From: Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press,
Washington, D.C.

To: Mary Jean Olsen, Boeing Corp.

Re: Claims Made About Impact of a Boeing
Aluminum-bodied Aircraft at Pentagon

Dear Ms Olsen:

There is a new article about the Pentagon crash is at
The New American's website:

My questions are about how an aluminum-bodied aircraft
would react to an impact on the 2-foot thick outer
wall of the Pentagon. As Ben Partin claims, much of
the aluminum-bodied plane vaporized, while the
fuselage acted like a shaped charge or an
armor-piercing missile and bored through 10 feet of
steel reinforced concrete:

"When you slam an aluminum aircraft at high velocity
into a concrete structure, it's going to do exactly
what we saw happen at the Pentagon on 9/11," Partin
said in the Jasper article. "If you look at the
frontal mass cross-section of the plane, you see a
cylinder of aluminum skin with stringers. When it
impacts with the exterior wall at 700-800 feet per
second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane
converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminum
converts to vapor, burning to aluminum oxide.

"That's why on the still photos from [the] Pentagon surveillance
camera, you first see the frame with that brilliant white luminescent
flash just before the frame of the orange fireball, the jet fuel
burning. The aluminum cylinder - the plane fuselage - is acting
like a shaped charge penetrating a steel plate. It
keeps penetrating until it is consumed," Partin said.

Note that Partin claims that much of the aluminum body
and wings vaporized on impact, yet the same aluminum
fuselage acted like an armor-penetrating missile and
bored through 10 feet of reinforced concrete, brick,
and limestone walls.

Is this a credible explanation in your opinion? Would
an aluminum-bodied commercial aircraft behave in this


Christopher Bollyn