OT: 911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77

It is a great animation indeed. But instead of a plane he should have shown a missile.

Launched by "Elvis" from a secret location..........

Igor Mir> It is a great animation indeed. But instead of a plane he should have shown > a missile.

He may have if he could have a missile with a 212 FOOT WINGSPAN!!!

Muggs

I guess they had fallen off a few miles before the impact. Or immediately after take-off.

Remember that this happened at about 9:30am on a weekday in an extremely busy part of D.C. Hundreds of people saw the aircraft coming in. Are you saying they all had a simultaneous halucination? Mike Wilson did a recreation on swx that showed all the wing contact with nearby streetlights and signage.

No, I am saying that there is more to the story than meets the eye. But this is a SW forum, not political debate one. You are welcome to write to me directly if you want.

Regards,

Igor.

No politics, just reality. Give it a try.

Through an odd convergence of events I have something to add to this.

Mike Wilson worked for us briefly at the time he was finishing up this animation.

He obviously put a ton of personal time into the research and reproduction of the event (down to the cars in the lot) because he was curious if there was more to it than met the eye (that was Mike - always questioning stuff)

After work one day he showed his stuff to the boys in the office - the animations and the raw models. He even had shots from the vantage point of the released security camera footage just to be sure that his recreation matched the record - it did, precisely, in 3D (as I recall).

Just because there were questions, he modeled a cruise missle that was rumoured to have caused the damage (nice model, btw - hey, it's Mike) and demonstrated clearly that it couldn't have made the wound in the pentagon.

Then, again in a clever use of SWx, he mapped (as I recall, with decals, to Mike-Wilson-extreme-precision) the wound on the pentagon and showed to us how anyone who thought it was something other than a plane was flat-out wrong. The plane fit perfectly.

Unless I see someone else go to the actual lengths that I saw Mike go through to verify this, I'm going with Mike. It's easy to spout doubts on a blog - its hard to spend dozens or hundreds of hours to actually test it. Again, that's Mike. Helluva guy.

This is my recollection. He showed a marvelous use of SWx to reproduce and dissect a crime scene, something that is probably worthy of this forum (its got potential as a side business for some - obviously not the terrorist stuff (hope we are done with THAT) but in the more mundane car accident, etc stuff) It is quite convincing.

If you have doubts, then use the scientific method - rebuild everything in SWx and try it for yourself - THAT's constructive criticism. Based on what I saw, I am pretty confident that you will reproduce his results. If you don't have Mike's comittment to really test this stuff (and how many of us, really, do?) then, from a personal level as an admirer of Mike, I'd say lay off . At least have the character not to question his results from the vantage point of a lazy bystander.

You have the tools - put up, or shut up. You are only about 100 hours in research and modeling form reproducing (or refuting, this is science, after all) his results.

Ed

Ed, I have never question Mike Wilson abilities to do the great job. But I was sceptical when powers that be were claiming there was a WMD in Iraq. To support their claim they did show some animation of mobile nuclear reactor (or whatever) used by Iraq. Most likely that animation was done in SW too. That's all.

Igor.

Let's dissect this statement using a newsman's tools (who, what, where, when, why and how):

To support their

[Who does the pronoun >their< refer too? I can substitute whatever I think should be substituted, the government, a government department, George Bush, the Illuminati, Martha Kay, Elvis, etc.]

claim

[What claim are we discussing here?, When was the claim made? What is the context of the claim? What did the claim actually claim to claim?]

they did show

[Where was this animation shown? When was it shown? Who was it shown to?]

some animation

[I have never seen any animations of WMD in Iraq on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, History Channel or Discovery so to what animation are you referring? When was this animation made? Who made it? What sources were used? What was the date on the sources?]

of mobile nuclear reactor (or whatever)

[ What type of mobile reactor? Is a mobile reactor a WMD? Is there such a thing as a mobile nuclear reactor other than in naval vessels? Personally I think you are confusing the word reactor with things nuclear. We have several reactors in town. They emit no radiation, have no shielding and the spent material that comes out of the reactors is used as animal feed.Two local examples of this are an ethanol plant and a micro brewery.]

used by Iraq.

[Which Iraq. Sadam's Iraq? Iraq prior to invasion? Iraq after the first war? The current Iraq? Nebuchadnezzar's Iraq? When were they used? How was it used? ]

The only thing I can recall that fits your statement is a picture of the "reactor" in a semi trailer that Colin Powell showed to the UN prior to the war. This "reactor" was purportedly used to produce biological agents or chemical agents. The actual trailer was found after the invasion and was not in working condition at that time.

The report by Dorfler did show that while no functi> Ed,

So... you will neither put up nor shut up...

You are an > Ed,

TOP,

You obviously didn't follow carefully the propaganda hype prior to the invasion of Iraq. I am not going to dissect your post (I see no need for it) but ask you one question: how does your own comment (see below) supports the statement of PM Tony Blair that Iraq is ready (has capabilities) to launch the WMD in 45 minutes? Or you don't remember his statement at all?

I have heard that too. When some people have nothing to say to substantiate their claim they just tell to an opponent to shut up. It is rude, but who cares...

:) Thanks for the free laugh......

Dorfler's conclusions could not possibly support any alleged comments by Tony Blair prior to the war since they were made months after the major fighting had ceased. And I suppose that besides being separated in time Dorfler worked for the US government so he probably wasn't on Blair's staff.

Blair based his actions on conjecture prior to hostilities. Dorfler based his conclusions on a study of Iraqi documents and interviews after hostilities had ceased. Both came to the same conclusion.

I'm amazed that there is still a discussion about the plane hitting the Pentagon? The evidence, recreation and others are pretty straight forward. I never could figure out the point of the debate was anyway. Most of us saw the actual plane hit the second tower. Are we to be believe that the CIA in some sort of desperate plot hit the pentagon so that we can place more blame on Alkida?

As far as WMD. What happened to the news that there is considerable evidence that a lot of the WMD is now in Seria? To me, even if there isn't a single piece of evidence, this is what Sadam was leading the World to believe. If a bad guy jumps out with a toy gun and aims it at the police, and he gets killed.... will, what does he expect? Sadam gets the news just as good as the rest of the World. Now, what should he have done????

I have also seen a number of sound bites where many liberals believed that taking out Iraq was justified. Now of course these fine men of integrity are the biggest complainers.... talk about a conspiracy....

How, did this discussion get into this forum?

There you go again, trying to talk common sense and reality. The conspiracy crowd wouldn't admit that the sky is blue, depending on who was saying it. Bill

Solidworks + Mike Wilson are both relevant to this forum.

Couldn't agree more with you. Ed's explanation of Alkida and transferring of WMD to Seria is right on money. The spelling is not, however.