The "Plane Crash" Animation Sequences

Please allow time to download graphics. (30 MB)



This is the 16-second sequence of the "second airplane approach" These four clips are the ONLY LIVE IMAGES (of the alleged "Flight 175") still to be found on the official 9/11 TV archives. I have put them together sequentially to highlight this 'curious coincidence': Is it plausible that 4 cameramen just happened to film a 'slice' of the full airplane approach, all 4 'slices' then combining into a seamless, full 'airplane approach sequence'? Or is this - more plausibly perhaps - a prefabricated sequence of computer-animated imagery ?

The full sequence of the four 'plane approach' shots breaks down in this way:

-16sec to -15sec : "DIVEBOMBER"(cbs)
-15sec to -7sec : "THE BALL"(nbc)
-7sec to -4sec : "THE WINGTIP"(cbs)
-3sec to 0sec : "INTERNATIONAL SHOT"(abc)

In the real world, the odds for this sequence to occur are, of course, astronomically remote. Much as the endless string of bizarre 'coincidences' pushed by the official 9/11 storyline, this extraordinary occurence challenges our very limits of credulity.


Only 1min & 52seconds after the "LIVE strike", CBS aired a "follow-up" shot. It showed a small dot passing between the Empire State Building. So small, in fact, that CBS anchor Bryant Gumbel complained that he couldn't see it.

This shot exemplifies most effectively the digital aspect of the 9/11 TV broadcasts. By simply blowing up a detail of the scenery, we can make the following observations :

1 No 'video artifact' issues can account for the thick, black linings/ghost edges (see contour of WTC). The "plane" is seen overlapping those edges.

2 The approach angle/trajectory of the "plane" is absurd: if this were to be a Boeing 767 (travelling at the reported speed of "550mph"!) no way could it perform a last-minute turn to hit the WTC almost head-on (as seen in other 9/11 imagery).

3 The overall aspect of the imagery is not in the least consistent with real, video broadcasting standards; it has an altogether artificial aspect often seen in chroma-key/luma-key filtering or similar digital manipulations.

Exactly what sort of techniques/software-packages were employed? This cannot reasonably be our onus to establish. Most likely, numerous deception techniques were used - as the 9/11 hoax was certainly not meant to be exposed in as little as 6 years (September Clues version 1.0 was released in july 2007)... We may, however, apply a series of empirical and deductive processes in order to rule out that the 9/11 imagery is real photography. To this end, a host of data has been reviewed, compared and cross-analyzed. The aberrations which have emerged are not confined to the photographic domain: what is observable in the 9/11 TV broadcasts defies the very laws of physics, aerodynamics, trigonometry, optics, perspectives and, ultimately, plain common sense. It is the sum of these considerations which allow us to conclude - beyond any reasonable doubt - that virtually none of the 9/11 images are real: they are but a series of fabrications designed to replace the real-life events that unfolded in Manhattan on the morning of September 11, 2001.


This is the only LIVE clip which you will not find in the TV archives: the infamous "Nose-In/Nose-out fiasco" is featured in September Clues and comprehensively analyzed in NOSED OUT. It was broadcast live by WNYW-FOX5 and replayed by CNN 6min later (albeit with a large CNN-banner covering the "plane"). The fundamental question this shot raises is : "Can a passenger airplane crash into a steel tower and emerge from the other side with its cockpit intact?" No - but this of course raises another question mark: Why, if the 9/11 imagery was pre-fabricated, would such a 'cock-up' have occured? Now, here's where we must put our questions on hold and appeal to common sense. The bottom line is that whatevever the reasons, the fact remains that it cannot be real footage of a crashing airliner. Since this is what we have (an impossible depiction of an "airplane crash") we should stop right here - and ask FOX TV for explanations. Undeniably, FOX has actively attempted to remove this shot from public view. In fact, shortly after the release of September Clues in June 2007 - the WNYWFox5 video I had found on Youtube (containing the "Nose-Out fiasco") was removed with this 'candid', unambiguous message:



With the "LIVE SHOTS" out of the way, we are left to analyze the alleged "AMATEUR" shots which emerged only later: some within 12 hours of the event - and some as late as 2008! The sheer amount of "amateur" shots (around 45) is ludicrous in itself : we are asked to believe that 45 amateur videographers were able to get a clear panshot of the "550mph airplane"... The purpose of this 'overkill' is all too evident : by flooding the public with huge numbers of alleged "amateur" videoclips, the 9/11 plotters hoped to raise a wall of 'undeniability'. This has miserably backfired; simulating such a complex, real-life event involves a vast number of variables - all of which are difficult enough to reproduce realistically from two/three different angles - let alone 45! By contrast, only 1 video exists showing the first event at 8:46AM ("Flight 11 impacting WTC1"). Let us first have a look at this most "iconic" videoclip of 9/11. Barely two frames are needed to expose it - incontrovertibly - for the fraud that it is.


These 2 frames are extracted from the original DVD of the French Naudet brothers' movie "911". In the frame at left we may see that, 6 seconds after "plane impact", there simply is no right wing gash to be seen. Obviously, no BOEING 767 has entered that tower! Somehow, at the 20-second mark, and after much camera shake, a distinct gash appears. In the full video clip, one can clearly observe the gash being 'painted in'- and no - it is not a smoke plume. Once again, we don't need to pinpoint exactly how this video was forged: the inescapable fact is that this simply cannot represent real footage of a crashing airliner. Full video analyses here: THE PLANE FACTS (1min12") * 911AMATEUR part2 (7min18")

One of the unshakable certainties we have on this planet: The sun does not lie. Here we have two different "amateur" pictures depicting practically the same moment in time. All we have to look at are the North sides of the WTC towers: In one shot they bask in sunlight - in the other they are in shade. Both cannot be real.

Note: As these analyses unfold, I will use the fair and objective 'both-cannot-be-real' conclusion (in the case of back-to-back comparisons). This, solely for reasons of academic correctness. However, it is hoped that the reader will ultimately realize that the countless observable discrepancies call for a more severe, no-nonsense assessment of the entire 9/11 image pool.

Here we have an "amateur" shot credited to one "LUIS ALONSO". The two compared sections of his shot show why his video cannot be real. The "airplane" is seen passing behind the Woolworth building, after which it drastically changes trajectory. This can only be a poorly crafted video composite. In fact, trajectories were a constant problem for the 9/11 fakery crew: their 3-D simulation skills were evidently rather limited.

It should be noted that the plane looks ridiculously slow - if you consider it should be travelling at 550mph (900km/h)! And yes, there are ways of verifying (subsequent expansion of the fireball) that this notorious clip is not meant to be in slow motion.

(The 2 loops at left have been stabilized - that's why the MSNBC logo moves around)

Only 1 second separates these two pictures ( extracted from video by alleged "amateur" Devin Clark ). A Boeing 767 cannot bank (or 'roll'- in aeronautical jargon ) at a rate of 12/second. It just cannot do it - at any speed.

Full "Devin Clark" analysis here :
911 AMATEUR part1

This shot credited to "Evan Fairbanks" was repeatedly aired on ABC in the aftermath of 9/11. At the bottom of this shot we can see what is meant to be a reflection in a car windshield. The utterly ridiculous nature of this shot is for all to see. Film & video professionals will instantly recognize this classic 'trick' of the trade : 'Reflections' are all-too-common, special-effect gimmicks used in cinema production to 'enhance the reality' of digital sceneries.

Full "Evan Fairbanks" analysis here :
911 AMATEUR part3

This shot is credited to "Jennifer Spell": One may wonder if she cast a spell on her camera lens, allowing it to focus both the wire fence and the distant towers as she caught this 'lucky' shot of the "planecrash". In any case, her magical lens must be the envy of every photographer in the world. Her shot also features - like so many other 9/11 'lucky shots' - a miraculous zoom-in just as the "action" unfolds.

Note the hypnotizing, meant-to-be-found "laser light" for generating controversy; there are many such distractions in the 9/11 videos:
birds, sparkles and Unidentifed Objects
flashes at "plane impact"
"squibs" in the tower collapses

As a former motorsport photographer, this was the TV-shot that made me scrub my eyes in the days following 9/11. The sight of that airliner disappearing integrally into the steel tower simply didn't look right. Racing cars, to be sure, do not slice right through guard rails in head-on crashes. They shred into many small pieces. I remember friends quipping : "Well, nobody has ever witnessed such a unique planecrash, so who's to know what it should look like?" We now know it is a (poor) computer animation but, at the time, this was of course quite unthinkable.
Start/Stop Animation

Start/Stop Animation

Yes, it is indeed a crappy animation.
Case closed for this shot.

For further insights into the fakery evidence, view the other imagery analyses and articles on this website. Please realize that the "planecrash shots" were not isolated, fake videoclips: the (approx) 102min-long TV-programme broadcast on the morning of Tuesday September 11, 2001 was but a fully pre-fabricated movie designed to replace the real-life events in Manhattan. Why was it done? 9/11 was a massive money-making scheme - the scale of which is beyond most people's imagination. Please read on.