Purdue University CGVLAB its Pentagon attack simulations animation using LS-DYNA Runs:
They posted it at Video Google, 5 years ago.
Purdue University CS; authors Popescu, V., C. Hoffmann, S. Kilic, M. Sozen, S. Meador;
More info www.cs.purdue.edu...
From that Purdue site, a screenshot of the position of the plane in a SoC angle of attack.
The right wing's jet engine will smash right in the middle of the side panel of the generator cabin, the guard rails are too high to hit
when the nose cone and the fuselage will indeed follow a precise 42° horizontal attack angle and a vertical 8° downward angle, and
that nose cone impacts at a spot on the second floor slab, just through the center line of that two windows wide fuselage entrance hole :
Same screenshot below , but I placed an additional plane in the right, NoC 80° angle of attack.
The outer flap's guide rail will make that gouge in the roof of the generator cabin, under a 80° angle. It began to hit that cabin roof just behind
the right-side roof-rim, then started to rip through the roof, deeper and deeper until it left a progressively getting deeper gouge. That impact force
delivered such a blow to the front part of the trailer, that it was pushed off its static, upholding reversed U-construction (who knows the short
term) under the front of the trailer, and got shoved around to a position of about 46° to the west wall length and the long fence.
The inner guide rail will rip a piece of the wire netting of the fence away and make that "hole" in the fence. The jet engine stays a few meters
clear from the fence and its corner, it passes to the left side of the fence corner, and is also at the right height to just miss the cable spools(or
just make a dent in the top of two of them), and hit the west wall's first floor space at the right hand side of column 14. Its fuselage which is
positioned above the wing level and even higher above the jet engine level, will make that 2 windows wide fuselage-entrance hole :
It seems none of the readers of my post where I first showed this zoomed-in and cropped by me, NAVY aerial photo of the situation at the Renovation
areas in front of the Pentagon's west wall, have understood what the grave importance of my remarks in that photo are, and what they implicate.
That means I still have to explain what details you must have missed in that drawing.
I thought it was obvious by now, after all these photos and drawings I already posted in here. Where are the days that our onboard Official Story
debunkers, that once enormous group, that reacted on every freshly introduced Official Story attacking post, instantly would post their own
observations when shocking evidence like my photos and drawings were posted.
Have you all been intimidated so much by that JREF wolf-pack scouring this forum, that you do not dare to post anymore in our 9/11 conspiracy threads
and posts? What the heck is going on lately in our two conspiracy forums?
HAVE YOU GIVEN IN? To those few-liners? Where's your pride and guts!
Don't get intimidated by their "status" or "expertise". They do not have expert knowledge about every level of education, by far not.
I do value their posts where it is clear that they are an expert in that field (ProudBird f.ex.) and do give reasonable explanations as their answer,
but when I read the signature line link of Reheat, I doubt he is an expert in aviation calculations. He seems to be at least an ex Air Force pilot,
but his calculation skills are so poor, that he keeps telling here that a NoC flight path with a slight 23° right banking turn ending in that by many
people reported impact, is impossible. I gave him the calculations from his own link, that it is no problem at all at quite high speeds too, but he
keeps stubbornly shouting around here, that it is only possible under an idiot huge bank angle, which would have been reported by all witnesses.
However, all NoC and other witnesses reported MY calculated viable 23° right banking turn.
Then I show him his own linked to online calculator results, that give a slight 23° right bank turn as result by those speeds, and you know what?
His endless insult drivel is repeated ad infinitum, while constantly shouting that that plane must have flown that idiot huge right bank. Yep, very
professional behavior. Keep neglecting the evidence, take another cookie.
Back to that explanation.
The yellow 42° attack line drawn by me in that NAVY aerial photo, must be the path that one of the flaps guide rail housings sticking out from under
that right wing, did follow on its way in. Since those things are aligned under the right wing, exactly parallel to the fuselage (body) of the plane,
to avoid at all means any extra, and excessive air resistance drag on the wings and the whole flight performance of the plane.
They follow the same flight path as the plane's body. Parallel to that body.
But that 42° angled yellow line does not depict the BODY, no, it depicts one of the outer flap guide rail housings, and probably one of the two most
Because the two inward ones are situated just beneath the fuselage, and just beneath the right jet engine, and that engine has not touched that
trailer, if it would have done so, the whole trailer would have been blasted into thousands of tiny pieces.
And since Frank Probst his witness account from the ASCE report and in some newspapers I linked to in my OP page at my only thread that was allowed at
PilotsForTruth before it got closed by Balsamo the dictator there, clearly stated that he saw the right wing TIP slash through the generator cabin
roof, it is quite sure that he saw the out-most flap guide rail housing's sharp bottom slash through that roof.
Thus, that leaves us with a plane body that flew many meters to the left of my drawn 42° yellow line. And I have news for that JREF wolf pack of hard
core real-9/11-truth debunkers. Even if my yellow 42°-line would depict a line through the plane's body and nose cone, it still does miss the two
windows fuselage hole at the column 14 position in the west wall, the official impact point of the nose of AA 77, with more than 15 meters.
But it gets even much worse for them, that 42°-line does not depict that plane's body, it depicts some plane part under that right wing its out-most
wing-tip area, which must be the outer flap guide rail housing, hanging some 0.8 yard/meter under that wing-tip area.
That leaves us with only one logical conclusion, based on the real, 80° angle and the progressively deeper cutting form of that generator cabin
roof's gouge, as clearly can be seen in the hires gouge photos I posted; namely that the body and NOSE of AA 77 that was flying about 15 meter to the
right of that wing tip area, in the unreal case that the plane's wing tip area slashed through that trailer roof diagonally from front left towards
back right under a by the ASCE report proposed sharp angle of 42°, was aimed at a spot at, or just missing the northwestern, back side corner of the
Heli pad tower building.
Good grace, that ASCE reports attack angle of 42° could never ever have impacted under that 42° angle, the two windows hole in the west wall, its
right wing and its lower hanging 4 flaps extensions and the jet engine would have slashed first through the whole wire netting of that fence, and then
through not one, but three trailers parked in that fence corner area, and the deepest part of that right wing would have smashed through the side of
that generator cabin, when you follow the logic of the ASCE report, and take in account the dimensions of the bottom of the right jet engine housing
up to the nose cone's height, in a clean flight configuration, no wheels down, no slats or flaps out.
Because for that 42° fairy tale to become true, you must neglect the fact that when the jet engine has missed the whole trailer side (which it
clearly did, see all my trailer photos), its much higher passing four flaps guide rail housings did miss that generator roof area with at least a feet
or more. But probably much more, because these four extensions under the right wing, can only touch that cabin roof, when the bottom of the right jet
engine nearly cuts the grass on the lawn, look at my Boeing 757-200 dimensions drawings in my opening posts.
And then, the fuselage and the nose cone would have slashed right through those cable spools, who were only slightly damaged, in the top area of two
You should construct a reversed impact scenario by yourselves.
Start a 42° line to the trailer, from the two windows wide entrance hole center, at the second floor slab its plane's nose-cone impact position on
it, in any one of my hires photos or aerials.
Then extend to the generator trailer under an angle to the west wall of 42°, another line under it, starting at the spot on a small perpendicular
line drawn downwards from the nose cone impact point, that depicts the bottom of that right jet engine. And take in account the AA 77 measurements I
gave you already in my OP, which you can take from my AA 77 dimensions drawings.
See if you can make that jet engine just miss the cable spools top sides, the fence its corner post, and still let one of the two outer wing TIP
flap-extensions under it, scrape over that generator cabin roof.
In a 42° angle to the west wall or the fence, in the horizontal plain. Going back upwards in about a 8° vertical angle, since the plane came in in a
slight downward angle.
Scraping that cabin roof with its wing tip, like Frank Probst reported in the ASCE report to have seen from a distance of about 60 yards/meters while
walking on the footpath along Route 27, near the twin trees in front of the white concrete of the Heli pad with the huge H painted on, and then diving
to the grass while the plane passed over his head. Some others, f.ex. on Route 27 said to have seen that wing tip doing that too, btw.
Do not forget to implement the strong upwards bending of that wing, in flight in dense air, at the ASCE and FDR reported speed. And their conclusion
based on the right wing imprint on the wall, where a part of that right wing seemingly impacted under an 8° upwards angle. Good luck with that.
No chance that you will ever make that happen.
Which AA 77 recovered FDR's end speed I do not believe in, and neither do I believe in at least the last 20 to 10 seconds of that recovered FDR. They
must have been a falsification. If the 9/11 planners had to interfere in hard evidence material, they did it as sparsely as possible.
I gave irrefutable evidence in one of my other threads about that FDR, that at least the first data part of that AA 77's FDR did show that AA 77 did
indeed departed from its usual southernly gate, D 22. Which the PilotsForTruth forum and main site pages still stubbornly contradict. The owner,
Balsamo, still keeps his pet theory up, that AA 77 departed either from a northernly gate, or another southernly gate further away from D22. He is
dead wrong on that. He knows very well that my calculations in my ATS thread about it showed him wrong, but this man can't bring himself to admit his
poor calculation and analysis skills.
Now, let us concentrate on my other drawn-in, red 80° flight path line, also depicting the flight-path of the out-most flap guide rail its sharp
housing bottom, 0.8 yard/meter under that right wing's wing tip area.
It is clear that in this case, the right jet engine passes that fence many meters to the left of the fence its corner pole, and that the wing tip can
slash through the cabin roof under a 8° vertical, downward flight path angle, and in a 75° to 80° horizontal angle, as seen in the roof gouge
direction pictures, and that the fuselage and its nose cone will impact exactly at the two windows wide entrance hole area seen in those hires west
wall impact area photos I linked to. The trailer is swept backwards about 46° and knocked off from its double legged point of support under the front
bottom end of the trailer. That's why you see the trailer's front end hanging down in all 9/11 photos, when it was photographed in its 46° to the
fence position. And that the cable spools only slightly were touched by the belly bottom of the plane.
I do expect that the instant strong deflecting reactive force on the wing, at its impact into the cabin roof top, has caused the right wing tip area
to sweep further back-upwards and therefore the 8° upward wing imprint on the far left side of the entrance hole.(see my posted 8° up, wing imprint
Well, the 80° angled impact path has a much greater chance of being true, than that ridiculous 42° angle. In fact, all the NoC witness evidence and
the gouge and trailer photos favors the NoC, 75° to 80° attack and impact angle.
And all ASCE report and Purdue University Investigation its photos, drawings and animation depict other than a 42° attack angle. Check it yourselves
with a plastic graduated arc.
Because, when they would have used the real and correct 42° angles, it would be instantly clear that such an 42° angle did not fit the obstacles in
that path behind the fence, the cable spools and the impact damage and entrance hole. And not one flight path has been drawn by them showing the
vertical and horizontal lines of an 42° attack path, since then these lines would not pass over the obstacles, but cut head-on through all of them.
And the nose cone impact would end up far left of the two windows entrance hole with its center point on the second floor slab. Somewhere in the Heli