US Army fails to elaborate a credible simulation of the attack on the Pentagon
by Thierry Meyssan
April 25, 2003


Purdue University reseachers did a high-tech graphical simulation of the Pentagon supposed Boeing crash, available here: http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/article8737.html

Thierry Meyssan has responded to this on his French language website, as follows:

[I could not find any English translated version of the Meyssan response anywhere on the web, so I have prepared a rough but usable translation, text below. SM]

The US Army fails to elaborate a credible simulation of the attack on the Pentagon
Scientifically Impossible

The US Army and the National Science Foundation financed a simulation in 3 dimensions of the attack that occurred at the Pentagon Sept. 11th 2001.

A multidisciplinary team of researchers of the University of Indiana at Purdue produced a 3D sequence whose apparent realism makes up for the absence of authentic video images of the event. This was greatly [hyped up] by media on the occasion of the first anniversary of the attack and interpreted by the indulgent media as proving the invalidity of our previously published analysis of the attack.

Unfortunately, after six months of research, and despite [significant investment] of human and technical resources, the scientists of Purdue could not establish a scenario which conformed to the official version and was compatible with the material facts. Incapable of explaining how the supposed airplane could have hit only the first and second floors, they postulated that it was flying practically [shaving the ground], despite not having the space for a clear landing; not succeeding at explaining the absence of impact on the Pentagon they [removed] the simulation of the front part of the building. Incapable of elucidating how the steel jet engines could have disappeared they postulated that the supposed Boeing did not have any; incapable of elucidating how 100 tons of material could have disappeared, they eluded the question.

The incapacity with which the scientists mandated by the US Army, had with virtually reconstructing the official version of the attack shows, [contrarily] that this version is scientifically impossible.

1. POSTULATE: the "airplane" was flying horizontally, shaving the ground [Pic caption: to fly horizontally while shaving the ground it would be necessary for the airplane to have clear terrain over several hundred meters]

The scientists observed that the impact on the front is found between the first floor and the second floor of the building. They stated that only these two levels were damaged in theinterior of the building (the upper stories are intact and the ground had no damage). As the above picture shows (that was released to the press) so the researchers have made the assumption that the "Boeing" had arrived horizontally, shaving the ground.

It is possible that such an airplane can shave the ground in this manner, and this is what we call landing the airplane. But for that it is necessary to have clear terrain over a distance of several hundred meters (a runway landing measures between 2000 to 2500 meters). According to the manufacturer, it is necessary to have 1,500 meters for a Boeing 757-200 to land under these conditions. The "airplane" did not have such a runway for landing in front of the Pentagon. The building is found in effect in a hilly zone, in a residential area and covered by highways and ramps.

2. POSTULATE: the "airplane" did not have jet engines [Pic caption: the scientists forgot 2 details which allow an airplane to fly and which are the most solid elements of the plane: the jet engines]

The study was centered on the destruction of the wings of the "Boeing 757-200". It was in effect surprising that an airplane of 38 meters wingspan could penetrate into a building through a hole of 5 to 6 meters larger [than the wingspan itself]. One theory had been advanced by several "specialists" who asserted that the wings were folded back due to the effect of the shock. The university researchers explained that these wings were mainly composed of kerosene which poured out into the building without really damaging it.

So these specialists and the university researchers are forgetting two small details which are found on the wings and permit an airplane to fly: the jet engines. These two components are the most resistant elements of the entire apparatus. They have not at all been taken into consideration, in the Purdue study (picture above).

3. POSTULATE: The Pentagon did not have a façade [Pic caption: the scientists did not take into consideration the supporting columns and forgot that façade had a hole only 5 to 6 meters larger]

In their research the scientists studied the collision of the "airplane" with the supporting pillars of the building. The director of research [Mete Sozen], had particularly insisted on the specificity of these pillars, reinforced by a spiral metallic bar, a technique used in the 1940's. This "circular steel", he explained, reinforced the solidity of the columns and probably permitted the saving of many lives.[3].

In their research the scientists did not take into consideration the fact that the "airplane" had to have hit the façade before smashing several internal walls. So they simulated it as if the collision with the facade had damaged neither the façade nor the apparatus. They totally dismissed the fact that a Boeing 757-200 with a wingspan of 38 meters and a height of 12 meters cannot enter by a hole of 5 to 6 meters larger with neither wings nor engine nor tail leaving the least trace of impact.

4. POSTULATE: Anti-matter exists. [Pic caption: The "airplane" was "crumbled". But the scientists forgot to specify how 100 tons of "crumbled" material could disappear. ]

Why was there so little damage to the Pentagon building? The Purdue study offers a response to this question. The "Boeing" was crumpled from the back "at this speed the airplane itself is like a sausage skin" explained Mete Sozen to the press. "it was not resistant enough and virtually crumbled from the impact". [3]

If the scientists explain in this manner the absence of significant damage to the building, they do not explain the disappearance of the supposed "Boeing". They forget that 100 tons of crumbled material always remains as 100 tons of material. What became of this material? In researching a Boeing our university people seem to have made a big scientific discovery – antimatter exists.

The multidisciplinary Purdue team failed. It did not succeed at elaborating a simulation of the official version of the events compatible with the material elements. To satisfy the command of the US Army (ARO, contract 39136-MA), the team was obligated to eliminate the questions posed by the absence of impact on the façade and by the dematerialization of the apparatus. Currently, the only technically plausible explanation of the attack remains the one given by Thierry Meyssan: the firing of a missile and not the crash of a Boeing 757- 200.


http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/article8737.html