911Review.com critiques "'Flight 11' Revisited"source
This article, from Serendipity.li, attempts to convince the reader that the damage to the North Tower was not produced by the crash of a Boeing 767 -- the kind of jet that Flight 11 was.
'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.
Yes there is hard evidence in the form of photos and videos that documents the true nature of the crime: the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7. But Spencer will only look at photos of the plane crashes in order to distract the reader from considering that evidence.
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.
Does anyone actually buy this stuff?
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).
To Spencer, blotches due to the film grain are "distinctive circular rose-patterned indentations".
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.
Squint your eyes and you too may see the "series of cylindrical devices arranged along a long spindle or drive shaft". All it takes is a little imagination, and you can see a conspiracy behind every artifact.
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%.
Spencer expects the reader to ignore the difference between the appearance of the aluminum cladding (which is clearly visible) and the actual steel columns behind them (which are much less visible and damaged over a smaller area).
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.
To Spencer, a single eyewitness saying that they thought Flight 11 was a commuter jet (no doubt because of the deceptively small appearance of the jetliner relative to the vast towers), and the Fireman's Video (that shows an object matching the dimensions of a 767), "confirm" it was a much smaller plane.
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.
FEMA's report is indeed fraudulent, in the way it misrepresents the construction of the buildings to sell its fictional explanation of the collapses. Spencer's assertion that the report is fraudulent about impact scars -- one of the most accurate parts of the report -- helps conceal the real fraud.
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.
Spencer buys the official pronouncements about the plane speeds, which aren't supported by any evidence. The higher speed of Flight 175 helps apologists for the fiction of the crash- and fire-induced collapses explain how its off-centered strike on the South Tower could have produced enough damage.
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.
In fact, there is a simple explanation for the greater magnitude of the North Tower crash consistent with the planes being the same size. Flight 11 hit the North Tower in a dead-centered fashion, embedding itself in the tower's core. In contrast, Flight 175's off-centered impact caused it to miss the core and much of the plane to exit the far corner of the tower. The North Tower impact transmitted much more of its force to the ground through the core that the South Tower impact did through the perimeter wall.
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.
The utter nonsense that fills this article, masquerading as a search for 9-11 truth, is a prime example of such cynical brainwashing.
Other articles on this website by the same author:
- The Incredible 9-11 Evidence We've All been Overlooking
- What Really Happened? A Critical Analysis of Carol Valentine's "Flight of The Bumble Planes" Hypothesis
- Reply to John Kaminski
- What Hit WTC2? Another Look at the Second Plane
- Attack on The Pentagon
See also Marcus Icke's Flight 11 Unveiled: The X-11 Drone.