9/11 Pentagon Video finally released...

^My previous post is the important post but, just for interest, here's a snapshot from a video of Mike Wilson's 3D scale model that he has on his Web site (I say "scale" but actually the model is full size in the sense that all dimensions in the computer model are the actual ones).

Some of the computer modelling tools these days are amazing. To-scale and with full rendering. I have used AutoMod in the past, which is excellent, but it looks like SolidWorks - the tool used by Mike Wilson - is very cool too. He's done a very nice job with the model.

Geck0,

I have read it. In fact I came across it in my 'googling' before you posted the URL and was unimpressed. Let me give you just a couple of examples why:

And he discusses many, if not all, of the things raised on other Pentagon/Flight 77 sites (and I've lost count of the number I've visited in the last week). It's a litany of conjecture and speculation, and lack of specialist knowledge in many places. I've just scanned through it again and quickly found one quote to illustrate the quality of his analysis (and please don't expect me to post every paragraph of the site with a comment on it):

"Next up is the photo to the right, which depicts ... uhhh, I have to be honest here -- I have no clue what it is supposed to be. Some kind of manifold or something. And it was discovered ... uhmm, somewhere in the Pentagon, I suppose, but that can't actually be determined from the photo. Obviously then it must be debris from Flight 77. To the left, jutting out prominently from a pile of indeterminate debris, and obviously better lit and in much sharper focus than other alleged interior shots of alleged aircraft debris, is what is claimed to be yet another component of a Boeing 757's apparently indestructible landing gear. Whatever."

This is not the approach or language of methodological analysis that experts would use. Is it? Come on, be honest. How many technical reports or analyses have you read that contain that sort of talk? It's just arrant nonsense, even if he's trying to be sarcastic.

I have just scanned maani's latest post (and will read it carefully shortly, as I always do) and have noticed he mentions a wooden table and book. I'll look at the photograph but I'll wager it is the same or similar to a photograph on 'your' Web site. I am sure I have seen similar photos of houses damaged in the Blitz. Does that mean the Blitz was a conspiracy theory? Of course not. (I'm being facetious, but actually that is the sort of 'logic' some people are using.) I'd say I would look for examples to show you, but I know it would not change your opinion.

If you look through the numerous 'conspiracy theory Web sites' -- and I'm sure I have not even scratched the surface so far -- there are so many 'conspiracy theories' (sometimes not even theories, just statements such as "impossible") to explain the same crash. Some of them I have encountered so far are:

- A large airliner, but not a 757.
- An executive jet.
- A 757 from American Airlines, but "someone" took over from Hani Hanjour on the final approach because he was a 'lousy pilot'.
- A variant of the above: the "someone" was doing it by remote control.
- A 757 or other large aircraft, piloted by remote control.
- A missile.
- Three missiles fired simultaneously at different angles into the Pentagon while a C-130, F-16 and other aircraft flew in the vicinity to distract the many people in the area.
- An aircraft hit the Pentagon, and a bomb (or more than one) was planted inside the building.

And so on.

I read words like "impossible" and "unbelievable" when some people refer to phenomena that are at odds with what they expect would have happened, or when the authors don't understand the phenomenon (the video stills is one example: to paraphrase "there is only one frame showing an aircraft, so the video MUST be fake". An un-burnt area of the building or other aspect of the crash is automatic proof that the crash was faked. Explosives or blasting experts and academics who study and model such effects may well have a scientific explanation.

Un-burnt wreckage? Remember when Concorde, fully laden with fuel and burning badly just after takeoff, crashed into a small hotel in a fireball in 2000? There were scorched and un-scorched bits of aircraft wreckage then, some with parts of the Air France logo discernable. Not a directly comparable crash (which is what I would expect 'conspiracy theorists' to retort: that fact making it, to paraphrase, "impossible in the case of the Pentagon".

Another speculation I have read is that the wreckage outside the Pentagon, and indeed inside the building, was planted. Read the interview of Mike Walter - as someone with media experience he said he made the conscious decision not to pick up the wreckage he saw as he made his way across to the Pentagon right after the impact, as he realised it was forensic evidence. But no doubt you have a theory to explain that too, parhaps along the lines of "There was some wreckage but other wreckage was planted afterwards".

And so the theories go on.