|
|
|
9/11 - A Tale Of Missing Tails Nathanael On The goal of this analysis
is not to expose each and every bogus or misleading aspect of the BBC2
video. It will be to concentrate on a few key examples within this TV
show (it is not a fact based documentary) and let you decide whether
the series’ tagline - “Separating Fact From Fiction” -
is apt or just so much BBC-BS. If you have not yet watched
it, please do so now (viewed
here on Google video). In the downloading process please save a copy
to your hard drive and keep it open in a window on your computer. Certain
sections will be reviewed several times. From the very beginning, BBC2
uses numerous computer-generated recreations of what supposedly happened
(if not then why did they use them?) as indicative of what actually did
happen. Some of these recreations are provably false. The psychological
leverage or power these video images exert over the viewer is considerable,
prejudicial and arguably qualifies as brainwashing. Example #1 The Impact at the Pentagon The Introduction CGR As if flying in a chase plane,
the viewer has entered a Computer Generated
Recreation (CGR) immediately aft of a Boeing 757-200 headed
for the Pentagon. The image of the plane clearly shows the fuselage, the
vertical and horizontal stabilizer (the tail section) and both large turbofan
engines suspended under each wing. This CGR (at 25 frames to a second)
starts immediately after some comments by Alex Jones at 29 seconds and
13 frames. Pause the video during the comments of Alex Jones and use the
frame advance button to increment through this first 757-200 CGR. The
aft viewpoint of the plane continues until 31 seconds and 14 frames with
the plane still some distance (estimated to be at least 1 mile) from the
Pentagon when the image changes. The next viewpoint is from
inside on the ground floor of the Pentagon looking toward the outer wall
and at what will be the CGR impact point. The plane will be moving at
an angle from left to right. The first frame shows the beginning impact
of the exterior concrete wall (about midway between the first and second
floors) with a small amount of concrete fragments exploding inward. Please
note that this CGR fails to represent any of the windows that are part
of the Pentagon’s exterior wall. The second frame from the
viewpoint within the Pentagon shows some slight, additional penetration
of the exterior wall along with a dramatic flash, which is fully on both
sides of the impact point. That flash appears to be shining through or
from within the concrete wall and illuminates all of the local columns
in the field of view of the Introduction CGR. The second frame
shows no flame front having penetrated the interior of the Pentagon. The
second frame shows no visible penetration of the exterior wall by the
nose of the aircraft. The second frame does not show any flame front on
the outside of the exterior wall as though it was being viewed through
its windows. At the third frame, a flame
front begins to spread. From the third frame forward through the next
38 frames, the CGR obscurely represents the incremental progress of the
supposed 757-200 fuselage and the assumed right wing as they progress
through the Pentagon and are shredded. The FedGov official story
has the plane impacting at the ground floor of the Pentagon. This Introductory
CGR appears to contain all of the physical damage and the flame front
between the ground floor and the second floor with no damage being indicated
to the floor structure immediately above the ground floor. Okay so is there anything
wrong with the implicit assumptions as visibly represented in this Introduction
CGR video sequence? Yes. Part 1. According to
Boeing (click
here then technical specs - exterior - 757-200 passenger), a 757-200’s
fuselage has an exterior diameter of 12’4”. The bottom of the
wing blends into the bottom of the fuselage just about tangent. The turbofan
engines hang below the slightly upward tilting wings. The turbofan engine
nacelles have an exterior diameter of about 8’. The
engines of the 757-200 each weigh from 8,000 to 10,000 pounds and are
located about 25 feet left and right from the center of
the fuselage. The engine nacelles extend about 10 feet in front
of the leading edge of the wings. The lowest point of the engine nacelles
is about 4 feet below the lowest point of the airplane fuselage.
Therefore, if the nose of the 757-200 had crashed into the
Pentagon above the ground floor and below the floor immediately above
as shown in the Introduction CGR, then prior to impact
with the exterior wall the engines would have dug into the ground. Consequently,
the engines would have been ripped from the wings or the wings being sheared
off at the engine mounting points with either event releasing considerable
fuel before any theoretical wing impact with the exterior
wall. The wadded up turbofan engines would have likely been stuffed into
8’ plus wide gouges into the Pentagon lawn well before the exterior
wall with recognizable wing remains scattered left and right of the impact
point on the outside of the exterior wall. There were no
scars in the lawn of the Pentagon from the engines or the fuselage. There
were no large diameter turbofan engines recovered from the Pentagon explosion.
Part 2. Assuming the
maximum theoretical conditions, the 757-200 was traveling at approximately
500 miles per hour, which converts to … 500 mph x 5280 feet per mile
/ 3600 seconds per hour / 25 frames per second = 29.3 feet per frame.
Returning to the viewpoint from inside the Pentagon, the second frame
shows no appreciable penetration from the nose of the airplane and yet
there is a widespread, bright flash. The fuel in a 757-200 is stored
in right
and left wing tanks and a center tank underneath the passenger compartment,
which is immediately between the two wing tanks. There is no fuel in the
fuselage forward of the wing roots. The wing roots, which intersect with
the fuselage, are about 60 feet behind tip of the nose. Assuming that
the recently steel reinforced concrete exterior walls offered no resistance
in slowing down the progress of the plane, the earliest possible arrival
of the right wing and it’s fuel tanks against the exterior wall would
be at frame four, at least two frames away. If the flash and fire did
not originated from the jet fuel, then from what source? The Introduction CGR
includes images and video representations that are in direct conflict
with the physical evidence, forensic analysis and laws of physics.
Multiple CGR’s and Animated 3D CAD Images of
the Pentagon The BBC2 video admits at index
Consider the transcript from
a CNN reporter at the Pentagon soon after the impact, which can be viewed here.
“From my close
up inspection there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere
near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that
is crashed in and as I said the only pieces left that you can see are
small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail
section, wing section … uh … fuselage, nothing like that anywhere
around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side
of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. Now, even though
you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have
all collapsed, that did not happen immediately. It wasn’t until almost
about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all
the floors collapsed.” At time index Please bear with the following
techno-speak, as it will help uncover crucial inconsistencies woven into
in the BBC2 TV Show. During time sequence that
starts at There is another category
of CAD representation known as Solid Modeling. This is a complete, virtual
representation of the object. Full 3D material properties are assigned
through out all of its components. Solid Models can be animated as well
but involve considerably more computer processing power to do so. The
computer crash testing of new automobiles is a type of Solid Model animation.
The first image at index The BBC narrator mentions
that the Pentagon was modeled with its interior supporting columns. The
image then shifts to that of bearded man pictured with two video screens,
center-left with a CGR of a 757 at impact point with the Pentagon and
center-right with a wire frame of an aircraft with fuselage, wing, tail
section and no engines. The man is a Professor Chris Hoffman from The video then jumps to first
portion of the Introduction CGR, aft of the 757-200 vertical stabilizer,
as shown at the beginning of the BBC TV Show. At about time index Why the change of perspective?
Why the distant view from above with the wings being barely discernible?
Why not show the impact with the Pentagon within the last CGR?
From this high overhead view,
time index 23:17 and frame 0, the wings of the plane now become visible
in a shade of brown but there are no engines shown on either wing. Each
engine is about 8’ diameter and sticks out 10’
feet in front of the wing leading edge. The diameter of the fuselage
is about 12’4. If there were any engines were in this CGR,
they would have to be visible. Time index This high overhead CGR continues
until time index At time index 23:18 and frame
25, the image changes back to Professor Hoffman who is standing in front
of a zoomed view of the high overhead CGR mentioned above. The right wing
has penetrated the exterior wall and fire has broken out along the wing’s
full length. At time index At time index 23:27 and frame
4, another new CGR comes in view with the viewpoint elevated and the 757-200
is moving from the upper left to the lower right. The upper floors of
the structure have been melted away with the bottom floor and stubbed
out columns being shown. It is the lower floor because to the right one
can see into the other levels of the structure looking somewhat like a
parking garage. In this CGR both of the large turbofan engines are
clearly visible and proportional to the rest of the aircraft.
The progress of the 757-200
continues until about index At index At index At index 23:33 and frame 1,
the video shifts back to Professor Hoffman standing in front of a still
image of the above CGR with the right wing just having fully penetrated
the exterior wall. He says the following: “All this talk
about why is the hole so small and really when you think about it and
you see how the plane is cut up you will realize that it is not necessarily
the plane that does the damage but the fuel and the mass of the liquid.” The size of the impact hole
is not a result of the fuel and the mass of the liquid. Hoffman does not
answer his own question - “Why is the impact hole so small?”
- but instead explains the major cause of the overall damage. It is not
a direct answer but a dodge or deflection. Hoffman’s comments continue
until index The BBC video changes images
again to what is apparently a color, 3D CAD wire frame image of a 757-200
having come to rest within the bowels of the Pentagon. The point of view
is above and quartering to the right of the strewn airplane debris. The
point of view slowly rotates around in front and to the left side of the
debris field until index 24:08 and frame 1. The vertical and horizontal
stabilizers have been rendered in a light green color and lying 1-2 column
lines within the exterior wall. The last vantage point shows the vertical
portion of the tail to be essentially intact. The left and right
horizontal portions of the tail are recognizable and have been sheared
into major pieces. The left and right wing are in numerous small pieces
scattered about in the crash trajectory of the wing. From index 24:06 to 24:23
Professor Hoffman makes these comments: “What surprised
me was the emotional pitch of the controversy in particular. We got some
rather … drastic email that accused us of being agents of the government
and that we were prostituting ourselves to help them cover up all sorts
of extraordinary things that were surmised and we could not understand
that.” Can you imagine anyone thinking
that about Professor Hoffman? One wonders how much research and grant
money Let’s try and cover a
few of the major internal contradictions and confusions sown by the BBC2
video in just the above described 1 minute and 44 seconds. ·
The last words of the BBC narrator at time index ·
The airplane in one CGR is shown to have impacted above the
ground floor and below the second. This is in visual contradiction with
a later CGR. The physical dimensions of the 757-200 make it impossible
for the engines to be above the ground and not have the nose of the fuselage
impact at or considerably above the floor immediately above the ground
floor. ·
It is virtually impossible for a 757-200 to be flying at 500
mph, wings level and with the lower edges of the engines just skimming
above the ground. There is a massive increase (wing
in ground effect) to the wing lift when traveling that close to ground
and especially at high speed. This lifting effect is the reason why high-speed
racing boats get airborne and flip over. The Soviets had designed a whole
fleet of military vessels for heavy maritime freight lifting called Ekranoplanes
that used this phenomenon. For the alleged hijacker to pilot AA 77 (Hani
Hanjour was
not a functional pilot) to pull off this ground-skimming maneuver
is impossible. ·
There were no wing impact signatures at the Pentagon consistent
with a 757-200 having crashed into it. If there were no wing impact signatures
then how did the wings in the several different CGR’s pass through
the exterior walls of the Pentagon? If the wings did not pass through
the exterior walls then how did the fuel supposedly get into the Pentagon’s
interior? It must be the Magic Dust! ·
If the vertical portion of the tail section inside the exterior
wall then where is the extended damage 30 feet above the 18-20’ impact
hole, which is attributed to the fuselage? If the tail section was essentially
intact then why is it not visible in the pictures immediately taken after
the explosion? North Tower impact CGR, Heat Induced Floor Failure CGR and The first CGR in this time
sequence, North Tower Impact, is a top down view of supposed AA
11 Boeing 767 crashing into the According to the official
story, the alleged impact speed of the airplane was about 500mph. At about
As the supposed plane impacts
and enters the building each successive increment shows the plane or the
generating debris field moving the same distance per frame increment.
Meaning that there was no deceleration or braking to the airplane and
its debris. At impact AA 11 supposedly decimated the front half of the
fuselage, shredded the wings, swallowed the two massive engines and absorbed
the last half of the fuselage plus the tail section and not any of the
pieces of the plane were slowed down in the process. Hmmm? At time index At time sequence 13:27 the actual video
image of the dark orange flames and deep black smoke of the oxygen starved
South Tower fire is in full view. At Before the image of the fire has fully faded, the first discernable
image in this CGR is of a single floor joist in random failure. All of
the other visible floor joists are still attached to both the exterior
steel columns and the interior central core of columns. This first joist
is from this upper floor in view and loses its attachment at the central
core, bounces on the joist below, maintains its attachment to the exterior
columns and comes to rest at an angle. The floor joists to its immediate
right and left have not yet failed. The second floor joist to fail is
to the immediate right of the first one, on the same floor level and it
also only loses attachment to the central core as well. The third floor
joist to fail is to the immediate right of the second failed joist but
on the level directly below and it loses attachment only at the central
core. The fourth joist to fail is to the immediate right of the third
failed joist but it is back on the level above and only loses one point
of attachment at the central core. The fifth joist to fail is the one
to the immediate right of the fourth, by losing attachment with central
core and not the exterior columns. The detailed above description serves a dual purpose. First
is to slow down the mind of the viewer in order to really absorb what
is going on and not be overwhelmed with the changing images. The second
is to anchor the assumed virtual reality in this CGR. The collapsing floor
joists of the Tower did not fail uniformly and all at once.
They did not pancake as a complete and integrated floor unit through out
its entirety. At time sequence 13:41 and
frame 8, the CGR of falling floor joists changes to another CGR with a
more removed view of one of the Towers in a skeletal format. All
of the exterior columns have been completely removed, the individual
floors structures are shown intact and the central core columns are included.
The relative location of the viewer is slowly moving down the tower. The
movement of the first of the Floors Pancaking is about The relative position of the
viewer continues to move down the Tower and the floors progressively pancake
on the way down. The next contact between pancaked floors happens at about
As the collapsing floors proceeded
in sequence, the relative position of the viewer continued to move down
the tower. At All of the floor joists
for each floor in this CGR are shown to have failed uniformly,
simultaneously and at both attachment points (the exterior columns and
the central core) for every floor in order to create a cascade
or pancake effect. This stands in direct conflict with the Heat
Induced Floor Failure CGR that was shown just a few seconds earlier
from time frame 13:29 to 13:41. This skeletal CGR has conveniently removed
the exterior columns, which would have mechanically bound up or entangled
the progress of the floors falling or pancaking. When one reviews the live
video of the dramatic top-down demolition of the Twin Towers, another
question arises, “How were the exterior steel columns shattered into
relatively small pieces and then thrown hundreds of yards onto the surrounding
buildings?” The US FedGov provides only silence or character assassination
to those who ask that question. The Floor Pancaking CGR
briefly exposes an additional and crucial piece of forensic evidence.
The central core of columns should have remained standing like a skeleton
from the ground up to the supposed impact points. There is no mechanical
explanation or conventional cause for the central core of columns to simply
disappear. Might these massive steel columns have been bent over or twisted
to some degree? Yes, but for them to essentially dematerialize is neither
mentioned nor explained anywhere in this BBC2 TV Show or
by the US FedGov official story. When one looks at the debris field at
the base of either Tower immediately after their collapse and before any
clean up (see cover of the book titled Aftermath), the central
core of columns are gone. Where did they go? The amount of disinformation,
internal contradictions, partial information and apparently intentional
deception that has been packaged within just 25 seconds of the BBC2 video,
Before leaving the demolition
of the The first topic is
revealed in a video clip (watch
it here) of the The second topic is
the existence of hundreds
of cars that were scorched or toasted during the demolition of the
The Debris Field The BBC narrator at index
30:34-45 states for the record, “According to the official account,
the passengers tried to seize back control of the aircraft. But as they
fought their way into the cockpit, the hijackers crashed the plane in
rural The images shifts at index
30:46 to the supposed crash site of UA 93. The camera first shows three
cleanup workers in white overalls. Then scanning left to right it comes
to the supposed impact hole, past it and then 3 state policemen walking
toward the impact hole come into view. The impact hole is about 40’
wide (based on the vehicles in the background) and comes again into view
at index 31:04 until 31:15. The best view being at 31:09. The camera position
at index 31:09 is near ground level, somewhat back from the hole in the
ground and shows a partially scorched tree line in the background. There
is no recognizable debris from a crashed 757-200 in the field of view.
Curiously absent is an aerial view of the debris field for UA 93. In virtually every known airliner
crash the debris field is identifiable as having come from a commercial
airliner with the tail section largely in tact or recognizable. The crash
site in Shanksville was essentially absent of that type of debris. Why
not at Shanksville? Why is the tail of UA 93 not sticking out of or lying
somewhere on the ground? A typical example of the tail
section of a modern airliner surviving a high velocity crash was the Cypriot
Helios Airways 737 that crashed from 35,000 feet into a rocky hillside
on The British news service “The
Independent” wrote the following (click
here) about that crash. “Amid
the debris only the tail section of the Helios Airways flight
was intact following the crash just after The 911 official story purports
to have recovered the black boxes or Flight Data Recorders from flights
UA93 and AA77. The black boxes in modern jet airliners are located in
the tail section. Let’s read the words of L3
Communications, a manufacturer of Flight Data Recorders to understand
why. Why Crash-Protected Recorders are in the Tail of the Aircraft Conclusions There
are other factual anomalies within the BBC2 TV Show not covered here.
However, the debris fields and other forensic evidence at the The
above examples are more than sufficient to raise serious questions about
the integrity and intentions of the 911 coverage from The Conspiracy
Files. Given the emotionally laden topic, editing methods and content
selection, BBC2 has apparently turned a blind eye to the false flag reality
of what happened on Related Article: BACKWARDS FROM
IRAQ TO 911 - MIHOP or LIHOP or GCN
|
|
|
| PRISON
PLANET.com Copyright © 2002-2006 Alex Jones
All rights reserved.
|
