And this site is doing 3D simulations:
http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/
see...
Purdue Simulations 9/11 Attack
Pentagon Crash - 9/11 Encyclopedia
The French are pointing out:
 |
The French site has a top view, so I made this front view to
show how large the hole in the Pentagon should be (although I
certainly have the scaling slightly incorrect because it is
difficult to scale four photos properly). (click the image)
The upper portion of the image shows the hole in the North tower. The people in the windows give you an indication of the size of the hole. Of course, the plane that hit the North tower was a 767, which was slightly larger than the 757 in this image. |
The wings of a Boeing 757 are 125 feet wide (38 meters); the
body is 155 feet long (47m); and each engine is about 9 feet in
diameter (2.75m). The plane weighs more than 100 tons.
For 757 specs: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/product.html
We are told the plane came in low to the ground, which explains
the lack of a hole in the upper floors of the building. However,
the distance between the bottom of the engines and the top of the
cabin is more than 18 feet (5.5m). From the bottom of the engines
to the top of the tail is about 41 feet (12.6m). The Pentagon is 77
feet (23 meters) tall. Therefore, the plane was 53% of the height
of the Pentagon.
Pentagon specs: http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon/facts.html
Look at the size of the plane in my composite image. In order for the plane to hit only the first floor of the building, the engines would have to be below ground level, and we have to ignore the tail.
Also, the plane was 155 feet (47m) long; the only way such a long plane could slip into the first floor is if it were perfectly horizontal and perfectly level. The slightest tilting would cause it to take out the second floor or dig into the dirt.
Considering there is very busy freeway in front of the crash
site, along with road signs, light posts, and trees, how did the
plane get so close to the ground? Those Arabs were great
pilots!
On 7 March 2002 the Pentagon released five images from a
security camera to prove the Arabs flew a Boeing 757 into the
Pentagon. Obviously they lied when they said they did not
have any video of the plane crash, but now they feel they must
release it, probably to counteract that French site.
Here is the video: http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp
Since they lied about the video, can we trust them on other issues? How many times does a person have to lie to you before you question his other remarks?
The image below is a composite of two frames of that lousy, low
quality video. There are two odd things to notice in these two
frames.
Whatever is producing the white smoke is hidden behind the rectangular object in the foreground. It would be more useful to see the frames before and after this. What a coincidence that the military decided to release the frame in which this large 757 is hidden behind a small object!
2) In the lower frame the white smoke has dissipated slightly, and whatever produced the white smoke has exploded. It looks as if the explosion started before it hit the building. Also, the fireball from an airplane crash (or an automobile crash) will be dark orange and full of soot. A bright, clean fireball implies plenty of oxygen was available; ie, explosives.
The Pentagon is 77 feet (23 meters) tall. Notice that the fireball in this image is perhaps 50% taller than the Pentagon. Since the fireball is a bright yellow at this large size, what did it look like when it was half this size? Why not release all of the video frames?
Perhaps the frames before this one showed the fireball glowing
such a bright, bluish white that it looked like 10,000 people were
arc welding at the same time!
However, we are told that the Arabs decided to hit the front of the building. More amazing, instead of hitting while diving down at an angle, we are told that they flew only inches above the ground to hit the ground floor of the building in a nearly horizontal manner.
There is a busy highway in front of the Pentagon, along with a railing, trees, and other objects. We are suppose to believe the Arabs flew only slightly above the cars along the highway. One witness claims that the airplane was so low that it knocked down a light post along the road.
To make this more absurd, after passing over the highway the Arabs had only a fraction of a second of flight time remaining, and in that brief time the Arabs dropped the plane even lower to a few millimeters above the grass.
The pilot's view of the ground in a 757 is not very good. For the Arabs to fly so low was a tremendous achievement. Especially when traveling at 345 mph (555 km/hour), which is the speed the flight data recorder supposedly shows. (The Pentagon claims to have found the flight data recorder, but the other parts of the 100 ton airplane vanished. I can believe that!)
Furthermore, airplanes never fly in straight lines; rather, they roll and tilt. Therefore, flying only inches above the ground without crashing is a tremendous achievement for inexperienced pilots!
Do you realize that the 757 was behaving as if it was a
cruise missile?
The reports claim that the Arabs flew around the Pentagon a while before hitting the building. By coincidence, the section the Arabs chose to hit did not have many people in it, so casualties were much lower than if they had hit elsewhere. That particular section was being renovated, and the people who normally worked there had been sent to other offices.
The Pentagon is said to be the largest office building in the world, and the Arabs decided to hit the small section that was being renovated. What a coincidence that the Arabs did not hit Rumfeld's office. What a coincidence that the Arabs did not hit a section of the building that was full of people.
Did the nice Arabs fly around the Pentagon a while in order to
find the section with the least number of people in it?
The time is shown only to the nearest second. I suspect the real video has IRIG time code recorded on an audio track, in which case the military could precisely identify each frame of video.
The first and second frames have identical times. The first frame shows the building before the plane hit. The second frame shows a fireball that is at least 50 percent taller than the pentagon. This means that within 1 second the plane crashed and a fireball grew to a height of at least 100 feet (33m).
If we could see the frames between those two we could estimate the rate at which the fireball expands. This would also let us determine whether the fireball was from jet fuel or an explosive. Jet fuel fireballs, as with automobile fireballs, do not expand very quickly. By comparison, the fireball from an explosive can expand at an enormous rate.
Why does the Pentagon allow us to see only five frames of video rather than the entire video? Note that the video of the planes hitting the World Trade Centers and the collapse of the towers were broadcast by American news reporters at least 2 million times during September in order to stimulate anger towards the Arabs. Why did they not broadcast the video of this plane crashing into the Pentagon at least 2 million times?
I think the Pentagon refuses to release the entire video because it would show a small missile flying close to the ground, and then it would show the fireball expanding at such an incredible rate that even the "ordinary" Americans would realize that it was from an explosive.
If the video proves that a 757 hit the building then the Pentagon officials are idiots for keeping the video a secret. They are also idiots for hiding the remains of the plane, the dead passengers, and the luggage. Their secrecy is allowing conspiracy rumors to run wild.
Do you think the Pentagon officials are so stupid as to hide
proof of the 757? I doubt if any human is that stupid. I say
their behavior is evidence that they are involved in this fake
"Terrorist Attack On America".
When an airplane crash has all the characteristics of a bomb, there is a good chance that it was a bomb.
I think a more sensible explanation for Flight 77 is that it never crashed into the Pentagon. Rather, the Pentagon fired a missile at the building, and they selected a section of the building that was being renovated in order to reduce deaths. I think they also set the missile to explode before it hit the building in order to reduce damage.
The plane that witnesses saw flying around the Pentagon may have
been Flight 77, but that plane did not crash into the
Pentagon.
This would explain why so many people are asking why the Flight
93 debris was scattered over many miles, as this site explains:
http://www.flight93crash.com/
Forget the media hype about "Arab hijackers" because there were none on board any of the aircraft on 11 September.
Amazingly, a person who claims the planes were controlled by
remote control is defending the Pentagon. Was he bribed or
threatened? Or is he just a nutty guy? I don't know, but I
responded by writing an article in response to Joe Vialls:
Response to Vialls
If you never saw Joe's site:
http://www.geocities.com/vialls/
On page 2 of that document is an image with the caption: "Damage visible in one of the open-air courtyards between building rings." The article doesn't identify the courtyard, but if it was one directly behind the crash site, the airplane did not penetrate it. That means the entire airplane compressed itself like an accordion in the outer ring.
The following document has a good image of the Pentagon and how the plane hit. Fortunately (for the Pentagon) the image does not show the highway, trees, or railings, nor how low the plane was to the ground. A more appropriate drawing would be a side view that shows a 757 only slightly above the cars, and how it then descended to only a few millimeters above the grass.