Herb’s 9/11 Simulation — What Herb Thinks

There are many unanswered questions about the horrific events of Sept. 11, 2001. This was the day, of course, that two passenger airliners were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. Another plane was flown into the Pentagon building. And, another was crashed straight down into the ground.

As you know, thousands of innocent people were killed that day. Washington soon fixed the blame on the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization and America’s war against terror began.

But, like I said, there remain many unanswered questions. The biggest question on many minds is how a rag-tag terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda pulled off an operation this sophisticated without the help of a state government. And, for many, the answer is no way. Al-Qaeda couldn’t have pulled off these well coordinated attacks alone. Some even suspect the American government may have been involved.

Recently, I watched a well-made documentary titled 9/11: In Plane Site. After presenting fairly convincing arguments that something more may have been going on that day on September 11, the documentary pointed to the possibility that the American government and military may have orchestrated the attack. In fact, the documentary goes so far as to say Al-Qaeda may not have even been involved.

The documentary 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 in the towers. And, there was no aircraft wreckage to be seen anywhere on the ground.

(Since I posted this, I found the above is disinformation that can be traced to — wouldn’t you know it? — a French Website. Read about it here)

I had no way of really checking any of these apparent inconsistencies about the Pentagon. However, the next set of arguments the documentary brought out was a different matter. From the Pentagon, the documentary went on to the pictures taken of the second plane striking the south tower. When examined closely, there appears to be a large bulge of some kind under the plane’s right wing — a bulge that shouldn’t be there.

From here it builds the case that the plane that hit the south tower was not a civilian plane after all, but a military plane with some kind of pod — such as a missile pod — attached. In other words, when all is said and done, the documentary is suggesting America’s own government and military may have been involved in the events of September 11 and blaming Al-Qaeda.

Let’s take a look at the pictures taken from four different angles.

The person narrating the documentary said these pictures provide irrefutable evidence that the plane that struck the south tower was not United Airlines flight 175 as reported. And, it does appear there is some kind of object attached. However, I noticed that the closer the plane got to the tower, the larger the object appeared to grow. This suggested to me an optical illusion of some kind was occurring. And, when the plane was yet farther out, I noticed the side of the tower to the right was facing the sun. This placed the side of the building the plane was hitting in deep shadow. I also noticed the same contrast of sun and shadow on the plane. I got an idea. Why don’t I simulate the event and see if I can reproduce the same type of anomaly.

First, I downloaded a Boeing 767-200 for my flight simulator. I couldn’t find a 767 detailed enough that also had the United Airlines paint scheme. So, I picked a 767-200 for another airline that would be accurate enough to, if possible, produce the same anomaly. Then, I set the time and date for 9 a.m., Sept. 11, 2001. Here is what I was able to produce:

Notice the darker gray area running below the right wing.

Here’s a closer look at the area. It appears to be a bulge.

From another angle. Notice the apparent bulge seems larger now.
Also, from this angle you can’t see any bulge at all on the left side.

Although to a lesser degree, a similar anomaly was produced by my flight simulator. Evidently, when the light conditions are as they were that day, a bulge can seem to appear on one side of the plane, and even grow larger as the plane changes positions. So, the picture evidence the documentary provides is, in fact, refutable.

But, these pictures aren’t the only evidence the documentary provides. It also includes statements made by two eye witnesses to support their military airplane idea. One was an unidentified women on the street and the other was a Fox News reporter.

After the second tower had been struck, a camera caught a woman on the streets shouting, “That was not American Airlines! That was not American Airlines!” Does this provide more proof the plane could have been a military plane? Not in my opinion. You see, by the time the second tower was hit, it had been widely reported the first tower was hit by an American Airlines plane. The plane that struck the second tower, however, was not. It was a United Airlines plane. And, the woman noticed. Let’s look at the difference.

United Airlines

American Airlines

It would be easy to tell these two planes apart by their tails. United Airlines has an all-blue tail, the American Airlines has a pair of large As as a logo. I think the woman only noticed that the plane that hit the second tower had a large, all -blue tail instead of the American Airlines logo.

How about the Fox News reporter? The Fox reporter said he didn’t see any windows on the plane, and he noticed a blue logo on the nose. He thought it may have been a cargo plane. But, in light of the evidence presented above, it’s my opinion the reporter was mistaken. After witnessing shocking events of this type, it’s quite common to develop false memories about parts of what you saw. I know. It happened once to me.

Disproving the military aircraft idea, however, doesn’t answer our first question about who may have helped Al-Qaeda pull things off. It has, in my opinion, lessened the chance it was our own American government and military.

While I was at it, there was one more event I wanted to simulate. When the first plane struck the north tower, there happened to be a French film crew, filming at exactly the right spot, at precisely the right moment, to catch it all on camera. And, from what I’ve heard, this is the only known footage of this first event. So, I wanted to see the density of the buildings at the location where the camera would have to be filming. If my simulator placed a lot of buildings at that spot, that means the odds of catching that moment were very, very slim.

My simulation of first plane at the north tower.

This is the building density on my flight simulator at the approximate location. The fact is, I had a hard time finding a spot where the picture could be taken without buildings in the way. And, if you’ve seen the real footage, you know the actual street where the crew was filming was even narrower than pictured above.

Conclusion: The photo evidence provided to prove the planes that struck the twin towers were not civilian as reported was not, as the documentary says, irrefutable. I believe this simulation has shown that the object under the wing can be explained as an optical illusion caused by the way the fuselage is shaped and the lighting at the time. I also believe the two eye witness accounts that were provided as further proof can be refuted as well. So, the documentary does not irrefutably prove the planes that struck the towers were not those reported.

However, the simulation doesn’t prove that there was no cover-up. In my opinion, there very well could have been,. But, even if there was, it doesn’t mean it was for wrong reasons on the part of Washington. So, our simulation didn’t answer our first question about who, if anybody, helped Al-Qaeda pull off the events of September 11.

And, one more thing: It didn’t explain how that French film crew could have been so awfully lucky.

Stay tuned!

— Herb Peters