Herb’s 2nd 9/11 Simulation — What Herb Thinks

If you saw my first 9/11 simulation, you will recall I skipped over the Pentagon attack and only simulated the attack on the twin towers of the World Trade Center. I did this assuming my flight simulator would have nothing new to reveal concerning the Pentagon attack. Well, it turned out I did discover something new. Not only that, I ended up taking an interesting journey.

The issue before us is, is there evidence suggesting the United States government may have been involved in a cover-up regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001? And, more seriously, could our government have actually been involved, as suggested by the French Web site Hunt the Boeing and the documentary the Web site inspired titled 9/11: In Plane Site?

However, in light of Bible prophecy, I believe there may be another possibility worth our considering. Could we be witnessing a major disinformation campaign that is attempting to shift blame from the responsible parties to the victim of the attack? And, if so, who would be doing such an evil thing and why? If you’re into end-time prophecy, you may already suspect you have the answer to that last question.

As I wrote in my first 9/11 simulation, I recently watched a well-made documentary titled 9/11: In Plane Site. It begins by pointing out that the damage to the Pentagon is not consistent with the damage that would have been caused if struck by a large 757 airliner. It also draws our attention to the fact that there was no huge inferno caused by the fuel like there was at the twin towers of the World Trade Center. And, there was no aircraft wreckage to be seen anywhere on the ground. It even showed a picture of the Pentagon taken before the upper four stories collapsed and draws out attention to a hole it says was the impact site. The hole, it says, is only 14 to 16 feet wide — too small for a 757 to fit through.

The documentary also shows a picture after the upper floors had collapsed. It points out the width of the collapsed section of the outer ring of the Pentagon was only about 65 feet wide. A 757, wing tip to wing tip, is over 124 feet wide. After showing a graphic evidently taken from the French Web site that started it all — showing the image of a Boeing 757 superimposed on the damage to the Pentagon — the documentary concludes by suggesting something other than a 757 must have hit the Pentagon.

Here’s a similar graphic I took from the English version of the French Web site:


http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

After seeing the above graphic, I couldn’t resist firing up my flight simulator and checking things out for myself. I wasn’t really expecting to discover anything new. But, until I tried, I would never know for certain.

The Pentagon is pictured on the left, and the one in my flight simulator on the right.
The plane struck the west side of the building, where the big grassy area is at the left in the photo.

After repeatably simulating the plane flying into the Pentagon and examining the images from different angles, I did discover something I hadn’t noticed before. After the nose of the plane enters the building, the two large engines would have hit next, not the wings.


The actual plane hit at the first floor.

Here’s my point: It stands to reason the primary damage to the first floor of the building would be caused by the nose of the main fuselage body and the two heavy engines. Keep in mind, I’m not a crash expert. But, it seems to me, after impact the engines would push the wings back to slide into the hole being driven inward by the main fuselage body, making the hole that actually penetrated into the building smaller than the first impact points. The same principle would apply to the tail.

From their outside edges, the two engines are approximately 40 to 45 feet apart. That means, the first impact points to the first floor need only be about 40 to 45 feet wide. And, the actual hole penetrating the first floor of the building would be even smaller.

At the time of the photo below, the upper floors have collapsed. The section that collapsed is about 65 feet across. As I noted above, I believe 65 feet would be more than enough area required for the entry of a 757.

However, as I look at the picture, a question does come up: Where did the big Boeing go? For example, why didn’t it do more damage to the offices directly behind the outer ring? And, how could the floors directly above where the plane was said to have hit remain standing for so long before they collapsed?

But, here is perhaps the biggest unanswered question. Where is the tremendous fire damage we would expect to see from the huge inferno a 757, fully loaded with aviation fuel, would cause by exploding into the building pictured below?


Photo from Wildland Firefighters

It was while attempting to answer this question I discovered something very disturbing about the In Plane Site documentary. As I was reviewing the documentary’s dealing with the above question, I caught the host in what appeared to me to be a very subtle slight of hand. Just before showing a picture similar to the one posted above, the host stated:

The planes that hit the Trade Center created a fire so intense that it fatigued the steel and collapsed the building. Or, so that’s what we were told.

By now the documentary is showing the inside of the the upper rooms that were left exposed by the collapsed section of building. As we watch, the picture slowly zooms in to a close up of an undamaged computer monitor sitting undisturbed on a file cabinet, much like you see below.

With proper mood music playing, the host says:

On the third floor it’s very plain to see a file cabinet with a computer monitor, neither are damaged. On the second floor you can see a wooden desk, it hasn’t burned. And, on the first floor, a very curious sight indeed. A wooden stool with a book that is laying and open. The pages aren’t even singed.

Did you catch it? If not, take another look at the first full picture. Notice what floor the computer monitor is really on. It’s on the fifth floor, not the third as the host said. With this subtle slight of hand, the host is able to change everything that follows. Now, instead of the desk being on the fourth floor, it’s on the second. And, more importantly for his argument, the unburned pages of the book are now on the first floor, the very floor where the plane was supposed to have hit the building.

If the evidence is so convincing, why did the host of this documentary resort to what looks to me like an act of deception? Is it possible the host just made a mistake? With a finely edited product such as this documentary, I find this type of mistake highly unlikely. So, from that point on, I began wondering if the documentary, 9/11: In Plane Site, along with the French Website, Hunt the Boeing, could actually be a very professional attempt at disinformation directed against our government.

Now that I didn’t trust the documentary any more, I decided to take a closer look at the Pentagon building for myself to see what could have happened to the Boeing. I found an extremely detailed photograph taken recently in 1998. Here’s a link to the full picture. See it here.

The first thing I noticed in the above picture was what looks like a loading dock running almost the entire length of the center section of the building. Although this was not the side that was attacked, I decided to take a closer look. Let’s zoom in:

Confirming that what I was seeing at the center was a loading dock, I noticed another opening to the right of the two trees. Looking a little closer, I noticed another opening of like kind just to its left — somewhat hidden by the smaller tree. Out front there seemed to be a security gate. Question: Where are the vehicles using that entry going? And, what would be so large under the Pentagon building that it would require a two-way entry and exit?

As I thought about this new information, I began to realize what may have happened to that plane. And, I also began understanding why there wasn’t more external damage to the building and why our our government may not be free to talk — in other words, why a possible cover-up.

First of all, the picture above suggests the first floor of the Pentagon is not just an ordinary first floor. Having a loading dock and two big vehicle openings on one side, it would follow that there is something large — perhaps huge — under the Pentagon. It could be something on the order of an underground bunker. If this is the case, the ceiling of the first floor would have to be unusually strong — perhaps even bomb proof.

Secondly, if there is some kind of underground area beneath the Pentagon, it stands to reason, for security reasons, our government may not wish to talk about it — thus generating the appearance of a cover-up.

And, thirdly, it may tell us where the 757 went — into that large underground area. That would also explain why there was less external damage than we might expect. With this new idea in mind, let’s take another look at the picture we saw earlier.

Friends, I may not even be close to explaining what really happened at the Pentagon on September 11. Like I said, I’m not a crash expert. My point in doing my personal investigation is, I believe it’s time for us Christian Americans to stop listening to all the disinformation going on around us and start — as I believe the Bible instructs — giving our government the benefit of the doubt.

And, if you’re still suspicious about what really happened that day in September, why not take a closer look at those who might intentionally be spreading disinformation against our government. And ask yourself, in light of the end-time Bible prophecies, why might they be doing this?

Why would I suggest taking a closer look at those who might intentionally be spreading disinformation? I’ll let the host of the documentary, 9/11: In Plane Site, answer for me.

Is it not also safe to assume that if you find somebody, a group, an agency, a party, that is involved in the officiation, distraction, distortion, or cover-up of any information involved in any events of nine eleven, does it not indicate possible involvement and even guilt in the events of nine eleven?

I couldn’t have said it better.

— Herb Peters
9/27/04