A TALE OF TWO LIES

Part 5 (Final Part): Beware of Hoaxes!

By: Dr. Stefan Grossmann, 10-2-8

www.gallerize.com

(This is Part 5 - Final Part - of this series.)

For the finale of this series (specialized aspects of 9-11 research), I wish to point out what I personally believe are two major hoaxes that have been perpetrated. This is intertwined with that what has been said in earlier parts of this series. It is clear by now that we are dealing with the September 11 fraud, a more fitting name than, September 11 terror attacks.

I. SOUTH TOWER IMPACT HOLE:

Here is one of the very few good photos of WTC2 (South Tower) impact hole (09:03 a.m. on 9-11-1, flight 175, allegedly a Boeing 767-200):

The photo was taken looking straight at the south wall of South Tower; but the camera’s position is lower than the gash in the wall. According to engineering reports, each wall of the Twin Towers was 208 feet wide. The wing span of a Boeing 767-200 is reported as being 156 feet.

FEMA wrote in its WTC Building Performance Report (chapter 1, figure 1-4) that one of the two jet engines of the alleged 767-200 impactor jettisoned through South Tower and flew several blocks to the north, where debris of the engine settled on or near a sidewalk in the mall of a building. The 9-11 truth movement has since the time of the crime proven this allegation to be false. See for example the following, with photos:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam4.html (doubting the account of FEMA)

The engine debris reportedly does not match up with the Boeing 767-200 that serviced flight 175:

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm

http://www.rense.com/general64/wth.htm

I argued that the alleged impact hole does not match up with the size, nor with the outline, of a Boeing 767-200, see

http://www.gallerize.com/9-11/9-11_Hole_Science.htm

My report has been criticized by August Dunning, see his report

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticleWhatPlanes26Apr2006.html

In response to the criticism by August Dunning, I offer the following reply (using the same photo as above but enlarged, cut and marked by me as required for illustrating my reply):

I have marked the port (left-side) edge of the incision in the tower (the yellow line). I have further marked the incision that allegedly reflects where the tail of the aircraft lefts its imprint (the yellow arrow). The distance between the line and the incision mark of the tail is one-half the wingspan of the entire aircraft (assuming that the aircraft was symmetrical).

There can be a certain perspective foreshortening because the camera’s position was lower than the gash (camera looking upward). Studying an enlargement of the photo, I have found that it is difficult to determine with full precision how much lower the camera’s position than the gash. However, in a rough quantitative approach, I have come to the conclusion that the difference in height is relatively minor. I will therefore not take into account this factor.

I next opened the foregoing graphic in Windows Paint and drew a white line in a right angle to the yellow lines (for geometric purposes, here disregarding the incision’s apparent wing direction):

My next step was to turn on the printer of my PC and to print out the foregoing graphic. I then took a ruler. I measured the width of the wall (accounting for the slight tilt of the photo’s left edge inward to the right, and using the middle of the visible corner pieces as left and right boundaries). I measured quite exactly 23 cm for the wall’s width (measured at the bottom height of the photo). According to my measurement, the white line was 9.4 cm long.

I assumed that twice the white line is the purported wing span: 9.4 cm * 2 = 18.8 cm. 18.8 cm represents 81.739% of 23 cm. 81.739% of 208 feet is 170 feet. If the gash reflects a wing span of 170 feet then it is considerably wider than the wing span of a Boeing 767-200 (156 feet).

I measured the wall’s width a second time (this time in the middle height of the photo). According to this measurement, the wall is about 22.5 cm wide. 18.8 cm represents 83.55% of 22.5 cm. 83.55% of 208 feet is 174 feet. My first method was thus a bit more conservative, but the realistic value might be more towards the 174 width of the alleged impact gash according to this set of measurement. Even the lower figure represents a totally impossible value for a Boeing 767-200.

I tried to obtain a more precise measurement. I therefore enlarged the first photo shown on this page and cut out the relevant section:

I printed out a 2109 by 753 pixel 775 KB jpg of this graphic on a European DIN A 4 format page (European letter format page – I live in Germany in Europe). I made my measurement drawing, measured and scanned my page as follows:

I measured the width of the wall between (L) and (R) at 27.3 cm. I measured the distance between outer port edge of the gash and center of the gash (line where tail incised wall) at 11 cm. 2 * 11 cm = 22 cm for the gash’s full wing span. 22 cm is 80% of 22.7 cm. Again, take 80% of the wall’s width of 208 feet, and you arrive at a wing span of 166.4 feet, well more than the 156 foot wing span of a Boeing 767-200. Measurement confirmed!

However, going through this procedure I realized clearly that the port wing tip, when you connect the two yellow lines by a connecting line in a right angle to the two yellow lines, indicates the following: The wing tips of the aircraft were higher than the fuselage. This is a characteristic that is not present in any Boeing 767-200, see the following schematic (yellow line: correct, red line: approximately the South Tower impactor).

It is the same finding as in Part 1 of this series (for North Tower), that the dihedral wing angle reflected in the so-called impact hole can impossibly match a Boeing 767-200, nor can this be explained away by the - relatively minor - wing tip flexing during certain flight maneuvers.

In other words, I would like to reply to the author August Dunning to reconsider his presentation.

II. THE POSSIBLE HUTCHISON EFFECT HOAX:

A ground of researchers is promoting the idea that the Twin Towers were not nuked but were destroyed at low temperature using the exotic but real physical „Hutchison Effect”. This is done with the intent to overturn the findings of researchers like Steven Jones. However, I have compiled evidence for hot temperatures that is ignored by the Hutchison Effect pushers. They are either riding an academic hobby horse (however unlikely) or are government-connected in the cover-up (reader should decide). The only halfway interesting evidence for this has a telling source: government labs, archives and institutions. One of the Hutchison Effect promoters is Dr. Judy Wood, a brilliant engineering scholar. The implicit assumption of her position is that all witnesses lied, saw things, dreamed the heat they felt, etc. I personally find this - horribile dictu - a possible expression of academic arrogance by this brilliant mind. See Dr. Wood’s article series, authored together with John Hutchison, at

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/index.html

The whole notion is based on so-called „evidence” that has been in the custody of the government for years. (I discount rusty brown aluminum on-site at Ground Zero to be rusty brown steel; those photos are to my mind not clear.) It is well possible that such evidence has been treated with the Hutchison bundle of effects after 9-11 behind the closed doors of government labs. This is to my mind as likely as the fact that the jet engine in the mall (see example at the top of this page) is fake, chattel evidence was hand-planted, etc.

Whatever your idea: Remember that „evidence” is that what cannot be forged. If you are dealing with so-called evidence that can be forged: Beware of hoaxes.

* * *