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 timing.

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 :

• From the right edge of image up to the yellow cabinet (35 pixels, 6,2 % of image width).
• 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) is intersected.

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.

Facts :

• 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 appear above.

• 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 simulation by a leading university.

• 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
  Plane speed
  km/h	mph	m/s
  400	249	111	41	34	20	14
  500	311	139	32	27	16	11
  600	373	167	27	23	14	9
  700	435	194	23	19	12	8
  800	497	222	20	17	10	7
  900	559	250	18	15	9	6
  1000	621	278	16	14	8	5

• 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 see it.
• 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.

Facts :

• 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.

• 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 particularly reinforced), 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 :
A 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.