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 these factors.
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:
Click here to read the Evan Fairbanks witness
report from the 'Witness Reports' section.