Hercolano2: 911 - Peter Meyer-The North Tower Impact

Sunday, March 18, 2012

911 - Peter Meyer-The North Tower Impact

The North Tower Impact
By Peter Meyer

In his article The Incredible 9-11 Evidence We've All been Overlooking [BELOW] Leonard Spencer pointed out that the Fireman's Video (shot by the Naudet Brothers) reveals a flash just as (or slightly before) the plane hits the North Tower.

Steve Hunter wrote:

I video taped this documentary from the TV early last year and bought the DVD [entitled 9/11] later in the year. In the televised version of the plane hitting the North tower there is a frame containing a huge bright flash of light that has been digitally removed from the DVD version. — 9/11 DVD Censored! Image of Strange Flash as Flight 11 Hit North Tower Missing From Footage

Here are three successive stills from a video recorded from a European TV broadcast ("Euronews" recorded on 2001-09-11 or within a day or two thereof):

	Here the plane is so close to the North Tower that its shadow appears on the building to the right of the plane.
	Here the flash is visible.
	Here the flash has passed but the plane has not yet hit the building.

Thus it is undeniable that a large flash of some kind occurred just as the plane was about to hit the North Tower. What could this be? It is explained by Leonard Spencer thus:

Immediately before the plane strikes it fires a missile that blows a hole in the building's façade. This is the cause of that brief flash. — The Incredible 9-11 Evidence We've All been Overlooking

Whether or not one accepts this explanation the fact remains that a flash occurred. This is fatal to the official story, which is that American Airlines Flight 11, a normal commercial Boeing 767 jetliner, was hijacked after takeoff from Logan Airport in Boston and flown into the North Tower.

If the flash was produced by the firing of a missile then the plane was not a commercial 767, and so was not the same plane as AA 11. In this case the official story is refuted.

If the flash was not produced by the firing of a missile then what caused it? [For an explanation see below.] There is no place in the official story for such a flash. Officially it cannot exist. But the video evidence shows otherwise.

Another proof of the falsity of the official story (as has been pointed out previously) is that the plane which hit the North Tower did not have engines attached to its wings. This is seen most clearly in the first still picture above. Therefore it was not a Boeing 767. Therefore, again, the official story is false.

More Incredible Evidence

There is at least one other piece of startling photographic and video evidence from the attacks in New York. It concerns Flight 175, the plane that hit WTC2, the South Tower. The photograph on the right is one of the most dramatic and frequently reproduced images of the events of September 11 (click on the image to see it fullsize). Showing the second plane only a second or so before it hit WTC2, it has appeared on the front pages of newspapers and magazines around the world as well as on countless web sites. You have probably seen it tens, if not hundreds, of times. It is one of the defining images of that day. Yet if you look closely you will see that it is one of the most extraordinarily revealing and incriminating images too.

For it is rather plain to see that the aircraft is carrying an anomalous device underneath its right wing, very close to the fuselage. It almost looks like a third engine and is connected by tubing to the tail section. It also has a nozzle sticking out at the front. The picture below may assist in clarifying what I am describing.

The dark stripe down the side is not part of the paintwork (check out the United Airlines livery) but the shadow of the device and its pipework. Remember, we are looking at the plane's underside here, not its flank. The one fully-visible tail fin is not the main vertical fin but the right-hand horizontal tailpiece. In the last second or two the plane banks so much to the left that the sun (to the right of the picture) catches the plane's underside and the mystery objects cast shadows. Start perhaps with the silvery 'lump' tucked, so to speak, in the plane's right 'armpit'. What is that? Note the angled pipework that leads back to the tail-section. Note too that if you look closely, what I call the nozzle is not part of the plane's own outline but is separate from it.

There is one famous piece of video footage of the second plane that was taken from almost exactly the same position as the photograph above. Taken by CNN, it captures in horrifying detail the final

seconds before impact and shows the plane actually penetrating the building. Although well-known, I am not aware of the sequence being available on DVD. Also, until very recently, compressed digital versions suitable for downloading were spoiled by on-screen logos and other features that obscured some of the most important details and action. However, thanks to WebFairy (see below) this situation has now been rectified. The file ghostplane2.wmv (129 Kb, opens in Windows Media Player) provides a superb slow motion (and unobscured) rendition of this clip.

Not only is the anomalous device on the plane's underside clearly visible, it is clear too that, just as the plane's nose strikes the building, the nozzle of this device fires a jet of flame. If you think this sounds fanciful, then look at the clip and come to your own conclusion. If you suspect that this clip has been doctored in some way then find a videotaped copy of the original footage and look at that too, frame by frame. The anomalous device and the burst of flame are still there.

What is going on here?

It's interesting to note that the two plane crashes into the two towers were very different from one another. The first crash, seen in the Fireman's Video, was a rather modest affair. After the initial explosion the smoke and flames die down quickly and such flames as there are are reddish in color. The second plane on the other hand causes a vast spectacular yellow fireball and the resultant fire in the building is much more extensive and intense than that caused by the first. Given that both planes were supposed to be 767s, were both flying from Boston to Los Angeles and had both supposedly been in the air for around 45 minutes before they crashed, this is rather strange because they should have both been carrying roughly the same amount of fuel.

As the Fireman's Video shows, the first plane was not a 767 and it fired missiles to create most of the damage. The rather small fireball and fire was probably due to the fact that it had very little fuel on board. The second plane doesn't fire missiles in the manner of the first plane (well, the world's media was in place by then) but the explosion it creates is clearly very fuel-rich indeed. There are several eyewitness reports that mention the strong smell of fuel in the air after the second plane crashes. I suspect that this plane was absolutely full of fuel, a flying fuel-tank, hence the mighty fireball. So the object on the right wing is probably an ignition device (rather like a flame-thrower) triggered just as the plane strikes to ensure that the fuel explodes as required. It is possible also that the burst of flame is the exhaust trail of an incendiary missile. Whatever it actually is, its purpose is almost certainly to help produce the huge fireball that resulted from this crash.

When Flight 175 took off from Boston at 8:14 a.m. it is rather unlikely that it had such an ignition device attached to its underside. To my best knowledge such devices do not come as standard fit on Boeing 767s and in any case it would surely have been visible to anyone observing the plane's departure. Nor do I believe that Arab terrorists clambered outside the plane to attach these devices to its underside whilst it was in mid-air. Therefore the plane that hit the South Tower was not the plane that took off from Boston. This point has been in more detail elsewhere.

The terrorist attacks of 9-11 are unique in at least one regard. As far as I can tell they are the only terrorist incidents to have been played out right under the noses of a waiting media. I believe this was no accident. The incidents were timed and sequenced to ensure that this was the case. The first crash (which we were most definitely not meant to see) brought the media to the WTC and ensured plenty of cameras were trained on the towers in time for the next crash around 15 minutes later. So we all see the second crash in all its glory, from every conceivable angle. Spectacular isn't it? And of course even more cameras were around by the time the towers magnificently and apocalyptically collapsed an hour or so later. I believe that the cinematic brilliance of these shots was a major objective of the overall operation. It was a carefully planned media spectacle. Remember how we were practically force-fed these images for two whole days, so everyone saw them hundreds of times? This is invaluable propaganda and brainwashing.

It's important to remember that if there's one thing that Americans are really better at doing than anyone else on the planet it's making movies. Big, spectacular movies. They understand better than anyone the immense potential of the moving image to inform, entertain and suggest. Above all they know how to manipulate and guide our emotions through film. They use this knowledge and skill whenever they can and I believe 9-11 is only the most recent instance.

As in the case of Flight 11, video footage of Flight 175 again reveals the hand of the magician and the movie maker. It seems to me that close examination of these two pieces of video proves beyond all reasonable doubt that 9-11 was a sophisticated military operation for which only the US itself could be responsible. The evidence is irrefutable and would stand up in a court of law. While Bush is in power there will be no such court case. What the hell do we do now?

— Leonard Spencer

Notes

1) The 'Fireman's Video' appears on the DVD called "9/11 - The Filmmakers' Commemorative Edition (2002)" which is available from Amazon at:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006B1HI/103-5794135-7998254?vi=glance Strangely however the picture quality of the 'Fireman's Video' seems less good in the documentary than it did when it was originally broadcast in news bulletins. It is less sharp and the initial flash to which I refer appears to have been largely edited out! For this reason I recommend instead the documentary entitled "In Memoriam - New York City, 9/11/01", available on DVD on the same Amazon page. The 'Fireman's Video' is shown twice and on both occasions the picture quality is clean and sharp. Also the "In Memoriam" documentary has several other very useful clips including a priceless long shot of WTC2 collapsing in which you can clearly see explosives going off at regular intervals as the building goes down. See Note 2 (below) for downloadable wmv versions of similar shots, available from the WebFairy site.

2) The WebFairy's 9/11 Memorial site (a version with additional video material is at http://webfairy.911review.org/911/index.htm) is an important source of slow motiom video clips relating to the events of September 11. This site is the source of the remarkable ghostplane clip provided above.

The site includes many other fascinating video clips from the day, including a superb ultra-slow motion shot of the of the start of the collapse of WTC2 (slow.demolition.1.wmv) and a clip of WTC1 going down in which explosives going off inside the building are clearly visible (demolition.squibs.wtc1.wmv).

--------------------------------------------------

'Flight 11' Revisited

by Leonard Spencer

Given the extent to which the mainstream media and therefore the population at large has accepted without question the official explanation of what happened on September 11, it's easy to forget sometimes just how flimsy the evidence supporting that official explanation really is. If you're wholly convinced by stories of passports found in the rubble of the towers (towers destroyed, we are told, by fire so intense it melted steel and vaporized people and black boxes) then you can rest easy. If your natural scepticism is not aroused by the fortuitous discovery of a holdall and an abandoned hire-car containing flying manuals, a copy of the Koran and a letter written in Arabic by someone with no understanding of Islam, then you need have no fear. If you are thoroughly satisfied by hearsay reports of cell-phone calls from Flight 93, even though it has yet to be established whether those calls took place at all or, if they did, whether they actually came from Flight 93, then you really have nothing to worry about.

For the rest of us however — those who remain unmoved by these things (and, yes, the list above does indeed constitute the sum total of the evidence supporting the official case) — the absence of genuine hard primary evidence is a notable and troublesome matter. Grateful as we are for those damning flying manuals and incriminating copies of the Koran, we're still a little curious about the missing black box recorders, the unreleased tapes of the air traffic control conversations and of course all that rubble that was whisked away and sold before accident investigators could get to it.

Despite this, some very important hard evidence does remain from that day and, thankfully, a good deal of it is in the public domain. The principal source of this evidence lies in the hundreds of photographs and hours of video footage that captured the events in New York as they unfolded. This is undoubtedly hard evidence, for it actually depicts the dreadful crimes being committed and documents their immediate aftermath. It has all the potency of CCTV footage showing men in Mickey Mouse masks bursting into the bank with shotguns. It is probably the single most important body of reliable evidence that will be passed on to posterity for historians of the future to puzzle over.

I have noted elsewhere that close scrutiny of the Fireman's Video reveals startling details in respect of the first plane that are wholly inconsistent with the official account. There is other important evidence available however that tells us yet more about the plane that hit WTC1 and how eager the Bush administration is to cover up the true nature of that incident.

My starting place for tracking down this evidence is none other than FEMA's 'World Trade Center Building Performance Study', a document which thus far represents the most detailed and considered analysis of the collapse of the Twin Towers to come from a government-appointed organisation. The report is famous for its conclusion that failed floor trusses caused the buildings to collapse, a theory that has been widely criticized and disputed. All the chapters and appendices of this report can be downloaded in PDF format from www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtcreport.htm.

Section 2.2.11 of Chapter 2 of the report concerns itself with the initial damage caused to WTC1 by the first plane and page 18 of the chapter provides a very interesting photograph of the scar that resulted. This is followed by an equally interesting diagram. The photograph in question is called Figure 2-15 and is reproduced below.

As can be seen, it is a particularly clear and detailed picture of the scar, taken when the view was not obscured by smoke. My attention was initially drawn to this picture because I realised it was very similar to another photograph that I found on the web several months ago. This second photograph formed part of an article called 'The Split-Second Error: Exposing the WTC Bomb Plot' by Fintan Dunne of PsyOpNews.com. The original article has since disappeared but a cached version can be found here. The photograph in question is shown at right.

Comparing the two, we can see immediately that the images were taken from slightly different angles. They were however taken from the same elevation and were probably taken within a few minutes of one another because the degree of damage and amount of smoke are about the same. Most of the available photographs of this scene were taken from much further away and the scar is often obscured by thick smoke. I would not be surprised if both photographs were taken on the same camera. Despite their dramatic quality, neither of the images appears to be in wide circulation. I am not aware of having seen the FEMA photograph outside the report itself and the second one seems to have made only a fleeting appearance on the website mentioned above.

These two photographs really do warrant some examination, not only because of the unusually high degree of detail they provide but also because there are some remarkable discrepancies between them that I believe point us towards some new and potentially valuable evidence concerning the true nature and identity of the plane that hit WTC1.

The critical area on which I wish to focus is the large central hole of the scar through which we catch a glimpse of the interior of the soon to be demolished building. I've boxed in red the area in question on both images below.

The following pictures are blown up details of this area. To assist careful comparison I've used different levels of magnification in each case to make them roughly the same size.

Starting firstly with the second image, look at that large piece of debris (center left) lying diagonally between two or more floors. I don't know what it is but it looks to me like a large piece of mechanical equipment, perhaps a series of cylindrical devices arranged along a long spindle or drive shaft. Now look at the same feature as it appears in the detail from Figure 2-15. Suddenly we are no longer looking at an unusual mechanical item, but merely a collapsed row of box columns, the pre-welded sections of three vertical steel pillars that formed the basic building blocks of the World Trade Center. Notice too that other features of this object, clearly visible in the second photograph through the smaller hole to the left of the main hole, have simply disappeared in FEMA's photograph.

Again starting with the second image, now look a little to the right and note the silvery grey object extending back into the building. If you look closely you'll see that it has a number of distinctive circular rose-patterned indentations along its side. Now try and find the same object in FEMA's photograph. I think you'll find that it's mysteriously disappeared (although a small part of the pattern seems to have transformed into a fragment of box column debris).

Clearly one of these photographs has been very severely and, one has to concede, skilfully altered. Which one though? The key to determining this perhaps lies in the coloration of the two photographs. Notice how, in the second image, burned and damaged parts of the building look dull and sooty, just as you'd expect. In FEMA's picture the same areas take on an otherworldly, golden sheen. The FEMA photograph is the fake. Our nimble faker has taken extravagant liberties with the colour settings to help disguise some sly cutting and pasting and not a little deft airbrush work.

Through its duplicity, FEMA has in fact done us a huge favour here. It has given us a big helping hand in identifying those strange objects seen inside the scar. FEMA has concealed the objects because it does not want us to see them. They shouldn't be there. Why should FEMA want to conceal anything about this event? Could it be that we are looking at some of the wreckage of the plane that hit WTC1, wreckage that does not belong to a Boeing 767? Until a senior representative of Boeing cares to provide compelling evidence to the contrary, I believe this is not an unreasonable conclusion.

FEMA's cavalier attitude towards evidence does not end there. The very next item following Figure 2-15 in the report is Figure 2-16, a schematic diagram of the impact damage caused to the exterior of WTC1. Figure 2-16 is shown below.

The interesting thing here is that FEMA's rendition of the scar is much too small. This is easily demonstrated by comparing it with Figure 2-15, which is positioned immediately above it in the report. You will see in the diagram that it clearly shows the individual box columns, comprising three vertical pillars of steel welded onto three horizontal base plates. If you look again at the photograph you will see also that the vertical pillars of these box columns are clearly visible on the exterior of the building. It is a simple exercise therefore to count the number of vertical pillars that lie between the furthest extremities of the scar. This number should tally precisely with the number of vertical pillars depicted in the diagram for the same measurement. According to the photograph the real scar spanned 43 of these vertical pillars. On the diagram it spans only 30. The real scar was therefore over 40% larger than FEMA would have us believe.

That FEMA is prepared to publish inaccurate and misleading information like this, yet provide on the very same page the key to exposing its own deceit, gives us a vivid insight into the contempt with which this organisation views the intelligence and attentiveness of the general public. Had FEMA been accurate with its diagram it would have looked something like this. I have simply expanded the scale of the scar by 43%.

So why should FEMA make such an elementary blunder in its representation of the scar on WTC1? To answer that one, I found it very useful to superimpose the outline of a Boeing 767 over the impact hole. Getting the proportions right for this exercise was again pretty straightforward because FEMA helpfully tells us earlier in the same chapter that the width of each box column section of three vertical pillars is exactly 10 ft. The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 158 ft. I have therefore overlaid the (horizontal) outline of a 767 onto the diagram and adjusted its scale until it measures 47 single pillars in width from wing-tip to wing-tip. By then tilting the 767 outline until it corresponds with the angle of the scar we get a very good clue as to why FEMA reduced its own representation by the amount that it did. It was so the two most likely looking 'engine holes' in the scar corresponded precisely with the engines of a real Boeing 767. My rendition of a Boeing 767 superimposed over FEMA's original diagram (Figure 2-16) is shown below. I'm sure you'll agree it's a rather neat fit.

A Boeing 767 superimposed over my adjusted, more accurate version of the scar looks like this. You can see why FEMA decided drastic action was required.

So let's get this straight. A plane that both the eyewitness reports and the Fireman's Video confirm was much smaller than a Boeing 767 crashes into WTC1 and leaves a scar that is demonstrably too large to have been caused by a 767. A government agency is then required to falsify its own report into the incident in order to conceal this puzzling conundrum.

If you haven't already done so, I strongly suggest you take another look at the Fireman's Video, the only known footage of the first plane hitting the first tower. Look at it carefully, frame by frame. A DVD or video played through your TV is best but you can see a reasonably illuminating Quicktime version by clicking here.

The plane that hit the WTC1 was indeed a small plane, much smaller than a 767. Just before it hit WTC1 it fired three (or four) missiles at the building and the impact holes from these missiles formed the resultant scar. The intention was clearly to use a small military plane to leave the impression of a Boeing 767. It was a pretty successful conjuring trick but the execution wasn't perfect and the resultant scar was rather too big. This may all sound fanciful, but I believe the video and photographic evidence and FEMA's fraudulent report prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Is there any more evidence lying around that casts further light on the strange case of 'Flight 11'? I believe that there is. Although I've stressed the importance of the video and photographic record, there is at least one other major source of hard 9-11 evidence that is readily available to the public. I'm referring here to the work of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, whose seismic data and analyses have proved an invaluable repository of hard facts. The seismic reports have told us to within a fraction of a second the exact times at which the first two planes hit their targets and 'Flight 93' crashed in Pennsylvania. They have informed us that the strike on the Pentagon caused no measurable seismic readings whatsoever. They show us that immediately before the collapse of each tower Manhattan was subjected to a massive seismic spike that had the magnitude and properties of a medium-sized underground nuclear explosion.

My particular interest here however is the impact on the north tower and the seismic records tell us a little more about this incident. Columbia University's principal report into seismic activity in New York on September 11 (available in PDF format at www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf) notes that the first plane hit the north tower at 08:46:26 and caused seismic activity of magnitude ML=0.9, compared with a value of ML=0.7 for the impact of the second plane.

At www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html, Columbia University provides some additional, and very useful, data concerning the events in New York. This comprises several high quality, large-scale expanded diagrams that enable us to study in greater detail the seismic effects of several of the key events that day, including the impacts of the first two planes. These two are shown below, with the north tower first.

Before taking a closer look at the diagrams, let's acquaint ourselves with a few basic facts. According to the official version of events the planes that hit the Twin Towers were both Boeing 767s that had left Boston Logan airport on scheduled flights to LA. Both planes had been airborne for around 45 minutes before they crashed so both planes would have been carrying roughly the same payload and the same amount of fuel. It has been calculated however that the first plane was travelling at 470 mph when it hit the north tower and the second plane at 590 mph (close to the top cruising speed of a 767) when it struck the south tower. It is reasonable to predict therefore that the second plane struck its target with considerably greater force than did the first plane — about 50% greater force according to one calculation I have seen.

The seismic evidence however tells a different story. As already noted, the first plane generated an impact of magnitude ML=0.9 compared with a value ML=0.7 for the second plane. Despite the fact that it was travelling much more slowly than the second plane, the first plane nonetheless managed to cause an impact 30% greater in magnitude. This is easily demonstrated by comparing the relative amplitudes of the two collisions in the graphs above.

Look now at the duration of the two impacts as recorded on the seismic charts. It can be seen that while the impact of the second plane was two to three seconds in duration, that of the first plane lasted around ten seconds, which by all accounts is one mighty long impact. That's about as long as it took for each tower to collapse.

The seismic records lend further credence to the notion that the north tower was hit, not by a Boeing 767, but by a sequence of powerful missiles and bombs. This explanation fully accounts for the unexpectedly high force of the impact and its remarkably long duration. The official account cannot explain these facts.

The most profoundly disturbing thing about all this stuff is just how straightforward it really is. 9-11 is an easy one. All the hard evidence, without exception, clearly and unequivocally supports the view that 9-11 was an inside job, from top to bottom. All that is required is that you look at the evidence coolly and soberly with your evaluative and critical faculties fully engaged. This has yet to happen in the public sphere. There have been no proper, formal investigations into any aspect of 9-11. The evidence has yet to be submitted for independent and rigorous analysis. Yet the mainstream media has been content to repeat unquestioningly everything the Bush administration has told it and the population as a whole has absorbed the official account as though it were self-evident. I'm coming round to the view that we are living in one of the most cynically brainwashed eras of history. I hope very much that the human race awakes from its slumbers in time to save itself.

-----------------------------------------

An Analysis of the 'Missile' Frames
from The Fireman's Video

by Leonard Spencer

Up until now I have resisted the temptation to use stills from the Fireman's Video to illustrate my contention that the plane that hit WTC1 fired missiles at the building. This is because, up until now, I had not found stills from the video that were clear and detailed enough to make my case. The DVD version of the Naudet documentary has for instance proved to be a woefully inadequate source for detailed analysis of the footage, not least because it has been very obviously tampered with. Frames have been removed and those that remain have been artificially softened and blurred. The clearest versions of the Fireman's Video are those that were transmitted in news bulletins in the first few days after the attack and my only access to these has been the VHS copies that I taped myself from the TV. I recently received however an excellent set of original, undoctored stills from the footage, expertly captured from video. Somewhat belatedly therefore I am now able to demonstrate more thoroughly the basis for my rather controversial thesis.

The twenty images below are consecutive stills from the Fireman's Video, covering the crucial moment of impact. Twenty stills of course represents less than one second in real-time, yet it is surely one of the most remarkable — and eventful — seconds ever caught on camera.

The first four frames of the sequence (above) show the plane in its final approach towards WTC1. Unlike many other stills that are in circulation, the plane's left wing remains clearly discernible. Note the absence of an engine attached to this wing, indicating that the plane is not a Boeing 767. Note too the strange, dark feature immediately beneath the plane's tail-section. In frames 3 and 4 the plane's shadow begins to develop across the building's facade.

Frames 5 and 6 show the flash, the first detail from this footage that attracted my attention. In this complete version the flash is seen for two frames; in the Naudet Brother's DVD version it appears in only one, presumably edited out in order to make the flash less conspicuous. When the footage is viewed at full speed the flash appears very bright; seen as a still it has a cloudy, dusty appearance. Nevertheless by frame 7, just 1/25th of a second later, it has gone. By frame 8 over half of the plane has disappeared into the building. Its wings have gone and only the tail-section, with its strange dark blob, remains visible. Despite this, the facade of the building shows no sign of any scar caused by the impact. There is nothing to suggest that two wings and engines have just passed through. The plane appears to be flying neatly into a rather small hole. As it does so however, the shadow it casts starts to broaden and intensify.

Frames 9 to 12 represent, for me, the most intriguing part of the Fireman's Video. It is these frames that I believe show missiles being fired from the plane's tail-section. I have seen no alternative analysis that adequately explains the extraordinary details that occur here. In frame 9, the curious black feature beneath the tail-section can clearly be seen dividing into two distinct parts. As it does so a new shadow appears on the tower, beneath the one cast by the tail-section. By frame 10 however this second shadow has gone, but another one has appeared, a single isolated shadow over to the right, near the edge of the building and above what remains visible of the plane. Frame 11 shows this new shadow intensifying and shows also yet another new shadow developing, this time near the left edge of the building. In frame 12, both these new, isolated shadows have subsided and, but for two faint blister-like impressions, the facade of the building again appears largely unblemished.

The final eight frames of the sequence show the two faint blisters developing into two distinct and discrete explosions either side of the larger central explosion, into which the plane has by now disappeared. These frames show the explosions to be quite separate and unconnected. In later frames these three separate explosions become subsumed into one and leave behind the oddly-shaped and proportioned scar in the side of WTC1. A detailed examination of this scar, together with an analysis of the revealing seismic records concerning the attack on WTC1, can be found in my article 'Flight 11' Revisited.

Not surprisingly, those who cling on to the belief that a Boeing passenger jet hit WTC1 choose to disregard these extraordinary and revealing frames from the Fireman's Video. There is no coherent explanation for the events seen in this sequence that is consistent with this belief. But ignoring these frames and the bizarre sequence of events they portray is not an option for anyone wishing to discover the truth of what really took place. We know a passenger jet didn't hit the tower because, if it had, frame 8 would already be showing the scars where the plane's wings and engines had passed through the facade of the building. We know a passenger jet didn't hit the tower because, if it had, frames 10 and 11 would not record the fleeting appearance of distinct, isolated shadows that then fade away and are replaced by distinct, isolated explosions. My contention that a plane with no engines on its wings fired missiles at the building during impact may be wrong, but it is the only explanation I have seen that is even remotely consistent with every single one of the above frames.

----------------------------------------------

Was Flight 11 a 767?

A Critique of Eric Salter’s Fireman’s Video Analysis

By Marcus Icke

By now many 911 readers will have become aware of Eric Salter's web page titled "The WTC Impacts: 767 or "Whatzits"? Salter criticises 'no-plane' advocates for believing that the WTC2 strike was a visual hoax carried out by the networks and that no 767 hit WTC2. Using his skills and knowledge as a film editor he delivers a fatal blow to the WTC2 no planers by offering a perfectly logical and plausible explanation for the perceived effects as compression artefacts and low image resolution of the media as analysed by the advocates. The author had not heard of the 'no-plane' concept until reading Salter’s essay and has not investigated the issue. It is up to the reader to make an informed decision based on the evidence presented by Salter himself and the WTC2 no-planers. This element of Salter’s argument will not be discussed hereafter.

Instead we will turn our attention to the WTC1 strike which was officially attributed to a hijacked American Airlines 767-200 being deliberately flown into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre at a speed quoted of approximately 450mph. Pictured below [ruined photo] is a computer generated image of an American Airlines 767-200 and schematics for a real 767-200 to give the reader some idea of the proportions and size of the aircraft being considered in this article.

Straight off Salter performs an ambiguous analysis of one of the Fireman's Video captures by using a frame from early on in the sequence. His choice of frame for analysis is unwise as captures just prior to impact are much sharper, presumably because the cameraman was not turning quickly to the left and thereby momentarily blurring the image. The aircraft's position against the sky may also be a factor as the blue colour seems to permeate into the aircraft's outline making it harder to discern and giving the impression of being dark blue as opposed to black.

(The author noticed parallax effects in the video and geometric distortion of the image which probably would have been caused by the camera operator turning and moving to the left simultaneously having heard Flight 11 and the camera lens set at a low focal length respectively. Both these factors might affect any interpretation of the film. Salter does not mention these effects on his page so either we are to assume he has over-looked then or they are of no real consequence. The author is not a film expert like Salter and considers the parallax effect to be irrelevant given Flight 11's distance from the camera and that the geometric distortion is of little consequence as it is mild and the areas of film subject to scrutiny small compared to the overall size of the frame. They also tend to be closer to the optical axis of the camera, thereby reducing or possibly cancelling out the distortion effect altogether).

Far better to choose the author's so named “Perfect Frame” because it depicts the fuselage so clearly and was only one of two frames considered worthy of analysis because of its clarity. This “Perfect Frame” has been placed at the top of this page and has been subject to enhancement to reveal as much of the fuselage detail as possible and can be used as a comparison for Salter’s "blob" analysis shown below:

Salter’s inkblot analysis of the picture, like "left wing or engine", are not very specific and quite contradictory. We could infer from his interpretation of the "blob" that the left engine is mounted on the aeroplane's wing tip, a rather unlikely scenario for a passenger jet. Perhaps the next time Salter takes a ride in a commercial jet he should look out of the window and see where the engines are positioned in real life, but we can forgive him as Flight 11 does not appear to be sporting any wing-mounted engines anyway! The choice of still and the dubious attempt to identify the airframe opens questions about Salter’s investigative skills and his knowledge of aeronautics. Enclosed below is the “Perfect Frame” with the author's annotations clearly and unambiguously identifying airframe elements.

Next is Salter’s image showing his analysis of the fuselage length in relation to the east face of WTC1, using a slightly sharper image than previously, but still significantly blurred in the areas being used to gauge lengths, thereby rendering his deductions wide open to interpretation. There is also a glitch in this image which contradicts his assertion that the aircraft was in horizontal flight. Can you see it? If not don't worry as the issue will also be addressed later on.

This 'second blob interpretation' is undeniably interesting, so the author repeated his analysis using direct captures from the Fireman’s DVD and processing them in Photoshop for proportional matching. The object of the exercise was to try and obtain a more accurate figure for the length of the fuselage using Salter’s technique by using zoomed in shots of WTC1 to act as a more accurate datum to judge horizontal distances. The result of this experiment is shown below:

Flight 11's fuselage is 14 feet short of a 767-200's fuselage length of 159 feet. Salter only measures proportions in his example and does not try to ascertain an accurate figure, which suggests he never intended to carry out a proper investigation in the first place.

This interpretation of the image works on the official version of events stating that Flight 11 was in horizontal flight as it hit WTC1. The author speculates that Flight 11 was pitched nose down by anything between 2.5 degrees to 5 degrees at the point of impact. If Flight 11 was pitched down then Salter's analysis is incorrect and will require reworking to produce a better result.

A 767-200's basic dimensions stand at a wing span of 156 feet and a fuselage length of 159 feet. Using Salter’s methodology within the context of the fuselage length analysis he uses the following aircraft types could be contenders for the slightly sharper 'blob' pictured in the 'Second Blob Interpretation' of this article and possibly the gash that Flight 11 created during its impact against the north side of WTC1, depending on how you calculate its dimensions:

Airbus A310-300 ------- Span 144 feet - Length 153 feet
Tupolev TU-204 -------- Span 137 feet - Length 151 feet
Vickers Super VC10 ---- Span 158 feet - Length 158 feet

All have similar fuselage lengths, the Vickers Super VC10 is a pretty silly choice but using Salter’s logic there is nothing to say it wasn't. The Super VC10 is pictured below and was picked deliberately to be used later on as a reference point for Flight 11's airframe configuration. Readers are duly asked to take note of the wing sweep-back angle, wing root position on the fuselage and the rear mounted engines.

In the next set of his images Salter states he can see the shadow cast by the wings as they impact on the towers facia, but his captures have been subject to compression with the Sorenson 3 codec thereby degrading the image and introducing effects that look similar to "ringing", effects he details at the beginning of his web page. Salter accuses Webfairy of doing exactly the same and uses this argument to refute her findings. On that note we could strike Salter off in one swoop as he's made a critical error which diminishes his credibility as a video editor. He even states as much on his page:

"Bear in mind that even DVDs are compressed with the mpeg 2 codec. Additionally, to make it a reasonable file size for the web, this movie has been compressed with the Sorenson 3 codec at full quality from the file I used to do the analysis"

The author does not understand why Salter chose to degrade the image with the Sorenson 3 codec for the purpose of analysis when he could have taken a direct rip from the trans-coded MPG2 using high quality codecs. Not only this, he does not appear to have performed any post-processing of the images that would enhance the film. His pictures have suffered somewhat in the conversion to Quicktime, which manifest as a faint mosaic effect across the entire image and brown vertical smudging around the tower - a veritable feast of 'Whatzits' if you will.

Closely compare the image set below showing Salter’s and the authors captures together for comparison:

Now we come to the first of Salter’s over-confident and "plane" wrong statements concerning the Naudet film:

"From the Naudet footage we can establish the following:
-The plane made the sound of a 767.
-The plane is the length of a 767.
> -The plane casts the shadow of a 767.

Salter’s previous fumblings offer no grounds to support any of this. They are genuinely misleading to people who are not well informed of the subject material being discussed or who fall victim to his apparent de-bunking of the WTC2 'no-plane' affair and his credentials as a film professional. Salter is "flying himself apart" in an attempt to prove Flight 11 was a 767-200 in line with the official story when there is no bona fide evidence to support this claim.

He continues with a superimposed image of a 767 suspended in the gash on the north face of WTC1 using this as evidence of the 767-200 strike. The author found the gash to be a fraction too wide for a 767-200 and can see no markings for either the engines or the landing gear which was apparently down according to WTC1 witness George Sleigh. The diameter of the fuselage is also difficult to make out and looks slightly narrow for a 767-200. There is also the technical issue of wing dihedral which is the 'upward angle of the wings' to state in layman’s terms. A 767's wings look almost flat when looking at the aircraft head on, but the impression received by looking at the gash suggests to the author that the wing dihedral angle for Flight 11 was greater than that of a 767-200. The high airspeeds could have forced the wings upward at the time of impact, indeed the wings of commercial jets are designed to be flexible and can be seen to "droop" after re-fuelling when observed from the ground. The picture below should explain the concepts addressed in this section and allow readers to draw their own conclusion:

The very nature of this collision deserves a closer examination. Look at the montage below which was compiled from numerous 911 DVD captures and a United Kingdom TV transmission. By looking at these pictures we can see that the impact sequence is replete with photographic anomalies and inconsistencies when viewed with the official story in mind:

Not only has the left wing caused a curved explosion, the right wing does not seem to have had any effect at all apart from producing an isolated "bubble" at the top right hand edge of the tower, effectively orphaned from the main explosion (look closely at the shadow produced by the main explosion and the shadow produced by the 'orphan' explosion - both the explosions and their respective shadows are clearly separated by a significant distance). Had Salter looked more closely at the film he would have seen this effect. The 'orphan' appears just after the left wing seems to hit the tower, it then disappears and re-appears eventually becoming part of the main explosion. This impact is full of shadow anomalies as well as the famous 'flash' which occurs just after the nose of Flight 11 has penetrated the facia of WTC1. The WTC2 impact was totally different and is more what we would expect to see if a large aircraft flew into a skyscraper - a balanced and symmetrical explosion (compare below) with every element in synch with itself, not a badly timed zig-zag.

All of this implies the 'orphan' was some kind of an induced effect that would have made the impact look more convincing, or it was part of a bomb system that was rigged in the building prior to the event or alternatively a missile fired from the aircrafts right wing. There are other signs that suggest internal bombs in both the north and south towers that exploded simultaneously with Flight 11's impact:

It is interesting to note here that Flight 11 hit WTC1 almost head on yet, if you consider the areas highlighted with purple rectangles, there seems to be a disproportionate ejection of debris from the east face compared with the west face. The casual observer could be forgiven for missing this, but as a film professional with 11 years of experience under his belt, Salter is not doing very well and shows that his powers of observation are insufficient to be carrying out a visual investigation of one of the defining moments of the 21st Century.

Continuing with the run of statements from Salter we have 3 ill-conceived personal interpretations disguised as seemingly rational arguments.

"Holmgren agrees that what hit the north tower was dive bombing instead of moving horizontally as the official story claims. This is wrong and there are three proofs for this.

First, the path of the plane is parallel to the left edge of the tower, suggesting that it is moving horizontally.

Second, the shadow of the plane on the tower just before impact moves up and to the left at about a 30 degree angle. If the plane were "dive bombing" the shadow would be moving down the side of the building with the plane.

Third, if the plane were not flying horizontally, it wouldn't have over-flown the Naudet film crew, causing the three men in the picture to look up."

Salter’s over-simplified statements are de-mystified in the 3 following sections:

"First, the path of the plane is parallel to the left edge of the tower, suggesting that it is moving horizontally."

Salter is stating his own observation as fact without performing a detailed analysis of the Fireman’s Video. Observe the annotated pictures below showing two of the four attempts by the author to deduce the descent path of Flight 11 using various different captures from the Fireman’s Video with slightly varying methodology to increase the robustness of the work. Notice the angle of the red descent path in relation to the green horizontal reference datum derived from the top of the east side of WTC1.

[ruined photo]

The results show almost conclusively that Flight 11 was in a descent prior to striking WTC1, suggesting Salter's analysis is way off the mark. To make the situation even worse Professor A. K. Dewdney of 'Operation Pearl' fame had performed a similar analysis to the author's some time before using his own methodology and had come to a similar conclusion, only his workings from the Fireman’s Video suggested a staggering 21 degree descent angle. Although the results of the author and Dewdney are at odds here, it just goes to show the reader how horribly wrong Salter was to even present this observational hiccup as evidence for the horizontal flight theory when Dewdney had already proven it wrong prior to Salter writing the page.

But the situation gets worse. Jump back to the "second blob interpretation" image and compare the angle between the black horizontal reference line and the red line delineating the aircraft's longitudinal axis. The diagram is implying Flight 11 is pitched down by a significant angle. Assuming the aircraft is not in a high speed stall (unlikely, as it would interfere with navigation at a critical point in the mission), or under the influence of some other aerodynamic phenomenon, we can arguably assume the pitch angle will roughly match the descent angle due to the 450 mph approach speed. Very early on in Salter’s analysis he therefore inadvertently produces evidence to support the "steep dive" argument and in doing so contradicts his own assertion that Flight 11 was flying horizontal prior to impact.

Based on the 'pitch angle matching descent angle' concept addressed above we can analyse Professor Dewdney’s work and give the reader a visual idea of what Jules Naudet would have captured on the day. The image below was created using a computer generated image of a virtual Manhattan and its respective Trade Tower complex, but based on real world dimensions sourced from schematics and maps.

If we assume Professor Dewdney is correct in his findings then this image rules out a 767-200 as a prime suspect for Flight 11 and in doing so opens 'Pandora's Box'. The two pictures aren't even vaguely alike. Where are Flight 11's engines? Why is the fuselage so short? The aircraft looks more like the Super VC10 mentioned earlier than a 767-200!

911 was an attack against important American targets. The weapons were aircraft so an understanding of aircraft operating procedures, navigation and aerodynamics are an essential part of the equation. If we take the official line and assume Atta and his entourage were able to hijack the aircraft, had sufficient experience on the 767-200 type and could safely navigate to New York, then they would have had to position for the Tower 1 strike and successfully execute the high-speed full-throttle dive into the tower which we see and hear in the Fireman's Video. The speed achieved for argument's sake was 450mph which at sea level is very close to the edge of a commercial jet's envelope, if not outside it altogether. During the attack run the crew would have had to keep the aircraft under control while running the risk of destroying the aircraft's engines and might have been faced with aerodynamic phenomena like shock stalls, high speed buffeting and control surface reversal. If the airframe suffered catastrophic failure at any point during the descent then the entire mission would have been a complete failure. All of these points are based on the assumption that a 767-200 is capable of achieving these high airspeeds at sea level, an idea that needs to be verified by a 767-200 test pilot or the aircraft's designers who were responsible for its aerodynamic qualities.

A 767-200 seems an unlikely candidate for the aircraft's near transonic lancing of WTC1 as depicted in the Fireman’s Video. A more suitable choice would be a performance jet with robust engine and a tough airframe that was capable of controlled flight at critical airspeeds in a dense atmosphere. This description would typically match that of a military aircraft. Alternatively 767-200s could be deployed for both towers, but in order to do the job they would need engine modifications or upgrades and airframe strengthening. This could explain why Flight 175 seems to cut through WTC2 like “butter” as the 'no-planers' claim, but does not explain the configuration of the aircraft seen in the Fireman's Video.

For Salter to overlook these important aspects of the attack is akin to a police investigator throwing half of the crime scene evidence into the bin because he has no conception of it, or is unwilling to address the issues because it's too complex for him to understand, then drawing conclusions from what remains of the evidence.

"Second, the shadow of the plane on the tower just before impact moves up and to the left at about a 30 degree angle. If the plane were "dive bombing" the shadow would be moving down the side of the building with the plane."

This subjective interpretation would have to be physically demonstrated to prove its authenticity before it could be used as evidence to support the horizontal flight concept. The author doubts that, given the sun's low and shallow angle to WTC1, the dimensions of WTC1 and Flight 11 with the quality / frame rate of the video camera that this point tells us much. Even if the plane were descending at a 5 degrees angle it's questionable that this could be detected accurately using this shadow analysis method. It's also obvious that Salter's DVD is reasonably unedited giving him the advantage over the author's "9-11 THE FILMAKERS' COMMEMORATIVE DVD EDITION" which is missing the all important 'flash' and has had so many frames pulled from the impact sequence that the aircraft seems to lurch into the tower at the last moment.

The 'flash' is shown below and was recovered from a TV documentary about a group of WTC survivors. The image has been processed for this web page to reveal as much detail as possible and only appeared to the author on Sonic Cinepack codecs for Windows Media Player Series 9. Playback on Power DVD XP 4.0 did not reveal this detail yet playback on a domestic DVD player did. The 'flash' also looks different from other apparent 'flashes' sourced from other DVDs and is included here for comparison with the montage of impacts shown previously: [ruined photo]

The very fact that the Fireman's Video has been censored in so many different ways across so many different media titles suggests that someone in the loop is trying to hide information from the viewer. This should encourage us to examine Flight 11 as thoroughly as possible within our available resources and limitations.

"Third, if the plane were not flying horizontally, it wouldn't have over-flown the Naudet film crew, causing the three men in the picture to look up."

This seems to be implying the fire crew are ‘hard of hearing’ as they would not have heard the jet if it were a little higher. Flight 11 does not over fly the fire crew. When Flight 11 appears it is obviously in the back ground and some distance from the camera. The aircraft is abeam the fire crew at the time of acoustic recognition and not in the overhead. Nothing can be inferred about the aircrafts position, altitude and heading from the physical reaction of the fire crew in response to the sound of the jet. If Flight 11 had over flown the Fire Crew as Salter seems to be saying then it would have hit the face of WTC1 at a 14 degree angle to perpendicular. Jules Naudet would have suffered severe whip-lash trying to catch the aircraft as it passed through the over-head and he would have seen something like this through the video camera's viewfinder. The picture assumes Flight 11 was an AA767-200:

Salter did not think any of these points through from a physical or logical perspective, especially point 3 which shows an extreme lack of situational awareness and lack of thought.

Continuing with the extract below:

"As the two 767s had the exact same engines and flew at similar altitudes and speeds, they should have sounded alike"

An over confident comment (which is shown here a little out of context) that makes Salter look like an aviation guru. He implies a knowledge of turbine engines while failing to offer any information to back up the statement. It also assumes the official line is correct in saying that both aircraft were of the 767-200 ilk when no realistic evidence has been displayed as to the true identity of Flight 11 or its respective powerplant. The aircraft hitting WTC2 was supposed to be a 767-222 but is allegedly a 767-300 according to a Spanish web site that has analysed images of the aircraft. The author's own research states that the powerplant for both the 767-200/200ER and the 767-300/300ER were two Pratt & Witney JT9D-7R4D engines. This would need to be cross checked with other sources for integrity and there is also the chance that the operator could have upgraded the engines making the aircraft sound different. DVD audio rips of the of the WTC1 and WTC2 approach sounds and impacts from numerous 911 titles do sound different from each other suggesting both aircraft had different powerplants. But there could be a host of other environmental and acoustic reasons why these two sound events are at odds, which leaves the point open to debate until a proper investigation is carried out and once again shows us that Salter has bitten off more than he can chew without even knowing it.

One of the engines of Flight 11 seems to have ended up in the centre of the gash on WTC1 (according to Leonard Spencer at Serendipity.li) and subsequently vanished in the impending collapse.

The engine that got through WTC2 to the author's knowledge has not been identified and was probably confiscated by the FBI guys who appear in the Naudet film, the other possibly vanished in the rubble of the WTC. Has anyone found any engine remains from the WTC site other than the steaming debris show in the Naudet film? Where is this engine component? Has anyone tried to identify it? Does anyone have any information at all concerning engine remains from either of the crashes?

Salter goes on to imply that the wreckage pictured in the FEMA report is evidence of a 767-200 strike:

"We have the following photos-more hard evidence-of 767 wreckage at the World Trade Centre. The windows on the piece of fuselage are the shape of 767 windows"

"Shape of 767 windows" is a pretty vague statement; practically every commercial jet manufactured since the mid 1970s has had '767 shaped windows'. The picture in the FEMA report appears to be showing a small rooftop area taken with a camera using wide angle lens. The scene depicted is more reminiscent of a scrap yard than an air crash site. The wreckage looks deliberately placed and is showing no evidence to suggest that it was shot from the inferno aloft:

Also note that the aircraft hit the core of WTC1 practically head on. There do not seem to be any corresponding exit marks on the south face of WTC1 for the wreckage. It does not seem plausible that sections of the fuselage could pass through the towers core without being significantly deformed or marked. This ‘767 windows’ argument only proves that the establishment has considerable power over the masses by reinforcing the idea that WTC1 was hit by a 767 through a suspicious photograph placed in an ‘official report’ and should be treated as circumstantial evidence and nothing more until the windows are measured and identified by professionals. The small section of fuselage pictured here could just have easily come from a Learjet as it could have come from a 767-200.

Next up is George Sleigh - Salter's witness who claims he caught a glimpse of the 767-200 just before it ploughed into WTC1 just a few feet above his office.

Sleigh's quote is posted on CNN's web site and an extract is shown below:

"The wheels were down and I could see the people in the cockpit. I thought to myself, 'Man this guy is low in the air,' but I still thought it would clear us. But then it smashed into the tower a few floors above me..."

How a person can make out such detail on an incoming aircraft travelling at 450mph and why he thought the aircraft was going to clear the tower is a mystery in itself. There is a possibility that CNN might have accidentally misquoted Sleigh. The author has an interview with Sleigh in which he makes no reference to the figures he saw or the landing gear and comes over as being a very respectable and credible person. Assuming Sleigh is telling the truth and we've no reason to doubt he is, he does not say if he saw crash test dummies on the flight deck dressed up as Arab hijackers or real live Arab hijackers. The problem here is that it seems quite unlikely that a 767-200 would be flying around at sea level with the gear dropped. It would pose a huge problem to the pilots in terms of aircraft handling. If you deployed the gear outside the gear limiting speed you'd run the risk of losing the bay doors when they opened and at these high speeds it's conceivable that the bogey would deform and buckle, altering the aerodynamic qualities of the aeroplane. There would even be the risk of structural damage caused by the deformation of the undercarriage. Burst hydraulic lines and a damaged airframe aren’t much use to you if you are on an attack run that requires extreme precision. What would the hijackers have to gain by dropping the gear anyway, it's that 'small gain high risk' scenario Salter talks about on his page. Given the emotional trauma Sleigh must have suffered after the incident can we really believe his recollection of events is accurate and not created in his own mind as a result of being exposed to the official story in the aftermath of the attack? 911 conspiracy theorists would argue here that the apparent identification of the gear would indicate some kind of appendage attached to the aircraft, perhaps the mechanism responsible for the 'flash'. The gash does not seem to have any corresponding marks for the gear either. If they had been down there's a good chance Sleigh might not be here to tell us his story - the bogey under the left wing passes very close to his office. Sleigh might have seem something like this out of his office window if we assume that WTC1 was actually hit by a AA767-200 as the official story tells us:

Salter believes that Holmgren's Flight 175 media hoax claim would be detrimental to 'the cause' and would only give the establishment ammunition to fire back at the 911 conspiracy theorists thereby debasing the entire movement. This is not necessarily true.

Ever since Neil Armstrong allegedly set foot on the moon in 1969 the Apollo Hoax conspiracy has raged, even more so with widespread use of the internet in the 1990s. The establishment and lunar conspiracy theorists have battled it out in whatever medium is available to them with both sensible arguments and outrageous ones. Over the years these battles have resulted in the promotion of the lunar conspiracy through productive research, books, newspaper articles, television programs, internet sites, radio, video and other media to such a point that the idea of faking the moon landings is part of our culture and is accepted, whether you choose to believe the lunar conspirators or not. In this same way outrageous claims about 911 will no doubt promote the idea of the 911 conspiracy and stimulate research. If Holmgren is proven to be right or wrong, either way it is a significant step toward the truth. If we don't question our ideas or the ideas of our peers we won't progress. Besides, 'any publicity is good publicity'.

The quote below is the final extract from Salter’s page, which gives us an insight into his peculiar logic and his state of denial regarding the facts surrounding the WTC1 impact:

"What would the planners have to gain by rolling the dice on such elaborate high-tech trickery, when crashing airliners into the WTC towers was very probably the simplest and most easily executed part of the whole operation? It would be an example of infinite risk for no gain. Moreover, since there is no substantive and compelling reason to believe that a 767 did not hit the South tower, by analogy there is also no logical reason to suspect anything different concerning the preceding North tower impact, even though it is comparatively poorly documented."

How can Salter possibly know that 'crashing airliners into the WTC towers was very probably the simplest and most easily executed part of the whole operation'? Is this man a crack pilot, is this man a military strategist, is this man a real 911 investigator? What possible logical reason could there be for a 767-200 strike at WTC1 based on the fact that there was a 767-200 strike at WTC2? Isn't this just an attempt to waive the event and use the official story to plug the gap because he can't face the facts or can't be bothered with proper analysis? Mr Spock would froth at the mouth and collapse trying to understand Salter’s logic. This article should give the reader the necessary means to judge Salter’s 'power of logic' and allow them to come to their own conclusions about 911 without being subject to this irresponsible web author who seems intent on pushing his own version of events to the community in an attempt to look clever. Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted is poor science and bad methodology. Salter is better off left in the cutting room splicing video tape than trying to be a 911 investigator.

There is no direct evidence to suggest that Flight 11 was a 767 and plenty of evidence to suggest it was not.

----------------------------------------------

.

Labels

Sunday, March 18, 2012

911 - Peter Meyer-The North Tower Impact

More Incredible Evidence

No comments:

Post a Comment