A TALE OF TWO LIES
Part 1: Introduction and WTC1 Wing
Angle Measurements
By: Dr. Stefan Grossmann, 8-2-8
(Link to Part 2 see at the end below)
The public conscience in the west is made insane by nothing more than
two key lies:
• the lie that passenger planes
(flight 11/flight 175, each a Boeing 767-200) hit the Twin Towers;
• the lie that the Twin Towers
were destroyed by raging fire infernos.
This is an article series telling the story of these two lies. The focus
is forensic (evidence) and specialized (not mentioning numerous general aspects
that have already been discussed at length in the 9-11 truth movement).
This is the opening article of the series and presents angle
measurements, namely (i) the dihedral wing angle imprinted in the so-called
impact hole in North Tower (WTC1, north wall, alleged impact at 08:46 on 9-11-1
in lower Manhattan) compared with the wing angle of the proposed aircraft,
flight 11, a Boeing 767-200. The conclusion from this analysis is that there is
mathematical certainty that the so-called impact hole and a Boeing 767-200 do
not match up.
I. EXPLANATION OF THE GALLERIZE.COM
FRONT PAGE GRAPHIC:
Here is a graphic from the front page of Gallerize.com giving the basic
outline of this proposition. The proposition is often labelled as „no plane
theory” because it says that no Boeing 767-200 flew into the tower. The only
label that I would accept for this proposition is „no Boeing 767-200 theory”
which highlights the technical distinction at heart of the argument (leaving it
open if a different aircraft type, clearly not a Boeing 767-200, possibly a
missile or drone, impacted the tower). I am not a „no planer” but a „no Boeing
767-200er”. People who embrace the possibility that a Boeing 767-200 struck the
tower are not „planehuggers” but are „Boeing 767-200 huggers”; and they alone
pose a clear and imminent danger for the truth behind the 9-11 insider attacks:
The basic photo of North Tower north wall wounded with the hole is the
Nicolas Cianca photo:
The Nicolas Cianca Photo
This article will use additional photos in order to solidify the basic
graphic above. Major questions that may be raised are: (i) The photo is not
taken in a full frontal view but somewhat sideways, which can increase angles
by foreshortening perspective. (ii) The apparent wing lines visible in the
photo at the extremities of the hole broaden towards the center of the hole,
opening conjecture as to the exact location of the apparent wings at fly-in
time.
The size and outline of a Boeing 767-200 are not at dispute for its
position at rest on the ground. Here are some graphics from reliable sources
reflection such information:
From ANA Airline site
Section from above)
Graphic and photo from Amanda’s Blog
at 911researchers.com
The major question (iii) that can be raised here arises from the fact
(apparent in the photo from Amanda’s Blog) that the wing tips can flex upwards
somewhat during certain flight maneuvers when the proposed aircraft is in the
air – are the angle discrepancies (see discussion below) due to this or not?
Summary: We have three questions that need to be addressed in this
analysis of evidence; see text above at small Roman numerals (i), (ii) and
(iii).
II. OTHER PHOTOS EXCEPT NICOLAS
CIANCA PHOTO:
Here are six additional photos apart from the Nicolas Cianca photo:
The Roberto Rabanne Photo (presented
in FEMA Report)
The Allan Tannenbaum Photo
(presented in NIST Report)
Section from Portland Indimedia
Photo
Photo showing Woman (Edna Cintron?,
red box, different shot than Roberto Rabanne Photo)
Jumpers Photo including Top Right
End of Hole
There are other photos of North Tower impact hole but due to low image
resolution they will not greatly assist this analysis.
III. PORT WING IMPRINT (LEFT-SIDE
WING IMPRINT):
1. Analyzing the port (left-side) wing imprint, my first question is:
Can a straight line be drawn in the hole? Source: photos, Windows „Paint”
program (line draw function).
My answer: I cut out the next-following section from the
government-presented Roberto Rabanne photo using a popular freeware graphics
program (IrfanView):
Then I used my Windows „Paint” program, trying to draw a straight line:
I was unable to draw a straight line. Maybe I’m just too stupid. Please
try it out yourself on the computer.
I tried the same procedure with the government-presented Allan
Tannenbaum photo. For purposes of abbreviation of verbiage let me just present
the following two graphics:
Try it yourself. I’m only doing this to show you that I’m very stupid.
The only non-government presented photo that is sufficiently detailed to
make a third attempt is the Edna Cintron photo. Again, here is my try:
Again, I was too stupid to match this up. In all three tries I noticed
that after the first interruption (drawing from left to right), the next three
standing „teeth” are just a little bit too high to seem realistic. Maybe you
will get the same feel if you try it yourself. Don’t forget that the wing is
not a slim knife but has a certain thickness, not reflected in the left-hand
extremity of the so-called impact hole.
2. My second question is: Does my answer above (#1, immediately
foregoing text) have anything to do with perspective foreshortening and
distorting angles? My answer is, no, since we are almost in the horizontal and
have used three different photo shots.
3. My third question is: Does my answer above (#1) have anything to do
with the wing tip flex of a Boeing 767-200 during certain mid-air flight
maneuvers?
My method to approach the answer is to used the same three photo
sections as above and to try to draw in a flexed looking port wing. Is there a
plausibly realistic solution to this? Here are my best results, but keep in
mind that I am very stupid and you must try it yourself in order to get the
point:
Note: the proverbial path of a „magic bullet!”
Do you know that maintenance personnel at the airport actually crawl
inside the wing tank to check it? Please give your best estimate in comparison
with the Edna Cintron (?) figure standing at the abyss whether the slot is wide
enough to give entry to such a wing, well-filled wing tank etc. (which did not
explode on the outside of the building but nearly a second after
nose-touch-wall, well inside the tower).
Summary: We are not looking at truth in form of photographs. We can
determine this even at this early stage of our analysis.
IV. STARBOARD WING IMPRINT:
The dots at the cut-off points suggest a straight line but no realistic
wing flex.
V. BOTH WINGS: THEIR DIHEDRAL ANGLE:
Now let us put two and two together and analyze the dihedral wing angle
(the „V” described by the wings):
The wings of a real Boeing 767-200 have a dihedral angle of about 5°.
See graphics of a Boeing 767-200 above on this page.
The Nicolas Cianca photo shows us a 24° dihedral angle of the so-called impact
hole. (I measured this in IrfanView, Image tab, custom rotation function,
through trial and error.) Such a dihedral angle is far outside of any tolerance
and is entirely unrealistic. This conclusion is confirmed by the six other
photos:
Rotate this foregoing marked section from the Roberto Rabanne photo by
+17.5° and the left yellow line will be horizontal. Then rotate it by another
+22.7° and the right yellow line will be horizontal. This government-presented
photo thus informs us of a dihedral of the so-called impact hole for North
Tower of 22.7°. That is a stark and mathematically evident contradiction
against the possibility of a Boeing 767-200 being the impactor. This is highly
cross-consistent with the independent Nicolas Cianca photo.
The Allan Tannenbaum photo as far as published by FEMA does not show the
right-side (starboard) wing imprint.
The other photos are in conformity with this finding that a Boeing
767-200 was not the impactor due to the wing dihedral.
The angle discrepancy cannot be explained away through wing tip flexing.
VI. MISMATCH OF THE JET ENGINE AND
MAIN TUBE IMPACT HOLES:
I held in earlier publications that there is a mismatch of the jet
engine impact holes. You can review this earlier report of mine; but it cannot
change the mathematically clear conclusion that this analysis has presented
above. My older report see at
http://www.gallerize.com/9-11/9-11_Hole_Science.htm
(analysis for both Twin Towers, including not only North Tower but also
South Tower).
Moreover, the main tube (the long passenger carriage) of the proposed
aircraft apparently did nothing more than to push the North Tower’s wall inside
for a few feet. This is what is apparent on the face of it from the Robert
Rabanne photo:
The foregoing section from the government-presented Roberto Rabanne photo
shows wall sections pushed in for a few feet inside from the façade where the
huge passenger airliner is said to have flown in. I do not believe that this is
realistic. One argument of the NIST to explain the collapse of the tower’s
spine consisting of heavy steel girders is (or was), that the alleged
airplane’s impact inside the tower with the core (we are looking at it through
the gaping hole) actually broke the core – but here we see fragile elements of
the façade still hanging. This is very strange indeed.
VII. CONCLUSION:
It is mathematically certain that a Boeing 767-200 was not the impactor
at North Tower (WTC1), north wall at or around 08:46 a.m. on 9-11-1 in the
World Trade Center in Manhattan, New York, New York. This finding is based on a
comparative analysis of the wing dihedral of the co-called impact hole as
compared with the wing dihedral of a Boeing 767-200. Wing tip flex is no
realistic explanation for the discrepancy in dihedral angles (around 5° for a
Boeing 767-200 and around 23° for the so-called impact hole in North Tower,
north wall).