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 3 (english)
24 Oct 2002
Modified: 07 Nov 2002
Continues from Part 1 and part 2
Letís call the total distance from driverís eyes to fuselage 118 ft. To make the maths easy, round it to 120. Sitting in the car, her eyes are about 4 ft off the ground, so the effective height of the plane from her eyeline is about 76 ft. Round this to 80. If you check the angle made by something which is 80 ft high and 120 ft distant, itís approximately 30 degrees. When I sit in my car, a 30 degree angle from my eyes looks straight into the folded up sun visor. In other words, you canít see something at this angle from a car. Of course, itís a little different for each person, depending on their car, seat position and posture Her distances, as in the case of Wallace are subject to inaccuracy, but the point needs to be made that on the basis of these figures it would be impossible for her to see the fuselage, from that height and distance. The open sun roof wouldnít help. The fuselage would be behind the section that joins the windscreen to the roof edge. Of course, with a moment to spare, one can change this by leaning forward, but its been established that she probably has about 1/4 of a second to sight the small section of the windows and AA colour scheme that isn't obscured by the wing. Because of the many variables, we canít state with certainty that the fuselage was hidden from her vision, but when taken at face value, it appears to be impossible for her to have seen it.
And now, the encore. The piece of plane that found itís way into her back seat. If youíve checked the link, you will have seen the photo of it, and will unreservedly agree that it is definitely, without doubt, unequivocably a piece of - ??? - a piece of whatever they tell us it is. Itís turned up at the Smithsonian museum, in a little patriotic box, which apparently proves that it must have once been part of a 757. And we know that it was found in Pennyís back seat. We have absolute proof of that because she told us so. Penny - as one of the few people on Earth who has actually witnessed a 125 ft solid object move through another solid object without leaving a 125 ft hole - and also with the help of some adrenalin, has performed the visual equivalent of jumping over a 100 ft fence, is not a person whoís word can be doubted.
So this piece of the plane which had just been flung 100 yards out of a violent explosion, with temperatures orders of magnitude above 700 degrees C, just a few seconds before, lobbed into Pennyís back seat, 1 to 2 feet behind her head, so gently and quietly that she didnít even notice it - which is strange for a person who was in a state of mind that enabled her take in tiny details in 30 ms increments. Furthermore, the piece of plane had miraculously cooled down during itís 100 yard journey, to the extent that nothing caught fire, or even singed, or made a burning smell in the back seat. It just sat there quietly like a good little piece of plane should, until she was ready to find it and put it in the little patriotic box.


It is physically impossible for all of the plane to have entered the crash site, and this is backed by solid mathematical proof.

There is no evidence outside the building of wreckage to account for the part of the plane which cannot have entered the crash site.

There is no evidence of identifiable wreckage inside the crash site.

Cremation of the plane was unprecedented in aviation history and physically impossible.

Even could such cremation have been possible, it is impossible in the context of the modest damage to the wall.

The hole in the back of the third ring cannot be explained by any means other than a missile.

Fake wreckage has been designed and planted with the express purpose of impersonating the American Airlines colour scheme.

Eyewitness evidence is inconclusive and fabricated eyewitness reports have been presented to try to shore up the official story.

Claims that DNA testing identified 63 of the 64 people on board, are mutually exclusive with claims that the plane was cremated, and with the official line on the WTC victims and the Bali bomb victims.

So if it didnít hit the Pentagon, what happened to AA 77 and the passengers? An important question, but itís irrelevant to the argument of whether it hit the Pentagon. By way of analogy, imagine a murder prosecution where the defence has presented an overwhelmingly strong case - more than just reasonable doubt - solid proof that the accused cannot possibly have committed the crime. But then the prosecution plays itís trump card.
ď But if your client did not commit the crime, then who did? ď
The defence answers that it has no idea. Everyone would agree that a guilty verdict on this basis, would be an outrageous lapse of logic. Yet this is precisely the same lapse of logic as suggesting that a lack of alternative explanation for what happened to the plane and the passengers is in any way relevant to the question of whether it hit the Pentagon. The government knows what happened. Investigators have to work it out bit by bit. The full truth will emerge in time, if a methodical, rational, step by step approach is persevered with.

I can see one good reason to cling to the belief that AA 77 hit the pentagon. The unshakable faith that the govt would not - could not lie to us. A faith so strong that the laws that laws of physics and motion suspend themselves in order to maintain it. A faith so strong that even the government admitting that it lies cannot overturn it. This statement from Solicitor General Olsen.

[[ "It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government might legitimately give out false information," the Solicitor-General, Theodore Olson, told the court on Monday.
"It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete information and even misinformation by government may sometimes be perceived as necessary to protect vital interests." ]]

Of course, he could be lying ...

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.


Beware of LaRuse (english)
25 Oct 2002
In what appears to be a major disinformation exercise, a French web site has caused a minor storm on the Internet by claiming American Airlines Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon on September 11. That's right folks, American Airlines was and still is merely a figment of your overworked imagination!

This is heady stuff, perhaps enough to put genuine sleuths off the track, and direct even more suspicion and hatred towards the United States military, who many mutter darkly are an evil bunch of people who wantonly killed their own men, and vast numbers of America's women and children.

Starting where the French start, let us take a closer look at this new conspiracy. The French claim that the Boeing 757 was "too big" to fit in the hole left in the Pentagon, which therefore proves that a Boeing 757 could not have hit the Pentagon. It proves no such thing...

Visit any one of several hundred vertical or near-vertical high-speed crash sites and you will observe a strange phenomena Ė the aircraft all seem to vanish into relatively small holes. There is no easy explanation for this, but rest assured I speak from direct experience.

In the early sixties we were sent out to find the crash site of an English Electric Lightning Mach 2 fighter, which went in vertically at nearly 400 miles per hour during an aerobatics display. Despite having a wingspan of 35 feet, the Lightning impact crater measured only 22 feet across. Did we find the wings lying around in the field next door? No, we did not.

By some strange twist of physics the wings were in the same impact crater, near the top. What was left of the Lightning fuselage lay many feet beneath the wings, having acted in all respects like a Barnes Wallace "Earthquake Bomb".

American Airlines Flight 77 was seen to take off from Washington, was tracked somewhat erratically on radar because its transponder was off, and was then seen by hundreds of people as it hurtled back overhead Washington at high speed, before pulling an almost impossibly-high "G" turn through 180 degrees, and slicing down towards the Pentagon in a steep dive.

Civilian aviation eyewitnesses at the time estimated Flight 77's speed to be in excess of 400 miles per hour, which in the dense atmosphere found at low altitudes, is almost enough to tear the wings off. Not only that. Two airline captains pilots on the internet speculated meaningfully that no human pilot could have held the control yoke through the 180 degree high "G" turn, which they estimated at a minimum of 5G but more likely 6 or 7G. The term "G" simply means gravity, so if your arm weighs 20 pounds at rest, at 5G it will weight 100 pounds.

If you want to get a feel for this, stretch both of your arms right out in front of you as far as they will go (no bending please), and then ask a friend to place a 100 pound weight on the palm of each of your hands. Now simply stand there for 15 seconds without either arm dropping below the horizontal. Tricky, huh? But I digress, back to the French conspiracy.

Next up the French show you dazzling "proof" that the Boeing 757 did not slice down through the roof, but instead managed to squeeze its way into the Pentagon through a single first-floor window. To reinforce this Gallic claim they show you a genuine photo taken by a genuine US Marine. As American as apple pie, so it must be true! This is stirring stuff until you peer through the thick smoke haze on the photo and realize this is a different part of the Pentagon. Sacre Bleu! These French are as slippery as frogs...

Next, before turning to the hard evidence, the French try to distract us with a parallel or sub conspiracy. The evil American military have spread sand across the perfectly good green lawn outside the Pentagon. "Why", they ask, "...did someone cover up the lawn with sand?" Obviously the French believe we are looking at an evil sub-conspiracy here which rivals their home-grown Count de Marenches of the SDECE. Perhaps the sinister sand obscures a secret missile silo pointed at Paris, or something like that?

Well, not exactly, you wine-swilling Parisians. The American military engineers built a road covered with sand, over which they could drive their heavy trucks to and from the disaster area. You know how it is with these ten and twenty ton trucks. They all have the same irritating tendency to become completely bogged down on soft ornamental lawns.

Hard evidence? Ah, yes. Despite having access to the same images as you or I, the French cunningly edit their copies to obscure the large pile of second-hand Boeing 757 spare parts piled outside the left front of the Pentagon disaster area, shown in the center picture at the top of this page. Click on the red link below it and you will be taken as if by magic to a giant high-resolution photo on an American military server, which will show you the entire area in huge detail.

You don't have to be James Bond, and no password is required at all. Fancy that! The American military covering up its terrible guilty secrets by posting them on a server with public access.

Which bits of the pile are which bits of American Airlines Flight 77 you had best decide for yourself, because there are lots of bits to choose from. The three men in white at the front of the pile are grouped around a Bobcat, which provides a handy scale for this massive photograph taken on September 14 by the USAF's Tech. Sgt. Cedric Rudisill.

Though most of the Boeing 757 was still in the Pentagon basement [or even below it] on that date, only three days after the crash, there is already enough scrap metal on the pile to construct a pair of fighter aircraft from scratch. And because this aircraft wreckage utterly destroys the French conspiracy, they failed to show it to you. Worse than that. The French deliberately edited it out completely, so you would be unable to reach your own conclusions.

As the picture at top right shows, once the French cat was out of the bag, others decided to cash in on the story and build thrilling sub-conspiracies all over the Internet. This pic shows what is claimed to be an American F-16 fighter approaching at about zero feet [circled in red], presumably just before the point of impact.

Oh, sure! And obviously, immediately after this picture was snapped the "F-16" suddenly skyrocketed upwards, looped the loop at near sonic speed, then came down vertically on the building. Then it probably used advanced American military alchemy to double in mass to equal the pile of junk already gathered at the front left of the Pentagon building. All good clean fun I suppose, but I doubt Captain Charles Burlingame's widow would be amused.
See also:
Voila! (english)
25 Oct 2002
See also:
beware of joe! (english)
26 Oct 2002
the operative word i joe's article is 'appears'. Not only is joe risibly anti-french,he is not above twisting facts to suit his own agenda. What makes him think Meyssan is indulging in disinformation? Doesnt he realise the same charge can be leveled at him?
what joe forgets, is that te plane did not strike head on, but at an angle of about 45 dedegrees. Examine joes disappearing plane scenario and compare it to the pentagon crash: they are not alike.
Holmgrens analysis turns on the issue of how could a 100ton plane be totally cremated to leave only a few fragments behind, while not causing greater destruction of the pentagon; lawns unscathed('eyewitnesses' say the plane hit the lawn). I dont know why a self-declared 'investigative' journalist like joe is defending the weak official view: maybe he had a lousy time in paris?
JOE VIALLS IS A LYING ****** (english)
28 Oct 2002
To get an idea of how willing JOE is to LIE AND DISTORT THE FACTS, read this: The Bijlmer Crash - Joe Vialls - Caught in a Lie.
What is Joe Vialls game? (english)
30 Oct 2002
Joe Vialls talks about disinformation. Exactly what is the disinformation ? Do i have the specifications of the plane wrong? Have I miscalcualted by orders of magnitude the size of the hole in the pentagon wall? Have I faked the photos of plane crash wreckage? Did I fabricate the articles on TWA 800 ? Facts speak louder than cliches, Joe, and every fact,figure,event and quote in this article is meticulaously referenced. Which is more than I can say for anything you've written. Never have i seen a single refernce or source of documentation in anything you've written.

[[Visit any one of several hundred vertical or near-vertical high-speed crash sites and you will observe a strange phenomena Ė the aircraft all seem to vanish into relatively small holes. There is no easy explanation for this, but rest assured I speak from direct experience. ]]

Any photos or links to documentation of this amazing phenomonen? No,its against your writing policy.

[[In the early sixties we were sent out to find the crash site of an English Electric Lightning Mach 2 fighter, which went in vertically at nearly 400 miles per hour during an aerobatics display. Despite having a wingspan of 35 feet, the Lightning impact crater measured only 22 feet across. Did we find the wings lying around in the field next door? No, we did not.]]

You were part of the official investigation team, Joe? Care to give us references to the official documents? You should have plenty of photos of this. Care to provide them?

[[By some strange twist of physics the wings were in the same impact crater, near the top. What was left of the Lightning fuselage lay many feet beneath the wings, having acted in all respects like a Barnes Wallace "Earthquake Bomb". ]]

While we wait for the official documentation and photos which you will doubtless supply to back this up, was the plane completely vapourized? No ,you found the wings and some of the fuselage. Where's the crater in the pentagon lawn? 22 feet as a percentage of 35 is 63%. So proportionlly
a 757 should leave a hole 79 feet wide if it went in straight and 55 ft wide if it went in with wings at 45 degrees - and that's with a fuselage angle of 90 degrees. The original hole wasn't anywhere near that size. Sorry Joe, even if your undocumented hearsy could be believed the figures still don't add up and you still haven't explained what happened to the wings.

But I must admit that I have no answer for your devestating argument that it was "wine swilling Parisians"
who pioneered the observations on the Pentagon crash. It MUST be wrong ! Who cares about facts ? Who cares about backing up their articles with documentation ? Not you Joe.
Unanswered questions (english)
03 Nov 2002
Gerard, would you provide your background in physics, engineering,
or air disaster investigations. Do you have credentials in these
areas or is this strictly an amateur endeavor?

Also, have you submitted your paper for review by any recognized
authority in physics, engineering, or air disasters? If not, do you
intend to?

There are several questions pertaining to your conclusion that a 757
did not hit the Pentagon:

1. I see no testimony from the hundreds of professional rescuers,
firefighters, FEMA personnel, Red Cross volunteers, and anyone else
who was on the sight, contradicting the common wisdom of a 757 crash.
Why does such testimony not exist? Have you interviewed any of them?

2. I see no argument from you against the established fact of the
burial of Charles Burlingame, pilot of AA77, at Arlington cemetary
(much less any other identified victim of AA77). Where did his body
come from?

3. I see no references from *anyone*, much less those who are in a
position to know and are qualified, challenging the fact that AA77
crashed into the Pentagon, other than a handful of amateur conspiracy
buffs such as yourself. Do you not find that fact strange?

4. Why have you not addressed this news conference of Sept 15, 2001?
Is it not relevant? Do you challenge it? Why or why not?

5. Why have you not dealt with the destroyed lamp poles? Is this not
relevant to the size of the aircraft? See: and

6. Play with this model and report your conclusions:
More on Gerard Holmgren's debunked analysis. (english)
07 Nov 2002
>Answers by Gerard ē Monday November 04, 2002 at 05:03 PM

>I completed high school physics and maths, and did subsequent
>private study of the work of proffessor Howard Odum (Energy basis
>for man and nature) - the comprehensive guide to tracking and
>quantifying energy flows in systems. The levels required to
>understand this article are junior high school - ie: basic geomatry
>that an object cannot fit through a hole smaller than itself ( which
>most people have figured out anecdotally by the age of three). And
>that a process (example, cremation of a plane) cannot occur unless
>there is sufficient energy to drive the process. (Age 14 stuff when
>i went to school) In fact even someone without these basic skills
>can check all of the calculations in this article, armed only with a
>measuring ruler, a pencil and some graph paper. The paper was
>checked by a qualified engineer before publication. He said that it
>very generous to the 757 argument. (But you wont believe that
>anyway, so why bother asking?)

It's really very simple, Gerard, but you still don't get it. I repeat
in language anyone can understand but you choose not to. Your
so-called "analysis" requires quite a bit more than geometry. But
thanks for finally admitting that you have no real qualifications,
which was evident from the beginning.

>1. How many of them saw a 757 hit the pentagon? being recue
>workers,most of them would have arrived after it happened, and
>wouldn't be able to offer a sighting one way or the other. I have
>conducted a thorough investigation into the eyewitness aspect. Read
>the article more carefully to find the link to it, and please note
>the general comments I made with respect to eyewitness evidence.
>There's no point in discussing eyewitnesses any further unless you
>acknowledge and specifically address the observations which I've
>already made on that subject, specifically in anticipation of the
>question you're now asking.

Unfortunately for you, Gerard, your paper does not address my
question. You have not actually interviewed any one of the rescue
workers - there were hundreds - and that is necessary to determine
what they actually saw in the debris. Therefore, you have NOT
conducted a thorough investigation and the issue of the eyewitness
testimony of those rescue workers remains on the table, as well as
the fact that not ONE of them has ever said a 757 did not hit the

>2.Provide evidence that a) it really was the person you refer to
>(and take account of the section I wrote on DNA tsting) b) that his
>remains were found at the pentagon.

Since his family believes it is the remains of the pilot, you are
forced to provide evidence that it is not the pilot of AA77. You see,
Gerard, you cannot continue to duck evidence contradictory to your

>3.State your criteria for 'those who are qualified". Facts speak for
>themselves, and you haven't disputed a single fact contaiined in the
>article. Neither you have specifically challenged any specific
>methodology used.Neither have challenged any specific calculation.If
>you have 'experts" who you believe can do so, then bring them on. if
>the article is flawed as you say, then it should be easy to
>discredit it by challenging the specific facts ,methods, and
>calculations. I have seen no attempt to do so.

Again, it is really simple, Gerard, kid's stuff: There is evidence
contradicting your conclusions which you need to address. And your
conclusions are what are at issue here. And facts do not speak for
themselves; they must stand without contradiction. If we believed
that nonsense from you then we would have to conclude that the "fact"
that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West indicates that
the sun revolves around the earth.

>4. Everything contained in that reference is more than adequately
>addressed by the contents of the article. The news conference to
>which you refer is nothing more than unsubstantiated spin from
>authorities spouting the official story.

>5. The site to which you refer depends on seriously flawed
>reasoning. It fails to provide any evidence for the original
>locations of the allegedly downed poles.It provides a graphic of
>where the author says they were, but the assumptions are completely
>unsubstantiated. For that study to be done properly ,this is what
>would have to be done.
>1) Establish the exact locations of the poles (not where they
>finished up, but they originally stood). It hasn't done this.
>2.Measure the exact distances between these locations. The distances
>are so critical that there is no margin for error.Not done
>either(obviously it's impossible if he hasn't done step 1)
>3.Examine the distance between each set of poles in the context of
>the following variables. a) the postualated flight path. b) The
>wingspan of the plane c) the angle of wing tilt which changes the
>effective horizontal width of the plane. As a general comment, two
>poles 80 ft apart could have knocked down by either - a plane with a
>wingsapn of 80ft plus passing across them at an angle of 90 degrees
>to a line drawn between them - or a plane with a wingspan of 53ft
>plus crossing the space at a 45 degree angle - or a plane with a
>wingspan of 10ft flying straight down the line. So, AFTER
>establishing the distances between the poles ,(which hasn't been
>done) one then has to calculate a flight path which 1)doesn't zig
>zag crazily
>2)which within the postulated flight path, demonstrates that a
>particular pair of poles must have been hit simultaneously, (or
>close enough to ) a sufficient distance apart to prove that only a
>large plane could have been responsible, 3) establish that there is
>no other object still standing in the calculated path. Harvey
>doesn't even attempt to address any of these questions. Its a glossy
>but fraudulent presentation. Added questions are whether some poles
>could have knocked down by turbulence of the passing plane,and
>whether some were fraudlently planted. Notice that harvey avoids
>like the plague any discussion of the building. We KNOW the exact
>location of the building and the hole. We KNOW that the hole wasn't
>planted, or created by wind turbulence. The poles, on the other hand
>are subject to many, many more variables. That doesn't mean that
>they should be totally ignored, but they are secondary. Harvey's
>fraudulent motives are exposed by his frantic efforts to divert the
>discussion away from that which can be quantitaively examined
>without speculative variables, (the size of the hole) to an aspect
>which has so many specuative variables, that its much more difficult
>to reach an non debateable conclusion. And then he doesn't bother to
>research the data relevant to the aspect that he's chosen to
>concentrate on. Harvey's light pole study is worthless. I have
>debated Harvey in private extensively, and I can also provide proof
>that he has fabricated evidence in relation to alleged witnesses.
>His ID of the alleged witness Timmerman is a fabrication. His claim
>that the alleged witness Winslow "lives across the street" is pure
>fabrication. His photograph which purports to be the witnesses
>Martinez, Probst and several others contain no referencing
>whatsoever to the source of the photos, and no indication that the
>photos are in any way connected to the person they supposedly
>represent. When I asked for verification in relation to these photos
>, he told me that "he couldn't remember" where they came from. When
>I grilled him extensively about the false ID of Timmerman, he also
>said that he "couldn't remember the sources" He said the same about
>his Winslow claim. The proofs for this are too extensive to
>reproduce here, but anybody who wishes to verify this can email me,
>and i will forward the exchange of emails between Harvey and myself.
>I add the qualification that it's possible that Harvey may have
>removed some of these incriminating gaffes from his sites since our
>correspondence but I still have the emails, relating to these

So, only a missle could have knocked down those lamp poles by
following a zig zag route to hit them all before hitting the
Pentagon. Or, it was part of the "conspiracy" of planted evidence.
But, in no way, could a 757 hit those poles because a missle hit
the Pentagon, right?

>Having dealt fully with your sidetracking tactics , I now ask that
>if you wish continue this conversation that provide SPECIFIC
>CALCULATIONS in the article. Failure to do so is an admission that
>you have nothing with which to rebutt the contents of the article.

I love your demands, Gerard, they're so full of ego. But, as you must
well know by now, you haven't begun to deal with the contradictions
to your conclusions. So you will have to begin with your interviews
of hundreds of professional rescue workers, FEMA investigators, Red
Cross volunteers, NTSB and FBI investigators, construction personell
involved with the removal of debris.

After that, you'll have to explain why you have not submitted your
results to experts for public review and subsequent comment (after
all you have admitted your are not a professional with any
credentials at all.)

Then you will have to explain in detail whose remains were buried in
place of the pilots and why not one family member or friend of the
pilot has ever claimed that it was not the pilot they buried (you'll
have to interview them also.)

Then you'll have to detail why no one except a handful of Holocaust
deniers and conspiracy nuts has not come forward to challenge the
fact that a 757 hit the Pentagon. Not one.

After that, you'll have to explain why so many eyewitnesses saw a 757
approaching the Pentagon but NO eyewitness claimed to see a 757 pass
by or over the Pentagon.

Shall I go on?

You see, Gerard, taking on this project doesn't mean you can decide
when evidence you do not like is irrelevant. That's what happens when
you decide to invent a conclusion and then try to make "facts" fit
the conclusion. You can't deal with all the contradictory evidence
that you didn't anticipate.