Physical
and mathematical analysis of Pentagon incident. by
Gerard Holmgren
Copyright.
This article may be freely reproduced providing it is not for commercial
purposes. Please quote the author’s name, the web address where you found it,
and the copyright notice.
It
is not in dispute that something hit the Pentagon wall and damaged it. Neither
is it in dispute that AA 77 is missing. But was AA 77 involved in the Pentagon
incident? This article presents an analysis of the physical aspects of the
incident, and concludes with a brief examination of the issue of
eyewitnesses WHERE
IS THE WRECKAGE OF AA 77? INTRODUCTION It
is alleged that on Sept 11, 2001 a hijacked Boeing 757, American Airlines Flight
77, hit the Pentagon. It is not in dispute that something hit the Pentagon wall
and damaged it. Neither is it in dispute that AA 77 is missing. But was AA 77
involved in the Pentagon incident? This article presents an analysis of the
physical aspects of the incident, and concludes with a brief examination of the
issue of eyewitnesses. The
Sept 11 crashes are unique and unprecedented events in the history of both the
press and aviation. In many cases, light plane crashes involving 2 to 3 people
have triggered investigations which continued for years. Considering that the
explosion and cremation of planes had never before happened, the lack of
reporting and/or official investigation is doubly puzzling. The issue of whether
a crash results from sabotage or accident should be irrelevant to the alarming
question of why four planes allegedly cremated themselves as a result of low to
medium impact crashes. One
of the purposes of accident reconstruction in plane crashes is to determine what
failed and therefore what is subject to improvement. Normally, the press
releases the findings as news in the public interest. Professional analytical
information has not been released on the September 11 crashes. If it exists (for
insurance purposes, for instance), it has not been released. Why have
authorities and the press treated the Sept 11 crashes differently? Who is doing
the professional analysis and why does the public not have access to
it? PART
1. PLANE SPECIFICATIONS
Sourced
from http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/http:/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack_757200.htm and
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech.html Wingspan
124 ft 10 in (hereafter rounded to 125 ft) Length 155 ft 3 in (rounded to 155
ft) Tail height (with landing gear extended ) 44 ft 6 in Fuselage Width 12 ft 4
in (rounded to 12 ft ) Max fuel capacity 11,489 gallons Max range 4449 miles Max
take off weight 255,000 lb. The
following specifications were not directly available from any source I could
find, but I calculated them based on the above figures, after measuring diagrams
and photos. Exact accuracy cannot be guaranteed, but they are close and are
sufficient for this analysis. Tail
height (without landing gear extended) 35 ft Fuselage height (without landing
gear extended) 14 ft 6 in (7 ft 3 in above wings, 7 ft 3 in below wings)) Length
of each wing 56 ft 3 in Engine diameter. 9 ft. 6 in Engine length 11 ft 6 in
Position of engine mounting on wing. Outer edge of engine 25 ft from where wing
joins fuselage. Width of each tail fin 15 ft 6 in Total tail fin span 39 ft
(fuselage is narrower at this point) An estimated 5 ft of engine is below
fuselage level, making the total height of the aircraft without landing gear
extended, 40 ft. You’ll
find the calculations throughout this article easier to critically analyse, if
you write down the above figures before continuing. PART
2. ESTIMATIONS OF HOLE DIMENSIONS
Based
on this and other similar photos, I
have estimated the hole in the Pentagon wall to be about 65 ft wide, by
comparing it with the height of the building which is 77
ft. http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon/facts.html Depth
of damage. This is more complex. The Pentagon consists of 5 rings of building,
each separated by a space between. I couldn’t find any source which directly
stated figures for the depth of the rings and the spaces, and the perspective
problems of photos make it more difficult to estimate than the width. On the
basis of aerial photos, ( see the links below ) I have estimated the depth of
the ring itself to be about 32 ft, and the open space behind it, about the same.
The outer ring collapsed , leaving a total depth of about 65 ft that the plane
could potentially have fitted into, considering that the second ring of the
building was intact. http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-002.jpg
It
should be noted that the original hole was much smaller. The 65 ft wide hole
developed when a section of the wall collapsed later. http://66.129.143.7/june2aa.htm
Calculations
based on the 65 ft wide and deep (including open space between the rings) hole
which developed later, are unreasonably generous to the 757 argument.
Nevertheless, I will continue to conduct the analysis on that basis. I am going
to attempt to prove that it was physically possible for a Boeing 757 to crash
into that section of wall, in a manner consistent with the photographic
evidence. If I manage to prove that it was physically possible, that doesn’t
prove that it happened - it simply keeps the argument alive. If it proves to be
impossible, even by expanding the assumed hole to orders of magnitude greater
than what it really was, then it didn’t happen and the argument is
concluded. PART
3. ENTRY IMPACT CALCULATIONS AT 90 DEGREE FUSELAGE ANGLE
By
what means could a plane with a wingspan of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft fly
into a building, leaving a hole 65 ft by 65 ft, leaving no significant wreckage
outside? Is it possible to calculate a wing angle at which the plane might have
fitted through? If not, where is the wreckage that did not enter the
building? The
plane cannot have impacted with the wings in a near parallel to the ground
position and have had the wings enter the building. If it impacted in this
manner, the wings must have broken off before they had a chance to hit the
building. 125 ft of wing cannot pass through a wall without leaving a 125 ft
hole. In order to suggest that the entire plane passed through the 65 ft hole,
we must calculate the angle at which the wings would have to have been
tilted. This
can be easily done with some graph paper. The
minimum possible amount of the plane which can have avoided the impact area is a
figure something greater than this because the analysis has been biased by a
number of factors, beyond credibility in favour of fitting the plane
through.
Therefore,
this substantial portion of the plane did not hit the building and cannot have
been pulverized amid the rubble, and must be accounted for in some other
way. To
give an idea of how much the unaccounted for section of wing increases if we
lessen the degree of bias, here is a different set of assumptions. No
evidence exists of any such wreckage, and there is no reason why it should not
have been found and presented if it existed. We must therefore conclude that if
the 757 theory is to be kept alive, one has to postulate an explosion
significant enough to cremate an entire length of wing beyond evidence that it
ever existed. Because the only available energy source for such an explosion is
the fuel, and an explosion must generate force equally in all directions, this
forces us to the conclusion that most of the plane must have been similarly
cremated by the explosion.There is also the problem of the tail. Being the last
part of the plane to enter the building, the wall should already have been
smashed down by the time it entered. So the tail should have suffered less
impact than the forward part of the plane, increasing the likelihood of large
identifiable pieces being found. That no evidence remains of it also forces us
to postulate a massive explosion capable of cremating it. Before
examining this question further, I will now do the same style of analysis on the
scenario of the plane hitting the wall with the wings approximately parallel to
the ground. If
this happened, it is clear that the wings never contacted the wall. They
certainly did not pass through. The hole is 60 ft too narrow, leaving 30 ft of
each wing that cannot have passed through. And there is no evidence of any
damage to the sides of the hole that would indicate contact of this type. If the
wings did hit the wall, they can’t have simply bounced off, without leaving any
damage to the wall, while simultaneously cremating themselves from the force of
the impact. Especially if the fuselage was apparently able to plough
significantly into the building, before being cremated. Not only is the fuselage
penetration indicative of the test of strength between the wall and the plane,
but the wall would have been weakened by being split open by the fuselage,
making it easier for the wings and tail as they followed. So in the event of the
wings being parallel, since no wreckage exists to support their existence, we
must also postulate an explosion significant enough to cremate the wings to
their extremities, in order to account for the two missing 30 ft
sections. Regardless
of at what angle the wings may have been tilted, it is impossible for all of the
wreckage to have been impacted, buried and crushed beyond identification within
the rubble of the 65 ft by 65 ft area of wall damage. A significant section of
at least one wing, something more than 25 ft long, never entered the impact
zone, and cannot have been cremated by impact alone, and yet appears to have
vanished. The lack of any other wreckage also indicates cremation. And since
explosions generate force equally in all directions, one can’t postulate an
explosion powerful enough to cremate the extremities of the plane - tail, nose
and wing tips without postulating that the entire plane was
cremated. Therefore,
it is either drop the 757 theory or postulate an explosion powerful enough to
cremate the wreckage to the point that no evidence remains of it’s existence.
There’s
a severe problem not only with the width of the impact area, but also the depth.
Neither the fuselage nor the wings can fit into the allotted
space. Postulating
an angled entry slightly reduces the amount of compaction required, but not by
the orders of magnitude necessary to fundamentally solve the problem. For
example, if one was to redo the last calculation on the basis of a 45 degree
entry, it would be reduced to a 42% compaction of 90 % of the plane before
bursting through, leaving an 85 foot length of wreckage, which lying at a 45
degree angle, would leave about 37 ft of fuselage extending beyond the first
ring, almost reaching the second. And there would now be either a wider entry
hole, or a greater section of wing which missed the impact zone. .Although
debris of some kind exists, there is nothing of enough substance to provide any
evidence of what kind of plane it was, and the volume is insufficient to account
for anything remotely approaching the dimensions under discussion. This is
further proof that in order to keep the 757 theory alive, we must postulate an
explosion which cremated the plane. |
