[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer [posted March 10, 2006] To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven: I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757. I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads). The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around managing the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to near-atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure region of cruising altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind. If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely. The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel. This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy, impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous wall with windows etc. is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact, and subsequent buckling of the aircraft. We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.) EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls‹a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete‹before exiting through this hole. It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion. How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated. I do not know what happened on 9/11, I do not know how politics works in this country, I can not explain why the mainstream media does not report on the problems with the 9/11 Commission. But I am an engineer, and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges are used to "cut" through materials. I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757 incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft (which I also feel is impossible), the fact that the two main engines were never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a gas station and hotel, which they have refused to release. You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757. Sincerely, Michael Meyer
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
I see this has already been posted. Please delete. Thanks
Okay, maybe it hasn't been posted. LOL! It's been posted now!
Finally, we hear from somebody who knows what he is talking about!
Yup. Did you see thier new thermite video comparison page?
"Debunking 'Caveman' conspiracy theories since 2002" Cool! Looks identical. I had not seen that footage of the tower before, or overlooked it. Yeah, Jones has been saying that only thermite could do it.
I've been discussing this Pentagon Flight 77 issue with someone tonight who has started to question it and I must admit I don't know enough about the Pentagon "crash". Were any bodies/body parts or passenger debris found at the site? Also, the main objection to me seems to be: if this was a missile then what happened to Flight 77 and its crew and passengers? I've heard that it might have been diverted and the occupants placed in some kind of protective custody, but that doesn't seem very workable to me over any length of time....Any other ideas?
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
Late response. The only evidence is of Pentagon employees' bodies at the site. The military morgue that did the processing, of course, confirmed bodies from Flight 77 but they are the same bunch to have lied previously. They just do what they are told. Plus, if bodies from Flight 77 were delivered to them, they would have no way of knowing where they came from. My guess is that those people are dead but we have no way of knowing the circumstances. There is evidence that some of the planes landed at Cleveland or Wright Patterson Air Force Base and were replaced with other remote controlled 737s. The engines spotted at the Pentagon and on the street in New York were small engines not capable of getting 757/767s off the ground. Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||