Special Guest: Eric Bart
www.army.mil/usar/multimedia/disastergalleries/photogalleries.html
[9/11-Pentagon] Appaling french expertises
written by Eric Bart
eric.bart@wanadoo.fr
Photographs speak for themselves. We all see horror in the photos
of the 9/11 attacks. But let's look closer and horror might grow bigger.
Photographs may tell a different story, it might only be a matter of expertise.
The french journalist Thierry Meyssan had much success with his book
about 9/11. (1a) effroyable-imposture (french)
(1b) The big lie (unofficial english translation)
Among his assertions : the fact that no Boeing 757 crashed
on the Pentagon became quite famous. Surprisingly, all the french
newspapers, led by "Le Monde", grimly denied it. Some got their own
expert to explain why the flight 77 did crash on the Pentagon.
Who's right ?
Here, I will try to explain why this question is relevant and why I
believe that no expert gave us decent explanations.
Back to 9/11, the flight 77 allegedly crashed on the Pentagon at
9:37 am. The building section collapsed about 30 minutes later. During
these 30 minutes photographs were taken by officials, journalists or
passers-by. (3) amigaphil (french)
(15) Guardian
After a close look at these photos, everyone should
admit that almost no debris of the plane are visible and that there is
very few damage to the building.
The only alleged Boeing debris shown on a photo do not exhibit the
normal American Airlines paintings, some said it comes from an
helicopter.(2b) pentagate (english)
The other visible debris are too small and too few compared
to the 60 tons plane. Some argued that the metal evaporated or burned
into smokes. Impossible. Furthermore photos show that there was almost
no fire outside of the building. Cars and wire bundles close to the
impact point blackened but remained.
So the whole plane got into the building. From the different photos
available we can almost inspect the whole builging section. No big hole
is visible ! Some computer graphist assembled these photos into a
single recontructed photo and add a virtual Boeing 757 in the front.(5) silentbutdeadly
The result is astonishing, it's hard to figure how the big plane got
through.
So hard to figure out that the french crash expert : François Grangier
admitted that no big plane went by (we'll detail this comment later).
So french medias seeked experts to build up comfortable theories
compatible with these photos. We'll see six theories :
- The dumb theory
- The leaden aircraft theory
- The cormorant theory
- The fatal angle theory
- The hollow aircraft theory
- The blue pill theory
------------
- The dumb theory
Internet conveyed many dumb theories (but we still love Internet, don't
we ?). Let's choose the web site closest to the mainstream medias:
hoaxbuster.com. This site is dedicated to hoax bombing! They're rougher
than they say, many of their assertions are blatantly false.
Let's look at this one : As Meyssan argued that the 38 meters (124 ft)
wingspan should have largely impacted the Pentagon, hoaxbuster tried
to explain why it shouldn't:
(7) Hoaxbuster (french)
Quote start >>>
>From the researchs of Paul Boutin and Patrick Di Justo : This argument
relies on the fact that the plane hit the building perpendicularly, but
it hit slantwise with a 45° angle. Therefore the hit surface is smaller
in width ...
>>> Quote end
Of course, Paul Boutin and Patrick Di Justo did not say that, at least
if they are real researchers. This is simple geometry. Our own shadow
casted by the sun is taller than us. For the same reason, the casted
width of the wingspan on the building is bigger, 40% bigger.
demo:
(8) Guardian
------------
- The leaden aircraft theory
This theory was exposed in the "Le Monde" newspaper by an anonymous
expert.(6) Le Monde March 21, 2002 (french)
He tried to explain that the energy of the impact was so
big that the plane had to pierce the wall. Note that we could also
build the "unpierceable theory" arguing that the wall was recently
strengthened with bullet-proof kevlar.(12) architectureweek
The funny part of this anonymous expert's calculus
is that he was not able to compute the kinetic energy of the plane.
He got the right formula but choosed the wrong figure.
This is easy to prove. He mistaked about the weight (mass) of the
plane. He wrote " A 115 tons plane loaded with 75 tons of fuel".
We can see that he considered a total weight of 190 tons because
he wrote later that, at the speed of 560 km/h, the energy is 2
millions of KJ, more precisely a mass of 190 tons leads to an energy
of 2.3 GJ.
The maximum takeoff weight of a boeing 757-200 is 115 tons (9) airliner.net
So the 190 tons expert's plane couldn't take off !
In fact, the empty weight of the plane is about 60 tons. As fuel was
already burned I guess the total weight was 80 to 90 tons.
------------
- The cormoran theory
The same anonymous expert of the "Le Monde" newspaper wrote :(6) Le Monde March 21, 2002 (french)
" The plane penetrated the Pentagon, like an arrow (...) piercing
three successive buildings". The expert François Grangier, who is
closer to the "unpierceable theory", compares the plane to a cardboard
tube (4), which seems more relevant. (13) Video of a plane crash (modem)
(13) Video of a plane crash (DSL)
Anyway, I hope anyone will
understand that planes are designed to pierce air rather than
kevlar-concrete sandwiches.
However, even if the plane acted like an arrow, experts still had to
explain how the wings (and the engines) got in ? Some argued that the
wings folded back along the fuselage. Jacques Rolland, allegedly one
of the best french aircraft crash expert, said : " [The wings] teared
off the fuselage and gathered as a result of speed" (4). Thierry
Meyssan replied : " as a result of kinetic energy, broken wings were
more likely to go forward (not backward) and hit the building".(2b) pentagate (english)
Of course the crash of a Boeing on a concrete wall can't be compared
to a cormorant's dive in the sea. And debris did not vanish like
feathers in the wind.
------------
- The fatal angle theory
The same "one of best experts" Jacques Rolland, is also a former
french air force general and a former military jet pilot. Here's my
report of a "little physics lecture" he gave (4) :
There are two type of angles : the [explosives] and the [implosives]
The angle is [explosive] when the plane crashes while skimming the
obstacle, for example when a plane crashes on the groung while still
flying and maintaning a low angle with the floor (flat dive). In such
a case, the plane bounces, breaks up and dismantles. There are many
scattered debris. Angles are [explosives] when less than 45 degrees.
The angle is [implosive] if greater than 45 degrees. Jacques Rolland
decribes the case of a military fighter jet aircraft diving vertically
in the ground : In that case, the aircraft folds upon itself into a
small crater. There is almost no recognizable part of the plane left.
Jacques Rolland evaluates "the angle of the Boeing with the impacted
surface [Pentagon front wall] to about 80 dedrees, this angle forbids
any rebound, the plane penetrates the obstacle while making a crater".
Well done ! Unfortunately, Mr Jacques Rolland the angle was not 80
degrees but 45 degrees ! This is widely admitted even if some wrongly
said that the plane hit perpendicular to the building.(14) erichufschmid
So the angle is neither [implosive] nor [explosive] ! This theory
gives us no information on the 9/11 crash but quite a few on Jacques
Rolland.
------------
- The hollow aircraft theory
Jean-Vincent Brisset, a french air force general, explains: " To
speak simply, such a shock changes the plane into a hollow-charge
ammunition, producing a fire jetstream. As soon as it impacts, the
plane disintegrates and burns while penetrating in the hole it dug.
I talked to several specialists, held by professional secrecy, there
is no doubt for anyone".
Humm. Imagine you are in front of these respectable military officials,
they are all saying the plane acted like an anti-tank rocket, you
would hardly deny! Fortunately, you're only in front of a harmless
computer. So let's think !
What is an hollow-charge ammunition ? "Charge" stands for "explosive
charge" and hollow decribes the hollow shape of the explosive. In
english these ammunitions are more often called shaped-charge.(10) Panzerfaust
The devastating power of this ammunition is a result of the way it
explodes. It can be laid on the target like a mine, or brought to the
target with a rocket.
A "non-shaped" explosive disperse its explosion gases in all
directions.
A shaped-charge will concentrate the gases in a single narrow
direction,
making a fire jetstream, a very thin and powerful jet of fire. Now,
metal is added to the charge to create a more devastating plasma jet
piercing armours and setting fire inside.
How the explosion gases are concentrated into a jetstream ? (10) Panzerfaust
It depends on the shape of the explosive. One possible shape is a cone.
Explosive is laid in a uniform layer inside a solid cone. When the
explosion occurs, gases go towards the cone axis (center). As the
contruction is symmetrical, when the gases reach the cone axis they
meet the opposite gas stream from the other side. Thus, gases
velocities in the plane perpendicular to the cone axis neutralize in
heat. The only velocities left are along the cone axis, creating a
forceful plasma jetstream.
So what is the connection between a hollow-charge ammunition and a
hollow aircraft ? Only a word connection.
This is the most appalling expertise.
------------
- The blue pill theory
François Grangier is the usual french TV aircraft crash expert. So he
was interviewed : (11a) TV «+ clair» Canal+ channel, March 23,2002 19h30
Quote start >>>
François Grangier :
When we see this almost intact Pentagon front wall, we can be sure that
no plane went through. It should be clear that such a big plane cannot
fly through a window and let the framing on. If there was a plane, it
obviously crashed elsewhere.
Daphné Roulier [speaker] :
So a Boeing 757 would have made much more damages. You agree with
Thierry Meyssan ?
François Grangier :
On the front wall, yes. But I don't see the importance of it. (...) You
shouldn't conclude to conpiracy when there's only incompetence. How did
the plane crashed and why did it crash ? We don't care at all.
>>> Quote end
So there's no plane and no conpiracy !
Francois Grangier will clarify his thought later (4) : " I think that
the trajectory of the plane as we can distinguish it today, do not
allow us to conclude to a crash on the front wall, but more likely on
the roof ".
Strange ! Why did Francois Grangier deny in the end the rationnal
approach he always had ? Of course the impact was on the wall ! Why did
he suddenly shift to nonsense ?
Excerpt from the fiction movie "Matrix" :
Morpheus to Neo : You know something. You feel (...) that there's
something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is but it's
there, like a splinter in your mind (...) Unfortunately, no one can be
told [the truth], you have to see it for yourself. This is your last
chance, after this there is no turning back :
You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and
believe whatever you want to believe.
You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland and I show you how deep
the rabbit hole goes.
Francois Grangier fled from the horrifying truth. He took the blue
pill and woke up with the vision of a plane in the Pentagon's roof.
------------
SOURCES:
(1a) effroyable-imposture (french)
(1b) The big lie (unofficial english translation)
(2a) pentagate (french)
(2b) pentagate (english)
(3) amigaphil (french)
(4) LÂ’effroyable mensonge - Guillaume Dasquié et Jean Guisnel
Eds La découverte (french)
(5) silentbutdeadly
(6) Le Monde March 21, 2002 (french)
(7) Hoaxbuster (french)
(8) Guardian
(9) airliner.net
(10) Panzerfaust
(11a) TV «+ clair» Canal+ channel, March 23,2002 19h30
(11b) Francophile (french)
(12) architectureweek
(13) Video of a plane crash (modem)
(13) Video of a plane crash (DSL)
(14) erichufschmid
(15) Guardian
Eric Bart's site
Assistant Fire Marshal Charles Burroughs, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
BACK
|