Pentagon 9/11: Scientific Evidence
Proves Official Account of 'Flight 77' Is False
Given the topography, the force
generated by the transition of 'Flight 77' from its downward path to level
flight would cause the aircraft to crash before striking the
Pentagon
A simple formula, familiar to high school students, can be used to refute the
official account of American Airlines Flight 77 -- alleged to have
struck the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
This formula approximates the force that would be
exerted on an aircraft when it transitions from its downward path to level
flight.
First we determine the mass of the aircraft.
Flight 77, a Boeing 757, had taken off from Washington Dulles International
airport, and was bound for Los Angeles. Assuming its fuel tanks were full,
and ignoring the weight of the 64 passengers, and cargo (which should be
available if one wants to include them), the weight of the plane would be
about 255,000 pounds (Boeing
Technical Specifications).
For our calculation we'll assume that weight and mass are equal, i.e.
255,000 pounds.
For velocity we turn to the official account that Flight 77 struck the
Pentagon at "530 miles per hour" (The 9/11 Commission Report, p10).
For our calculation we'll assume that speed and velocity are
equal, i.e. 530 mph (speed is a scalar and velocity is a vector).
To calculate the radius, we could begin with a statement in The 9/11
Commission Report (p9): Flight 77 was "5 miles west-southwest of the
Pentagon" when it "began a 330-degree turn. At the end of turn, it was
descending through 2,200 feet".
Next we need to calculate the maximum radius (the most conservative case) of
the arc that would allow the aircraft to
transition from its downward path to level flight (while clearing obstacles in
its path), and strike the Pentagon at the point described in official
reports.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth base their calculation on the Flight Data Recorder
(FDR) data
obtained pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request filed with the
National Transportation Safety Board, and carefully constructed topography
of the area below the flight path.
Leaving aside the discrepancies between the official account of Flight 77,
and the Flight Data Recorder (which NTSB refuses to answer), Pilots for 9/11
Truth calculated a radius equal to about 579 feet.
From this they calculated the force on the Boeing 757 at 34 Gs, i.e. 34
times the force due to gravity.
There has been some criticism of the calculations performed by Pilots for
9/11 Truth, and they have answered
their critics.
With mass, velocity, and radius equal to 255,000 lbs, 530 mph, and 579 feet
respectively, the preceding formula
yields force equal to 8,276,850 lbs, i.e. the Boeing 757 would act as if it
had increased its weight by 8,276,850 lbs, or more than 32 times its normal weight.
With a virtual weight of about 8.5 million pounds, Flight 77 could not have
levelled off before striking the Pentagon. It would have crashed before it
reached the Pentagon.
This single fact is sufficient to refute the official account of "Flight
77."
Pilots for 9/11 Truth did another calculation
by lowering the height of "Flight 77" below that shown by the FDR. They
lowered it to to the top of the Virginia Department of Transportation
communications antenna that sits below the alleged flight path.
With this very conservative case, they calculated the force on the Boeing
757 at 11.2 Gs. "11.2 Gs was never recorded in the FDR. 11.2 Gs would rip
the aircraft apart" they state.
If you disagree, figure out the mass, velocity, and radius, and plug them
into the formula
to calculate the force. If you have a better formula, use it. Could a Boeing
757 survive the calculated force?
What hard evidence has the government released to support its position?
If you have that evidence, we'd like to see it.
Scientific, and other evidence,
reinforce the conclusion: the official account of Flight 77 is false.
"Evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are
inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a
theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that
is inconsistent with the theory."
"In the scientific search for truth there are no time limits and no point at
which a final decision must be made." (Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, p81)