Physical and
mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash
by Gerard Holmgren
Based on this and
other similar photos,
http://www.pbase.com/image/536173
I have estimated the hole in the Pentagon wall to be about 65 ft wide, by comparing it with the height of the building which is 77 ft.
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon/facts.html
Depth of damage. This is more complex.The Pentagon consists of 5 rings of building, each separated by a space between. I couldn’t find any source which directly stated figures for the depth of the rings and the spaces, and the perspective problems of photos make it more difficult to estimate than the width. On the basis of aerial photos, ( see the links below ) I have estimated the depth of the ring itself to be about 32 ft, and the open space behind it, about the same. The outer ring collapsed , leaving a total depth of about 65 ft that the plane could potentially have fitted into, considering that the second ring of the building was intact.
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-002.jpg
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
It should be noted
that the original hole was much smaller. The 65 ft wide hole developed when
a section of the wall collapsed later.
Look at the following photos, taken soon after the crash, before that section
of wall collapsed. The thick smoke and the water jets from the firefighters
make it difficult to get a clear view, but we can determine that the hole wasn’t
anywhere near even 40 ft wide. Probably less than 20. In most of the photos,
it’s difficult to find any hole at all.
http://66.129.143.7/june2aa.htm
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
(see the two photos in question 7 )
http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/
(click on the trajectory section and scroll to the photo with the caption “Hole
center”and the subsequent photos)
Calculations based on the 65 ft wide and deep (including open space between the rings) hole which developed later, are unreasonably generous to the 757 argument. Nevertheless, I will continue to conduct the analysis on that basis. I am going to attempt to prove that it was physically possible for a Boeing 757 to crash into that section of wall, in a manner consistent with the photographic evidence. If I manage to prove that it was physically possible, that doesn’t prove that it happened - it simply keeps the argument alive. If it proves to be impossible, even by expanding the assumed hole to orders of magnitude greater than what it really was, then it didn’t happen and the argument is concluded.
PART 2. ESTIMATIONS OF HOLE DIMENSIONS
PART 3. ENTRY IMPACT CALCULATIONS AT 90 DEGREE FUSELAGE ANGLE
PART 4. EXPLOSION ANALYSIS AT 90 DEGREE FUSELAGE ANGLE
PART 5. ENTRY CALCULATIONS - FUSELAGE AT 45 DEGREES
PART 7. WERE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS DIFFERENT ON SEPT 11?
PART 8. “BUT WRECKAGE WAS FOUND.”
PART 10. THE HOLE IN THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL
PART 11. WHAT ABOUT THE EYEWITNESSES?