An Analysis of the 'Missile' Frames from The Fireman's Video

by Leonard Spencer

Up until now I have resisted the temptation to use stills from the Fireman's Video to illustrate my contention that the plane that hit WTC1 fired missiles at the building. This is because, up until now, I had not found stills from the video that were clear and detailed enough to make my case. The DVD version of the Naudet documentary has for instance proved to be a woefully inadequate source for detailed analysis of the footage, not least because it has been very obviously tampered with. Frames have been removed and those that remain have been artificially softened and blurred. The clearest versions of the Fireman's Video are those that were transmitted in news bulletins in the first few days after the attack and my only access to these has been the VHS copies that I taped myself from the TV. I recently received however an excellent set of original, undoctored stills from the footage, expertly captured from video.

"clear and detailed", "excellent set" ?? These frames are of such low resolution that about the only inference one can reasonably make is that they show an object of about the size and shape of a 767 crashing into the North Tower.

Somewhat belatedly therefore I am now able to demonstrate more thoroughly the basis for my rather controversial thesis.

Spencer's clever use of language convinces me he is much to smart to buy the theories he is peddling. Note how he uses "demonstrate more thoroughly" (as if he ever demonstrated something) and "rather controversial thesis" to give this nonsense a false air of intellectual gravity.

The twenty images below are consecutive stills from the Fireman's Video, covering the crucial moment of impact. Twenty stills of course represents less than one second in real-time, yet it is surely one of the most remarkable — and eventful — seconds ever caught on camera.

1

2

3

4

The first four frames of the sequence (above) show the plane in its final approach towards WTC1. Unlike many other stills that are in circulation, the plane's left wing remains clearly discernible. Note the absence of an engine attached to this wing, indicating that the plane is not a Boeing 767. Note too the strange, dark feature immediately beneath the plane's tail-section. In frames 3 and 4 the plane's shadow begins to develop across the building's facade.

5

6

7

8

Frames 5 and 6 show the flash, the first detail from this footage that attracted my attention. In this complete version the flash is seen for two frames; in the Naudet Brother's DVD version it appears in only one, presumably edited out in order to make the flash less conspicuous. When the footage is viewed at full speed the flash appears very bright; seen as a still it has a cloudy, dusty appearance. Nevertheless by frame 7, just 1/25th of a second later, it has gone.

Spencer goes on to conclude that the flash is an explosion caused by a missile strike. But the flash lasts only one frame, far too short to be a chemical explosion. There are many possible explanations for this vague, brief artifact that don't involve missiles.

By frame 8 over half of the plane has disappeared into the building. Its wings have gone and only the tail-section, with its strange dark blob, remains visible. Despite this, the facade of the building shows no sign of any scar caused by the impact. There is nothing to suggest that two wings and engines have just passed through. The plane appears to be flying neatly into a rather small hole. As it does so however, the shadow it casts starts to broaden and intensify.

The profile of the wings in the frames are less than one pixel. The whole plane is just a few pixels across, and there are many artifacts, such as edge enhancement artifacts, as in the dark line next to the tower's left front edge. Yet Spencer can see a plane "flying neatly into a rather small hole".

9

10

11

12

Frames 9 to 12 represent, for me, the most intriguing part of the Fireman's Video. It is these frames that I believe show missiles being fired from the plane's tail-section. I have seen no alternative analysis that adequately explains the extraordinary details that occur here. In frame 9, the curious black feature beneath the tail-section can clearly be seen dividing into two distinct parts. As it does so a new shadow appears on the tower, beneath the one cast by the tail-section. By frame 10 however this second shadow has gone, but another one has appeared, a single isolated shadow over to the right, near the edge of the building and above what remains visible of the plane. Frame 11 shows this new shadow intensifying and shows also yet another new shadow developing, this time near the left edge of the building. In frame 12, both these new, isolated shadows have subsided and, but for two faint blister-like impressions, the facade of the building again appears largely unblemished.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

The final eight frames of the sequence show the two faint blisters developing into two distinct and discrete explosions either side of the larger central explosion, into which the plane has by now disappeared. These frames show the explosions to be quite separate and unconnected. In later frames these three separate explosions become subsumed into one and leave behind the oddly-shaped and proportioned scar in the side of WTC1. A detailed examination of this scar, together with an analysis of the revealing seismic records concerning the attack on WTC1, can be found in my article 'Flight 11' Revisited.

Not surprisingly, those who cling on to the belief that a Boeing passenger jet hit WTC1 choose to disregard these extraordinary and revealing frames from the Fireman's Video. There is no coherent explanation for the events seen in this sequence that is consistent with this belief. But ignoring these frames and the bizarre sequence of events they portray is not an option for anyone wishing to discover the truth of what really took place. We know a passenger jet didn't hit the tower because, if it had, frame 8 would already be showing the scars where the plane's wings and engines had passed through the facade of the building. We know a passenger jet didn't hit the tower because, if it had, frames 10 and 11 would not record the fleeting appearance of distinct, isolated shadows that then fade away and are replaced by distinct, isolated explosions. My contention that a plane with no engines on its wings fired missiles at the building during impact may be wrong, but it is the only explanation I have seen that is even remotely consistent with every single one of the above frames.

Spencer ends by insulting anyone who doesn't buy his ridiculous assertions about "events" he claims the video shows. You don't have to be an expert in image analysis to understand that the ammount of information in an image is proportional to its resolution. Spencer's claims are so nonsensical that I wonder whether he really hopes to convince anyone of them, or merely intends to provide fodder for mainstream attacks on 9/11 Truth, like the Popular Mechanics article.

— Leonard Spencer