^^^ Yeah, nothing that I'd find odd or inconsistent in there. Keep in mind, that "left" in the report refers to the aircraft's left, meaning our right on the previous illustration I posted. The impact speed is definitely high and not consistent with the approach speed of the aircraft for landing, but in this case the landing gears were not extended and the angle of attack was zero if not negative, so you can and in fact have to travel much faster to generate enough lift not to hit the ground in those final moments. It also makes sense that the plane would have rolled slight to the left unintentionally because the right wing was closer to the building and would have experienced an amplified ground effect compared to the right win. The only think I'm not sure about is that column 14 because I don't know which specific column that refers to.
so please look at the video simulation , minute 3:50 and also the link below
http://pentagonexithole.0catch.com/
Give me your expert opinion on this as well ? Do they match ?
http://pentagonexithole.0catch.com/
Give me your expert opinion on this as well ? Do they match ?
Thanks man, I had not seen that - very well re-constructed. 
Yeah, I have no issues with anything at minute 3:50 except two things:
1 - like I said earlier, I think the plane was offset slightly more to the right (its right and right of the frame in the simulation, but left of my earlier illustration)
2 - As the name of the software with which the animation was done (i.e. SolidWorks) suggest the plane was modeled as a solid entity rather than a structural mesh that can turn and twist and make other attached parts turn, twist, snap off or disintegrate. The computing power and amount of time you would require to do something like that would of course be astronomical.
As far as the link, you do know that this is a picture of the "punch out" hole in Ring C, not of the entry hole in Ring E, right? The guy who wrote this obviously has not even figured that part out and he thinks that means the authorities "punched out" the wall in the outer ring (E ring)!
This is the hole the molten debris and shrapnel, small disintegrated pieces of the aircraft still travelling at 900 km/hr, "punched out" in the inner most ring on impact, more than 200 ft. away from where the plane entered the building! They most likely would have been preceded by a pressure wave that would have severely weakened the wall, which in itself does not look to have been reinforced because it's an interior wall. Frankly, if I had designed the Pentagon, I would have designed that wall to be a blow-out wall, so that the impact from any explosion on the inside would be dispersed to the exterior as quickly as possible. If anything, this is the best evidence that this was a high mass, high momentum impact, rather than a missile, bomb or small plane. The size of the hole is also very consistent with the cabin size of the 757.
Yeah, I have no issues with anything at minute 3:50 except two things:
1 - like I said earlier, I think the plane was offset slightly more to the right (its right and right of the frame in the simulation, but left of my earlier illustration)
2 - As the name of the software with which the animation was done (i.e. SolidWorks) suggest the plane was modeled as a solid entity rather than a structural mesh that can turn and twist and make other attached parts turn, twist, snap off or disintegrate. The computing power and amount of time you would require to do something like that would of course be astronomical.
As far as the link, you do know that this is a picture of the "punch out" hole in Ring C, not of the entry hole in Ring E, right? The guy who wrote this obviously has not even figured that part out and he thinks that means the authorities "punched out" the wall in the outer ring (E ring)!
This is the hole the molten debris and shrapnel, small disintegrated pieces of the aircraft still travelling at 900 km/hr, "punched out" in the inner most ring on impact, more than 200 ft. away from where the plane entered the building! They most likely would have been preceded by a pressure wave that would have severely weakened the wall, which in itself does not look to have been reinforced because it's an interior wall. Frankly, if I had designed the Pentagon, I would have designed that wall to be a blow-out wall, so that the impact from any explosion on the inside would be dispersed to the exterior as quickly as possible. If anything, this is the best evidence that this was a high mass, high momentum impact, rather than a missile, bomb or small plane. The size of the hole is also very consistent with the cabin size of the 757.
Last edited:
Thanks man, I had not seen that - very well re-constructed.
Yeah, I have no issues with anything at minute 3:50 except two things:
1 - like I said earlier, I think the plane was offset slightly more to the right (its right and right of the frame in the simulation, but left of my earlier illustration)
2 - As the name of the software with which the animation was done (i.e. SolidWorks) suggest the plane was modeled as a solid entity rather than a structural mesh that can turn and twist and make other attached parts turn, twist, snap off or disintegrate. The computing power and amount of time you would require to do something like that would of course be astronomical.
As far as the link, you do know that this is a picture of the "punch out" hole in Ring C, not of the entry hole in Ring E, right? The guy who wrote this obviously has not even figured that part out and he thinks that means the authorities "punched out" the wall in the outer ring (E ring)!
This is the hole the molten debris and shrapnel, small disintegrated pieces of the aircraft still travelling at 900 km/hr, "punched out" in the inner most ring on impact, more than 200 ft. away from where the plane entered the building! They most likely would have been preceded by a pressure wave that would have severely weakened the wall, which in itself does not look to have been reinforced because it's an interior wall. Frankly, if I had designed the Pentagon, I would have designed that wall to be a blow-out wall, so that the impact from any explosion on the inside would be dispersed to the exterior as quickly as possible. If anything, this is the best evidence that this was a high mass, high momentum impact, rather than a missile, bomb or small plane. The size of the hole is also very consistent with the cabin size of the 757.
Yeah, I have no issues with anything at minute 3:50 except two things:
1 - like I said earlier, I think the plane was offset slightly more to the right (its right and right of the frame in the simulation, but left of my earlier illustration)
2 - As the name of the software with which the animation was done (i.e. SolidWorks) suggest the plane was modeled as a solid entity rather than a structural mesh that can turn and twist and make other attached parts turn, twist, snap off or disintegrate. The computing power and amount of time you would require to do something like that would of course be astronomical.
As far as the link, you do know that this is a picture of the "punch out" hole in Ring C, not of the entry hole in Ring E, right? The guy who wrote this obviously has not even figured that part out and he thinks that means the authorities "punched out" the wall in the outer ring (E ring)!
This is the hole the molten debris and shrapnel, small disintegrated pieces of the aircraft still travelling at 900 km/hr, "punched out" in the inner most ring on impact, more than 200 ft. away from where the plane entered the building! They most likely would have been preceded by a pressure wave that would have severely weakened the wall, which in itself does not look to have been reinforced because it's an interior wall. Frankly, if I had designed the Pentagon, I would have designed that wall to be a blow-out wall, so that the impact from any explosion on the inside would be dispersed to the exterior as quickly as possible. If anything, this is the best evidence that this was a high mass, high momentum impact, rather than a missile, bomb or small plane. The size of the hole is also very consistent with the cabin size of the 757.
Last edited: