According to this New York Times article, Evan Fairbanks is a photographer who “had just emerged from Trinity Church, where he was videotaping the Archbishop of Wales.” Of course, later on in the article, he was said to have been “preparing to shoot a speech by the Archbishop of Wales.”
I have no idea who Evan Fairbanks is or what he was doing on September 11th. What I do know is that the “footage” that is said to have come from his camera is not real. I don't know this because of all of these videos I've been analyzing. I know this because I understand Newton's Laws (for more on this, see the afterward).
The fact that this footage has been faked makes Sarah Boxer’s article a work of fiction – as if we would expect anything else from a member of the mainstream media.
Analysis:
Even before I considered that no planes hit the towers, I questioned the validity of this screenshot:
First of all, notice that there are TWO planes in this screenshot (the second plane is just above the “FBI agent’s” forearm).
At first, I considered two possible explanations for this second plane:
1.) That the second plane was added to the footage AFTER it was shown on ABC to confuse us
2.) That the second plane was a somehow a reflection
However, I was recently reviewing a VHS tape that my sister gave to me, on which she had recorded the evening news on 9/11. After watching this tape, I had to rule out the first possibility - as I’m relatively confident (pun intended) that my sister isn’t a perp.
When left with only the second possibility, I was somewhat baffled as to how what looked like a white van could reflect the plane from that angle.
Upon closer inspection, I saw something that I’d never seen before in any of the Fairbanks videos that I’d seen before. This discovery caused me to throw out my second possibility, and to create a third.
Analysis: A New Perspective
In the second photo below, I have enlarged the “reflection” and lined it up with the “impact” above it.
I believe that what I used to think was a van, is in actuality some form of a monitor (on a slight angle).
Now watch this video, which zooms in on the top of the “monitor” during the “impact.” And don’t worry – I’m sure that’s just a candy bar in the “FBI agent’s” hand.
Notice that on the “monitor,” there is no fireball that emerges from the east face of WTC2. Furthermore, the “exit fireball” isn’t representative of what is happening at the top of the screen.
Speculation:
Ordinarily, I like to end my articles with a conclusion. In this case, I offer a theory instead – since it’s often difficult to state the cause of an impossible image with absolute certainty.
My theory is that what we are seeing on the “monitor” is a bluescreen layer that is being FED to the camera that is filming the “impact.” This would explain the appearance of the plane, and it would seem to indicate that the east-face explosion was real (since it wasn’t added on the same layer as the plane). Another possibility is that this video was created before 9/11. I mean, does the smoke coming out of WTC1 in the Fairbanks video look anything at all like this?
How far off does a camera setting have to be to make black smoke appear to be white?
Again, this “monitor theory” is speculation. Until such time as somebody is able to come up with a more sensible theory that explains the presence of the second plane, this will be my belief.
Remember that any theory that claims the second plane to be a reflection must account for the lack of an east-face fireball, as well as a much smaller exit fireball.
Afterward:
Those of us with a firm grasp on the truth have been forced to prove that all of these videos contain fake/CGI/cartoon planes because apparently, most Americans dozed off during Physics class in high school.
Now I realize I can't help everyone to understand Newton's Third Law - but I can try, using an example.
Imagine yourself punching a steel beam (obviously, you're not going to damage it). That pain that you would feel in your fist and travelling up your arm is a direct result of Newton's Third Law: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Notice how this law has no "fine print" disclaimers, like "...unless that force is travelling at a very high speed" or "unless that force is applied in mid-air."
When applying Newton's Third Law to a plane crashing into box-steel beams, what must be realized is that all of the speed and momentum of the plane that seems to impress som many people, is applied to the surface area of the plane that would be in contact with the beams at the point of impact. Equal and opposite.
In essence, the plane would be hitting itself with the same force it would be applying to the steel beams.
If you don't understand this concept, then I'm sorry - you'll have to keep up with all the videos that have been proven to be fake.
If you DO understand this, then you're fully armed with all the information you need to spread the truth - even if you've never watched a single video.
