A document originating from the Pentagon

Posted on October 8, 2004

Let’s begin by reproducing the content written by a French aviation journalist whose name we’ll keep anonymous:

For those idiots who still believe that an airplane traveling at high speeds won’t be destroyed upon hitting a concrete wall… Here’s visual proof:

http://home.planet.nl/~bogel002/acc-00.wmv (archive from 10/13/2019)

The expected response: “But no, sir. You’re not a scientist at all. You’re just a stupid fool with no insight whatsoever. You don’t conduct any actual research. Look, I’ve figured everything out. I can even reconstruct exactly what happened. It’s obviously an American imperialist movie, sponsored by the CIA.” You’re probably right; it must be the work of those communist nuns!

Conclusion: “I’m laughing my ass off…”

After reading these cleverly written lines, penned by this “field expert,” and after watching this video, we’d like to point out that in this simulation, the Americans send a Phantom jet, traveling at 800 km/h, crashing into a very thick concrete wall. Four meters thick, maybe more. Despite its massive weight, the wall still shows signs of movement due to the impact.

My comment: The Pentagon isn’t a solid block of concrete several meters thick. Therefore, this simulation has no validity whatsoever. To make it believable, they should have made the plane crash at a speed closer to what a civilian aircraft would travel at—perhaps half that speed. They should’ve used the fuselage of a commercial airliner, which has a completely different design from military aircraft. The Phantom is a twin-engine plane with engines located within its fuselage. Commercial planes, on the other hand, have engines mounted under their wings. In reality, with equal effort, a more realistic simulation could’ve been done using a wider wall similar to the structure of the Pentagon. It wouldn’t have cost much more to recreate all the various elements of the building, including windows and interior spaces.

It was mentioned that during this test, the Phantom’s fuel tanks were empty. This isn’t the case for the civilian plane supposedly crashed into the Pentagon on September 11th.

Here, the Phantom is transported via a rocket-powered cart. Doing the same thing with a full-sized commercial airliner wouldn’t pose any problems. Although this seems macabre, one could also place all its cargo inside—luggage, passengers, i.e., bodies. But would the Americans risk such a “reconstruction”?

In conclusion, this video is nonsense. One can question the competence of this “aviation journalist” who wrote those lines at the beginning of this page.

Table of contents for all pages related to “Pentagate”

Back to News Back to Guide Back to Home Page

Number of views since October 9, 2004: