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 1.2, 16th December 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 both 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
757-223 model. The relevant dimensions follow. Dimensions with the word "derived" following
them were derived from accurate drawings and a straightforward scaling technique.
Relevant dimensions of Boeing 757-200 (Flugzeugtriebwerke 2003)
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 the report entitled The Pentagon Building
Performance Report, issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers. (ASCE 2003). 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.
9/11 Damage to the Pentagon
Diagram from the ACSE Report 
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.
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 - 3.6)/2) = 17.3 m (56' 7").
However, the wings of a 757 are swept back at an angle of 29 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 19.8
m (64' 11").
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
windows on the ground floor (not to mention all floors above them) remained unbroken after
the crash.
Unbroken Windows beside Primary Hole
In the image above, taken before a section of the Pentagon above the primary entrance hole
collapsed, one can see the left side of the hole, partially obscured by drifting smoke. One
can also see unbroken widows on both floors. The same phenomenon can be seen in photographs
taken on the other side of the hole.
According to the principle that we have stated above, two wings, each approximately 18-20 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. Could the wings have been entirely fragmented by the explosion of the fuel tanks after
the aircraft struck the building? The fuel tanks of a 757 are located under the fuselage, as
well as in the wing roots. The entire fuel storage area of a 757 would easily fit inside the
initial entry hole and, consequently, the explosion would have been largely confined to the
building's interior. As we shall see, the wings could not have entered the building, where
they might possibly have encountered such a fate. The blast, as such, had little effect
outside the building, as cable spools near the entry hole remained standing, for example.
4. 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, spars and ribs, 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 their 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.
5. 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 860 degrees celsius in ambient air and less in a confined space where the fire
tends to use up oxygen . (ASCE 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, burning
upward as it leapt from the building. It would therefore seem reasonable to treat the heat
source as a vertical line source, rather than as a point source, and invoke the inverse
linear law to describe the decline of heat energy with distance from the source. Radiated
heat would decline with distance x from the fire, being proportional to 1/x. Since the burn
did not occur in outer space, but on the surface of the earth, one must add the ambient
temperature to this formula to obtain a more accurate estimate of temperatures in the wing
debris closer to their tips. Finally, all temperatures will be calculated in the absolute
(Kelvin) scale, which is closely related to celsius, the conversion being
degrees Kelvin = degrees celsius + 273 (Emiliani 1988)
An ambient temperature of 20 degrees celsius would correspond to 293 degrees Kelvin. We
therefore take the formula as 1/x + 293, which yields an overestimate of the temperature.
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
net amount of heat energy being delivered to the sheet per unit time. Under the inverse
linear law, if the temperature of the sheet three meters from the fire were T, the
temperature at six meters would be T/2 + 293 K.
At three meters from the fire, we give the fire the benefit of the doubt and assume that the
temperature in the sheet reaches 1,133 K (860 C). At a distance of six meters from the fire,
the temperature reached in the sheet would be no more than
1,133/2 + 293 = 860 K
The corresponding celsius temperature at six meters from the fire would be 587 C, which is
well below the melting point (not to mention the ignition temperature) of aluminum, namely
660 C. (NASA 2003) Indeed, we can readily calculate that the critical (melting) temperature
would have been reached less than four meters from the fire.
Closer to the heat source, however, the aluminum skin of the wings could have caught fire.
Could the fire have burned out to the tips? Only if the heat of the intense vertical fire
reached that far. As we have already seen, however, temperatures in either wing would have
dropped off fairly rapidly with distance, being below ignition temperature less than four
meters from the source. We must also point out that portions of skin just outside 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 about four meters from the fire to be melted, vaporized or in any way destroyed by
it. Thus, at least 16 m (52' 6") 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 
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.
(Don't?) Try this at home
One of the authors made a simple home experiment to determine for himself just what the
burning properties of kerosene might be. Here are the steps of the experiment:
1. Prepare a wheelbarrow (or other wide container made of steel) by removing all debris and
cleaning the interior surface of all residue.
2. Pour in enough kerosene to cover the bottom of the container to a depth of one centimeter
or slightly less.
3. Add a crumpled ball of aluminum foil, an empty pop or beer can, and any pieces of old
aluminum you can find, such as lawnmower parts, aluminum door hardware or panels, etc.
4. Set the kerosene ablaze and wait a minute for maximum temperature to be reached.
5. Record which items survived the fire, as well as the degree of damage to each.
What do you observe? (See end of article for answer.)
Mini-scenario
A clear and 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. Under these conditions, it is highly doubtful that any of the
motorists traveling the beltway adjacent to the Pentagon would have been looking in the
direction of the Pentagon when an aircraft struck the building.
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 would 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 vertical 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 two images below show two parts of the
single engine found in the Pentagon. The left-hand image shows what appears to be part of
the rotor element bearing the stubs of vanes. The right-hand image shows what appears to be
the compressor (front) stage of the engine encased by its housing. This engine is barely a
third the diameter of a large turbofan engine that powers the Boeing 757.
Images of Engine Found in Pentagon
http://physics911.org/images/911/pentagon/f1-engine.jpg
The engines used by the Boeing 757 are similar to the Pratt and Whitney engine shown below
(PW 2003) and have the same dimensions, being nearly three meters in diameter, more than
twice the diameter of the engine shown above.
http://physics911.org/images/911/pentagon/f2-engine.jpg
Turbofan Engine used in Boeing 757
http://physics911.org/images/911/pentagon/pw2000.jpg
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.
Counterfactual evidence
If the Pentagon attack was essentially a massive deception, it would be very much in the
interest of the real perpetrators to sidestep the analysis presented here. Since it cannot
be argued against successfully, the perpetrators would be forced to adopt a counterfactual
strategy: explain why the crash must have occurred as described. Such an approach would be
merely puzzling to anyone who understands this article. If it could not have happened, it
did not happen. To someone in the media, however, with eyes glazed over from reading our
simple argument, the counterfactual approach would carry telling weight.
In November of 2001, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) completed a massive
study of the DNA of Pentagon victims (Kelly 2001), finding matches between remains and DNA
samples allegedly retrieved from victims' homes (gleaned from hairbrushes and other articles
of personal use). Although it may well have been the case that matches were expertly made,
the weak link in the chain of evidence lies in the collection of samples. DNA technicians
would have no way of knowing where all the samples came from. That would be the job of army
and FBI personnel that did most of the collecting.
Few people realize how simple it is to obtain tissue samples or body parts clandestinely
from morgues, medical school cadaver rooms, any place that dead bodies may be found. A piece
of liver or arm tissue complemented by a few hairs from a corpse would be all that's
necessary. Would DNA from these different sources match? Of course they would, since they're
from the same individual. Hypnotized by the word "match," media types would probably not
even realize that "match" does not mean "identify," unless there were independent
verification of the source of the samples.
Other problems with the DNA identification process involve contradictions with other claims
made by the White House and/or Pentagon about the attack. One claim, that the aircraft was
"completely vaporized" makes it doubtful that any of the DNA survived the holocaust. Another
claim, that the aircraft was blown into little bits by the initial explosion, would imply
that body parts would have been scattered all over the Pentagon grounds - which they
weren't.
Given the poor track record of the US government and military in providing accurate
information about its military and "antiterrorism" activities, any counterfactual claims
must be taken with a large grain of salt.
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.
Note
We are aware of another study of the Pentagon crash by scientists at Purdue University.
(Sozen 2002) Time permitting, we will make a detailed critique if the study. At the moment,
we will only report that the simulation team assumed that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon
and adjusted all the major inputs of their simulation study to be consistent with both the
airframe and the damage observed. Whether these adjustments were appropriate remains to be
seen. At no time was any other aircraft considered as the attack vehicle.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank members of the S.P.I.N.E. Panel, in particular, Derrick Grimmer, Jim
Hoffman, 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
(ASCE 2003) ASCE Releases Pentagon Preliminary Performance Report. 2003.
http://www.asce.org/responds/ retrieved October 29 2003.
(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/numero13/pentagone/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/pentagon/pages-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/~pschirus/aviation/flugzeuge/alt/engines2.phtml retrieved
September 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/news/java/boeing_757.shtml on June 12, 2003. [note:
this subsite is no longer publicly available to non-subscribers.]
(Kelly 2001) Christopher C. Kelly. November 30, 2001. Forensic feat IDs nearly all Pentagon
victims. Stars & Stripes. Retrieved from
http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/6_48/national_news/12279-1.html November 30, 2001.
(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.
(PW 2003) Pratt & Whitney Inc. Turbofan Engine PW 2000
http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_comm_pw2000.asp.
http://physics911.org/images/911/pentagon/pw2000.jpg
(Sozen 2002) Mete A. Sozen et al. Sept 11, 2002. September 11 attack simulations using
LS-Dyna. Purdue University. Retrieved December 14 from
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/
(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.
See also The Missing Wings Version 1.1
Archive Copy with Comments
FlatThreadedNested Oldest FirstNewest First
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
Poster Thread
TomMadigan Posted: 2003/12/28 8:13 Updated: 2003/12/28 8:13
Newcomer
Joined: 2003/12/28
From:
Posts: 1 Re: The Missing Wings
Your analysis is compelling and I must say, I wholeheartedly agree with it. One question
though, what happened to flight 77? Was there ever a "Flight 77"? Was it shot down, perhaps?
Where are the 'victims' families in all of this? No flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, no
crash victims, no missing 757; if, as you say, it was flying immediately overhead, it must
have landed at Reagan airport and no one onboard, the pilots, the crew, the passengers have
said anything?????
If a Boeing 757 did crash into that building on 9/11/2001, the resultant scene would be an
unimaginable nightmare, far worse than what actually is observed.
Replies Poster Posted
Re: The Missing Wings brad 2004/1/3 3:49
Off-Topic: Fire in Newark woody 2004/1/6 8:21
Re: Off-Topic: Fire in Newark brad 2004/1/9 6:07
Re: Off-Topic: Fire in Newark woody 2004/1/9 8:49
Re: Off-Topic: Fire in Newark brad 2004/1/10 7:23
Re: Off-Topic: Fire in Newark woody 2004/1/11 15:36
Re: The Missing Wings brad 2004/1/18 5:13
Re: The Missing Wings "There was no plane" Blackheart77 2004/3/11 4:48
Re: The Missing Wings brad 2004/3/11 5:08
Re: The Missing Wings Jazz 2004/4/22 7:18
Re: The Missing Wings Heathcoat 2004/5/6 15:25
You people are NUTS !! xusnatc 2004/7/1 4:24
Re: You people are NUTS !! metatron 2004/8/1 12:31
Re: The Missing Wings Dylan 2004/10/11 14:15
Poster Thread
Bob Posted: 2004/1/6 22:31 Updated: 2004/1/6 22:31
Newcomer
Joined: 2003/11/30
From:
Posts: 9 Shocking mistake in this article
The authors are writing:
Quote:
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")
This is not correct. The PENTAGON BUILDING PERFORMANCE REPORT of the ASCE (see
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf) shows clearly that EIGHT of the
front-row-columns are "missing, broken, disconnected or otherwise without remaining
function". (Page 53). Theese columns are marked red in this image:
The Report also gives clear ecvidence that the gap was arround 90 feet (= 27,5 m) wide, not
only 15,5 m.
The Report shows photos from nearly everly single column. All in all it is evident that the
hole was arround 28 m (before the collapes).
The Report was released already on January 23th, 2003.
So this assumption of the authors is in no way true, which means that we do not have to
discuss the rest of the article.
Bob
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/damage/impact757-2.gif
Replies Poster Posted
Re: Shocking mistake in this article brad 2004/1/9 6:22
Re: Shocking mistake in this article Bob 2004/1/12 21:07
Re: Shocking mistake in this article Andreas 2004/2/15 20:54
Re: Shocking mistake in this article Andreas 2004/2/15 19:09
Poster Thread
Andreas Posted: 2004/2/15 20:44 Updated: 2004/2/15 20:44
Newcomer
Joined: 2004/2/15
From:
Posts: 5 Re: Aluminum Ignition Temperature
Aluminum is a pyrophoric metal whose ignition point is not necessarily below its melting
point. On one hand, aluminum is so highly reactive that exposed surfaces of aluminum oxidize
immediately in air, and even react exothermically with water to release hydrogen. On the
other hand, aluminum's excellent thermal conductivity can instantly conduct heat away from
hotspots. So while large blocks of aluminum ignite at about 2300K, sufficiently small
particles of aluminum have nowhere to conduct local temperature fluctuations away to. Thus
aluminum flakes and powder are extremely explosive and can ignite spontaneously in air at
room temperature.
As aircraft insurance adjusters will readily testify, parts of the thin aluminum skin of
commercial airliners can and do commonly burn in airplane crash fires. But for the entire
skin of the excluded portions of the wings of the alleged Boeing 757 to be consumed in a
kerosene fire would, I believe, be unprecedented. And the massive aluminum wing spars of a
757 would certainly not ignite at the combustion temperature of jet fuel.
But what if the fire burned hotter than jet fuel, and what if the wings were small enough to
fit inside the high-temperature realm of the explosion, and what if the aluminum skin were
much thinner than that of a 757? In fact, the impact area on the façade indicates that the
aircraft that actually attacked the Pentagon was only half as wide and tall as a 757; the
surveillance photographs indicate that the actual explosion was far hotter than a kerosene
fire; and the scrap of painted aluminum photographed on the lawn indicates that the aircraft
skin was much thinner than a 757's. Under these conditions, the entire skin of the wing
remainders, if made of aluminum, could well have been incinerated. But the struts and spars?
Andreas
Replies Poster Posted
only half as wide? Correction 2004/7/6 3:57
Poster Thread
y0butz Posted: 2004/2/28 1:55 Updated: 2004/2/28 1:55
Newcomer
Joined: 2004/2/28
From:
Posts: 1 Tail image and engine pix
I downloaded and enlarged the security camera images. Comparing the size of the tail to the
building, and realizing that it's coming toward the camera at an angle, I'd say it appears
to be plenty large enough to be a 757 tail. The lighting and graininess preclude being able
to see the logo.
Re: the engine parts in the photos, I would say they could easily be from a PW2000. The
outer fan diameter you see in the comparison photo is much larger than the inner 'core'.
Here are some images of a PW2000:
http://www.flypac.com/images/pw2/pw2.jpg
http://www.flypac.com/images/pw2/pw22.jpg
From the cutaway drawing, you can see the inner rotors are quite small in comparison to the
overall stage one fan.
Rick
MD80 Captain
Replies Poster Posted
Glaring errors in this article and comments section twothousandgt 2004/3/1 3:53
Re: Glaring errors in this article and comments section mach32 2004/4/22 2:52
Re: Tail image and engine pix "Ther was no plane" Blackheart77 2004/3/11 4:51
Re: Tail image and engine pix Blackheart77 2004/3/11 5:24
Re: Tail image and engine pix mach32 2004/4/22 2:09
Re: Tail image and engine pix Correction 2004/7/6 3:12
Re: Tail image and engine pix Correction 2004/7/6 3:12
Poster Thread
Heathcoat Posted: 2004/5/5 15:34 Updated: 2004/5/5 15:34
Newcomer
Joined: 2004/5/4
From:
Posts: 5 Re: The Missing Wings
Wings! Never mind the wings of the plane. Where are and what happened to all the passengers
that were suppose to be onboard that Flight 77?! And how in the world of common sense, logic
and physics did the nose of that jetliner manage to go through all that 'reinforced
concrete' and come out in almost pristine condition?! Some like the'magic bullet' that
killed Kennedy all over again! Maybe we should ask Rumsfeld. He is the one that ordered all
the grounds completely 'cleaned' soon after this attack!!! I smell a RAT...
Replies Poster Posted
Re: The Missing Wings Correction 2004/7/6 3:34
Poster Thread
davea0511 Posted: 2004/6/3 5:29 Updated: 2004/6/3 5:29
Newcomer
Joined: 2004/6/3
From:
Posts: 1 Wings don't easily shear off
Wings don't easily shear off. If they did planes would be falling out of the sky left and
right. If the fuselage hit an impenetrable barrier I'd agree that shearing occured, but in
this case my vote is that they bent backwards (toward the tail of the plane).
Why backwards? Because the fuselage had far more momentum than the wings (because it's so
much more massive) - so the plane slowed down very little on initial impact so there's no
relative motion that would cause the wings to shear or even bend forward at impact. Then the
wings are more likely to fold back as they followed the fuselage into the building, getting
physically smashed against the fuselage. In fact, as the right wing hits the building first,
it bends back while shifting the whole plane to the left, thereby changing the angle of
entry to be more perpendicular to the building. This is very intuitive if you take a moment
to visualize it.
That's what happened in reality (the plane appeared to enter the building at a more
perpendicular angle than it was at impact), giving credence to this scenario.
Of course, most of the wing would not have time to completely fold behind the fuselage - it
has it's own momentum which affects it's motion, but enough does fold back to easily explain
why the point of entry could be more narrow than you suggest it needs to be for a 757.
Sorry guys, but that convinces me that a 757 is very possible - and quite likely in fact
from the "missing wings" standpoint. Aluminum is soft; Concrete isn't; The fuselage has most
of the momentum; Airplane wings will bend before they shear - all adding up to what the
pictures would show for a 757 crash into such a fortified structure.
Replies Poster Posted
Re: Wings don't easily shear off BlackFlag 2004/6/8 6:57
Re: Wings don't easily shear off BillyShope 2004/6/16 23:53
Re: Wings don't easily shear off Correction 2004/7/8 10:46
Poster Thread
Correction Posted: 2004/7/6 3:20 Updated: 2004/7/6 3:20
Regular
Joined: 2004/7/6
From:
Posts: 25 DNA technicians would have no way of knowing where all the samples came from?
An unfounded assertion is not a proof.
We see no reason at all to refute the possibility that the evidence was honestly and
accurately labelled.
Poster Thread
Correction Posted: 2004/7/6 3:38 Updated: 2004/7/6 3:38
Regular
Joined: 2004/7/6
From:
Posts: 25 strange maneuvers?
If the C-130 carried out strange maneuvers to keep as many eyes as possible riveted on that
aircraft, then it failed miserably.
A few witnesses mentioned the C130. A much larger number described the American Airways jet
that hit the building.
Poster Thread
Correction Posted: 2004/7/6 3:44 Updated: 2004/7/6 3:44
Regular
Joined: 2004/7/6
From:
Posts: 25 Re: The Missing Wings
there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the wings (and therefore the aircraft) were
never present in the first place?
On the contrary the only way to hope to palm off such a ridiculous pile of garbage would be
to completely ignore the fact that the said wings felled five lamp poles, a feat only
possible with a wing span of 90 feet at the very least.
Poster Thread
Correction Posted: 2004/7/6 4:05 Updated: 2004/7/6 4:05
Regular
Joined: 2004/7/6
From:
Posts: 25 how the wings might have disappeared:
In much the same way that they did in the Sandia 1988 rocket-sled test:
http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm
And when the B747 burned up at Madras:
http://www.baaa-acro.com/photos/B747-200-Air%20France-Madras.jpg
Poster Thread
Correction Posted: 2004/7/6 4:11 Updated: 2004/7/6 4:11
Regular
Joined: 2004/7/6
From:
Posts: 25 Fireball From Initial Hole in Pentagon?
Wrong.
The fireball in the Daryl Donley photo is located not where the nose of the plane hit the
building but just beside the entrance to corridor 5 exactly where a tree had previously
stood.
Poster Thread
Correction Posted: 2004/7/7 14:19 Updated: 2004/7/7 14:19
Regular
Joined: 2004/7/6
From:
Posts: 25 Logical Fallacy
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.
If an apparent absence of wing detritus is supposed to exclude the possiblity that wings
existed, why then about an apparent absence of a smaller, single-engined aircraft, roughly
the size and shape of an F-16?
Not one of the eye witnesses saw such an object, nor anything like it, right?
Poster Thread
Correction Posted: 2004/7/8 11:17 Updated: 2004/7/8 11:17
Regular
Joined: 2004/7/6
From:
Posts: 25 Re: The Missing Wings
Nobody disputes that a B-52 hit bomber the Empire State Building in 1945 while flying in
fog.
It caused this hole:
Look carefully.
http://www.cosmik.com/aa-april02/pics/dj3.jpg
How wide is the hole?
The wingspan of a B-52 is 67ft. 7in.
Poster Thread
Correction Posted: 2004/7/8 11:21 Updated: 2004/7/8 11:21
Regular
Joined: 2004/7/6
From:
Posts: 25 Re: The Missing Wings
Nobody disputes that a B-52 hit bomber the Empire State Building in 1945 while flying in
fog.
It caused this hole:
Look carefully.
How wide is the hole?
The wingspan of a B-52 is 67ft. 7in.
Replies Poster Posted
Re: The Missing Wings serl 2004/8/2 15:38
Re: The Missing Wings Fieldlab 2004/9/3 16:39
Re: The Missing Wings jemmy 2004/9/3 19:22
Poster Thread
Fieldlab Posted: 2004/9/3 16:01 Updated: 2004/9/3 16:01
Newcomer
Joined: 2004/9/3
From:
Posts: 3 Re: The Missing Wings
Man- such an involved analysis, but not presented for review but already as a theory. Good
analysis of only some of the facts, and overlooking simpler explanations for others.
Count the number of windows across of the blackened hole in several of the photos. About 9
windows- just what you would expect.
Note the fire all over the ground across a wide swath of the building face. Just what you
would expect from jet fuel. A missile would not produce such a fireball and wide line of
flame. The fire does not seem consistent with either a concrete piercing warhead or a fuel
air bomb, both of which would normally go off inside the target, not outside, AFAIK.
If the walls of the pentagon are reinforced, I would not expect much to be left of the
engines. For sure some blades should have survived. But just claiming the singe turbine
found is too small to be a PW2000 seems ridiculous. Perhaps you did not have your hypothesis
peer audited before publishing. Anyone who knows much about aircraft knows that any smaller
turbine would likely be the APU turbine, which, typically located at the back of the plane,
could also survive better than any other component.
There is also the impact "turn-in" factor to consider, in which the wing which strikes first
causes the fuselage to slightly pivot into the building, further enhanced by the continued
angle of incidence of the impact post entry. Both factors could contribute to slightly
lessening the effective angle of the impact, and therefore the frontal penetration area of
the outside wall.
Unfortunately, nothing else is conclusive. If there is a cover up, it seems to have been
successful. It's too bad there is (allegedly) no other incidental video footage.
Poster Thread
CCWCoalition Posted: 2004/9/12 0:14 Updated: 2004/9/12 0:14
Newcomer
Joined: 2004/9/12
From:
Posts: 1 Re: The Missing Wings
All of us are quite aware by this late date, that a fraud (perversion of truth), including
mass murder, was perpetrated on 9/11/2001. Isn't it about time for ALL of us to establish a
Grand Jury for the purposes of identifying and charging (indicting) the criminals at large
per American foundational Law and/or the Declaration of Independence?
CCW Coalition
bravenet.com
