911-UA175-"UA175 Aircraft" Speed Analysis

"UA175 Aircraft" Speed Analysis

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/

For the purpose of this 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

British Royal Air Force - 575 mph / 500 knots / M0.750

Federal Aviation Administration - 586 mph / 510 knots / M0.765

National Institute of Standards and Technology - 546 mph / 475 knots / M0.714

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, NIST 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 travelled between 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.

All media used for my calculations came directly from good quality NTSC DVD sources. The results were as follows:

Park Foreman Video - 540 mph / 470 knots / M0.705

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 590 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 (below) at MIT and my own calculation using the Unknown Video are well outside this 560 mph to 590 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, NIST 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.

911-UA175-Jennifer Spell Video - "Spellbinding Fakery"

Jennifer Spell Video - "Spellbinding Fakery"

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/

In comparison to the CG Boeing 767-200 model the Jennifer Spell UA175 aircraft differs in a few ways. The 'port wing anomaly' seems to be present. The aircrafts fuselage is slightly narrower than the CG models fuselage. 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, roll and yaw angles seen here are in contradiction to many of the pitch, role and yaw angles shown in other UA175 aircraft images throughout this paper. In order for the CG model to match the Spell UA175 aircraft the bank angle was set approximately 40 degrees to port, the pitch angle 1 degree negative and the yaw angle at 6 degrees starboard.

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. CG analysis showed that the reflections would be coming primarily from the silver cone-shaped exhaust outlets (red boxes below) and not the blue engine casing. There was a small reflection from the rear of the starboard wing fairing (green box below) that seems to be absent on the UA175 aircraft. This could be caused by the low resolution of the video. Both engine reflections should be identical in size, but in the Spell video the port engine reflection is slightly larger and misshapen:

If it weren't for the 'port wing anomaly' the Spell UA175 aircraft would be a close, but not accurate rendition of a Boeing 767-200 with suspicious illumination under the prevailing meteorological conditions.

The 'flash' frame is included below with motion blur removed and some basic visual enhancement:

Look at the image below that has been enhanced evenly across the entire frame:

The contrast and brightness of the fuselage does not match the contrast and brightness of other objects in the frame. The aircraft is "standing out" from its surroundings.

Colour enhancement in Photoshop and image sharpening using FocusMagic revealed a cloud of compression artefacts and noise around the fuselage that is in disproportionate amounts to other structures in the frame. This effect appears in the CNN Best Angle Video and the Park Foreman Video.

In the image pair below you can see that the video camera is effectively static in both the upper and lower frames as is evidenced by the lack of horizontal and vertical motion blur on the WTC2 tower corner (green arrows) and the orange foreground building (red squares).

Despite the stability of the video camera (it appears to be on a dolly as the picture is almost perfectly horizontal throughout the impact sequence. Not bad for an amateur impromptu video recording...) the UA175 aircraft exhibits a vast amount of motion blur as it penetrates the WTC2 (upper frame) in comparison to frames when the aircraft is on the approach to WTC2 (lower frame). If you study the video you will see that the speed of the aircraft is more or less constant, just as it is in other UA175 videos. This sudden acceleration would have been technically impossible for a Boeing 767-200 under the circumstances.

By now it should be apparent to the reader that the Jennifer Spell video has either been manipulated or is fake. The aircraft seems to have been added to the video using the same technique utilised for the CNN Best Angle Video and the Park Foreman Video. But it's the motion blur error that gives the game away. How could any forger make such an obvious and clumsy mistake? Did they do this on purpose? Was the forger whistle-blowing?

Spell, a Brooklyn resident, claims she received a telephone call from her room mate who told her that an aeroplane had flown into the World Trade Centre. She went outside and began filming the World Trade Centre through what looks like a wire fence (below left) and apparently captured the UA175 aircraft as it struck the south wall of WTC2. Jennifer Spell's witness report and picture HERE

Jennifer Spell

"...just about 5 minutes after I got outside and was shooting, the second plane...circled around and it flew over New Jersey and it came in and just..."

How was Spell able to film the aircraft and watch it at the same time and why don't we see video footage of the aircraft as it "circled around" and "flew over New Jersey"?

From '7 Days In September' - 2002 CameraPlanet Inc. Produced and directed by Steve Rosenbaum. 
------------------------------------------------

Afterward

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 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 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 the forging standards of each respective party.

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 an explanation. 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" or a "small plane".

The reason why the establishment is trying to conceal the true nature of the WTC2 attack is because there was no United Airlines Boeing 767-200 impact with the WTC2 tower on the morning of 911. 

911-UA175-"Nose Dive" Video - Steeped In Contradiction

"Nose Dive" Video - Steeped In Contradiction

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/

The "Nose Dive" video (courtesy of WNBC) shows a correctly sized and illuminated Boeing 767 apparently diving towards WTC2.

Virtual Camera Positioning

Examination of the video footage showed the aircraft passing between the two towers momentarily. Due to the relative size and position of each tower it was possible to deduce that the camera position was at an exact perpendicular to the north faces of the Twin Towers. Using the north faces of both WTC towers and the Financial towers as further references it was possible to refine the camera position for comparative analysis with the original footage.

The subsequent analysis showed that at 2 seconds to impact the heading of the "Nose Dive UA175" aircraft is 054 degrees magnetic. The nose-down pitch of the aircraft is -5 degrees approximately. These pitch and heading figures put the "Nose Dive UA175" aircraft at odds with other "UA175" videos, but this is best highlighted using the Anthony Cotsifas photograph due its high quality and the accuracy of airframe positioning it affords us because of this.

Anthony Cotsifas / "Nose Dive" Video Analysis

In the image pair below I've positioned the "Nose Dive UA175" (left) aircraft in a similar position to a computer generated Anthony Cotsifas "UA175" aircraft (right) using a generalised flight path derived from the analysis of other "UA175" videos and the more accurate heading figure derived from the "Nose Dive UA175" video. Notice that for the same vertical position the "Nose Dive UA175" aircraft is noticeably higher than the Anthony Cotsifas "UA175" aircraft.

This high fuselage position can not be accounted for from an optical illusion generated by the incorrect horizontal positioning of the camera. The virtual camera would have to be placed unrealistically high (in excess of 1000ft) to generate this kind of an illusion and when it was positioned thus (see below) it strongly contradicted height cues and reference points in the original footage.

Although the "Nose Dive UA175" aircraft contradicts the Anthony Cotsifas "UA175" aircraft in terms of inferred flight path, height and heading the analysis did show that both aircraft were more or less the same distance from the WTC2 tower when using the north west corner of WTC1 as a vertical reference. This point is detailed in the graphic below which shows the "Nose Dive UA175" aircraft as seen from the Anthony Cotsifas position with its respective Anthony Cotsifas "UA175" aircraft.

Park Foreman / "Nose Dive" Video Time Code Analysis

The ‘Time Code’ analysis is achieved by extracting images of the "UA15" aircraft from different video source at the same point in time and attempting to identify any differences between them. This has been achieved with a direct analysis of the Park Foreman video and by using Fs 2004 to ascertain pitch, roll, yaw and height from the "Nose Dive" video and then comparing these obtained datums in order to detect any differences.

Using a frame extract from the Park Foreman Video at a time code of 3.5 seconds to WTC2 contact and a CG paired Boeing 767-200 at the same time code of 3.5 seconds with matched pitch, roll, yaw and height ascertained from the "Nose Dive" video we can see that the Park Foreman "UA175" aircraft was pitched nose down at 4.5 degrees (derived directly from the video) while the (CG visually gauged) "Nose Dive UA175" was pitched nose down at 8 degrees.

There also appears to be a bank angle conflict, although this factor is hard to determine with a great deal of accuracy because of the relatively low quality of the "Nose Dive" Video.

The high pitch angle seen in the "Nose Dive" video can not be accounted for by incorrect positioning of the height of the virtual camera in CG environment. In order for the "UA175" aircraft seen in the "Nose Dive" video to exhibit an apparent 4.5 degree pitch down angle the virtual camera would have to be placed well over 1500ft in the CG environment.

Please note that at the 2.0 second time code the Park Foreman video showed a pitch attitude of -2.5 degrees while the "Nose Dive" video showed a pitch attitude of -5 degrees.

We can conclude with a high degree of certainty that the Park Foreman / "Nose Dive" Video Time Code Analysis is demonstrating that the Park Foreman video and the "Nose Dive" video are showing two different events allegedly from the same time frame. This same conclusion can be drawn from the Anthony Cotsifas / "Nose Dive" Video Analysis. Both analyses represent impossible situations and are clear examples of the WTC2 media hoax.
-------------------------------------

Afterward

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 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 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 the forging standards of each respective party.

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 an explanation. 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" or a "small plane".

The reason why the establishment is trying to conceal the true nature of the WTC2 attack is because there was no United Airlines Boeing 767-200 impact with the WTC2 tower on the morning of 911.

911-UA175-Anthony Cotsifas Photograph - "Here's One I Made Earlier"

Anthony Cotsifas Photograph - "Here's One I Made Earlier"

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/

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 image pair.

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 (The CG Boeing 767-200 has not accounted for the shadow cast by the WTC1 smoke cloud and therefore the nose-tip is incorrectly illuminated, a know technical limitation of the Fs 2004 software).

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 of the ground let alone maintained straight and level flight with this wing 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 this 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 at least 100 knots over its operational airspeed limit directly into WTC2, it suddenly becomes obvious that the aircraft shown in this picture can not 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. The WTC towers 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.

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 video's.

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 evenly 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 video's of the UA175 aircrafts 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 only situation when the wings of a commercial jet could be seen flexing by a viewer on the ground would be when the jet was fully fueled and flying in turbulance.

A demonstration of this 'wing flexing' is the comparative United Airlines Boeing 767-200 image in the 'Computer Simulation' section at the beginning of this article. The real Boeing 767-200 aircraft is taking off and presumably has a substantial fuel load for the journey ahead. In this take-off phase of flight the wings will be heavy due to the fuel load and aerodynamically stressed due to the creation of additional lift that is needed for the aircraft to rise off the ground and to climb to altitude.

If you look closely at the real Boeing 767-200 in the image you will see some curvature of both wings in comparison to the CG model. This mild and evenly distributed wing flexing is quite different to what we see in the Anthony Cotsifas photograph and it gives the reader a real example of what 'wing flexing' looks like in reality.

The 'high speed dive recovery' argument or 'upward wing flexing' argument used by some is not based on the 'Principles of Flight' or any commercial flying experience and quickly falls apart when we consider the front view of the UA175 aircraft as filmed by 'Ronald Pordy'.
------------------------------------------------

Afterward

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 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 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 the forging standards of each respective party.

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 an explanation. 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" or a "small plane".

The reason why the establishment is trying to conceal the true nature of the WTC2 attack is because there was no United Airlines Boeing 767-200 impact with the WTC2 tower on the morning of 911. 

911-UA175-Robert Clark Photograph - "First Rate Fakery"

Robert Clark Photograph - "First Rate Fakery"
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/

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' off 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.
-------------------------------------

Afterward

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 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 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 the forging standards of each respective party.

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 an explanation. 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" or a "small plane".

The reason why the establishment is trying to conceal the true nature of the WTC2 attack is because there was no United Airlines Boeing 767-200 impact with the WTC2 tower on the morning of 911.

911-UA175-Carmen Taylor Digital Photograph

Carmen Taylor Digital Photograph - "Revenge Of The Money Shot"

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 field the UA175 aircraft has a partially missing tail fin and slightly fading port wing / port elevator.

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 3 or 4 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 sources and stills photography. Other CNN footage, taken from Brooklyn Heights, shows a near straight horizontal entry attitude and no last-instant 'pulling up' of nose of the alleged 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. Pod issues will be discussed later on in 'The Pod Illusion De-bunked' section of this article.
-----------------------------------------------

Afterward

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 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 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 the forging standards of each respective party.

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 an explanation. 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" or a "small plane".

The reason why the establishment is trying to conceal the true nature of the WTC2 attack is because there was no United Airlines Boeing 767-200 impact with the WTC2 tower on the morning of 911.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Afterward

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 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 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 the forging standards of each respective party.

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 an explanation. 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" or a "small plane".

The reason why the establishment is trying to conceal the true nature of the WTC2 attack is because there was no United Airlines Boeing 767-200 impact with the WTC2 tower on the morning of 911.

911-UA175-Hezarkhani video+Rob Howard photograph

Michael Hezarkhani Video / CNN Best Angle
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/
"The Money Shot Files For Bankruptcy"

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 produced the 'pipe' illusion that is attributed by some 911 researchers to the phenomena of 'specular highlights'. The pipe illusion has in fact been caused by an unpainted section of the underside of the aircrafts fuselage. This reflective stripe is thus part of the aircrafts livery. The reason specular highlights wouldn't explain the pipe illusion is because the camera is in the wrong position to receive these specular highlights.

I decided to reproduce the 'nose contact' frame and scale the images by using the tower's width for a comparative visual analysis. During the creation of this image set I found it impossible to orientate the POSKY model to match the Hezarkhani nose contact frame without betraying almost every other image of the UA175 aircraft shown in photographs or video. For some reason the Hezarkhani 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 3 degrees positive pitch and 35 degrees port bank. These bank and pitch datums are inconsistent with datums obtained from more accurate sources, like the Brooklyn Heights Photograph (41 degree bank angle with 1 degree negative pitch) and the Evan Fairbanks video (11 degrees yaw) for example:

It is conceivable that the alleged pilot of the UA175 aircraft could have pulled up hard at the last moment and this caused the sharp change in attitude seen in the film, but then this new attitude is contradicted by other UA175 images of this same moment in time as just mentioned. 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 Boeing 767-200 to say the least and a clear 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 looks 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 towers 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):

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.


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', 'chroma keying', '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 aircrafts airframe appears to decrease in size as it flies away from the camera, which is what we would expect from 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 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? Why does the sound track have faulty 'Doppler' shift? Why is there a multi-coloured cloud of what looks like compression artefacts around the UA175 aircrafts fuselage?

For conclusive proof that the Michael Hezarkhani video is fraudulent please refer to the 'Rob Howard' section of this article. 

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

Rob Howard Photograph - "Produce of Popular Mechanics"

The Der Spiegel image (below) has been attributed to a man named Rob Howard (freelance photographer, WTC eyewitness and Popular Mechanics consultant on the 911 Conspiracy) and is rumoured by some to be a fake.

I've noticed that the airframe illumination in this image differs from other UA175 images. The small shadow cast by the starboard engine nacelle on the underside of the starboard wing suggests that the sun was no more than 10 degrees above the horizon when in reality it was approximately 27 degrees above the horizon. By contrast the Brooklyn Heights photograph, taken within a fraction of a second of the Der Spiegel image and with the same bank angle, suggests a relatively higher sun angle with its almost completely shadowed port wing and port tail fin, not to mention a starboard engine nacelle shadow that almost completely covers the starboard wing fairing.

I have introduced motion blur and the 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, blade antenna...etc...etc...?

Independent research in 2009 has verified the airframe illumination anomaly mentioned previously. The image below shows the appropriate shadowing for the bank angle exhibited by the Rob Howard UA175 and the suns position in the sky at the time of the WTC2 event. The engine shadow has been outlined in red. Note that the shadow extends over the starboard wing fairing:

The Michael Hezarkhani video (below right) shows the same lighting anomaly as the Rob Howard photograph (below left). Please note that the Michael Hezarkhani frame used here was taken at the same time as the Rob Howard photograph was allegedly taken, that being about 0.5 seconds to impact with WTC2.

Consequently both the Michael Hezarkhani video and the Rob Howard photograph should be considered fakes because they imply that the suns position in the sky was significantly lower than it actually was at the time. 

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

Letsroll911 Image - "Let's Roll Another"

This image uncovered by Phil Jayhan of Letsroll911 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 Letsroll911 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 Letsroll911 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.

911-UA175-NOVA Video - "A Very Perculiar Aeroplane"

NOVA Video - "A Very Perculiar Aeroplane"
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/

This section is rather lengthy so let's start by stating that most of the images here have been processed using Photoshop utilizing primarily the Focus Magic plug-in for Photoshop. I've also used the standard functions in Photoshop along with the Quantum Mechanic and the Neat Image plug-ins. To begin with, relevant fields of the UA175 aircraft and WTC2 tower were extracted from the NOVA DVD 'Why The Towers Fell'.

These extracted fields of the UA175 aircraft and WTC2 tower were composited in Photoshop allowing us to see the entire airframe in relation to the WTC2 tower. The image below shows the result of a basic enhancement using the 'fix motion blur' function from the Focus Magic plug-in and the 'levels' function native to Photoshop. The motion blur correction factor was gauged using the tail section and the starboard wing collectively:

With the motion blur removed we can now see a much clearer and sharper airframe. The elongated marking on the front of the fuselage that some people believe to be a missile turns out to be a circular luminescent patch. The motion blur makes the circular luminescent patch look longer and darker than it actually was in the uncorrected image. Please note that the dark patches adjacent to the circular luminescent patch are a function of a limitation in the video technology called 'ringing'. It is highly unlikely that these black markings are actually as real as they appear to be.

With a basic level of enhancement established we can resolve the NOVA UA175 impact sequence in its entirety. In the contact sheet below motion blur was removed across each individual image and the 'levels' were optimized across the entire composite:

Comparative visual examination of the NOVA UA175 aircraft reveals a shorter wing chord length and relative forward positioning of the wings. The nose tip is more reminiscent of a torpedo than an aircraft and the asymmetric tail section with its high sweep back angle aerofoils look like they have more in common with the aerodynamic stabilizers from an arrow or dart. There is the possibility that the wings are shorter than the wings on the Boeing 767-200 although this is speculative because it is difficult to accurately gauge the bank angle of the NOVA UA175 aircraft.

A technical analysis reveals that the fuselage trunk length of the NOVA UA175 aircraft is approximately 3.5 meters shorter than the 47.24 meter fuselage trunk length of the Boeing 767-200. This puts the NOVA UA175 fuselage trunk length at approximately 44 meters. The diameter of the NOVA UA175 aircrafts fuselage is approximately 4 meters, putting it just 1 meter short of the Boeing 767-200's fuselage width of 5.03 meters.

Further examination of the NOVA UA175 aircraft in comparison to the CG Boeing 767-200 exposes a host of discrete airframe and lighting anomalies. I've numbered theses anomalies from 1 to 9 in the image below:

1 - Circular luminescent circular patch toward the nose of the UA175 aircraft.

2 - False wing shadow on fuselage.

3 - Excessive sweep back angle on tail fin.

4 - Small and thin starboard tail plane section.

5 - Apparent tail fin logo.

6 - Excessive sweep back angle on port tail plane.

7 - Apparent symmetrical flattening and bulging of rear fuselage underside.

8 - Possible excessive sweep back angle of port wing.

9 - Incorrect sun illumination on fuselage.

The circular luminescent patch (1) could be a specular reflection from the fuselage:

But as you can see from the montage above, the reflection should be elongated rather than circular. Flight Simulators 'dynamic reflectivity' function produced highlights across the entire front section of the fuselage in a similar fashion as exhibited by the 3 United Airlines Boeing 767-200's shown below:

The circular luminescent patch doesn't even appear on the tapered section of fuselage. If you look closely it's on a straight section of fuselage so the reflection would have to be elongated. The circular luminescent patch also occurs on a point where the fuselage is in partial shadow (9) and consequently my conclusion is that the circular luminescent patch is not a specular reflection at all. It appears to be an independent source of light. Please note that the shadowing on the fuselage suggests that the sun was at a much higher position in the sky than it actually was at 9:03am in Manhattan on 911. It is conceivable that the dark underside of the fuselage is actually the aircrafts livery. If this is the case then the NOVA UA175 aircraft did not have a United Airlines livery. Instead it has a bland, grey livery with no prominent markings other than a possible logo on the tail fin (5).

For some reason the starboard wing of the NOVA UA175 aircraft seems to be casting an impossible square shadow (2) on the fuselage:

From this viewing angle the shadow should be triangular in appearance, starting at the rear of the wing root and making its way back to the top of the fuselage and then terminating at a point equidistant from the tail fin to the middle of the fuselage:

I could find no match for the sharp sweep back angle on tail fin (3) in other Boeing and Airbus models. This high sweep back angle is not a characteristic of the Boeing 767-200 at the same viewing angle and attitude of the aircraft seen in the video.

The starboard horizontal stabilizer (4) appears to be unusually thin in comparison to the port horizontal stabilizer (6) and has a different sweep back angle. The horizontal and vertical aerofoils at the rear of the NOVA UA175 aircraft (3, 4 and 6) bear no resemblance to the horizontal and vertical aerofoils of a Boeing 767-200.

The port horizontal stabilizer exhibits greater sweep back angle than the port horizontal stabilizer on the Boeing 767-200 and the port wing exhibits some sign of 'port wing anomaly' (8).

There is only one apparent similarity between the NOVA UA175 aircraft and a real Boeing 767-200 with a United Airlines livery and that is what appears to be a logo on the tail fin (5). Technically this should be impossible because the CG Boeing 767-200 indicates that the starboard elevator is obscuring the tail fin logo.

On the rear underside of the fuselage of the NOVA UA 175 aircraft we can see what seems to be symmetrical horizontal bloating and flattening of the fuselage (7). This is not a characteristic of the Boeing 767-200.

Having compared the composited NOVA UA175 aircraft to other Boeing and Airbus models I can conclude that this aircraft does not match models from either manufacturer, although the airframe bears a vague proportional resemblance to the Boeing 767-300 with its 53.67 meter fuselage trunk length. The NOVA UA175 aircraft is not any Boeing 737, the longest model being the Boeing 737-900 with an overall length of 42.11 meters.

In general the NOVA UA175 aircrafts asymmetric airframe is shorter than a Boeing 767-200, appears to have a different wing span to a Boeing 767-200, has a smaller fuselage diameter than a Boeing 767-200 and has different aerofoil positions on the fuselage to a Boeing 767-200. In other words the NOVA UA175 aircraft is not a Boeing 767-200 or any distinguishable aircraft thus making it a very peculiar aeroplane indeed.

No analysis of the NOVA video would be complete without the 'flash' frame. Due to difficulties enhancing the area around the flash I opted for nominal visual enhancement:

It is not possible to determine where the flash emanates from, but it does appear to be in close proximity to the circular luminescent patch and inside the shadow wedge being cast by the WTC2 tower over the aircrafts impact area. It is conceivable that the circular luminescent patch and the flash are related in some way.

The flash appears in other UA175 aircraft videos although most of these videos seem to be fake and the shape of the flash in them is different to the shape of the flash in the NOVA video. At the present time the cause of the flash remains is open to speculation.

The set up of the NOVA camera shot is quite different from other UA175 impact videos. The grey deformed UA175 aircraft only just makes it into frame and the video camera angle suggests that WTC1 was the focus of the subject. The recording of the UA175 aircraft in the NOVA video looks genuinely fortuitous while showing no obvious signs of forgery or manipulation:

If the NOVA video is fake then why did the forgers insert the wrong aeroplane into the video, especially one that doesn't look like any kind of aircraft at all. Other fake UA175 videos show a more convincing aircraft than this, like the Park Foreman video as a good example.

Whatever the NOVA UA175 aircraft is, it is not the same aircraft we see in the Live Video, the Robert Clark Photograph or the CNN Best Angle Video. In fact, the NOVA UA175 aircraft is quite unique and stands out from all the other supposed UA175 aircraft videos or photographs.
----------------------------------------------------------

Afterward

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 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 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 the forging standards of each respective party.

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 an explanation. 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" or a "small plane".

The reason why the establishment is trying to conceal the true nature of the WTC2 attack is because there was no United Airlines Boeing 767-200 impact with the WTC2 tower on the morning of 911.