Add up for the pentagon plane crash? A pilots
analysis.
Our loyal listener Mark
Johnson sent us this great analysis of the Pentagon
event and gave his permission to share it with you. It
definitely
one of the more scientific approaches we've seen.----- Original
Message -----
Wrom:
Mark
Johnson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 4:45 PM
Subject: Fw: [Fwd: Does the math and physics add up?]
Well, here is another educated opinion that has
come in. I'm still looking for answers, but I have a whole lot more
questions...
And if any of you didn't get the link to the French
news paper, here it is again.
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
In Christ Jesus,
Mark
----- Original Message -----
Wrom: AFXI
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Does the math and physics add up?]
Al,
I
flew the Boeing 747 JUMBO Jet., but not this 757. I
retired before this came into service. But, from what I see( or don't see) looking at these pictures; its
hard to pick out aircraft parts. The wingtips alone would have sheared off and
bounced back into the street, the engines (2) would have penetrated deeper into
the wall and framing structure further than any other part making a definite
hole. The belly of the aircraft contains, fuel tanks, baggage, mail bags, and
cargo; none of this type debris can be seen. Assuming 8600 gallons of kerosene
fuel @ specific gravity of approx 6.9 lbs/gal (temperature considered) weight of
the fuel would be close to 60,000 lbs and would splatter everywhere. Where are
the seats, those with passengers buckled in would be ripped our of the floor, for
that matter, where are the passengers? I have never seen an aircraft accident
where the aircraft evaporated upon impact, water, land or buildings. If these
pictures were taken within 3 days after 9/11, there would have been definite
remains of parts. I don't see any. However,
digital computer photos can be doctored up to suit any lawyers cause. From the photos shown, there ain't no fly in this
pudding.
Big Al wrote:
Erik, you flew this type plane I'm sure when flying for Pam Am all those
years. What's your take on this? Should there be any parts of the
plane left? Why does it not show any plane parts at all?
Dewey, you are a pilot also, what is your take on this? Has he a valid
concern that no plane parts are left.
Subject: Does the math and physics add up?
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:12:00 -0600 From: To:
I am sending this to some of you just that there
are question, and others of you who I know are pilots and engineers. I don't
have answers at this point, but I do have questions. This is not my original
thought, but I am following up with this because I wanted to see the evidence
myself before I asked questions after hearing others discussing
it. If the plane below was on its
way from the East Coast to the West Coast it had to be about 3/4 full which
means approximately 8600 gallons of fuel. How are the walls in picture one still
white and not covered in soot/smoke stains after 8600 gallons. Not just the
interior, but look at the front wall face in picture one. Granted, the top is
smoldering.
Picture
1
Now look at the
width of the building that was hit in picture 2. I'm trying to figure out how
this plane hit. The best way to do this is to look at the steel guard rail at
the bottom of the screen
Picture 2
Generally the space between each support beam
for the guard rail is 4 to 6 ft. Lets give it the benefit of the doubt saying
it is six. The length of the building damaged is 6 of these guard rails. You
can not see on the bottom right of the building there is a slightly larger chunk
missing right behind the front of the fire truck. So lets sat 6x6 = 36 ft now
lets add 25% which should over compensate for the optical difference from the
guard rail to the building. Now this is 45ft. Now look again at the
specifications of the plane below. The wing span is 124 ft. Almost 3 times the size of this hole in the building. Also,
looking at the front and top of the building. Even if the wings "broke off" I
don't see any marks or cracks beyond the "hole" in the building. Now lets say
the plane came in at a 45 degree angle from picture 3 below, we can see the
plane's wing did not hit the ground or if it did, not by much because there
would be a huge gouge in the ground or the wing would have broke off and or bent
an taken out more of the building. Along with a boat load of fuel being all
over the ground. So the distance from the top edge of one side of the whole to
the bottom edge of the other side of the hole would be about 60 feet. So if the
plane went in perfectly with the edge skirting on the ground, there is 56 ft of
wing before you get to the Exterior Cabin, so you would have nearly the whole
cabin and one entire wing sitting on the center courtyard if the airplane split
in half.
Picture
3
For some additional
size ratio, in picture one, you can see that the pentagon has "4 floors". Now
look at picture 4, if you take the firemen at 6ft tall, you can estimate each
floor is 10 to 12 ft high. Giving a total of about 48ft tall much shorter
than the wing span of the 124ft 10 inches. Now also, the height of the tail is
44ft 6 inches, so where is any of it?
Picture 4
Finally, the real nail bitter for me is
Picture number 2. Look at how the floors
are stacked on top of one another.
Shouldn't most of the floors be blown in and
laying on the inner courtyard instead of stacked
on top of one another? Even the roof is
laying on top of the other floors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Boeing 757-300 has the lowest seat mile
operating cost of any single-aisle airplane on the market, and a lower cost per
trip than any twin-aisle airplane. The 757-300 is already known for
passenger-pleasing reliability. In its first year of revenue service, it
achieved a reliability rate of 99.64 percent. The 757-300 has an all-new
passenger cabin interior. |
|
|
757-300 |
Passengers
Typical 3-class configuration Typical 2-class configuration Typical
1-class configuration |
N/A 243 280 |
Cargo |
2,370 cu ft (67.1 cu m) |
Engines
maximum thrust |
Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B 43,500 lb (193.5 kN)
Pratt & Whitney PW2043 42,600 lb (189.4 kN) |
Maximum Fuel Capacity |
11,466 gal (43,400 l) |
Maximum Takeoff Weight |
272,500 lb (123,600 kg) |
Maximum Range |
3,395 nautical miles (6,287 km) |
Cruise Speed |
Mach
0.80 |
Basic
Dimensions Wing Span Overall Length Tail Height
Interior Cabin Width Body Exterior Width |
124 ft 10 in (38.05 m) 178 ft 7 in (54.5 m) 44 ft 6
in (13.6 m) 11 ft 7 in (3.5 m) 12 ft 4 in (3.7
m) | |
| |
|