Evan Fairbanks Video - "A Bad Special Effect"
To our surprise the Even Fairbanks video shows a symmetrical aircraft that
bears a striking resemblance to a Boeing 767-200:
The port wing and port tail fin are a little faint, the starboard wing root looks significantly over-sized
(this could be caused by a video phenomena known as 'blooming') the fuselage looks very thin and
there seems to be a great deal of reflection from the forward section of the fuselage and a
rather obvious absence of the underside reflective strip which should have been adequately illuminated
by the sun.
Flight Simulator reproduced 'specular highlights' on the forward section of the fuselage,
but not to the extent that we see in the video.
Perhaps this is evidence for the 'pipe' on that forward section.
My main concern lies with the prominent bulge under the starboard wing. A 'pod' of this shape, size and position does not appear in any of the other images analysed for this article except for the Pavel Hlava film. I do not believe that this is an illusion generated by reflected sunlight of the airframe and the wing fairings because the sun is not in a favourable position to create such an illusion, nor do I believe that we are simply looking at a shadow cast on the airframe by the starboard engine nacelle and its connecting pylon. If you look closely at the Fairbanks image shown here you will see a very small section of illuminated wing between the starboard engine nacelle and the fuselage.
If the 'pod' illusion was being generated from the shadow cast by the engine nacelle and its pylon on the underside of the starboard wing then the pod would appear to be further forward than it is and it would bridge the gap between the starboard engine and the fuselage. This effect is self evident in the CG UA175 aircraft image shown above, but is absent from the comparative frame form the Fairbanks video.
More importantly the wing fairings on the Boeing 767-200 are not large enough to generate such a huge 'pod' illusion, the size of which is similar to that of one of the aircrafts engines as seen in the captures used for this analysis. Consider the size of the wing fairings in the Boeing 767-200 montage below:
Having studied the DVD captures used here I can conclude that the
appearance of the 'pod' cannot be explained as a shadow cast from the starboard engine nacelle.
Nor can it be attributed to a compression artefact or any other distortion introduced into the
image by the process of conversion, re-sizing or compression.
The aircraft is represented in the frame by a significant number of pixels to eliminate all of
Despite the UA175 aircrafts nose-tip being inside a 13 degree shadow wedge at the moment of impact it still manages to cast a small thin shadow across the towers facade. The shadow only appears as the nose of the "plane" nears the tower and looks as if it is perpendicular to the horizontal mechanical sections of the tower.
Compare it to the CNN Best Angle 'flash' frame - there is
no shadow cast at nose-tip penetration in this video.
This is quite literally an 'impossible shadow' and it didn't appear in other videos
that are supposed to be showing the same event
There is a good chance that this 'impossible shadow'
have been added to the video.
This visual anomaly is probably a deliberate visual warning to the
viewer as to the fraudulent nature of the video.
After the supposed impact, ejected debris can be seen suddenly changing its trajectory in-flight with no apparent means of achieving this:
to read the Evan Fairbanks witness report from the
'Witness Reports' section.
Next - Pavel Hlava Video - "The Blinking Wing"