No subject

[[The specific fuel involved is called Jet A, a derivative of kerosene =
and a
sluggish explosive. To explode, it must mix with air, an indication that =
one
or more of the eight fuel cells in the jumbo jet's wings were
breached--either by violent engine or mechanical failure, by a well- =
placed
bomb or possibly by a missile.
There have been cases of sudden mechanical failure that caused fire and =
the
loss of aircraft. An Air Force C-141 transport plane crashed in Europe =
in
the late 1970s when an engine exploded; spraying hot fragments that =
ignited
paint in a cargo hold.

A Boeing 767 ripped to pieces over Thailand in 1991 when a computer =
error
caused one engine to deploy its reverse thruster, sending the plane into =
a
vicious spin.

But in neither case was there a cataclysmic explosion.

Before TWA 800 went down last week, there had never been an explosion of
such ferocity aboard a 747-100, a 'wet-wing,' or plane that carries all =
its
fuel in wing tanks.

"You have to have instant ignition into a large fuel source," said Mr. =
Barr,
who trains accident investigators. "The way those fuel tanks are sealed, =
it
just doesn't happen."

Few bombings of commercial aircraft have ended in such a fiery =
conclusion.
In many cases, jetliners have survived even severe damage from =
explosions
and landed safely.

In 1986, terrorists planted a sheet of plastic explosive the size of a
business letter under one seat on a TWA flight from Rome to Athens. The
explosion killed one man, blowing his seat out of the plane. A =
grandmother,
daughter and grandchild were sucked out of the resulting hole. But the =
plane
survived.

In the 1988 crash of Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie, Scotland, there was no =
fiery
explosion- until fuel-laden parts of the plane hit the ground.

In that case, a bomb using 10 to 14 ounces (about 340 grams) of a =
plastic
explosive was hidden in a radio cassette player. When detonated by a =
amine
device, it blew a hole in the fuselage skin, which rapidly fractured and
peeled away. The plane broke into five sections that tumbled to Earth =
over
the Scottish countryside. ]]
This mentions a fiery explosion at the Lockerbie site, when fuel laden =
parts
hit the ground. I'm not saying that no explosion can occur. What I'm =
saying
is that it's not easily triggered, and doesn't have enough energy to =
cremate
a plane. In the case of the Lockerbie bombing, the bomb itself was not
enough to trigger an explosion of the fuel tank. Since the plane broke =
up
into five sections, the impact of the exploding fuel upon the full =
wreckage
could not be tested. Here's one section of the wreckage.

http://www.airsafetyonline.com/photos/panam103/1.shtml

So if a bomb, breaking a plane into 5 pieces, still doesn't trigger a =
sudden
explosion of the fuel tank, then what does? Crashing into something =
solid,
like a mountain or a building - but apparently only on sept 11, =
2001.There's
no evidence that an explosion of the type and power alleged to have =
cremated
AA 77 or the WTC planes has ever happened to any other plane, or ever =
could
in the situation of a normal crash. Although the political circumstance
behind the Sept 11 crashes, and (in the case of WTC crash 2 ) the
spectacular imagery involved was unprecedented, there was nothing =
unusual in
the impact physics of the crashes. Planes regularly crash into =
mountains,
streets, the ground, buildings and other planes, and are not cremated.
Web author Jack Cashill writes (August 16 2001)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3D24075
[[Until recently, the only listed "fuel tank explosion" in the 80-year
history of airline disasters was a Philippine Air Lines 737 that blew =
while
the plane was backing out a Manila airport gate in May of 1990. And even
this case is suspect. ]]

In all of these cases significant wreckage - at least - survived. In =
some
cases, the whole plane. So many are saying that even the alleged =
explosion
of jet fuel aboard TWA 800, which left plenty of identifiable wreckage, =
was
impossible. If the official story on TWA 800 is a cover up, then the =
fuel
tank never exploded, and the whole matter of an allegedly exploding fuel
tank even breaking a plane in two is an outrageous lie. If the official
story is correct, or at least genuinely plausible, then fuel tank =
explosions
are only a risk with near empty tanks, and don't have anything like the
necessary energy to disintegrate a plane. And photographic records of
aviation disasters demonstrate that fuel tank explosions don't happen as =
a
result of regular crashes, or if they do they don't cremate the planes.

In the entire history of aviation, only four passenger jets have ever
exploded into nothing, or are alleged to have done so as a result of a
crash. All four just happen to have been the Sept 11 planes. And in the =
case
of the WTC, the impact surface was mostly glass - about as soft a target =
as
a plane can hit, with the possible exception of water. So this debunks =
any
assertion that the alleged explosion of AA 77 was a result of being =
flown
into a fiercely resistant surface, which itself is already debunked by
examples of planes which flew into mountains and weren't cremated, =
including
the earlier linked photo of an American Airlines 757 which crashed into =
a
mountain. That's about as conclusive a comparison as one can get. The =
only
possible conclusion is that the WTC planes had powerful explosives =
aboard,
and that whatever hit the Pentagon was a much smaller object, also =
destroyed
by explosives.

Not only was the alleged explosion of AA 77 impossible in the context of =
the
modest damage to the Pentagon wall , and impossible because there wasn't
enough energy in the fuel - it's also been shown anecdotally to be
impossible in the context of aviation history.

Nevertheless, I'm once again going to suspend these findings, to examine
another aspect.
PART 8. "BUT WRECKAGE WAS FOUND."

So lets have a look at the photos of the alleged wreckage.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/11.jpg
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/12.jpg
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/planepiece.html
http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/photos/Sep2001/roll4112.jpg
Additional to the fact that this represents less than 0.1 % of the =
volume of
the alleged plane, what evidence is there that any of this was once part =
of
a Boeing 757 ? It could be from anything. We know that something hit the
Pentagon, that there was an explosion, and that where there is a
add your comments


Part 2 posted at
by Gerard Holmgren . Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 02:33 AM

Physical and mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash Part 2
by Gerard holmgren . Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 02:25 AM
investigation77 at hotmail.com

Continues from part 1, http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/1538136.php
which was cut short while uploading  Additional to the fact that this
represents less than 0.1 % of the volume of the alleged plane, what =
evidence
is there that any of this was once part of a Boeing 757 ? It could be =
from
anything. We know that something hit the Pentagon, that there was an
explosion, and that where there is an explosion there will be debris of =
some
sort.

To argue that this provides any evidence for either side of the argument =
is
witchcraft trial logic. " You must be a witch, because you wouldn't have
been accused if you weren't ".

" We know that a 757 was there. That proves that this is debris from a =
757.
And the fact that this is debris from a 757 proves that it was there... =
"

This debris is totally unidentifiable, and it's volume is too =
insignificant
to adress the problem of unaccounted for wreckage.

Supporters of the 757 theory claim this fragment to be wreckage from AA =
77,
citing the AA colours as proof.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/13.jpg

In fact, it is the alleged AA colours which prove conclusively that this
cannot possibly be part of the alleged plane. Has American Airlines =
invented
a new kind of indestructible paint? This fragment has allegedly been
violently flung out from an explosion which reduced a giant airliner to =
the
dust and ashes and unidentifiable tiny fragments shown in the above =
photo.
And yet the paint is as shiny and new as the day it was applied. Does it
take more energy to peel and blacken paint, than to destroy 100 tons of
aircraft? Clearly painted sections survive most crashes, as shown in the
crash photos. But in those cases, no one is alleging an explosion
catastrophic enough to vaporize 100 tons of plane. They break up and =
perhaps
burn a bit. In really fierce crashes, some of the plane may actually be
destroyed, but even in these cases, tons of reasonaly intact wreckage
remains. So these scenarios are consistent with the recovery of painted
sections, even in bad crashes. The allegation that this brightly painted
fragment survived is irreconcilable with the claim that 99.99% of the =
plane
was vapourized.

This is about as believable as the stories that the alleged hijackers =
were
identified by the discovery of their miraculously unscathed passports at
crash sites which cremated the planes and occupants. The metal is also =
shiny
and new looking, and there is no sign of grass singeing from the heat in =
the
area where it landed. It is quite impossible for this to be from an =
aircraft
which had just been reduced to a pile of ashes.

I anticipate an accusation of inconsistency here.

"First you complain that wreckage is not identifiable, then when it is, =
you
say that such identification would be impossible, proving it's a fake."

Not so. The photos shown earlier were examples of identifiable and =
credible
wreckage.
There's a further problem with this piece of wreckage. The colours are =
wrong
anyway. Take a close look at the colour scheme used by American =
Airlines.
First, note that the alleged wreckage has a white stripe next to red =
which
is of a larger area than the white stripe. Note the absence of any blue
stripe.Now let's look at some actual AA plane photos and you'll see that
that this colour scheme isn't used. Except possibly in the American =
Airlines
lettering on the top front part of the fuselage, a point I'll come back =
to.
This link will take you to a page with thumbnail photos of American =
Airlines
planes. I chose not to supply the direct links to the enlarged =
thumbnails,
because the URLs were extraordinarily long,and faced a significant risk =
of
breaking once published on the web.

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?airlinesearch=3DAmerican%20A=
irlin
es&distinct_entry=3Dtrue
Note that the striped colour scheme which the crude fake has attempted =
to
copy does not appear on the wings or tail fins. The reason I make this
point, is that this rules out the possibility that this piece of the =
plane
was sheared off during the approach, before the explosion, by hitting a
lightpole. If there's any possibility that it's a genuine AA colour =
scheme,
it can only have come from part of the American Airlines lettering, on =
the
top and front part of the fuselage, which means that this piece could =
not
have been sheared off on the way in, and therefore must have been =
subject to
the explosion. And that is impossible, even if we were to pretend that =
such
an explosion was generally possible. Furthermore the only part of the =
plane
which it could possibly have come from is towards the front. If the
explosion occurred in the middle of the plane, debris from the front =
area
would have been flung forwards into the building not away from it. And =
if
the explosion occurred in the front part of the plane, making it =
possible to
blow this piece backwards, then this area of the plane would have been
subject to the most powerful part of the blast, so if we were going to =
see
surviving pieces of debris flung backwards, (especially with paintwork =
still
intact ) they should be from the rear of the plane. And if it's alleged =
that
it was thrown forward with such force that it hit something else and =
bounced
back all this distance, wouldn't the paintwork, be just a little =
scratched?

Whoever designed and planted this fake, didn't think it through.

PART 9. DNA TESTING

Authorities would have us believe that 63 of the 64 people aboard AA 77 =
were
identified from DNA testing.

This link
http://www.giveyourvoice.com/dna-faq.html
(See question 20)
explains why DNA testing is not able to identify all of the WTC victims.
Because DNA is destroyed by high temperatures. Read any article or =
technical
paper on DNA storage and sampling, and it will mention the critical role =
of
correct temperature in maintaining the integrity of the samples. And =
they're
not talking about temperatures above 600 degrees C as being destructive, =
but
temperatures below 150. It needed a minimum temperature of 660 to melt =
the
plane. Actually, a lot more because it would have to have been 660 =
minimum,
at the extremities, so it would have been much higher in most of the =
centre
fuselage where the people were. The temperatures required to cremate it =
are
almost unimaginable. And yet we are supposed to believe both stories, =
that
nothing remains of the plane, but 63 of 64 victims still had their DNA
intact, while at the same time the heat generated in the WTC is a =
serious
obstacle to DNA testing.

We were told that even many victims of the Bali bombing in Oct 2002 =
might
never be identified.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_40740.asp

[[ The equipment included medical supplies, DNA testing facilities and
refrigerated containers to ease the crisis at Denpasar's vastly =
overworked
makeshift morgue.
But officials admitted today the carnage was so horrific that technology
would make no difference in some cases.

"It's highly likely that some victims will be unable to be identified," =
said
Australia's consul-general in Bali, Ross Tysoe.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, visiting the scene for the first =
time,
said: "Many of them are burnt beyond recognition."

Those close to the deadliest of the two explosions, at Sari's nightclub =
in
the Kuta tourist strip, would have "disintegrated", Mr Downer said. ]]

And yet we are supposed to believe that those at the centre of a blast =
which
vapourized a 100 ton aircraft left DNA which tested 98.4% successful.

To analogize this it's worth going back to the 1 to 10,000 scale model. =
It's
like suggesting that before you set fire to it, you placed inside 64 =
small
pieces of plant or animal material. After the catastrophic explosion of =
the
1/2 gallon of kerosine successfully reduced the 18 lb aluminium model to
dust and ashes, 63 of the 64 pieces of material inside, were still able =
to
be successfully DNA tested.

PART 10. THE HOLE IN THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL

This photo shows a hole punched through the Pentagon wall at the back of =
the
damaged area.
http://www.mediacen.navy.mil/pubs/allhands/nov01/war18.jpg

Lets find it's exact location.
In the next photo, scroll to the bottom and look approximately in the =
middle
of the photo, at the back of the third ring, below the second set of =
windows
to the right of the bridge between the rings, casting a large shadow =
You'll
see the top half of a circular hole.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/16.jpg
Here's the same scene from a different angle.You can now see all of the =
hole
.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/17.jpg
It appears to be at angle of something like 45 degrees from the first =
ring
damage area. How much stone has been penetrated to make this hole? =
Assuming
no internal walls, 6 walls. If each wall is 3 feet thick, that's 18 ft =
of
stone, plus or minus any inaccuracy of the guess of the thickness of the
walls, perhaps plus anything that was in the way, inside the buildings.
Because its at a 45 degree angle, whatever has made it has actually had =
to
punch out 27 ft of stone.

An explosion that digs tunnels? Not even the hard line 757 enthusiasts =
are
suggesting that this was caused by the impossible explosion. The logical
explanation is a missile. The 757 supporters claim that it was punched
through the wall by one of the plane's engines.

The engines are mounted on the wings. The wings were allegedly cremated. =
How
did the engine not only escape disintegration, but propel itself forward =
two
to three rings beyond where any of the rest of the plane got to? (Three
rings beyond refers to some scenarios that the plane never actually
penetrated the building but crashed just outside).

There are only two available energy sources for any part of the plane to
move through the wall. The momentum of the plane,and the alleged force =
of
the explosion. If the energy source was the latter, why did it propel =
one
small part of the plane forward, while destroying the rest of it? And if =
the
energy source was the momentum of the plane, why hasn't the 100 ton =
fuselage
burst through the rings, instead of the 6 ton engine?
I'm going to try to construct the best argument I can that this was =
caused
by an engine. The engine became disconnected from the wing before the =
plane
blew up. Otherwise the engine would have blown up too.
The engine must have been jolted free of the wing and propelled forward =
by
it's existing motion at the same time as something else stopped the rest =
of
the plane in it's tracks. By the time the explosion happened, the engine =
was
out of range of the destructive blast, and already punching it's way =
through
the wall. Why did the engine burst free? As the plane was approaching =
the
building, the wing hit a light pole weakening the mountings around the
engine so that it was hanging by a thread. As the nose slammed into the
wall, or perhaps the plane hit the ground just in front of the wall, the
resultant change of momentum stopped the plane very quickly, jolting the
engine free. It fired into the wall, bursting through as the plane blew =
up.

That's the best I can do, but there are huge problems.

For a start, the engine weighed about 6 tons, according to these
specifications for similar engines
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-48037/l1011techsp.htm

(Note: The weights listed next to the engine on the Boeing technical =
site
referenced at the beginning of the article, do not refer to the engine's
weight, but to its thrust power.)

Its a little difficult to imagine that the mountings attatching an =
engine of
this weight could be so critically weakened by hitting a pole, but never
mind - ignoring reality has become a regular necessity for any attempt =
to
keep the 757 theory alive. Lets press on.

If we speculate that the nose of the 100 ton plane hit the wall,and =
stopped
dead, hardly penetrating, then we can't seriously suggest that an =
engine, 6%
of the weight, now travelling at a lesser speed than what the plane =
would
have been doing when it hit the wall, could punch it's way through three
rings. If the plane hit the ground, and stopped dead, a few feet from =
the
wall, and then blew up, where is the 155ft fuselage crater,and the =
sideways
damage from the wings? That's without the explosion. Where is the circle =
of
devastation which should be a radius of something more than 77 ft? This
photo demonstrates that this didn't happen.
http://66.129.143.7/june2aa.htm

If the engine didn't detach until after the explosion then it can't have
outrun the blast. Everything would have been blown up together. If the
engine detached from the shock of impact, as the nose hit the wall, and =
then
flew towards the wall, the nose had no reason to stop penetrating the =
wall
until the explosion blew it up. This means that the nose was always =
further
forward than the engine, so if the nose is blown up, so is the engine. =
If we
postulate an angle for the plane and a position for the nose, to try to
create a scenario that the engine shoots wide of the blast area, then =
it's
also shooting wide of the impact area. You'd have to produce evidence of =
a
second entry point. Whichever engine it was, it has to pass through the =
65
ft hole area, and in any scenario where the nose penetrates the wall, =
it's
going to pass through later than the nose. And since they must both be
travelling into the building at the same angle, then the distance =
between
them will never widen as a result of angle.

So unless you want to suggest that the engine actually fired from the =
wing
before the impact ( like a missile ), then any scenario which has the =
nose
penetrating the wall is impossible. In case someone suggests that the =
engine
fired off immediately upon hitting a light pole, I'll point out that =
they're
built to withstand that kind of contact, and even if they weren't, that
would knock the engine backwards, not shoot it ahead of the plane. In =
fact,
whatever the cause of it's detachment, if it came off when the plane was
still moving, it's impossible for it to have been fired off faster than =
what
the plane was moving, so if anything happened beforehand, it would have
fallen off, not shot forward like a missile.

If the scenario involving the nose hitting the wall is impossible, and =
the
scenario of the nose not hitting the wall is also impossible, then it =
didn't
happen.

So it was a missile. But lets pretend that the previous analysis doesn't
exist and look at other aspects of this question, pretending that the =
engine
theory is still alive.

Lets pretend that it was possible for the plane to stop short of the =
wall
and blow up outside, ignoring the lack of damage to the lawns, and say =
that
the engine was jolted free by the previously speculated method, and =
managed
to outrun the blast, before the plane blew up.

If the plane was doing 400 mph when it suddenly stopped, and the engine =
flew
off at a speed of about 300 mph, then it was travelling towards the wall =
at
about 440 ft per second. The way the engines are mounted on a 757
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/281582/L/

The engine would have about 60 ft to travel to strike the wall, allowing =
for
the plane stopping 5 ft short of the wall. (90 degree fuselage angle)
Angling the fuselage at 45 degrees to make the engine's flight path
compatible with the direction of the third ring hole, makes negligible
difference to the distance from engine to wall, as long we postulate =
that it
was the inner wing engine. If it was the outer wing, it has to travel =
about
120 ft to strike the wall. Also, the effective horizontal width created =
to
the north (assuming the plane to have approached from the south) by the
outer engine angle, means that the front of the fuselage has to be =
placed
hard against the right edge of the 65 ft hole, to fit the engine's entry
point into the damaged area. This is significant, because we are now
postulating a scenario where the wall suffered no impact other than the
engine strike and the explosion. It's impossible to make a credible case =
for
the fuselage cremation happening hard up against the edge of the hole, =
when
just a few feet away windows were unbroken. So we need to assume that it =
was
the inner engine. This enables the nose to be placed close to the centre =
of
the area of 65 ft damage, while still allowing the engine to fire =
through
the damaged area, avoiding the problem of having to suggest a =
non-existent
second entry point.
So the engine had about 60 ft to travel to the wall. At 440 ft per =
second
this would take close enough to 150 milliseconds. If the plane blew up
before this, the engine would be toasted along with everything else, =
because
it's travelling a line which takes the inner side of it only 15 ft from =
the
exploding fuselage. So even if had reached the wall, that still wouldn't
save it. We really need to give it time to burrow into the wall a safe
distance from the blast. If it's speed halved to 220 ft per second, when =
it
struck the wall, then it would take about another 50 ms to fully enter =
it's
11.5 ft length into the wall, and we need to allow another 50 ms for it =
to
burrow a further 10 ft to be safe. Even this might not be enough because =
it'
s penetration path is crossing the middle of the 65 ft hole, in front of
where the nose is blowing up - the part of the wall that would be =
subject to
the most force. It might need another 50 ms of burrowing. So to keep the
engine safe from the blast, we have to postulate a delay of 250 to 300 =
ms
after the plane crashed, before it blew up. Instinctively, this seems
impossible, although I can't produce hard data to prove it. But the =
scenario
as a whole is impossible.
This is what had to happen. The plane can't have hit with the nose =
pointing
sharply down into the ground, because then the engine would have been =
fired
into the ground. So it had to land just about level, but stop dead - =
like a
sudden 90 degree belly flop straight out of a momentum of 400 mph. Then =
we
have to postulate a 250 to 300 ms delay, before it suddenly blows up =
with a
ferocity never before seen in aviation history. During this delay, we =
have
to postulate that it didn't break up significantly, otherwise other =
parts of
wreckage would have gone flying off and also escaped the blast. Then it
suddenly cremated itself, and did all this without damaging the lawns =
that
it belly flopped on to. Impossible.

Postulating tilted wings to try to change distances and angles only =
makes it
worse. If the wings were tilted at 45 degrees, then the lowest point of =
the
upper engine is about 55 ft off the ground, and the the lowest point of =
the
lower engine is about 20 ft off the ground. Since the hole is at ground
level, you'd have to describe a precise downwards angle for the nose to =
get
the engine to finish up at ground level after its penetration through =
the
rings. But the bigger problem here is that the nose can't have hit the
ground with the wings tilted, because the lower wing would have broken =
off
first. This makes it rather difficult to suggest the sudden stop =
necessary
to fire off the upper engine wing with any speed. When is the sudden =
jolt ?
When the wing breaks off, or when the nose hits? We probably have to
speculate a halved speed for the engine now - if it could still happen =
at
all - meaning that the delay before the explosion is now 500 - 600 ms, =
which
is getting quite ridiculous, and the engine is now lacking the power it
needs to have any chance of charging through 27 ft of stone, which is =
now a
bit more, because its being fired from a raised angle. So if you want =
the
wings tilted, you have suggest that the nose was hitting the wall, which
takes us back to the same problems that first led us to suggest that it =
must
have hit the ground instead. And its even worse now. With the wings =
tilted
at 45 degrees, the nose would be hitting the wall at a height of about =
40
ft, meaning that we have to suggest that it simply bounced off, or stuck =
in
the wall and hung there (while the engine powered through the wall) or =
if
the nose burst through the wall, we're back to the same old problems.

So the whole engine theory is impossible all round, which ever way you =
look
at it. Nevertheless, lets pretend its still alive and press on.

There's the question of whether the momentum and weight of the engine =
was
enough to power it's way through 3 rings of the building.

Let's do some comparisons with weapons specifically made to penetrate =
strong
buildings.
During WW 2, the British developed the "Tall Boy" Bomb

http://www.members.aol.com/nukeinfo2/

It weighed 12,000 lb and could punch it's way through 10 ft of steel
reinforced concrete, when dropped from a great height ( a Lancaster =
bomber)
Very impressive! The Pentagon may not be as strong, but the engine is
alleged to have punched through nearly triple this width. The engine =
weighs
about the same as the "Tall Boy." However the "Tall Boy" was travelling =
at
several times the speed, and also contained explosives. And yet, =
somehow, it
appears to be only marginally more effective, perhaps even less. All =
that
engineering for nothing! If the penetrative performance of the 757 =
engine is
anything to go on, it seems that the Brits would been better off to save
their money and just drop big lumps of scrap metal. Not learning this
lesson, they went on to develop the heaviest bomb of WW 2 , the 22,000 =
lb
"Grand slam" bomb which could penetrate steel reinforced concrete to a =
depth
of about 12 ft. In addition to it's enormous weight and explosive power, =
it
was dropped from Lancaster bombers, giving it great speed by the time of
impact. The article mentions that the bombs were exceeding the speed of
sound (760 mph), by the time they hit, but doesn't mention by how much. =
That
could be calculated if you knew the height at which the Bombers were =
flying.
http://www.accessweb.com/users/mconstab/bombs.htm
(also see previous link)

Considering that the engine did not have an explosive inside it, was
travelling (optimistically) at 300 mph and weighed about half of the =
"Grand
Slam", it's a little difficult to work out how it was able to a =
penetration
job which would appear to be about equal to that which the Grand Slam =
was
capable of, and do it easily by the look of the photo. Even more =
remarkable
is the fact that the face of the engine is the worst shape possible for
penetrating a target. Tens of thousands of years ago, people worked out =
that
pointed surfaces penetrate targets more easily than flat surfaces, and
arrows, spears swords, bullets and missiles are designed according to =
this
principle. The above articles mention that the "grand slam" was
aerodynamically designed to ensure that the pointed end would be facing =
down
when it struck. So the engine was really just like a heavier and more
powerful version of the old mediaeval catapult. They had less powerful
propulsion and couldn't throw anything approaching that weight, but if =
they'
d had even 10% of the alleged penetrative power of this remarkable =
engine,
then most castles would have been demolished within the first hour of =
the
siege.

In Dec 2001 it was reported that the US airforce's new cave and bunker
busting bombs could penetrate 11 ft of reinforced concrete, perhaps =
more.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011213-attack02.htm
What a remarkable achievement! Decades of experience and research in the
area of missile development, swallowing billions of dollars, have =
finally
achieved a penetrative power approaching that of a flat ended, non
explosive, 6 ton chunk of metal hurled through the air at a few hundred =
mph,
like a bigger version of an ancient siege engine.

Where is this engine? Did it miraculously disintegrate after punching =
it's
way through three rings? Or have authorities rushed it away somewhere to
hide any evidence for their own story?

In summary, any scenario which postulates the nose entering the wall to =
any
significant degree is impossible, because the engine can't have =
penetrated
the wall more effectively than the nose, and would have been blown up =
along
with the rest of the plane.Any scenario which has the nose bouncing off =
the
wall is impossible, because then the engine couldn't have penetrated, =
and it
also creates the problem of why there's no sign of the impact and =
explosion
110 ft out into the lawns.(Allowing for a 45 degree fuselage angle) Any
scenario which postulates that the plane never contacted the building is
impossible for the same reason, and also that the engine probably =
wouldn't
have had time to get to the wall before the explosion, unless we invoke =
the
impossible combination of the belly flop and the long delay. The =
suggestion
that the engine had enough penetrative power to create that hole is
attributing to it powers equal to state of the art missile technology, =
and
of the heaviest high explosive bombs of WW 2.

Even if it could have penetrated, where did it finish up, and why has it
vanished? So it was a missile. Once more, the argument is concluded, but =
I
will again suspend the findings to examine another aspect.
PART 11. WHAT ABOUT THE EYEWITNESSES?

When an eyewitness claims to have seen something which is physically
impossible they are generally assumed to be either mistaken or lying.
Indeed, such dismissal is not limited to reports of the physically
impossible, but extended to the dubious. For example reports of UFOs, =
sea
monsters, ghosts or Bigfoot are usually dismissed as hoaxes or =
illusions,
even though such things are not necessarily physically impossible, but
simply outside the scope of what we generally accept as being reasonable =
and
credible. The plausibility of such alleged accounts cannot be be
mathematically tested, and quantitatively defined as being either =
possible
or impossible. Much of the official story concerning AA 77 can, and has =
now
been, subjected to mathematical analysis, and has been found to be
impossible.

To uncritically accept eyewitness reports of a solid object fitting =
through
a hole smaller than itself, or alternatively blowing itself into nothing
against the rules of physics is inconsistent with the standards of proof =
and
credibility normally applied to alleged eyewitnesses of other dubious, =
but
not necessarily impossible phenomena.

The question has to be asked - how many eyewitness reports would be =
needed
to even reopen such a question, let alone consider it to be proved, =
contrary
to the laws of physics? And what standards of verification should be
applied? Does an anonymous, third hand, one line quote in a military
newspaper (hardly an independent source, considering the nature of the
debate ) constitute an "eyewitness" in these circumstances? How many of
these would be needed in order to confidently override the laws of =
physics ?

We need dozens, maybe hundreds of credible well verified, comprehensive
eyewitness reports in close to full agreement with each other, from =
sources
which are at least in theory independent, to even reopen the question. =
The
mainstream media and certain web authors have done a smoke and mirrors =
job
to have us believe that such eyewitness evidence exists.

It doesn't. Those sources do not make any effort to critically examine =
the
question of how the alleged eyewitness reports originated, or to =
critically
deconstruct the reports either individually or collectively. I dealt =
with
this question comprehensively in this article, published in June 2002

Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined.
http://hamilton.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=3D1786&group=3Dw=
ebcast
It demonstrated that eyewitness accounts do not confirm a large =
passenger
jet hitting the Pentagon. The findings of the article did not =
demonstrate
that the eyewitness reports, when taken in isolation, prove that it =
didn't
happen. It simply demonstrated that they don't confirm anything one way =
or
the other. They are confused, lacking in substance, highly contradictory =
and
poorly verified.

Some described a large passenger jet, some even specifying an AA 757. =
One
alleged witness (Ford) described it as a propeller plane. Many gave no
indication at all as to what kind of plane it was, but were =
unjustifiably
seized upon by supporters of the 757 theory as proof that a large =
passenger
jet hit the building, simply because a witness allegedly said that "a =
plane
" hit the building. Many claimed to see a large plane close to the =
scene,
but didn't see it hit the building. Another report, which I decided not =
to
review, and in retrospect should have (Steve Patterson) described it as =
an 8
to 12 seater jet. And even amongst those who claimed it to be a large =
plane,
there was wild contradiction in how it hit.

One expects some variation, but not to this extent. One alleged witness,
(MikeWalter) said in one interview that it that dove steeply into the
building from almost directly above it. But in a different interview he
described it as "like a cruise missile with wings" - the above =
description
wouldn't seem to be describing missile -like behavior- and in several =
other
interviews he said he that he didn't see it at all, including one given =
only
an hour after the steep dive interview. Nevertheless, one media =
commentator
in defending the official story, selectively quoted Walter and wrote =
"Mike
Walter is in no doubt about what he saw." Others said it flew level and
crashed on the ground in front of the building, near the helipad, and =
others
said it flew straight into the wall.
And bear in mind that the meaning of "it" was in many cases unspecified.

The verification of most reports was extremely poor, amounting to =
hearsay. I
was only able to find two witnesses who gave direct live interviews for
which transcripts were available. Walter and Timmerman. Walter, who gave
several interviews, contradicted himself so much that it was hard to =
know
what to make of it. Timmerman's account was impossible to believe, =
because
it required us to believe that a block of apartments suddenly sprang out =
of
the ground half way through his sighting and then disappeared again
afterwards.

The different accounts contradict each other so heavily, that one has to
either dismiss nearly all of them in favour of a few, selected as being =
the
most credible, or else speculate that 4 or 5 planes must have hit the
building. It was difficult to find more than any 3 witnesses who agreed =
with
each other enough to group them together. And that was before =
deconstructing
them individually, to test their verification and plausibility.

In that article I refrained from comparing the eyewitness reports with =
any
physical evidence. I simply wanted to isolate the reports and see how =
they
stood up in a self contained analysis. But it's now time to subject some =
of
these to critical examination of how they fit with the physical =
evidence.
There were two reports (Timmerman and Washington) which explicitly =
stated a
large plane, (in Timmerman's case, explicitly an AA 757) and suggested =
that
it crashed on the ground, near the helipad, just in front of the =
building.
Both of these reports were discredited and exposed as almost certain
fabrications because of internal inconsistencies, without the need to =
resort
to any of the physical evidence. But lets pretend that their reports had
stood up, when viewed in isolation.

Here again is that photo of the area in question, surrounded by smooth
lawns, just after the incident.
http://66.129.143.7/june2aa.htm

Can you pick the spot where a 155 ft fuselage, 12 ft wide, with a =
wingspan
of 125 ft crashed and exploded with a ferocity never previously seen in
aviation history ? If this actually happened, then we are wasting money =
and
space building airport runways. We could just use golf courses. The =
lawns
would clearly stand up very well to this kind of treatment.

Imagine that you are a lawyer, conducting a defence in a murder trial.
Suppose that the prosecution presented Timmerman and Washington as =
witnesses
in relation to the above photograph, which was deemed to be relevant to =
the
case. How would you feel if your client was convicted on the basis that =
the
testimonies of Timmerman and Washington were deemed to override the =
physical
evidence shown in the photo ? Just a chance you might appeal ?

Although the eyewitness investigation didn't reveal evidence for any
specific scenario, it's really significant finding was that it exposed
several examples of blatant fabrication of reports which claimed to =
support
the official story. Why fabricate eyewitness evidence for something that
really happened? These reports are still circulating around the web and =
the
media as if they were genuine. For example, the report attributed to =
Captain
Lincoln Liebner was exposed as an unequivocal fabrication, but some web
authors who I know are well aware of this, and others who may not be =
aware
of it, continue to post the Liebner report on their websites as evidence =
for
the official story. Other reports exposed as certain or almost certain
fabrications include Timmerman, Washington, Mcgraw and Winslow. These
continue to be heavily promoted as evidence.
Of course, the article wasn't perfect, and in retrospect there's a few
things I should have handled a little differently. Nevertheless, it was =
a
very thorough investigation, and remains, as far as I am aware, the only
comprehensive investigation which has been done into the eyewitness =
aspect.
The best complaint that most critics could come up with is that I didn't =
go
even further, and personally track down and phone the alleged witnesses
myself - rather difficult since most of them were either anonymous, or
appeared not to exist, or worked for the military, or were simply
untraceable without spending amounts of time and money which very few =
people
have. But the same critics had been perfectly happy to accept these =
bogus or
dubious or poorly verified reports at face value and post them as =
evidence
on their websites for months without any attempt at critical =
investigation.
As soon as my investigation was published, discrediting or throwing =
serious
doubt on many of these reports, it suddenly became dreadfully important =
(
but apparently only for me ) to phone the witnesses, before drawing any
conclusions. Meanwhile, these critics happily continue to quote the
discredited accounts such as Liebner, Timmerman, Winslow, Mcgraw and
Washington without bothering to have done any investigation themselves. =
The
argument seemed to be that because my investigation had only been 95%
thorough, then it's findings were less credible than those who had done =
no
investigation at all, but simply collected quotes from press or other
websites.

Although my search was very thorough, inevitably I missed a few, and =
with a
number of critics aggressively trawling the web to try to find anything =
I'd
missed, they've managed to find a few.So I'm now I'm now going to =
address
one of these to demonstrate in a similar style to my earlier =
investigation,
an example of how a report which really tells us nothing at all has been
misrepresented as eyewitness evidence for the official story. Case 2 =
deals
with an outright fabrication, which appears to have been perpetrated =
since
my article was published. The misrepresented case is one attributed to a
firefighter named Alan Wallace.
http://www.iaff.org/across/news/archives/102401local.html
[[ Moments later, fire fighters Allan Wallace and Mark Skipper ran for =
cover
as the ill-fated aircraft impacted the southwest face of the building,
leaving hundreds of Pentagon workers as well as the 64 people aboard the
plane dead or missing.

"I just happened to look up and see the plane," said Wallace. "It was =
about
200 yards away, and was coming in low and fast. I told Mark that we =
needed
to get the hell out of there."
The hijacked Boeing 757, loaded with 30,000 pounds of fuel, departed =
Dulles
International Airport at 8:10 a.m. enroute to Los Angeles. At some point
during the flight, terrorists commandeered the plane and steered a =
course
for Washington, D.C. At 9:40 a.m., the plane smashed into the five-story
office building which serves as the nerve center of the U.S. military.

Both Wallace and Skipper tried to get as far away as possible. Wallace =
only
made it about 20 feet, but found shelter under a transport van. Skipper =
ran
toward a field and was knocked over by the blast. Both men suffered 1st =
and
2nd degree burns. ]]

Variations on this story are published at
http://www.msnbc.com/news/635293.asp
http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/6_37/local_news/10386-1.html
http://detnews.com/2001/nation/0109/11/nation-291261.htm
One of these says that Wallace didn't actually make it under the van =
until
after the blast. It also mentions that the plane was alleged to be about =
25
ft of the ground.

Lets pull this apart.

[[ "I just happened to look up and see the plane" ]]
When it was 200 yards away? If it was a 757, the noise would have been
deafening well before then. It's inconceivable that someone could only
become become aware of a plane of that size at that height and distance =
by
"just happening to look up.". Notice that he says "the plane", with no
further embellishment. This statement might be plausible if it was =
something
much quieter. So either it represents a dubious and poorly verified
statement contradicting the official story, or else it simply isn't
believable.

In one of the other versions, he specifically states that he didn't hear =
it
until he saw it.
There's a further problem with this statement. If was 25 ft high and 200
yards away, it would be at about a 2 degree angle from the ground where
Wallace was standing, so it would be in his normal line of vision. He
actually didn't need to look up at all. It should really be "I just =
happened
to be not looking down, and see the plane", which does not have a
particularly credible ring to it. Other variations on this story do not =
have
Wallace engaged in some kind of task, where he's looking down. He's said =
to
be simply walking along. Which means that the plane should have been in =
his
field of vision, the moment it appeared over the horizon, rather than
something which had to be looked up at to be seen. It's possible that =
the
surrounding topography, trees and buildings limited the horizon to this
distance and that Wallace did see it the moment it appeared, and has =
simply
described the sighting clumsily, or not realised this, because it =
happened
so quickly. So we shouldn't say "That proves this guy is lying", but =
neither
should we uncritically accept it all at face value without thinking it
through. These are exactly the kinds of issues which would be raised in =
a
cross examination in court.
400 mph is 195 yards per second. So if it was 200 yards away, then =
Wallace
had 1 second to do everything which the article claims him to have done.

1) Take it in for a moment
2) Yell "Get the hell out of here"
3) Turn and run about twenty feet.

I've tested this, using a tape measure and a metronome set at 60 beats =
per
second to count the time. When turning the instant of the metronome =
click
(leaving no time at all for reaction and recognition, or yelling out), =
and
beginning to sprint, I got to take one big step by the second click -
covering about 7 ft, so I still needed another second to get close to 20 =
ft
. ( and I'm quick ). So it's impossible to have done this in 1 second. =
You
need at least two, which means that the plane must been 400 yards away, =
when
he first saw it. Realistically, we should be adding another 1/2 to 1 =
second
for reaction time and yelling out. So we really need to call the plane's
distance as 500 - 600 yards. You can try it out for yourself .

A certain amount of latitude has to allowed in estimating distances, but
expanding 200 to 500 or 600, is stretching the boundaries of such =
latitude.
But if we reduce the van's distance to 15 ft, meaning that one more big =
step
gets you nearly there, we might just be able to suggest that this is
plausible in 2 seconds - 400 yards of flight, which just comes within
acceptable margins of error.

Apart from the fact that 500 -600 yards would be stretching the figures =
in
the report beyond credibility, there's another reason why the plane =
can't
have been more than about 450 yards away, unless we start changing =
another
of Wallace's parameters by orders of magnitude. If it was 25 ft off the
ground, and more than about 450 yards away, it would have crashed into =
the
Navy annex, rather than coming over the top of it. Who says it came over =
the
Navy annex? Several of the other witnesses which purport to support the
official story. So either it didn't come over the Navy annex, =
discrediting
those reports, or else Wallace is orders of magnitude out not only with =
the
distance, but also with the height , and also significantly out with the
distance of the van. This starts to create too much inaccuracy for the
report to be credible, considering the confident and unequivocable =
manner in
which the distances are presented, especially when combining it with the
unlikely introduction of " just happening to look up." If it was =
anything
like 25 ft off the ground, and went south of the Navy annex, then it
probably would have demolished buildings on the other side of 395. If it
went north, it might have hit the Sheraton, and if it went further north
through the cemetery, it would have cut a vicious swathe of destruction
through the trees.

It might be possible to plot a credible flight path between these =
obstacles,
but it would have to be very specific, and even if it avoided the major
obstacles mentioned, one would think that a very specific swathe 500 - =
600
yards long, of poles and trees, matching this path would have to been
knocked over, easily discernible from aerial photos. No such obvious =
swathe
exists.And you would then have to disregard all eyewitnesses that =
suggested
a different flight path, Including Timmerman, Walter and Munsey, three =
often
held up as proof of the official story. (Although they all contradict =
each
other anyway, as well as Walter contradicting himself) But this =
complication
is unnecessary if we reduce the distance of the van to 15 ft. If we =
assert
that he underestimated the distance of the plane by 50% and =
overestimated
the distance of the van by 30%, it's unrealistic, but possible. 2 =
seconds
gives a fraction of an instant to react, time to yell something, and =
time to
get close to the 15ft sprint. The first step is the slowest because of =
the
need to turn and push off and more ground can be covered in the =
following
second.

But there is a nagging problem. The report strongly implies that Wallace =
saw
it first and alerted Skipper to it. If this is the case, we really have =
to
add another 2 seconds, to do this and have both men take off. Did =
Skipper
"just happen to see it" at exactly the same time? Is he also in the =
habit of
walking with his head down? ( We are talking about delays of 1/4 second =
as
being critical ) or did he see it a bit before Wallace, and Wallace =
didn't
realize this? Maybe. Or perhaps they both saw it immediately it cleared =
the
horizon.
This isn't pushing me to allege with any confidence that this report is =
an
outright fabrication, but at the same time, neither is it inspiring a =
lot of
faith.

Where in this account does Wallace give any indication as to what kind =
of
plane it was? We don't expect him to say AA 757, but was it large or =
small,
civilian or military? The reference to the alleged 757 was the creation =
of
the writer, inserted into the middle of Wallace's story, giving the
subconscious impression to the not fully critical reader that Wallace
himself had described it as such. As was common in reports on this =
issue,
the alleged witness simply said 'the plane", and the writer of the story
added the assumption that it was a 757, in such a way that the careless
reader could easily gain the general impression that the witness had
actually said this.

Any suggestion that Wallace told the writer that it was a large plane, =
and
that the writer simply didn't quote him on this, is pure speculation. =
But
even if we want to indulge in such speculation, the report then becomes
difficult to take seriously, if we add extra time for Wallace to =
register
something about what kind of plane it was. The scenario that I've =
created to
try to make the account plausible is postulating extraordinarily quick
reaction times and giving the benefit of the doubt in relation to the =
added
complication of whether both men saw it at the same instant. One has to
factor in becoming aware of the danger, yelling out, and an instant =
smart
decision to run straight for the van. Some people might just freeze in =
shock
in this situation and not react at all within 2 seconds. Wallace's =
reported
reactions are possible, but unusually sharp. In this situation, someone =
is
unlikely to take in the added detail of the approximate size of the =
plane.
Whether it was a small military jet or a large passenger jet, either =
would
look big and menacing in that shocked instant of realization of what was
happening. We're postulating an immediate turn and sprint, on =
registering
the situation. We've already twisted all the other dubious factors in =
this
report to their limits, to try to keep it plausible.So the =
unsubstantiated
assumption that Wallace told the writer it was a large passenger jet, =
but
just wasn't quoted as such, forces us to add at least another hundred =
yards
to the plane's distance, which means that's it's now back into the =
region
where the 25 ft height starts to create further complications. The
plausibility of the report can be best maintained by giving Wallace no =
time
at all to take in anything about what kind of plane it was. The =
reference to
the 757 is invention by the writer based on a preconceived conclusion.

I'm uncomfortable with how much I've had to twist this report to try to =
keep
it credible. I suspect that it may be a fabrication, or at least a wild
embellishment. But it's possible that someone named Allan Wallace might =
have
experienced something like this. If so, all it tells us is what we =
already
know - that something hit the Pentagon and caused an explosion. Any
assertion that this represents an eyewitness account supporting the 757
theory is without justification, although a tentative case could be made =
to
suggest that the noise factor might favour the small plane theory. Any =
web
author who presents this account as evidence for the official story is
either dishonest, or failing to critically think through the report and
deconstruct it for real meaning.
If you read my eyewitness article, you'll see that the illusion that
"hundreds of people identified the plane" has been to a large extent,
created by the unjustified juxtaposition of predetermined conclusions =
onto
reports that really don't tell us anything at all, like this one.

Speculation to be argued back and forth, that a certain person may or =
may
not have reported it as a large plane would be relevant if the physical
evidence demonstrated that such a scenario was possible. It would be
relevant in the event of a flyby rather than a crash. But in the case of =
the
overwhelming physical, mathematical and scientific evidence that it was
totally impossible, reports like this are worthless to the argument of =
what
kind of plane or missile it was.

In my previous article, I examined a number of reports which were =
exposed as
outright fabrications. In the cases of Washington, McGraw and Timmerman, =
it
was because internal contradictions exposed their reports as impossible =
to
believe. In the case of Winslow, it was because an investigation into =
the
media trail of how the report originated, indicated strongly that no =
such
report was ever made, and that even if it was, it originated from third =
hand
hearsay . In the case of Liebner, it was shown quite conclusively that
Leibner never actually made the statement which you see in press reports =
and
on websites, and in fact was never even interviewed. Since I wrote the
article, another fabrication of a slightly different style has emerged, =
and
I'm going to deconstruct this one in order to demonstrate the desperate
measures that have been used to try sell this outrageous story.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=3D28
(undated)
[[ Statement from Penny Elgas
Personal Experience At The Pentagon on September 11, 2001
By Penny Elgas

Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's =
side
window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming
straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs =
perpendicular to
the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, =
to
the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew =
was
there. My first thought was "Oh My God, this must be World War III!"

In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched
everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow
motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front =
of
me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly =
over
the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 =
feet
off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far =
enough
in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the
underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward =
the
ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I =
could
see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it =
was
just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it =
never
occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers.
In my adrenaline-filled state of mind, I was overcome by my visual =
senses.
The day had started out beautiful and sunny and I had driven to work =
with my
car's sunroof open. I believe that I may have also had one or more car
windows open because the traffic wasn't moving anyway. At the second =
that I
saw the plane, my visual senses took over completely and I did not hear =
or
feel anything -- not the roar of the plane, or wind force, or impact =
sounds.

The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I =
watched
in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the =
Pentagon.
At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt =
into
the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made =
contact
with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage =
at
the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later
realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane =
and
concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and
simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the =
fuselage to
the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then
coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next
time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, =
the
wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and =
watched
the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed =
my
eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in =
thick
black smoke...

...When I arrived home, I turned on every radio and TV in the house -- =
I'm
not sure whether I was trying to drown out my thoughts or whether I was =
just
hungry for news. I made a cup of tea to calm my nerves and called my =
husband
to let him know that I was okay. I told him that there was a piece of =
the
plane in my car, but for some reason, I couldn't deal with it just yet. =
I
also called my son at college to reassure him that I was okay. =
Apparently, I
made several cups of tea that I don't remember making because later that =
day
I found four sopping teabags lined up on my kitchen counter. I believe =
now,
that I was operating on "auto-pilot"
and was probably in shock for much of that day. At some point I opted =
for
quiet and turned off all the noise except the radio in my kitchen. Then =
I
went to my car and faced that piece of the plane that was in the back =
seat.
It appeared to be a piece of the tail. There was no metal on it and it =
was
very lightweight -- all plastic and fiberglass. It was 22" long and 15"
wide. I have no idea how it got into my car because I do not remember =
seeing
any rubble flying around while I was at the crash site. I assume that it
dropped in through the sunroof or flipped in through a window. The plane
piece consisted of a layer of white paint, and layers of yellow and gray
fiberglass as well as a thin brown corrugated material.

I gingerly picked up the piece and carried it into the house. As I =
entered
the kitchen, I heard the radio announcer on WMAL state that it was an
American Airlines flight and I thought to myself, "I knew that." But =
then
the announcer said that is was Flight number 77 and he stated the number =
of
passengers and crew and it hit me hard that the planes had been full of
innocent victims. The radio announcer said that they were taking calls =
from
people who had a personal experience to share. I dialed the station. I
remember that I told them that I was "Penny from Springfield" and that I =
had
a piece of the plane. The next thing I knew, I was on the air and Chris =
Core
said "Penny from Springfield, What did you see?" I don't remember any of =
the
rest of our conversation and coworkers who heard it said it was somewhat
incoherent. The only thing that I remember is that at the end, Chris =
Core
said, "How weird is that?" And I remember thinking that his comment =
didn't
make me feel any better. ]]

Before pulling it apart, lets note that it's undated and unverified. It
appears to have emerged about a year after the incident. Anybody can =
turn up
a year later with a privately written statement and say whatever they =
like.
So the verification standards are not acceptable.

Let's begin with the entry of the plane into the building. This report
clearly indicates that the plane flew into the building with wings close =
to
parrellel and that both wings entered the building. I think I am on good
scientific ground when I state that a solid 125 ft object cannot pass
through another solid object without leaving a 125 ft hole. It doesn't
matter how many eye witnesses might allege that they saw such a thing
happen - it didn't. Anyone who alleges that they saw such a thing is =
either
lying or deluded to the point of insanity - or else they saw a smaller
plane, or a very sophisticated hologram or some kind of highly advanced,
secret matter teleportation technology. If it was a plane small enough =
to
fit into the hole, painted in AA colours, then the witness could be =
telling
the truth.The witness doesn't actually say anything about the size of =
the
plane, so it's possible that she could have seen this, and not thought =
it
through when later told that it was AA 77. Either way, this report is =
either
a lie or a report of something much smaller than a 757, painted in AA
colours.
Lets apply some more critical thinking.. This part.

[[ I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it =
banked in
the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. ]]

If she had a clear view of 100 yards out of each window, then she would =
have
first seen the plane when it was about 100 yards from her car. If you =
check
the location of Columbia Pike where said the plane was when she first =
saw
it, and Washington Boulevard, which would appear to be the road that she =
was
on, then it fits with such an assumption. It was allegedly coming =
straight
towards her. The flying time from that point, to being directly over the
road is about 1/2 second. The plane is a little over 50 yards long.It =
takes
about 1/4 second to fly it's own length. It allegedly discernibly =
changed it
's direction in the time that it took to fly twice it's own length -from =
one
quarter second increment to the next - from one plane length to the =
next.
Even if that's physically possible, the human eye could not pick this =
up. I'
ve checked this speed on the metronome. If you say the words "too fast" =
at a
quick pace, it's approximately the time of of the word "too". To suggest
that any change in direction could be detected in this time would be to
assert that the plane "jumped" like a film that's had some frames cut =
out.
Not possible.

She says that she went into slow motion mode. This can happen, when a =
person
is presented with a threatening situation at high speed, but there are
limits. As we shall see, this report well and truly exceeds those =
limits.
Like this.

[[ I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the
wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the =
point
of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that =
it
was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The
churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and =
simultaneously
wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the =
underside,
where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up =
to
the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw =
fire,
glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared =
into
the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the =
plane
slip into the building. ]]
This indicates that the plane sliced through the building quite easily. =
If
it's initial speed was 400 mph, then 300 mph seems a reasonable estimate =
of
it's passage through the wall. At 440 ft per second., the whole plane =
would
have taken 350 milliseconds to pass through. Analyze the smoke ring =
cycles
in the first half of the penetration. There were two complete smoke =
rings in
the time of about 1/2 the penetration of the plane which is about 175 =
ms. 87
ms per smoke ring cycle. Each cycle was divided into 3 distinctly =
visible
stages. The appearance of the smoke at the top of the fuselage, the =
coiling
around to cross over at the bottom, and the coiling back up to cross =
again
at the top. About 29 ms per section. This is roughly equivalent to 1 =
video
or film frame. Video or film runs at speeds between 24 and 30 frames per
second, depending upon the format. About 30 to 40 ms per frame. The =
whole
idea of this speed is that the human eye can't distinguish between one =
frame
and the next, making the motion appear continuous and seamless. Except =
for
Penny Elgas, who has the miraculous ability to distinguish one frame =
from
another. Watching videos must be a real drag for her, because she can =
see
all the little tricks they do with stunt work and other cutting =
techniques.
On the brighter side, she'll never be short of a job as a referee or
lineswoman for the international tennis circuit. They should be lining =
up at
her door after this report. Then another three part series. The wings, =
the
explosion, the tail. About 27 ms - 1 frame each. I don't care how much
someone is in slow motion mode - the human eye and brain in combination
simply cannot register distinctly different images and event sequences =
at
this pace. In all, 10 distinct events have been described. 3 sections of
smoke ring times 2, the beginning of the fire, the entry of the wings, =
the
explosion, the entry of the tail. An average of 35 ms per image - 10
distinct images in 10 frames Again, using the "too fast" comparison, the
entire entry of the plane would take about as much time as the word =
'fast".
As another comparison, try repeatedly clapping your hands as fast as you =
can
from a distance of about 2 ft between the hands, and see how blurred the
movement is. Each clap is about the total time that the plane took to =
enter
the building - and you only get one shot at seeing it.

Now imagine registering 10 clear separate images, in smooth sequence =
within
each blurred handclap, registering details such as the thickness of the
smoke, and the crossover of the rings.

People in dangerous situations can get adrenalin bursts which can =
trigger
extraordinary feats of strength. When someone who's experienced this
situation says that they lifted the side of an overturned car to free =
their
trapped partner, we are inclined to believe it. But if they say that =
they
jumped over a 100 ft fence with the adrenalin burst, we know that they =
have
crossed the line.This account is the visual equivalent of that 100 ft =
fence
jump. It's physiologically impossible.

She says that after the explosion, the tail continued to "slip"into the
building. Hold on a moment - this is the explosion which is =
disintegrating
the plane to nothing - blowing outwards in all directions, but the tail =
is
continuing to slip serenely into it at the same time as being being =
cremated
by it? Even Hollywood doesn't bother with this illusion in explosion =
scenes,
because they know it's the exact opposite of what happens. When =
something is
travelling forward into a blast, it gets pushed backwards by the force. =
Of
course, if it has strong momentum, the two will counteract each other. =
But
it doesn't just keep travelling at the same speed into the point of the
blast, at the same time as being vapourized by it, like being fed into a
furnace on a conveyer belt. It wouldn't matter how many eyewitnesses =
claimed
to see this happen - it didn't.

At the same time that the tail slipped serenely into this all consuming
blast, without missing a beat, a fragment of it was blown 100 yards back =
the
other way, to land in her car. Penny really should be relating this =
story at
physics conferences around the world. I'm sure they'll be busy rewriting =
the
rules of how the universe works after verifying this.

Now the claim that she was able to see the windows and colour stripes on =
the
plane. In total she probably saw the plane for about 1 second. Imagine
yourself stopped at an intersection, and a car goes past at 150 mph.
You are able to report to the police that you recognized the distinctive
gold, green,and black door trim of a mid 80's Falcon,and noticed that =
the
windows were tinted. Now multiply the speed by 2.5.

That's only some of the problem. Elgas says that at the time of initial
sighting, the plane was headed straight towards her. She can't have got =
a
good view of the stripes and windows from front on, in the first 1/4 =
second.
Then it was banking away a little and was directly over the road, with =
the
near wing banked up a little, so that she was looking up at the =
underside of
the wing. What could she see ? Go back to those photos of 757s and have =
a
look at the way they're built. The wing at the point where it joins the
fuselage is just on the lower stripe, and would obscure a very =
significant
section of the stripes and windows from this angle.The engine juts out
significantly forward of the wing. Very little of the fuselage would be
visible from this angle, during this 1/4 second window of opportunity. =
As
the wing extends out further, it gets narrower,but the closer =
perspective
increases it's effective width in her vision. I'm not saying that the =
all of
the stripes and windows were completely obscured for the whole sighting, =
but
there would be a ridiculously short window of opportunity to catch any
glimpse, as the plane turned from it's front on view, to it's wing =
obscured
view. Then it would have been past her, with the 15 ft tail fin , the
closest part of the plane, banked slightly, to show her the underside, =
and
obscuring a significant amount of any parting glimpse she might have =
got.The
phones will be running hot from the tennis association!!

[[ In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front =
of
my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and
about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. ]]
4-5 car lengths can be approximated to about 60 ft. The length of the =
wing
to the fuselage is 56 ft, making a total of 116 ft from driver to
fuselage.Subtract a little, as the plane is alleged to be slightly =
banked,
thus reducing the effective horizontal width. Offset this for the length =
of
her car's bonnet. Let's call the total distance from driver's eyes to
fuselage 118 ft. To make the maths easy, round it t

------------Pt. 3
Physical and Mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash Part 3
by Gerard Holmgren . Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 02:40 AM
investigation77 at hotmail.com

Continues from Part 1 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/1538136.php =
and
part 2 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/1538137.php

Let's call the total distance from driver's eyes to fuselage 118 ft. To =
make
the maths easy, round it to 120. Sitting in the car, her eyes are about =
4 ft
off the ground, so the effective height of the plane from her eyeline is
about 76 ft. Round this to 80. If you check the angle made by something
which is 80 ft high and 120 ft distant, it's approximately 30 degrees. =
When
I sit in my car, a 30 degree angle from my eyes looks straight into the
folded up sun visor. In other words, you can't see something at this =
angle
from a car. Of course, it's a little different for each person, =
depending on
their car, seat position and posture Her distances, as in the case of
Wallace are subject to inaccuracy, but the point needs to be made that =
on
the basis of these figures it would be impossible for her to see the
fuselage, from that height and distance. The open sun roof wouldn't =
help.
The fuselage would be behind the section that joins the windscreen to =
the
roof edge. Of course, with a moment to spare, one can change this by =
leaning
forward, but its been established that she probably has about 1/4 of a
second to sight the small section of the windows and AA colour scheme =
that
isn't obscured by the wing. Because of the many variables, we can't =
state
with certainty that the fuselage was hidden from her vision, but when =
taken
at face value, it appears to be impossible for her to have seen it.

And now, the encore. The piece of plane that found it's way into her =
back
seat. If you've checked the link, you will have seen the photo of it, =
and
will unreservedly agree that it is definitely, without doubt, =
unequivocably
a piece of - ??? - a piece of whatever they tell us it is. It's turned =
up at
the Smithsonian museum, in a little patriotic box, which apparently =
proves
that it must have once been part of a 757. And we know that it was found =
in
Penny's back seat. We have absolute proof of that because she told us =
so.
Penny - as one of the few people on Earth who has actually witnessed a =
125
ft solid object move through another solid object without leaving a 125 =
ft h
ole - and also with the help of some adrenalin, has performed the visual
equivalent of jumping over a 100 ft fence, is not a person who's word =
can be
doubted.

So this piece of the plane which had just been flung 100 yards out of a
violent explosion, with temperatures orders of magnitude above 700 =
degrees
C, just a few seconds before, lobbed into Penny's back seat, 1 to 2 feet
behind her head, so gently and quietly that she didn't even notice it -
which is strange for a person who was in a state of mind that enabled =
her
take in tiny details in 30 ms increments. Furthermore, the piece of =
plane
had miraculously cooled down during it's 100 yard journey, to the extent
that nothing caught fire, or even singed, or made a burning smell in the
back seat. It just sat there quietly like a good little piece of plane
should, until she was ready to find it and put it in the little =
patriotic
box.

SUMMARY

It is physically impossible for all of the plane to have entered the =
crash
site, and this is backed by solid mathematical proof.

There is no evidence outside the building of wreckage to account for the
part of the plane which cannot have entered the crash site.

There is no evidence of identifiable wreckage inside the crash site.

Cremation of the plane was unprecedented in aviation history and =
physically
impossible.

Even could such cremation have been possible, it is impossible in the
context of the modest damage to the wall.
The hole in the back of the third ring cannot be explained by any means
other than a missile.

Fake wreckage has been designed and planted with the express purpose of
impersonating the American Airlines colour scheme.

Eyewitness evidence is inconclusive and fabricated eyewitness reports =
have
been presented to try to shore up the official story.

Claims that DNA testing identified 63 of the 64 people on board, are
mutually exclusive with claims that the plane was cremated, and with the
official line on the WTC victims and the Bali bomb victims.
So if it didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to AA 77 and the =
passengers?
An important question, but it's irrelevant to the argument of whether it =
hit
the Pentagon. By way of analogy, imagine a murder prosecution where the
defence has presented an overwhelmingly strong case - more than just
reasonable doubt - solid proof that the accused cannot possibly have
committed the crime. But then the prosecution plays it's trump card.

" But if your client did not commit the crime, then who did?"

The defence answers that it has no idea. Everyone would agree that a =
guilty
verdict on this basis, would be an outrageous lapse of logic. Yet this =
is
precisely the same lapse of logic as suggesting that a lack of =
alternative
explanation for what happened to the plane and the passengers is in any =
way
relevant to the question of whether it hit the Pentagon. The government
knows what happened. Investigators have to work it out bit by bit. The =
full
truth will emerge in time, if a methodical, rational, step by step =
approach
is persevered with.
I can see one good reason to cling to the belief that AA 77 hit the
pentagon. The unshakable faith that the govt would not - could not lie =
to
us. A faith so strong that the laws that laws of physics and motion =
suspend
themselves in order to maintain it. A faith so strong that even the
government admitting that it lies cannot overturn it. This statement =
from
Solicitor General Olsen.
http://old.smh.com.au/news/0203/20/world/world10.html

[[ "It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the
government might legitimately give out false information," the
Solicitor-General, Theodore Olson, told the court on Monday.
"It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete information =
and
even misinformation by government may sometimes be perceived as =
necessary to
protect vital interests." ]]

Of course, he could be lying ...


------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C27C38.DA1DE400
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG>Gerard Holmgren establishes the =
following=20
facts in corroboration of the</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>small-plane attack on the =
Pentagon.&nbsp;=20
The coverup version is an impossible</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>tale from start&nbsp; to =
finish, as=20
Holmgren demonstrates.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The discussion and evidence =
(below) are=20
extensive.&nbsp; Here are Gerard's</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>key =
conclusions:</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>-----------------</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000080 =
size=3D2><STRONG></STRONG></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000080 size=3D2><STRONG>It is =
physically impossible=20
for all of the plane to have entered the crash<BR>site, and this is =
backed by=20
solid mathematical proof.<BR><BR>There is no evidence outside the =
building of=20
wreckage to account for the<BR>part of the plane which cannot have =
entered the=20
crash site.<BR><BR>There is no evidence of identifiable wreckage inside =
the=20
crash site.<BR><BR>Cremation of the plane was unprecedented in aviation =
history=20
and physically<BR>impossible.<BR><BR>Even could such cremation have been =

possible, it is impossible in the<BR>context of the modest damage to the =

wall.<BR><BR>The hole in the back of the third ring cannot be explained =
by any=20
means<BR>other than a missile.<BR><BR>Fake wreckage has been designed =
and=20
planted with the express purpose of<BR>impersonating the American =
Airlines=20
colour scheme.<BR><BR>Eyewitness evidence is inconclusive and fabricated =

eyewitness reports have<BR>been presented to try to shore up the =
official=20
story.<BR><BR>Claims that DNA testing identified 63 of the 64 people on =
board,=20
are<BR>mutually exclusive with claims that the plane was cremated, and =
with=20
the<BR>official line on the WTC victims and the Bali bomb=20
victims.<BR>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<BR><BR>Physical and mathematical=20
analysis of Pentagon crash<BR><BR>by Gerard =
Holmgren<BR></STRONG></FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:investigation77 at hotmail.com"><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#000080=20
size=3D2><STRONG>investigation77 at hotmail.com</STRONG></FONT></A><BR><BR><=
FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080 size=3D2><STRONG>It is not in dispute that =
something hit=20
the Pentagon wall and damaged it.<BR>Neither is it in dispute that AA 77 =
is=20
missing. But was AA 77 involved in<BR>the Pentagon incident? This =
article=20
presents an analysis of the physical<BR>aspects of the incident, and =
concludes=20
with a brief examination of the issue<BR>of =
eyewitnesses.<BR><BR>PHYSICAL AND=20
MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS OF PENTAGON CRASH.<BR>by Gerard=20
Holmgren<BR></STRONG></FONT><A =
href=3D"mailto:investigation77 at hotmail.com"><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080=20
size=3D2><STRONG>investigation77 at hotmail.com</STRONG></FONT></A><BR><BR><=
FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080 size=3D2><STRONG>Copyright: Gerard =
Holmgren. October 23=20
2002.This work may be freely copied<BR>and distributed without =
permission as=20
long as it is not for commercial<BR>purposes. Please include the =
author's name,=20
the web adress where you found<BR>it, and the copyright =
notice.<BR><BR>WHERE IS=20
THE WRECKAGE OF AA 77?<BR><BR>INSIDE THE BUILDING?<BR><BR>OUTSIDE THE=20
BUILDING?<BR><BR>CREMATED?<BR><BR>OR NEVER THERE?<BR><BR>It is alleged =
that on=20
Sept 11, 2001 a hijacked Boeing 757, American Airlines<BR>Flight 77, hit =
the=20
Pentagon. It is not in dispute that something hit the<BR>Pentagon wall =
and=20
damaged it. Neither is it in dispute that AA 77 is<BR>missing. But was =
AA 77=20
involved in the Pentagon incident? This article<BR>presents an analysis =
of the=20
physical aspects of the incident, and concludes<BR>with a brief =
examination of=20
the issue of eyewitnesses.<BR><BR>The Sept 11 crashes are unique and=20
unprecedented events in the history of<BR>both the press and aviation. =
In many=20
cases, light plane crashes involving 2<BR>to 3 people have triggered=20
investigations which continued for years.<BR>Considering that the =
explosion and=20
cremation of planes had never before<BR>happened, the lack of reporting =
and/or=20
official investigation is doubly<BR>puzzling. The issue of whether a =
crash=20
results from sabotage or accident<BR>should be irrelevant to the =
alarming=20
question of why four planes allegedly<BR>cremated themselves as a result =
of low=20
to medium impact crashes.<BR><BR>One of the purposes of accident =
reconstruction=20
in plane crashes is to<BR>determine what failed and therefore what is =
subject to=20
improvement.<BR>Normally, the press releases the findings as news in the =
public=20
interest.<BR>Professional analytical information has not been released =
on the=20
September<BR>11 crashes. If it exists (for insurance purposes, for =
instance), it=20
has not<BR>been released. Why have authorities and the press treated the =
Sept=20
11<BR>crashes differently? Who is doing the professional analysis and =
why does=20
the<BR>public not have access to it?<BR><BR>PART 1. PLANE=20
SPECIFICATIONS<BR><BR>Sourced from<BR><BR></STRONG></FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/http://www.washingtonp=
ost.com/wp"><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080=20
size=3D2><STRONG>http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/http://www.wa=
shingtonpost.com/wp</STRONG></FONT></A><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080=20
size=3D2><STRONG>-<BR>srv/nation/graphics/attack_757200.htm<BR>and<BR></S=
TRONG></FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech.html"><F=
ONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080=20
size=3D2><STRONG>http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech=
.html</STRONG></FONT></A><BR><BR><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080 size=3D2><STRONG>Wingspan 124 ft 10 in =
(hereafter rounded=20
to 125 ft)<BR>Length 155 ft 3 in (rounded to 155 ft)<BR>Tail height =
(with=20
landing gear extended ) 44 ft 6 in<BR>Fuselage Width 12 ft 4 in (rounded =
to 12=20
ft )<BR>Max fuel capacity 11,489 gallons<BR>Max range 4449 miles<BR>Max =
take off=20
weight 255,000 lb.<BR><BR>The following specifications were not directly =

available from any source I<BR>could find, but I calculated them based =
on the=20
above figures, after<BR>measuring diagrams and photos. Exact accuracy =
cannot be=20
guaranteed, but they<BR>are close and are sufficient for this=20
analysis.<BR><BR>Tail height (without landing gear extended) 35=20
ft<BR><BR>Fuselage height (without landing gear extended) 14 ft 6 in (7 =
ft 3 in=20
above<BR>wings, 7 ft 3 in below wings)<BR><BR>Length of each wing 56 ft =
3=20
in<BR>Engine diameter. 9 ft. 6 in<BR>Engine length 11 ft 6 =
in<BR><BR>Position of=20
engine mounting on wing. Outer edge of engine 25 ft from where<BR>wing =
joins=20
fuselage.<BR>Width of each tail fin 15 ft 6 in<BR><BR>Total tail fin =
span 39 ft=20
(fuselage is narrower at this point)<BR><BR>An estimated 5 ft of engine =
is below=20
fuselage level, making the total height<BR>of the aircraft without =
landing gear=20
extended, 40 ft.<BR><BR>You'll find the calculations throughout this =
article=20
easier to critically<BR>analyze, if you write down the above figures =
before=20
continuing.<BR><BR><BR>PART 2. ESTIMATIONS OF HOLE =
DIMENSIONS<BR><BR>Based on=20
this and other similar photos,<BR></STRONG></FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.pbase.com/image/536173"><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#000080=20
size=3D2><STRONG>http://www.pbase.com/image/536173</STRONG></FONT></A><BR=
><BR><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080 size=3D2><STRONG>I have estimated the hole =
in the=20
Pentagon wall to be about 65 ft wide, by<BR>comparing it with the height =
of the=20
building which is 77 ft.<BR></STRONG></FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon/facts.html"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#000080=20
size=3D2><STRONG>http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon/facts.html</STR=
ONG></FONT></A><BR><BR><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080 size=3D2><STRONG>Depth of damage. This is =
more=20
complex.The Pentagon consists of 5 rings of<BR>building, each separated =
by a=20
space between. I couldn't find any source<BR>which directly stated =
figures for=20
the depth of the rings and the spaces, and<BR>the perspective problems =
of photos=20
make it more difficult to estimate than<BR>the width. On the basis of =
aerial=20
photos, ( see the links below ) I have<BR>estimated the depth of the =
ring itself=20
to be about 32 ft, and the open space<BR>behind it, about the same. The =
outer=20
ring collapsed , leaving a total depth<BR>of about 65 ft that the plane =
could=20
potentially have fitted into,<BR>considering that the second ring of the =

building was intact.<BR><BR></STRONG></FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-002.jpg"=
><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080=20
size=3D2><STRONG>http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R=
-002.jpg</STRONG></FONT></A><BR><BR><BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm">=
<FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080=20
size=3D2><STRONG>http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs=
_en.htm</STRONG></FONT></A><BR><BR><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080 size=3D2><STRONG>It should be noted that =
the original=20
hole was much smaller. The 65 ft wide<BR>hole developed when a section =
of the=20
wall collapsed later.<BR><BR>Look at the following photos, taken soon =
after the=20
crash, before that<BR>section of wall collapsed. The thick smoke and the =
water=20
jets from the<BR>firefighters make it difficult to get a clear view, but =
we can=20
determine<BR>that the hole wasn't anywhere near even 40 ft wide. =
Probably less=20
than 20.<BR>In most of the photos, it's difficult to find any hole at=20
all.<BR><BR></STRONG></FONT><A =
href=3D"http://66.129.143.7/june2aa.htm"><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080=20
size=3D2><STRONG>http://66.129.143.7/june2aa.htm</STRONG></FONT></A><BR><=
BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm">=
<FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080=20
size=3D2><STRONG>http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs=
_en.htm</STRONG></FONT></A><BR><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080 size=3D2><STRONG>(see the two photos in =
question 7=20
)<BR><BR></STRONG></FONT><A =
href=3D"http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/"><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080=20
size=3D2><STRONG>http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/</STRONG></FONT></=
A><BR><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080 size=3D2><STRONG>&nbsp;(click on the =
trajectory section=20
and scroll to the photo with the caption<BR>"Hole center"and the =
subsequent=20
photos)<BR><BR>Calculations based on the 65 ft wide and deep (including =
open=20
space between<BR>the rings) hole which developed later, are unreasonably =

generous to the 757<BR>argument. Nevertheless, I will continue to =
conduct the=20
analysis on that<BR>basis. I am going to attempt to prove that it was =
physically=20
possible for a<BR>Boeing 757 to crash into that section of wall, in a =
manner=20
consistent with<BR>the photographic evidence. If I manage to prove that =
it was=20
physically<BR>possible, that doesn't prove that it happened - it simply =
keeps=20
the argument<BR>alive. If it proves to be impossible, even by expanding =
the=20
assumed hole to<BR>orders of magnitude greater than what it really was, =
then it=20
didn't happen<BR>and the argument is concluded.<BR><BR><BR>PART 3. ENTRY =
IMPACT=20
CALCULATIONS AT 90 DEGREE FUSELAGE ANGLE<BR><BR>By what means could a =
plane with=20
a wingspan of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft<BR>fly into a building, =
leaving a=20
hole 65 ft by 65 ft, leaving no significant<BR>wreckage outside? Is it =
possible=20
to calculate a wing angle at which the<BR>plane might have fitted =
through? If=20
not, where is the wreckage that did not<BR>enter the =
building?<BR><BR>The plane=20
cannot have impacted with the wings in a near parallel to the<BR>ground =
position=20
and have had the wings enter the building. If it impacted in<BR>this =
manner, the=20
wings must have broken off before they had a chance to hit<BR>the =
building. 125=20
ft of wing cannot pass through a wall without leaving a<BR>125 ft hole. =
In order=20
to suggest that the entire plane passed through the 65<BR>ft hole, we =
must=20
calculate the angle at which the wings would have to have<BR>been=20
tilted.<BR><BR><BR>This can be easily done with some graph =
paper.<BR><BR>Draw a=20
baseline, representing 65 ft - the width of the hole. Draw =
vertical<BR>lines at=20
each end, representing 77 ft - the height of the building. Draw =
a<BR>line=20
representing 125 ft - the wingspan, starting it from the bottom =
left<BR>corner,=20
towards the top right corner, at the angle necessary for the<BR>wingspan =
line=20
not to intersect the right hand vertical line. You'll see that<BR>it is =
possible=20
for the plane to pass through the 65 ft wide hole, but not<BR>for all of =
the=20
wingspan to pass within the impact area. A significant<BR>portion of one =
wing=20
has passed above the building, avoiding any impact. This<BR>section of =
wing=20
measures about 25 ft - almost 1/2 a wing.<BR>The minimum possible amount =
of the=20
plane which can have avoided the impact<BR>area is a figure something =
greater=20
than this because the analysis has been<BR>biased by a number of =
factors, beyond=20
credibility in favour of fitting the<BR>plane through.<BR><BR>1) =
assuming the=20
original impact area to be 65 ft wide, when we know that it<BR>was =
significantly=20
smaller.<BR><BR>2) assuming the lower wing tip to be at ground level, =
which it=20
may not have<BR>been.<BR><BR>3) assuming the angle of the fuselage to =
the wall=20
to be 90 degrees, meaning<BR>that the plane travelled straight through, =
not=20
widening the impact area<BR>beyond it's own effective horizontal width. =
For=20
example, if the fuselage<BR>struck at a 45 degree angle, with the same =
degree of=20
wing tilt, it would<BR>create an impact hole 97.5 ft wide.You can plot =
this on=20
graph paper too. If<BR>you draw two parallel lines straight up the page, =

crossing a line drawn<BR>horizontally, the width of line they pass =
across is=20
equal to the distance<BR>between the parallel lines. If you draw the =
lines at a=20
45 degree angle to<BR>the horizontal line, they intersect with an area =
1.5 times=20
the distance<BR>between them. So as soon as any angle is postulated for =
the=20
approach of the<BR>fuselage, then the wings need to be tilted harder in =
order to=20
fit into the<BR>65 ft hole, increasing the amount of wing that passed =
above the=20
impact area.<BR>If we postulate the wings to be tilted at a ridiculous =
angle=20
like 80<BR>degrees, not only does this increase the area of wing that's =
passed=20
above<BR>the impact zone, but also causes the fuselage to be almost at =
the top=20
of the<BR>building, meaning that one of the 15 ft tail fins, now =
pointing=20
almost<BR>straight up, starts to protrude above the impact zone. It =
doesn't=20
matter how<BR>the angle of approach or wing tilt is juggled. It's =
impossible to=20
fit<BR>anything remotely approaching the entire plane into the impact=20
zone.<BR><BR>Therefore, this substantial portion of the plane did not =
hit the=20
building<BR>and cannot have been pulverized amid the rubble, and must be =

accounted for<BR>in some other way.<BR><BR>To give an idea of how much =
the=20
unaccounted for section of wing increases if<BR>we lessen the degree of =
bias,=20
here is a different set of assumptions.<BR><BR>Original width of hole 40 =
ft.=20
Lower wing tip 10 ft above the ground.<BR><BR>The amount of the wing =
which would=20
now pass above the impact point would be<BR>about 47 ft. And the entire =
upper=20
tail fin would no longer fit in sideways,<BR>because the bottom of the =
heavily=20
tilted fuselage would be hard up against<BR>the right edge of the =
hole.The wing=20
angle could be tilted more heavily to<BR>fit in the tail fin, but this =
further=20
increases the length of wing passing<BR>above the impact zone. This is =
still=20
assuming a fuselage angle of 90<BR>degrees, and a hole larger than what =
it=20
really was. So we have to stretch<BR>the variables beyond credibility in =
favour=20
of the 757 theory just to reduce<BR>the unaccounted for piece of wing to =
25=20
ft.<BR><BR>Since this large portion of wing would not have had any =
serious=20
impact upon<BR>it, there is no reason for it to have been pulverized =
into=20
nothing, unless<BR>there was an explosion powerful enough to cremate the =
wings=20
right to the<BR>extremities. If this did not occur, then this section of =
wing=20
would have<BR>suffered no impact other than that of falling to the =
ground or on=20
to a roof<BR>after it broke off. It's conceivable that it could have =
broken up=20
into a few<BR>smaller pieces, but not to have been pulverized beyond =
evidence of=20
it ever<BR>existing. So there should be evidence of a large piece of =
wing, or=20
several<BR>pieces, large enough to be clearly identifiable, outside the =
crash=20
site, or<BR>possibly sitting on top of the rubble. Most likely, it =
(they) would=20
have<BR>finished up somewhere inside the courtyard or on a roof. The =
chance of=20
it<BR>finishing up on top of the rubble would be small, the chance of =
being=20
buried<BR>under the rubble, negligible, and the chance of being under =
the rubble=20
and<BR>smashed into pieces too small to identify, effectively =
zero.<BR><BR>No=20
evidence exists of any such wreckage, and there is no reason why =
it<BR>should=20
not have been found and presented if it existed. We must =
therefore<BR>conclude=20
that if the 757 theory is to be kept alive, one has to postulate =
an<BR>explosion=20
significant enough to cremate an entire length of wing =
beyond<BR>evidence that=20
it ever existed. Because the only available energy source for<BR>such an =

explosion is the fuel, and an explosion must generate force =
equally<BR>in all=20
directions, this forces us to the conclusion that most of the =
plane<BR>must have=20
been similarly cremated by the explosion.There is also the problem<BR>of =
the=20
tail. Being the last part of the plane to enter the building, =
the<BR>wall should=20
already have been smashed down by the time it entered. So the<BR>tail =
should=20
have suffered less impact than the forward part of the =
plane,<BR>increasing the=20
likelihood of large identifiable pieces being found. That no<BR>evidence =
remains=20
of it also forces us to postulate a massive explosion<BR>capable of =
cremating=20
it.<BR>Before examining this question further, I will now do the same =
style=20
of<BR>analysis on the scenario of the plane hitting the wall with the=20
wings<BR>approximately parallel to the ground.<BR><BR>If this happened, =
it is=20
clear that the wings never contacted the wall. They<BR>certainly did not =
pass=20
through. The hole is 60 ft too narrow, leaving 30 ft<BR>of each wing =
that cannot=20
have passed through. And there is no evidence of<BR>any damage to the =
sides of=20
the hole that would indicate contact of this<BR>type. If the wings did =
hit the=20
wall, they can't have simply bounced off,<BR>without leaving any damage =
to the=20
wall, while simultaneously cremating<BR>themselves from the force of the =
impact.=20
Especially if the fuselage was<BR>apparently able to plough =
significantly into=20
the building, before being<BR>cremated. Not only is the fuselage =
penetration=20
indicative of the test of<BR>strength between the wall and the plane, =
but the=20
wall would have been<BR>weakened by being split open by the fuselage, =
making it=20
easier for the wings<BR>and tail as they followed. So in the event of =
the wings=20
being parallel,<BR>since no wreckage exists to support their existence, =
we must=20
also postulate<BR>an explosion significant enough to cremate the wings =
to their=20
extremities,<BR>in order to account for the two missing 30 ft=20
sections.<BR><BR>Regardless of at what angle the wings may have been =
tilted, it=20
is impossible<BR>for all of the wreckage to have been impacted, buried =
and=20
crushed beyond<BR>identification within the rubble of the 65 ft by 65 ft =
area of=20
wall damage.<BR>A significant section of at least one wing, something =
more than=20
25 ft long,<BR>never entered the impact zone, and cannot have been =
cremated by=20
impact<BR>alone, and yet appears to have vanished. The lack of any other =

wreckage also<BR>indicates cremation. And since explosions generate =
force=20
equally in all<BR>directions, one can't postulate an explosion powerful =
enough=20
to cremate the<BR>extremities of the plane - tail, nose and wing tips =
without=20
postulating that<BR>the entire plane was cremated.<BR><BR>Therefore, it =
is=20
either drop the 757 theory or postulate an explosion<BR>powerful enough =
to=20
cremate the wreckage to the point that no evidence<BR>remains of it's=20
existence.<BR><BR>Before examining in detail the explosion question, =
lets look=20
at the depth of<BR>the hole. 65 ft. The length of the alleged plane was =
155 ft.=20
Nothing<BR>identifiable remains of any part of the plane. If we were not =
to=20
postulate<BR>an explosion we would have to suggest that the fuselage was =

compacted to 40%<BR>of it's original length - at least, just to explain =
the lack=20
of damage to<BR>the second ring. That's assuming the entire depth of the =
first=20
ring to have<BR>been burst through in the initial impact, and part of =
the=20
compacted plane to<BR>have protruded out into the space between the two =
rings.=20
But if such<BR>compacted wreckage came to rest there, it would be highly =

visible, and<BR>without a subsequent explosion, there is no way to =
explain where=20
the<BR>compacted fuselage went. So the entire length of the plane needs =
to=20
be<BR>compacted into the space of the first ring - about 30 ft - quite=20
impossible.<BR>One would have to suggest that the fuselage compacted to =
about 20=20
% of it's<BR>length against the unyielding wall, and then suddenly burst =

through, coming<BR>to rest inside as a 30 ft lump amongst the rubble. Or =

alternatively, that it<BR>was still being compacted even after it burst =
through,=20
meaning that as the<BR>rear of the plane entered, the rubble and the =
compacted=20
remains of the front<BR>of the plane, were still providing significant=20
resistance, like a person<BR>trying to hold a door shut against a =
stronger=20
opponent, and being gradually<BR>pushed back. This can't happen. The =
wall either=20
holds or it doesn't. The<BR>plane either penetrates or compacts. It =
doesn't do=20
both simultaneously. It's<BR>possible that there could have been a =
certain=20
amount of compaction before<BR>penetration, but at some point the wall =
had to=20
give way, and once it did,<BR>there would be no more compaction. If it's =
going=20
to give way, it will be<BR>early in the process. And yet, postulating a =
50 %=20
compaction of 90 % of the<BR>plane, before it suddenly burst through - =
which is=20
quite impossible - would<BR>still leave a final fuselage length of 85 ft =
to be=20
accounted for - also<BR>impossible. And this still leaves unsolved the =
problem=20
of what happened to<BR>it afterwards.<BR>There's a severe problem not =
only with=20
the width of the impact area, but<BR>also the depth. Neither the =
fuselage nor=20
the wings can fit into the allotted<BR>space.<BR>Postulating an angled =
entry=20
slightly reduces the amount of compaction<BR>required, but not by the =
orders of=20
magnitude necessary to fundamentally<BR>solve the problem. For example, =
if one=20
was to redo the last calculation on<BR>the basis of a 45 degree entry, =
it would=20
be reduced to a 42% compaction of<BR>90 % of the plane before bursting =
through,=20
leaving an 85 foot length of<BR>wreckage, which lying at a 45 degree =
angle,=20
would leave about 37 ft of<BR>fuselage extending beyond the first ring, =
almost=20
reaching the second. And<BR>there would now be either a wider entry =
hole, or a=20
greater section of wing<BR>which missed the impact zone. .Although =
debris of=20
some kind exists, there is<BR>nothing of enough substance to provide any =

evidence of what kind of plane it<BR>was, and the volume is insufficient =
to=20
account for anything remotely<BR>approaching the dimensions under =
discussion.=20
This is further proof that in<BR>order to keep the 757 theory alive, we =
must=20
postulate an explosion which<BR>cremated the plane.<BR><BR>PART 4. =
EXPLOSION=20
ANALYSIS AT 90 DEGREE FUSELAGE ANGLE<BR><BR>The only available energy =
source for=20
such an explosion is the fuel load,<BR>which means that the explosion =
must have=20
been centred in the fuselage. An<BR>explosion generates force equally in =
all=20
directions. It had to have cremated<BR>both ends of the plane, which =
means that=20
the minimum force which can be<BR>postulated is one sufficient to =
destroy a tail=20
or nose from 77 ft away. That<BR>'s what was required if the explosion =
occurred=20
in the exact centre of the<BR>plane. Shifting it away from the centre =
means that=20
less force is needed at<BR>one end, but more at another. Since the force =
must be=20
generated equally in<BR>all directions, the smallest force we can =
postulate is=20
one emanating from<BR>the centre, if we assume the force needed for =
cremation to=20
be equal at both<BR>ends. Because any discrepancy in relation to that =
question=20
is not<BR>calculable, I will assume that to be the case. If it is =
incorrect, it=20
won't<BR>effect the integrity of the following analysis, because it=20
reveals<BR>fundamental problems with the scenario as a whole, which =
can't be=20
solved by<BR>shifting the problem from one part of the plane to another. =
An=20
equal force<BR>must have been generated forward of the centre point, =
behind it,=20
above it,<BR>and below it. (At least potentially so, if not blocked by =
the=20
ground ) So we<BR>must draw a 3D circle around the centre of the plane, =
and know=20
that every<BR>point on the edge of that circle was impacted by a force=20
sufficient to<BR>cremate the tail of a plane, and that all points closer =
to the=20
centre were<BR>subject to an even greater force.<BR><BR>If the plane =
blew up as=20
it was entering the building, there are two basic<BR>scenarios. 1) The =
centre of=20
the explosion was inside the building. For<BR>example, the plane entered =
with=20
the wings sharply titled, and exploded after<BR>the wings had entered =
(and=20
passed above ) the impact area. 2) The explosion<BR>occurred outside the =

building, because it happened earlier in the process<BR>than in scenario =

1).<BR><BR>The previous analysis of the depth problem tells us that =
scenario 1)=20
is<BR>impossible. If the plane was half way into the building (77 ft=20
of<BR>penetration), then even allowing for 12 ft of compacting, the nose =

would<BR>have been hard up against the second ring when the explosion =
took=20
place.<BR>There's no sign of such damage to the second ring. =
Nevertheless,=20
I'll<BR>explore the full implications of the "inside the building" =
scenario,=20
just to<BR>make sure that nothing is left out.<BR><BR>Assuming half the =
plane to=20
be inside the building, and the explosion to be<BR>just inside the hole, =
at this=20
time the tail is still about 77 ft to the<BR>front of the wall. It's =
exposure to=20
the blast is partly shielded by the fact<BR>that the explosion is =
actually=20
inside the collapsing section of the<BR>building. The same goes for the =
nose=20
which is, allowing for compaction,<BR>about 60 ft forward of the blast =
centre,=20
outside the collapsing ring. And<BR>yet both were cremated. So we have =
to=20
increase the alleged power of the<BR>blast to account for the shielding =
of the=20
front and rear extremities. We can<BR>'t quantify the shielding, and =
must note=20
that because the wall had been<BR>smashed down by this time, the =
shielding may=20
have been small, but we can say<BR>that the force of the explosion was =
something=20
greater than what was needed<BR>to cremate the nose and tail, had the =
plane been=20
in the open.<BR><BR>What would have received the greatest impact from =
this=20
blast? The centre of<BR>the fuselage, and the first ring of the =
building. The=20
explosion was right<BR>inside it. So the building was subject to a force =

significantly greater than<BR>that of the cremated nose and =
tail.<BR><BR>What=20
was the effect on the building of this massive blast ? =
Nothing,<BR>apparently.=20
It had already been split open and weakened by the impact of =
the<BR>plane=20
entering it. It appears to have suffered no extra damage as a =
result<BR>of the=20
explosion. The wall face was negligibly damaged beyond a width of =
65<BR>ft -=20
less, when we take into account that the original hole was =
smaller.<BR>Neither=20
was the inside area of the wall, behind the face, =
significantly<BR>damaged=20
width-wise beyond this point. Neither did the force of the =
explosion<BR>have any=20
effect further into the building. The second ring, right next to<BR>the =
cremated=20
nose, closer than the cremated tail, suffered no damage. If =
the<BR>explosion was=20
centred in the middle of the 65 ft hole, just inside the<BR>building, =
then=20
allowing for the width of the fuselage, it means that the<BR>wall =
suffered=20
negligible sideways damage only 26 ft from the edges of the<BR>fuselage =
which=20
was cremated. Speculation that the wall was of an<BR>extraordinarily =
strong=20
construction, apart from suggesting an impossible<BR>strength, makes no=20
contribution to explaining these anomalies. If it was so<BR>tough, then =
how did=20
the plane slice it's way into it to begin with? We'd<BR>have to believe =
that in=20
the test of strength between the plane and the wall,<BR>that the plane=20
penetrated the solid wall, but was then completely<BR>obliterated by an=20
explosion which had no effect on the now damaged and<BR>weakened =
building. This=20
isn't possible.<BR><BR>There's a further problem. A number of alleged =
witnesses=20
claim that small<BR>pieces of the plane were scattered over a wide area. =
One=20
(Mike Walter, who's<BR>report I reviewed in a previous article linked =
later in=20
this article) said<BR>he saw debris up on the overpass. Penny Elgas =
(report=20
reviewed later in this<BR>article, said a piece of the plane landed in =
her car.=20
A number of photos (<BR>examined later) purport to show small fragments =
of the=20
plane, flung out<BR>considerable distances from the scene. But =
curiously, none=20
of these alleged<BR>witnesses or any of the photos describe showers of =
rubble=20
from the building.<BR>Why aren't there stone pieces scattered all over =
the=20
place, if the building<BR>was the centrepoint of the =
explosion?<BR><BR>But this=20
is an aside from the main proof. The scenario of the explosion<BR>inside =
the=20
building is impossible on two counts.<BR>1) That an explosion of =
sufficient=20
power to cremate a 100 ton aircraft, some<BR>of it at distances of 77 ft =
away,=20
could have no impact on an already partly<BR>demolished stone building, =
which=20
was at the centre of the blast.<BR><BR>2)That not enough length of plane =
could=20
have entered the building, unless<BR>one is to suggest that the =
explosion=20
occurred right at the front of the<BR>plane, which then forces one to =
increase=20
it's alleged power by orders of<BR>magnitude to cremate the rear, more =
than 140=20
ft away, compounding the<BR>problems of reason 1.<BR><BR>So it's =
impossible for=20
the explosion to have occurred inside the building.<BR><BR>In order to =
keep the=20
757 theory alive, we must postulate that the explosion<BR>took place =
outside the=20
building. Then we have the same problem in reverse.<BR>Suppose the =
centre point=20
of the explosion was the centre of the plane. If it<BR>took place when =
the wings=20
were close to the wall, then the wall was still<BR>subject to the =
maximum force.=20
A greater force than that applied to the tail.<BR>And the nose is now =
the part=20
that's shielded, inside the wall. If the 125ft<BR>wingspan was parallel =
and=20
right next to the wall and was cremated, then<BR>there should be 125 ft =
of=20
severe damage along the wall, and an extensive<BR>area of gradually =
declining=20
damage beyond this point. If we tilt the wings<BR>at 45 degrees, to =
reduce the=20
effective horizontal width and effective height<BR>of the wingspan to =
about 90=20
ft, meaning that no part of the wing was further<BR>than 90 ft from the =
blast,=20
we must still postulate an area of massively<BR>destructive force at =
least 90 ft=20
wide along the wall face, with gradually<BR>declining severity of damage =
further=20
to the sides. There can't have been a<BR>sudden cut off point for damage =
to the=20
wall. It would have been pulverized<BR>to nothing at the centre point, =
gradually=20
reducing in severity, to cosmetic<BR>damage such as broken windows, =
blackening=20
and superficial face damage at a<BR>point significantly beyond the =
wingspan=20
width. Since the wall shows<BR>negligible damage beyond 65 ft, the =
damaged area=20
isn't wide enough to<BR>accommodate speculation of the nearby wings =
being=20
blasted into nothing. Even<BR>if the plane went in at the crazy angle of =
a 90=20
degree wing tilt, the wing<BR>extremities covering a total span of 125 =
ft, above=20
and below the explosion<BR>still have to be cremated, meaning that an =
equal span=20
of force has to be<BR>generated sideways along the wallface. And yet =
somehow the=20
building escapes<BR>with negligible damage beyond a total span of 65 ft. =
So this=20
didn't happen<BR>either.<BR>The last hope is to suggest that the =
explosion took=20
place almost at the<BR>instant of impact, before the plane had =
significantly=20
penetrated the wall.<BR>This places the centre of the blast the maximum =
possible=20
distance from the<BR>wall - about 77 ft. It makes no difference to try =
to=20
compound this by<BR>suggesting that the blast was also further towards =
the back=20
of the plane,<BR>because then we have to increase it's power, to account =
for the=20
cremated<BR>nose. The wall, at the point where the nose struck, still =
has to=20
be<BR>receiving a force equal to that necessary to destroy the =
nose.<BR><BR>If=20
we draw the 77 ft circle around the middle of the plane, the =
extremities<BR>of=20
the 65 ft hole are only about 8 ft beyond the circle, meaning that =
this<BR>width=20
of wall should still have been subject to massive force, and that =
we<BR>should=20
still be seeing very significant damage beyond this width. At 50 =
ft<BR>either=20
side of the centre of the nose, creating a wallface length of 100 =
ft,<BR>the=20
wall is only about 16 ft from the circle. So although the scenario =
is<BR>not as=20
ridiculous as the previous scenarios, it's still impossible =
to<BR>reconcile the=20
narrow area of significant damage to the wall with the<BR>enormous =
forces being=20
inflicted on the nearby plane. When one considers that<BR>only 16 ft =
away, the=20
blast is powerful enough to cremate a plane tail or<BR>nose, the impact =
on the=20
100 ft section of wall should be dramatic.<BR><BR>And this scenario =
creates=20
another problem. It requires the postulation that<BR>there was no =
significant=20
penetration of the plane into the wall. In this<BR>case, then virtually =
all of=20
the damage we see to the wall, was caused by the<BR>explosion, not the =
impact.=20
In this case, it's very difficult to create a<BR>plausible scenario for =
the=20
shape and size of the damage. The force would<BR>have been at it's =
greatest in=20
the centre where the nose was obliterated. It<BR>would have been =
gradually less=20
as you look to the sides. So the original<BR>damage should have been V =
shaped,=20
with the centre point of the V, in the<BR>middle of the 65 ft hole, and =
the wide=20
shallow area at the outside wall. No<BR>such evidence exists. What we =
see is a=20
neat rectangular hole. The obvious<BR>counter argument is that the =
original=20
shape of the hole has been masked by<BR>the later collapse of one wedge =
of the=20
wall, and that the early photos are<BR>too obscured by smoke and water =
to tell=20
us exactly how far and in what shape<BR>the original damage extended. =
Quite so,=20
but this admits that most of the<BR>damage wasn't even caused by the =
explosion=20
directly, but simply by the<BR>secondary collapse, meaning that the =
original=20
area of direct damage was<BR>tiny. For example, the points on the wall =
20 ft=20
each side of the centre,<BR>creating a total span of 40 ft, were only 5 =
ft=20
further away than the tail,<BR>which was allegedly cremated. So this =
area should=20
have been ferociously<BR>demolished in the original damage. Early photos =
show=20
this wasn't the case,<BR>and only 15 ft further to each side - points =
which are=20
only about 9 ft<BR>further from the blast than the tail, all we see are =
broken=20
windows. Some<BR>are still intact.<BR><BR>This photo demonstrates the =
absurdity=20
of this scenario<BR><BR></STRONG></FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.pbase.com/image/536173"><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#000080=20
size=3D2><STRONG>http://www.pbase.com/image/536173</STRONG></FONT></A><BR=
><BR><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000080 size=3D2><STRONG>The windows you can see =
just outside the=20
damage area are only about 10 ft<BR>further away from the blast centre =
than the=20
nose or tail would have been.<BR><BR>Trying to solve this problem is =
futile.The=20
fundamental problem is that the<BR>modest damage to the wall is not only =

irreconcilable with the impact of a<BR>such a large plane, but also=20
irreconcilable with the explosive forces needed<BR>to destroy =
one.<BR><BR>So any=20
scenario of the plane hitting the building at a 90 degree =
fuselage<BR>angle is=20
impossible. The wreckage is not inside the building, is not<BR>outside, =
and the=20
force of a blast powerful enough to cremate the missing<BR>wreckage was=20
impossible in the context of the wall damage.<BR><BR>PART 5 ENTRY =
CALCULATIONS -=20
FUSELAGE AT 45 DEGREES<BR><BR>The above calculations and analysis were =
based on=20
the assumption that the<BR>fuselage struck the wall at a 90 degree =
angle. This=20
wasn't because I<BR>necessarily believe that whatever hit the wall did =
so at=20
this angle. It was<BR>because it a) favoured the 757 theory to the =
maximum, by=20
keeping the entry<BR>point as narrow as possible, and b) kept the maths =
simple=20
as an introductory<BR>reference point to the problem.The calculations =
change for=20
every different<BR>angle assumed. It's impractical to do a separate =
analysis for=20
every possible<BR>angle, but neither is it necessary. It is sufficient =
to take a=20
snapshot half<BR>way through the range of possibilities. By assuming a =
fuselage=20
angle of 45<BR>degrees, we gain an insight into the trend of how the =
problem=20
changes by<BR>angling the fuselage.<BR>First, the parallel plane =
scenario.=20
Plotted on graph paper, this shows that<BR>at the point that the =
fuselage=20
strikes the wall, the inner wing tip is only<BR>about 18 ft from the =
wall. If=20
the fuselage continued to drive into the wall<BR>at this angle, the =
wingtip=20
would strike the wall about 65 ft from the near<BR>edge of the hole made =
by the=20
fuselage. If the wing was to slice into the<BR>wall, we should see a =
continuos=20
rip in the wall extending about 65 ft until<BR>it joined up with the =
fuselage=20
hole. Meanwhile, as the fuselage was driving<BR>deeper and wider, it =
would=20
create it's own hole moving further away at 45<BR>degrees. If the wall =
collapsed=20
along the fuselage impact area, then we'd see<BR>one long hole made by =
the=20
fuselage. If it punched through cleanly, we'd see<BR>a 45 degree tunnel, =
and a=20
separate hole starting 65 ft away from the<BR>southern edge, (assuming =
the plane=20
to have been coming from the south west.)<BR>From the size and shape of =
the=20
damage to the wall, we know that this didn't<BR>happen.<BR><BR>Let's =
straighten=20
up the angle of the plane to try place the wingtip strike<BR>within the =
65 ft=20
hole area. The hope here is that then the entry point of<BR>the inner =
wing might=20
come within the area where it was masked by the later<BR>collapse. I'm =
going to=20
try to create a scenario where there might have been<BR>one point of =
entry for=20
the fuselage, and a separate one less than 65 ft away<BR>for the wing, =
creating=20
two holes within a 65 ft area. This would appear to<BR>unsupported by =
early=20
photographic evidence, but we may be able to argue that<BR>the thick =
smoke and=20
the water jets at the time obscured it.<BR><BR>But it doesn't work. If =
we=20
straighten the angle to 67 degrees, it only<BR>reduces the distance of =
the=20
wingtip strike from the near edge of the<BR>fuselage strike by a few =
feet. Once=20
we straighten the angle further, it's<BR>almost back to the 90 degree =
scenario,=20
so there's no point in pursuing that<BR>further. This is before we =
introduce the=20
impact of the outer wing, which<BR>would slice a big hole to the north =
of the=20
fuselage area. Even if you ignore<BR>the previously examined problem of=20
compaction into the 65 ft depth, then<BR>connecting all this up into one =
hole,=20
creates one of about 140 ft wide<BR>before the second wing enters the =
building.=20
So the scenario of the fu