Crash at the Pentagon
A document from the Pentagon
posted on October 8, 2004
Let us start by reproducing the content of a French aeronautical journalist, whose name we will keep secret:
http://home.planet.nl/~bogel002/acc-00.wmv
For the idiots who believe that a high-speed plane does not disintegrate against a concrete wall... Here is the proof in images:
Pre-arranged response: "No, sir, you are not a scientist. You are just a foolish and obtuse person. You are not investigating on site. Look, I have understood everything. I can even reconstruct exactly what really happened. First, it is an American film, of imperialist origin, therefore sponsored by the CIA." You are probably right, it must be the work of communist nuns!
Conclusion: "I'm laughing..."
After reading these lines of great subtlety, written by a "field expert" and after watching this film, we would simply like to point out to the reader that in this reconstruction, the Americans send a "Phantom" at a speed of 800 km/h, fixed on a rocket-propelled cart, to crash into a thick concrete wall. Four meters, maybe more. Under the power of the impact, despite its great mass, the wall shows a recoil movement.
My comment: The Pentagon building is not a thick concrete block. This simulation therefore has no value. For it to be credible, the aircraft would have had to crash at a speed closer to the probable approach speed of a civilian aircraft, maybe half as much. It would have been necessary to use a commercial aircraft fuselage, of a different design than that of a military aircraft. The Phantom is a twin-engine aircraft with two engines housed in the fuselage. Commercial airplanes have engines suspended by "pods" located under the wings. In fact, with the same budget, a more realistic simulation could have been carried out, on a wider wall, identical in structure to the Pentagon. At the same time, it would not have cost more to reconstitute the different successive elements of the building, with internal corridors, windows, etc.
It was specified that the Phantom's fuel tanks, during this test were ... empty, not those of the civilian aircraft that is supposed to have crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, in principle.
Here, the Phantom is transported on a rocket-propelled cart. Doing the same thing with a complete commercial aircraft, even with full fuel tanks, would not have posed a problem in principle. Although all this may seem morbid, one could have at the same time placed in the aircraft its entire payload, suitcases, passengers, that is to say... bodies. But would the Americans have taken the risk of such a "reconstruction"?
In conclusion, this video is nonsense. One is entitled to question the competence of the "aeronautical journalist" who composed the lines that start this page.
Summary of all pages dedicated to "Pentagate"
Back to Guide Back to Home Page
Number of consultations since October 9, 2004: