dissembling websites fair use notice critiques
"The Incredible 9-11 Evidence We've All been Overlooking"

This article, from, amplifies and misinterprets artifacts in the blurry video that caught the North Tower crash, in order to push the idea that the object that crashed was not a Boeing 767, the kind of aircraft that Flight 11 was.
Efforts since Spencer's have had much greater success in raising the profile of these types of efforts, to the point that they have eclipsed credible and competent research into the fraudulence of the official story. Hundreds of thousands of copies of In Plane Site, which pushes similar hoaxes, have been distributed, often for free. This has provided mainstream press attackers of 9/11 Truth with straw man arguments which to attack the 9/11 Truth Movement through guilt-by-association. See, for example, Popular Mechanics' Deceptive Smear Against 9/11 Truth.
The Incredible 9-11 Evidence
We've All been Overlooking
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.

Forget all the evidence that the attack was an inside job -- the controlled demolitions of the Twin Towers and Building 7 and destruction of the evidence at Ground Zero, the freezing of air defenses on 9/11/01, the intimidation of Congress with anthrax, the farcical 9/11 Commission. Why bother with all that, when we have a fuzzy video in which some people can hallucinate missiles.

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'.

Alternatively, download the Fireman's Video in QuickTime (370 Kb). It's not quite as revealing as a good video or DVD copy played through your TV, but it's good enough to see the action and has useful single frame forward and back buttons.

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?


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. 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. For a frame by frame analysis of this sequence please click here.

This guy has some imagination! In video that's so blurry the plane's fuselage is only about three pixels wide, he sees three missiles being fired.

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.

White is the color of smoke from a well-oxygenated jet-fuel fire, the kind you have in such a crash. And this flow of combustion products out the east wall has none of the features of a bomb explosion.

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.

This is the nature of all Spencer's articles: propose ridiculous theories and hope that people will be gullible enough to take the bait.

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.

So now instead of Flight 11 hitting the North Tower, an event confirmed by the recovery of remains of its passengers at Ground Zero, we have a military jet firing three missiles to create the appearance of a crash, and a bomb in the building set to go off at the same moment as the crash. Can it get any more ridiculous?

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.

Here Spencer feeds the meme that all those who question the official account of the attack are loony conspiracy theorists who buy such nonsense.

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.

Yes it's vitally important that thousands of people buy into these ludicrous theories about the North Tower crashe based on one blurry video, in order to maintain the coverup.

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 accused 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.

Yes, look at the fuzzy video. Your eyes are getting sleepy. You will see what Spencer tells you to see.

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.

Only by embracing pure nonsense can we confront the crimes of the Bush administration.

More Incredible Evidence

Click for enlargement There is at least one other piece of startling photographic and video evidence from the attacks in New York. It concerns Flight 175, the plane that hit WTC2, the South Tower. The photograph on the right is one of the most dramatic and frequently reproduced images of the events of September 11 (click on the image to see it fullsize). Showing the second plane only a second or so before it hit WTC2, it has appeared on the front pages of newspapers and magazines around the world as well as on countless web sites. You have probably seen it tens, if not hundreds, of times. It is one of the defining images of that day. Yet if you look closely you will see that it is one of the most extraordinarily revealing and incriminating images too.

Yes, how incriminating that in Spencer's imagination the sun's reflection off the rear of the fuselage becomes a "pipe to the tail", that a highlight near the front becomes a "nozzle", that the wing fairing becomes "where the device is anchored to the plane".

For it is rather plain to see that the aircraft is carrying an anomalous device underneath its right wing, very close to the fuselage. It almost looks like a third engine and is connected by tubing to the tail section. It also has a nozzle sticking out at the front. The picture below may assist in clarifying what I am describing.

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. Remember, we are looking at the plane's underside here, not its flank. The one fully-visible tail fin is not the main vertical fin but the right-hand horizontal tailpiece. 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 the angled pipework that leads back to the tail-section. 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.

There is one famous piece of video footage of the second plane that was taken from almost exactly the same position as the photograph above. Taken by CNN, it captures in horrifying detail the final seconds before impact and shows the plane actually penetrating the building. Although well-known, I am not aware of the sequence being available on DVD. Also, until very recently, compressed digital versions suitable for downloading were spoiled by on-screen logos and other features that obscured some of the most important details and action. However, thanks to WebFairy this situation has now been rectified. The file ghostplane2.wmv (129 Kb, opens in Windows Media Player) provides a superb slow motion (and unobscured) rendition of this clip.

Not only is the anomalous device on the plane's underside clearly visible, it is clear too that, just as the plane's nose strikes the building, the nozzle of this device fires a jet of flame. If you think this sounds fanciful, then look at the clip and come to your own conclusion. If you suspect that this clip has been doctored in some way then find a videotaped copy of the original footage and look at that too, frame by frame. The anomalous device and the burst of flame are still there.

What is going on here?


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 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 Los Angeles and had both supposedly 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.

The difference between the impact fireballs isn't strange at all when you consider the differences in the impact. Flight 11 hit the North Tower squarely and was stopped by the core, so the fireball had to spill backwards and out the entry hole, no longer orange. In contrast, Flight 175 hit the South Tower obliquely, mostly missing the core, and spilling much of its fuel directly into the air, hence the spectacular fireball.

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 in the manner of the first plane (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 strong smell of fuel in the air after the second 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 (rather like a flame-thrower) triggered just as the plane strikes to ensure that the fuel explodes as required. It is possible also that the burst of flame is the exhaust trail of an incendiary missile. Whatever it actually is, its purpose is almost certainly to help produce the huge fireball that resulted from this crash.

Spencer's suspicion that to produce the fireball the plane needed 24,000 instead of 10,000 gallons of fuel appears to have as much factual basis as the rest of his claims. And he doesn't think the wing fuel tanks being shredded by the columns of the perimeter wall at over 400 mph would be violent enough to ignite the fuel? Why settle for the simple explanation when you can have an ignition device and an incendiary device!

When Flight 175 took off from Boston at 8:14 a.m. it is rather unlikely that it had such an ignition device attached to its underside. To my best knowledge such devices do not come as standard fit on Boeing 767s and in any case it would surely have been visible to anyone observing the plane's departure. Nor do I believe that Arab terrorists clambered outside the plane to attach these devices to its underside whilst it was in mid-air. Therefore the plane that hit the South Tower was not the plane that took off from Boston. This point has been in more detail elsewhere.

Let's thank Spencer for revealing the "ignition device" under the aircraft, which itself spans only a few pixels. That takes a rare kind of talent.

The terrorist attacks of 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 or so later. I believe that the cinematic brilliance of these shots was a major objective of the overall operation. It was a carefully planned media spectacle. 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 brainwashing.

What? A paragraph with no mention of nozzles, missiles, or ignition devices?

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



1) The 'Fireman's Video' appears on the DVD called "9/11 - The Filmmakers' Commemorative Edition (2002)" which is available from Amazon at:

Strangely however the picture quality of the 'Fireman's Video' seems less good in the documentary than it did when it was originally broadcast in news bulletins. It is less sharp and the initial flash to which I refer appears to have been largely edited out! For this reason I recommend instead the documentary entitled "In Memoriam - New York City, 9/11/01", available on DVD on the same Amazon page. The 'Fireman's Video' is shown twice and on both occasions the picture quality is clean and sharp. Also the "In Memoriam" documentary has several other very useful clips including a priceless long shot of WTC2 collapsing in which you can clearly see explosives going off at regular intervals as the building goes down. See Note 2 (below) for downloadable wmv versions of similar shots, available from the WebFairy site.

2) The WebFairy's 9/11 Memorial site (a version with additional video material is at is an important source of slow motiom video clips relating to the events of September 11. This site is the source of the remarkable ghostplane clip provided above.

Yes, the WebFairy site -- supposedly run by a granny in Chicago -- is a great source of Photoshopped images, and excellent theories, such as that the North Tower was hit by a hologram rather than a real plane. Like Spencer, 'WebFairy' excels in making detailed inferences from images only a few pixels across. 'She' says that the pixels are "trying to tell us something".

The site includes many other fascinating video clips from the day, including a superb ultra-slow motion shot of the of the start of the collapse of WTC2 (slow.demolition.1.wmv) and a clip of WTC1 going down in which explosives going off inside the building are clearly visible ( demolition.squibs.wtc1.wmv).

The first version of this article appeared on Serendipity on 2002-09-17 CE.
Last modified: 2004-07-05.

Other articles on this website by Leonard Spencer: