A TALE OF MISSING TAILS
DECONSTRUCTING THE BBC2 SMEAR JOB
On February 18, 2007Britains
world-renowned broadcast organization aired an hour-long episode in its series,The Conspiracy Files. It
purported to debunk the inside job claims of those in the 911 Truth Community.
Dylan Avery from the Internet movieLoose
Change, James Fetzer from Scholars For 911 Truth and Alex Jones from Infowars.com
were the token representatives of those who consider the US FedGov official
story to be utter fabrications.
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
Time Index 29 to 33 seconds
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 Pentagons
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
Okay so is there anything wrong with
the implicit assumptions as visibly represented in this Introduction CGR video
Part 1. According to Boeing (click here then
technical specs - exterior - 757-200 passenger), a 757-200s fuselage has an
exterior diameter of 124. 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
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 its 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 CGRs and Animated 3D CAD Images of the Pentagon
Time Index - 22:39
The BBC2 video admits at index that the initial
impact hole at the Pentagon was only 18-20 wide and the façade
collapsed minutes later after impact.
Consider the transcript from a CNN
reporter at the Pentagon soon after the impact, which can be viewed here.
From my close up
inspection theres 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 wasnt until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was
weakened enough that all the floors collapsed.
At time index the BBC narrator
states as follows, In the absence of conclusive pictures of the attack, independent
analysts have stepped in. At PurdueUniversity in Indiana they built a computer model to see if damage inside the
Pentagon could prove what happened. First they modeled the building and its interior
supporting columns. Then a Boeing 757 with its wings, fuel tanks
Please bear with the following
techno-speak, as it will help uncover crucial inconsistencies woven into in the BBC2 TV
During time sequence that starts at , a 3Dimensional
Computer Aided Design of the image of Pentagon
columns and an airplane come into view. These first 3D CAD images are different than the
previous Computer Generated Recreations. These
3D CAD images appear to be shown in a format known as wire frame. They look like video
stick figures. 3D CAD wire frame images can be rendered with realistic surfaces having
texture, color, shadow and animation resulting in moving Computer Generated Images
(CGIs). Animating CGIs is widely known technology. Animated CGIs may be
a representation of surfaces only without the internal structure usually found in
engineering type 3D CAD images. The movie industry widely uses animated CGIs,
especially in science fiction movies like the last episodes of Star Wars.
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 is the 3D CAD wire
frame of a single column. The next image is the array of columns in the Pentagon. As the
camera position scans across the columns and rises up into an overhead view, time index
22:53, a wire frame image in white of an airplanes right wing comes into view at the
upper left of the screen. The camera position continues rising until the full image of an
airplane in white, time index , can be seen. The aircraft is at about a 45-degree angle to
the array of columns and just in contact with a perimeter column. Assuming that this is a
757-200, it is important to note that the large, about 8 diameter,
turbofan engines that protrude about 10 out in front of the leading
edge of the wing, are not anywhere to be found in this image.
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 PurdueUniversity who says
the following, We wanted to understand what did the damage in the case of the
Pentagon. Was it the plane? Was it the specific parts of the plane? Was it the fuel?
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 and frame 22, the CGR changes to an elevated and angled view of
a 757-200 coming from top right to bottom left and headed for the Pentagon. At about time
index 23:16 and frame 15, the wings are level, the engines are above
the ground, the nose of the airplane is about 10 from impacting the wall,
the nose appears headed to impact on edge with the floor above ground level and the top of
the vertical stabilizer is even with the top edge of the windows of the fourth level. Just
before impact, time index and frame 17, the image changes again to an very distant
overhead view in a different CGR with the plane obscured but visible, almost in phantom.
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 124. If there were
any engines were in this CGR, they would have to be visible.
Time index and frame 0 is also
when the nose of the airplane makes contact with the Pentagon. The outline of the fuselage
can be seen making progress into the Pentagon until time index 23:17 and frame 12 when the
tip of the right wing comes into contact with the wall of the Pentagon. The progress of
the right wings impact against and through the exterior wall continues with a
representation of fire along the full length of the right wing showing up at time index
23:18 and frame 0. There was no representation of either engine or its
impact in this CGR. Where did the engines go?
This high overhead CGR continues
until time index and frame 24 with the left wing having partially entered the
Pentagon and fire being indicated there as well. This CGR stops with the tail apparently
not having made contact with the Pentagon.
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 wings full length. At time index and frame 0,
Hoffman makes this statement, But as soon as the liquid of the fuel enters here its
starts doing damage to the column where it hit squarely.
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 and frame 10 when the nose impacts the sidewall. The nose and
front portion of the fuselage continue inward with the right engine about to come into
contact with the exterior wall at index and frame 3. From index and frame 4 until index and frame 19 the right wing moves closer to contact with the
exterior of the Pentagon. However, the right engine progressively disappears.
It melts away as if it did not exist. The concentration of dense metal, weighing 4-5 tons
and traveling at 500 mph simply has zero damaging effect on the building. Magic Dust!
At index and frame 20 the
right wing begins to penetrate the exterior wall and fire erupting can be seen for the
first time in this CGR. Different from the Introduction CGR there was no indication
of a flame front or flash coming solely from the impact and progression of the fuselage.
At index and frame 0 fire can is indicated along the full length of the
right wing and the left engine has reached the point of impact with the exterior wall. At
and frame 10, the left engine has all but disappeared with zero impact
effect just like the right engine. The left wing root has come into contact with the
building exterior and some fire can be seen erupting at that location.
At index and frame 0 about
half of the left wing of 757-200 has entered into the Pentagon. At index and frame 8 the
base of the vertical stabilizer is about to enter the building. At index and frame 6 the
whole of the vertical and horizontal stabilizer (the tail section) has entered the
building. Please remember that the top of the vertical stabilizer is about 30 above
the fuselage. The airplane continues on its pathway until index and frame 0.
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.
Hoffmans comments continue
until index and frame 15, when the image changes again to the second half
of the Introduction CGR.The viewpoint
is at ground level, inside the Pentagon and looking at the soon to be point of impact.
This replaying of the Introduction CGR continues on until index and frame 17.
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 PurdueUniversity gets
from the US FedGov?
Lets 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 - Then a
Boeing 757 with its wings, fuel tanks and fuselage.
-or more importantly the words left
out by the BBC narrator are foretelling and key. The massive engines of the
757-200 exist and then do not exist. Are not seen or have no presence in a CGR. Are seen
in the CGRs but not in 3D Cad wire frame images. Are seen in the CGRs but then
disappear like magic. They weigh 4-5 tons each and develop enough thrust to fly a 100-ton
airplane at 500 mph. But when they are traveling at 500 mph and hit the exterior concrete
wall there is no impact effect at all.
·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 CGRs 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 Pentagons 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 TwinTower Floor Pancaking CGR
The first CGR in this time sequence, North
Tower Impact, is a top down view of supposed AA 11 Boeing 767 crashing into the NorthTower. It is assumed to
be AA11 because the impact is depicted to be relatively square, centered to the building
face and not an angled impact at the corner like the supposed crash of UA 175. In this
less-than-cartoon-quality CGR, the airplane is shown wings level but yet the left engine
is half as close to the fuselage as the right engine. Hmmm?
According to the official story, the
alleged impact speed of the airplane was about 500mph. At about and 20 frames the
plane starts to increment toward the side of the Tower. Each increment of movement is
about same as the diameter of the aircraft fuselage or 16.5, which equates to about
270 mph. Hmmm?
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 and frame 3 the
leading edge of the tail is about to enter the building. At time index and frame 6 the
complete tail section has entered the building and no damage has been shown to the
horizontal or vertical portions of the tail section. The vertical portion of the tail is
about 30 above the upper most point on the fuselage so it would have had to
encounter exterior steel beams and two floor sections on edge. But there is no indicated
damage to the tail section at this frame position. Hmmm?
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 the video of the burning
Tower starts to fade into another CGR, this one of the steel floor joists for two floor
levels. This CGR purports to accurately represent (if not then why use a fake?) the Heat
Induced Floor Failure that happened identically in both Towers.
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
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 and frame 20. The
contact of the first collapsing floor with the one below is at and frame 23. A
small representation of debris being ejected from the corners of the first pair of
pancaked floors occurs at about and frame 5 until and frame 11. There is no representation of any debris being
ejected either above or below of the two pancaked floors.
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 and frame 1. There
is another ejection of debris from the corners of the floors that made contact at and frame 5 and
continues until and frame 11. The impact of the next pancaked floors is about and frame 22 with
debris being ejected until and frame 6. The next contact by the falling floors happens at
about and frame 11 with debris being ejected only at the contacting
floors and continues until about and frame 22. The process of the collapsing floors continues
until about and frame 9 when this CGR ends and fades quickly into the
video image of two stairway lights with metal protective cages. All of the impacts between
the respective floors ejected debris at the moment of impact. There were no ejections of
debris that occurred below the floors being pancaked in this CGR.
As the collapsing floors proceeded in
sequence, the relative position of the viewer continued to move down the tower. At and frame 1 and
for the first time in this CGR of the Floors Pancaking, the central core of columns
can be seen standing erect in the upper portion of the screen image. The barely exposed
central core of columns becomes more revealed until the abrupt end of this CGR at and frame 9.
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 HeatInduced 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
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, ,
cannot be overstated.
Before leaving the demolition of the TwinTowers, there are two
topics that have gone unreported by the MainStreamMedia, including the BBC. They are very
telling when seriously considering whom, how and what brought down the TwinTowers.
The first topic is revealed in
a video clip (watch it
here) of the NorthTower as it is being demolished. Please watch these 30 seconds of
Live CNN video. This CNN video can also be viewed here in different video
formats linked in Figures 38a and 38b. A series of still images that freeze this collapse
in process can be viewed at Figures 35, 36 and 37 on this same web page. At about 11
seconds into the CNN video you will clearly see a skeletal section of the exterior steel
beams of the WTC tower just to the right of the center. These steel
beams begin to waver, then disintegrate into dust by some invisible means and waft
to the ground as so much powder. How does the pancaking of the building floors
supposedly caused by a jet fuel fire (all of which has fallen well past the
position of these erect steel beams) cause them to turn to dust?
There was no fire and these exterior steel columns were not melted? Watch once. Watch it
again. Consider that this is a video clip that hundreds of millions of people have likely
watched but did not really "see it".
The second topic is the
existence of hundreds of cars
that were scorched or toasted during the demolition of the TwinTowers. Some of these
hard to explain insurance claims were as far as 7 blocks away from the TwinTowers. There is no
conventional chemical, thermal or mechanical explanation for the bizarre damage done to
these vehicles. The official story does not even mention them.
Example #3 Shanksville Crash of UA93
The Debris Field
Time Index - 30:34 to 31:15
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 Pennsylvania.
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
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?
The same can be said about AA 77.
Where is the tail section that should have been evident at the impact hole at the Pentagon
if a 757-200 had smacked into the exterior wall?
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 Aug. 14, 2005. Read
the BBC news story here..
See the BBC pictures of this
The British news service The
Independent wrote the following (click here) about that
the debris only the tail section of the Helios Airways flight was intact
following the crash just after , local time. Bodies and luggage were scattered around the
wreckage, triggering brush fires. "It wasn't a bang but a loud noise like
thunder," said Ioannis Mexi, 72, in of Grammatikos, 3.7 miles from where the plane
came down. I drove to see what happened and I saw the tailplane and
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. Lets 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
Original requirements were for a unit to be able to
withstand a 100g impact and be installed in the forward avionics bay with the rest of the
avionics boxes. After several accidents with aircraft equipped with FDRs, it soon
became evident that the 100g specification was inadequate. To correct the situation, the
Federal Aviation Administration made a specification change which increased the
impact requirements to 1000gs and relocated the recorder to the rear of the aircraft.
The reasoning for the change was that, following initial impact, the rear of the
aircraft would be moving at a slower speed, thus, more recorders would
are other factual anomalies within the BBC2 TV Show not covered here. However, the debris
fields and other forensic evidence at the TwinTowers, the Pentagon and Shanksville confirm a reality far different
from the official story put forth by US FedGov, the 911 Commission, the US MainStreamMedia
and now BBC2.
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 September
11, 2001 and is attempting to plow under the
critical thinking skills of the viewer.
Nathanael is a self-employed engineer
and lives in metropolitan area of Dallas, Texas. He had only ever been a life long
registered Republican but changed to the Constitution Party in May of 2004. He is a
regular columnist for Ether Zone.