9 - 1 1 R e s e a r c h

an attempt to uncover the truth about September 11th 2001
mirror of “NERDCITIES/GUARDIAN” site : disclaimer

This is the last part of the article : A Detailed Analysis of whether a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

EXPLOSION AT THE PENTAGON.


The following article is representative of recent media releases concerning photos of the Pentagon crash.

Photos show moment hijacked airliner hit the Pentagon.

A sequence of government photos shows the moment the hijacked American Airlines plane crashed into the Pentagon on September 11. The photos were taken by a surveillance camera positioned north of the section of the Pentagon destroyed by the impact and the resulting explosion and fire. The images cover a span of four one-hundredths of a second.

The first photo shows a small, blurry white object near the upper right corner - possibly the plane just a few feet above the ground.

The second shows a white glow immediately after the impact. In the other photos, a mountain of orange fire and black smoke rises above the building.

The photographs were not officially released by the Pentagon, but officials said the images were authentic and had been provided to law enforcement officials investigating the attack. Officials could not immediately explain why the date typed near the bottom of each photograph is September 12 and the time is written as 5.37pm The attack happened at about 9.37am the previous day. Officials said it was possible that the date and time were added the day after the attack when they may have been cataloged for investigative purposes.


Story filed: 04:18 Friday 8th March 2002.

So, let's have a look at these photos.

Notice that all the following pictures support the wrong date and time (of course, the event in question occurred on September 11, 2001 at about 9:37 a.m.).




Notice that, both of these pictures (which quite clearly did not occur at the same time) have the same (wrong) time stamp.

Notice that, in the "impact" picture, the intense light source of the explosion does not cast any shadows of its own. In particular, the parking control structure does not have a (fainter) second shadow.

Notice also that in the "impact" picture, the Pentagon wall is much brighter than in the other photos. The forger seems to have realized that the explosion would light up the entire Pentagon wall (but overlooked the fact that it would cast shadows of its own). He has tried to imitate the flash of the blast by increasing the brightness of the entire picture, unfortunately for him, this also increased the brightness of the areas that should still be in shadow (and thus darker). For example, the sides of the parking control structures facing the camera have also increased in brightness.




In the photo labeled "plane" we are meant to be able to see the tail of the Boeing 757 just above the larger of the parking control structures. As has been pointed out by many, this is either the tail of a much smaller plane, or a complete fabrication (the second being my belief). If this were the tail of a Boeing 757, then you would have actually seen, something like the photo on the right (for a little on how the size of the aircraft was calculated, click here).




Notice that, the "impact" picture has clearly been touched up. Notice that, the green tinge on the left has been partly (and amateurishly) erased and that the top left corner has probably been erased. These areas have been outlined in blue. It is possible that the effect in the top left corner is due to over exposure, caused by the sun, but then, why is this effect not visible in the photos taken just before and just after this one. Another complaint is that the camera housing is clearly visible in the top left and right corners of this photo, yet is not visible in any other of the pictures of exactly the same scene, taken by the same camera, from the same fixed location.

Notice that, in all the photos the shadows have been enhanced. This is particularly noticeable for the shadow of the parking control structure and its lights. This shadow has been outlined above in magenta and is enlarged below to illustrate the shadow's shadow.




Real shadows just don't come with their own outline. More evidence that the pictures have been touched up.


Notice that, the heliport control tower (the area outlined above in red) is engulfed in the fireball. This must be so, since it appears red. Otherwise, it would be in shadow and appear black. The forger seems to have forgotten that the close (to the camera) end of the heliport control tower is a long way from the impact site. One can clearly see that the fireball engulfs the heliport control tower, in the following enlargement.





Notice that, in the remaining photos the fireball has increased in size, but somehow it has managed to shrink back behind the heliport control tower, and leave it in shadow.




The pictures exhibit a few physical impossibilities. As an example, consider the "impact 2" photo. We are interested in determining the size and position of the fireball. We draw lines (along the ground) from the camera to both sides of the heliport control tower and also, both sides of the part of the fireball that is in front of the Pentagon wall. We then measure the 3 angles. From left to right they are 6, 6 and 8 degrees.




Now, imagine that the lines in this photo have been painted on the ground. Then they would appear in other photos of the scene. In all such photos, the ratio of the sizes of the angles between the lines will remain the same, namely, 6:6:8. Knowing this will allow us to estimate the size/extent of the fireball.

We proceed to mark these lines on the following photo. First, we draw the two lines that bound the heliport control tower. To do this, it is necessary to estimate the position of the base of the heliport control tower. I have marked the base of the tower in magenta. Now we measure the angle between these lines. It is 4.5 degrees. To keep the 6:6:8 ratio, the angles must be 4.5, 4.5 and 6 degrees, respectively. To get the line that bounds the back of the fireball, we measure 6 degrees toward the left side of the photo and draw a line. To get the line that bounds the left (left as in the "impact 2" photo) edge of the part of the fireball that is in front of the Pentagon wall, we measure 4.5 degrees toward the right side of the photo and draw another line. Having done this we obtain the four white lines illustrated. These are the lines we would see if we had painted the lines in the "impact 2" photo, on the ground.

To make sure we all know the positions of the points of interest, note that the white lines emanate from the security guard's booth, where the security camera is housed, the heliport control tower is the building whose base has been marked in magenta and that the point of impact (center of the explosion) has been marked with a small red dot.

We now wish to mark the area covered by the explosion. The center of the explosion will be approximately the point of impact of the nose of the aircraft. At the time that the "impact 2" photo was taken, the maximum distance that the fireball would have extended from the center, will be in the direction directly away from the wall, and will be bounded by the leftmost white line. This allows us to mark out the maximum (physically possible) area covered by the fireball at the time the photo was taken. I have marked this area with a red semicircle. Remember, that this circle represents the maximum area covered by the fireball (at least the part of it that was in front of the Pentagon) at the time that the "impact 2" photo was taken.




The portion of the fireball visible in section B of the "impact 2" photo, must be located within the red semicircle and between the leftmost 2 lines.

The portion of the fireball visible in section A of the "impact 2" photo, must be located within the "slice of pie" shaped area that projects out of the semicircular region.

But how can this be? The "slice of pie" shaped region is a long way outside the maximum physically possible extent of the fireball. Unfortunately for the forger, there is no explosion in this region. He has made the same mistake as he did in the "impact" photo, he has assumed that the heliport control tower is much closer to the point of impact, than it actually is. Although his forgery looks good in 2 dimensions, when considered in 3 dimensions, it is clearly impossible.

One may object to the fact that the initial velocity (speed) of the fuel has not been considered. The fuel was traveling at about 300 miles per hour when the explosion occurred. Since the aircraft hit the wall at (about) 45 degrees, the velocity of the fuel parallel to the wall was 300 / 1.414 = 212 miles per hour = 312 feet per second. So, any fuel that did not enter the building, would have traveled 312 feet along the wall, every second. We have been told that in the "impact 2" photo, the explosion is 2-hundredths of a second old. Hence the whole fireball will have traveled 312 x 0.02 = 6.24 feet (along the wall) from the point of impact. This is such a small distance (compared to the expansion due to the explosion) that we can safely ignore it.

It takes a little effort to see this, but it is worth the effort. In summary, the "impact 2" photo shows a section of fireball in an area where there was no fireball.

Because I had to guess at the position of the base of the heliport control tower, I repeated the process with an overhead view in which all the relevant points were clearly visible. This gives a slightly more accurate picture.




The last photo of the series is :




Note that the time interval between the beginning and end of the "explosion" is said to be 4 one-hundredths of a second. This is clearly garbage. They are claiming that a Pentagon security camera is taking one hundred frames (pictures) per second. I have immense trouble not laughing at these people.




Compare the above security camera photos with this one taken with a 35mm camera (from close to the booth containing the security camera) of the very same scene. Notice that the security camera is a high quality camera that can take one hundred frames per second, but that it takes very low quality photos. In fact, the quality is so low that the wooden post that you can see to the right in the above photo, is next to invisible in the security camera shots.

In conclusion. This has to be the most shoddy piece of forgery ever. Virtually nothing, has been done correctly. In fact, these photos are such a hash job, that I suspect the person who faked them sent the wrong files to the press (leaving a very lonely final edition on his hard drive).

Just in case you are not yet convinced. Lets consider another physical impossibility :

The crash here, is not like the usual air crash, where the plane hits the ground, the fuel tanks rupture and the fuel spills along the ground at high speed, mixing thoroughly with the air and exploding outward and upward.

Here, most of the fuel spills into a confined space with little opportunity to mix thoroughly with air (oxygen). Hence, the explosion will be much smaller than normal and since most of the fuel enters the building, the direction of the visible blast will be parallel to the ground, as it explodes back through the entry wound. In the faked explosions presented here, we have a huge explosion, with the main direction of the blast being upward. Remember that, just before the plane impacts the wall, 100% of the fuel is still in the wings and body of the aircraft. This fuel cannot explode because it has not been mixed with air (it cannot even burn until it is exposed to the air). Most of this fuel will enter the Pentagon. The pictured explosion of the fuel at the Pentagon wall is faked (and physically impossible).

The type of explosion forged in this series of photos, is a Hollywood explosion. It has little relation to reality. The photos are faked.

By the way, the fuel that did not enter the building, spilt for some distance down the wall, where a little of it exploded, but most of it just ignited and burnt.

To try and explain how the fuel mixed with air before hitting the Pentagon wall, people have claimed that the plane hit the ground some distance in front of the wall, spilling much fuel, and then slid into (and through) the wall.

The evidence however, proves that this was not the case.

Just a couple of photos. Both are of the area directly in front of the entry wound. One is to the left of the yellow firetruck, the other is to its right. One is before the collapse, the other is a picture of the collapse. If the plane hit the ground then do you not think that maybe it would have disturbed the ground a little, however,




as you can see, there is no impact furrow (trench) anywhere to be seen, and the grass is rather lush. And, did I mention that the grass is in rather good shape considering it was at the epicenter of a huge explosion. That there was a (smaller) explosion and fire is not a point of contention, just look at the photo above of the burning car (the second image). That it was as pictured in this series of photos, however, is just plain wrong.

A final point to note is that these photos were released by the media, not by the military. Quoting the above news article:

The photographs were not officially released by the Pentagon, but officials said the images were authentic and had been provided to law enforcement officials investigating the attack.


CONCLUSION.

  1. The hole in the Pentagon wall appears to have been made by an aircraft, however, the hole is too small to have been made by a Boeing 757.
  2. The damage to the Pentagon is about as extensive as one would expect from the crash of a large aircraft, although one that was somewhat smaller than a Boeing 757.
  3. The public has absolutely no evidence that Boeing 757 debris has been recovered from the site.
  4. The photos of "the explosion" of flight 77 are a complete and utter fabrication.
  5. Why these photos were fabricated, who fabricated them, and why the media ran the story, remain a mystery.
  6. Although, the middle level military are being honest about what happened on September 11, factions within the media are deliberately lying. The reasons for this are not clear.

There is certainly a case to be answered here.
A full public enquiry, is an absolute must.


And just for luck, here is a graphic from the website http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly




mirror of “NERDCITIES/GUARDIAN” site : disclaimer