The Five-Sided Fantasy Island?

Left: First frame from security camera video, purportedly showing a 757 approaching the Pentagon.  Right: How a 757 should have looked, superimposed in the correct scale and perspective into the security camera image.  (Source: www.misternet.org/nerdcities/Pentagon/explosion.htm )

A set of five frames from a security camera video were released by Pentagon sources on March 7, 2002, and were shown widely on US media as evidence of a plane crash at the Pentagon.  This was apparently in response to the increasing notoriety of Thierry Meyssan and his French best-seller, "L'effroyable imposture", or "The Big Lie".   

However -- in a bizarre, Orwellian version of the tale of the Emperor's Clothes --  none of these US media was willing to acknowledge the obvious, that there is no 757 aircraft visible in the surveillance camera image shown above on the left.  As the anonymous author of the Guardian website showed: if there had been a 757 in the image, it should have been as prominent as the 757 sketched  in the correct scale and perspective in the image on the right.  

If anything, there appears to be the white exhaust plume of a missile, trailing behind what might be the tail of a small fighter such as an F-16 or Harrier jump jet.  Advocates of the missile theory viewed this, at first,  as "manna from Heaven".  However, soon some investigators began to look carefully at this possible Trojan Horse, and found numerous questionable aspects: missing frames and evidence of other image manipulations.  Dick Eastman still maintains that the security camera video is valid evidence -- but if Eastman's theory is correct, then shouldn't the 757 also appear in these frames, flying just over the Pentagon at the same time as the "killer jet" moves towards the target?  Eastman's theory depends on a psychological masking effect well-known to stage magicians: a large, prominent and noisy object (the 757) can draw attention away from a smaller, less obvious object (the "killer jet") or the two could be confused and melded into one perception, but only if the two objects are close together in time and space.  

We believe that the controversy and bickering over these images is quite possibly what the government intended.  Under these circumstances,  the wise thing to do is neither to accept these images uncritically, nor to reject them outright.  The most statesmanlike approach is simply to point out the fact that there is no 757 here -- and to demand persistently to see the original, unaltered and complete sequence of images from this camera.  For that matter, why can't we see some of the other security camera film that was seized by the FBI, some reportedly within minutes after the crash?

Another aspect of this information release may be the effect of sheer intimidation towards the 9-11 skeptic movement.  The US government  is so brazen in its contempt for the American people, that it is willing to openly show this video of a missile attack on the Pentagon on 9-11, without offering so much as a word in explanation or justification.  These tremendously incriminating images were shown on national television, yet they hardly made a ripple in the national consciousness. In its own way, this is just as outrageous as the CIA-organized murder of John Kennedy, in front of the whole world, at Dealey Plaza some 40 years ago.  

 If indeed these images are real (although perhaps touched-up to compensate for artifacts in the originals) -- then some whistle-blower from deep within the Pentagon may be (literally or figuratively) turning over in his grave, in amazement over the lack of widespread, national impact for this evidence.  It is as if the Zapruder film, showing the President thrown "back and to the left", had been showed, uncut,  in 1964 -- with the response being nothing but a collective shrug of the shoulders. 

Missing confetti mystery

As noted in the Purdue computer simulation report, there is an extensive literature regarding the effects of impact of aircraft on reinforced concrete structures.  The question is important because of the possible effects of an air crash (such as, for example, a terrorist attack) onto the concrete containment of a nuclear power plant.  The studies indicate that it is difficult for an aircraft to penetrate a blast-hardened, reinforced concrete containment.  While the construction of the Pentagon is not strictly comparable to a nuclear containment vessel, nevertheless the western wedge  had recently been rehabilitated for high blast resistance.   We attempted some basic calculations (see appendix I) and found that the Pentagon structure may well have been strong enough to resist destruction by an aircraft such as a 757 flying at speeds less than 200 to 300 mph.  

A key report, Sugano et al 1992, covers a rocket sled crash experiment using an F-4D Phantom jet fighter impacting into a 10 foot thick reinforced concrete block. Video images of the test are available at  http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm.  Sandia notes:

The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom -- including both engines -- onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines. The test was performed by Sandia National Laboratories under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo. 

With very minimal damage to the concrete target block, the plane and its engines were easily converted into small pieces of metal confetti at the physical interface of the two impact objects. Upon initial impact, the follow-on rear portions of the plane yet to make contact retained their shape integrity until their respective impact. (This seriously contradicts claims by JP Desmoulins that the wings of a 757 would have folded forward, as well as claims in the popular press that the wings folded back before entering the "too-small" hole.) The resulting shear caused debris being spread out to the left, right, and rear of the impact locus, having no ability to proceed in their original vector path, having grossly failed the test of strength with the concrete block.

The significance of Sugano is that we would expect any part of the aircraft which failed to penetrate the facade of the Pentagon, to be reduced to a spray of confetti.  While the building only has 10 inch thick brick and masonry infill walls, the facade's columns spaced 10 feet apart were concrete reinforced with spiral wound and axial steel rebar, and were supposed to have been reinforced during the building's renovation project in this very section. In the direction vector of the plane, the second story concrete floor slab was effectively contiguous for approximately 300 feet. Additionally, the plane's wings had to hit the electrical generator to the right and contractor's trailers to the left before possibly impacting the building. While (according to the ASCE report) the fuselage and core portion of the airplane were able to penetrate the facade and enter the building, the outer portions of the wings could not have penetrated the facade, and thus that portion of the plane (at least) should have been converted to small fragments.

The photographic record provides little evidence of a debris field sufficiently extensive to account for thousands of pounds of wing structure. 

(source: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/13.jpg)  

Frank Probst eyewitness  statements

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf from page 13

http://www.militarycity.com/sept11/fortress1.html

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/6_55/local_news/10660-1.html

In this case, Frank Probst had the amazing presence of mind to observe the plane coming straight towards him at approximately 450 mph, see it level out, he dives to the ground, and just happens to catch both engines as they impact objects outside the building. This after just being missed by one of the engines by 6 feet. Fortunately, the ASCE assures us of Frank Probst's probity.

The plane debris observed in various photographs does indeed comport with that of a 757, at least to the limited degree with which they can be compared to actual 757 parts or the manufacturer's detail drawings, as shown above. The engine compressor or  turbine disk appears to be approximately the correct diameter to have been used in a Rolls Royce RB211-535E4B engine, as used in American Airlines 757 aircraft. The fragment of the high pressure combustor casing also comports with the string of fuel inlet nozzle holes, the mounting bosses of which have the correct number of screw holes (6). The combustor is definitely not from a Pratt and Whitney PW2037, which is the other make of 757 engine used in the airline industry.

Some observers have claimed that these engine parts are too small to have come from a 757.  The confusion is because the RB-211 engine configuration is dominated by the large turbofan at the front of the engine.  However, because the RB-211 is a "high bypass" engine, the high-pressure compressor, combustion chamber and turbine are all much smaller than the turbofan.  

The one picture of a wheel hub seems to match that of photographs of various 757's, some having 8 spoke reliefs and others having 9. 

In order to comply with the lateral trajectory path over the Naval Annex,  the plane needed to be making a left turn in order to pick up the 5 light poles, just missing the adjacent overhead highway sign and much taller VDOT camera pole to its right, and allow for the engines to hit the steam vault retaining wall and the chain link fence adjacent to the electrical generator. This means that between the Naval Annex and the light poles the plane needed to level out much of its turning bank angle to avoid hitting the ground with its left wingtip or engine. And do this while also pulling out of its simultaneous dive as discussed just above. All in the space of a few seconds.

Because of this necessary left turn arc further to the south, it becomes difficult  for the plane to pick up both the 5 light poles and the engine impacts with the retaining wall and the chain link fence, and have the centerline of the 757 fuselage impact column 14. Column 14 was located at the center of the second story gap between columns 13 and 15. This means the building impact needed to be significantly further to the left -- unless the flight path was slightly deflected back towards the right by the forces of the engine impact with the retaining wall. Yet we can see the presence of a hanging window between columns 12 and 13 before the collapse. While a real 757 might have had trouble completely penetrating the blast-reinforced walls, the contrast between the behavior of the second-story walls between columns 11 and 13, and between 13 and 15, is quite surprising if in fact the fuselage impact was at column 13, not at column 14.

Laterally, starting at the gas station, the 757 (if it was the same plane that hit the lamp-posts and the Pentagon) must have realigned its flight path by about 250 feet southward within a distance of 1000 feet, to conform with the eyewitness testimony by Police Sergeant Lagasse, as cited by Dick Eastman.  We estimate that the minimal turning radius required for this re-alignment would be about 2000 feet.   Even at a ground speed of only 200 mph, this would require a turning force of 1.5 G, which would also require a bank over 45 degrees.  The turn would have needed to be established and then cleared within a period of roughly 3 seconds.  Also, as Eastman noted, other early indications (and testimony by Riskus)  said that the 757 was seen approaching the Pentagon at approximately a 90 degree angle, which is completely inconsistent with the light pole evidence.

View over the Naval Annex towards the Pentagon (Source: Dick Eastman)

The above image gives a graphic view of the impossibility that the 757 could have gone over the annex (the large building in the foreground) and then knocked over light-poles at the Washington Blvd. overpass (at right) before striking the Pentagon.

Of all accounts of the Pentagon scenario, the hypothesis of Dick Eastman (that a small "killer jet" was responsible for the actual impact to the Pentagon) is most responsive to eyewitness accounts by civilian observers, including the testimony of Lagasse,  Riskus, and Campo placing the 757 well to the north of the lamp pole damage; as well as testimony indicating that a smaller plane than a 757 was seen close to the impact.  If the eyewitness accounts are correct, then the 757 seen over the gas station and over Washington Blvd, could not possibly be the same as the cause of the damage to the Pentagon.  

Yet all of this eyewitness testimony can hardly be treated as conclusive. Some of the testimony may have been confused, some might have been planted or coached (either to lend credibility to the "official story" or to "muddy the water" by providing evidence for the missile theory), and it is also possible (in accordance with the pure demolition theory) that these witnesses saw the 757 at a higher altitude, and then saw the explosion at the Pentagon -- and confabulated that the plane was lower or smaller than it was, in order to build a consistent mental image of events which took place very quickly.

The near level vertical axis approach attitude of the alleged craft resulted in a pre-collapse impact related damage pattern to the Pentagon structure confined to the first and second floors of the building. This has led to a number of questions.

Starting over the Sheraton and ending at the Pentagon, and noting that Lagasse estimated that the 757 passed 50 feet over the Annex, and 80 feet over the gas station, and estimating that the 1st lamp post was at least 40 feet tall,  we obtain  the following estimates for the aircraft altitude over sea level at various checkpoints:

0 mile mark (Sheraton) -- 320 feet

0.35 miles (Naval Annex) -- 230 feet

0.6 miles (gas station) -- 125 feet

0.75 miles (1st lamp post) -- 80 feet

0.95 miles (Pentagon hit) -- 40 feet

The Purdue simulation shows a computer modeled 757 impacting into a representation of the Pentagon. It is interesting for several reasons.

If the various anomalies are taken to indicate that no 757 hit the Pentagon, there are a variety of reasons to believe that pyrotechnics (Hollywood "special effects") were responsible for the damage, rather than an "attack plane".

http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/america_at_war/article/0,1426,MCA_945_1300676,00.html

 In spite of the many anomalies and inconsistencies, 9-11 skeptics need to realize that a wide variety of evidence comports with the conclusion that a 757 impacted the Pentagon on  September 11, 2001. Many eyewitnesses reported seeing a 757 approach the Pentagon, and some claimed to see that same aircraft impact the facade.  A C-130 cargo plane is also reported to have been flying close behind, which might account for some of the confusion in other eyewitness testimony.  Contrary to much of the Internet analysis, the impact hole is also quite possibly consistent with a 757 -- even though it appears to be too small.  The light-pole evidence is consistent with a 757 aircraft (if the poles were rearranged by passers-by) and the "engine fingerprints" appear to require an impact by a twin-engine aircraft with the exact engine spacing of a 757.

On the other hand, there are a number of highly suspicious circumstances which are inconsistent with this "official story".  The insufficient debris, the eyewitness inconsistencies, the quantum flight path,  the shoddy "movie set" facade, and the missile plume in the "security video", all point to the likelihood of a hoax.  Much of the observed physical evidence in the photographs also comports with full demolition,  which would have provided orders of magnitude better operational surety of proper completion without the undue risk associated with an impact plane missing its target, either using terrorist hijackers or domestic agent provocateurs.  

Although we believe the complexities of such a sham are well within the capabilities of any reasonably competent Hollywood special effects department -- we must also acknowledge that for most people, the idea that a government bureaucracy could conceive of such a plot is simply beyond hilarious.   Politically, there is a possibility that an emphasis on Pentagon questions  will be taken as evidence of insanity on the part of the "conspiracy theorists". Is it wise to focus more attention on this Pentagon topic, while there are now plenty of less debatable grounds to show that the US government is acting as a criminal enterprise?  There's plenty of room for activists to disagree about issues of emphasis, even among those who believe the evidence that the Pentagon attack was a fraud.

APPENDIX I

Based on the Sugano et al. paper, we have attempted to calculate the forces that would be involved in a hypothetical crash of a 757 against the Pentagon. The results are tantalizing yet uncertain.

First of all, we believe this analysis fully explains why "the hole was too small". The wingtips and the tail of a 757 are quite light in weight compared to the fuselage, wing roots, and engines; thus it's very unlikely that they would have had sufficient impact force to crash through the facade. Thus, if a 757 struck the Pentagon,  it makes perfectly good sense that the wingtips would have been smashed into confetti by the impact, leaving the facade largely unperturbed at those locations.

If the impact of the "757" occurred at a relatively low velocity, such as 200 mph, it seems questionable whether any part of the aircraft would have penetrated the Pentagon wall.  On the contrary,  the plane probably should have been entirely smashed and shredded. Furthermore (and perhaps this is the most important point) if I'm making this calculation correctly, the planners of the operation would have been aware of the problem, which might have led to the logistical decision to use pyrotechnics and / or a missile or missiles to penetrate the facade.

At high speed (400-500 mph) penetration of the facade is much more likely (though perhaps not certain) -- yet a high-speed attack directed at the first floor of the Pentagon would have been difficult to carry out accurately with a 757, because of turbulence and ground-effect.

There are enough uncertainties in this calculation, that we would be very uncomfortable claiming that it would be *impossible* that any part of the aircraft would have penetrated the facade.  But, if  it is accepted (based on other evidence)  that 9/11 was an inside job, then this analysis may help to explain why  the planners might have decided to use missiles or pyrotechnics, rather than relying on a 757.

There is a similar situation with the WTC towers -- the planners could hardly have tolerated the uncertainty of an uncontrolled collapse -- so they would have needed to place some explosive charges, to prevent the towers from tipping sideways and destroying all of Wall Street.

Calculations

According to Sugano et al, by far the most important determinant of the impact force is the term F=alpha*V^2*u, where u is the mass (per unit of length) of the airframe which is abruptly smashed against the wall, and alpha is a correction factor equal to 0.9. So if we use the figures in the ASCE report for the weights and dimensions of the 757 aircraft, and apply some reasonable assumptions about the distribution of mass within the wings, we can estimate the impact forces fairly accurately.

The wings of the 757 are tapered from the roots to the tips; from the drawing in the ASCE report, we estimated a chord length of 8 meters at the roots, 5 meters at 7 meters out, and 3 meters at the tip. The thickness of the wing is tapered proportionately, so the mass of the wing's structure should be roughly proportional to the square of the chord. The ASCE report says the mass of the wing structure is 13,500 pounds in each wing. If  this mass is distributed as the square of the chord length, then 8750 pounds of this is located within the first 7 meters of the wingspan, while the remaining 4750 pounds are in the tips. Furthermore, the engines weigh 11,900 pounds each, and the landing gear weighs 3800 pounds. The fuel mass is 14,600 pounds for each wing, and since the tanks were partly empty, most of this mass would have run towards the lowest part of the tanks (that is, towards the center).  Thus,  we have a total of as much as 39,050 pounds in each of  the wing roots, and only 4750 pounds in the tips (the outer 10 meters of the wingspan.) This should make it clear that the penetrating power of the extremities of the aircraft should be quite limited compared to the penetrating power of the core portions.

Using F=alpha*V^2*u, alpha=0.9, we can estimate the force loading for each linear foot along the width of the airplane. We used a velocity of 90 meters/sec (200 mph) although it's very possible the "aircraft" was traveling much faster. We can also calculate the pressure in psi, using estimates for the cross-sectional area of each part. We obtained the following values: wingtips, 21,000 lbs / ft (152 psi); wing roots, 200,000 lbs / ft (413 psi); fuselage, 111,000 lbs / ft (83 psi); engines, 200,000 lbs / ft (221 psi).

All of the psi loading values are well below the yield strength of concrete, which is about 3000 psi. We also need to look at the overall loading of forces onto the columns of the structure. This is much more difficult to estimate, since it's hard to say how much of the load bearing on the limestone and brick infill would be coupled into the columns, and how much would be directly transferred into deflection of the limestone & brick. But if we assume that the force on the columns comes only from the portion of the aircraft bearing directly on those columns, then we can use the values for lbs / ft directly, for our load estimates on the columns.

We found an on-line calculator for the "moment capacity" of reinforced concrete beams, at

http://www.strucsoft.com/applets/BeamStrength.htm

For 12" square beams with 8 square inches of rebar-cross-sectional area, 1" cover, concrete cylinder strength=3000psi, steel yield strength=45000psi (values estimated from the ASCE report) the calculator returns a moment capacity of 1812 in*kips.

According to this source

http://www.ce.memphis.edu/1112/notes/beam/reinforced_concrete_beams.pdf

the load-carrying capacity of a beam loaded at the center, is equal to the moment capacity divided by 4. If this is correct,  then the capacity of the Pentagon columns, treated as beams for a horizontal load, would be 450,000 pounds. This is greater than any of the estimated loads per linear foot, by more than a factor of 2. And, it is far greater than the estimated wing-tip loading.

If the "aircraft" were traveling at 400 mph, all the load figures would be quadrupled, indicating that the beams would be unlikely to survive, except at the wingtips.

The Sugano results also explain the bizarre appearance of videos showing the WTC aircraft disappearing into those buildings like knives into butter, without slowing down (which has led researchers such as "Webfairy" and others, to hypothesize that those airplanes might have been holographic effects.) The force exerted backwards from the crash through the airframe is not sufficient to cause significant deceleration of the parts that haven't impacted yet, at least from a visual point of view.  In the case of the F4 experiment, although the airframe behind the crash zone experienced a 100G deceleration, this was only sufficient to slow the tail by 30 meters per second (out of 215 meters per second) during the 70-millisecond duration of the impact.  (However, we do not claim that the literature on reinforced-concrete hardness to aircraft impact would be directly applicable to the WTC impacts, in terms of whether the observed damage to the WTC buildings was consistent with the official story.  The 14" square columns of the WTC were made of steel, albeit only 0.25" wall thickness at the upper floor levels, so local crushing and bending effects would need to be evaluated. Square cross-sections compress into 2 flat and parallel planes rather easily with lateral force applied.)

http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm - Scroll to the bottom of the page for video and stills

http://www.sandia.gov/media/images/jpg/f4_image1.jpg - F-4D impact into concrete block

http://www.sandia.gov/media/images/jpg/f4_image2.jpg

http://www.sandia.gov/media/images/jpg/f4_image3.jpg

http://www.nci.org/01nci/09/npp-planecrash-quotes.htm industry claims that nuclear containments can withstand air crashes

Dick Eastman yahoo group

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/demonstrative_evidence_of_frameup

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/20 - Lagasse testimony

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/21 - more Lagasse testimony

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/27 - discussion of Riskus testimony

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/30 - map of flight path

Confetti Summary from Eric Bart

"I didn't see any evidence of the aircraft down there" Terry Mitchell

"No large pieces apparently survived" Michael Tamillow

"All over the highway were small pieces of aircraft skin, none bigger than a half-dollar" Mark Faram

These metal 'confetti' have been blown up high in the sky "looked like white confetti raining down everywhere. The 'confetti' was little bits of airplane, falling down after being flung high into the bright, blue sky" Clyde Ragland

"The sky was darker than normal, but still didn't think much of it. Then I saw little bits of silver falling from the sky" Will Jarvis

"There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down" Donald R. Bouchoux

"When the debris shower stopped, people began getting out of their cars" DelawareOnLine

"A column of 50 FBI officers walked shoulder-to-shoulder across the south grounds of the Pentagon, picking up debris" Washingtonpost

"no 757" websites

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm "Too small hole"--3D simulation

http://0911.site.voila.fr/ericbart.htm

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/

http://www.effroyable-imposture.net/ Thierry Meyssan

http://www.boss-tweed.com/conspiracy/conspindex.html#effroyab

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/trajectory.html

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/wings.html More on those trees - "the burning bush speaks?"

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/fuselage/columns_supports.jpg

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/nose.html The punch out hole

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0203/S00056.htm

http://investigate911.batcave.net/pentagon1.html

http://www.pentagon.batcave.net/pentapics.html

http://www.physics911.org/ Articles by Kee Dewdney, Gerry Longspaugh, and Gerard Holmgren

http://www.public-action.com/  Carol Valentine

http://www.public-action.com/rescue.html discussion of Office of Naval Intelligence -- gives "Washington Post, January 20, 2002, front page of Style section" as the source of the information that people from this office were killed.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/index.html Jeff Strahl's talk.

http://www.erichufschmid.net/

http://911review.org/ Encyclopedic info source

Debunker websites

http://anderson.ath.cx8000/911/pen06.html Mirror of Sarah Roberts

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm "Spot the poles" by Ron Harvey

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html Mike Rivero

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/f77FoF.html John Judge

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/dam-before.html JP Desmoulins

Security Video

http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackCctvVideo.shtml Review of security video evidence

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56670-2002Mar7&notFound=true Official sources questioning the Security Camera frames

Donald R. Bouchoux, 53, a retired Naval officer, a Great Falls resident, a Vietnam veteran and former commanding officer of a Navy fighter squadron, was driving west from Tysons Corner to the Pentagon for a 10am meeting. He wrote At 940 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me and impacted the side of the building. There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down.

http://www.counseling.org/ctonline/news/amazing1001.htm

Around 940 a.m. I reached the heliport area (beside the Pentagon). So I got about 100 yards or so past the heliport and then all of the sudden I heard this loud screeching sound that just came out of nowhere and it intensified. This huge WHOOSH! When I looked up I saw the side of the Pentagon explode. As the fireball got higher and higher, you saw this debris go up in the air. I am watching this in my rearview mirror, and then I thought, Oh my God, there is debris coming toward me! So my reaction was, I ducked into my passenger seat and I heard the pitter-patter of pebbles and concrete bouncing off my car. And the next thing you know, I heard this big crash come from somewhere. It sounded like glass being shattered and I thought maybe, at first, it was one of my windows so I popped up to look but everything was fine. But when I looked to the car next to me I realized that something went through (the drivers) rear windshield and shattered it. There was a hole where you could see that something went through it. Then both I and the guy in front of me looked at his rear windshield and saw what was about a four-inch hole in it and the rest of the window was shattered as if someone took a baseball bat to it. At that point I didn't know it was a plane, I thought it was a missile strike.

Pulling away from the Pentagon there was tons of stuff on the ground, big pieces of metal, concrete, everything. We got up to a certain point and there was this huge piece of something - I mean it was big, it looked like a piece of an engine or something - in the road. And there was somebody, definitely a security guard or maybe a military person, with his car in front of it making sure no one touched it. (.) I looked back and I saw the fire, it was just huge

wingspan - 124' 10", fuselage width - 12' 4", fuselage height - 13' 2"

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_05/textonly/ps02txt.html - Onboard loadable software, can you say a 'hack-a-pilot'?

C-32A - military version of Boeing 757 (fleet of 4, stationed at Andrews AFB)

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c-32a/c32ainfo.html

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c32.asp

Rolls Royce RB211-535E4B

http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/prod_info/civil/rb211535.htm

http://www.rolls-royce.com/education/gasturbine/how/GasTurbines.pdf

http://www.aa.com/content/aboutAA/ourPlanes/boeing757.jhtml - Rolls Royce RB211 used by American Airlines

http://www.eng.uct.ac.za/~victor/electric/GasTurbine.htm Very nice RB211 cutaway drawing at bottom of page

Pratt and Whitney - 757's also use P&W PW2037 engines

http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_comm_pw2000.asp

Arlington County After Report with Pentagon Floor Plan and damage zone in next to last pages

http://www.co.arlington.va.us/fire/edu/about/pdf/after_report.pdf

The damage mapping was supposedly compiled by the FBI. From the ground floor drawing one can see the other two C ring holes are just service doors.

ASCE supplementary illustrations

"A basic hypothesis, informally confirmed with engineers knowledgeable in this subject, is that the bulk of the impact damage is due to the body of fuel in the wing and center tanks. Most of the aircraft structure is light-weight low-mass, and relatively low strength, with the exception of the wheel undercarriage."

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/popescu/pentagonVis_files/paper_422.pdf

ftp://ftp.purdue.edu/pub/uns/sozen.pentagon.jpeg

ftp://ftp.purdue.edu/pub/uns/sozen.pentagon2.jpeg

ftp://ftp.purdue.edu/pub/uns/sozen.pentagon3.jpeg

http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/pentagon.php

Miscellaneous

http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html  "Vigilant Guardian"

http://w4.pica.army.mil/voice2001/011207/Forensicid.htm  DNA identification of fatalities

http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/0514_coincidence.html  Capt. Burlingame and the "Emergency Response Plan"

http://www.nfpa.org/NFPAJournal/OnlineExclusive/Exclusive_11_01_01/exclusive_11.01.01.asp Not much aircraft debris inside Pentagon

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/t09122001_t0912asd.html Also reports very little debris inside Pentagon

http://www.misternet.org/nerdcities/Pentagon/oddity.htm Green SUV, red fire truck

Big pics

Copies of the same above

http://www.ceo.ncsu.edu/attack/ Series of satellite images

Pentagon

http://www.ceo.ncsu.edu/attack/nyc-images/Pentagon_after.jpg

http://www.ceo.ncsu.edu/attack/nyc-images/pentagon.jpg

WTC - BTW

http://www.ceo.ncsu.edu/attack/nyc-images/manhattan_before_psh.jpg

The above IKONOS images are reproduced here with Space Imaging's permission. Here is their required legal information "Credit spaceimaging.com. Copyright © Space Imaging. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to publish in hard copy, broadcast and electronic media, provided proper attribution is given for each and every use."

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/index.jsp a cache of high resolution FEMA photos to the interior of the Pentagon and before that WTC pics. Please note pic IDs 4414 and 4415 for the engine rotor. Observe 4421, 4429, 4430 and 4431 for interesting debris. Click on the thumbnail to get a link to the high resolution download.

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/07ghv.htm

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/07mw8.htm - Jason Ingersoll, firemen walking in front of foam operation, no confetti

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/07mxb.htm - no confetti, chain link fence is bowed over in wrong direction

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/07mxe.htm - Hmmm, real limestone facade fractures and is white

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/07mxk.htm - No confetti

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/07mxq.htm - No confetti and one of the red metal frames at the elower left

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/07mxt.htm - There's those funny red frames at the bottom

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/07my8.htm - The starboard engine hole in the chain link fence?

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/07mye.htm - no confetti

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/347599.htm - A view from the south, and still no confetti

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/347836.htm - A night view from Arlington

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/Phoenix/9-11-2001/Page0002.html - many no confetti pictures

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/Phoenix/9-11-2001/Page0003.html - many no confetti pictures

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/Phoenix/9-11-2001/b24-DSC_0505-1.jpg - no confetti, just plastic water bottles

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/Phoenix/9-11-2001/b12-DSC_0476-1.jpg - red gas bottles at lower right

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/Phoenix/9-11-2001/f03-66641844-1.jpg - no confetti

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/Phoenix/9-11-2001/f07-66641855-1.jpg - odd facade, sheet metal or masonry?

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/pentagon_air.htm

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/IMAGES/02-06-30%20010%20Aerial_web.jpg

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/IMAGES/02-06-30%20006%20Aerial_web.jpg

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/IMAGES/02-06-30%20007%20Aerial_web.jpgg

http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/010911-N-6157F-002.jpg - No confetti here to the north

http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/010911-N-6157F-003.jpg - No confetti here to the north

http://www.mca-marines.org/Leatherneck/nov01pentagonarch.htm  

Sgt Francis W. Pomrink Jr., a Classified Materials NCO, was at work in his office in the Department of Marine Aviation. Most of Marine Aviation had just the weekend before been moved to the "Butler building," an extension of the Pentagon and about 200 yards from where the impact occurred, not nearly as close as their previous offices. Pomrink heard the jet engine noise of a rapidly approaching jet and a muffled rumbling explosion, then the floor shivered beneath him. He went outside and could see the smoke rolling up and flames shooting over the top of the Pentagon.

Interesting sites with pics and graphics

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=3

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/images/large/3_290.jpg Partial demolition of D and C rings well beyond the expansion joints

http://www.clarkairbasek9.com/pentagon.htm - A good downed pole