IPage



Summary of Evidence which Suggests

Destruction at WTC was not

Caused by Plane Plane Crashes

Physical Evidence

1 Tire/Landing Gear

A number of Items of Physical Evidence are not consistent with the stories of Planes Crashing at the WTC

|[pic] |[pic] |

|Figure 1: Landing gear amid dust, adjacent to old scaffolding, not on a |Figure 2: Landing gear amid dust, adjacent to old scaffolding, not on a |

|street corner, close to curb, just left of the mid-point of a dusty |street corner, close to curb, just left of the mid-point of a dusty |

|Greco-Roman pillar lying in the gutter. |Greco-Roman pillar lying in the gutter.  The crime-scene ribbon is |

| |oriented differently and the axel hanging over the curb more than in Fig.|

| |1. |

|[pic] |[pic] |

|Figure 3: Landing gear on a dust-free street corner near shiny new |Figure 4: Landing gear in new photo op: tire looks in better health, no |

|scaffolding, set back from the curb and no Greco-Roman pillar visible. The |extensive dust, new scaffolding, further from the corner, further forward|

|tire and brakes look different too.  Note the failure surface of the |toward the top of a dust-free Greco-Roman pillar. |

|shaft.  It's sharp, not appearing to have bounced around on the pavement.  | |

|It also appears to be a torsion failure.  How can an explosion cause that? | |

|How can the rubber have survived the fireball of the crash? | |

|[pic] |[pic] |

|Figure 5:  This piece also under scaffolding. How did the engine survive |Figure 6:  And yet another view of the tire/landing gear. |

|the crash and why is there no impact crater? | |

|[pic] |

|Figure 7:  How can aluminum and light materials crash through solid steel girders? |

|What would happen if you fired a .44 Magnum bullet (denser and faster than a Boeing) at a steel girder? |

|[pic] |

|Figure 8: Piece of Fuselage on TOP WTC 5 (Photo taken 25 Oct 2001). How did it survive the “shredding” and fireball? |

2 Can a passenger jet fly 500 mph at 700 feet altitude?

The airplane's total drag determines the amount of thrust required at a given airspeed. Thrust must equal drag in steady flight. The equation used to calculate drag, D, is:

[pic]

|D | Drag (the density of the air) |

|V | velocity of the air (air speed) |

|S | surface area of the aircraft |

|CD | coefficient of drag |

The coefficient of drag is calculated based on the angle of attack and shape of the aircraft. The angle of attack is the angle between the direction of the wing (chord line) and the relative wind of the aircraft. —Dan Johnston source

Using a standardized weather conditions table, air density (rho) at 35,000 feet altitude is less than 35% of that at 1,000 feet (1.1 kg/m3 at 1000' vs. 0.0082 kg/m3). Expressed another way, air density at 1,000' is about 3 times greater than at 35,000'. (notes courtesey of Morgan Reynolds)

Thrust would have to be 3 times greater than at 35,000 feet.

Video Fakery EVIDENCE

When the videos of the plane crashes are analysed closely, anomalies quickly come to light. A few are described here.

1 Did The Digital Plane Image Decelerate at WTC 2?

By Rick Rajter

One of the major oddities of all WTC2 videos is the apparent lack of plane deceleration from many of the observed camera angles. The plane seems to fly in effortlessly, but then comes to a complete stop while inside (apparently violating conservation of momentum and energy). To the layman, these two conservation laws mean we should expect TWO major sources of slowdown when one object penetrates another:

• Energy is lost via dissipation as the intruding object breaks and destroys the impacted area into smaller pieces

• Energy is transferred to the broken pieces in the form of kinetic energy or gained velocity.

A quick example: If I throw a baseball through a window, the dissipation of energy occurs in breaking the big piece into little pieces and velocity gained by little pieces as they fly away from the original window location. The kinetic energy of the ball is a finite supply used up as these two processes occur. At UA flight 175's alleged impact speeds (estimated anywhere between 500-600 mph depending upon the source), a 767 speeding at reasonably full weight would have some 4 billion joules of KE for consideration.

Considering that KE energy is a finite source to draw from, a key question arises: "Do the videos show deceleration, or are zero deceleration claims hogwash?" To the best of our knowledge, Stefan Grossman (presumably helped by Marcus Icke) did the first numbered, reproducible frame-by-frame analysis of the flight 175 image. Using the Fairbanks video, Grossman calculates a zero percent deceleration. In fact, as the plane enters the building, some frames appear to show a slight acceleration. This is most bizarre and must be either a 1) measurement error on Grossman's behalf or 2) a creation error on the TV-fakery side. Reality, of course, makes acceleration impossible. I personally think it is a measurement error from a single frame, as this acceleration frame comes right after a deceleration frame. Thus, if this one data point is an error, it implies an offsetting error in an adjacent frame, given the fixed aggregate time budget.

Eric Salter followed with his own analysis and claimed 13% deceleration based on frame-by-frame study using one of the 2-3 Fairbanks video variants. One of the suspicious facts about the Fairbanks video(s) is that the FBI had possession of them before they went public.

There is a major flaw in Salter's analysis. He used an overlay or "trace" to match the blurry 767 image to judge its speed. The problem is that it is hard to match a wide-line trace or outline of a plane against a blurry plane image with real consistency.

Salter is inconsistent in choosing an anchor point to locate his trace against the video plane image. When the image is outside the building, Salter anchors the trace at the main wings. After the plane is mostly inside the building, Salter switches and anchors the trace at the back of the tail wing. The trace never matches the image perfectly: outside the building "excess" tail wing shows to the left of the outline, but inside the building, this excess disappears. Therefore, Salter artificially slows down his plane trace yet the plane blur goes off ahead and Voila! Deceleration falsely established.

|[pic] |[pic] |

|Figure 9 – Plane Motion Analysis |Figure 10 - Plane Motion Analysis |

For my own analysis, I decided to use the widely known Scott Myers camera pictures, so I didn't have to worry about compression issues, frame rates, etc. I found the highest resolution version I could get my hands on in order to minimize loss or measurement precision. The 15-picture spread was (allegedly) taken using fixed 0.033 second intervals, features a nearly fixed camera angle, and has a fairly decent contrast on key plane features. Thus, it is perfectly suited for frame-by-frame analysis, one of the best videos in terms of high signal-to-noise ratio.

Using photoshop, I took all 15 sections and placed them in one layered PSD file. I then ran a series of difference filters on each neighboring pair of frames to ensure camera positioning on the pictures had not been altered and that they were in perfect registery (by contrast in the Salter analysis, the WTC wall moves from frame to frame). A few pictures had to be moved left one pixel in order to be in closer registry to frame one. No frames were moved up, down, or right by any amount.

I used four different locations on the plane (two pre-impact positions and two post-impact positions). Of the pre-impact positions, the fuselage glare is the easiest to define, but the front of the nose also provides robust numbers and a good sanity check (reduces subjectivism). Using unaltered/un-enlarged pictures, a pixels per second average of two pre-impact locations yield a mean of 29 pixels per frame with a standard deviation of 0.6 with a sample size of 6.

|[pic] |[pic] |

|Figure 11 - Plane Motion Analysis (a) |Figure 12 - Plane Motion Analysis (b) |

The post-impact speeds were calculated in the same manner, but using two different locations on the back tail. Interestingly enough, the speeds calculated here on the best matching data points show a 29.0 pixels per frame outside the building with a standard deviation of 0.6 and sample size of 6 versus 29.6 inside the building with a standard deviation of 0.5 with a sample size of 5. In other words, I found 4% acceleration.

Can it be measurement error? It is possible, but I was analyzing under 8X magnification. But playing devil's advocate, let's look at a worst-case scenario. Suppose I made a 1-pixel error on EVERY measurement (perhaps I drank too much coffee and was too jittery with the mouse). That would give me an average pre-impact speed of 30 pixels/frame and a post-impact speed of 28.6 pixels/frame.

That implies a 4.6% decrease in the average velocity. Average velocity is (V_final - V_initial)/2, so that means the actual instantaneous velocity at the end of the interval would be an absolute maximum slowdown of 9%.

The endpoints of my calculations then are acceleration of 4% and deceleration of 4.6%. But the assumptions underlying the latter are severe. A more reasonable adjustment yields a middle ground estimate. The most I would be off in favor of acceleration is 0.5 pixel per interval. If so, then the maximum slowdown would be 2-2.5%.

A 2.5% loss of velocity means 95% of original KE is still avilable. If we assume 4 billion joules is a reasonable estimate of the energy pre-impact, then the plane would still have 3.8 billion joules after entering.

To double-check, I blew the frames up by 8X using adobe photoshops standard interpolation function, which gives me more precision measuring differences in pixels between the frames. This analysis, giving generous concessions to the deceleration crowd, gives a 3% instantaneous velocity slow down. In short, magnification produces no difference from the un-enlarged analysis.

In summary, if there was deceleration, it was trivial.

2 Evan Fairbanks Video

and

here is a selection of 12 frames from the Evan Fairbanks video.

1) Notice the person in the bottom left of the frame has not looked up to hear the very loud noise of the plane.

2) Why is there no explosive fireball at all? How can the fuel in the wings and fuselage “wait to explode”?

3) Why are no pieces of plane debris breaking off and bouncing off the surface of the building and falling down?

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Figure 13: Frame Sequence from Evan Fairbanks Video

1 Peter Jennings interviews video photographer Evan Fairbanks.

Partial transcript:

PJ: ...watch how the aircraft penetrates the building. Go ahead. Completely in one side and out the other.

EF: It just disappears... disappears like a... like a bad special effect. It... disappeared right into the building. I've seen it six-seven times now and it's still uncomprehensible what is actually happening there. You're right, as a journalist, you have to take yourself away from it. And I'm... I'm still not there yet. And the more and more I see it and as time goes by..

PJ: Modern technology enables us to see horror, just as we are able to see sport in a variety of different speeds or at a variety of different speeds. And I think you now have a.. a better appreciation than we have had up until now, for which we... thank you Evan because... we see this.. we see exactly how determined somebody was to do this horrible damage taking a plane so powerfully and so fast in one side of the building (inaudible).... tell me tell me more... what it's... what it's been like for you today as uh... working the street.

2 Additional Testimony Regarding this video



"Over the head of the F.B.I. agent, who clearly does not see what is happening, a plane silently penetrates the other World Trade Center tower. The man's head reels out of the frame as he reacts to the crash. His head snaps back in time to watch the aftermath."

3 CNN/ABC Video

1) Why is there no explosive fireball at all? How can the fuel in the wings and fuselage “wait to explode”?

2) Why are no pieces of plane debris breaking off and bouncing off the surface of the building and falling down?

[pic]

[pic]

Figure 14: Frame Sequence from CNN Video

4 Chopper 5 Study

Extracted from:

1 Observations - Raw Video

On first viewing, the video appears to be a typical news helicopter shot, albeit of an extraordinary news event. It originates from WNYW in New York, and is being fed to a local Channel 11 station on the west coast. It appears to be a live helicopter shot of the twin towers, with graphics overlays of the WNYW logo, Channel 11 logo, time, temperature, etc. Studying the Chopper 5 video reveals several curious observations.

The helicopter is over New Jersey, about 4 miles west of the twin towers. Although the twin towers are the news story of the century, evidently the pilot is happy with his location, as the helicopter does not appear to be heading toward the towers at all. The video begins with a wide angle shot, then zooms in, almost all the way. After holding this zoom setting for a moment, the camera operator then zooms the rest of the way in. Within 3 frames of this final zoom, flight 175 enters the picture from the right side. This is quite a coincidence in timing. The actual plane impact is not visible, as the south (impact) face of the tower is angled slightly away from the camera. The plane disappears into the building with no apparent damage to itself or the tower, then appears to begin exiting from behind the tower on the opposite side. The video feed (but not the graphic overlay) fades to black very quickly after this.

On one particular frame, frame #7 in my study, the airplane appears to show clear signs of having been pasted. Notice the "pixel halo" around the nose.

[pic]

Here is the same frame with brightness and contrast adjusted, and the pixel halo becomes even more obvious. In fact, it appears that a portion of the fuselage, under the tip of the nose, was erased. Also notice that the air behind the wings is considerably more pink than the background.

[pic]

On approach, the plane appears to speed up and slow down repeatedly before hitting the tower. We know that the plane cannot speed up and slow down so quickly in reality, according to Newton's first law. However, the apparent changes in velocity could be explained by camera motion. In the Chopper 5 video, the plane travels from right to left, but during this time, the camera angle also pans from right to left, mostly, with a somewhat random action. This would have the effect of reducing the apparent velocity of the airplane, in a somewhat random fashion. Fortunately, the video contains fixed objects, the twin towers, so it is possible to stabilize the video, and then analyze it as if there had been no camera movement to contaminate the motion of the plane. 

[pic]

2 Observations - Stabilized Video

Stabilizing the video amplified the instability of the airplane velocity.

[pic]

The plane appears to speed up and slow down repeatedly. It varies from a maximum of 27 pixels/frame (629 mph) down to a minimum of 19 pixels/frame (443 mph). Upon hitting the tower, the plane appears to slow down drastically. Then, during the entry into the building, it appears to speed up just as drastically.

Following entry the plane disappears inside the tower. The disappearance lasts for 9 frames (.3 sec), after which what appears to be the nose of the airplane begins to exit the opposite side of the building, coming from behind the building. This event has become known as "Pinocchio's Nose".

Pinocchio's nose also appears to slow down and speed up. An initial velocity of 10 pixels/frame (233 mph) is measured, after which the nose decelerates down to 4 pixels/frame (93 mph). Then, it appears to accelerate back up to 8 pixels/frame (186 mph), decelerate again, and accelerate again.

There are two fade-out frames, the first being about 10% faded down, the second about 50% faded down to black. The second fade frame depicts the airplane nose-cone and an explosion flame. This flame appears in front of the airplane nose-cone. The fade-out frames are followed by many frames (about 1 second) of complete black. When the video fades back up to picture, no trace of the plane remains.

Plane Wake Vortex Consideration

As a plane flies through the air, it creates a “Wake Vortex” – much as an object does if it is pushed through water (try it in your bath!). The characteristic “swirling effect” is illustrated below.

|[pic] |[pic] |

|Figure 15: Wake Vortex |Figure 16: Wingtip vortex is relatively stable and can persist for several |

| |minutes. |

|[pic] |

|Figure 17: Naudet 1st hit explosion. Where is the Wake vortex? |

|Why isn’t it visible in the smoke around the explosion? |

Witness Account Evidence

1 Witness Accounts in NY Times Oral Histories of 1st Responders

1 Witness Account Sample

The words “plane jet airplane aircraft” were found in 426 accounts, 1770 times. The final account Sample Size was used for the “Witnesses to a plane” study was 291. A few of those who simply described seeing the impacts on TV were left out, but some were included – the main focus of the study was on those who were close to where the 2nd impact happened.

16 witnesses reported seeing the 1st plane before impact and 16 witnesses reported hearing the 1st plane before impact but only 1 Witness reported clearly seeing and hearing plane 1 before impact.

I managed to establish that at least 96 witnesses were near the WTC (with ½ a mile) at the time of 2nd impact and a further 21 witnesses were inside one of the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact. This gave a total of 117 witnesses who were near or the Inside WTC buildings at the time of 2nd impact.

• Only 19 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing plane 2 before impact and, as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 20%.

• Only 20 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 21%.

• Only 8 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing and hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 8.3%.

• Of those witnesses inside one of the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact, only 2 reported hearing the plane (none saw it). As a percentage of the total of those inside WTC, this was 9.5%.

• There were 117 witnesses inside or near the WTC and 291 witnesses in the total sample I used. The percentages given below, then, are therefore based on the number 291 – 117 giving a total of 174.

• There were 33 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported seeing plane 2 before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 19%.

• There were 2 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported hearing plane 2 before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 1.1%.

2 “I Wasn’t Initially Sure it Was A Plane”

Quite a few witnesses were not at all sure that large planes had been responsible for the damage at the WTC. Accounts where they said “I didn’t realize it was a plane at the time” or “I only realized later it was a plane” were studied. Due to the different ways witnesses described being unsure about the true nature of the crash, it was difficult to pick out keywords to find these accounts. (Most of these accounts were discovered in reading them for other parts of this study.) Time limitations may have prevented finding them all.

A number of witnesses reported that they didn’t realize that the second impact was that of a plane – many of them “found out later”. This is in direct contradiction to those who reported to seeing plane parts, engine parts and landing gear. For example, from the account of Patricia Ondrovic (File No: 9110048):

I saw a police captain that I knew, and he came out to me. He looked absolutely terrified, he was shaking, he was pale, he was sweating. I looked at him, I said what's wrong? He said there's another plane headed our way, and they just blew up the Pentagon. I said, another plane? What are you talking about? I hadn't realized that planes had hit this, I thought they just set bombs off. I didn't realize when I got there that planes hit it. I said, what do you mean another plane? He said two planes hit the World Trade Center. So I'm thinking a little Cessena. How can a little Cessena do all that damage? He said no, 757s. I said big things? See I was there for about 25 minutes before I knew that planes had crashed into this.

Similarly, the account of EMT David Timothy (File No. 9110156) expressed some doubt that he saw a plane.

The next thing I heard was a loud like an engine roar. I looked up, and the next thing I knew I just saw -- I don't know if it was the tail end of the plane or what, but I saw something. When I looked up, I heard ‘boom’. I'm sorry, the north tower was the first one. The south tower then got hit when we were right there.

Perhaps even more significant was where 2 witnesses who were standing next to each other, initially, did not agree upon the idea of a plane crash. From the account of Scott Holowach (File No: 9110114)

At that time Chief Ganci was behind me and he thought there was another explosion in the north tower and that's when I turned around and said Chief, listen, there is a second plane that hit the other tower. He was like no no no no, we have another explosion. I said no, Chief, I witnessed it. I watched the plane hit the other tower. He is like are you sure. I said Chief, I'm 100 hundred percent positive I watched the second plane hit the other tower.

3 Witnesses Mention a Missile

There was some additional confusion and rumours circulating about the nature of any planes involved. From the account of Anthony Bartolomey (File No: 9110013)

Q. When you arrived there, did any civilians report anything to you?

A. Yes. Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Leer jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building.

There are other instances of this type of confusion. The account of Peter Fallucca (File No: 9110388) mentions a “fireball or something” and a missile attack as witnessed by a police officer:

It was a big fireball or something from the plane I guess, came from across the street in front of our rig, and as we get out of the rig, there's a cop, city police officer, in the street. He's telling us, "I'm getting out of here. I just saw a rocket." He said he saw it come off the Woolworth Building and hit the tower.

Landing Gear and Tires

There were over 10 different reports of Landing Gear being found. Some of these put the Landing Gear on Vesey Street, West Street, in a Parking Lot (which may be on West or Vesey Street), in a Jacuzzi, on top of a woman or in Rector Street. From the account of Dean Coutsouros (File No: 9110049)

…we got in front of 90 West Street, we held up there for a few minutes underneath the scaffolding to reassess the situation, how we were going to get into the building. There was all kinds of human debris. The landing gear of the aircraft was in that parking lot there. There was all kinds of stuff all over the floor.

From the account of John Breen (File No: 9110321)

We did see part of -- I didn't see it, but Jeff Johnson told me later on he did see part of the landing gear actually fell right through the roof and it was in one of the Jacuzzis in another room.

With 4 apparently separate reports of aircraft landing gear or tires being found in different locations, it is difficult to believe that these the tires genuinely could have survived the crash. For example, from the account of Steve Grabher (File No: 9110241):

We came right down West Street, down here. We couldn't get too close, because by the time we got near 2 World Trade Center people were jumping off the roof like crazy. Landing near the hotel and the street was littered with body parts. I don't know if it was from the plane or what. But there was just body parts all over the place. Chunks of meat. I saw an airplane tire. I walked past an airplane tire. What looked like an airplane tire. Again we were looking up the whole time.

The sightings of luggage and suitcases do not seem to be explainable – how could such items survive the enormous impact and fireball, which is said to have been sufficient to destroy the WTC’s structural integrity?

2 Redacted Testimony in NY Times Collection

Patricia Ondrovic’s testimony, mentioned earlier, contains redacted portions and there were a number of other portions discovered in this research, and there are almost certainly others. Having used the file searching software, it would suggest there are redactions in at least 46 accounts. One can understand why certain parts of certain accounts may be obscured – perhaps so as not to cause upset to relatives of victims or where they might reveal certain small points of sensitive information. However, suspicions should be raised in the cases where significant portions of accounts were redacted, such as those of Rene Davila (over 10 pages in File No: 9110075) and Ronald Coyne (over 4 pages in File No: 9110395).

3 Witness Accounts in News Reports

National Review has this quote: “I saw it," he says, "It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb — uh, a missile. This could be World War III."

The BBC reports: I distinctly remember somebody saying: “A missile just hit the trade center, I saw a missile hit.”

According to a CNN transcript, a reporter said (from midtown): a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. An eyewitness also states: I had no idea it was a plane. I just saw the entire top part of the World Trade Center explode. So I turned on the TV when I heard they said it was a plane. It was really strange.

Comments on NIST Plane Crash Animations

1 Plane Animation 1

[pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic]

2 Plane Animation 2

[pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download