Didn't hear it in the US...The pentagon hole examined by architects
This is a translation of a German site....The architects are from the
US, Why didnt our papers run their analysis?
The original website in german...
http://home.t-online.de/home/willy.brunner/WDRPentagon.htm This is a translation ( run thru Babel Fish)Sorry the translation is
rough...Go to the original page to see photos.
deception or truth?"
WDR transmission of 10.9.03
PENTAGONKOMPLEX
Like already with the „Shanksville-Komplex" also here
a „wissenschaftliche" should; Animation the official version support.
It was provided on behalf of the US Army one year after the notices
to the Purdue University in Indiana under the direction of Professor
Mete Sozen. Who however is this man, who is to have examined the
pentagon with a group of architects? In a biography of the University
OF Notre lady, Indiana (www.nd.edu) we read over Professor Mete
Sozen: "As at engineering consultant, he has worked on various
projects with... the US Army Corps OF Engineers, Foreign Buildings
Office OF the department OF State..."
I.e.: it participated in projects ' US of the Army Corps OF
Engineers ', works thus in the long run for the pentagon. Thus by no
means independently. But the Macher of „Taeuschung or Wahrheit?"
conceals all this; opposite the spectator.
Which the dear professor lets fall then in such a way all under the
table over to the result wished by the pentagon to come, is
amazingly. Thus its „Modellflugzeug" possesses; no engines. Should
that be the explanation for the fact that one with the clearing up
work in the pentagon, how already in Shanksville, did not find
engines, and/or none photo of engines of the machines fallen
allegedly gives it? At all is not received in the simulation, as and
by which the outlets came in the third building ring. One can call
the result of the professor actually only scientific HOKUSPOKUS.
Before we enter however into the analysis of the contribution, we
would not like to withhold our favourite photo from you. It was taken
up few minutes after the alleged impact of the American airline
flight 077.
Photo Tom Horan (AP)
What do you see, what we not to see?
And now to „Taeuschung or Wahrheit?" and the Pentagonkomplex.
MODERATOR: ...Skeptiker such as Mr. Wisnewski do not believe ever
necessarily that it was a traffic machine, which hit into the
pentagon, but they say, it were perhaps a military jet, perhaps were
it a rocket. The proofs for it, airplane rubble are not to be seen,
and the impact holes at the pentagon are much too small.
PASSING ON FILM
FILM TEXT: The pentagon on 11 September: To recognize not, what is
hit here. Does the damage come from an airplane - or from a rocket?
Professor Mete Sozen of the Purdue University in Indiana can answer
this question today clearly. With a team of architects it was few
days after the notice in the pentagon, the building exactly examined
and each individual rubble part checked. It builds the picture up of
the damage to the front like a puzzle. It reconstructs it with
photos, which developed, before the front collapsed. The outlines of
the impact hole develop for piece for piece. The result, transfer in
a model. To the comparison a model true to scale of a Boeing 757. The
airplane is larger than the hole.
O-CLAY/TONE Professor Mete Sozen: About it many people puzzle, but
the answer is very simple: The mass of the fuel damaged the building.
This mass is concentrated in the wings, close at the trunk. At the
ends of the wings is not much measure. When the airplane hit, with
which km/h, this mass the basic columns has enormous speed of 850 to
pierce. But at the ends the columns were stronger than the wings.
That is so simple.
Analysis: Where are the castings of the bearing areas in the fronts?
Such castings HAVING to be there, because with the impact of an
airplane with the nose on a hard obstacle fold the wings not to the
rear, but if, then forward! Because while the trunk is retarded by
the impact with the nose, the bearing areas still move on. If the
building structure were stronger than the wing ends, then both must
have met one another somewhere: Wing ends and buildings. There is
however no trace of the impact of the wings. The fact that a Boeing
757 at ground level cannot even reach approximately a speed of 850
km/h still results from the following discussion. But like already
with Shanksville, all at the basis put parameters are pure
speculation also here. Because until today the data of the flight
writer became do not admit, either because it destroys, or under
catch is held – was not found; or because there is not it simply.
Amazingly also, as the airplane could zurasen flat over the soil
away - all obstacles to the defiance - on the building. The building
lies in one lowers, before it an urban motorway with numerous
lanterns (picture down)
Further geht's in the contribution:
FILM TEXT: If airplane parts with large speed hit against a wall,
much does not remain. American researchers already placed that behind
in the eighties.
Analysis: But it is to be seen, where the rubble parts are hurled
with the impact a hard obstacle to a large part: back. But we will
see alike: that is with the pentagon surprisingly different.
FILM TEXT: But which happens inside the building: From the
computations Sozens develops an exact physical model. It simulates,
which work forces here and like itself each individual column
deformed.
O-CLAY/TONE Professor Mete Sozen: Which we see, the consequences of a
Boeing 757 are clear. The damage, which we see, and our computations
fit. There nothing puzzling is to.
Analysis: Amazingly apodiktische statements for a scientist, who
works here only with a simulation, which is not even based on any
secured data. The simulation - finished by the way exact for the
first anniversary 11 September of the – the effect of the network of
columns on the airplane shows. It is, as if the building would not
have an external wall. Those does not seem to play any role, although
she was substantially stabilized nevertheless straight in the context
of the renovation work in the met building segment in the last weeks.
Only few days before the notice are attachment work on the 24
centimeters thicken natural stone external wall pentagon to have been
locked, with which the entire front front with a grid network work
from steel girders was strengthened, reported mirror-on-line. That is
thus the quadrature of the circle: Only is the machine this to have
been penetrated with steel girders stabilized front front such as
butter, in order then have been cut and crushed on the inside by
columns?
Certainly it leaves itself only in such a way (away to)erklaeren, why
before the building (nearly) no rubble parts are to be seen.
FILM TEXT: In an avalanche from debris, scrap iron and the remnants
of the mechanism the Boeing rolls by the pentagon. 100 meters
crosswise by resounds, which interconnect the three outside building
rings in the ground floor.
Only large piles remain remaining by scrap iron - so strongly it
crushes that individual rubble parts can be hardly still assigned...
Analysis: Like already in Shanksville there are no independent
documentation or photos of found wreck parts or of the engines also
from the pentagon, nevertheless the most solid parts of an airplane.
But and indefinable rusted amazingly much Klein.
Filmtext:... which the scientists computed, cover themselves with the
observations of the eye-witnesses, who saw the impact of the airplane
from the motorway.
O-CLAY/TONE Steve Riskus (eye-witness): The airplane was so close
that I did not have a doubt, which it was. Completely clearly a large
traffic machine, as, I could recognize 757 the blue and red strips by
the side well. I saw the Logo at the tail: two "A" with the eagle
between them. I never doubted, what it was.
Analysis: Steve Riskus drove pentagon in the car on the motorway
along and photographed immediately after the impact. On its Website
(criticalthrash.com), where it the pictures presents, writes it: "I
took thesis pictures seconds after the flat hit the pentagon. I which
traveling on route 27 towards 395 when the flat crossed my path from
the right about 100ft in front OF ME and crashed into the pentagon."
Accepted, its car would have actually had a position, of out it the
extremely low flying object in approx.. 30 meters distance before
itself by the windshield could have observed, and accepted, he could
have pursued the flying object over a distance of 200 meters (which
with 30 meters distance already much is), he for his observations at
a speed of the flying object of 800 km/h less than one second time
would have had.
O-CLAY/TONE Vin Narayanan (eye-witness): The airplane was so close -
if I on my car would have confessed, would have I high-jump and it to
touch to be able. The American airlines - tail was good to see. The
shutters had not down-pulled, the windows were black, it were
completely dark.
Analysis: Vin Narayanan is a reporter of the newspaper the ' USA
Today '. It wants to have recognized in the extreme shortness of the
time that the shutters had not down-pulled. This man must have over
uebermenschliche an apprehension. It and Steve Riskus are two
arbitrarily picked out voices - of more than 30 eye-witnesses, who
give completely different data - up to the statement about noises as
from a military jet.
FILM TEXT: A rocket in the pentagon? In it today also most conspiracy
theoreticians do not believe any longer."
Analysis: How does the film comment come to this completely from air
seized statement? Completely obviously it serves the purpose to
represent Gerhard Wisnewski also among "conspiracy theoreticians" as
outsiders.
MODERATOR: Yes, the pictures, which we saw straight, those are even
in this trickfilm animation terrible. Mr. Wisnewski, Sie it believes
already still in the fact that that was likewise no passenger plane.
Perhaps a military jet, perhaps a rocket?
WISNEWSKI: Regrettably here many things in the contribution are not
at all addressed. E.G. there were seismic investigations over the
impacts of the so-called terror airplanes. With the WTC they could
recognize that clearly by the curves, the vibration. Such vibrations
were not found by the impacts with the pentagon. Which unfortunately
also in the contribution did not occur... (moderator interrupts)
Note: The moderator gives itself only no trouble to take a neutral
position. Merrily it argues loosely drauf, as if it has the smallest
notion of that
Connections between seismic waves and the ground condition.
WISNEWSKI: The measuring points at the WTC continued to be even still
away and that still measure could, and the next is that one speaks
here in the contribution of a speed of 850 kilometers per hour, which
the machine at ground level is to have had drauf. Such airliners do
not reach such speeds in this ground level. They do not have here no
ground combat aircraft, an airplane with area radar before itself,
which can accomplish such attacks in twenty meters height
MODERATOR. We ask directly Mr. withered as flight experts. Is it
difficult to reach such speeds near at the soil?
WITHERS: Indeed, due to the high atmospheric pressure. In this point
I give Mr. Wisnewski quite. I think that the airplane flew zirka 150
to 200 kilometers per hour more slowly, as here explained.
Analysis: Thus is certain: The alleged „Studie", Animation
and „Modellrechnung" the Purdue University proceeds already from
seriously wrong original data. Thus it is already useless as model
calculation.
MODERATOR: We ask Wolfgang Wohlers, it work on Institut for
lightweight construction technology on the technical university in
Aachen. They are occupied with such Crashverformungen. Does a role
play, if the airplane were 600/800 kilometers fast for the fact which
damage is there afterwards caused?
Analysis: Now it comes completely thickly. This „Experte" contradicts
itself equal several times in in and the same statement, without by
the moderator on it to be made attentive.
WOHLERS: That plays naturally a role. The speed always plays a role.
But that then the airplane divides itself into small parts, there
then the last-finite speed is so then no longer substantial. They
have normal way, if they see a flight accident, there have it
substantially smaller impact speeds, because the pilot tries to
intercept the airplane. On the other hand most accidents in the
starting and landing phase happen. From therefore it then this high
speed, whether there is now 850 km, is then completely so no longer
substantial.
Analysis: First the speed plays thus a role. That is also correct.
Because also when hitting a nail it is important, with which force
(speak: Speed) one the hammer leads. Without large the „Experte"
tries; but afterwards to away-explain the meaning the speed: Only one
sentence the speed is suddenly no longer important later so. And
finally: Why is the fact that most (others) flight accidents in the
starting and landing phase happen, a reason for the fact that the
speed suddenly plays no more role in the case of the impact of an
airplane? This logic is opened probably only for the „Experten"...
MODERATOR: Can one determine in principle at the damage of a
building, and/or the pentagons, how largely, how quickly, which mass,
which size hit there as missile?
WOHLERS: I cannot say now of the side of the architects and civil
engineers now so exactly, but one can compute it for it, we it in the
contribution also saw.
Analysis: Mr. Wohlers cannot do it thus „sagen", but it can do
it „berechnen".
WOHLERS (continuation:) it gives programs, which do that. We are
occupied at Institut also with these programs. One can make then
parameter studies, vary e.g. the speed. As the apparent damage
changes, as changes the rubble, then one can already also say then,
the speed must in this range have lain.
Analysis: Unfortunately there is no available „Parameter" over the
impact of spirit flight American airlines 77, which one could enter
into any program. Thus there is also nothing to compute. And although
Mr. Wohlers still granted above, the damage „von of the side of the
architects and Bauingenieure" , he wants to be able to not so exactly
judge conclusions now on the basis the same damage on the speed to
pull be able. If its computations would be suited somewhat, he would
have to come at the latest now to the conclusion that the accepted
speed of approximately 850 was much too highly seized km/h, because
this speed is physically impossible for such airplanes at ground
level. But to this conclusion Mr. Wohlers does not come.
MODERATOR: This animation, which we saw, by the way also on
scientific criteria is based, considers you plausible?
Analysis: That is to be agreed, if one incorporates pure fantasy
under the scientific criteria. In reality there is no data basis for
the animation, since all allegedly existing flight writer data are
kept secret.
WOHLERS: Yes. I also read the article, which is stop a commercial
program which for Crashrechnungen was developed exactly, and we use
it at Institut also. From therefore it already hold I for plausible.
Analysis: Mr. Wohlers states thus four reasons for the plausibility
of the animation: 1. It also read the article. 2. The program was
developed for Crashrechnungen. Probably however for Crashrechnungen
without data, one may not add. 3. One can buy the program
(commercially). 4. It uses it also.
MODERATOR: Their result thus that one finds there only small parts
that this airplane almost atomisiert itself, is plausibly that one
can compute scientifically, which is it like that?
WOHLERS: I think already, first of all, if one considers that such an
airliner has very little structure: there is very few measures, it
have a skin thickness in parts of 1, 6 millimeters, that is very few,
it have very much air.
