Flight 11 Unveiled
The X-11 Drone
Since September 11th 2001 there has been continual speculation and controversy about the aircraft that hit the North Tower of the World Trade Centre.
This web site will use photographic evidence, video evidence and computer simulations to show that an American Airlines 767-200 did not hit the North Tower of the World Trade Centre.
The analysis and conclusions herein will no doubt go 'against the grain' of current thinking as to the specifics of the aircrafts size and its respective impact with WTC1.
Throughout my analysis and the presentation I have tried to remain as objective as possible. Most of the visual exercises were carried out more than once. Inconclusive data was disregarded and flawed methodology was abandoned.
The photographs shown on this site have been enhanced to bring out as much detail from them as possible, while doing so I have been extremely careful not to add or remove anything from them.
Many hours of investigation and analysis have been put into this site and I hope it will allow the reader to come to the same conclusion that I have, that an American Airlines 767-200 did not strike Tower 1 of the World Trade Centre in New York on the morning of September 11th 2001.
Media and Tools used for the Analysis
The following tools were used for this analysis on the Windows XP Pro platform:
Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Neat Image 3.0
Neat Image 4.0
Microsoft Paint 5.1
Power DVD XP v4.0
InterVideo WinDVD 6
DVD Decrypter 18.104.22.168
Canopus ProCoder Express
Sonic Cinepack Codecs for Windows Media Player 9
The following media were used in this analysis:
CNN Tribute - America Remembers. DVD Region 1
Remember September 11th, 2001. DVD Region 2
9/11 - The Filmmakers Commemorative Edition. DVD Region 2
In Memoriam - New York City 9/11/01. DVD Region 1
A Tale Of Two Hours - UK PAL TV Terrestrial Transmition
How The Twin Towers Collapsed - UK PAL Terrestrial Transmittion
The 911 Commission Report. PDF Format
The FEMA World Trade Centre Building Performance Study. PDF Format
The Official Version
The official version of events tells us that American Airlines Flight 11 took of from Boston's Logan International Airport at 7:59 AM with 92 souls on board and was hijacked at about 8:15am by a group of Muslim extremists fronted by Mohammed Atta. The aircraft was then diverted from its existing route to Los Angeles and was guided towards the World Trade Centre complex in New York. Flight 11 plunged into WTC1 at 8:46am between the 95th and the 98th floor at a speed of around 470mph (410knots).
The Eyewitness Reports
This following witness report comes from what is billed as the 'first New York eyewitness' on NBC and was taken from a site written by a person known only as "Snake Plissken":
"First Report of First WTC Crash : The second clue comes from the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question about what she saw. You could hear it in her voice. If she was the state's witness, the defence team would have their heads between their knees before she stopped talking.
What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up. She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC tower, the North tower. She was certain in her description - most people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet and a smaller plane."
CNN's Sid Bedingfield said of the impact in the CNN DVD "America Remembers":
"I thought it could have been an accident...I thought the plane was much smaller...our shot was from a good distance of. It was when we confirmed that it was in fact a 767 that I realised what we were in for..."
Another witness from the CNN DVD "America Remembers" states while making a spearing gesture with his hand banked to the left in relation to the arm motion:
"The plane was slightly on its side and that's why, maybe think, maybe it, it was in distress..."
The narrator from the Mekyung film shown on "911 In Memoriam" can be heard saying:
"Hey Grandpa, I'll tell you what woke me up. They bombed the World Trade Centre. I'm looking at it and Mi-Kyung's video taping it. Terrible. I heard, Grandpa, I saw it. It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb...a missile...er...this could be world war three."
Finally we have a very interesting quote from George Sleigh taken from CNN's web site:
Survivor saw inside hijacked jet - September 14, 2001 Posted: 10:18 AM EDT (1418 GMT).
George Sleigh escaped from the north tower of the World Trade Centre before it collapsed LONDON, England -- A British-born architect who survived Tuesday's attack on the World Trade Centre watched in horror from his 91st-floor office as a hijacked jet smashed into the building. George Sleigh, 63, originally of Gateshead, England, told the Newcastle Evening Chronicle he was close enough to the point of the initial impact to see people in the cockpit of the hijacked American Airlines Boeing 767.
"When I close my eyes and picture that airliner coming towards me and the people in the cockpit it is like a dream," Sleigh said. After hearing the whining engine of the jet, "I looked up out of the window and just a few feet away from the building was this huge jet plane," he said. "The wheels were down and I could see the people in the cockpit. I thought to myself, 'Man this guy is low in the air, but I still thought it would clear us. But then it smashed into the tower a few floors above me. "I couldn't believe it, even now it seems insane that anyone would do that, even a crazed terrorist."
I have to wonder how a person can make out such details from an incoming aircraft travelling at about 460mph when it was "just a few feet away from the building" as the CNN quote tell us. Sleigh did exceptionally well, though he does not describe the people he saw on the flight deck. They might well have been cardboard cut-outs as opposed to Muslim extremists.
But the most perplexing comment is about the landing gear being down. What would the hijackers have to gain by doing this apart from making the mission even more precarious due to the aerodynamic and structural consequences to the 767-200's airframe? The forces at such high speeds and low density altitude would surely damage the airframe or cause a complete structural failure. Deploying the gear inside it's limiting airspeed would be acceptable but would make the high speed run seen in the Naudet film nigh impossible. Deploying the gear at high airspeed would put the aircraft into a dive (which would increase the flight deck workload to cope with it) and might damage the airframe (making the aircraft harder to fly and therefore more difficult to navigate successfully to the target) or cause it to fail and thereby terminating the mission prematurely.
CNN could be misquoting Sleigh or alternatively he might have unwittingly identified the missile firing apparatus that 911 researchers talk of. Given Sleighs fleeting glance of the aircraft and his emotional state of mind after the incident we can't expect him to remember the event accurately and I suspect he is 'seeing' the event in accordance with the 'official version' pushed out by the media in the aftermath of 911.
Sleigh was interviewed some time after in the UK TV program "How The Twin Towers Collapsed" although his recollections are different:
"I was on the phone, I heard a roar, looked out the window and saw...er..this passenger jet coming toward the building. It was only 2 or 3 plane lengths away from me at that point and I didn't really have time to react. I just saw it then it was into the building."
What happened to undercarriage and the figures on the flight deck?
Sleighs previous CNN report about seeing the aircraft "just a few feet away from the building" has now been contradicted by the line "it was only 2 or 3 plane lengths away from me at that point". This later report suggests he did not see very much at all - as you would expect from an aircraft travelling at 460mph with only a fraction of a second to see it.
Have CNN been using a little too much artistic licensing in their reports, or has George Sleigh's memory of events changed since the CNN report was made?
The picture below is an enhanced capture taken directly from the Fireman's Video DVD. The right wing of the aircraft has been slightly re-built as the original detail was lost in what appears to be primarily the distortive effects of "ringing". The airframe is easily identifiable and there is an apparent absence of any wing mounted engines and strange dark patch on the starboard side of the aircraft that is directly over the wing root. You may also notice a shadow appearing across the face of the tower and practically touching the nose tip of the aircraft, so we know the aircraft is very close to the towers face or the nose tip has just penetrated the towers face. I've also identified key airframe elements.
Below we have a picture which shows two captures from the Fireman's Video DVD. They are proportionately matched and rotated with Flight 11 on top of WTC1. When gauging the size of the airframe in relation to the size of the tower we can see that Flight 11 is a large aircraft and is too small to have been a commuter jet, Global Hawk or a 737, but is similarly proportioned to a 767-200.
Initial copies of the Naudet film were low quality versions recorded from TV transmittions which were then further compressed for the web. As a result the fine details of this film were lost so that the dimensions of the aircraft shown were open to subjective interpretation by viewers who often judged the size of the aircraft from frames early on in the sequence where the airframe is against the sky. I found that these frames were particularly unrepresentative as the blue sky seemed to permeate into the aircrafts outline and alter its contrast to such an extent that it was unrecognisable as anything other than a 'blob'. The viewing angle made the wings look small or absent.
For my analysis I chose the frames where the aircraft is in front of the tower where the viewing angle is favourable and their is less optical degradation as a result of the lighter background.
At this point we should note that the image of the superimposed aircraft is blurred in comparison to the zoomed in shot of the tower it is placed on top of. Consider the towers mast, which here looks larger than it actually is due to the relative amount of apparent blurring. The airframe of the aircraft is therefore smaller than it appears, but the overall dimensions are representative.
As no-one had ever seen film of a 767 passing closely to the World Trade Centre and had no doubt over-looked the viewing angle of the camera, lighting conditions and other optical effects they would have been influenced by witness reports of a 'small aeroplane' and would have concluded that the aeroplane seen in the film was too 'small' to be a 767-200.
The conclusion therefore would have been that the aircraft seen in the Naudet film was not a 767-200. However, as you can see from the picture above the airframe is similarly proportioned to a regular commercial jet but is missing wing mounted engines and appears to be shorter than a 767-200. On these particular points alone we can conclude that the aircraft is not a 767-200. So the speculation turned out to be correct, albeit for different reasons.
From here onward I will refer to the aircraft seen in the Naudet footage as the 'X-11'.
The sequence of clips shown below were captured from the "A Tale Of Two Towers" documentary using Power DVD XP v4.0. This media was chosen as it appears to be completely un-edited unlike the 9/11 - The Filmmakers Commemorative Edition which has been so heavily edited and manipulated. The 'flash' is absent, as are other frames throughout the sequence and to such an extent that the X-11 seems to suddenly jump into the tower at the last instant. The "A Tale of Two Towers" sequence shown below curiously shows two 'flashes' although they look more like clouds or some kind of vapour.
1 - 3 : The X-11 approaches Tower 1. Impact occurs at frame 3.
4 - 6 : Frames 4 and 5 show 'flashes', frame 5 being the one typically shown in reproductions of the sequence.
7 - 9 : The X-11 continues into the tower giving the appearance of the port wing alone impacting on the towers facia. By frame 9 a small bubble orphaned from the main explosion appears near the right wing tip.
10 - 12 : Only the left wing seems to have hit the tower. Where the right wing should be there is a gap. The orphaned bubble appears to grow casting a dark shadow and then disappears suddenly at frame 12.
13 - 15 : Frame 13 - the left wing impact cloud begin to expand, stretch leftward and curving down at its end. The 'orphaned explosion' makes a second appearance having been absent for 1 frame. Frame 14 - the left wing impact cloud now seems to have a pronounced curve and the centre of the explosion has increased in size rapidly while the 'orphaned explosion' continues to grow. There is also the sudden appearance of a new explosion in the centre of the impact which is more obvious when viewing the sequence as a motion picture. This could be interpreted as a bomb detonation from the rear of the aircraft as the rear of the airframe passes through the towers facia. Compare frames 13 and 14 closely. At frame 15 the explosion continues to expand.
If any of this is seen as evidence for a missile strike from the X-11 then it did a poor job as the missiles on the starboard wing didn't fire particularly well and in general the whole missile launching system gave a rather sloppy impression of a strike by a symmetrical 767-200. A closer examination suggests that the supposed missile induced 'dust pimples' have little to do with the overall dimensions of the gash left on the towers facia and suggest the detonation of pre-planted bombs or some other unknown phenomenon.
The above image reveals no obvious damage to the towers facia where the 'dust pimples' emanate from. This is especially true of the 'orphaned explosion' which appears over an darkened area of the towers facia and is detached from the right hand side of the gash. We also have a 'black bar' that appears during the impact and is attached to the top right portion of the gash. It slowly retracts back into the gash and has disappeared completely approximately 2 minutes later without any external trace. The mark is angled downward and is at least as wide as one floor as shown in the following sequence of pictures:
We must, however consider the evidence for a missile launches from the X-11. Take a look at the picture below, in particular the area marked by the red rectangle on the left hand side of the image:
It would appear that this column has been hit quite hard by something that has not only blown a hole clean through the metal, but has also bent the section inward forcing the top part out quite noticeably. The force seems to have come from outside the towers facia. A similar effect could be inferred from the section in the red rectangle on the right hand side of the picture, thought it is not as obvious. The alternative scenario could be a particularly tough section of the wing or an explosive device on the wing itself detonating as the leading edge hit the outer columns.
The latter has some credence when considering "frame 14" and we should also consider the extent of the appendages on the underside of the UA175 attack aircraft as evidence that the perpetrators were using indeed using wing mounted bombs.
Had the X-11 used missiles on WTC1 a great deal of the evidence would have been destroyed during the explosion. Having looked at many pictures of the gash I can only find one piece photographic evidence that could be used to support the theory that the X-11 fired missiles at WTC1 to create the appearance of a larger aircraft. That picture has been shown previously.
If the X-11 did solely employ missiles to create the gash the job was done in a peculiar fashion as the missiles on the left wing fired at odd angles giving the port wing a curved shape and the missiles on the right wing failed to fire at all (see frame 14) apart from a spurious launch at the right wing tip which fired a little to far to the right, yet afterward the right hand side of the gash is seen as a huge gapping, burning hole in the towers facia. The zigzag shaped explosion we see in the Naudet film seems unlikely to be the result of the precise cut seen in close-up photographs of the gash taken after the event. Even the angling of some of the inner columns is incredibly accurate as seen in "Gash Dimensions". Why would the perpetrators produce a gash with most of the damage on the right hand side and reproduce an incorrect wing dihedral angle and wing span for a 767-200, when they appear to have a missile system that is incredibly accurate it can reproduce wing markings down to the inch? Why use missile launches anyway, wouldn't it have been easier and more accurate to use bombs mounted in or on the wings?
Throughout the entire WTC disaster numerous witnesses report hearing, seeing or experiencing explosions in the towers at certain times. In the 9/11 DVD when Jules Naudet and the fire crew enters the lobby of WTC1 Joe Casaliggi (Engine 7) comments:
"The lobby looked like the plane hit the lobby"
In another section of the DVD Lieutenant Bill Walsh (Ladder 1) recalls:
"The lobby is about 6 storeys high and the lobby looked as though a bomb had exploded there.
All the glass was taken out, there were 10 ft by 10 ft model panels that were once walls lose from the outer walls of the Trade Centre. Lights were hanging down. The lights were I believe of. Unfortunately there were dozens of people in the lobby, they were in a contorted position, they were black in colour, moaning, just withering around..."
Tom Spinard (Engine 7) observes a woman with her back burned who was outside the lobby:
"So I was figuring that, blown out of the...out of the building. because all the lobby windows were out..."
So here we have experienced firemen making references to a bomb detonation in the lobby of WTC1, all of which strongly suggests that the prime weapons used in the attacks against WTC1 were pre-planted explosives. There is more evidence for pre-planted bombs at WTC1 in the Naudet film. During the initial impact when the camera zooms in there appears to be a bomb detonation from the east face of WTC1. The X-11 hit almost head on so we would expect to see equal ejections of debris from the tower marked in the green rectangles, but we do not. Curiously the north face explosion and the east face explosion seem to have joined with each other as marked by the green arrow. There are also smaller explosions near the roof section marked in purple boxes. All of these effects occur simultaneously. Unless there is some physical link between these specific area's of WTC1 then this arguably constitutes evidence for pre-planed bombs.
If you view the second image in "Airframe Identified" you will see that the X-11 has a wide wing span. The impact explosion shown in the Naudet film is not in the shape of an aircrafts outline and seems to have a right wing missing. It seems most likely that we are looking at primarily the detonation of pre-planted bombs that would emulate the internal damage to the tower that should have been caused by a rather more substantial and fuel laden 767-200.
The "flash" could be the optical effect of a weapons discharge but how can we tell if it was from a missile launch, a pulse laser discharging or a 'scalar weapon' or some kind black technology?
The X-11 hit the north tower at 08:46 and caused seismic activity of magnitude ML=0.9, compared with a value of ML=0.7 for the impact of the second plane according to Columbia University's principal report into seismic activity in New York on September 11. As both aircraft should have been identical in terms of their structure and fuel load we would have expected the impacts to have produced similar seismic effects respectively, but clearly they do not. Flight 175 was travelling faster than its 'AA11' counterpart so we would expect a greater amount of kinetic energy from the WTC2 strike, but we do not see this in the seismic record. The duration of the impact was significantly longer than the WTC2 strike. The explosion looks and sounds different. The WTC1 strike sounds like a short sharp and loud bang, while the WTC2 strike sound slower, deeper and more reminiscent of thunder. As the towers were essentially identical and were hit by supposedly identical aircraft they should have produced similar visual, acoustic and seismic signatures. In film of the WTC2 strike we can see vast amounts of burning jet fuel, but the Naudet film shows what appears to be only ejections of pulverised concrete with some orange colours in the cloud appearing later on in the sequence. Others researchers have noticed that the shape of the WTC1 cloud has more in common with a bomb detonations from a military device. All of this strongly suggests that explosion seen, heard and felt in the Naudet film was in part the effect of a detonation from inside the structure and not caused by the ignition of jet fuel.
Another interesting observation about the X-11 impact is the relationship between the visual impact and the sound of the rather loud 'bang' it seems to create. Not only does the seismic evidence suggest a bomb detonation when compared to the WTC2 strike, the timing of the explosion does too. We know roughly the distance from the camera to the WTC1 gash. If we assume the ambient air temperature on the day to be 20 degrees Celsius then we have a time delay of approximately 3.3 seconds. In other words if we were to re-synchronise the sound track of the impact sequence we could 'see' the sound as it happened. To put it another way, we could re-create the experience as if we were right at the impact point itself.
The image below is the frame that corresponds to the sound of the 'bang':
As you can see the 'bang' has nothing to do with the aircrafts impact, an impact which is almost completely silent. It also occurs at about the same time as the relatively oversized ejection of debris from the east face of the tower first to appears.
As I see it an explosive device planted on the eastern side of WTC1 would have detonated approximately 0.5 seconds after the impact of the X-11. The variance of the time delay shown here depends on the accuracy of the gash height, the ambient air temperature and the calculated viewing angle of the camera.
This conclusion does not support the idea that missiles were fired by the X-11 prior to impact (unless they were silent) but does support the theory that the detonation of internal bombs were responsible for the zigzag shaped explosion that we see in the Naudet footage.
Knowing the height of each floor, the width of the outer column sections and with access to photographs of the WTC1 gash we can deduce the following:
Horizontal distance from wing tip to wing tip = 66ft approximately.
Vertical distance from wing tip to wing tip = 146 and 8 inches approximately.
Using simple trigonometry we can calculate the bank angle at impact to be approximately 24.2 degrees and the wing span to be 161ft approximately. A 767-200 has a wing span of precisely 156ft and 1 inch so we have some strong evidence that the aircraft that hit WTC1 was not a 767-200.
More importantly look at the picture below of taxiing 767's.
Notice how almost parallel the wings are to the horizontal plane. They are angled up a little however and we refer to this angle as the 'wing dihedral' angle. This 'wing dihedral' angle should be reflected in the gash on WTC1, but if you look closely it is not.
The scaled and superimposed 767 over a corrected FEMA diagram shown above illustrates this point. In these diagrams the areas shaded grey are the two angled corners of the tower that are at 45 degrees to the towers facia. The outer extremities of the gash shown in the picture above have been extended to reflect the real damage as derived from photographs and has been marked with the red lines, while the 767-200 dihedral angle has been drawn in green over the scaled-to-match aircraft. Both the wing span and dihedral angle issues raised here a near conclusive evidence that the aircraft that struck WTC1 was not a 767-200. There is a case to argue that the aircraft could be in the process of undergoing a structural failure, perhaps starting with the wings beginning to bend upward from the wing root, although this is somewhat unlikely as the aircraft was clearly in controlled flight as seen in the Naudet footage, reported by witnesses and indicated by RADAR data. If the wings were bending upward then the wing span would have effectively been even greater than it appears, once again eliminating the 767-200.
The original FEMA diagram although reasonably accurate, made the gash look misleadingly small by not detailing its outer extremities with any clarity and including the columns angled at 45 degrees shown face on to the viewer which gives the appearance of the tower being wider than it actually was.
The original FEMA diagram is show below:
Fitting a 767-200 into the FEMA gash was near impossible. The picture below has the engines fitted into what appears to be the engines holes that would have been created by the 767-200. Unfortunately the wing marks don't match and the top portion of the fuselage, tail fin and elevator seem to have left no mark at all.
Attempts to match the wing tips of the 767-200 on the corrected FEMA diagram showed obvious discrepancies, more notably the wing dihedral issue mentioned previously:
Had the tower actually been struck by a 767-200 FEMA might have represented the damage looking something like this:
Below is a composite picture that strongly suggests that the outer extremities of the gash were caused by the X-11's airframe:
As you can see from the image the left wing of the aircraft fits almost precisely with the gash. This strongly suggests that is was the X-11 alone which created the overall dimensions of the gash and not missile launches as suggested by others. Missiles may have been used to augmented the impact but were probably only launched from the inner portions of the wings.
The close up of the gash shown below reveals the actual angle that the left wing as it cut into the columns (marked in cyan rectangles). It seems hard to imagine that such precision down to a few inches cold be achieved by missiles alone, even harder to imagine is the sheer volume of missiles needed to cut such a precise gash and the mechanism to launch them in perfect harmony. The sheer volume of gadgetry needed along the wings and on the fuselage would have made the X-11 difficult to fly, if not, prevent it from flying at all.
If these marks were produced by missiles they were extremely accurate at giving the illusion of the outer parts of the wings impact against the towers facia, but did nothing to give the impression of a 767-200 impact, nor do we see a neat v-shape of explosions in the Naudet footage but rather irregular looking zigzag shape.
The inner sections of the gash are a different matter. The right side is disproportionately larger compared to the left. One would have expected the gash to be linear. This point could be seen as evidence for either missiles, pre-planted bombs or a combination of both. As the impact sequence shows no observable disturbances where the right wing should have been (apart from the area near the right wing tip) it's safe to assume that if missiles were used then they were not used to simulate the part of the strike that should have equated to the middle portion of the right wing of the 767-200.
Given the dark area on the right wing root of the X-11, the over-sized nature of the right portion of the scar, the fact that it can be seen as the only part of the scar burning directly after the impact, the impact eruptions that are absent from the right half of the explosion and their out of sequence appearance all point to the fact that this event is far more complex that it appears.
Supporters of the official version of events will no doubt use the FEMA picture of a tyre allegedly found at the corner of West Street and Rector Street as evidence of the 767-200 strike at WTC1. Take a close look at the picture below. It has been enhanced to show details in darker areas and seems to have been taken using black and white film or was reproduced in black and white.
At a first glance nothing seems out of the ordinary. A closer look at that the picture reveals it was taken in poor lighting conditions in what looks like to be the interior of a structure that is partly exposed to the outside. The camera is also very close to the tyre giving it the appearance of being larger than it actually is. If the tyre had been shot out of the inferno aloft we would have expected to see some evidence of this, but in the picture the tyre and its surrounds look quite tranquil. There do not seem to be any signs of burning, the scaffold in the background looks intact and the dust on the ground seems undisturbed.
The scene here is more consistent with that of a junk yard, not an air crash site. We must also ask ourselves why a heavy 'Pratt and Witney' engine didn't accompany the tyre as it would have had far more momentum than the tyre due to the density of the metals used the combustion chamber/compressor stage/turbine stage etc.
But the mystery deepens when you consider the tyres path from WTC1.
As you can see the tyre took a left at WTC1 during the impact by 15 degrees.
As the idea of 'smart tyre' is a little implausible I'm forced to conclude in view of all the evidence that the tyre was placed at the scene to reinforce the official version of events. The only other scenario would be that the tyre was deflected by the towers core during the impact, but this is difficult to believe when considering the momentum it would have had and the photographic and film evidence of debris from the WTC2 strike. Until the photograph of the tyre has been analysed by film and aeronautical experts and the photographer interviewed we have no idea what the picture is showing us and when or where the picture was taken and as such the picture should not be considered reliable evidence for the 767-200 strike it is supposed to be supporting.
Some researchers have flashed the other FEMA image of '767' wreckage as evidence for the Flight 11 strike on WTC1 but this is incorrect as FEMA clearly labelled the picture in their report as "Figure 2-29 A portion of the fuselage of United Airlines Flight 175 on the roof of WTC5". Not only does the FEMA report specify that the wreckage was from UA175 but it is also billed as being on top of WTC5 which on the northern side of the complex.
Next is what appears to be the single engine from the X-11 perched in the WTC1 gash. This piece of evidence was discovered by researcher Leonard Spencer. The object is long, cylindrical and could be identified the central shaft of the engine where the intake / compression / combustion stages would be located.
The component is also in the centre of the gash, placed exactly where you would expect it to be if the aircraft has a single rear mounted engine, just like on the X-11.
The south face of WTC1 seems to have suffered uneven damage:
This does not make sense. The aircraft hit almost head on and we would have expected to see more balanced burning across the south face. When you consider the north face and the south face together it seems that most of the damage has been inflicted on the western side of the tower. Could this have anything to do with the black object seen on the starboard wing of the X-11? I am of the opinion that the dark object near the right wing root is in fact a fuel pod, the purpose of which would be to simulate the damage inflicted by a fuel laden 767-200. As the X-11 would have had less internal volume than a 767-200 it would have been necessary to mount the fuel pod on the outside of the fuselage. This is the only explanation I can find that fits the photographic and film evidence.
WTC1 eventually collapsed at 10:28am and claimed 1344 lives from the initial impact to the towers ultimate demise. No one above the 93rd floor survived. The cause of the collapse was initially attributed to truss failure due to excessive heat caused by the burning jet fuel and office material. Soon after this was proven to be false and outer column failure has been put forward as possible explanation.
In order to identify the X-11 we need something to gauge its dimensions by. The official story tells us that the tower was hit by a hijacked American Airlines 767-200. If we were to use an identical camera to the one used by Jules Naudet and could position a 767-200 at precisely the same bearing and with the same flight attitude as the real aircraft it would be possible to do a direct comparison with the re-created film to the authentic footage.
As I do not have the time or resources to re-create this event using broadcast quality cameras with a real Boeing 767-200 I have chosen to simulate the scenario in Microsofts 'Flight Simulator 2004 - A Century Of Flight' (Fs2004) using a high quality iFDG 767-200 freeware add-on and a custom made patch that restores the former World Trade Centre Complex to the flight simulator scenery.
I checked the WTC patch with the iFDG 767-200 to real world dimensions. The simulated scenery and aircraft add-ons were strikingly accurate.
Next I had to position the viewer precisely at the point where Jules Naudet was filming when the aircraft struck. I achieved this with a street map of lower Manhattan and knowing that the cameraman was near Canal Street I positioned the virtual viewpoint respectively and made fine adjustments so that zoomed in shots of the tower just after it had been hit matched as closely as possible to what could be seen from the simulated view point at similar zoom settings.
Very little camera positioning was needed, although the refinement process took some time, as did the positioning of the 767-200 in front of the towers with its flight attitude and height.
During the creation of this article I also worked on the aircrafts flight path and attitude using Fs 2004 and the Naudet film. The workings for this are complex and will not be explained in the interests of brevity. To summarise:
Flight path - Descent angles between 10 and 16 degrees. Not adjusted for of centre track.
Aircraft pitch - Negative between 7.5 and 14 degrees. Not adjusted for starboard yaw.
Aircraft speed visual estimate - between 450mph and 500mph.
Aircrafts starboard yaw which is to WTC1 face perpendicular is believed to be between 2 and 4 degrees.
If positioned in the WTC1 gash looking straight out the camera position from the observer would be:
Declination angle of approximately 19 degrees .
Relative bearing of approximately 14 degrees.
We also know that the height of the gash on WTC1 was 374 meters and therefore:
Distance from gash to camera - 1120 meters approximately.
Time delay duration from gash to camera position - 3.3 seconds approximately.
For the purpose of the analysis I choose the following data for the iFDG 767-200 used in the simulation.
Pitch - 10 degrees negative approximately
Yaw - 3 degrees positive
Roll - 24 degrees port approximately
Altitude - Visually matched to aircraft in Naudet footage
With the camera positioned as accurately as possible and the aircraft position and attitude adjusted to match the X-11 aircraft seen in the Naudet footage using Fs 2004, we can generate an image of what Jules Naudet should have seen on the day.
The image above left shows us what Jules Naudet should have seen through his cameras view finder while the image above right shows what he actually captured. The dimensionally accurate 767-200 has been generated in front of WTC1 with the exact attitude and position as the X-11 from the Naudet footage. We now have a reference point to ascertain its true dimensions with a fair degree of accuracy.
Straight away we can see that the X-11 is significantly shorter than the 767-200...
The X-11 has a rather obvious absence of wing mounted engines...
Out of all the frames that were captured and analysed for this article I never found anything that looked remotely like engine nacelles despite the fact that the sun should have been illuminating them quite adequately from the left.
The 'suns view' of the simulated AA767-200 is shown below and clearly illustrates the airframe illumination. We should also note that the engines and airframes of this aircraft are finished with a highly reflective metal material.
The X-11 is pitched downward and banked to the left significantly (red shows bank while green shows bank and pitch)...
The X-11 has different wing sweep back which is more noticeable on the starboard wing...
Don't be fooled by the picture directly above, it looks like the 767-200 has high dihedral angle wings. It doesn't, it's just that the 31.5 degree wing sweep back angle gives that impression at this viewing angle. The left wing on the X-11 also looks longer than the simulated 767-200, but this is not the case. The wing is swept back giving the illusion of it being shorter because less of it is exposed to the camera. One of the reasons for producing this particular image was that during the testing of the simulation I found it impossible to match the wings on the 767-200 to the X-11 no matter what combination of pitch , yaw and roll I used. I was forced to conclude that the wings on the X-11 were radically different to the wings on the 767-200 simulation.
The analysis detailed above gives the X-11's airframe about 25% shorter than the 767-200 who's fuselage length is precisely 48.51 meters, the length of the X-11's airframe therefore is approximately 37 meters. From the previous 'Gash' section we know that the X-11's wing span is slightly greater than that of a 767-200 and that the dihedral angle is 4 or 5 degrees greater than a 767-200. Finally from the wing sweep back image on this page we know that the X-11 has relatively little wing sweep back, at a guess no more than 10 degrees.
It should be noted that these are general figures, but what we can confirm with great certainly is that the X-11's airframe is significantly different from that of a 767-200.
My final observations of the X-11 are as follows - evidence of a single rear tail fin mounted slightly back from the end of the fuselage, a pointed nose or certainly more 'pointed' than the 767-200 simulation aircraft, some evidence of a dark area at the rear of the fuselage which could be the outlet for a single rear mounted engine, rear elevators are visible in many captures of the X-11 and quite possibly angled upward up to 45 degrees, wings smaller in width than a 767-200, fuselage narrower than a 767-200 as seen in the gash and from witness reports of a 'small' aeroplane, wings mounted disproportionately rearward for an aircraft with wing mounted engines but consistent for an aircraft with rear mounted engines, like a DC-9 for example. There is however no evidence of external rear mounted engines.
The rough dimensions of the X-11 are therefore:
Wing span 49 meters - Obtained from gash dimensions.
Fuselage length approximately 37 meters - Naudet film and FS 2004 simulation.
Wing dihedral angle 10 - 12 degrees - WTC1 gash dimensions.
Fuselage diameter 3.5 meters approximately - Naudet film and witness reports.
Pictured below are the schematics for the X-11 as deduced from the available data.
I've included cockpit windows as seen by witness George Sleigh, and where he claims he saw the undercarriage I have added 'missile launching' devices. The mysterious black device at the right wing root has not been included. The rest of the design is loosely based around a generic aircraft and a rudimentary understanding of aeronautics.
Could this be what witnesses saw and identified as a 'small' aircraft?
As you can see from the 767 / X-11 comparison above the X-11 does look somewhat 'smaller' than the 767-200 so the witness reports could be seen as quite accurate in a relative way. The X-11 was banked to the left at the time of impact. The WTC was on the western side of lower Manhattan, viewers on the eastern side of the complex would have seen the X-11's slender airframe and with the bank angle making the wings look shorter than they actually were, they could have perceived the aircraft as being 'small'.
There is no conclusive evidence of a 767-200 strike on Tower 1 of the former World Trade Centre Complex in New York on the morning of September 11th 2001.
The photographic evidence of the WTC1 gash and the aircraft seen in the Naudet footage strongly suggest an aircraft of similar overall size to a 767-200 but with a greater wing span, a slightly shorter fuselage and a single rear mounted engine.
Computer simulations of a real 767-200 strike compared to the Naudet aircraft show little or no similarity to each other.
A host of eyewitness reports cast serious doubt over the official story by failing to provide positive identification of a 767-200 at the World Trade Centre complex.
There is an overwhelming body of hard and circumstantial evidence to suggest that the aircraft seen in the Naudet footage was not a 767-200.
If Flight 11 had been a 767-200 then it would have appeared as just that in the Naudet footage - a 767-200.
The case for a 767-200 strike at WTC1 is very weak and will no doubt remain highly controversial until a full scale investigation by professionals from all fields is carried out to resolve the matter for once and all.
September 2004 - Version 1