircraft from the CNN Best Angle video the airframe of the UA175 aircraft from the Park Foreman video has a cloud of compression artefacts around it in disproportionate amounts compared to other structures in the same frame.
Furthermore, the port wing of the UA175 aircraft in this Park Foreman video seems to be in front of and behind a foreground structure almost simultaneously. In this case the effect occurs on what looks like a scaffold on top of a foreground building, as shown inside the red box below:
Here’s a close-up of the scaffold:
The effect is most prominent when you compare frames 2 and 3 (when the port wing appears to be in front of the foreground scaffold) to frames 4 and 5 (when the port wing appears to be behind the foreground scaffold):
This is a physical impossibility and probably a side effect of post production where the United Airlines Boeing 767-200 was added to the video.
Update 7. Fraud in Representing the Flight Path:
This is a comparative argument by Marcus Icke comparing two evidently forged videos:
Another curious facet of this [Park Foreman] video is the near perfect 3.7 degree descent path flown by the UA175 aircraft when we view its approach trajectory in relation to WTC2 using a „time lapse“ technique developed in Photoshop. This „time lapse“ technique allows the UA175 aircraft to be stabilised at regular time intervals within any selected frame or panoramic composite of frames:
Unless the camera operator could „track“ an imaginary aircraft with precision over a large distance and relatively long period of time while compensating for camera shake, it would be extremely difficult to create this smooth and accurate 3.7 degree descent path without some kind of visual reference within the video itself.
„Unknown“ Video
This „Unknown“ Video has been included here in relation to the previous Park Foreman Video, the purpose of which is to highlight the differences between the UA175 aircraft seen in each respective recording.
There are 2 major differences between these two videos that can not be explained in terms of camera viewing angles, video technology limitations or meteorological / environmental conditions:
1 - The speed of the UA175 aircraft seen in the „Unknown“ Video is approximately 492mph compared to the Park Foreman UA175 aircraft speed which is approximately 620mph.
2 - The UA175 aircraft seen in the „Unknown“ Video is flying horizontally in direct contradiction to the UA175 aircraft in the Park Foreman Video which is flying an approximate 3.7 degree descent path.
It’s this comparative analysis between the Park Foreman video and the „Unknown“ Video that exemplifies the falseness in the visual record of the UA175 strike. I leave it to the reader to contemplate the authenticity of the „Unknown“ Videonot only in relation to the Park Foreman video, but every other video analysed in this article.
Update 8. The „Live” Video (New Section):
Here’s more fraud, uncovered in one of the earliest-broadcast horror film clips of Bush’s Hollywood 9-11 Arab student attacks. Or in the words of analytic author Marcus Icke:
At a first glance there does not appear to be anything wrong with the UA175 aircraft in the „Live“ Video. The airframe is more or less the correct size and would have appeared as a silhouette because the sun was behind of, and in front of, the aircraft. Dynamic reflectivity testing in Flight Simulator showed that there would be no noticeable specularreflections from the UA175 aircraft from the camera’s viewpoint.
But a closer examination shows that the fuselage ahead of the wings is too short for it to have been from a Boeing 767-200, and the port engine nacelle looks slightly out of place further down the wing and protruding further in front from beneath the port wing than it should be. After searching through various aircraft models the closest match I could find was the Airbus A310-200/200C/300:
Even though the Airbus A310 is the closest match for the UA175 aircraft (see below) seen in the „Live“ Video there are still noticeable visual differences between the two. The port engine nacelle looks surprisingly small, the sweep back angle / wing dihedral angle conflicts with the CG A310 and the starboard wing has a marked amount of curvature to it. These effects could be the product of limitations in the video recording process and the motion blur on the UA175 aircraft (either real motion blur or simulated motion blur).
United Airlines were not operating this particular type of Airbus model in 2001. The Airbus A310 option would account for the visual appearance in the „Live“ video but why would the movie makers opt for an aircraft that was at odds with the forthcoming ‘official version’ of events? Was the wrong choice of aircraft deliberate or accidental?
What is even more peculiar about this „Live“ Video is that the UA175 aircraft does not seem to be flying a smooth descent path like the other UA175 aircraft from other videos. There appears to be a downward „stepping“ effect at regular intervals that gives the appearance of a kind of downward „skipping“ (see below) effect which would be impossible for any kind of normal aircraft.
Here I’ve isolated the „step“ in photoshop using the „time lapse“ technique to eliminate camera shake. My calculations show that each „step“ equates to about 3 or 4 times the native descent path:
Unless this „stepping“ effect can be explained as a byproduct of the video recording process or an aerodynamic consequence of high speed flight then the „Live“ video can not be showing us a real aircraft. It is conceivable that the aircraft has been dubbed live into the video to conceal what was actually there and that this „stepping“ effect could be the hallmark of the video technology that was utilised for this effect.
Update 9. The Jennifer Spell Video (New Section):
Here is a video that seems to be authentic. This is one of the videos that shows a key element of the insiders’ attack: namely the presence of a target laser „painting” the building instants before impact. Stefan Grossmann takes this as strong support that the building was hit by a small cruise missile with a laser homing device, and that the outer skin representing a „large passenger jet” was faked but actually in the air where witnesses saw something of the like (new witness section see below). Here is Marcus Icke’s presentation:
In comparison to the CG model the Jennifer Spell UA175 aircraft differs in a few ways. The ‘Port Wing Anomaly’ seems to be present although in fairness its presence is debatable due to difficulties ascertaining the true pitch, roll and yaw of the aircraft from the low resolution video. 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 and bank angles demonstrated are in contradiction to many of the pitch and bank angles shown in other UA175 aircraft images throughout this paper. Here the UA175 aircraft is in quite a prominent negative pitch attitude quite unlike the UA175 aircraft seen in the CNN Best Angle video which was tilted upward just prior to impact. 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. Please note that I have added the appropriate shadows the CG comparison image on the below:
In general the airframe is a close, but not accurate rendition of a Boeing 767-200 with suspicious illumination under the prevailing meteorological conditions.
Update 10. Witness Report (New Section):
It is clear that eyewitnesses, some of whom are clearly not Cointelpro stooges, did see something resembling an airplane fly into south tower. Here is Marcus Icke’s witness summary:
Here are some witnesses who claim to have seen the WTC2 aircraft collision. Many of these reports were recorded immediately after the WTC2 impact and others were recorded some time after the event.
„Disappearing Plane“ Witness
Mr Arraki
„Yeah. I--I saw--yeah, I saw the second plane, it go boom. I--I heard, you know. I just wake up my head like that I saw the side, too“
„Big Grey Plane“ Witness
Mark Burnback
[Fox News reporter; he stood in Brooklyn /per Simon Aronowitz]
„..there was definitely a blue logo, it was like a circular logo on the front of the plane, er...toward the...er...towards the front, um... it definitely did not look like a commercial plane, I didn’t see any windows on the sides and definitely was very low... it was not a normal flight that I’ve ever seen at an airport...“
„Airbus Or 767“ Witness
„Frenetic“ Witness
Fireman Joe Casaliggi
Saw Teen See
Rose Arce
Owen May
None of these witnesses report seeing a United Airlines 767-200 collide with the WTC2 tower but they all appear to have seen some sort of aircraft fly directly into WTC2 that possibly had similar proportions and configuration to a Boeing 767-200. So all we can say with a reasonable degree of certainly is that some kind of aircraft was seen to approach and vanish inside WTC2 followed by the tower exploding.
Update 11. New Conclusion by Marcus Icke:
Having looked over films and photographs of the UA175 aircraft and considered Boeing 767-200 performance issues I can safely say that the UA175 aircraft was not a production model Boeing 767-200 manufactured in Seattle
Element 1 - The Airborne Illusion
According to the witness reports an aircraft of some sort was seen to collide with, and subsequently vanish inside of, the WTC2 tower. This is a physical impossibility for a real aeroplane. The effect could have been achieved by some sort of airborne illusion that would fool witnesses into believing a real aircraft had collided with the WTC2 tower.
Element 2 - The Media Hoax
There is sufficient evidence contained in this article to identify the second element of the WTC2 operation which is the media hoax. One of the purposes of this media hoax was to provide specific images of a United Airlines Boeing 767-200 collide with and vanish inside the WTC2 tower and perhaps conceal any visual weaknesses of the existing optical illusion. The UA175 aircraft may have been added to the film during transmission or after transmission / reproduction to cover the absence of any aircraft or to conceal an aircraft that was not a Boeing 767-200. The UA175 aircraft may have been added any given photograph to cover the absence of any aircraft or to conceal an aircraft that was not a Boeing 767-200.
The reason for this „two pronged“ modus operandi would have been because while planning the 911 atrocities the Perpetrators realised that flying a real jet into the WTC2 tower was not going cause enough damage to publicly justify the collapse of the structure using the ‘burning jet fuel’ theory. As the Perpetrators needed 911 and the eyes of the world were going to be focused on the Trade Towers something that looked believably like a Boeing 767-200 had to be deployed and seen to be flying into the tower. The only choice was to use some form of hi-tech optical illusion to fool the masses into thinking that a real jet had hit WTC2 and then use pre-planed explosives to create believable structural damage and a impressive pyrotechnic display.
The problem was that the Perpetrators couldn’t get the optical illusion to look 100% realistic so in order to conceal this weakness they used a media hoax to ‘plug the gap’ and leave the masses with believable live footage and/or pre-fabricated/modified footage of the event.
This media hoax element however, was not 100% successful for 3 reasons. Firstly, the witness reports didn’t add up. Some did see something that resembled a passenger jet flying into WTC2 but couldn’t positively identify it as a Boeing 767-200 with a United Airlines livery. Secondly, someone or some group inside the media fabrication operation blew the whistle by producing defective fakes that could easily be discerned from the legitimate fakes and then mixed them in with the remaining media. Under close scrutiny these deliberate fakes can be exposed, but to the layman they remain invisible. Thirdly, some of the fake film and photographs were not of a suitably high quality to missed by a discerning eye or the process of photographic analysis.
Update 12. New Afterword by Marcus Icke:
Despite the ‘official’ version of events stating that WTC2 was hit by a hijacked Boeing 767-200 there is no photographic evidence to support this. Each picture of the supposed UA175 aircraft analysed in this article shows that it has some kind of unexplainable defect, be it a ‘pod’, a defective port wing, lighting anomalies or just an airframe that bears no resemblance to a Boeing 767-200. When the UA175 images are analysed comparatively we see glaring inconsistencies in airspeed, airframe symmetry, lighting, descent path angle and airframe attitude.
Some of these deficiencies are so obvious it is as if their creator wanted us to know that they are fakes. We could call these people „Whistle Blowers“. There is also the distinct possibility that more than one person or organisation is responsible for manufacturing these fake videos and fake images and that what we are seeing here are the differences between forging standards.
It should be apparent to the reader that the visual record of the WTC2 strike HAS been fabricated or tampered with to make us believe that the tower was hit by an aircraft. This is the Media Hoax. The question is, by how much has the visual record been manipulated? Are they all fakes or just a proportion of them? It is very hard to tell. In my opinion the figure could be as high as 100%. This means that we effectively have no genuine visual record of the WTC2 strike.
So why is the establishment trying to conceal the true nature of this attack? Why manipulate and / or fabricate the videographic and photographic record of the event?The witness reports offer us a clue. None of them reported seeing a United Airlines Boeing 767-200 collide with the tower. They all describe something different like a „grey plane“ or a „non-commercial plane“ or „a plane with no windows“. Perhaps this was the reason for faking the visual record.
There was no United Airlines Boeing 767-200 impact with the WTC2 tower on the morning of 911.
There was only the illusion of an aeroplane plane colliding with, and subsequently vanishing inside of, the tower. It is this illusion that is the foundation for the Hologram Theory along with the physics of aircraft impacts which tells us that a Boeing 767-200 could not have penetrated the tower so completely and vanished inside. It should have crumpled up on the tower’s facade and exploded.
Update 13. Planes are Flimsy Things:
Marcus Icke rightly points out that planes are flimsy things:
Computer simulation and mathematical analysis of the UA175 impact by MIT, University of Purdue and others indicate that upon impact the wings of the Boeing 767-200 would have shattered and the fuel ignited outside the towers facade, the aircraft would have lost about 25% percent of its kinetic energy on impact and that the tail fin would have sheared off due to torsional forces.
In layman’s terms this means that the aeroplane would have decelerated sharply, crumpled up and exploded against the tower’s wall with only heavy objects like the engines and undercarriage perhaps puncturing the facade. The entire airframe would not have glided through the outer wall and would not have left a large hole roughly the same shape and size of a Boeing 767-200.
If a Boeing 767-200 had hit the tower it would have exploded externally and bent the facade inward noticeably while depositing pieces of fuselage, wings, tail fins...etc in the streets below. There would have been some column damage but it would have been virtually impossible for any of the lighter airframe sections to pass completely through the tower.
The airframe of a modern aircraft is not as strong as you might think; they tend to be manufactured as light as possible in the interests of economy. For example, the aircrafts cabin is not pressurised to sea level. Instead it is pressurised to about 8000ft above sea level, the purpose of which is to save weight by not strengthening the structure to withstand internal sea level cabin pressure while flying at cruise altitudes. In essence the aircraft is nothing more than a aluminium shell that serves its purpose well for carrying passengers, but in extreme situations the airframe will fail as demonstrated below by these images of an MD80 landing heavily. Notice how the undercarriage stays more or less intact during the landing but the airframe flexes noticeably and eventually the tail fin breaks off:
The apparent impact of the supposed Boeing 767-200 is the foundation for the ‘Hologram Theory’ and the ‘Media Hoax’ theory which means that the UA175 aircraft was either a hologram hiding a smaller aircraft or the Boeing 767-200 was added to live footage of the crash or added in post production.
Update 14. The Easy Art of Fakery
By Stefan Grossmann:
Marcus Icke sent me some graphics that are look-alikes of the governmental and media fakes of 9-11. THE FOLLOWING IMAGES IN THIS SECTION ARE FAKES!
It is rather easy to fake this stuff using a computer. Basic photoshop skills and the practice of one or two days are sufficient. Here are the examples of FAKED images sent by Marcus:
- FAKE/MODEL -
- FAKE! -
- FAKE! -
The strange thing that I keep pointing out is this: Even such basic fakes by beginners in the art of fakery are better than the actual trash videos and photos of the historic 9-11. This persuades me once again - not necessarily in agreement with Marcus Icke - that the actual videos of the historic 9-11 are fakeries not out of a computer but fakeries that actually traveled in the air above Manhattan
Also, please note the following specialized web site, heavily illustrated, about gas plasma weapons and their abuse to maltreat and torture American citizens:
A submitter from the just quoted web site, apparently knowledgeable, sent us the following comments about our radio show (radio show in Update 1 above), adding the possibility of satellites to the model. We are including this here since our personal understanding of these matters is limited, and people who research this should have their say about this:
>read this first:
>
>hey, ya know, I just listened to the recording that ya’ll made with
>cloakanddagger and have been thinking.
>
>takes 3 beams to make a hologram, right?
>
>DE victims are being attacked by three sats -- that is
>so they can make the holograms easily and scalar pain (I think)
>all we know is it is usually three sats and three beams
>
>holograms are sent on the beams to us (plenty of that on my site)
>
>the beams are like a swirling spinning links of orbs carried on an EM beam
>(pic included)
>
>we know stealth fighters can plasma cloak
>
>normally the beams are invisible -- it is a kind of gas -- and plasma but
>invisible
>
>our cameras are picking it up because cheap digital cameras do not filter
>out infrared or UV well -- because IR is very close to microwave energy at
>its high end -- we suspect that we can photograph the microwaves, too.
>look at it on a spectrum chart -- IR and microwaves are next to each other
>and microwaves at the low end are actually within the high end of IR
>
>the cameras that are more expensive and can pick this up are Sony
>Cybershots that can photograph IR and at night and invisible stuff
>
>we are using UV lights and infrared lights with some of the more expensive
>cameras to catch what we are seeing
>
>in sunlight there is plenty of UV and plasma would hold light -- would hold
>UV light or hold a picture -- plasma tvs
>
>imagine this: you have eight stealth fighters (or 4 flying around
>depending on which version of the official story you accept)
>
>these fighters are cloaked but not spoofed -- meaning they can not be seen
>-- but they can be picked up on radar and appear to sight as jet liners --
>have to give norad something to see on radar that why just a hologram
>flying around would not work -- have to have something that looks like a
>real plane on radar.
>But the hologram that is encasing it in a 3D way is what they get on the
>visuals.
>
>the stealth look like jets because three sats are tracking them with beams
>-- where the beams converge -- they can make a 3D jet hologram
>
>of course these planes might not be stealths -- they could be remote
>control decoy planes or some other kind of plane -- but probably stealths
>because stealths can plasma cloak themselves slightly or a lot and they can
>fire missiles and maybe (not sure) DE beams
>
>so they fly around, norad visually sees jets, and on radar sees something
>like jets, norad is told to stand down
>
>stealth comes into ny plasma cloaked with a jet hologram encasing it --
>fires missile from a stand-off position slips out of the hologram plasma
>illusion and zooms off from the stand off position at such a fast speed it
>can not be caught on film or visually
>
>nyorkers see a hologram jet go into the building -- but the hologram is
>cloaking the missile that stealth previously fired.
>
>i think it is something like that. trying to figure out if the stealth
>could slip out of the illusion fast enough to get away unseen and still
>remain cloaked -- maybe unseen because of speed even if it did lose its
>plasma cloak. fast jets stealths are
>
>if you study them and imagine great big orbs all linked together and
>invisible with only the hologram being projected on the plasma being the
>visible (each orb is a frame like in a movie) part you might see what i am
>saying
>
>the beams and orbs that we are photographing do not show up visually -- the
>orbs show better than the beams on film -- but neither show up with the
>eyes
>
>but the holograms do
>
>the beams and orbs show up on film or in digital print when the cameras do
>not have IR filters and UV filters or the cameras are set to night
>photographs or the speed is set to 800 or more or we use UV lights or IR
>lights and/or the aperture is way open or other conditions or a combination
>of these conditions. the beams and orbs are hard to catch on film and can
>not be normally seen. the holograms are much easier to catch on film and
>can be seen visually.
>
>normally one can not see the orbs and beams that we are photographing (that
>is the invisible tech), but we see the holograms (which is the visible
>tech)
>
>maybe a few model type experiments with a little twin tower model, a
>hologram, fake or simulated beams and something to simulate the plasma (or
>to project the hologram on to like you would project onto the plasma) --
>only with the IR lenses or filters could you see the beams and plasma. in
>ny that day they could not see the beams and plasma or stealths -- just the
>holograms.
>
>we have trouble deciding whether the orbs are little bitty and in front of
>the camera or great big and in the sky -- but we think the beam is tunable
>from focused or de-focused (Tom Bearden
says so too) so the orbs could be really
>big or little bitty cause the orbs are trapped in the beam. entrained one
>might say. the beam can get big or small.
Thank you, sender, for this e-mail!
Update 15. Use of Stealth Technology?
By Stefan Grossmann:
See e-mail at end of Update 14 above.
Are the videos and photos worthless as evidence? Emphatically, no!
We are talking about an existing technology, see Gallerize.com (9-11 section) item #8. It is too convenient for certain stubborn dunces to fold their arms, lean back and bellow: That stuff ain’t for real! – What hogwash! Learn to read! It is for real; it is also termed stealth technology. You have paid for it with your tax money.
The videos that show the building being painted by a missile’s target laser instants prior to impact are valid and real. Marcus Icke has validated the Jennifer Spell video in Update 9 above. If there is evidence for a missile’s target laser homing in, the notion that the tower was hit by a missile (or call it a drone, those are just names) is not far-fetched. We are not talking about plans of conspirators but about physical evidence. Don’t fall for those mind-controlling catch-phrases of the slick snake oil vending con-men in Washington
A good example for a conspiracy theory, for an urban myth is actually this: Osama bin Laden orchestrated the attacks of 9-11 from a cave in Afghanistan Pennsylvania
Some photos and videos show clear signs of photoshopping. These videos do not show the authentic flying craft that hit the tower. Other photos and videos are devoid, lacking of photoshopping marks. These I believe show the strange flying craft that wanted to be a Boeing 767-200 but just didn’t quite make it. According to this evidence, the flying craft that didn’t make it to full reality had the following features:
• it used a missile homing laser;
• witnesses saw it fly into the tower;
• its port wing root had a whopping bulge;
• it flew in a fleet of at least 11 stealth orbs;
• they could not recognize it as a large Boeing;
• it was gray and windowless and relatively small;
• it was not reflective in the bright morning sunlight;
• it screamed overhead without correct Doppler effect;
• it fits no known plane model, neither civilian nor military;
• it emitted a white or yellow bright flash instants before entry;
• its wings blinked on and off, all depending on camera position;
• in the near shadow wedge before south wall it shone like a lamp;
• it could create no fully clear image in a camera with all plane details;
• it phased into the steel tower like a ghost without crashing or exploding;
• it behaved like a digital model but not like a real flying object or airplane;
• the digital model was evidently not an in-a-computer flight simulator model;
• it lacked the UA livery underbelly stripe, markings, proper angles and lengths;
• the photoshopped videos and photos apparently had some evidence to cover up;
• most likely, the worst foul-ups in the fakery were sanitized by the photoshopping.
These are 19 good reasons why the tower was hit by a faked flying object, faked by existing U.S.
Comments
Post a Comment