American Airlines Flight 77
October 5, 2007
Update of October 17, 2007: Black box data
I received an email on October 3rd from a 36-year-old engineer, Mr. Raphael Jolly, who authorized me to reproduce it. Here it is:
Hello,
I don't know if you've already seen these two videos:
911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
American Flight 77
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPXGc7u6Z6Y
As someone who questions things, I must say they really shook me up. As a result, I no longer place much credit in Meyssan's work. Bad arguments from a partisan do more harm to a cause than all the arguments from the opponents.
Regarding the impact of the engines, they either pierce the concrete or they don't.
If they don't pierce it,
I suppose they would actually be drawn into the hole made by the fuselage.
It is possible that the Pentagon was built solidly. I imagine that a jet engine is heavy, but it still has to fly, right?
What remains of this theory once you accept that it was indeed an airplane that hit the Pentagon? Well, almost nothing. It changes nothing. As Cockburn says, "Why use a missile when you have an airplane and (...) you've already managed to crash (...) two planes into targets much harder to hit, the two towers of New York." All this changes is the attention paid to Meyssan himself. He's been accused of presenting his theory to attract attention. I think this criticism is justified.
Far from me the idea of giving up as a result. There are mountains of other suspicious facts. If the American government is not guilty, it is at least negligent in the search for the culprits. The Muslims who were convicted are fake Muslims (see Omar Sheikh, from the MI6 according to Musharraf). The Americans must demand that the culprits be identified. All the poorly constructed arguments only make this possibility more remote.
Raphael
I encourage you to watch these two videos. I think they are already very revealing. I will add some comments. They are obviously intended to support the idea that it was indeed the plane from flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. Let's give these addresses again. Start with that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPXGc7u6Z6Y
Don't forget to connect your brain to the optic nerve
October 9, 2007
:
Source of this "virtual reality"
:
http://www.integratedconsultants.com/parasolid.htm
An image taken from this reconstruction made by professional experts
Signaled by a reader who describes himself as "Engineer, working with 3D software," but, "not yet retired, prefers that his name not be mentioned." I will, however, reproduce, with his permission, the content of his email:
Hello Mr. Petit,
Regarding the origin of the video
911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77
, I would like to strongly recommend that you visit the website of the company that produced it, Integrated Consultants.
It will not be so easy to refute something so well done, they are professionals in 3D modeling.
The video comes from their Forensic Engineering department, which reconstructs and models accidents or catastrophes in 3D animation, to help with analyses.
What is interesting are their other departments and their clients:
Departments: Unmanned systems, SeaportE, navigation and communication systems, rugged electronics enclosures, superconducting systems, systems engineering with, for example, assistance in removing "heavy metals," seismic construction, etc.
Clients: Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, Boeing, Space and naval warfare systems, San Diego, Chassis-plans (based in San Diego, and working on electronic equipment for defense, security, data acquisition, simulation, control and command equipment, and Pantone color logos), Air Force Joint program Office (NAVSTAR positioning systems), Naval Sea Systems Command, etc.
Look closely at Unmanned systems and the GlobalHawk, as well as what SeaportE covers.
Need a drawing?
I do not wish my name to be mentioned if you use this note as is. I am not yet retired. Thank you in advance.
Mr. X
The text seems rather ironic: "Need a drawing?" But the message is important.
The images or sequences filmed that digital simulations can produce today are very impressive. As an engineer (aeronautical training), fluid mechanic, and computer scientist (pioneer of 3D, thirty years ago), I can easily imagine how far these things can go. You have already seen movies showing flames invading a tunnel, or bursting out of a window. Others where you see explosions, collapses. Since 1970 we
knew
how these reconstructions could be made. It was just a question of computing speed, memory size. Everything could be integrated: material resistance, heat flows, turbulence, convection. In short, all the physics.
The situation has become such today that when you are faced with a "document," you must immediately ask the question "Is it a real footage or a sequence of computer-generated images?" And the more it goes on, the more this distinction will become difficult, even practically impossible. A reader sent me recently a "movie" showing a "747 crash." The plane bounces on the ground and catches fire. Is it a film showing tests done with an old remote-controlled plane or a ... simulation?
But that doesn't prevent you from having four brain cells and trying to use them. The position of this engineer is:
- How can you question a reconstruction made by people with such references?
Let's review this video. It is incomplete. A real reconstruction should provide the complete trajectory of the aircraft in 3D. Indeed, according to the official version, this plane made its approach to the Pentagon in a spiral descent. There must necessarily be a "final." How does this pilot (inexperienced, who an flight school refused to let go, alone on a Cessna 172) end up a few hundred meters from the Pentagon, 50 cm above the ground and at 850 km/h? He ... is missing an episode. This approach takes place over an urban area, with buildings, a possibly hilly terrain. Let us see all of this, without omitting this essential part of the story. All pilots say: to be able to align with a target after a descending turn, you need 1500 meters of clearance. I would like to mention that I have been a pilot for about forty years. I studied at Supaéro, I have flown everything that can fly, from jets to delta wings, passing through the Bensen autogyro, the hot air balloon, and the helicopter. This approach at 850 km/h and 50 cm altitude seems surrealistic to me.
I have raised doubts about the interaction between the leading edge of the aircraft and the streetlights, at such a speed. I recall that the leading edge of an airplane wing has no mechanical resistance. It is only designed to withstand the aerodynamic pressure at the "stagnation point" of the fluid streams, which is very moderate in subsonic conditions. To this engineer "specialized..."