Pentagon recontruction graphics sept 11
Mike J Wilson's 3D Pentagon Renderings
MIke J tries to reconstruct the "No Boeing"
inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=706
I have taken
Mike's
graphics and did some stills here...
Notice the generator being clipped by the wing on the frame below
right.
(comments
from another
researcher at the bottom)
What I do
notice here is the
height of the fuselage as entering mainly the first floor, the top
of the plane seems to barely go over the bottom of the second
floor.
I have taken
his graphic here and
added lines to the Pentagon wall.
this shows the path of the wings accross the lamp poles, and to the
wall.
I had to "eyeball" the lines, i have tried to get them as accurate
as possible,
though they may not be perfect.
The left
photo above seems to have
the right wing hitting the tree,
and the fuselage actually hitting the generator.
Though there may be some discrepancies as to how accurate my lines
are.
The wingtip
seems as though it
would have come very close to the cars, also, there is no apparent
damage to the building where the wingtip (should have) hit, also no
wing debris.
http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/
9/11 Models, Renderings and Animations
Mike J Wilson -August 2004
"...I spent many hours reconstructing the Pentagon attack using
SolidWorks 3D software and several hundred photos I found on the
web (still image below). I uploaded an animation to my website,
mikejwilson.com/911 just a few weeks ago, that listeners can
download for free (click on film strip icon).I will be uploading
the entire 3D model to my website in a few days so that everyone
can have a chance to do there own research. There is nothing out
there that compares to the quality I've put into these models. I
even have renderings from the security camera position.
Regards,
Mike Wilson
thanks Mike,
Brad
Comments
from Rick Stanley
below....
The referenced graphics and animations of Mike Wilson www.mikejwilson.com/911/
show
the important engine footprints that my trajectory lines also show.
However, Brad is wrong about the port wing of a 757 needing to hit
above the second story's floor. He doesn't take into account if the
port engine (with the plane banked slightly to port) had really hit
the steam vault retaining wall, that the port engine and wing
impact would therefore be lower than that. As well, the first two
floors are taller than the ones above.
pub25.bravenet.com/photocenter/album.php?usernum=2084298506&cpv=2
(This graphic was cut from the ASCE
report,
and the structural damage highlight was derived from the Arlington
County After Report.)
[Most of the following and more is discussed at:
http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm
]
The real problem is that once one can accept this image
as what the fakers were trying to portray, what next falls out as
anomalous?
1. The lie of Frank Probst (in the
ASCE
report, trying to fake complying with the findings of the ASCE
referenced 1992 Sugano et al paper) saying that metal
confetti (nowhere to be seen in the high res pictures) rained down
on him as he ran back to the parking lot to the right.
2. That he could have seen one, much less two engines hitting the
retaining wall and the generator after having the plane miss him by
6 feet and the resulting buffeting, his diving to the ground and
changing his field of view by 180 degrees.
3. That other eyewitnesses were hit by a snowstorm of aluminum
confetti (nowhere to be seen in the high res pictures) out on the
highway, even to the point of making
them
afraid to leave their vehicles until it was over.
4. That even the best case analysis leaves too much wing tip and
tail debris out in front unaccounted for in the photographic
evidence. Curiously, the one debris
field
seen in photographs to the left of the impact zone going onto the
helipad, is remarkably always out of sufficient focus to allow
identification of the debris as to whether it is from the building,
the contractor's trailers, or from any kind of aircraft much less a
757. Out of focus, excepting for the one piece of "show" debris
with the odd lettering.
5. Brad's portrayal of where the
757 fuselage (upper portion at least) would interface along the
collapse zone at the column 11 (concrete
expansion joint) line, seems roughly correct. The
photograph
of column 11B shows almost
no erosion
of the outer concrete 'fluff' (outside of the column's spiral steel
reinforcement) as should happen when that much aluminum scrapes
past it, and as the Perdue simulation claims. Yet it looks
almost pristine, much
more damning to
me than the lack of fire damage up
above as many have noted in the same pictures (concrete being an
excellent fire insulator).
6. The tree stump is only charred on the bark, no discoloration at
all to be seen to the exposed inner wood. The upper tree remains
can be easily seen in many photographs as having been dragged to
the left behind the contractor's trailer hulk.
7. That once again, even with an
otherwise
very good simulation (Wilson's), the presence and significance of
the two contractor's trailers is completely ignored. That at a
minimum, the port wing and engines impact with the trailers would
have cause a diffusion of energy that should have created a broader
scope of damage to the port side facade, i.e. more window damage
and more vertical axis damage to the limestone facade. That firemen
went on record stating that most of the external fire seen was
coming from the leftmost trailer whose bed curiously remained in
place as can be seen in many common pictures (once one knows what
to look for.
8. The presence of what appears to be explosive residue spots
inside the window recesses behind the parked burning car. Residue
that does not appear to have a significant lateral motion attached
to it.
9. As can be seen in the pre-collapse photos, not only were the
original columns along the first floor destroyed structurally, if
not always obliterated, the additional recently added reinforcement
steel was obliterated, at least ostensibly due to the lateral shear
forces imposed upon the mounting bolts by either the alleged 757 or
by the fakery. Since these reinforcement columns were no longer
there (at the ground floor), they could not have helped to keep the
building from collapsing shortly after, as officially claimed. But
it was only claimed that these reinforcements were for relatively
light incidents, not the impact of a speeding 100 ton plane. Their
main purpose it seems was to allow framing the heavy new 'blast
proof' windows. This leads to the importance of conducting the
incident so that the path of the alleged 757 would cross over the
concrete expansion joint along the double column row number 11. By
doing so, the needed collapse (for covering up the worst damaged
area) could be facilitated much easier by demolition, and a better
excuse could be had for the collapse, i.e. that the presence of the
expansion joint prevented the weight load from the damaged area
from spreading further to the left of the column 11 line. The
resulting visual gash in the building providing the needed
psychological imagery to satisfy most casual observers.
Once again, one has to ask just how obliging the Islamic
hijackers could be to fly the plane in such an operationally
dangerous approach (even if
physically
possible) that would allow for the superficial
presentation
to be made that an actual 757 had made all the footprints out in
front, and such as to not make any intermediate wall damage between
the front facade and the rear of the C Ring (notice above that the
first and second floors are contiguous to the rear of the C Ring).
All this when they had no obligation to do so, they could instead
have chosen to 'decapitate' the Pentagon by striking where
Rumsfeld's office and the NMCC office is, where the building was
still fully occupied and unreinforced, and where there was no
convenient obstacles to leave the footprints of a 757. Only the
fakers had this need.
Pentagon
9/11 extreme closeups of damage Hi Res photos
Physics911.org
- Applying Science to Uncover the Truth
Physics
9/11 The missing wings - Pentagon analysis
Wargames
Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11
Operation
Pearl Physics 9-11 remote control scenario
The
Flying Elephant: Evidence for Involvement of a Third Jet in WTC Attacks
The
Truth Seeker - Dov Zakheim and the 9/11 Conspiracy
Pentagon
trajectory retaining wall broken was not from engine 9-11 ...
Pentagon
exit hole analysis - Punch out - September 11
9/11
Pentagon debris missile? or contractors trailer
Light
posts at the Pentagon on September 11
Pentagon
wall closeups of damage area 9/11
Pentagon
Attack Damage - 9/11 Review
Global
Guardian september 11th wargames
Joint
Chiefs Rejected "Airplanes as Missiles Scenario" 9/11
Flight
11 originaly thought may have contained explosives
Pentagon
9/11 enhanced attack photos - hole too small
New
September 11 Pentagon Video
no
757 hit the pentagon on
9/11
Also dicussed
at....
main
pentagon
investigation page 9/11
rebut
and comments to Pentagon analysis 9/11
and
757.0catch.com
Simplified sites to show the major problems of the idea
that a 757 hit the Pentagon.
pentagon 911
photos of
area
Close ups of the wall and lawn damage before and after
the
wall collapse at the pentagon.
Extreme close-ups and enhanced
dicke.0catch.com/
Still photos from the Perdue simulations in contrast with
photos of the wall column damage.
www.geocities.com/greenmannowar/6.html
damage.1accesshost.com
purdue
simulations sept 11
other simulations...
cosmicpenguin.com/911/skydrifter/index2.html
other graphics and Boeing specs...
cosmicpenguin.com/911/skydrifter/
Un
goût amer dans la Bush
Batcave Homepage
9/11
Review of September 11 Conspiracy
·
ChaosKitty + 4
airgames site...(flight maps, plane swapping)
sept
11 airgames
wargames transcripts, flight maps
9/11
investigation video and photo analysis Pentagon and WTC