Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. wrote:
> In article <bnfdnd$99m$1@pencil.math.missouri.edu>, President, USA
> Exile Govt. says...
>>
>> Forwarded with Compliments of Government of the USA in Exile (GUSAE):
>> Free Americans Resisting the Fourth Reich on Behalf of All Species.
>> NOTE: Thanks to physics911.org for this. -- kl, pp
>>
>> The Missing Wings
>>
>> A Comparison of actual and expected wing debris resulting
>> from the impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building
>>
>> A. K. Dewdney and G. W. Longspaugh
>>
>> Version is 1.0, 20th October 2003. Please note text is subject to
>> revision.
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>> Detailed analysis of the debris field, physical damage, and other
>> factors in the alleged impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon
>> building on the morning of September 11, 2001 reveals an almost
>> complete absence of debris expected from such an event. (Elliott
>> 2003) The initial (pre-collapse) hole made by the alleged impact on
>> the ground floor of Wedge One of the building is too small to admit
>> an entire Boeing 757. In order to decide whether or not a Boeing 757
>> (or aircraft of comparable size) struck the Pentagon on the morning
>> in question, a comprehensive review of all the debris and other
>> physical evidence is hardly necessary. It turns out that a study of
>> the wings alone suffices for the purpose.
>>
>> Wings that should have been sheared off by the impact are entirely
>> absent. There is also substantial evidence of debris from a much
>> smaller, jet-powered aircraft inside the building. We conclude with a
>> high degree of certainty that no Boeing 757 struck the building. We
>> also conclude with a substantial degree of certainty that a smaller,
>> single-engined aircraft, roughly the size and shape of an F-16, did,
>> in fact, strike the building.
>>
>> Introduction
>>
>> Over the last two years, beginning with the investigations of Thierry
>> Meyssan's (Meyssan 2002) and continuing to the present time, there
>> have been numerous claims that American Airlines Flight 77 did not
>> strike the Pentagon building. (Citoyen 2003) (Desmoulins 2003)
>> Although we have arrived at similar conclusions, we do so on the
>> basis of a more precise analysis, one that appeals less to visual
>> inspection of photographs than to measurements, aerospace archives,
>> and to engineering and physical analysis of the Boeing 757, as well
>> as the structure of the Pentagon walls in the area of the impact.
>>
>> The analysis is, for the most part, of the simplest type, such as any
>> reasonably bright high school student might follow.
>>
>> This approach has become necessary in the climate of suspicion that
>> surrounds any attempt to question publicly the claims by major media
>> outlets that Arab hijackers, with one Hani Hanjour in the pilot's
>> seat, brought the aircraft in precisely on target. It is certainly
>> true that Mr. Hanjour failed flying tests, dropped out of flight
>> school twice, and on one occasion, a mere three weeks before the
>> September attacks, was denied permission to rent a Cessna because he
>> showed an almost complete lack of knowledge of aircraft
>> instrumentation to rental personnel (Nat. J. 2003). It does little
>> good to point these facts out publicly, however, because they are
>> only what we call "suspicious circumstances."
>>
>> In short, a devil's advocate might claim that in the three weeks
>> before his failed rental attempt and the morning of September 11, he
>> somehow acquired the necessary expertise to carry out a high-speed
>> turn and dive worthy of a military pilot. We will show that it makes
>> no difference whether Hanjour was an expert pilot or not. There are
>> direct physical contradictions between the claims of the Bush White
>> House, as echoed by the major media, and the facts on the ground.
>> These contradictions are outside the control of the media, Mr
>> Hanjour, or the authors, for that matter.
>>
>> The analysis presented here is based entirely on standard and/or
>> official sources, such as the engineering report issued under the
>> auspices of the American society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), as
>> directed by an army engineering officer as chair. (ASCE 2003) That
>> particular document details the damage to support columns inside the
>> building, as well as providing an accurate track for the incoming
>> aircraft, as revealed by the penetration of a presumed engine core to
>> the rear of the inner ring. It was not within the mandate of the
>> inquiry to determine what aircraft struck the Pentagon, but rather to
>> evaluate how well the building withstood the impact, fire, and
>> subsequent collapse of a section of the building.
>>
>> Our general approach to the analysis that follows is to assume,
>> whenever a range of options presents itself, that the White House
>> version of events on September 11 is the correct one. For example, in
>> determining the alignment of the incoming Boeing 757 engines with the
>> support columns of the Pentagon, we have arranged the aircraft so
>> that the engines were most likely to miss the columns that remained
>> standing after the impact, in spite of the fact that a) this
>> particular alignment was rather unlikely and b) the engines would
>> probably have taken out at least one of the columns, even with this
>> alignment.
>>
>> In the first section below, we list all the relevant dimensions for
>> two types of aircraft, as well as the walls of the Pentagon building.
>> In the second section, we bring these elements together in a
>> relatively simple analysis that uses basic principles and methods of
>> physics and engineering that leave little doubt about the conclusions
>> reached here.
>>
>> At the very end of this article, we construct a mini-scenario that is
>> consistent with both eyewitness reports and the conclusions reached
>> in the analysis.
>>
>> Measurements and dimensions
>>
>> Two types of numerical data appear below. Manufacturer's data may be
>> considered as accurate to within the last digit that appears in a
>> dimension. For example, if the Boeing company gives the wingspan of
>> the Boeing 757 as 127 feet, we assume that the measurement is
>> accurate to the nearest 6 inches, that being the midway point between
>> one length given in feet and the one next higher or lower.
>> Measurements acquired from photographs use simple scaling to provide
>> estimates of dimensions (measurements, in effect) that carry an
>> inherent error that is comparable to error term as it applies to
>> manufacturer's data.
>>
>> Although we shall work primarily in meters, the international units
>> used by all scientists, we shall constantly provide equivalent
>> dimensions in feet and, where relevant, inches.
>>
>> The Boeing 757 used by American Airlines Flight 77 was, as far as we
>> can determine, the non-extended model, certainly the most common
>> version of this aircraft. The relevant dimensions (Flugzeugtriebwerke
>> 2003) (Infoplease 2003) follow. Dimensions with the word "derived"
>> following them were derived from accurate drawings and a
>> straightforward scaling technique.
>>
>> Relevant dimensions of Boeing 757
>>
>> wingspan: 38.1 m (125')
>> inter-engine span:
>> center-to-centre: 16.3 m (49' 11") (derived)
>> outside span: 18.5 m (60' 8") (derived)
>> engine nacelle diameter: 2.5 m (8' 2") (derived)
>> max. diameter of fuselage: 3.6 m (12' 4")
>> max. height of fuselage: 4.0 m (13' 2")
>> weight of engine*: 4,147-4,374 kg
>>
>> Relevant dimensions of Pentagon (Infoplease, 2003)
>>
>> height of building: 23.6 m (77' 3")
>> inter-window distance: 3.1 m (10' 1") (derived)
>> inter-column distance: 3.1 m (10' 1") (derived)
>>
>> Relevant dimensions of McDonnell-Douglas F-16 (USAF Museum 2003)
>>
>> wingspan: 32 ft. 10 in.
>> Length: 49 ft. 6 in.
>> Weight: 29,896 lbs. loaded
>>
>> Analysis
>>
>> Claims that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon are difficult to
>> substantiate on the basis of available evidence, primarily a suite of
>> photographs taken by various individuals present at the scene, not to
>> mention images captured by security cameras in operation at the time
>> of the crash. We have, however, made every effort to accommodate the
>> Boeing 757 as the crash vehicle.
>>
>> The most helpful document in this regard is a report entitled
>> Pentagon Performance Review, issued by the American Society of Civil
>> Engineers. A diagram in that document clearly shows several tiers of
>> support columns on the ground floor of the building (Wedge One) in
>> the area of the impact. Although many columns within the general area
>> remained standing, others were completely taken out by the initial
>> impact or bent to one side, either by the impact or subsequent
>> collapse of the floors above the affected area.
>>
>> The outermost tier of columns is located just inside the Pentagon
>> wall, a nearly three-foot thick structure of brick, concrete and
>> limestone facing. Between every pair of adjacent windows there is a
>> column behind the wall. Since the inter-window distance is 3.1 m (10'
>> 1"), so is the intercolumn distance. This dimension was developed by
>> direct measurement from clear photos of the building, using known
>> distances such as the height of the pentagon and simple mathematical
>> scaling. The error term is approximately 5 percent.
>>
>> In the engineering report, four of the columns are missing
>> altogether, while a fifth column on the right side of the initial
>> hole is bent (outward) but intact. We may therefore take the width of
>> the gap as 5x3.1 = 15.5 m (50' 10")
>>
>> The track of the incoming aircraft, as measured by aligning the
>> entrance hole with the exit hole three rings into the building, is
>> approximately 45 degrees, with an error of three degrees in the
>> calculation. A similar angle is displayed in the engineering report.
>> Although we cannot say what the attitude of the incoming aircraft
>> was, the absence of any impact disturbance anywhere on the Pentagon
>> lawn area makes it clear that no part of the aircraft touched the
>> ground prior to impact. However, if the aircraft came in at a
>> significant angle relative to the horizontal, there should have been
>> a crater or an explosively excavated hole just inside the building.
>> Although the floor area was heavily scarred and burned in places, no
>> such damage was found by persons entering the building after the
>> flames were extinguished by firefighters. We may therefore assume
>> that the incoming aircraft entered the building at nearly level
>> attitude, leaving nearly all of its kinetic energy available for the
>> destruction of interior walls and columns.
>> Photomontage of Boeing 757 Superimposed on Pentagon Grounds
>>
>> An incoming angle of 45 degrees (horizontally) yields an effective
>> gap width of 15.5xcos(45) = 10.96 m from which we can subtract
>> approximately half a meter to allow for the half-width of the two
>> flanking columns. The effective gap width relative to an aircraft
>> approaching the building at a 45 degree angle would therefore be 10.5
>> m (34' 5")
>>
>> It can be adopted as a general, commonsense principle that if a
>> large, wide and heavy object, moving at a speed of hundreds of
>> kilometers an hour strikes but does not pass through a physical
>> barrier, it must remain on the side of the barrier it struck.
>> Although, large, heavy objects may be destroyed or damaged by such
>> impacts, neither they nor their debris vanish after such an event.
>>
>> We will concentrate on the wings of the Boeing 757, the dimensions of
>> which can be deduced from the data displayed above. The span-length
>> of each wing is:
>>
>> ((38.1 - 5.0)/2) = 16.6 m (54' 3").
>>
>> However, the wings of a 757 are swept back at an angle of 35 degrees,
>> as made by the leading edge with a line at right angles to the roll
>> axis of the aircraft . Applying the cosine function to determine the
>> length as measured along the leading edge yields a figure of 20.3 m
>> (66' 6").
>>
>> The figure below shows our reconstruction of the (alleged)
>> approaching aircraft in proximity to the building, with the 5-metre
>> wide fuselage creating a hole that was 15.5 m wide. The discrepancy
>> is partly due to the 45-degree approach angle and partly to the
>> strength of the wing-roots, which might well be expected to take out
>> a column or two as the aircraft entered the building.
>> Boeing 757 Engine and Wings in Relation to Impact
>>
>> As can be seen in the drawing, the engines could only have penetrated
>> the building by being allowed to slip between support columns. This
>> drawing was made before the authors viewed the ASCE engineering
>> report, but it happens to match it rather closely. There would be no
>> way, of course, for the wings to enter the building without taking
>> out any support columns in their path. Structural integrity of the
>> wings, as well as the lack of any holes on either side of the main
>> initial entrance hole, preclude the wings from breaking into
>> eight-foot fragments which then passed into the building
>> individually. In any case, a majority of the windows of the ground
>> floor (not to mention all floors above them) remained unbroken after
>> the crash.
>>
>> According to the principle that I have stated above, two wings, each
>> approximately 20 m long (however crumpled and damaged) must have
>> appeared in virtually all the photographs taken of the Pentagon
>> damage on the morning of September 11, 2001.
>>
>> However, there are other reasons why the wings might be absent from
>> the crash scene. Such reasons must be systematically listed and
>> evaluated:
>>
>> 1. Could the damaged wings have been carted off by cleanup crews? The
>> cleanup of the site did not begin until well after the morning hours
>> of the day in question.
>>
>> 2. Could the damaged wings have "telescoped" into the body of the
>> aircraft, as claimed by the Dept. of Defence? This claim was clearly
>> meant for reporters, whose technical competence, as a general rule,
>> would be unequal to the task of evaluating such a statement. There
>> would have been no significant lateral force acting along either wing
>> axis and there is no possibility of a wing actually entering the
>> fuselage of the aircraft. If you fixed a Boeing 757 firmly to a given
>> piece of ground, then used a team of bulldozers to push the wings
>> into the body, the wings would merely fold up like an accordion or
>> crumple and bend.
>>
>> 3. This raises the question of whether the wings could have folded as
>> the aircraft entered the building, bending backwards and following
>> the aircraft in.
>>
>> Aircraft wings have two main structural components beneath their
>> aluminum skin. Spars are ultra-rigid metal beams that support a
>> series of ribs that give shape to the wing. The main spar, a piece of
>> solid aluminum alloy, has the same approximate shape as the floor
>> beam of a house, being perhaps 10 cm thick and less than a metre high
>> at the center of the aircraft. The main spar runs out almost to the
>> end of both wings and therefore varies in height with the thickness
>> of the wing. Two other spars, one aft of the leading edge (the
>> forward spar) and one aft of the main spar (the aft spar) complete
>> the main structural support of the wings.
>>
>> Except for fuel tanks, wiring and hydraulics, wings are otherwise
>> hollow. The spars could be described as locally rigid and globally
>> flexible. In other words, a wing may flex along its length when an
>> aircraft encounters turbulence, for example, but, over much shorter
>> distances, cannot bend significantly. Given sufficient force (applied
>> either up or down) against a wing, it will simply break off.
>> Sometimes the wings of older aircraft developed cracked spars. Even
>> hairline cracks can be dangerous, as the slightest shearing force on
>> the wing could widen and deepen the crack, causing catastrophic
>> failure and the loss of a wing.
>>
>> Of course, the force in question would not have been vertical, but
>> horizontal. This makes the folding even more improbable, as the force
>> of impact would be acting along the only possible fold axis, rather
>> than at right angles to it. Try folding any material, say a piece of
>> cardboard, by applying it's edge (not it's surface) to a tabletop.
>> Folding horizontally is not an option, since all the spars would be
>> lined up in opposing (momentarily) the folding force. Being locally
>> rigid, the spars would simply snap within milliseconds of the impact
>> against a support column that did not yield to the impact; they would
>> fail as soon as the force of impact exceeded the elastic limit of the
>> material. If they did not fail and if the support columns did not
>> give way, the only remaining possibility would be for the aircraft to
>> remain almost entirely outside of the Pentagon.
>>
>> Only one possibility remains.
>>
>> 4. A devil's advocate might bring up the intensely hot fire that
>> burned at the mouth of the initial impact hole for approximately
>> seven minutes before being extinguished. Although the colour
>> temperature of the fire appears too bright for kerosene (i.e., jet
>> fuel), we will invoke the White House interpretation of events, as
>> mentioned earlier. Kerosene burns at approximately 1600 degrees
>> celsius. (Honig 2003)
>> Fireball From Initial Hole in Pentagon
>>
>> Could such a fire have destroyed both wings to the point of near
>> invisibility?
>>
>> As made clear by the image, the initial fire was confined to roughly
>> the dimensions of the hole and outside this area must have been
>> radiating heat energy that melted or vaporized both wings out to
>> their tips. At this point the inverse square law of radiation can be
>> used. Radiated heat would decline with distance x from the fire,
>> being proportional to 1/x2.
>>
>> For example, suppose one held a one-meter square of aluminum facing
>> the fire until its internal temperature reached a maximum. The
>> temperature reached would be proportional to the amount of heat
>> energy being delivered to the sheet per unit time. Under the inverse
>> square law, if the temperature of the sheet four meters from the fire
>> were T, the temperature at eight meters (2 times as far away) would
>> be T/4 (4 being the square of 2).
>>
>> At two meters from the fire, the attenuation would be slight, so we
>> will assume that there is no attenuation at this distance for the
>> sake of initiating the deduction. Under this assumption, the
>> temperature in the sheet would reach 1600 degrees C.
>>
>> To calculate temperatures further from the fire, we must switch
>> temperature scales from a relative system such as celsius
>> (centigrade) to the Kelvin system, in which zero degrees measures no
>> heat at all, so-called absolute zero. (Emiliani 1988) A temperature
>> of 1600 degrees centigrade corresponds to a temperature of 1,873
>> degrees Kelvin. Therefore at a distance of four meters, the
>> temperature reached in the sheet would be one-quarter of 1,873, or
>> 468 K. The corresponding celsius temperature would be approximately
>> 195 C, which is well below the melting point (not to mention the
>> ignition temperature) of aluminum, namely 660 C. (NASA 2003)
>>
>> Closer to the heat source, however, the aluminum skin of the wings
>> would have caught fire. Could the fire have burned out to the tips?
>> Only if the ambient temperature of the fireball itself reached as far
>> as the tips. As we have already seen, however, the ambient
>> temperature would have dropped off fairly rapidly with distance,
>> being below ignition temperature less than four meters from the
>> source. As for any aluminum that happened to be burning closer to the
>> heat source, portions of skin ahead of the burning area would have
>> already reached the melting point and would have dripped or flowed
>> down through the wing structure and onto the Pentagon lawn before
>> they could catch fire.
>>
>> In other words, it would have been a physical impossibility for any
>> portion of either wing beyond a few meters from the fire to be
>> melted, vaporized or in any way destroyed by it. Thus, at least 12 to
>> 14 m of wing ought to have remained (and to have been clearly
>> visible) on either side of the entrance hole. In fact, no such debris
>> appears in any of the pictures taken of the Pentagon that morning.
>> Absence of Major Wing Debris in Front of Pentagon Wall
>> Note: shade in image may require screen brightening to penetrate,
>> source to come
>>
>> Until we hear of a completely different means by which both wings
>> could have disappeared, we must assume that neither a Boeing 757 nor
>> any aircraft of similar size struck the Pentagon on the morning of
>> September 11, 2001. We would be happy to hear from any readers with
>> serious alternative suggestions for how the wings might have
>> disappeared before, during, or after the impact event.
>>
>> Mini-scenario
>>
>> A clear and very definite distinction must be drawn between two
>> aspects of any forensic or criminal investigation: What did not
>> happen and what did happen. The foregoing analysis shows as clearly
>> as we can state the case, that no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon that
>> day. In a sense, that's the easy part of the investigation. Finding
>> out what did happen is a necessarily incomplete process, although
>> some parts can be filled in with a high degree of reliability.
>> Scenario construction is an attempt to fit the anomalous and
>> non-anomalous pieces together in a manner not unlike a jigsaw puzzle.
>> Here is a brief foray into the "what did happen" side of the
>> equation.
>>
>> A possible alternate explanation of what happened on that morning can
>> be pieced together from eyewitness accounts of the tragedy, as well
>> as other sources of information. There were apparently three aircraft
>> involved in the affair: (Killtown 2003)
>>
>> 1. A military C-130 transport aircraft carrying out strange diving
>> and climbing maneuvers in the area of the Pentagon (restricted
>> airspace) at the time of the crash.
>>
>> 2. A Boeing 757 or 767 painted in American Airlines colors (possibly
>> Flight 77 itself) overflying the Pentagon within seconds of the
>> crash.
>>
>> 3. A military jet, possibly an F-16, which came in low and very fast,
>> straight toward the Pentagon.
>>
>> If the Pentagon attack was essentially a staged affair, it would be
>> necessary to create as much confusion as possible to distract
>> potential eyewitnesses from seeing the actual attack aircraft or, if
>> seeing it, assuming that it was not the impact vehicle. (pi911 2003)
>>
>> Thus, the C-130 carrying out strange maneuvers near the Pentagon
>> would have been deployed to keep as many eyes as possible riveted on
>> that aircraft, much as a stage magician frequently uses the trick of
>> focusing the audience's attention in one direction, while he employs
>> sleight-of-hand in another.
>>
>> The actual Flight 77 (or a duplicate of it) flies over the Pentagon
>> and on toward Reagan International Airport or, possibly, Hollings Air
>> force Base. By this time, flights would still be coming to the
>> nearest airport all over the United States and no one remark on such
>> a landing. Several witnesses reported this aircraft, as well.
>>
>> As Flight 77 (or its duplicate) flies over the Pentagon, a high-speed
>> military jet or, possibly, a cruise missile, comes in low, just
>> clearing the grounds fence and the lawn area, then slamming into the
>> Pentagon at approximately 1000 km/hr. It strikes the Pentagon at
>> roughly a 45-degree angle, taking out four support columns inside the
>> wall and removing or damaging many other columns inside the building
>>
>> As evidence for this possibility, an image of the stabilizer (tail)
>> of a military jet was captured by a Pentagon security camera.
>> (Desmoulins 2003a).
>> Image of Tail of Unknown Aircraft on Pentagon Security
>>
>> It has been claimed that the stabilizer that appears in this picture
>> belonged to flight 77. In fact, the stabilizer is too small and fails
>> to bear any trace of American Airlines famous AA company logo.
>>
>> Only one engine was found inside the Pentagon. The upper pair of
>> images show two parts of the single engine found in the Pentagon. The
>> lefthand image shows what appears to be part of the rotor element
>> bearing the stubs of vanes. The righthand image shows a portion of
>> the engine encased by its housing. This engine is less than half the
>> diameter of a large turbofan engine that powers the Boeing 757.
>>
>> Images of engines found in Pentagon
>>
>> The engines used by the Boeing 757 are similar to the Pratt and
>> Whitney engine shown below and have almost the same dimensions, being
>> over two meters in diameter, more than twice the diameter of the
>> engine shown above.
>> Pratt & Whitney Turbofan Engine similar to one in Boeing 757
>>
>> Finally, the 50-foot gap in the support columns of the Pentagon wall
>> easily accommodates the 32-foot wingspan of an F-16 or an aircraft of
>> similar size.
>>
>> Summary
>>
>> The main burden of this article has been to demonstrate conclusively
>> that the debris found outside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the
>> impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions. In
>> particular, in the absence of some agency (possibly unknown to
>> physical science) that removed the wings, there is no way to avoid
>> the conclusion that the wings (and therefore the aircraft) were never
>> present in the first place. In this case, no Boeing 757 struck the
>> Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001.
>>
>> We have also presented a scenario that may be much closer to the
>> truth of what happened on the morning in question, but our main
>> conclusion is reached quite independently of the scenario and neither
>> implies it, nor is implied by it.
>>
>> Acknowledgments
>>
>> The authors thank members of the S.P.I.N.E. Panel, in particular,
>> Derrick Grimmer, Joseph D. Keith, Martha Rush, and Richard Stanley.
>> We also wish to thank John Dorsett and Marianne Sanscrainte for
>> assistance in locating appropriate imagery.
>>
>> About the authors
>>
>> A. K. Dewdney is a mathematician and computer scientist who lives in
>> London, Ontario, Canada.
>>
>> G. W. Longspaugh is an aerospace engineer who makes his home in Fort
>> Worth, Texas, USA.
>>
>> References
>>
>> (Bosankoe 2003) D. Bosankoe 2003. Pentagon video evidence shows fraud
>> of war on terror.http://www.world-action.co.uk/pentagon.html
>>
>> (Citoyens 2003) no attribution. 2003. Hunt the Boeing! And test your
>> perceptions!
>> http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...erreurs_en.htm
>> retrieved September 20 2003.
>>
>> (Desmoulins J.-P. 2003) Jean=Pierre Desmoulins. Pentagon 2001/9/11.
>> 2003. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/english.html retrieved
>> October 1 2003.
>>
>> (Desmoulins J.-P. 2003a) Jean-Pierre Desmoulins. 2003. Image of
>> tailfin. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/penta...s-en/cctv.html
>> retrieved October 1 2003.
>>
>> (Eastman 2003) Dick Eastman, 2003. For AFPN: What convinced me that
>> Flight 77 was not the killer jet.
>> http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm retrieved September 30,
>> 2003.
>>
>> (Elliott 2003) Michael Elliott. Pentagon Attack Debris. (From
>> 911Review.org) http://www.911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackDebris.
>> shtml retrieved September 30 2003.
>>
>> (Emiliani 1988) Emiliani C. 1988. The Scientific Companion. John
>> Wiley & Sons, New York.
>>
>> (Flugzeugtriebwerke 2003)
>>
http://cip.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~...engines2.phtml
>> retrieved September 2 2003.
>>
>> (Honig 2003) K. D. Honig. 2003. Off-airport emergencies.
>> http://www.advancedrt.com/articles/r.../aircraft.html retrieved
>> October 2 2003.
>>
>> (Infoplease 2003) Infoplease.com. The Pentagon.
>> http://www.infoplease.com/spot/pentagon1.html retrieved June 12 2003.
>>
>> (Jane's 2003). Jane's All the World's Aircraft. 2003. Entry - Boeing
>> 757. Retrieved from
>> http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil...eing_757.shtml
>> Retrieved June 12, 2003. [note: this subsite is no longer publicly
>> available to non-subscribers.]
>>
>> (Killtown 2003) Killtown. 2003. Questioning the 911 attacks. (From
>> Killtown http://www.geocities.com/killtown/)
>> http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/witnesses.html retrieved
>> October 1 2003.
>>
>> (Nat. J. 2003) Carol A. Valentine. The National Journal.
>> http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/911remote.htm retrieved Sept 28
>> 2003.
>>
>> (NASA 2003) National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2003.
>> Commonly used elements and their properties.
>> http://www.ueet.nasa.gov/materials/elements.php retrieved October 2
>> 2003.
>>
>> (pi911 2003) PI911. 2003. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/index.html
>> Retrieved October 6 2003.
>>
>> (USAF Museum 2003) USAF Museum; General Dynamics f-16A "Fighting
>> Falcon." Retrieved from
>> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/outdoor/od11.htm August 20 2003.
>>
>> ================================================== =====================
>>
>> The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for
>> their content.
>>
>> skooch
>> Posted: 2003/10/21 16:26 Updated: 2003/10/21 16:26
>>
>> Newcomer
>>
>> Joined: 2003/10/21
>>
>> From:
>>
>> Posts: 1
>>
>> Re: The Missing Wings
>> I recall General Shelton making a public announcement,some time
>> before 9/11 that Pentagon personnel (I forgot the number) will be
>> reassigned to other military bases. At the time of this briefing I
>> found it rather odd that there would even be a public statement. I
>> would like know what impact this action had on the 9/11 strike, was
>> this reassignment done to lessen the casualties?
>>
>> twocats
>> Posted: 2003/10/22 0:47 Updated: 2003/10/22 0:47
>>
>> Newcomer
>>
>> Joined: 2003/10/21
>>
>> From:
>>
>> Posts: 1
>>
>> Re: The Missing Wings
>> I've heard the theory before that Flight 77 didn't crash into the
>> Pentagon, what I've never heard explained is what happened to Flight
>> 77, and where are the 64 people that were aboard the flight.
>> I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy but it at
>> least has to make sense.
>> As for the missing wings, The 757 has wing tanks that would have been
>> full of fuel. I would expect that they would have exploded on impact
>> and then would have been largely consumed in the ensuing fireball.
>> I saw a video of a test crash of a remote controlled 747 that crashed
>> into a pair of pillars designed to shear off the wings of the plane.
>> The fuselage remained a fairly tubular shape but there wasn't much
>> left of the wings after the fire was extinguished.
>>
>> Clint
>> Posted: 2003/10/22 21:21 Updated: 2003/10/23 16:16
>>
>> Newcomer
>>
>> Joined: 2003/10/22
>>
>> From:
>>
>> Posts: 1
>>
>> Re: The Missing Wings
>> Here are two more FEMA, small engine photos, presumably from the New
>> York WTC site.
>> These may raise the same questions as the Pentagon engine photos.
>> But, perhaps they will be more easily identifiable than the other
>> photos.
>>
>> New York, NY, October 16, 2001 --
>> Federal Coordinating Officer Ted Monette with NYPD (airplane engine
>> in foreground) at the Staten Island landfill.
>> Photos by Andrea Booher/ FEMA News Photo
>> Photograph Category: Terrorist Attack
>> Declaration Number: 1391
>> Photo Location: New York
>> Photo Date: 2001-10-16
>> Photographer: Andrea Booher
>> Photograph ID: 5473 & 5474
>> Photograph Filename: ny_wtc_587.jpg & ny_wtc_588.jpg
>> High Resolution [ny_wtc_587.jpg]:
>> http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/pho...ny_wtc_587.jpg
>> High Resolution [ny_wtc_588.jpg]:
>> http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/pho...ny_wtc_588.jpg
>> FEMA photo search page:
>> http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/index.jsp
>>
>> Physics911.org
..
Reply With Quote