|
by Leonard Spencer
In trying to piece together what
really happened on September 11, a lot of work has been done — much of it
useful and interesting — into those 'hijacked' flights for which the
publicly-available evidence is sketchy and contradictory. There are web
sites for instance wholly dedicated to investigating the true fate of
Flight 93 and others that attempt to get a clearer idea of what really
happened at the Pentagon. Both these incidents however are characterised
by a pronounced absence of substantive material evidence and it is this, I
suppose, that raises our suspicions and curiosity.
There is one flight however that
has received insufficient attention and this is American Airlines Flight
11, the plane that allegedly crashed into WTC1, the North Tower. It was
the first of the terrorist attacks that day. It has been a big mistake not
to subject this flight to the same kind of scrutiny as the others because,
unlike the others, a very good and important piece of documentary evidence
of this flight exists in the public domain. This is the so-called
'Fireman's Video' and we really haven't looked at it closely enough. It
really does deserve a second look.
The story of the 'Fireman's Video'
is well known. Two French filmmakers, the Naudet Brothers, were in New
York on September 11 making a documentary about the New York Fire Service.
The footage shows that, while filming in Canal Street, firemen and crew
are distracted by a plane flying low overhead. The camera operator
instinctively turns his camera towards the North Tower and, for little
more than a second or so, we get a clear view of the plane crashing into
the tower. It is a precious, priceless second. It is the one-second of
video that really makes the sinister Bush junta nervous. It really gives
them nightmares. They really didn't want a professional cameraman to catch
that moment on broadcast-quality tape.
If you've got it on tape I strongly
suggest you take another look at it, with the pause and frame-forward
buttons at the ready. If you don't have it taped you can purchase the
documentary in which it appears on video and DVD. It's called simply
'9/11'.
When seen at full speed, you might
first of all think that there isn't a great deal to see. There's half a
second or so when we see the plane flying through the air then it smashes
into the tower, creating an explosion and leaving a great gash across the
building. Notice though that immediately before it hits the building the
plane emits a brief, bright flash. Notice too that the scar it leaves on
the building is rather larger than seems appropriate for the size of the
aircraft.
Now pause the sequence at the
beginning and advance it frame by frame. Firstly, look at the plane. Does
that look like a Boeing jet to you? Is its wingspan wide enough? Does it
have engines attached to its wings? These however are but minor details
compared with what comes next. Watch carefully what happens as the plane
approaches and crashes into the tower. I leave you to come to your own
conclusions about what you see (watch it over and over again, backwards
and forwards), but I'll tell you what I see. Immediately before the plane
strikes it fires a missile that blows a hole in the building's façade.
This is the cause of that brief flash. The plane then begins to disappear
neatly into this hole, leaving no wing impressions. (A plane disappearing
into a hole? Where have I heard that before; wasn't there something about
a plane at the Pentagon?) Just before it disappears however it fires two
more missiles from somewhere near its tail. One goes to the left, one to
the right (and up a bit) and it is the blast holes from these three
separate missiles that form the great gash across the building.
There's more. Keep an eye on the
adjacent east side of the building, which is also visible. See how, a few
frames into the explosion, a white jet of smoke erupts out of the east
side at the same level as the plane. The jet comes straight out of the
wall at right angles to it, not angled in accordance with the trajectory
of the plane. Also it's just white smoke and dust, no orange flames or
anything like that. It is clearly a bomb going off, creating the gash that
appears on the east wall.
I know what I am describing sounds
incredible. I suggest only that you look at the footage yourself and come
to your own conclusions about what you see.
The plane that hit the North Tower
was not American Airlines Flight 11. It was not a Boeing 767. It was a
custom-built military plane carrying three missiles that created the
impression of a plane crash without leaving any wreckage. In order for it
precisely to strike the correct part of the tower (in line with the bomb
already planted in the east wall) it must have been flown remotely using
cruise navigation. I believe a similar plane was used to strike the
Pentagon.
The 'Conspiracy Theorists' have got
it dead right this time. The true Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 were indeed
substituted with other planes when the transponders were switched off.
Someone hijacked the hijackers to make sure the job was done properly.
The 'Fireman's Video' is Bush's
true smoking gun. It is in the public domain and it is even available on
DVD. It is probably sitting in the video shelves of thousands and
thousands of homes across the world. It is vitally important that the
American people see this video frame by frame so they can make their own
minds up about what really happened on September 11.
There has been a silent coup in
America but few have noticed yet. The Bush Administration is clearly very
sinister indeed and God only knows what it has in store for us next. There
is a clue though in the things of which it accuses Saddam Hussein:
building and using weapons of mass destruction (nuclear and biological)
and killing his own people. When Bush describes Saddam he is describing
himself.
We have entered the Age of the
Conjurer and it is going to be a tricky time. The 9-11 stunt was a huge
magic trick and we all bought it at first. Magicians can be very
convincing. You have to look very hard to see the trick and not be fooled.
On this occasion slow motion exposes the sleight of hand, but remember how
the magician works: he can make almost anything seem real if he can make
his audience look in the wrong place at crucial moments.
Only the American people can now
stop the imminent slaughter and the imposition of a global fascist police
state, but they are currently sleepwalking into their own enslavement. It
may already be too late. But maybe if enough Americans get out their
videos and their remote controls (pardon the pun) and take a long hard
look at that remarkable footage of that plane hitting the North Tower,
then an armed and outraged middle America might just pull it off.
Hah! Just in is this priceless
piece of evidence — the Fireman's Video in QuickTime, good enough to see
the action and with frame forward and backward capacity too!
More Incredible Evidence
It concerns Flight 175, the jet
which hit WTC2, the South Tower. If you have copies of the various shots
of Flight 175 hitting WTC2 they're worth looking at again. In particular
there's one bit of footage of this incident where the camera is facing the
south side of WTC2, the side that took the impact. In this footage you can
see the plane bank sharply seconds before impact and you can also see it
actually penetrate the building.
If you pause the tape just before
it strikes you can see that the plane is carrying an anomalous device on
its right wing, very close to the fuselage. It almost looks like a third
engine and is connected by tubing to the tail section. The video (use your
pause and frame forward buttons again) shows that, just as the plane's
nose strikes the building this device fires a jet of flames, a
split-second before the explosion starts. I wonder what this device can
be?
The dark stripe down the side is
not part of the paintwork (check out the United Airlines livery) but the
shadow of the device and its pipework. In the last second or two the plane
banks so much to the left that the sun (to the right of the picture)
catches the plane's underside and the mystery objects cast shadows. Start
perhaps with the silvery 'lump' tucked, so to speak, in the plane's right
'armpit'. What is that? Note too that if you look closely, what I call the
nozzle is not part of the plane's own outline but is separate from it. And
on the video this nozzle can be seen firing a jet of flame, just before it
penetrates the building.
It's interesting to note that the
two plane crashes into the two towers were very different from one
another. The first crash, seen in the Fireman's Video, was a rather modest
affair. After the initial explosion the smoke and flames die down quickly
and such flames as there are are reddish in color. The second plane on the
other hand causes a vast spectacular yellow fireball and the resultant
fire in the building is much more extensive and intense than that caused
by the first. Given that both planes were supposed to be 767s, were both
flying from Boston to the West coast and had both been in the air for
around 45 minutes before they crashed, this is rather strange because they
should have both been carrying roughly the same amount of fuel.
As the Fireman's Video shows, the
first plane was not a 767 and it fired missiles to create most of the
damage. The rather small fireball and fire was probably due to the fact
that it had very little fuel on board. The second plane doesn't fire
missiles (well, the world's media was in place by then) but the explosion
it creates is clearly very fuel-rich indeed. There are several eyewitness
reports that mention the smell of fuel in the air after this plane
crashes. I suspect that this plane was absolutely full of fuel, a flying
fuel-tank, hence the mighty fireball. So the object on the right wing is
probably an ignition device, triggered just as the plane strikes, to
ensure that the fuel explodes as required.
When Flight 175 took off from
Boston at 8:13 a.m. it is rather unlikely that there was such an ignition
device attached to the plane, since it would surely have been visible to
anyone observing its departure. Therefore the plane which hit the South
Tower was not the plane which took off from Boston. This point has been in
more detail elsewhere.
The terrorist attacks on 9-11 are
unique in at least one regard. As far as I can tell they are the only
terrorist incidents to have been played out right under the noses of a
waiting media. I believe this was no accident. The incidents were timed
and sequenced to ensure that this was the case. The first crash (which we
were most definitely not meant to see) brought the media to the WTC and
ensured plenty of cameras were trained on the towers in time for the next
crash around 15 minutes later. So we all see the second crash in all its
glory, from every conceivable angle. Spectacular isn't it? And of course
even more cameras were around by the time the towers magnificently and
apocalyptically collapsed an hour later. I believe that the cinematic
brilliance of these shots was a major objective of the overall operation.
Remember how we were practically force-fed these images for two whole
days, so everyone saw them hundreds of times? This is invaluable
propaganda and brain-washing.
It's important to remember that if
there's one thing that Americans are really better at doing than anyone
else on the planet it's making movies. Big, spectacular movies. They
understand better than anyone the immense potential of the moving image to
inform, entertain and suggest. Above all they know how to manipulate and
guide our emotions through film. They use this knowledge and skill
whenever they can and I believe 9-11 is only the most recent instance.
As in the case of Flight 11, video
footage of Flight 175 again reveals the hand of the magician and the movie
maker. It seems to me that close examination of these two pieces of video
proves beyond all reasonable doubt that 9-11 was a sophisticated military
operation for which only the US itself could be responsible. The evidence
is irrefutable and would stand up in a court of law. While Bush is in
power there will be no such court case. What the hell do we do now?
— Leonard Spencer
Return to Table of Contents |
