Indisputable Evidence the Official 9/11 Story Is Wrong, Part I: Something Other Than a 767 Hit the North Tower

All the Naudet video frames relevant to the plane that hit the North tower can be seen here.

The flying object in the Naudets' video is both out of focus and has been subjected to some degree of motion blur. Nonetheless, the object has the rough outlines of a plane, a large plane in fact. But is it a Boeing 767, as AA flight 11 was?

Keep in mind that motion blur and general lack of focus will make the object look even bigger than it really is, as well as distort its overall appearance.

Here I 've done flight simulator comparisons with either a Boeing 767 or a Boeing 737 (a smaller similar shaped plane), with the plane juxtaposed next to the North WTC tower in a very similar position to the image on the left side, which is a frame from the Naudet "firemen's" video.

The black bar is the same in both frames, and shows the tower sizes are essentially identical. Click on pictures to enlarge.

Here is a 767 on the right, compared to the Naudet frame:

The 767 is clearly much bigger than the object in the video.

Here is a 737 on the right, compared to the Naudet frame:

The Naudet object is much more similarly sized to a 737.


Here is a 767 on the right, compared to the Naudet frame, where I've subjected the Flight Simulator frame to blurring and motion blur using Adobe photoshop. Clearly the 767 is still bigger, much bigger:



Here is a 737 on the right, compared to the Naudet frame, where I've subjected the Flight Simulator frame to blurring and motion blur using Adobe photoshop. The 737 is VERY similar in size to the plane in the Naudet video:



Here I analyze the frame of the Naudet video right before contact, right before the "flash" appears. Here is a blurred 767:


Here is a blurred 737:


In the last frame before contact, the plane in the Naudet video definitely looks smaller than a 767 but perhaps slightly bigger than a 737. Interestingly however, the large wings on the 767 remain quite visible, whereas the smaller wings on the 737 are fading away, very similar to what is seen with the plane in the Naudet video.

To summarize, the general features of the plane in the Naudet video are:
1) a shorter fuselage than a 767
2) shorter wings than a 767
3) a tail that is similar in size to a 767
4) less fuselage in front of the wings
5) what appears to be a different wing angle (less swept back) than a Boeing 767 or 737.
6) no signs of large wing-mounted engines

In other words, quite a different plane than the official story holds.

Pre-Emptive Response to Likely Criticisms
1) Criticism: the angle of the building is wrong. Overall the viewpoint of the flight simulator "camera" is very similar to the Naudet camera view. Part of the reason the flight simulator tower looks more angled is due to a fish-eye-lens-type distortion in the flight simulator "camera". This however, does not affect the relative perspective, and the plane in the Naudet video is clearly too small for a 767 when modeled in multiple different angles using flight simulator.

2) Criticism: the angle of the plane is wrong. The plane in the Naudet video is clearly too small for a 767 when the 767 is modeled in multiple different angles using flight simulator. I have not shown all my other simulations in order to save space.

3) Criticism: flight simulator is just a video game. Actually, flight simulator is a very sophisticated flight modeling progam, and is not a game in any traditional sense. Microsoft flight simulator is very precise at recreating realistic planes and objects from different perspectives.

4) Criticism: flight simulator does not precisely model planes and the WTC towers. In fact, the simulations one can do with flight simulator are quite remarkable in clarity, precision and detail. A 767 positioned next to the WTC in flight simulator shows the exact proportions one would expect from a real Boeing 767 and the 208 foot square 1250 foot high WTC. The only flaw I've seen with flight simulator is the fish-eye distortion seen with some camera angles in the Manhattan scenery, but as I've discussed, this does not affect my findings.

Ultimately, even if one wants to discount the flight simulator results, one must confront the simple math that shows the plane in the Naudet video is too short and has too narrow of a wingspan for a 767.