1. Forums
  2. Discord
  3. About Mapcore
  4. Patreon Supporters
  • Login
  • Register
  • Search
Everywhere
  • Everywhere
  • Articles
  • Pages
  • Forum
  • More Options
  1. Mapcore
  2. Members
  3. zaphod

Posts by zaphod

  • Anyone see this Pentagon conspircay flash movie?

    • zaphod
    • September 24, 2004 at 12:26 AM

    Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.

    Status: False.

    Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]

    As everyone knows, on 11 September, less than an hour after the attack on the World Trade Centre, an airplane collided with the Pentagon. The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this. The official US government version of events still holds. Here's a little game for you: Take a look at these photographs and try to find evidence to corroborate the official version. It's up to you to Hunt the Boeing!

    Origins: The

    notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book, The Frightening Fraud. Meyssan offers no real explanation for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that "the American government is lying."

    Unfortunately, the appeal of conspiracy theories has resulted in widespread dissemination of Meyssan's "theory" in France and the USA, particularly in web sites that mirror his work. As Le Nouvel Observateur noted: "This theory suits everyone - there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality."

    The text cited in the example above comes from a Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions! web site, one of the English-language mirrors of Meyssan's claims, where readers are invited to ponder a series of questions about why photographs of the damaged Pentagon seemingly show no evidence of a crashed airplane. The answers to the questions are:

    1) Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

    Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project:

    "We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. They’ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.

    The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.

    "You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."

    When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.

    It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.

    All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.

    Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:

    On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.

    Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.

    Below is a recent (11 March 2002) photograph of the the rebuilding effort underway at the Pentagon, demonstrating that far more than just the "outside" of the building was damaged and needed to be repaired:

    2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

    As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and second floors:

    The Boeing 757 crashed into the outer edge of the building between the first and second floors, "at full power," Mr. Rumsfeld said. It penetrated three of the five concentric rings of the building.

    Another account of the crash described:

    The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point. About 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees.

    The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M. The collapse and roof fires left the inner courtyard visible from outside through a gaping hole. The area hit by the plane was newly renovated and reinforced, while the areas surrounding the impact zone were closed in preparation for renovation, so the death toll could have been much higher if another area had been hit.

    Next question:

    3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

    You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" — it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon. Moreover, since the airliner was full of jet fuel and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash (just as the planes flown into the World Trade Center towers burned up, and the intensity of their jet-fuel fires caused both towers to collapse).

    Small pieces of airplane debris were plainly visible on the Pentagon lawn in other photographs, however, such as the one below:

    4) Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

    The claim that the "Defence Secretary" ordered the lawn to be sanded over is false. A base of sand and gravel was laid on the Pentagon lawn because the trucks and other heavy equipment used to haul away the debris (as shown in the photograph below) would have been slipping and sliding on the grass and become mired in the Pentagon lawn otherwise.

    5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

    As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):

    6) Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?

    The exact quote offered here was:

    When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"

    "First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

    The fire chief wasn't asked "where the aircraft was"; he was asked "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" He did indeed provide an answer to the question he was asked: There were no large sections of the plane left by the time he was asked (the day after the attack) because they had been smashed into smaller pieces by the impact and then burned up; all that remained were smaller pieces visible only from the interior of the Pentagon.

    7) Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?

    Immediately after Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon, the impact was obscured by a huge fireball, explosions, fire, smoke, and water from firefighting efforts. Within a half hour, the upper stories of the building collapsed, thereby permanently obscuring the impact site. It simply wasn't possible for photographs to capture a clear view of the impact site during that brief interval between the crash and the collapse.

    In photographs like the one provided (below left), the impact site is obscured by water from firefighters' hoses and smoke. A two-story high impact hole does exist right behind the fireman in the photograph, but it's covered over by water issuing from the fire truck.

    By the time the smoke and water cleared, additional portions of the building had collapsed (below right), further obscuring the impact point.

  • Alienwared!

    • zaphod
    • September 23, 2004 at 9:26 PM

    I bought an alienware laptop, and it has some pretty shoddy hardware in it, I constantly have problems with it. I would send it back, but I don't want to be without a computer since it is my only one. I would definetly not buy an alienware computer again. my personal experience

  • HL2 Map Design Question: Brush or Mesh?

    • zaphod
    • September 23, 2004 at 9:03 PM

    yea, I learned to model and texture after I got hired at Troika. There is no "torus" tool are anything like that, you would not want to make a pipe out of world geometry for any reason anyway, for the reasons I spelled out above. Having to ability to go back and forth between a modeling package very easily would be very nice, the closest thing to that in source is that you can export world geometry with texture into xsi, but to get anytihng back into worldcraft it has to be set up and compiled as a model. The whole one uber mapper vs. a team of people argument is hard to theorize about, becuase every project and studio is different and has different circumstances, so wether one ends up being better than the other is only really able to be analyzed on a case by case basis. But like I always say when people ask me, it can't do anything but help you to know how to do everything, should the need arise.

  • Remake HL textures

    • zaphod
    • September 23, 2004 at 6:01 PM

    I think I have mentioned this before, but I keep seeing people making water textures. If you are making water textures with the hope of using them in hl2, it is in vain, since the water in hl2 uses a completley different unique shader, and there is no actual water texture for it. If you are just having fun and practicing you skill, then disregard my comments.

  • HL2 Map Design Question: Brush or Mesh?

    • zaphod
    • September 23, 2004 at 5:57 PM

    aside from the terrain, which is really only good for terrain, there are no patch meshes or anything like that, everything has to be modeled in a modeling package and compiled/exported and placed as a model in hammer. For bloodlines, each level designer was more like a level artist, we did all of our own textures and models, essentially doing every level from scratch. This method had it's pros and cons, although I could see taking a different approach for the next project, I think this method eventually served best for the situation we were faced with.

  • HL2 Map Design Question: Brush or Mesh?

    • zaphod
    • September 22, 2004 at 10:46 PM

    phys_convert

  • HL2 Map Design Question: Brush or Mesh?

    • zaphod
    • September 22, 2004 at 5:53 PM

    No, Hl2 uses exactly the same process as hl1 and quake 1 did for vis. The only difference is that you can create entities called area portals which you can turn on and off and fade in and out to manually close off portals. For instance you can have a door block vis when it is closed by putting an area portal inside of it that is linked to open and close with the door, or have a window that only opens up to viz when you get close enough for the portal inside of it to fade out.

    Terrain, or displacement meshes start out life as a normal brush. Once you select one or more faces of the brush you can turn it into a displacement mesh, choosing from a number of preset resolutions. You put a bunch terrain pieces together, with the edges of them them lining up perfectly, and then you can "sew" them together, and use a tool to lower/raise smooth/add noise. Terrain is pretty cheap, probably just a little more expensive than world geometry. It still however adds to your wpoly count, and adheres to the same rules regarding performance.

  • SW_Coldstone - final version :)

    • zaphod
    • September 22, 2004 at 5:43 PM

    very nice mino!

  • Anyone see this Pentagon conspircay flash movie?

    • zaphod
    • September 22, 2004 at 5:41 PM

    http://%7boption%7d

  • Remake HL textures

    • zaphod
    • September 22, 2004 at 5:32 AM

    yer, listen to posteh. Thats how I did the caution paint stuff. I did it a little bit differently, but basically the same end result.

  • HL2 Map Design Question: Brush or Mesh?

    • zaphod
    • September 22, 2004 at 5:28 AM

    well there is kind of something similar. There is an entity you can use to convert regular props to physics props, but as far as I know there is no was to turn it back into a static prop.

  • Headphones for walkmans?

    • zaphod
    • September 22, 2004 at 5:25 AM

    I too have to endorse koss, in particular:

    http://%7boption%7d

    These are the 35 dollar headphones my audiophile friend uses who has a 2 thousand dollar AMPLIFIER. I have some, and I think they rival headphones in the 70 - 100 dollar range.

  • HL2 Map Design Question: Brush or Mesh?

    • zaphod
    • September 22, 2004 at 4:51 AM

    oops, fixed that mistake in my previous post. There is no way to "turn off" physics simulations while they are at rest, otherwise they would never be awake to take the first impact that starts a new physics simulation. Physics props are constantly alive and able to be interacted with.

  • HL2 Map Design Question: Brush or Mesh?

    • zaphod
    • September 21, 2004 at 10:39 PM

    there are two types of physics props for multiplayer, one that is client side, and one that is server side. The client side one only simulates physics on on your personal machine, so people will be wondering what the hell you are doing when you are shooting a soda can or whatever becuase they will still see it sitting in it's original position. The server side ones are feed to everyone else on the server so it is always in the same position for everybody, these can cause a bit of lag which you might have noticed in cs:source. I don't really know the specifics of how many or what not you can get away with, macman would be better able to answer that.

  • Post pics of your city

    • zaphod
    • September 21, 2004 at 10:35 PM

    san diego:

    http://%7boption%7d

    [Blocked Image: http://www.arrakeen.ch/usamex/218%2520%2520San%2520Diego%2520temple.JPG]

    [Blocked Image: http://www.photohome.com/pictures/california-pictures/san-diego/downtown-san-diego-1a.jpg]

    http://%7boption%7d

    [Blocked Image: http://www.vytenis.lt/gallery/vytenis/albums/T_US_CA_SouthCal_Jan2004/SouthCal_leisure_040105_24.jpg]

    [Blocked Image: http://marriott-coronado-island-resort.visit-san-diego.com/marriott-coronado-island-resort-aerial-bay.jpg]

    [Blocked Image: http://www.nancymoon.com/Downtown%20San%20Diego%20Half%20Size.jpg]

    I can't find any good photos of irvine.

  • Remake HL textures

    • zaphod
    • September 21, 2004 at 7:15 PM

    looks like a pipe I would not want to lick. looks great

  • HL2 Map Design Question: Brush or Mesh?

    • zaphod
    • September 21, 2004 at 7:01 PM

    to take a break from the e-penis tech knowledge battle and answer the original question specifically about the source level creation process:

    things that need to block vis, and very simple primitive shapes = brush

    anything else = model

    [Blocked Image: http://marshmonkey.com/tutor.jpg]

    basically, your scene is going to be made up of 4 elements:


    standard world geometry: this is the stuff that calculates visibility and chops shit up accordingly, like you are used to in hl1. This is what you build the basics of your map with, so that the BSP engine can do it's work. It is very cheap to render world polies, though they get more and more expensive as the number of world polies climbs to around 4k. A level with 2k world polies could run twice as fast as a level with 4k world polies. This number is still very important for performance issues. And having as few world polies as possible is still something you have to consider when optimizing your map.

    func_detail: func_details are world geometry that you figure is not neccesary to the vis process. for example, a crate sitting on the floor made out of world geometry will chop up the floor accordingly, and since you probably don't need the engine to be calculating whats visible from each side of the tiny crate, you would make it into a func_detail. A func detail is the exact same as regular world geometry, except for the fact it gets taken out of the map when the map gets cut up for vis purposes. Once in the final bsp, it is just as cheap as regular world geometry only it does not cut up any surround faces.

    brush based entities: things like doors and such, these aren't particularly expensive unless you put lots and lots of them in your level

    models: model polies are cheap cheap cheap. Where a general limit for world polies can be 4k, you can have as many as 75k model polies in a scene before you start noticing a substantial slowdown. This number is kind of a double edged sword however. While rendering model polies is cheap, calculating things for the actual model entity gets more and more expensive the more seperate instances you have in view at once. For example, having 4 vases sitting on a shelf would be 4 times as expensive as having one model of 4 vases sitting on a shelf. The engine have to calculate colission and such for every seperate model entity ever frame, so grouping models where possible has been essential to optimize performance on levels with lots of seperate model entities. This of course is a tradeoff against your memory expense, where you might only have to load one model that you use multiple times in your level, versus having multiple grouped versions of the singular model.

    There are also different flavors of entities you can use to put models in the game that have varying levels of expense: here they are listed from cheapest to most expensive

    prop_detail: this is the cheapest way to put a model in the game, becuase it calculates one lighting value at compile time and cannot change. This is also usually coupled with the model fading in and out of view depending on distance This is used for things like dynamically spwaning grass and debris on terrain, or trash on the ground that fades in and out of view.

    prop_static: this is what you will use for most structural models, it's the cheapest entitiy to use next to prop_details. A static prop can take dynamic lighting, but thats about it. You put it in your scene and it's going to stay there, you cannot turn it off or on or effect it through scripting in any way.

    prop_dynamic: a prop dynamic is like a prop static only that it can be effected through scripting and other player interactions. You can swap out the texture on it via scripting, hide it, unhide it, break it, parent it, etc.

    prop_physics: this is probably the most expensive entity you can put in your level. Depending on what else is rendering in your scene physics objects can cause a big hit if you put a lot of them in your scene.

  • Remake HL textures

    • zaphod
    • September 21, 2004 at 1:54 AM

    haha, rad song Tisk

  • Remake HL textures

    • zaphod
    • September 20, 2004 at 10:46 PM

    yes, as far as I understand it, this is how it will work.

    I had a few spare minutes so I thought I would contribute a small token to this glorious thread.

    [Blocked Image: http://mapcore.org/halflife_jpg/c2a2a_lift2.jpg]

    [Blocked Image: http://marshmonkey.com/caution.jpg]

  • Remake HL textures

    • zaphod
    • September 20, 2004 at 10:09 PM
    Quote from Waldo

    HL1 did get ported, and so all the textures you're doing have "their place" in the port. I see no reason why when it's released, someone couldn't take these images and replace the existing material images with them.What's going to be the biggest issue is the rescaling of all these textures in the original map source. The port is done with all the original textures in their original scales. So you can't just toss in a 256x256 replacement for a 64x64 without modifying the original map source. Though their scale didn't change, they did get improved by adding reflective properties, etc.

    FYI, as some of you (*cough*Zafod*cough*) may know, Source textures are now refered to as "Materials". Each one is in it's own pair of files, rather than being crammed into a "wad" file. The first file for a material stores the image (basically), and the second is a text file containing specs on the material. Stuff like it's material (wood, metal, etc.), what image to show in the editor, properties for water (like reflection, fog when viewed from out of the water, and when in, etc.), two materials you can use if you want to blend two of them together, and a lot of other stuff I shouldn't talk about :^)

    macman told me that there is a tool that will replace all the textures and rescale them automatically to fit correctly.

Discord

The Mapcore Discord is our lively IRC channel of the 2000s reborn. Chat about level design, gaming, and more.

Latest Posts

  1. Custom Gamemodes Contest

    Angel
    July 20, 2026 at 11:46 AM
  2. FAQ

    Angel
    July 20, 2026 at 10:14 AM
  3. Tangerine

    Harry Poster
    July 18, 2026 at 11:10 AM
  4. Any of the old guard still around? D:

    Warby
    July 12, 2026 at 8:23 PM
  5. About our archived forums

    Thrik
    June 30, 2026 at 2:12 PM
  6. Mapcore Discord

    mason_fan123
    June 24, 2026 at 8:52 PM
  7. [CS2] Valley

    Serialmapper
    June 22, 2026 at 11:56 AM
  8. Free Music / SFX Resource - Over 2500 Tracks

    Eric Matyas
    June 18, 2026 at 12:32 PM
  9. Pango [WIP]

    Elowen
    June 11, 2026 at 10:13 AM
  10. [CS2] Dvina

    Jeremy Rivera
    June 11, 2026 at 10:03 AM
  1. Privacy Policy
  2. Contact
Powered by WoltLab Suite™