9/11: A Tale of Missing Tails


Deconstructing the BBC2 Smear Job


On February 18, 2007 Britain’s 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 movie “Loose 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 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 Time Index - 22:39 to 24:23 The BBC2 video admits at index 20:17 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 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 22:39 the BBC narrator states as follows, “In the absence of conclusive pictures of the attack, independent analysts have stepped in. At Purdue University in Indiana they built a computer model to see if damage inside the Pentagon could prove what happened. First they modeled the building and it’s interior supporting columns. Then a Boeing 757 with its wings, fuel tanks and fuselage.”

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 22:39, a 3 Dimensional 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 (CGI’s). Animating CGI’s is widely known technology. Animated CGI’s 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 CGI’s, 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 22:39 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 airplane’s 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 22:54, 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 Purdue University 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 23:14 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 23:16 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 12’4. If there were any engines were in this CGR, they would have to be visible.

Time index 23:17 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 wing’s 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 23:18 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 wing’s full length. At time index 23:20 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 23:28 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 23:29 and frame 3. From index 23:29 and frame 4 until index 23:29 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 23:29 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 23:30 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 index 23:30 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 23:31 and frame 0 about half of the left wing of 757-200 has entered into the Pentagon. At index 23:31 and frame 8 the base of the vertical stabilizer is about to enter the building. At index 23:32 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 23:33 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.

Hoffman’s comments continue until index 23:48 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 23:59 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 Purdue University gets from the US FedGov?

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 22:39 - 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 CGR’s but not in 3D Cad wire frame images. Are seen in the CGR’s 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 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?

Example #2 World Trade Center Collapse
North Tower impact CGR, Heat Induced Floor Failure CGR and Twin Tower Floor Pancaking CGR Time Index - 13:22 to 13:47

The first CGR in this time sequence, North Tower Impact, is a top down view of supposed AA 11 Boeing 767 crashing into the North Tower. 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 13:20 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 13:23 and frame 3 the leading edge of the tail is about to enter the building. At time index 13:23 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 13:29 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 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 13:42 and frame 20. The contact of the first collapsing floor with the one below is at 13:43 and frame 23. A small representation of debris being ejected from the corners of the first pair of pancaked floors occurs at about 13:44 and frame 5 until 13:44 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 13:45 and frame 1. There is another ejection of debris from the corners of the floors that made contact at 13:45 and frame 5 and continues until 13:45 and frame 11. The impact of the next pancaked floors is about 13:45 and frame 22 with debris being ejected until 13:46 and frame 6. The next contact by the falling floors happens at about 13:46 and frame 11 with debris being ejected only at the contacting floors and continues until about 13:46 and frame 22. The process of the collapsing floors continues until about 13:47 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 13:46 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 13:47 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 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, 13:22-13:47, cannot be overstated.

Before leaving the demolition of the Twin Towers, 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 Twin Towers.

The first topic is revealed in a video clip (watch it here) of the North Tower 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 Twin Towers. Some of these hard to explain insurance claims were as far as 7 blocks away from the Twin Towers. 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 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?

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 crash here.

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 noon, 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 wreckage.’”

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

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 survive.”


There are other factual anomalies within the BBC2 TV Show not covered here. However, the debris fields and other forensic evidence at the Twin Towers, 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.

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 September 11, 2001 and is attempting to plow under the critical thinking skills of the viewer.


Ephesians 5:11-13 (New American Standard Bible)

11 Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them;
12 for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.
13 But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light.

Jim Fetzer, his lying eyes, and the Pentagon

Jim Fetzer: “This guy doesn't even understand the concept of lying, In order to lie, you must be (a) making an assertion (that something is true) when (b) it is false, (c) you know it is false, (d) you are deliberately assert it anyway, and (e) you are doing so with the intention of misleading your audience.

Dr. James Fetzer and his "Lying Eyes"

Jim Fetzer: "The so-called "cropped" version is the first I ever saw from a source that I trust. But I LOVE this uncropped version! ...It shows all the same features in even greater abundance"

Yes... it shows all of the same features, except for the actual size of the hole.

[Jim Fetzer:]The initial point of impact (prior to the collapse of the floors above) was only about 10' high and 16-17' wide, about the size of the double-doors on a mansion.


[Jim Hoffman:] “In fact, photographs clearly show that the region of punctures to the facade extended to a width of at least 96 feet on the first floor and 18 feet on the second floor. Thus, the hole was approximately six times as large as Fetzer admits. Fetzer continues to promote the ‘small hole’ fantasy despite the efforts of several people, including Fetzer's colleague Steven Jones, to point out his error.


The Pentagon Attack:

What the Physical Evidence Shows by Jim Hoffman

9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described

The Pentagon Eyewitness Testimony

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "Arabesque doesn't know what he's talking about" by Jim Fetzer

You appear to believe that

You appear to believe that it is acceptable to eat where you have shat. Go away.

Show "Are you all so gullible? Are you incapable of serious thought?" by Jim Fetzer

Yea don't trust them... they're so... "untrustworthy"

Are you saying we should trust people who accuse others of being... 'untrustworthy'... makes convoluted sense.  But wait a second... isn't that the third type of disinformation?  You know, as you defined it on your website?

   Third Type: The third level of disinformation occurs by abusing the man (AD HOMINEM) in attacking the author or the editor of a work on irrelevant or misleading grounds that have little or nothing to do with the position the author or editor represents. A recent example involved an attack from someone identified only by an email alias "dxmivi" on the ground that several of my books are published by a company owned by the Moonies. This is an outstanding example of the classic smear by character assassination.

What are you doing promoting the third type of disinformation Mr. Fetzer?  Surely you must know this fits your own definition.  Ad-hominem attacks against the personal credibility of Mr. Hoffman are as weak as it gets.  The quality of his work speaks for itself.

I have read your responses to Jim Hoffman and find them most inadequate.

And while there are still some who believe that no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, it is clear that Scholars for 9/11 truth and Justice has taken a stand on this issue that directly contradicts your position on this issue.  This is not “supporting the official story”—it is supporting the most credible evidence.  Regardless if a plane hit the pentagon hit the Pentagon or not, the NORAD stand-down implicates guilt either way.  So how is that “supporting the official story”?

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "Hoffman's work says 'I am uncredible shill.'" by Constitutionalist

Even if it were true

we don't mr. Disinformationalist to tell us so.

Show "good attitude for approaching wtc7.net" by Constitutionalist

OK, and how should we approach ST911.org?

Which alternative 9/11 theories are disproved on that site again?

Talk about credible research! The site that disproves nothing except for the official 9/11 story!

There's an old saying...

"fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again"

You've worn out your welcome in this movement, Jim. We're on to you and are moving on without you whether you like it or not.

Of course you'll still be able to fool some who aren't aware of the damage you've done w/ your partners Judy Wood & Morgan Reynolds. But that's why we're here - to help educate those people who aren't aware.

Non-Random Thoughts
Host: James Fetzer
Sat., November 11, 2006
w/ guest Judy Wood

Fetzer @ 35:40 after Wood explains where the beam that destroyed the WTC came from...

"Ohhhhhh ho oh ho oh ho! Oh Judy. Oh my oh my oh my, this is HUGE!"

I've seen more convincing infomercial actors, Jim. Don't quit your day job, whatever THAT is.

"Just for the record, Judy [Wood] is doing the most important research on 9/11, bar none!"
-Jim Fetzer, posted on 911Blogger.com February 1, 2007, defending Judy Wood's Performance in this video interview w/ Dr. Greg Jenkins:


"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

That's my favorite Fetzer Quote:

"Just for the record, Judy [Wood] is doing the most important research on 9/11, bar none!"
-Jim Fetzer, posted on 911Blogger.com February 1, 2007, defending Judy Wood's Performance in this video interview w/ Dr. Greg Jenkins:

Oh what would Fetzer be without her... Just a small-time promoter of disinformation/misinformation?

Tail sliced through WTC's facade, but ...

only made a faint impression in the "soft dirt" in Shanksville, then vanished.



Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.