This second level of analysis was done in march 2003.
The original aim was to improve the simulation of different flying
objects (a B 757, a fighter, a cruise missile) shown arriving onto the
pentagon, by a more careful analysis of topography, perspective and
Analysis of image 1 of the cctv.
Here below the image, with art lines added in yellow.
The presumed trajectory of the plane has been cut into three zones :
The camera's horizon has been drawn on the image, and also the realist
approach trajectory in purple (see below in the text).
- From the right edge of image up to the yellow cabinet (35 pixels, 6,2 % of
- Behind the yellow cabinet (46 pixels, 8,1%).
- From the yellow cabinet up to the front of the pentagon (89 pixels, 15,6%).
The following image is extracted from an aerial view. Over it have been drawn
the lines corresponding to the lateral limits of the cctv field.
A line has been plotted, perpendicular to the axis of the camera, which
corresponds to a vertical plane homothetic to the sensor of the camera.
On this line have been reported the percentages measured on the previous image.
Drawing the lines from the camera up to this line, the trajectory of the
plane (confirmed by the destroying in the pentagon and the struck lamp poles)
On this trajectory can be found :
- 95 m above the road, which is around 6 m higher than the ground
of the heliport. The plane flies at the height of the upper part of
the lamp poles which are located on the border of this road.
- 65 m of embankment, to join the level of the heliport (slope 10%).
- 28 m above the heliport, in the visible zone on the right of the yellow
cabinet on image 1.
- 35 m hidden behind the yellow cabinet.
- 72 m up to the impact point on the pentagon front, seen at the left
of the yellow cabinet
- 84 m of deep penetration inside the pentagon, from the front up to the
last "punch out" hole out of C ring.
These distances can be reported on a cut drawing along the presumed trajectory
of the plane (in purple). Lamp poles have been plotted in blue, and the
horizon of the cctv camera in yellow : an horizontal plane 1.3 m high
above the heliport ground.
The flight height above Washington Boulevard can be estimated to twenty feet,
from the length of the inferior part of the lamp pole, visible on the
following picture, which was hit by the plane.
- The smoke on the right of the yellow cabinet on image 1 is 7 pixels
high, i.e. 5 m at the distance where it is seen from the camera (275 m).
- The horizon line is at around 1.3 m from ground (height of camera).
- This smoke being below the horizon line, it so "penetrates" inside the
ground of around 4 m.
- The approximative trajectory underlined by this smoke implies that the
plane, after having flyed over the road (approximately at twenty feet
high) has taken a steep descent along the embankment
(on 65 m) and has made a brutal pitch change to fly under a level of 1.3 m
above the ground (4 feet), and this up to the pentagon's front.
- On Ron Harvey's web site, it is shown that the lamp pole which is
at the bottom of this embankment, has been touched (apparently on it's upper part).
- The part of the trajectory masked by the yellow cabinet has a length
of 35 m. It would be difficult to a plane whose length is 45 m to be
masked completely by this cabinet, except it's tail which would
- The smoke made by a plane (vortex of exhaust) cannot extend below
ground level : it is faked.
- The tail of the plane above the yellow cabinet is faked.
- A plane, moreover if it flies fast, cannot in about 20 m go from the
height of the top of a lamp pole (about 15 m above the heliport ground),
to a raze to the ground flight under a level of 1.3 m, in order to leave
the smoke track seen on the pictures.
- The pseudo trajectory that suggests the smoke is indeed an ascending
trajectory regarding to the horizon line : the unidentified flying object
should fly under the ground level before emerging from the grass of the
embankment (trajectory in dotted line), at the limit of the heliport,
and then keep on ascending to
go and hit the pentagon's front at a few meters height above the ground !
If we add that the plane is said to be a Boeing 757, that the lowest part
of the engines should fly over the ground at the height a lawn mower does,
and that the presumed
pilot, Hani Hanjour, had been considered by his instructors as being unable to
land with a Cessna 172, this could be a good joke if not for the
circumstances, the number of victims and the consequences. See
by a leading university.
The fraud :
- The only realistic trajectory is the straight one in regular descent.
A 757 would have to fly around 150 m from the apparition of it's nose
on the right of the image up to the disparition of it's tail inside the
explosion fireball of image 2, flying over the yellow cabinet and not
behind it. At a speed of 250 m/s, it would have needed 600 ms to do it :
the cctv camera could not miss it. Here is a table showing how many
frames have been "lost", depending on the plane speed (500 to 1000 km/h),
also in mph and m/s, and on the camera rate (frames / second).
|Number of "lost" camera frames|
|Camera rate (fps)||30||25||15||10|
- The smoke which seems to be left by the plane on images 1 and 2 has been
made by an infographist who had no idea of perspective and 3D construction.
See the realist trajectory in purple.
- The tail of a virtual plane has been drawn over the yellow cabinet.
The presence of this tail and of the smoke are intended to prove that
there has been a plane and that, unfortunately, the camera could not
- The images can have been cropped on the right, to avoid to show the
lamp pole (must be just on the right of the image edge), the
embankment and the bridge over the highway.
- Adding this smoke on images 1 and 2, and an artificial black horizontal
band on images 3, 4 and 5 allows to hide the downer part of this embankment.
- Either the camera was tilted on it's support in the booth (which is possible),
or the image has been rotated by software to let the horizon line be ascending
from the left to the right, which gives the illusion that the trajectory
corresponding to the smoke is horizontal or a little descending, though it
is geometrically ascending.
- As I already stated on my former web site, several frames have been lost on
which the flying object must be seen flying to the pentagon and hitting it.
Analysis of image 2 of cctv
An excellent paper can be found in the
Guardian's analysis, discussing the explosion at the pentagon, with a plot
showing that the red color seen ahead of the heliport control tower is faked and has been
added by an infographist.
I don't agree with this analysis and I think that, except the virtual smoke left by the
virtual plane, this image is true, here is why.
- The move of the camera inside the booth is very realistic. The camera bounces
on it's support when the shockwave created by the explosion arrives at this place.
This shockwave propagates at a speed beetween 2000 and 6000 m/s, which are the
speeds inside ground of different types of seismic waves.
The explosion takes place at around 180 m from the camera. The seismic waves
need beetween 30 and 90 ms (milliseconds) to propagate to the camera.
If the camera bounces 1 cm over it's support, the time necessary for reaching the
upper part of this bounce is 45 ms. For 2 cm, 64 ms. For 5 cm, 101 ms.
In the hypothesis of a fast compression seismic wave and a 1 cm bounce,
image 2 has been shot 75 ms after the explosion. In the hypothese of a slower
transversal seismic wave and a camera bounce of 5 cm, image 2 has been shot
191 ms after the explosion.
- The front of the extending fireball that develops on a quasi spherical way
from the explosion point moves at a trans-sonic speed (300 m/s). It's extension
can be estimated two times the height of the pentagon (24 m), ie around 48 m.
The time elapsed from the explosion is so around 160 ms, perhaps a little less
if we consider that in the first 20 m of the fireball extension the speed is
supersonic : considering a delay beetween 100 and 160 ms seems obvious.
- The red color that can be seen on the right of the fireball near the ground
and ahead of the heliport control tower corresponds to the presence of a very
hot plasma which ionises air. A thin plasma jet results
from the explosion of a hollow charge, travelling at speeds around 20 times the
sonic speed, i.e. 6000 m/s. This jet being directed towards the inner part
of the building, what can be seen outside is made of particles reflected by
collisions with building parts (pilars, walls) and getting off the building
through the openings. The direct trajectory of this plasma before being reflected
is around 6 to 84 m, which gives a time of 1 to 14 ms. It's trajectory after
reflexion is around 30 to 120 m, with a speed that can be estimated
reasonnably beetween one sixth and one half of the initial speed, i.e. 1000
to 3000 m/s, which gives a reflected fly time comprised beetween 10 and 120 ms.
The total time elapsed beetween the hollow charge explosion and the arrival of
an ionised plasma on the zone ahead the control tower must be comprised
beetween 11 and 134 ms.
In a previous version (archives) I estimated a lower time : I just missed the
fact that the two first floors of the pentagon are not designed as three separate
rings, like the upper floors, but as large platforms inside which only pillars
are strong obstacles to propagation.
The fraud :
- It is probable, if image 2 is not faked, that a strong hollow charge has explosed,
sending a plasma jet at high speed inside the building.
- The demonstration presented in the Guardian's paper, according to which these
red clouds are faked, because their presence would need a faster travel than the
front of propagation of the fireball, is just a misunderstanding of the fact that the
plasma jets created by a hollow charge travel very fast.
- If the probable delay beetween the explosion and image 2 is to be considered
from 100 to 150 ms, it can be concluded that the red color ahead the control tower
is made of tracks of plasma fading, or that the need for this plasma to get out
from the building through it's openings (said to be
or the existence of multi-travels inside the building, have delayed it so that
it propagates there 100 or 150 ms later.
- If an infographist is dumb enough to try to make us believe that a plane can
fly under the ground level, it is highly probable that he is not able to invent
realistic physical effects such as the high speed propagation of seismic
shockwaves or ionised plasma.
- As was demonstrated on image 1, the trajectory of the virtual plane showed
by the virtual smoke is not realistic : this smoke has been made by infography.
- As on image 1, the horizon line is not horizontal.
- This image should be the fifth or the sixth of the series, even more if
the plane had a speed estimated around 600 km/h, as some witnesses said and/or
if the camera rate is higher than 10 fps.
A "power point" presentation
on the Pentagon crash has been put on line by Jack White. It contains the following graphics
job, which consists to arrange one of the images of the camera in order to cope with the
deformations of the lense (wide angle). On this picture, it is possible to plot the
horizon line, just above the yellow line which underlines the Pentagon's facade.
This horizon line goes just on the bottom of the smoke track on the right, which
would indeed, according to this job, be just over the ground level.
This would mean, if this smoke had been produced by the engines of the plane, that
this one would have been on an horizontal flight with the axis of the engines
at approximately ten feet from the ground, i.e. the lower part of the engines at
approximately five feet over the ground. One more time, it must be affirmed
that it is impossible for a 757, at full speed on a descending trajectory
since some thousand feets, to be on such an horizontal trajectory only a
few fractions of a second after having flyed at mid lamp poles height over
a road located twenty feet higher than the ground of the heliport !
Physically, the plane could not do that, even if piloted by an ace.
Moreover if it was piloted by a goofy hijacker pilot... This without quoting
the fact that the engines of a 757 maintained by a serious company don't
leave behind them such a smoke cloud : if this smoke really accounted
for the track of an engine, it should be concluded that it was an old
car, good for junk, which crossed at this precise time the lawn of the heliport !
NEW : february 2007 :
very interesting analysis of the videos, by Pier Paolo Muru, an italian investigator.
He comes to the same conclusion than me : the videos have been faked.