We need not analyse whether the wings of Flight 77 could have fitted into the pre-collapse hole in the Pentagon facade. It does not matter whether a wanabee pilot - whose flying skills were so poor that he was refused permission to hire a Cessna in August 2001 - developed the skills of a crack fighter pilot after a few weeks' flight simulator training, managing to steer a Boeing 757 a few feet above the Pentagon lawn at over 500 mph after descending 7000 feet in 150 seconds and making a sharp 270 degree turn pulling high Gs on his jet flying debut. It is untenable that in 2001 with the ubiquitous security camera such a feature of modern life at shopping malls, gas stations, office and apartment blocks, airports, etc, and employed to tax "speeding" motorists, the national HQ of the world's greatest military power did not have security cameras recording events on its west wing. Indeed, cameras from a gas station and a hotel captured the impact with the Pentagon, but the tapes were confiscated within minutes by the FBI. In fact, the official story now admits that photos were taken by a Pentagon security camera. The problem with the five frames of the "Pentagon security camera" record of the Flight 77 impact is that none of them show a Boeing 757 about to strike the Pentagon facade. The authorities claimed that the security camera frame rate was 100 frames per second. Let us suppose the frame rate was only 10 frames per second, and that the impact speed of Flight 77 was as high as 780 fps or 530 mph, the figure stated by Civil Engineering Magazine, Feb 2003. In 1/10 second, the plane would travel 78 feet. Thus, there should exist a frame showing the nose of a 757-200 in AA colours within 78 feet of striking the Pentagon facade, i.e. within half a length of a Boeing 757-200. Given that the actual frame rate was likely to be considerably higher, the final pre-impact frame would probably have the nose well within 25 feet of the wall. In addition, the plane was supposed to be approaching at a 45 degree angle, so the gap from nose to wall and the slightly rotated aircraft length are foreshortened by cos[(angle of impact from the perpendicular) - (angle of camera slight inclination from parallel to facade)] which makes it even easier to fit a good view of Flight 77 in the frame. It took six months and the release of French books about "Pentagate" before the authorities grudgingly released the five frames of "evidence". If the events occurred as advertised, with an AA Boeing 757 involved, video evidence clearly showing the plane would exist and would have been made available. By 2004, video evidence had still not been publicised. Thus, the Pentagon incident was carried out in such a way that some witnesses would find the official story plausible, but real-time video evidence would disprove it. Ergo, an AA Boeing 757 did not strike the Pentagon on 9/11. In the previous section, it was just - but barely - credible that the bungling alphabet spy agencies, despite their massive multi-billion dollar budgets, might have been so incompetent that they failed to stop terrorist hijackers, and then made up evidence to cover themselves. In the case of the Pentagon, we would need to propose that, coincidentally, the CCTV system failed at the exact time of the Flight 77 impact, incompetent FBI operatives lost both the garage and hotel videos, and the phoney five "video frames" were faked months later in a crude attempt to cover up these failures. The Pentagon incident occurred more than 70 minutes after the first "hijacking" warning signs, and 35 minutes after two planes had already hit the WTC in a co-ordinated terrorist attack. Consequently, CCTV downtime due to routine maintenance is not an acceptable explanation. An army division would not continue to dismantle and clean all of its guns, for example, when the enemy had just been sighted advancing on the brow of the next hill. Let us suppose that downtime of all Pentagon west wing CCTV cameras due to catastrophic failure occurs for about five hours every five years; thus the probability of failure at any given time is 1 in 8,766. If we suppose that the chance of a "Jacques Clouseau" style operative losing or destroying two critically important packages is 1 in 2,000, the probability for total CCTV failure and two associated package losses is 1 in 17.532 million. In the "we know who did it" vs revised incompetence BLIARS in the last section, the former was correlated with very low probability anomalies or impossible absurdities. With the Pentagon events, the revised BLIARS is also positively correlated with the improbable anomalies, and we need a new explanation to account for the anomalies. We are looking for probabilities under 1 in 1,000 and ideally under 1 in 10,000, so the CCTV failure and package losses are certainly a possibility for our final set of events highly correlated with the truth-values of BLIARS vs Snowball. If we count them as a single event, they are particularly relevant. It is reasonable to do this, since if BLIARS is true then both hardware failure and software losses were prerequisites of the single event "no genuine video of Flight 77 available for publishing; phoney frames were faked". To return briefly to the question of the missing wings, we cannot safely conclude that the wings would not have been shredded into confetti. Let's suppose the reinforced concrete Pentagon facade is stronger than the wings, which fail to smash their way more than a cm into the concrete. Flight 77's impact speed, at 780 fps or 237.7 m/s should be multiplied by cos (45 degrees), the angle of impact, obtaining 168.1 m/s. We should lower this further to allow for some deceleration as the fuselage punches through the first two or three columns. Let's make it 100 m/s. In order to estimate the stress felt by the wings on impact, let's initially suppose that they are not hollow, disregard the engines, and imagine the thin edge perfectly lined up with the facade on impact. Assuming the wing deceleration occurs over a centimetre, from a = (v^2 - u^2) / (2 * x) we have (0 - 100 ^ 2) / 0.02 = -500,000 m/s^2, or in excess of 50,000g. The force required to decelerate each wing is linearly related to the mass, yet the stress pressure is inversely related to the impacting surface area which is itself linearly related to the mass. Consequently, for a solid wing, the stress is only a function of the density and depth of the wing, rather than the impacting area. The wings taper off towards the tips, and the average depth (the dimension along the length of the plane and perpendicular with the facade) is about 4 metres. So for every square metre cross-section impacting with the Pentagon, it would correspond to an average volume of 4 m^3 of aluminum, and a mass of 4 * 2580 kg/m^3 = 10,320 kg. To obtain the associated force, we multiply this by the deceleration: 10,320 * 500,000 = 5.16 * 10 ^ 9 newtons. Hence, the stress pressure on impact is 5.16 * 10 ^ 9 N/m^2 = 5160 MPa or 748 ksi (748,000 psi). This is more than 22 times the yield strength of high grade aluminum at some 34,000 psi, or 17 times the ultimate strength. The leading edge of the wings is tapered back about 30 degrees, so with the plane impacting at 45 degrees, the right wingtip hits first (provided it wasn't already knocked off by lightposts, etc) with the wing's leading edge hitting at a 15 degree angle. The engine starts punching its way through at almost the same time as the wingtip impacts; we have already allowed for plenty of deceleration. Then the left wing leading edge strikes at a 75 degree angle. A solid column 4m long, with 1m^2 cross-section striking neatly parallel to the facade, experiences a stress many times the yield strength as above, after allowing for deceleration and the incoming angle. But the wing is not a solid block - a lower mass and stress but easier to break - and does not take the impact on a frontal cross-section whose area is relatively high in relation to its volume. The leading edge of the wing is much thinner than the average 4m front to back wing depth. Most of the wing material is striking the facade upon a very small cross-sectional area with the material extending lengthwise at various angles. Thus, with the stress experienced being substantially in excess of the yield or ultimate strength, conditions are conducive to the aluminum crumpling and fragmenting, quite possibly into pieces too small to be shown in photos.
Continue to WTC Fires Part One
Return to 9/11 index