US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
Physical and mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash Part 2 (english)
24 Oct 2002
Modified: 29 Oct 2002
Continues from part 1, which was cut short while uploading
Additional to the fact that this represents less than 0.1 % of the volume of the alleged plane, what evidence is there that any of this was once part of a Boeing 757 ? It could be from anything. We know that something hit the Pentagon, that there was an explosion, and that where there is an explosion there will be debris of some sort.
To argue that this provides any evidence for either side of the argument is witchcraft trial logic. ď You must be a witch, because you wouldnít have been accused if you werenít Ē.
ď We know that a 757 was there. That proves that this is debris from a 757. And the fact that this is debris from a 757 proves that it was there... Ē
This debris is totally unidentifiable, and itís volume is too insignificant to adress the problem of unaccounted for wreckage

Supporters of the 757 theory claim this fragment to be wreckage from AA 77, citing the AA colours as proof.

In fact, it is the alleged AA colours which prove conclusively that this cannot possibly be part of the alleged plane. Has American Airlines invented a new kind of indestructible paint? This fragment has allegedly been violently flung out from an explosion which reduced a giant airliner to the dust and ashes and unidentifiable tiny fragments shown in the above photo. And yet the paint is as shiny and new as the day it was applied. Does it take more energy to peel and blacken paint, than to destroy 100 tons of aircraft? Clearly painted sections survive most crashes, as shown in the crash photos. But in those cases, no one is alleging an explosion catastrophic enough to vaporize 100 tons of plane. They break up and perhaps burn a bit. In really fierce crashes, some of the plane may actually be destroyed, but even in these cases, tons of reasonaly intact wreckage remains. So these scenarios are consistent with the recovery of painted sections, even in bad crashes. The allegation that this brightly painted fragment survived is irreconcilable with the claim that 99.99% of the plane was vapourized.
This is about as believable as the stories that the alleged hijackers were identified by the discovery of their miraculously unscathed passports at crash sites which cremated the planes and occupants. The metal is also shiny and new looking, and there is no sign of grass singeing from the heat in the area where it landed. It is quite impossible for this to be from an aircraft which had just been reduced to a pile of ashes.

I anticipate an accusation of inconsistency here.
ďFirst you complain that wreckage is not identifiable, then when it is, you say that such identification would be impossible, proving itís a fake.Ē
Not so. The photos shown earlier were examples of identifiable and credible wreckage.

Thereís a further problem with this piece of wreckage. The colours are wrong anyway. Take a close look at the colour scheme used by American Airlines. First, note that the alleged wreckage has a white stripe next to red which is of a larger area than the white stripe. Note the absence of any blue stripe.Now letís look at some actual AA plane photos and youíll see that that this colour scheme isnít used. Except possibly in the American Airlines lettering on the top front part of the fuselage, a point Iíll come back to.

This link will take you to a page with thumbnail photos of American Airlines planes. I chose not to supply the direct links to the enlarged thumbnails, because the URLs were extraordinarily long,and faced a significant risk of breaking once published on the web.

Note that the striped colour scheme which the crude fake has attempted to copy does not appear on the wings or tail fins. The reason I make this point, is that this rules out the possibility that this piece of the plane was sheared off during the approach, before the explosion, by hitting a lightpole. If thereís any possibility that itís a genuine AA colour scheme, it can only have come from part of the American Airlines lettering, on the top and front part of the fuselage, which means that this piece could not have been sheared off on the way in, and therefore must have been subject to the explosion. And that is impossible, even if we were to pretend that such an explosion was generally possible. Furthermore the only part of the plane which it could possibly have come from is towards the front. If the explosion occurred in the middle of the plane, debris from the front area would have been flung forwards into the building not away from it. And if the explosion occurred in the front part of the plane, making it possible to blow this piece backwards, then this area of the plane would have been subject to the most powerful part of the blast, so if we were going to see surviving pieces of debris flung backwards, (especially with paintwork still intact ) they should be from the rear of the plane. And if itís alleged that it was thrown forward with such force that it hit something else and bounced back all this distance, wouldnít the paintwork, be just a little scratched?
Whoever designed and planted this fake, didnít think it through.

Authorities would have us believe that 63 of the 64 people aboard AA 77 were identified from DNA testing.
This link
(See question 20)

explains why DNA testing is not able to identify all of the WTC victims. Because DNA is destroyed by high temperatures. Read any article or technical paper on DNA storage and sampling, and it will mention the critical role of correct temperature in maintaining the integrity of the samples. And theyíre not talking about temperatures above 600 degrees C as being destructive, but temperatures below 150. It needed a minimum temperature of 660 to melt the plane. Actually, a lot more because it would have to have been 660 minimum, at the extremities, so it would have been much higher in most of the centre fuselage where the people were. The temperatures required to cremate it are almost unimaginable. And yet we are supposed to believe both stories, that nothing remains of the plane, but 63 of 64 victims still had their DNA intact, while at the same time the heat generated in the WTC is a serious obstacle to DNA testing.

We were told that even many victims of the Bali bombing in Oct 2002 might never be identified.

[[ The equipment included medical supplies, DNA testing facilities and refrigerated containers to ease the crisis at Denpasar's vastly overworked makeshift morgue.
But officials admitted today the carnage was so horrific that technology would make no difference in some cases.
"It's highly likely that some victims will be unable to be identified," said Australia's consul-general in Bali, Ross Tysoe.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, visiting the scene for the first time, said: "Many of them are burnt beyond recognition."
Those close to the deadliest of the two explosions, at Sari's nightclub in the Kuta tourist strip, would have "disintegrated", Mr Downer said. ]]

And yet we are supposed to believe that those at the centre of a blast which vapourized a 100 ton aircraft left DNA which tested 98.4% successful.

To analogize this itís worth going back to the 1 to 10,000 scale model. Itís like suggesting that before you set fire to it, you placed inside 64 small pieces of plant or animal material. After the catastrophic explosion of the 1/2 gallon of kerosine successfully reduced the 18 lb aluminium model to dust and ashes, 63 of the 64 pieces of material inside, were still able to be successfully DNA tested.

This photo shows a hole punched through the Pentagon wall at the back of the damaged area.

Lets find itís exact location.
In the next photo, scroll to the bottom and look approximately in the middle of the photo, at the back of the third ring, below the second set of windows to the right of the bridge between the rings, casting a large shadow Youíll see the top half of a circular hole.

Hereís the same scene from a different angle.You can now see all of the hole .

It appears to be at angle of something like 45 degrees from the first ring damage area. How much stone has been penetrated to make this hole? Assuming no internal walls, 6 walls. If each wall is 3 feet thick, thatís 18 ft of stone, plus or minus any inaccuracy of the guess of the thickness of the walls, perhaps plus anything that was in the way, inside the buildings. Because its at a 45 degree angle, whatever has made it has actually had to punch out 27 ft of stone.

An explosion that digs tunnels? Not even the hard line 757 enthusiasts are suggesting that this was caused by the impossible explosion. The logical explanation is a missile. The 757 supporters claim that it was punched through the wall by one of the planeís engines.

The engines are mounted on the wings. The wings were allegedly cremated. How did the engine not only escape disintegration, but propel itself forward two to three rings beyond where any of the rest of the plane got to? (Three rings beyond refers to some scenarios that the plane never actually penetrated the building but crashed just outside).

There are only two available energy sources for any part of the plane to move through the wall. The momentum of the plane,and the alleged force of the explosion. If the energy source was the latter, why did it propel one small part of the plane forward, while destroying the rest of it? And if the energy source was the momentum of the plane, why hasnít the 100 ton fuselage burst through the rings, instead of the 6 ton engine?

Iím going to try to construct the best argument I can that this was caused by an engine. The engine became disconnected from the wing before the plane blew up. Otherwise the engine would have blown up too.
The engine must have been jolted free of the wing and propelled forward by itís existing motion at the same time as something else stopped the rest of the plane in itís tracks. By the time the explosion happened, the engine was out of range of the destructive blast, and already punching itís way through the wall. Why did the engine burst free? As the plane was approaching the building, the wing hit a light pole weakening the mountings around the engine so that it was hanging by a thread. As the nose slammed into the wall, or perhaps the plane hit the ground just in front of the wall, the resultant change of momentum stopped the plane very quickly, jolting the engine free. It fired into the wall, bursting through as the plane blew up.

Thatís the best I can do, but there are huge problems.

For a start, the engine weighed about 6 tons, according to these specifications for similar engines

(Note: The weights listed next to the engine on the Boeing technical site referenced at the beginning of the article, do not refer to the engine's weight, but to its thrust power.)

Its a little difficult to imagine that the mountings attatching an engine of this weight could be so critically weakened by hitting a pole, but never mind - ignoring reality has become a regular necessity for any attempt to keep the 757 theory alive. Lets press on.

If we speculate that the nose of the 100 ton plane hit the wall,and stopped dead, hardly penetrating, then we canít seriously suggest that an engine, 6% of the weight, now travelling at a lesser speed than what the plane would have been doing when it hit the wall, could punch itís way through three rings. If the plane hit the ground, and stopped dead, a few feet from the wall, and then blew up, where is the 155ft fuselage crater,and the sideways damage from the wings? Thatís without the explosion. Where is the circle of devastation which should be a radius of something more than 77 ft? This photo demonstrates that this didnít happen.

If the engine didnít detach until after the explosion then it canít have outrun the blast. Everything would have been blown up together. If the engine detached from the shock of impact, as the nose hit the wall, and then flew towards the wall, the nose had no reason to stop penetrating the wall until the explosion blew it up. This means that the nose was always further forward than the engine, so if the nose is blown up, so is the engine. If we postulate an angle for the plane and a position for the nose, to try to create a scenario that the engine shoots wide of the blast area, then itís also shooting wide of the impact area. Youíd have to produce evidence of a second entry point. Whichever engine it was, it has to pass through the 65 ft hole area, and in any scenario where the nose penetrates the wall, itís going to pass through later than the nose. And since they must both be travelling into the building at the same angle, then the distance between them will never widen as a result of angle.

So unless you want to suggest that the engine actually fired from the wing before the impact ( like a missile ), then any scenario which has the nose penetrating the wall is impossible. In case someone suggests that the engine fired off immediately upon hitting a light pole, Iíll point out that theyíre built to withstand that kind of contact, and even if they werenít, that would knock the engine backwards, not shoot it ahead of the plane. In fact, whatever the cause of itís detachment, if it came off when the plane was still moving, itís impossible for it to have been fired off faster than what the plane was moving, so if anything happened beforehand, it would have fallen off, not shot forward like a missile.

If the scenario involving the nose hitting the wall is impossible, and the scenario of the nose not hitting the wall is also impossible, then it didnít happen.

So it was a missile. But lets pretend that the previous analysis doesnít exist and look at other aspects of this question, pretending that the engine theory is still alive.

Lets pretend that it was possible for the plane to stop short of the wall and blow up outside, ignoring the lack of damage to the lawns, and say that the engine was jolted free by the previously speculated method, and managed to outrun the blast, before the plane blew up.
If the plane was doing 400 mph when it suddenly stopped, and the engine flew off at a speed of about 300 mph, then it was travelling towards the wall at about 440 ft per second. The way the engines are mounted on a 757

The engine would have about 60 ft to travel to strike the wall, allowing for the plane stopping 5 ft short of the wall. (90 degree fuselage angle) Angling the fuselage at 45 degrees to make the engineís flight path compatible with the direction of the third ring hole, makes negligible difference to the distance from engine to wall, as long we postulate that it was the inner wing engine. If it was the outer wing, it has to travel about 120 ft to strike the wall. Also, the effective horizontal width created to the north (assuming the plane to have approached from the south) by the outer engine angle, means that the front of the fuselage has to be placed hard against the right edge of the 65 ft hole, to fit the engine's entry point into the damaged area. This is significant, because we are now postulating a scenario where the wall suffered no impact other than the engine strike and the explosion. Itís impossible to make a credible case for the fuselage cremation happening hard up against the edge of the hole, when just a few feet away windows were unbroken. So we need to assume that it was the inner engine. This enables the nose to be placed close to the centre of the area of 65 ft damage, while still allowing the engine to fire through the damaged area, avoiding the problem of having to suggest a non-existent second entry point.

So the engine had about 60 ft to travel to the wall. At 440 ft per second this would take close enough to 150 milliseconds. If the plane blew up before this, the engine would be toasted along with everything else, because itís travelling a line which takes the inner side of it only 15 ft from the exploding fuselage. So even if had reached the wall, that still wouldnít save it. We really need to give it time to burrow into the wall a safe distance from the blast. If itís speed halved to 220 ft per second, when it struck the wall, then it would take about another 50 ms to fully enter itís 11.5 ft length into the wall, and we need to allow another 50 ms for it to burrow a further 10 ft to be safe. Even this might not be enough because itís penetration path is crossing the middle of the
65 ft hole, in front of where the nose is blowing up - the part of the wall that would be subject to the most force. It might need another 50 ms of burrowing. So to keep the engine safe from the blast, we have to postulate a delay of 250 to 300 ms after the plane crashed, before it blew up. Instinctively, this seems impossible, although I canít produce hard data to prove it. But the scenario as a whole is impossible.

This is what had to happen. The plane canít have hit with the nose pointing sharply down into the ground, because then the engine would have been fired into the ground. So it had to land just about level, but stop dead - like a sudden 90 degree belly flop straight out of a momentum of 400 mph. Then we have to postulate a 250 to 300 ms delay, before it suddenly blows up with a ferocity never before seen in aviation history. During this delay, we have to postulate that it didnít break up significantly, otherwise other parts of wreckage would have gone flying off and also escaped the blast. Then it suddenly cremated itself, and did all this without damaging the lawns that it belly flopped on to. Impossible.

Postulating tilted wings to try to change distances and angles only makes it worse. If the wings were tilted at 45 degrees, then the lowest point of the upper engine is about 55 ft off the ground, and the the lowest point of the lower engine is about 20 ft off the ground. Since the hole is at ground level, youíd have to describe a precise downwards angle for the nose to get the engine to finish up at ground level after its penetration through the rings. But the bigger problem here is that the nose canít have hit the ground with the wings tilted, because the lower wing would have broken off first. This makes it rather difficult to suggest the sudden stop necessary to fire off the upper engine wing with any speed. When is the sudden jolt ? When the wing breaks off, or when the nose hits? We probably have to speculate a halved speed for the engine now - if it could still happen at all - meaning that the delay before the explosion is now 500 - 600 ms, which is getting quite ridiculous, and the engine is now lacking the power it needs to have any chance of charging through 27 ft of stone, which is now a bit more, because its being fired from a raised angle. So if you want the wings tilted, you have suggest that the nose was hitting the wall, which takes us back to the same problems that first led us to suggest that it must have hit the ground instead. And its even worse now. With the wings tilted at 45 degrees, the nose would be hitting the wall at a height of about 40 ft, meaning that we have to suggest that it simply bounced off, or stuck in the wall and hung there (while the engine powered through the wall) or if the nose burst through the wall, weíre back to the same old problems.

So the whole engine theory is impossible all round, which ever way you look at it. Nevertheless, lets pretend its still alive and press on.

Thereís the question of whether the momentum and weight of the engine was enough to power itís way through 3 rings of the building.
Letís do some comparisons with weapons specifically made to penetrate strong buildings.

During WW 2, the British developed the ďTall BoyĒ Bomb

It weighed 12,000 lb and could punch itís way through 10 ft of steel reinforced concrete, when dropped from a great height ( a Lancaster bomber) Very impressive! The Pentagon may not be as strong, but the engine is alleged to have punched through nearly triple this width. The engine weighs
about the same as the "Tall Boy." However the "Tall Boy" was travelling at several times the speed, and also contained explosives. And yet, somehow, it appears to be only marginally more effective, perhaps even less. All that engineering for nothing! If the penetrative performance of the 757 engine is anything to go on, it seems that the Brits would been better off to save their money and just drop big lumps of scrap metal. Not learning this lesson, they went on to develop the heaviest bomb of WW 2 , the 22,000 lb ďGrand slamĒ bomb which could penetrate steel reinforced concrete to a depth of about 12 ft. In addition to itís enormous weight and explosive power, it was dropped from Lancaster bombers, giving it great speed by the time of impact. The article mentions that the bombs were exceeding the speed of sound (760 mph), by the time they hit, but doesnít mention by how much. That could be calculated if you knew the height at which the Bombers were flying.
(also see previous link)

Considering that the engine did not have an explosive inside it, was travelling (optimistically) at 300 mph and weighed about half of the ďGrand SlamĒ, itís a little difficult to work out how it was able to a penetration job which would appear to be about equal to that which the Grand Slam was capable of, and do it easily by the look of the photo. Even more remarkable is the fact that the face of the engine is the worst shape possible for penetrating a target. Tens of thousands of years ago, people worked out that pointed surfaces penetrate targets more easily than flat surfaces, and arrows, spears swords, bullets and missiles are designed according to this principle. The above articles mention that the ďgrand slamĒ was aerodynamically designed to ensure that the pointed end would be facing down when it struck. So the engine was really just like a heavier and more powerful version of the old mediaeval catapult. They had less powerful propulsion and couldnít throw anything approaching that weight, but if theyíd had even 10% of the alleged penetrative power of this remarkable engine, then most castles would have been demolished within the first hour of the siege.

In Dec 2001 it was reported that the US airforceís new cave and bunker busting bombs could penetrate 11 ft of reinforced concrete, perhaps more.

What a remarkable achievement! Decades of experience and research in the area of missile development, swallowing billions of dollars, have finally achieved a penetrative power approaching that of a flat ended, non explosive, 6 ton chunk of metal hurled through the air at a few hundred mph, like a bigger version of an ancient siege engine.

Where is this engine? Did it miraculously disintegrate after punching itís way through three rings? Or have authorities rushed it away somewhere to hide any evidence for their own story?

In summary, any scenario which postulates the nose entering the wall to any significant degree is impossible, because the engine canít have penetrated the wall more effectively than the nose, and would have been blown up along with the rest of the plane.Any scenario which has the nose bouncing off the wall is impossible, because then the engine couldnít have penetrated, and it also creates the problem of why thereís no sign of the impact and explosion 110 ft out into the lawns.(Allowing for a 45 degree fuselage angle) Any scenario which postulates that the plane never contacted the building is impossible for the same reason, and also that the engine probably wouldnít have had time to get to the wall before the explosion, unless we invoke the impossible combination of the belly flop and the long delay. The suggestion that the engine had enough penetrative power to create that hole is attributing to it powers equal to state of the art missile technology, and of the heaviest high explosive bombs of WW 2.
Even if it could have penetrated, where did it finish up, and why has it vanished? So it was a missile. Once more, the argument is concluded, but I will again suspend the findings to examine another aspect.

When an eyewitness claims to have seen something which is physically impossible they are generally assumed to be either mistaken or lying. Indeed, such dismissal is not limited to reports of the physically impossible, but extended to the dubious. For example reports of UFOs, sea monsters, ghosts or Bigfoot are usually dismissed as hoaxes or illusions, even though such things are not necessarily physically impossible, but simply outside the scope of what we generally accept as being reasonable and credible. The plausibility of such alleged accounts cannot be be mathematically tested, and quantitatively defined as being either possible or impossible. Much of the official story concerning AA 77 can, and has now been, subjected to mathematical analysis, and has been found to be impossible.

To uncritically accept eyewitness reports of a solid object fitting through a hole smaller than itself, or alternatively blowing itself into nothing against the rules of physics is inconsistent with the standards of proof and credibility normally applied to alleged eyewitnesses of other dubious, but not necessarily impossible phenomena.

The question has to be asked - how many eyewitness reports would be needed to even reopen such a question, let alone consider it to be proved, contrary to the laws of physics? And what standards of verification should be applied? Does an anonymous, third hand, one line quote in a military newspaper (hardly an independent source, considering the nature of the debate ) constitute an ďeyewitnessĒ in these circumstances? How many of these would be needed in order to confidently override the laws of physics ?

We need dozens, maybe hundreds of credible well verified, comprehensive eyewitness reports in close to full agreement with each other, from sources which are at least in theory independent, to even reopen the question. The mainstream media and certain web authors have done a smoke and mirrors job to have us believe that such eyewitness evidence exists.

It doesnít. Those sources do not make any effort to critically examine the question of how the alleged eyewitness reports originated, or to critically deconstruct the reports either individually or collectively. I dealt with this question comprehensively in this article, published in June 2002

Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined.

It demonstrated that eyewitness accounts do not confirm a large passenger jet hitting the Pentagon. The findings of the article did not demonstrate that the eyewitness reports, when taken in isolation, prove that it didnít happen. It simply demonstrated that they donít confirm anything one way or the other. They are confused, lacking in substance, highly contradictory and poorly verified.

Some described a large passenger jet, some even specifying an AA 757. One alleged witness (Ford) described it as a propeller plane. Many gave no indication at all as to what kind of plane it was, but were unjustifiably seized upon by supporters of the 757 theory as proof that a large passenger jet hit the building, simply because a witness allegedly said that ďa plane ď hit the building. Many claimed to see a large plane close to the scene, but didnít see it hit the building. Another report, which I decided not to review, and in retrospect should have (Steve Patterson) described it as an 8 to 12 seater jet. And even amongst those who claimed it to be a large plane, there was wild contradiction in how it hit.

One expects some variation, but not to this extent. One alleged witness, (MikeWalter) said in one interview that it that dove steeply into the building from almost directly above it. But in a different interview he described it as ďlike a cruise missile with wingsĒ - the above description wouldnít seem to be describing missile -like behavior- and in several other interviews he said he that he didnít see it at all, including one given only an hour after the steep dive interview. Nevertheless, one media commentator in defending the official story, selectively quoted Walter and wrote ďMike Walter is in no doubt about what he saw.Ē Others said it flew level and crashed on the ground in front of the building, near the helipad, and others said it flew straight into the wall.
And bear in mind that the meaning of "it" was in many cases unspecified.

The verification of most reports was extremely poor, amounting to hearsay. I was only able to find two witnesses who gave direct live interviews for which transcripts were available. Walter and Timmerman. Walter, who gave several interviews, contradicted himself so much that it was hard to know what to make of it. Timmerman's account was impossible to believe, because it required us to believe that a block of apartments suddenly sprang out of the ground half way through his sighting and then disappeared again afterwards.

The different accounts contradict each other so heavily, that one has to either dismiss nearly all of them in favour of a few, selected as being the most credible, or else speculate that 4 or 5 planes must have hit the building. It was difficult to find more than any 3 witnesses who agreed with each other enough to group them together. And that was before deconstructing them individually, to test their verification and plausibility.

In that article I refrained from comparing the eyewitness reports with any physical evidence. I simply wanted to isolate the reports and see how they stood up in a self contained analysis. But itís now time to subject some of these to critical examination of how they fit with the physical evidence. There were two reports (Timmerman and Washington) which explicitly stated a large plane, (in Timmermanís case, explicitly an AA 757) and suggested that it crashed on the ground, near the helipad, just in front of the building. Both of these reports were discredited and exposed as almost certain fabrications because of internal inconsistencies, without the need to resort to any of the physical evidence. But lets pretend that their reports had stood up, when viewed in isolation.

Here again is that photo of the area in question, surrounded by smooth lawns, just after the incident.

Can you pick the spot where a 155 ft fuselage, 12 ft wide, with a wingspan of 125 ft crashed and exploded with a ferocity never previously seen in aviation history ? If this actually happened, then we are wasting money and space building airport runways. We could just use golf courses. The lawns would clearly stand up very well to this kind of treatment.

Imagine that you are a lawyer, conducting a defence in a murder trial. Suppose that the prosecution presented Timmerman and Washington as witnesses in relation to the above photograph, which was deemed to be relevant to the case. How would you feel if your client was convicted on the basis that the testimonies of Timmerman and Washington were deemed to override the physical evidence shown in the photo ? Just a chance you might appeal ?

Although the eyewitness investigation didnít reveal evidence for any specific scenario, itís really significant finding was that it exposed several examples of blatant fabrication of reports which claimed to support the official story. Why fabricate eyewitness evidence for something that really happened? These reports are still circulating around the web and the media as if they were genuine. For example, the report attributed to Captain Lincoln Liebner was exposed as an unequivocal fabrication, but some web authors who I know are well aware of this, and others who may not be aware of it, continue to post the Liebner report on their websites as evidence for the official story. Other reports exposed as certain or almost certain fabrications include Timmerman, Washington, Mcgraw and Winslow. These continue to be heavily promoted as evidence.

Of course, the article wasnít perfect, and in retrospect thereís a few things I should have handled a little differently. Nevertheless, it was a very thorough investigation, and remains, as far as I am aware, the only comprehensive investigation which has been done into the eyewitness aspect. The best complaint that most critics could come up with is that I didnít go even further, and personally track down and phone the alleged witnesses myself - rather difficult since most of them were either anonymous, or appeared not to exist, or worked for the military, or were simply untraceable without spending amounts of time and money which very few people have. But the same critics had been perfectly happy to accept these bogus or dubious or poorly verified reports at face value and post them as evidence on their websites for months without any attempt at critical investigation. As soon as my investigation was published, discrediting or throwing serious doubt on many of these reports, it suddenly became dreadfully important ( but apparently only for me ) to phone the witnesses, before drawing any conclusions. Meanwhile, these critics happily continue to quote the discredited accounts such as Liebner, Timmerman, Winslow, Mcgraw and Washington without bothering to have done any investigation themselves. The argument seemed to be that because my investigation had only been 95% thorough, then itís findings were less credible than those who had done no investigation at all, but simply collected quotes from press or other websites.

Although my search was very thorough, inevitably I missed a few, and with a number of critics aggressively trawling the web to try to find anything Iíd missed, theyíve managed to find a few.So Iím now Iím now going to address one of these to demonstrate in a similar style to my earlier investigation, an example of how a report which really tells us nothing at all has been misrepresented as eyewitness evidence for the official story. Case 2 deals with an outright fabrication, which appears to have been perpetrated since my article was published. The misrepresented case is one attributed to a firefighter named Alan Wallace.

[[ Moments later, fire fighters Allan Wallace and Mark Skipper ran for cover as the ill-fated aircraft impacted the southwest face of the building, leaving hundreds of Pentagon workers as well as the 64 people aboard the plane dead or missing.
"I just happened to look up and see the plane," said Wallace. "It was about 200 yards away, and was coming in low and fast. I told Mark that we needed to get the hell out of there."
The hijacked Boeing 757, loaded with 30,000 pounds of fuel, departed Dulles International Airport at 8:10 a.m. enroute to Los Angeles. At some point during the flight, terrorists commandeered the plane and steered a course for Washington, D.C. At 9:40 a.m., the plane smashed into the five-story office building which serves as the nerve center of the U.S. military.
Both Wallace and Skipper tried to get as far away as possible. Wallace only made it about 20 feet, but found shelter under a transport van. Skipper ran toward a field and was knocked over by the blast. Both men suffered 1st and 2nd degree burns. ]]

Variations on this story are published at

One of these says that Wallace didnít actually make it under the van until after the blast. It also mentions that the plane was alleged to be about 25 ft of the ground.

Lets pull this apart.

[[ "I just happened to look up and see the plane" ]]

When it was 200 yards away? If it was a 757, the noise would have been deafening well before then. Itís inconceivable that someone could only become become aware of a plane of that size at that height and distance by ďjust happening to look up.Ē. Notice that he says ďthe planeĒ, with no further embellishment. This statement might be plausible if it was something much quieter. So either it represents a dubious and poorly verified statement contradicting the official story, or else it simply isnít believable.
In one of the other versions, he specifically states that he didnít hear it until he saw it.

Thereís a further problem with this statement. If was 25 ft high and 200 yards away, it would be at about a 2 degree angle from the ground where Wallace was standing, so it would be in his normal line of vision. He actually didnít need to look up at all. It should really be ďI just happened to be not looking down, and see the planeĒ, which does not have a particularly credible ring to it. Other variations on this story do not have Wallace engaged in some kind of task, where heís looking down. Heís said to be simply walking along. Which means that the plane should have been in his field of vision, the moment it appeared over the horizon, rather than something which had to be looked up at to be seen. Itís possible that the surrounding topography, trees and buildings limited the horizon to this distance and that Wallace did see it the moment it appeared, and has simply described the sighting clumsily, or not realised this, because it happened so quickly. So we shouldnít say ďThat proves this guy is lyingĒ, but neither should we uncritically accept it all at face value without thinking it through. These are exactly the kinds of issues which would be raised in a cross examination in court.

400 mph is 195 yards per second. So if it was 200 yards away, then Wallace had 1 second to do everything which the article claims him to have done.

1) Take it in for a moment

2) Yell ďGet the hell out of hereĒ

3) Turn and run about twenty feet.

Iíve tested this, using a tape measure and a metronome set at 60 beats per second to count the time. When turning the instant of the metronome click (leaving no time at all for reaction and recognition, or yelling out), and beginning to sprint, I got to take one big step by the second click - covering about 7 ft, so I still needed another second to get close to 20 ft . ( and Iím quick ). So itís impossible to have done this in 1 second. You need at least two, which means that the plane must been 400 yards away, when he first saw it. Realistically, we should be adding another 1/2 to 1 second for reaction time and yelling out. So we really need to call the planeís distance as 500 - 600 yards. You can try it out for yourself .

A certain amount of latitude has to allowed in estimating distances, but expanding 200 to 500 or 600, is stretching the boundaries of such latitude. But if we reduce the vanís distance to 15 ft, meaning that one more big step gets you nearly there, we might just be able to suggest that this is plausible in 2 seconds - 400 yards of flight, which just comes within acceptable margins of error.

Apart from the fact that 500 -600 yards would be stretching the figures in the report beyond credibility, thereís another reason why the plane canít have been more than about 450 yards away, unless we start changing another of Wallaceís parameters by orders of magnitude. If it was 25 ft off the ground, and more than about 450 yards away, it would have crashed into the Navy annex, rather than coming over the top of it. Who says it came over the Navy annex? Several of the other witnesses which purport to support the official story. So either it didnít come over the Navy annex, discrediting those reports, or else Wallace is orders of magnitude out not only with the distance, but also with the height , and also significantly out with the distance of the van. This starts to create too much inaccuracy for the report to be credible, considering the confident and unequivocable manner in which the distances are presented, especially when combining it with the unlikely introduction of ď just happening to look up.Ē If it was anything like 25 ft off the ground, and went south of the Navy annex, then it probably would have demolished buildings on the other side of 395. If it went north, it might have hit the Sheraton, and if it went further north through the cemetery, it would have cut a vicious swathe of destruction through the trees.

It might be possible to plot a credible flight path between these obstacles, but it would have to be very specific, and even if it avoided the major obstacles mentioned, one would think that a very specific swathe 500 - 600 yards long, of poles and trees, matching this path would have to been knocked over, easily discernible from aerial photos. No such obvious swathe exists.And you would then have to disregard all eyewitnesses that suggested a different flight path, Including Timmerman, Walter and Munsey, three often held up as proof of the official story. (Although they all contradict each other anyway, as well as Walter contradicting himself) But this complication is unnecessary if we reduce the distance of the van to 15 ft. If we assert that he underestimated the distance of the plane by 50% and overestimated the distance of the van by 30%, itís unrealistic, but possible. 2 seconds gives a fraction of an instant to react, time to yell something, and time to get close to the 15ft sprint. The first step is the slowest because of the need to turn and push off and more ground can be covered in the following second.

But there is a nagging problem. The report strongly implies that Wallace saw it first and alerted Skipper to it. If this is the case, we really have to add another 2 seconds, to do this and have both men take off. Did Skipper ďjust happen to see itĒ at exactly the same time? Is he also in the habit of walking with his head down? ( We are talking about delays of 1/4 second as being critical ) or did he see it a bit before Wallace, and Wallace didnít realize this? Maybe. Or perhaps they both saw it immediately it cleared the horizon.
This isn't pushing me to allege with any confidence that this report is an outright fabrication, but at the same time, neither is it inspiring a lot of faith.

Where in this account does Wallace give any indication as to what kind of plane it was? We donít expect him to say AA 757, but was it large or small, civilian or military? The reference to the alleged 757 was the creation of the writer, inserted into the middle of Wallaceís story, giving the subconscious impression to the not fully critical reader that Wallace himself had described it as such. As was common in reports on this issue, the alleged witness simply said Ďthe planeĒ, and the writer of the story added the assumption that it was a 757, in such a way that the careless reader could easily gain the general impression that the witness had actually said this.

Any suggestion that Wallace told the writer that it was a large plane, and that the writer simply didnít quote him on this, is pure speculation. But even if we want to indulge in such speculation, the report then becomes difficult to take seriously, if we add extra time for Wallace to register something about what kind of plane it was. The scenario that Iíve created to try to make the account plausible is postulating extraordinarily quick reaction times and giving the benefit of the doubt in relation to the added complication of whether both men saw it at the same instant. One has to factor in becoming aware of the danger, yelling out, and an instant smart decision to run straight for the van. Some people might just freeze in shock in this situation and not react at all within 2 seconds. Wallaceís reported reactions are possible, but unusually sharp. In this situation, someone is unlikely to take in the added detail of the approximate size of the plane. Whether it was a small military jet or a large passenger jet, either would look big and menacing in that shocked instant of realization of what was happening. Weíre postulating an immediate turn and sprint, on registering the situation. Weíve already twisted all the other dubious factors in this report to their limits, to try to keep it plausible.So the unsubstantiated assumption that Wallace told the writer it was a large passenger jet, but just wasnít quoted as such, forces us to add at least another hundred yards to the planeís distance, which means thatís itís now back into the region where the 25 ft height starts to create further complications. The plausibility of the report can be best maintained by giving Wallace no time at all to take in anything about what kind of plane it was. The reference to the 757 is invention by the writer based on a preconceived conclusion.

Iím uncomfortable with how much Iíve had to twist this report to try to keep it credible. I suspect that it may be a fabrication, or at least a wild embellishment. But itís possible that someone named Allan Wallace might have experienced something like this. If so, all it tells us is what we already know - that something hit the Pentagon and caused an explosion. Any assertion that this represents an eyewitness account supporting the 757 theory is without justification, although a tentative case could be made to suggest that the noise factor might favour the small plane theory. Any web author who presents this account as evidence for the official story is either dishonest, or failing to critically think through the report and deconstruct it for real meaning.

If you read my eyewitness article, youíll see that the illusion that ďhundreds of people identified the planeĒ has been to a large extent, created by the unjustified juxtaposition of predetermined conclusions onto reports that really donít tell us anything at all, like this one.

Speculation to be argued back and forth, that a certain person may or may not have reported it as a large plane would be relevant if the physical evidence demonstrated that such a scenario was possible. It would be relevant in the event of a flyby rather than a crash. But in the case of the overwhelming physical, mathematical and scientific evidence that it was totally impossible, reports like this are worthless to the argument of what kind of plane or missile it was.

In my previous article, I examined a number of reports which were exposed as outright fabrications. In the cases of Washington, McGraw and Timmerman, it was because internal contradictions exposed their reports as impossible to believe. In the case of Winslow, it was because an investigation into the media trail of how the report originated, indicated strongly that no such report was ever made, and that even if it was, it originated from third hand hearsay . In the case of Liebner, it was shown quite conclusively that Leibner never actually made the statement which you see in press reports and on websites, and in fact was never even interviewed. Since I wrote the article, another fabrication of a slightly different style has emerged, and Iím going to deconstruct this one in order to demonstrate the desperate measures that have been used to try sell this outrageous story. (undated)

[[ Statement from Penny Elgas
Personal Experience At The Pentagon on September 11, 2001
By Penny Elgas

Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. My first thought was ďOh My God, this must be World War III!Ē

In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers.

In my adrenaline-filled state of mind, I was overcome by my visual senses. The day had started out beautiful and sunny and I had driven to work with my car's sunroof open. I believe that I may have also had one or more car windows open because the traffic wasn't moving anyway. At the second that I saw the plane, my visual senses took over completely and I did not hear or feel anything -- not the roar of the plane, or wind force, or impact sounds.

The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was awash in thick black smoke...
...When I arrived home, I turned on every radio and TV in the house -- I'm not sure whether I was trying to drown out my thoughts or whether I was just hungry for news. I made a cup of tea to calm my nerves and called my husband to let him know that I was okay. I told him that there was a piece of the plane in my car, but for some reason, I couldn't deal with it just yet. I also called my son at college to reassure him that I was okay. Apparently, I made several cups of tea that I don't remember making because later that day I found four sopping teabags lined up on my kitchen counter. I believe now, that I was operating on ďauto-pilotĒ
and was probably in shock for much of that day. At some point I opted for quiet and turned off all the noise except the radio in my kitchen. Then I went to my car and faced that piece of the plane that was in the back seat. It appeared to be a piece of the tail. There was no metal on it and it was very lightweight -- all plastic and fiberglass. It was 22" long and 15" wide. I have no idea how it got into my car because I do not remember seeing any rubble flying around while I was at the crash site. I assume that it dropped in through the sunroof or flipped in through a window. The plane piece consisted of a layer of white paint, and layers of yellow and gray fiberglass as well as a thin brown corrugated material.

I gingerly picked up the piece and carried it into the house. As I entered the kitchen, I heard the radio announcer on WMAL state that it was an American Airlines flight and I thought to myself, "I knew that." But then the announcer said that is was Flight number 77 and he stated the number of passengers and crew and it hit me hard that the planes had been full of innocent victims. The radio announcer said that they were taking calls from people who had a personal experience to share. I dialed the station. I remember that I told them that I was "Penny from Springfield" and that I had a piece of the plane. The next thing I knew, I was on the air and Chris Core said "Penny from Springfield, What did you see?" I don't remember any of the rest of our conversation and coworkers who heard it said it was somewhat incoherent. The only thing that I remember is that at the end, Chris Core said, "How weird is that?" And I remember thinking that his comment didn't make me feel any better. ]]

Before pulling it apart, lets note that it's undated and unverified. It appears to have emerged about a year after the incident. Anybody can turn up a year later with a privately written statement and say whatever they like. So the verification standards are not acceptable.

Letís begin with the entry of the plane into the building. This report clearly indicates that the plane flew into the building with wings close to parrellel and that both wings entered the building. I think I am on good scientific ground when I state that a solid 125 ft object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a 125 ft hole. It doesnít matter how many eye witnesses might allege that they saw such a thing happen - it didnít. Anyone who alleges that they saw such a thing is either lying or deluded to the point of insanity - or else they saw a smaller plane, or a very sophisticated hologram or some kind of highly advanced, secret matter teleportation technology. If it was a plane small enough to fit into the hole, painted in AA colours, then the witness could be telling the truth.The witness doesnít actually say anything about the size of the plane, so itís possible that she could have seen this, and not thought it through when later told that it was AA 77. Either way, this report is either a lie or a report of something much smaller than a 757, painted in AA colours.
Lets apply some more critical thinking.. This part.

[[ I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. ]]

If she had a clear view of 100 yards out of each window, then she would have first seen the plane when it was about 100 yards from her car. If you check the location of Columbia Pike where said the plane was when she first saw it, and Washington Boulevard, which would appear to be the road that she was on, then it fits with such an assumption. It was allegedly coming straight towards her. The flying time from that point, to being directly over the road is about 1/2 second. The plane is a little over 50 yards long.It takes about 1/4 second to fly itís own length. It allegedly discernibly changed itís direction in the time that it took to fly twice itís own length -from one quarter second increment to the next - from one plane length to the next. Even if thatís physically possible, the human eye could not pick this up. Iíve checked this speed on the metronome. If you say the words ďtoo fastĒ at a quick pace, itís approximately the time of of the word ďtooĒ. To suggest that any change in direction could be detected in this time would be to assert that the plane ďjumpedĒ like a film thatís had some frames cut out. Not possible.
She says that she went into slow motion mode. This can happen, when a person is presented with a threatening situation at high speed, but there are limits. As we shall see, this report well and truly exceeds those limits. Like this.

[[ I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. ]]

This indicates that the plane sliced through the building quite easily. If itís initial speed was 400 mph, then 300 mph seems a reasonable estimate of itís passage through the wall. At 440 ft per second., the whole plane would have taken 350 milliseconds to pass through. Analyze the smoke ring cycles in the first half of the penetration. There were two complete smoke rings in the time of about 1/2 the penetration of the plane which is about 175 ms. 87 ms per smoke ring cycle. Each cycle was divided into 3 distinctly visible stages. The appearance of the smoke at the top of the fuselage, the coiling around to cross over at the bottom, and the coiling back up to cross again at the top. About 29 ms per section. This is roughly equivalent to 1 video or film frame. Video or film runs at speeds between 24 and 30 frames per second, depending upon the format. About 30 to 40 ms per frame. The whole idea of this speed is that the human eye canít distinguish between one frame and the next, making the motion appear continuous and seamless. Except for Penny Elgas, who has the miraculous ability to distinguish one frame from another. Watching videos must be a real drag for her, because she can see all the little tricks they do with stunt work and other cutting techniques. On the brighter side, sheíll never be short of a job as a referee or lineswoman for the international tennis circuit. They should be lining up at her door after this report. Then another three part series. The wings, the explosion, the tail. About 27 ms - 1 frame each. I donít care how much someone is in slow motion mode - the human eye and brain in combination simply cannot register distinctly different images and event sequences at this pace. In all, 10 distinct events have been described. 3 sections of smoke ring times 2, the beginning of the fire, the entry of the wings, the explosion, the entry of the tail. An average of 35 ms per image - 10 distinct images in 10 frames Again, using the ďtoo fastĒ comparison, the entire entry of the plane would take about as much time as the word ĎfastĒ. As another comparison, try repeatedly clapping your hands as fast as you can from a distance of about 2 ft between the hands, and see how blurred the movement is. Each clap is about the total time that the plane took to enter the building - and you only get one shot at seeing it.

Now imagine registering 10 clear separate images, in smooth sequence within each blurred handclap, registering details such as the thickness of the smoke, and the crossover of the rings.

People in dangerous situations can get adrenalin bursts which can trigger extraordinary feats of strength. When someone whoís experienced this situation says that they lifted the side of an overturned car to free their trapped partner, we are inclined to believe it. But if they say that they jumped over a 100 ft fence with the adrenalin burst, we know that they have crossed the line.This account is the visual equivalent of that 100 ft fence jump. Itís physiologically impossible.

She says that after the explosion, the tail continued to ďslipĒinto the building. Hold on a moment - this is the explosion which is disintegrating the plane to nothing - blowing outwards in all directions, but the tail is continuing to slip serenely into it at the same time as being being cremated by it? Even Hollywood doesnít bother with this illusion in explosion scenes, because they know itís the exact opposite of what happens. When something is travelling forward into a blast, it gets pushed backwards by the force. Of course, if it has strong momentum, the two will counteract each other. But it doesnít just keep travelling at the same speed into the point of the blast, at the same time as being vapourized by it, like being fed into a furnace on a conveyer belt. It wouldnít matter how many eyewitnesses claimed to see this happen - it didnít.

At the same time that the tail slipped serenely into this all consuming blast, without missing a beat, a fragment of it was blown 100 yards back the other way, to land in her car. Penny really should be relating this story at physics conferences around the world. Iím sure theyíll be busy rewriting the rules of how the universe works after verifying this.

Now the claim that she was able to see the windows and colour stripes on the plane. In total she probably saw the plane for about 1 second. Imagine yourself stopped at an intersection, and a car goes past at 150 mph.
You are able to report to the police that you recognized the distinctive gold, green,and black door trim of a mid 80ís Falcon,and noticed that the windows were tinted. Now multiply the speed by 2.5.

Thatís only some of the problem. Elgas says that at the time of initial sighting, the plane was headed straight towards her. She canít have got a good view of the stripes and windows from front on, in the first 1/4 second. Then it was banking away a little and was directly over the road, with the near wing banked up a little, so that she was looking up at the underside of the wing. What could she see ? Go back to those photos of 757s and have a look at the way theyíre built. The wing at the point where it joins the fuselage is just on the lower stripe, and would obscure a very significant section of the stripes and windows from this angle.The engine juts out significantly forward of the wing. Very little of the fuselage would be visible from this angle, during this 1/4 second window of opportunity. As the wing extends out further, it gets narrower,but the closer perspective increases itís effective width in her vision. Iím not saying that the all of the stripes and windows were completely obscured for the whole sighting, but there would be a ridiculously short window of opportunity to catch any glimpse, as the plane turned from itís front on view, to itís wing obscured view. Then it would have been past her, with the 15 ft tail fin , the closest part of the plane, banked slightly, to show her the underside, and obscuring a significant amount of any parting glimpse she might have got.The phones will be running hot from the tennis association!!

[[ In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. ]]

4-5 car lengths can be approximated to about 60 ft. The length of the wing to the fuselage is 56 ft, making a total of 116 ft from driver to fuselage.Subtract a little, as the plane is alleged to be slightly banked, thus reducing the effective horizontal width. Offset this for the length of her carís bonnet. Letís call the total distance from driverís eyes to fuselage 118 ft. To make the maths easy, round it t

Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


How (english)
26 Oct 2002
How do you explain people's personal papers and wallets being unearthed in the WTC rubble being relatively unscathed after being exposed to extremely high heat and a crushing impact. Also, there wasn't a whole lot left of flight 93 either. What about civilian witnesses who saw the 757 flying along the Washington Mall. The government is just not that good as to be able to arrange such a conspiracy.
sato (english)
26 Oct 2002
read the post again. Holmgren discsusses the issue of trustworthyness of eyewitness
A reply to the first comment. (english)
29 Oct 2002
[[How do you explain people's personal papers and wallets being unearthed in the WTC rubble being relatively unscathed after being exposed to extremely high heat and a crushing impact.]]

The WTC left huge amounts of rubble. It was smashed, but not vapourized. AA 77 was alleged to be totally and instantly vapourized - with all the people right at the centre of the fiercest part of the blast. The two situations are not comparable. Documents on the 1st floor of the WTC would have been subject to very different forces from those on the 80th floor. Burning and crushing over a period of an hour, with very uneven distribution of forces in different parts of the 1350 ft building is not the same
as instant,uniform vapourization of 155 ft of plane.

[[Also, there wasn't a whole lot left of flight 93 either.]]

Read more carefully, section 7 of the article.The phenomonen of totally disintegrated planes (confirmed or alleged) is unique to sept 11, 2001. Where is the proper audit of the wreckage of UAL 93? Where is the official investigation of the impact and cause of the crash? Why have these routine processes been suspended for the sept 11 planes?

[[What about civilian witnesses who saw the 757 flying along the Washington Mall.]]

Did anybody see it hit the pentagon? Read my eyewitness investigation

[[The government is just not that good as to be able to arrange such a conspiracy.]]

Sop you believe that the government is incapable of organizing a conspiracy, but capable of changing the laws of physics? Address the core issues. If the wreckage is not inside the building, is not outside the building and wasn't disintegrated ,then it was never there.
The fuel load of a plane does not have the available energy to vapourize the plane - Physical fact, not subject political speculation. an object cannot fit through a hole smaller than itself - Physical fact, not subject to political speculation.
This is not a conspricy theory, but a technical, scientific analysis. The only way that a credible rebuttal can be amounted is to dispute the fundamental models, assumptions and calculations in the technical data.
As for the government being "not that good" - you're perfectly right. It isn't. Its been caught red handed.
Their story is scientifaclly, mathematically, physically impossible.