Version 7 of "What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on Credibilty...." is at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

In this version an additional photograph of debris has been included, wing loading on the spiral descent of flight AA77 has been calculated and the description of the position of CIT has been enlarged. Version 5 included a table showing that a range of flight paths exist which would enable a Boeing 757 to hit the light poles and the Pentagon without experiencing excessive g-force. As some researchers have stated that this is impossible the issue of misinformation arises and is examined in a postscript. The calculations involved are explained in the attached spreadsheet.

G-force_calculator_Pilots2.xls94.5 KB

Thanks Frank for your tireless work!

Direct Link to Article:

As we all know this subject is highly controversial, and I respect the effort Dr Legge has put in, to attempt to bring us together on this issue.

Being reasonable, logical and fair with the issue of of "what hit the Pentagon" is vitally important for our chances of encouraging the public, politicians and media to trust us.

If we do not know something as a fact, it is better to be cautious....about what we profess!

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Congratulations to Frank

You used the term "misinformation" rather than "disinformation". There is never cause to argue against someone's motives. Using the more commonly used term "disinformation" would have.

David Slesinger

364 new photographs of the Pentagon on 9/11 released by the New

364 new photographs of the Pentagon on 9/11 released by the New World Order Report Archives. These exclusive pictures have never been available on the internet before



I'm sorry but I don't see

I'm sorry but I don't see the Wow in this. There is not one picture of the pentagon within the first 20 minutes before the collapse. These picttures are being used to remnd people of the tragedy and feed the emotionalism and patriotism but not one significant picture of the real damage after it happened. Go ahead vote me down. For a website like "new world order" to not include those pictures is very questionable. Just more of the same.

Okay. It is my Wow! -- "Core of Corruption" is one of the...

Okay. You don't have to be impressed. I am. And I won't vote you down.
"Core of Corruption: In The Shadows" in my opinion is one of the best documentaries on 9/11. Jonathan Elinoff wrote and directed the film.
Elinoff gives the full story about the pictures and how he came to have them and his purpose for posting them on his website "". He writes: "...I did not get into the Pentagon issue and this article is not addressing any conspiracy related to 9/11. New World Order Report maintains objectivity on this matter and as you can see in this article, we are not fueling any conspiracy theories about the Pentagon on 9/11....
[By the way, the archives on Elinoff's website are pretty neat. ...but, then again, this is my 'wow'. ]

The resolution on these pics is top grade! You can make out Donald Rumsfeld's nose hairs.

TomT, I wasn't directing

TomT, I wasn't directing that to you, I'm sorry. I'm just very disappointed that this giant collection will be used as a definitive study when the most important pictures aren't even there. Who owns newworldorder?

It would be nice if they had good resolution on the early pictures. I guess I got irritated too that they included a picture of the useless Virginia Governor gilmore. But no intact pictures.

Keep up the good work Tom.

The website... see my post above or read the story about the pic

BreezyinVa, It is all cool. You are my friend. And I understand what you are saying.
The explanation behind the pics is written by Jonathan Elinoff (who also is a curator of the website and who put out the fabulous film: "Core of Corruption: In The Shadows"). The article on the link tells the background behind the pics.
Sure, these pics do not show any major new revelation (nor do they show the plane)...but they add to the archive of 9/11 and these pics have excellent resolution. The unburned book and unmelted computer from the jet fuel fire are easy to spot with this resolution.
Jet fuel is kind of funny...I guess jet fuel will melt metal at the World Trade Centers, but not at the Pentagon. <--(grin)

remaining credible

Probably the most valuable part of this paper can be found in the introduction, where Legge states: "When asked what hit the Pentagon?...I return to the more fundamental question, 'How did it come about that the Pentagon was hit?'" This is really good advice, especially since the attack at the Pentagon seems to be OUR achilles heel and more importantly, it is the question that most Americans have been asking since Sept 11, 2001. We are in the perfect position to validate EVERYONE who is asking that question and stand to gain a lot of allies if we can keep the discussion focused on THAT.

This posture is analogous to us asking "How is it that three skyscrapers fell at near freefall speed into the path of most resistance?" We don't need to prove the use of thermate, thermite, nanothermite, etc., or who planted it to justify asking this important question, which is damning enough to destroy the official narrative. Likewise with the Pentagon attack. We don't need to prove what did or did not hit the Pentagon to point out that it should never have happened in the first place.

It appears that our leaders, if that's what we want to call them, are prudently trying to lead us toward victory. We should, in kind, follow their lead with all of the zeal we can muster. It's been said that if our adversaries can keep people asking the wrong questions, it doesn't matter what answers they come up with --- they're safe.

Simple Geometric Calculations

Folks, this is not rocket science. Actually it's simple geometry. We have CCTV pictures showing the object that hit the Pentagon hiding right behind the car ticket dispenser. All one has to do is the math to determine if that object is the size of a 757 or not. Why won't anyone capable perform these simple calculations?

By the way, the nosecone in the CCTV video doesn't belong to a 757. This FACT confirms CIT's and Pilots for 9/11 Truth's research that the large aircraft flew to the left of the Citgo gas station.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Side-by-Side Nose Cones

I won't speculate on what Flight 77 did or did not do, but I agree that the CCTV pictures don't match a Boeing 757. I would like to see someone with a little tech savy do a side-by-side split screen comparison. Boeing 757s don't have thin sardine looking nose cones. They are blount and coalesce with the cockpit.

vs. (lift image from 1:26)

Weird Science

RL McGee,

I've been saying the same thing for years now, but it makes no impression on some people. It's weird.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

It's all a how do you say the nose cone.... this or you know?

The size of the aircraft is "ball park" consistant with a 757 after that I'd say who knows?

Speculation once again is completely useless to us??

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Show "Do More Research" by brian78046

I'm certain I can see a face on the moon also:)

Research mmm yes I can never do enough of looking at fuzzy much value in that?

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Show "Clear As Day" by brian78046


Don't forget that the CCTV footage was released by the Pentagon itself, the very entity most largely suspected for the crime. It could have easily been manipulated to support the missile theory just to throw off truth seekers onto the wrong track. Not one single eyewitness claims to have seen a missile and numerous people saw a large airliner. The 'debunkers' had a field day with the missile theory because there really were truly lots of eyewitnesses to quote (some real, some plants) who saw a large airplene. Yet here's the mystery: it's obvious no large (or even small, imo) plane crashed there. So what's up with this large plane everyone saw? That's where CIT comes in.

Independent eyewitnesses carry far more weight than Pentagon provided data because the Pentagon is a prime suspect in the crime.

Show "Don't Be Afraid Of Your Shadow!" by brian78046

At the end of the day

while I agree that we just don't know what "happened" at the pentagon on 911, I would bet my money that hani did not hit the building with a 757 and that the fab five frames do not show a 757!

What really happened and why

I'd bet my money that a real 757 hit with real passengers and a lot of real people died that day.

It's ugly, boring -- relative to Skywarriors, bombs, faked morphed phone calls, etc -- and awful. It's about death. And yet, it's most likely what "happened," at the end of the day.

The proposed "magic show", on the other hand, is exciting, contentious, mysterious, and devoid of the nastiness of human bodies instantly crushed into oblivion against mortar walls, families no longer with a wife or a husband or a son or a daughter, and the experiences of those in DC who lived through it who will never ever forget the images and likely will have PTSD the rest of their lives.

Unfortunately, the real psy-op of the Pentagon debate is probably "what hit".

It's not that hard to imagine why "what hit" is not the real issue to contend with, but a diversion kept alive by people who are claiming that a paper in the central scientific journal of the movement has it wrong, despite having passed a peer review, and no other paper asserting a Boeing couldn't have hit being able to reach such a point.

So the real issue -- sadly -- is that the heart of the US military was attacked, which is just like punching a bee hive to get the troops to go to war. And it worked well. But it's abundantly clear it never should have happened and was made to happen.

This isn't rocket science.

Show "Victronix," by Adam Syed
Show "What I Discuss With Novices and What I Don't" by brian78046

Where is the evidence of high explosive brisance?

High explosives produce distinguishable types of damage when detonated in, or near buildings. If a missile were used to hit the Pentagon, it would have punctured the wall, leaving a narrow diameter hole. The main warhead would have detonated inside the building, blowing debris away from the point of detonation. It would also have pulverized the concrete and masonry building materials proximate to the point of detonation. Where is the evidence of high explosive brisance in the Pentagon evidence?

"Man muß die Dinge so einfach wie möglich machen. Aber nicht einfacher" -- Albert Einstein

I'll take the bet

If a 757 did hit the pentagon why not show the world? Oh yeah I forgot they did show the "magic five frames". Yes the beehive was attacked, yes people on airplanes died that day. If a 757 did hit our supreme headquarters that day then Mineta's testimony would fit nicely in a Cheney treason trial- that's a tempting downside in itself. Even considering the scope of 911 I still don't believe a psy-op of "what hit" was part of plan. Why bother, they had all the bases covered anyway. The biggest reason for not using a 757 in my opinion is that the collateral damage estimate became too unreliable.

Show "(No subject)" by tit2
Show "Just Do It!" by brian78046

I tried to make estimates

But after reflection I believe that it is not possible to have an estimate of the height of the fuselage of the object, in the picture, without knowing precisely where is located, in the picture, the place where the airplane is supposed to have hit the pentagon.

Excuse me for my poor English.

Thanks Frank for continuing

Thanks Frank for continuing this work.

One lingering question -- the 330 downward spiral

Generally, this paper is excellent and I agree with its main points.

However, the question of Hani Hanjour's ability to execute the downward spiral is not well developed. It's one thing to note that GPS and auto-pilot capabilities could have been utilized for parts of the flight. It's quite another to assume that this explains the precise manner in which the 330° descent was performed.

The virtually unanimous testimony we have about Hanjour's pathetic incompetence as a pilot (excepting only the ever-elusive Eddie Shalev—see Mark Gaffney's article at ), the news reports suggesting that this maneuver revealed "a highly trained pilot" at the helm, and the testimony from several experienced airline pilots about the difficulty of this maneuver, do not seem adequately addressed in the relevant section.

To be sure, Dr. Legge notes the possibility that the plane could have been remotely commandeered, but that merely posits an alternative scenario; it does not itself address whether Hanjour could plausibly have piloted a 757 through such a demanding aerobatic maneuver.

When I accepted Jim Hoffman's analyses a few year's back about a 757 hitting the Pentagon, I thought this rather strengthened the case against the official theory, since it raises even more strongly the doubts over Hanjour's ability to have flown this trajectory in a "big bird."

I would ask Dr. Legge whether this question should not be addressed more thoroughly. And with that one point made, I sincerely congratulate him on a job well done!

the downward spiral

Thanks JTL for the kind words. Regarding whether the question of Hanjour's skill should be addressed more thoroughly, first let me remind you that the paper was looking for proof that the 757 could not have performed the observed damage. You note that the paper mentions the possibility that the plane was guided by devices out of the pilot's control, but you do not appear to have studied the footnotes where I point out that it is possible that a human was at the controls. There are many assertions that, with Hanjour's reported lack of skill, it would have been impossible, but did those who made these assertions carefully study the NTSB animation? Now we know that there are things wrong with the animation, in particular its heading, but is their any proof that the animation did not correctly portray the behaviour of the plane?

If you look at the speeded up animation presented by Calum Douglas,
you will see that the plane at takeover is being operated by its autopilot, as indicated by its perfect smoothness. Then you see it turn smoothly, as in an autopilot turn. Nothing hard about that - any private pilot could have done it. The plane then straightens out and flies back for some distance. Then a most remarkable thing happens. The plane starts wild variations in altitude, exactly as might occur if an inexperienced pilot turned off the auto pilot and struggled to get the plane into control and trimmed out. This happens again near the Pentagon, best seen in a real time version of the animation, as can be found in Pilots for 9/11 Truth video:
In this case we again see wild variations, gradually being smoothed out, but nowhere in the descending turn can the handling of the plane be described as skillful - there are gross fluctuations in speed, altitude and bank angle. Only in the last minute and a half do we see the plane getting properly under control as it lines up for the final approach. I suggest in the footnotes that the pilot may have switched the autopilot back on in Control Wheel Steering mode, which the 757 was fitted with. In this intuitive mode the plane maintains its heading and attitude until nudged by the pilot, whereupon it then maintains the new heading. This would be a pretty easy way to hone in on the target.

But even then, if you think that improbable, is there any proof that Hanjour was flying, or even on board? There could have been a swap with a suicidal expert pilot. Do we really know Hanjour was a poor pilot? He could easily have been faking that. Who knows what devilish play-acting and red herrings may not have been thought up by the perpetrators to keep us all arguing about what happened.

Check the footnotes for more details.

Who disputes that he was a poor pilot?

'Do we really know Hanjour was a poor pilot? He could easily have been faking that. Who knows what devilish play-acting and red herrings may not have been thought up by the perpetrators to keep us all arguing about what happened.'

This seems a bit ironic to me. While members of the 9/11 truth movement have argued with one another on many different points, I would think that the subject of Hanjour's piloting skills--or lack thereof--would be among the least disputed, in view of the testimony from a number of former instructors that has long been available, attesting to just how un-skilled he really was. To get me to reconsider, I would need more sources than the lone one cited by the 9/11 Commission report (and preferably less fishy than that source--a former paratrooper from the Israeli military whose whereabouts have been unknown since not long after he delivered his commission testimony):

scientific proof

rm, I listed a number of reasons why there was no scientific proof that the 757 could not have hit the Pentagon. Clearly it could have. Clearly there were a number of routes the plane could have taken to hit the poles and the Pentagon.

I listed a number of ways the flight could have been controlled. Some were strong, like the use of an on board device to control the plane. Some were weak. The weakest of all was the idea that Hanjour could have been faking incompetence. It is so weak that I did not include it in the paper. The point of my comment on this blog above is just that you cannot prove that Hanjour was not faking incompetence. I am sure I could fake being a poor pilot - why not Hanjour? It may be very weak but it illustrates the issue that if you want to be able to assert that something did not happen you have to find real proof it could not have happened.

To take such a weak concept seriously you have to find a reason to think it could have given the perpetrators an advantage. It seems quite plausible to me that, if Hanjour was competent enough to fly the plane with the help of the autopilot in CWS mode, it would have suited the perpetrators very well to give the impression he could not have done it, and thus provide something about which countless well meaning people could argue endlessly.

Show "The portion of the flight path that is problematic..." by Stefan
Show "Proof That A 757 Didn't Hit The Pentagon, Thanks To Liebner" by brian78046

eye witnesses


When you have two sets of eye witnesses which contradict one another there is only one scientifically valid position, namely that there is no scientific proof in the witness statements that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

You no doubt claim that the north path has been verified or proved or established by the fact that the witnesses have been approached and their statements recorded.

Do you not see that so many of the other statements also result from the witness being approached and their statement recorded? Most of those took place shortly after the event when memories were fresh. They must be given weight.

I remind you that star witness Largasse wrote angry letters asserting that the plane hit the poles and the Pentagon. You no doubt will say that his later statement was more reliable. Why would you think that, given that his letters were written nearer the event? While he was later drawing the line on the map for CIT he said "of course the angle is not right" or words to that effect.

You say that there is "no reason for a fake flight path". Surely that has been well covered. Do you not agree that the perpetrators had a very good reason to provide contradictory information so that good people like you and me would argue?

I vigorously oppose your assertion that those who support me are defying the scientific method. You say of our work "the conclusion comes first - a direct offence against the scientific method." This is not logical. The conclusion is that there is no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. Your task is to find proof. I do not accept eye witnesses as proof for reasons stated above. I do not accept the calculations of Pilots for 9/11 Truth for reasons clearly set out in the paper. I do not accept the many other ideas I have heard about, and discussed in the paper. If you have real scientific proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon I would be very pleased to hear it and would do what I could to publicize it.

Show "Frank," by Adam Syed
Show "Scientific and Logical" by brian78046
Show "Promoting Paranoid Evidence-Free Conspiracy Theories?" by Stefan
Show "Long and Pointy Nosecone" by brian78046

No Evidence Of A Missile

I truly think the CCTV stills are faked; a red herring.

You can watch CITs videos and see witness after witness after witness for your self:

No one saw a missile.

They all saw what looked like a large commerical jet.

I've been using photoshop casually for years and am a long way away from being a master at it. But I am pretty certain if I had never used it before in my life I could make an equally convincing "plane" to that image. Anyone could.

Just my 2 pence, but the CCTV stills are a distraction. Look at the eye witnesses and the picture comes together pretty well.

Show "If Faked Then Bush & Company Are In Even Hotter Water" by brian78046



I will not comment on your assertions about the north of Citgo eyewitnesses providing "proof" that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon, as we have already discussed this at length. I believe that witnesses of the plane's impact must be given weight. You don't. So further discussion of this would be pointless.

It is interesting however to read your first paragraph above as it suggests you have not read my paper. I carefully set out the observation that the plane was flying on auto pilot most of the time and I agree that this would be no trouble to a poorly trained pilot. I then dissected the data over those two periods when the autopilot was clearly turned off. I suggest you read the paper if you wish to discuss this further. Note references to CWS. Note references to possible on-board pre-programmed controlling devices. Note references to the wild fluctuations in altitude and bank angle.

Show "Frank" by Stefan
Show "Must Have Been Captain Liebner" by brian78046

it is possible

But it would seem to be far less risk to just have explosives inside the building.

There is also evidence for a secondary explosion (if not two) before the wider face collapse.

This is video, audio and testimonial evidence so pretty conclusive.

It is my speculation that the demolition sequence did not take on the first go and what was supposed to happen all at once did not.

If the first thing anyone saw was the secondary damage (with plane width collapse) then would there ever have been such widespread suspicion of the official story, not just within the 9/11 truth community but also the general public?

I doubt it.

I understand why a lot of people still think a missile might have hit, but when you really start researching what the witnesses saw and corroborated, the idea becomes untennable.

It's good you are open to researching the Pentagon unlike so many others, I'd strongly recommend checking out CITs videos -

National Security Alert

And The Eye Of The Storm

Are both utterly essential, but I would recommend watching them all.

Show "I had That Same Thought" by brian78046
Show "Good as Proof" by brian78046

Long posts, short posts, take your pick

I remind you long posters that my paper is not making the case that a 757 hit the Pentagon. It is making the case that it cannot be proved that it did not.

Just because some people made claims that the plane did something it apparently did not do, like dragging its wing along the ground, does not make all the reports that the plane hit the Pentagon wrong. So the many reports that the plane hit the Pentagon, or that it was travelling so low that it couldn't miss, must be given weight.

You talk about probabilities. What is the probability that, if the plane flew over the Pentagon, no-one would have seen it?

What is the probability that the planners of the Pentagon attack would have included a flyover in the plan, given that it would be almost inevitable that someone would see?

You might like to study this web site by David Owen. He provides some interesting observations and deductions.

And by the way I never did assert that explosives were not used. I suggest they may have been. Read the paper.

That point about the 6 reinforced concrete walls. this shows lack of knowledge of the Pentagon. Only one substantial wall had to be breached to allow the plane to penetrate. The inner masonry walls did not reach the ground. This is well documented and mentioned in my paper, which you apparently have not read with the care it deserves.

Show "What They Said" by brian78046


There are plenty of ridiculous people around, and even sensible people say ridiculous things in times of crisis and emotional disturbance. Who knows why Liebner said what he did. Was it personal agrandisment? Did he have a script he was supposed to modify with what he observed but in the heat of the moment he forgot what he was supposed to do? Was he afraid to admit he had not been on the spot, as instructed, to see what happened? Who knows? There is no scientific proof here.

These ridiculous reports prove nothing whatsoever.

Show "Stories Ridiculous, Not Story Tellers" by brian78046
Show "Further Reflections" by brian78046

play acting


I fully agree that all sorts of play acting must have been going on on that day. The report that WTC7 fell before it did seems to be another example. My point is simply that none of this proves a 757 did not hit the pentagon.

Show "Proof of Lies" by brian78046
Show "Who Is Claiming No One Would Have Seen It?" by Stefan

worth repeating

"The heavily circulated story in the weeks after 9/11 of a second plane flying literally right over the first before peeling off and flying away would have convinced most that was what they saw..."

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA -
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Show "Major Lincoln Liebner" by brian78046


Despite a considerable number of posts, no-one seems willing to tackle this point:

"What is the probability that the planners of the Pentagon attack would have included a flyover in the plan, given that it would be almost inevitable that someone would see?"

Would not the probability be vanishingly small?

Show "No, if..." by brian78046

miss hit


The first part of your answer is a complete miss-hit. Was that included deliberately to cause obfuscation and confusion?

The second part is a little closer. Certainly one would expect there to be a lot of people in the vehicles around the Pentagon who worked there, but the idea that the crowd could have been saturated with "plants" seems a bit far-fetched. They would have had to set up road blocks and divert all normal traffic while the plants moved in. I didn't hear about the road blocks. Please provide evidence.

Show "silly" by bbruhwiler8

drowned out?

How could the hundreds of normal witnesses be "drowned out"? Is this by loudness or would it be by identifying and then drowning the interviewers who interviewed them? Please explain.

And if I did happen to get one deduction wrong, how would that prove all my other deductions are wrong? Please explain.

Show "control of media" by bbruhwiler8
Show "Serendipity" by brian78046
Show "Late Accounts By Commuters of A Fly Over Would Be Spiked" by brian78046

so sure

You people are so sure that the plane flew over that you think it reasonable to dream up all manner of reasons why the majority of witness testimony is wrong. I suggest you start to think about how you will feel if it ever comes out that a 757 certainly did hit the Pentagon.

I remain with my hypothesis that there is no scientific proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. There are wild theories as to why it might not have happened, but no proof. I will have no further comments. Over and out.

Show "The Dreams Belong To Official Eyewitnesses and Narrative" by brian78046
Show ""You people are so sure that" by bbruhwiler8
Show "No cover up?" by bbruhwiler8
Show "Jet fuel" by tit2
Show "No fires, no plane" by brian78046
Show "Video of the impact area at" by tit2
Show "Comparison Clinches The Debate" by brian78046

@12 seconds in your vid

i saw lot of small pieces of debris on the pentalawn

the plane smashed into many many pieces - mostly small and carriable by one or two men

the plane was going very very fast when it hit a reinforced barried head-on

here's what happens when a plane goes very very fast into a reinforced barrier:

not identical to the pentagon, plane not identical to a 757 but you see the potential for some of a 757 to be smashed to tiny pieces

Still no response!

A year has gone by and still no-one has ventured to comment on the probability that the planners of 9/11 would have faked the impact and included a flyover.

In thinking about the probability, note that the perpetrators would have nothing to gain from creating a deception of impact with a flyover, and everthing to lose. They were not stupid. It is obvious they would not have done it. The question of probability is discussed here:

Perhaps all the flyover supporters have concluded that the probability is so low they don't want to comment for fear of looking foolish.

The paper makes sense to me

I am very confident that a 757 hit the Pentagon. None of the other scenarios explain the preponderance of witness accounts, the damage to the building, the missing 757, the debris, etc. But the paper doesn't even go that far. All it does is show that the evidence doesn't rule out a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

"Man muß die Dinge so einfach wie möglich machen. Aber nicht einfacher" -- Albert Einstein

Show "Do A Little More Research" by brian78046

I've done my homework

The damage pattern is what should be expected if a 757 hit the Pentagon with a horizontal trajectory not perpendicular to the face of impact. The main hole was the diameter of the fuselage, and the engines were mostly sheet metal and air. The heaviest parts were concentrated in and around the shafts. That means that most of the engine material would be expected to shatter into small pieces while the core of the engines would penetrate the wall making holes of only modest diameter.

The wings were constructed of lightweight materials and consisted mostly of air and fuel. They too would have shattered leaving the types of debris recorded in the available photos.

As for the fuel, most of it would have atomized on impact and burned up in a fireball. The rest would have been distributed thinly in the direction the plane was traveling at impact.

"Man muß die Dinge so einfach wie möglich machen. Aber nicht einfacher" -- Albert Einstein
Show "You're Analysis Is Shockingly Rubbish" by brian78046

I have no connection to Purdue University

You are arguing against an analysis which I have not connection to. My analysis is my own. Please address what I say, not what someone at Purdue University said. IIRC the folks at Purdue also believe three skyscrapers were demolished by two airplanes on the same day. Certainly not people upon whom I would rely for expert analysis.

Show "If the Physics Don't Fit, You Must Find Guilty!" by brian78046

The physics support AA77 hitting the Pentagon

The physics supports the model of a 757 hitting the Pentagon. It doesn't fit the model of a missile hitting the Pentagon. It's really not that difficult. The momentum of the plane was concentrated in the fuselage which hit the Pentagon traveling along its central axis. That means the vast majority of the mass was concentrated in a cross section about the size of the hole. the remaining heavy parts were in the shafts of the engines. They would result in holes about 3 feet in diameter. The remainder of the engines was cowling and turbine blades. Though the blades were certainly fairly strong, they had tremendous momentum in a plane perpendicular to the path of travel, and would have dispersed radially upon impact. The cowling is, by design lightweight, and would not have been much of a match for the multiply fortified wall of the Pentagon.

A missile would have made a smaller entry hole unless it detonated at the point of impact. If that had happened, the exit hole would be in explicable, as would the internal pattern of damage.

Furthermore, there are simply too many people in proximity at that time of any given work day to bear witness for the perpetrators to have thought they could fake a large plane hitting the Pentagon. There was no motive for faking a plane hitting the Pentagon. It is unreasonable to believe anybody smart enough to pull off the 9/11 attacks would have attempted a "David Copperfield" flyover. There would have been too much risk involved, and to what end?

Show "Come on now" by bbruhwiler8

"The plane atomized with the impact."

Time for a new test using an F-4 Phantom Jet.

The US Government wanted to test what would happen if a plane crashed into the concrete walls of a nuclear power station.

The jet sets off, bolted to a track to prevent takeoff. It's doing 500 miles per hour. The plane atomized with the impact. It just disappeared into dust. Only the tips of the wings [which exceeded the width of the wall] escaped total destruction.

WordNet (r) 2.0

     v 1: spray very finely; "atomize perfume" [syn: atomise]
     2: strike at with firepower or bombs; "zap the enemy" [syn: nuke,
         atomise, zap]
     3: break up into small particles; "the fine powder had been
        atomized by air" [syn: atomise]
Show "Then what created that one hole?" by bbruhwiler8

The conglomerated mass of the fuselage

The wall of the Pentagon was not as sturdy as the wall in the video. My point is, parts such as the engine cowling, wings and tail fins(sic) would have shattered and not passed through the wall. The fuselage would have "crumpled up" along the path of travel. Think of a water jet cutter. It is a tool that can cut metal with a stream of water.

Just as a first take, assuming the plane was traveling at 540 mph. The wall of the Pentagon would have had the entire momentum of the fuselage imparted to it in ~ 0.2 seconds. Since the change in energy to completely stop the plane would be force times the length of the plane. We can calculate the average force by finding the kinetic energy (1/2 mass times velocity squared) and dividing it by the length of the plane. Here's the Mathematica code:

<< Units`
v = Convert[540 Mile/Hour, 1.0 Meter/Second];
l = 47.3 Meter; 
t = l/v;
m = 60000 Kilo Gram;
T = 1/2 m v^2;
f = T/l

(3.69607*10^7 Gram Kilo Meter)/Second^2

Thats ~ 37 million Newtons. Supposed we throw out about half of that to account for the engines, etc. (just a SWAG). Since that was not distributed evenly over the cross section of impact, but concentrated around the circumference and where other massive parts, such as landing gear were located, it stands to reason that the part of the wall impacted by the shell of the fuselage experienced significantly more of that force than did the entire cross section.

The fuselage was 3.7 meters in diameter, so it had a circumference of pi times 3.7 = 11.6239 meters. We'll assume an impact width of .25 meters giving an area of 2.90597 square meters. The final result is (6.35944*10^6 Newton)/Meter^2. That's six million newtons per square meter.

By way of comparison, a 200 pound man "weighs" 890 Newtons.

Debunker techniques

You are using debunker techniques.

"Just as a first take, assuming the plane was traveling at 540 mph. The wall of the Pentagon would have had the entire momentum of the fuselage imparted to it in ~ 0.2 seconds. Since the change in energy to completely stop the plane would be force times the length of the plane. We can calculate the average force by finding the kinetic energy (1/2 mass times velocity squared) and dividing it by the length of the plane. Here's the Mathematica code:"

By your calculations, the engines should have obliterated half of the Pentagon.

Using your rationale, why would the engines 'atomize' but the fuselage would not? Why did the engines not create holes in the walls? Why did the fuselage not atomize? Whether or not the engines 'atomized', where are they?

Where are all the plane parts? Where are the remnants? What happened to the tail section? Where did it vanish to? No large plane hit the Pentagon on 9-11. It's scientific. It's obvious.


Do we have a physicist in the house?

No. That is not a "debunker technique". It is called basic Newtonian physics. I got my data from Boeing's web site. See the Feynman Lectures on Physics for a sufficient introduction. Invoking ad homenim attacks such as calling someone's scientific argument a "debunker technique" is actual a debunker technique.


The debunker technique you are using is that you are selectively applying a certain logic to make one point, but then ignoring that same logic when it disagrees with another point that you want to make.

You are saying that the force of the plane drove the softest part of the plane, the fuselage, through the most reinforced part of the Pentagon wall, and that very same force of the plane caused the toughest part of the plane, the massive engines, to 'atomize' against the weaker part of the Pentagon wall.

That is debunker technique.

The truth is, neither one of the scenarios would have happened in this situation. If flight 77 had hit, we would have seen a massive twisted mess of bodies and chunks of plane all over the Pentagon lawn.


Read this little gem from the past...

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

It's momentum and mass distribution that matter

The engines were mostly hollow. Rigidity is not as significant in analyzing what happened as is the cross-sectional mass distribution. That is why I used the example of a water jet cutter. As another example to show that rigidity is not as important as mass distribution, compare the consequence of being hit by a hard aluminum bullet verses a soft lead bullet of the same dimensions.

The engines on AA-77 weighed ~ 3.6 tons each, were 3 meters long, and about 2.5 meters in diameter. The outer surface was sheet metal not formed into a right circular cylinder. As such, it had a less structurally sound shape than did the fuselage. Furthermore, the points of application of force would not have been constant during deformation, as they would have been during the deformation of the fuselage.

As I have stated previously, much of the mass in the engines was in the shafts. Some considerable portion was in the fan blades which would have flown out radially. We could, therefore, expect the shafts to pierce the wall or windows, leaving holes less than a meter in diameter. The cowling and outer parts would have shattered without imparting enough momentum to fracture and displace the Pentagon wall.

Not even close

Your attempts to explain why a giant titanium jet engine can vanish into thin air reminds me of those who try to debate the physical evidence of the Twin Towers controlled demolition with Richard Gage AIA. The physical evidence does not support your pseudo science. The engines on AA77 are massive. In almost every documented plane crash you will find large plane parts, especially the engines and the tail section, as well as the wings. We didn't see any of this at the Pentagon. I suppose you are going to somehow invent the science to explain how the wings and tail section magically dissolved into the Pentagon?


It didn't vanish into thin air

There were engine parts recovered from inside the Pentagon. I'm only trying to explain why there were no holes the side of the engines at the locations where the engines impacted that wall. The titanium was not in the cowling.

I'm not buying it.

"I'm only trying to explain why there were no holes the side of the engines at the locations where the engines impacted that wall. The titanium was not in the cowling."

I'm not buying it. Not even close.


Planted Evidence


you'll find the article in the link below interesting:

If a 757 had entered the Pentagon and atomized, then there's no need to plant large sections of fuselage inside the Pentagon.

Also note the part about the landing gear hitting a car. Another lie, as told by the WJLA reporter, though not as bold of a lie as told by Captain Lincoln Liebner (that Flight 77 hit a helicopter that was on the helipad).

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Ground Effect & Structural Steel


it's quite simple, ground effect prevents a 757 from flying level at 530 mph, just feet off the ground.

Flight 175 flew into the north tower at 540 mph, and left a nice imprint (including engines) in the structural steel wall.

Why do you think Legge is shy about ground effect?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Show "Ground Effect" by bbruhwiler8
Show "Atomized Titanium" by brian78046

Once the wall gave way, the rest could pass through

That does not contradict what I am saying at all. The physics I posted was for the assumption that the entire plane came to rest at the wall. I stated that assumption clearly. That was the most extreme scenario. The conclusion of that exercise is that the fuselage would have penetrated the wall before it was completely atomized.

Your account of there being sections of the fuselage found inside the building does contradict the assertion that no plane hit the Pentagon. The physical evidence and the physics both support the conclusion that a 757 did hit the Pentagon. You have to reject the account of a person with much more time and better proximity by claiming the evidence was planted in favor of a small minority of dubious witness accounts of an event that lasted no more than a few seconds.

In order to do that, you have concocted a very fanciful and speculative scenario with virtually no evidence to support it. It seems to me that you are using the methodology of NIST. You start with the conclusion and mutilate the evidence until is supports your conclusion.

Fuselage inside?

I never saw evidence of fuselage parts inside. If the soft fuselage cut through the reinforced thick concrete wall like a knife through butter (wow! amazing! how is that possible?!), then what happened to the wings? What happened to the engines? What happened to the tail section? How did the soft fuselage disappear through that hole, but the engines did not rip up the ground as they were dragged underground by the fuselage?

What you are suggesting just doesn't make sense.


Inconsistent Analysis


Bruno's points are dead on.

You're analysis is inconsistent. The damage to the Pentagon wall does support evidence for an aircraft impact, but not a 757. A much smaller aircraft entered the Pentagon. The damage to the facade of the Pentagon on either side of the fuselage hole shows that wings and engines from a 757 did not hit the wall. Since there were no fires on the lawn from the jet fuel, that means those wings would have had to have gone through the wall, which brings us back to the Pentagon wall again and the zero indication that wings from a 757 hit the wall.

Also, the 10,000 gallons of jet fuel would have turned the area immediately within the area of the fuselage hole into an inferno. Well, there were no fires in that area!

Ergo, 757 pieces of wreckage were planted.

If a 757 had hit the Pentagon's reinforced brick wall, it would have hit the wall with the energy equivalent to over three-quarter tons of TNT! The whole area of impact would have collapsed immediately, as it was supposed to, but didn't until 40 minutes later.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Fire in front of the impacted wall 0f the Pentagon[1].jpg

Picture Is From Much Later


"Windows were obviously knocked out and you could hear a fire inside the building but the fires weren’t that prevalent at that point. It was just smoke, and it wasn’t even all that bad."
-- Captain Lincoln Liebner.

The picture you provide is from much later after the impact. As Captain Liebner says, when he entered the hole right after the impact there were no fires in the area of the hole, just smoke. He heard fires elsewhere, however. Now, if 10,000 gallons of jet fuel had entered the building he would have been killed upon entering the hole provided by the fuselage.

Also, to what degree those fires are the result of the bomb that also went off isn't clear:

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC


Somebody can honestly look at this photo and believe that a 757 disappeared through that wall?

The key word being

"honestly." :)

What are the dimensions of the hole?

Honestly, yes. One of the arguments I've heard is that the wings would have been torn off by the light poles if they had actually hit them. My father, who wrote the US DoT acceptance criteria for that kind of roadside fixture doesn't agree with that claim. The irony of the claim is that the same people turn around and say there isn't enough damage on the face of the massively fortified Pentagon for the damage to have been caused by a 757.

The images here show impact damage consistent with a 757 collision, not consistent with explosive brisance:

ERROR: 'The Pentagon Attack Left Only a Small Impact Hole'

See especially the images linked in the right sidebar.

Where are the wings?

Well, whatever the size of the hole, we know the wings didn't go through that hole, so where are the wings? There are no wings from a 757 or another large plane, that's obvious.

Crazy French KC-135 low pass


This is a joke, right? This is a composited special effects video. There are a series of these online. You best have lots of detailed information and references to back this one up partner.

Show "Atomized, yes" by Adam Syed
Show "Kerberos," by Adam Syed
Show "Wedges & Walls" by brian78046

Those who believe it was a missile should do the same exercise

Those who believe a missile and not a plane that hit the Pentagon should produce a paper analogous to Frank Legge's showing how the evidence supports the missile theory. I claim that a missile strike could not have produced the damage observed. Someone who supports the missile theory should show how the damage is consistent with a missile strike. How did it make a large hole in both the front and back walls of the impacted section, and also produced the internal damage? What evidence is there for high explosive brisance?

Show "I Do What I Do" by brian78046

Write it up and submit it to

Write it up and submit it to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Show "^^^" by Adam Syed
Show "Frank Legge's paper does not address" by Adam Syed
Show "Ground Effect & Downwash" by brian78046

Cool, thanks for the info

Cool, thanks for the info Dean.

Show "Corroboration" by brian78046

Evidence Please

Please provide the mathematical calculations, and/or the physical evidence that shows that the in excess of 140 tons of air downwash that Flight 77 produced as it flew over I-395 would have thrown cars about like a child throwing a toy car. Just one example of a plane flying over a substantial object causing it to be thrown around like a toy would be a good start.

Please also show at what point the plane would have flown low over I395. The majority of accounts I'm aware of say that the plane few north of 395, over the Navy Annex parking lot. That would have been over Columbia Pike, not over 395. I do know of one eyewitness who said he was driving a truck on I395 when the police suddenly stopped traffic. A short while latter he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Most people on I395 would not have been able to see the Pentagon, but since he was driving a truck, he could see over the Jersey wall.

He said it looked like the plane had bounced off the heliport. I take that as an indication that the plane made a significant final split-second correction before hitting the building. I asked my friend who had talked to this witness to put me in touch with him. Unfortunately, that never happened. The witness in question was a railroad worker at the time he spoke with my friend in the middle of the night in a rial yard. Not likely a plant.

Calculations, Jet Blast & Vortices


a 757-200 extended range weighs 255,000 lbs (, that's 127.5 tons. Therefore, to achieve liftoff at 160mph (, the 757 needs to produce 127.5 tons of air downwash. Flight 77 was flying at 530 mph as it flew over Route 27. Because Flight 77 was flying 370 mph faster than liftoff speed, I added another 12.5 tons of downwash to compensate.

Since heavy aircraft don't fly just above the ground over roads, there are no pictures/video, but as the article on How Airplanes Fly said, "If a plane were to fly over a very large scale, the scale would register the weight of the plane" ( Newton's laws of thermodynamics affirms the weight scale example.

However there is a video of what happpens to a car from the jet blast of a two engine Boeing:

Vin Narayanan said the 757 flew 25 feet above his car on Route 27 ( Impossible, the jet blast alone would have sent his car rolling! The next link shows Narayanan's position on Route 27 (

And let's not forget the equally dangerous wingtip vortices:

If physics is good for determining what should have happened to the WTC towers and WTC 7, then why isn't physics being used to say what happened (and didn't) at the Pentagon? The 9/11 Truth Movement needs to trust the evidence, NOT the planted eyewitnesses!

Steve Patterson said he thought the aircraft was going to land on I-395, it was so low (

Who said Flight 77 bounced off the helipad, because downwash would prevent Flight 77 from getting anywhere near the helipad! However, it is possible with a commuter sized aircraft, which is what Steve Patterson said he saw:

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Downwash is hogwash

Downwash is not going to be as significant at any given location for a plane traveling at 500+mph as for a plane moving at 160 mph. That's because the force needs to be applied for a shorter period at a given location. There are plenty of images of large planes flying low over people and things and not blowing them away. But now that your downwash idea is starting to fall apart, you are turning to backwash. Not a good idea when drinking beer, and not a good idea when talking about low altitude flyovers.

As for the plane flying over I395, I suggest you educate yourself about the geography a bit.

You Can't Argue With Newton And The Experts


You say, "Downwash is not going to be as significant at any given location for a plane traveling at 500+mph as for a plane moving at 160 mph. That's because the force needs to be applied for a shorter period at a given location."

That's analogous to saying that a car hitting a person at 180 mph is not as significant then if the car was traveling at 55 mph! Actually, Newton disagrees with that half-baked allusion! Newton said F=ma.

The only way an aircraft can stay aloft is by exerting air downwards. When a 127 ton aircraft is flying feet off the ground, the downwash of that 127 tons hits the ground. That is not speculation. It is fact, as confirmed by David Anderson (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory) and Scott Eberhardt (formerly of the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, University of Washington, now at the Boeing Company) in their joint, NASA funded, article, How Airplanes Fly.

I'd like to see those pictures of large commercial airliners flying directly over the heads of people on the ground and directly over the hoods of cars on the ground. I want to see how they miraculously avoided being injured/killed by jet engine blast, wingtip vortices and the crushing effect of downwash. So please provide them.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

It's analogous to saying a fast moving car will appear lighter

Your argument about downwash is based on the force needed to counter the acceleration of gravity. So the force will be pressure integrated over surface area. That surface area is moving as the plane moves. That means the period of exposure at any given location is smaller, the faster the plane moves. This is analogous to saying that a fast moving car has a better chance of crossing a weak bridge than does a slow moving car.

BTW, check your math. Something seems wrong there...too.

Just The Opposite


the exposure time of 127 tons (at 160 mph) for 0.0001 seconds is just as deadly and crushing as an exposure time of 0.001 seconds (for 530 mph)! As a matter of fact, the 0.001 exposure time (at 530 mph) is even more destructive even though the exposure time is less: F=ma.

Why don't you read the NASA funded article? "The amount of air pumped down for a Boeing 747 to create lift for its roughly 800,000 pounds takeoff weight is incredible indeed."
"If a plane were to fly over a very large scale, the scale would register the weight of the plane." That's 400 tons for a 747!

Where are those pictures you have of commercial airliners flying over the hoods of cars?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Low Flying 747

Don't Argue With Newton


I asked for a commercial aircraft flying DIRECTLY over the heads of persons and over the hoods of cars. As the advisory warning sign shows in the video below, being caught under the blast of a commercial airliner is deadly:

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

commercial aircraft flying DIRECTLY over the heads of persons

Show "Speed And Height Matters" by brian78046

It would be less dangerous

The only thing that would have been potentially more dangerous from a plane flying very close to the ground at high speed would be the possibility of getting caught in one of the wingtip vortecis since the vortexes would have been stronger. But, as we see from the video your provided, that won't necessarily happen. In order for the engine exhaust to significantly impact an object, that object needs to be directly behind it. An object 25 feet from the central axis of the engine as it passes at 500+mph is not likely to be significantly impacted by the back thrust of the engines.

If the engines were at full throttle, as the evidence indicates they would have generated a considerable back thrust. That would be more consequential if the relative speed were lower. As you rightly point out F=ma. And F*t = delta P, or change in momentum. So the lower the period of exposure to a force, the less action the force will have.

low pass

Hi Kerberos, you are doing well. I found this and thought it might be useful then saw you had already used it.

It is funny that all this argument is going on about the impossibility of flying so low in ground effect when such an eminent pilot as Balsamo has pointed out that the effect would only have lasted for a very brief time, perhaps less than a second, and therefore could not have deflected the plane very much. In fact ground effect may well have been the factor which prevented the descending plane from hitting the ground, as stated in the paper. It is disappointing that the arguers are still attacking an early version of the paper. It is interesting that no-one has challenged the calculations in the paper that show that it is possible to find a flight path that would hit the poles and the Pentagon without over stressing the plane or the pilot.


Look at those engines! Wow! I forget... how does your 'paper' explain the disappearance of those massive engines? Thanks

With you in the struggle,

Silence Is Odd


Why is Kerberos and Frank silent? We just proved that Flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon, so why would they be silent? Proof that there was no Pentagon impact by a commercial airliner is a plus for 9/11 Truth.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC


Brian, proof that no 757 hit the Pentagon would certainly be a plus for 9/11 truth. Can't agree more!. Trouble is there is no proof.


Time you read the paper bbruhwiler8. I am satisfied with the work of Jim Hoffman and others that the width of destruction to the outer wall was more than sufficient to admit both motors.

Indeed, there are larger openings than I realized.

I just reviewed the pictures, and there appears to have been significant damage, including severely damaged, if not severed support columns located were the engines hit. And it does appear that most of the was was knocked in.

If the hole had been made by a missile, it would have to have been done by a warhead exploding. That is what I see no evidence of.

I really have the feeling that some of the "no planers" in this thread are just trying to get someone else to do the hard work of proving that a 757 really did hit the Pentagon. No matter what evidence is presented, they reject it without good reason.


Please share these pictures. Are you looking at the pictures AFTER the outer wall collapsed? Long after the initial explosions? Nice try. And by labeling those who challenge you to prove your claims (95% of the 9-11 truth movement) as 'no planers' you are revealing your true colors as a debunker.


I already posted the link

See my previous posts for the URL to Jim Hoffman's analysis. Here's another image:


Hoffman's analyses of the Pentagon is full of holes, sorry for the pun. The image you provided shows nothing.

Please demonstrate that Hoffman is wrong

Saying it's so doesn't make it so.

Hoffman's deceptions

hopefully this link will work for you

more deceptions

Do you have anything that is relevant and persuasive?

What you posted doesn't even address the main thesis that the penetrated portion of the Pentagon wall was sufficiently large and appropriately shaped to have been made by an impacting 757. Furthermore, the images under "critique" in those web pages tend to support Hoffman's thesis. And there were parts of a 757 found both inside and outside of the Pentagon.

cherry picking and deception

"What you posted doesn't even address the main thesis that the penetrated portion of the Pentagon wall was sufficiently large and appropriately shaped to have been made by an impacting 757. Furthermore, the images under "critique" in those web pages tend to support Hoffman's thesis. And there were parts of a 757 found both inside and outside of the Pentagon. "

How do they support his thesis? He says there are normally no plane parts found at plane crashes, and in all his examples he coincidentally neglected to share the photos that indeed showed massive large parts of planes at every plane crash.

You are saying parts of a 757 were found inside and out? You mean like the tail section? At most plane crashes the tail section survives practically intact. You mean like the wings? The engines? The seats? The fuselage? Please show us.

What I showed is that Hoffman uses cherry picking and deception to make an argument, and that goes straight to the credibility, or the lack thereof, of his analyses.

"the main thesis that the penetrated portion of the Pentagon wall was sufficiently large and appropriately shaped to have been made by an impacting 757"

Show me the 757 shaped hole in the wall BEFORE the outer wall collapsed long after the initial explosions. It's obvious to anybody that no 757 hit that building, much less went through that wall. Trying to piece together a multitude of little evidence will not persuade people otherwise. A 757 is a massive vehicle that would not vanish into a million indiscernible pieces, contrary to the main thesis of Hoffman's analyses.

Frank and the credibility of your paper

That is one reason the credibility of your paper is called into question. There are plenty of people out there who have shown that every aspect of Hoffman's analyses of the Pentagon deception is lacking in serious ways. He is extremely guilty of cherry picking and outright deception in his analyses.

I have never seen any evidence presented by anyone that showed how the engines disappeared through the wall, and that's why we have someone on this thread arguing that the engines were atomized, yet here you are claiming that the evidence is in.

The burden of proof is on those who claim an entire 757 full of people was 'admitted' (LOL, love the terminology you use!) into the Pentagon. The burden of proof is on you Frank, and you have yet to fulfill that burden.

Please support your assertion with facts

There are plenty of people out there who have shown that every aspect of Hoffman's analyses of the Pentagon deception is lacking in serious ways. Please provide the arguments here.

see above

see above

Pentagon/Flight 77 Solved


ground effect would prevent a level 757 flying at 530 mph from getting anywhere near the ground without cart wheeling first! Then again, the subject is now closed/moot. We now know, thanks to the warning sign in the video below (as if we needed to see that warning sign. As if a jet blast is akin to a laser; the hot air not expanding, remaining focused as it gets farther from the engine!), that low flying aircraft are a danger due to jet blast, and that's for low speeds. Imagine the damage low flying, high speed aircraft can do.

So Frank, now that you know that low flying aircraft would have caused havoc on traffic jammed Route 27, when can we have your retraction of your work on the Pentagon and Flight 77?

Folks, the NORAD angle of 9/11 Truth was solved in February, now the Pentagon angle of 9/11 Truth has been cleared up!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC


brian, have you no idea about physics whatsoever? Ground effect would have been present for no more than a second. How can this huge plane be changed from straight motion to cartwheeling in such a short time? All the ground effect could do in that short time would be to hold it up a little, and perhaps it was that which prevented the descending plane from hitting the ground. Why do we have to repeat these things so often?

More credibility problems

"Ground effect would have been present for no more than a second."

So ground effect is turned on and off? Or are you saying that the plane was not near the ground but for one second? So the plane had elevation but for one second? That's not possible.

ground effect


A descending plane has to move into ground effect somewhere. The topography at the Pentagon is such that it would have occurred pretty close to the Pentagon.

It is amazing that someone who feels it necessary to keep arguing the case would not understand that.

Understand what?

There are probably others reading this thread, and what you just wrote doesn't really make sense. Could you be more specific? I don't have to argue the case. Like I said, the burden of proof is on you. You haven't proven your claims, and bold claims they are, so we would like you to prove them.

"It is amazing that someone who feels it necessary to keep arguing the case would not understand that."

So again, understand what? How is the topography at the Pentagon such that the ground effect of the descending plane would have occurred pretty close to the Pentagon? What maneuver would the plane have to make for this to happen as you explain it? Can you provide a diagram so we see how, and at what angle the plane was vanished into the Pentagon? I think all this will only add to the depth of your paper.


Ground Effect At High Speeds

Frank writes, “The high approach speed at the Pentagon will have increased the ground effect force, and it may well have been severe from the light poles to the Pentagon, but this would have lasted for only about a second, not long enough to greatly deflect the plane, with its huge momentum.”

At 530 mph, ground effect would not only have prevented a 757 from hitting the ground, but kept the aircraft a wing's length distance from the ground! The lift/cushion provided by an aircraft flying at 530 mph is too great for the aircraft to get any closer than a wing's length to the ground. Ground Effect would cease to be a concern only when the aircraft reached a landing speed of 160 mph.

Aircraft don't get to decide whether or not they will experience Ground Effect. As long as Flight 77 remained at 530 mph, the aircraft couldn't get any closer than a wing's length distance to the ground.

Frank, your paper is disingenuous.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Fighert Jets do it all the time

Your claim simply does not hold up to real world evidence. Fighter jets regularly fly just a few feet off the ground.

According to this apparently informed analysis (Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect ) ground effect would not have prevented AA77 from hitting the first floor of the Pentagon: Nevertheless, we do see that ground effect often does have some small effect on a wing even at low angles. Is it significant enough to somehow force the plane away from the ground or make it difficult, if not impossible, to control? The answer is again no since the pilot can easily reduce a plane's angle of attack to eliminate any excess lift and maintain a desired flight path. This feat is accomplished thanks to devices called control surfaces placed along a plane's wing and tail.

Wing Loading


fighter jets have high wing loading, commercial airliners have low wing loading.

"In aerodynamics, wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing. The faster an aircraft flies, the more lift is produced by each unit area of wing, so a smaller wing can carry the same weight in level flight, operating at a higher wing loading. Correspondingly, the landing and take-off speeds will be higher."

Also, if you had listened to Nila Sagadevan's 2005-6-6 interview with David Von Kleist, you would have known this (fast forward to 8:40 minutes):

The article you cite reads:

“Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low.”

Simulators don’t simulate the effects of ground effect! They only warn you that you are “flying too fast and too low.” The article you produced is an outrageous shill article! That you cite it shows your desperation.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Diversion & Omission


let me give you the most egregious example of intentional diversion and omission in the article you presented (Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect;

Jeff Scott writes:

"First of all, there is no bubble of air that pushes an aircraft away from the ground. The true cause of ground effect is the influence of the ground on the wing's angle of attack as described above. Ground effect does nothing to force an aircraft upward from the ground, it only changes the relative amount of lift and drag that a wing will generate at a given speed and angle of attack. Second, we have seen that this effect actually decreases with speed since induced drag has increasingly less influence on an aircraft the faster it flies.

A second factor that influences the impact of trailing vortices on an aircraft is the speed at which it travels. A common misconception about ground effect is that a "bubble" or "cushion" of air forms between the aircraft and ground that somehow prevents the aircraft from landing or even forces the plane upward away from the ground. Furthermore, many believe that the strength of this cushion grows the faster an aircraft flies when near the ground. Both of these beliefs are wrong."


1. whose talking about a "bubble of air that pushes an aircraft away from the ground"? Not me, and it has nothing to do with Flight 77.
2. whose talking about "Ground effect does nothing to force an aircraft upward from the ground..." Not me, and it has nothing to do with Flight 77.
3. whose talking about the "impact of trailing vortices" and the effect a '"bubble" or "cushion" of air forms between the aircraft and ground that somehow prevents the aircraft from landing or even forces the plane upward away from the ground." Not me, and it has nothing to do with Flight 77.

The three points made by Jeff Scott are diversionary propositions, true in themselves, but having nothing to do with the impossibility of Flight 77 flying level just above the ground at 530 mph. So if Jeff Scott's points are diversionary, what should he be talking about?

What Jeff Scott doesn't mention is the role that pressure plays under the wings of a fast moving, level flying aircraft as the aircraft nears the ground. I wonder why? Because at 530 mph, a level flying 757 couldn’t land if it remained at level flight. The air pressure under the wings would be too great.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Ground effect correction


It seems I may have to produce a new version of the paper to correct what I said about ground effect.

"The high approach speed at the Pentagon will have increased the ground effect force, and it may well have been severe from the light poles to the Pentagon, but this would have lasted for only about a second, not long enough to greatly deflect the plane, with its huge momentum."

It appears that I didn't study this sufficiently when writing the paper. I was right to point out that ground effect would only last for a very short time, not long enough to significantly lift the plane.

Where I went wrong was to not realize that ground effect is only significant at low speeds where the wing has a high angle of attack. It is thus a factor to be dealt with during normal landing but would have been insignificant on the approach to the Pentagon where the angle of attack would have to be very small.

In order for the plane to have continued its descent even though its speed was increasing, due to the application of high power, the pilot or controlling device would have had to counteract the extra lift due to extra speed, and would have done so by applying nose down trim or pushing forward on the control column, or both. At this high speed the extra lift from ground effect would have been negligible.

It seems therefore that you are mistaken in your assertion that ground effect would have prevented the plane from getting so close to the ground.

Air Pressure And Speed Are Also Factors In Ground Effect


ground effect can be achieved by pressure increases under the wing OR a relatively greater attack angle of the wings. Greater attack angle of the wings is not germane to Flight 77, otherwise Flight 77 would never have gotten just feet off the ground. Obviously Flight 77's attack angle was zero or very close to zero.

Now air pressure and speed are germane here. As the speed of Flight 77 revved up as it approached the Pentagon, the pressure over the wings decreased, while the pressure below the wings increased:

"The wing in ground effect, often described as a 'cushion', is thought to be an increase in air pressure which occurs below a wing when it comes into close proximity with the ground. The effect begins to be noticeable when the aircraft's altitude is within 1–1.5 times the length of its own wingspan and, when the altitude is within about half a wingspan of the ground, the effect can increase lift by as much as 40%. Due to the effect of spoilers and high wing loading, this effect is only dramatically noticed in smaller, less complex aircraft, usually weighing less than 12,500 lbs (5,670 kg). Ground effect is a major factor in aircraft "floating" down the runway, and is the reason that low-wing aircraft have a tendency to float more than the high-wing varieties." --

"Thus, when air passes over an airfoil, that flow over the top is squeezed into a smaller area than that airflow passing the lower surface. The Continuity equation tells us that a flow squeezed into a smaller area must go faster, and the Bernoulli equation tells us that when a flow moves FASTER [emphasis mine], it creates a lower pressure. Thus, a higher pressure exists on the lower surface of an airfoil and a lower pressure on the upper surface. Whenever such a pressure difference exists in nature, A FORCE IS CREATED IN THE DIRECTION OF THE LOWER PRESSURE [EMPHASIS MINE] (since pressure is defined as force per unit area). Think of it as the upper surface being SUCKED UPWARDS [emphasis mine]. This upward force, of course, is lift." --

In conclusion to his article on "Wings and Lift" (see below), out of the three theories of flight Jeff Scott discusses, he comes down in favoring Bernoulli's theory, which involves "pressure and friction". Yet in his article "Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect" he totally ignores Bernoulli:

"So the reader may be asking which of these theories is correct? In truth, each is valid in some respect and useful for certain applications, but the ultimate question is which is the most fundamental explanation. Mathematicians would surely prefer the circulation theory, which is certainly a very elegant approach firmly based on mathematical principles, but it fails to explain what force of nature creates circulation or lift. Many would argue that the Newtonian explanation is most fundamental since it is "derived" from Newtonian laws of motion. While this is true to some degree, the theory lacks an explanation as to why an airfoil deflects the flow downward in the first place. Even accepting this principle, the idea that an airfoil deflects the flow and therefore experiences lift also fails to capture the fundamental tools of nature (pressure and friction) that create and exert that force on the body. Proponents of this explanation generally deride the Bernoulli theory because it relies on less fundamental concepts, like the Bernoulli and Continuity equations. There is some truth to this complaint, and the theory may be more difficult for the novice to understand as a result. However, both equations are derived from Newtonian physics, and I would argue from more fundamental and more mathematically sound premises than the Newtonian theory." --

Frank, as I told Kerberos, Jeff Scott conveniently forget to mention in his article "Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect" the impact air pressure and speed have on aircraft as they speed up, especially as they speed up near the ground. However he didn't forget about the relationship between air pressure and speed when he wrote the article "Wings and Lift"!

Why do you think Jeff Scott neglected to mention the effects of air pressure and speed on aircraft in his article "Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect"?

The only way to avoid Ground Effect is to angle the nose of the aircraft up or down, neither of which would have been the case for Flight 77. The former would have slammed Flight 77's tail into the ground, while it nosed up to rotate. The later would have sent Flight 77's nose into the ground.

Frank, you need to go back and rewrite the section on ground effect, AND include a section on jet blast. There's no need, however, to include a section on wingtip vortices. They only exist when an aircraft is in lift.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

a closer look


You appear to agree that there was little or no angle of attack in the final approach of flt 77. You also agree that the conventional concept of ground effect present at slow speeds is a function of angle of attack and that it will diminish at higher speeds where the angle of attack must be less. So far so good.

Where we part company is in the question of whether a different kind of ground effect occurs at high speed and very low or zero angle of attack, created by a "cushion of air", which you imply becomes virtually impenetrable. Certainly there is more room above the wing than below the wing for the air which is parted by the wing but there is still substantial room below the wing and the air is compressible. If compressed it will provide lift, I agree. But how much?

We have to remember that these wings are far greater in area than required for normal flight. They have to be very large to permit the plane to maintain sufficient lift at speeds slow enough to safely take off and land and to use runways that are not impossibly long. At the high speed of cruising, or the even higher speed of the Pentagon attack, these wings are so huge that a minute alteration in angle of attack will have an enormous effect on lift, either nose up or nose down. A small nose down angle will result in a colossal downward force which I believe would be sufficient to overcome the compression of the lower layer of air.

One also has to ask whether the air passing under the wing spends much time pushing up. We are talking about a small nose down angle of attack here, not sufficient to interrupt the smooth flow over the surface - not enough to cause turbulence. Surely as the air turns to move upward it will produce a powerful negative pressure below the wing, just as the air moving over the top of the wing in normal flight produces lift. Perhaps the net upward force is not large at all. Perhaps it is negative. Can you produce a reference which discusses this force theoretically? Can you find a reference to an experiment which demonstrates the force involved?

Sounds like

Sounds like, Frank, you are saying that it would have been virtually impossible for AA77 to hit the Pentagon at that speed and at that low an altitude because even the slightest disruptions would have sent that plane in some sort of crazy dive up, down, or topsy turvy. Just hitting one light post would have created one hell of a somersaulting spinning flipping mess of a plane.

It then becomes apparent that AA77 did not hit those poles at 500+mph because we would have seen plane parts all over the lawn, roads and more. This corroborates the total lack of physical evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon at all.

With you in the struggle,

I am saying nothing of the kind

I am saying that a very slight nose down angle of attack might have made it possible for the 757 to get as close to the ground as it apparently did, as indicated by the damage where the motors apparently went through the wall. What I am looking for is references to papers which discuss the possibility of high speed flight close to the ground or reports of experiments. Can you help with sources?

I am astonished at your assertion that there was a total lack of evidence for a large plane. I think you had better refresh your memory of the paper. How do you explain the huge amount of debris inside the Pentagon if it was not from a plane? What proof is there that it was not from a 757?

Back To High School


you're seeing things! There is no evidence that the engines went through the wall! That's why Purdue University's simulation excludes the engines from impacting the wall. As a matter of fact, Purdue also excludes the wall!

With Flight 77 flying level, just feet off the ground, a very slight nose up at 530 mph has the aircraft taking off, but not getting very far because its tail slams into the
Pentagon's lawn! "An increased downward force, produced by up elevator, forces the tail down and the nose up so the aircraft speed is reduced (i.e. the wing will operate at a higher angle of attack, which produces a greater lift coefficient, so that the required lift is produced by a lower speed)." --
Imagine the sudden, quick lift produced at 530 mph with a slight up elevator! Flight 77 would have been cut in half as the nose suddenly jerked upwards and the tail slammed into the ground!

Frank, you must of stunk at balancing chemical equations in High School!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC


"How do you explain the huge amount of debris inside the Pentagon if it was not from a plane?"

This is how I explain it. It was from inside the Pentagon. If you set bombs off inside a building, then you will get a lot of debris.

The biggest issue I have with your 'paper' is that you are out to prove a falsehood, so anything you can grab onto (no matter the large stretch), you apply as 'evidence' of AA77 having crashed into the Pentagon. You have so many little things that do not come together as a complete picture. It seems your primary goal in the paper is to use piece meal logic to justify the official story. You try to push on us that somehow all the pieces either disappeared or had the miraculous chance to find their way through the walls that remained standing in tact after the supposed impact. Well that contention has as slim a chance to make it past the obvious. Unfortunately for your efforts, you are up against the obvious lack of a plane at the crash site.


Flight 77 & Pentagon Solved


I can't believe no one in over 8 years mentioned that a 757 flying at 530 mph would have taken off and overflown the Pentagon, not impact the Pentagon! Of course, a 757 couldn't have been so low to the ground in the first place; at 530 mph the air pressure underneath the wings would have been absolutely massive.

Bruno, the official Pentagon narrative is such an easily debunkable claim that that is why there is so much resistance to researching it. Well, after two weeks research, the case has been solved.

Also, isn't it amazing that Jeff Scott totally omits any mention of air pressure's effect on ground effect in his article "Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect" (, yet mentions it in his earlier article "Wings and Lift" (

And it was Kerberos who first recommended the Jeff Scott article! How is it that persons in the 9/11 Truth Movement recommend obvious lies?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

2010 is a good year indeed

Thanks for all your efforts and dedication to 9-11 Truth, Dean. I am honored to be in this truth movement with you my friend. Great work on the investigation of the Pentagon deception.

With you in the struggle,

Mainstream Information Will Destroy Opposition



The great thing about Flight 77 flying at 530 mph is that the 9/11 Commission Report says so! Those persons suspicious/hostile to 9/11 Truth have no choice but to accept the speed (just as they have to accept what the commission report says about NORAD), and the corollary that Flight 77 would:

1. not have been able to fly so low to the ground due to the massive air pressure under the wings; and
2. at 530 mph, Flight 77 would have flown right over the Pentagon.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Good Year So Far For 9/11 Truth


the air pressure under a hypothetical 757 running down the tarmac at 530 mph is so great that the pressure alone forces the aircraft off the ground! That's why a 757 couldn't approach anywhere near a half wing span's length off the ground.

This means that 9/11 Truth Movement activists can now use the physics of Flight 77's approach to the Pentagon as another proof that 9/11 was an inside job.

I wonder why Pilots for 9/11 Truth didn't figure this out earlier?

In February it was confirmed (thanks to the 9/11 Commission Report) that NORAD did monitor all aircraft over American skies. Well, March has seen the official Pentagon narrative fall apart. It's been a good year so far!

Anyway, CIT will be glad to hear this information, not that they needed confirmation! CIT's eyewitnesses north of the Citgo pretty much said the same thing, while many of the eyewitnesses south of the Citgo made outrageous claims, such as Flight 77 cart wheeling, or Flight 77 hitting a helicopter on the helipad, causing a fire engine fire!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

American Media Spiked Bombs In The Pentagon


in case you didn't catch it last month, here's the Australian Broadcasting Corporation article on the bombs that also went off in the Pentagon:

Don't you just love mainstream media information?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Repeating Myself...


I don't care about lift.

As I said Ground Effect, where the angle of attack is zero, can be caused by speed alone. The greater the speed of the aircraft the greater the pressure under the wings (with pressure over the wings decreasing). Until the speed of the aircraft decays sufficiently, there is no way for a 757 flying level at 530 mph to get anywhere near the ground.
"The effect [Ground Effect] begins to be noticeable when the aircraft's altitude is within 1–1.5 times the length of its own wingspan and, when the altitude is within about half a wingspan of the ground, the effect can increase lift by as much as 40%" --
This effect would be exacerbated by higher approaching speeds, such as Flight 77's.

Nose up sends the aircraft's nose up and the tail into the ground. Nose down sends the aircraft's nose into the ground. Either Flight 77 was flying level (which is the official narrative that matches the damage to the Pentagon), or it cart wheeled into the Pentagon's lawn. Which is it Frank? "An increased downward force, produced by up elevator, forces the tail down and the nose up so the aircraft speed is reduced (i.e. the wing will operate at a higher angle of attack, which produces a greater lift coefficient, so that the required lift is produced by a lower speed)." --

Also, "The nose is raised to a nominal 5°–20° nose up pitch attitude to increase lift from the wings and effect liftoff. For most aircraft, attempting a takeoff without a pitch-up would require cruise speeds while still on the runway." --
In other words, Flight 77 flying at 530 mph (which is cruising speed: would have taken off! You see, angle attack is necessary for large body aircraft because they can't attain cruising speed on the runway. They need lift from angle attack because their speeds are low. Now flying at 530 mph (which in itself would have Flight 77 taking off) and then pitching nose up, would cause a sudden and calamitous impact of the jet's tail section with the ground.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Flung Like A Rag Doll


the truck in the video below is 50 yards from the Boeing twin engine aircraft, and the truck is still literally flung like a rag doll. The truck could have been 100 yards distant and it still would have been turned over, though not as violently. At sea level, 530 mph is full throttle!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

In front of a gun vs almost in front of a gun

We have already dispelled your contention that a jet flying at extremely low altitude would toss cars around as it passed over them. In the video you are trying to using in an effort to support your case, the truck is moved directly behind a stationary jet engine. The other videos which have been posted show what happens with extremely low - much lower than AA77 over Washington Blvd - flybys of Jets. They pretty much break your case.

The Warning Sign Says LOW FLYING


read the warning sign in the video again. It says, "LOW FLYING and departing Aircraft Blast Can Cause Physical Injury." Well, 8 yards altitude is Low Flying.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

We've already seen counterexamples

We've already seen examples of people having planes pass just a few feet over their heads. So, it might be dangerous, but it clearly isn't always the case.

Distance Matters


sure, it depends on the distance of the aircraft to the person on the ground.

According to USA Today reporter Vin Narayanan, "The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet." --

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC


the blast behind a stationary jet engine would be many times stronger than the blast behind a jet engine which was travelling away at 530 mph.

To Be Precise...


actually the blast of two engines flying at 530 mph and the blast of two stationary engines are the same. The DURATION times are different, however.

The Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine emits 43,100 lbs of thrust. That's 21.5 tons of blow-back power. Traffic subjected to two such blow-back magnitudes, even for a fraction of a second, would suffer damage.

Now the length of time of a jet blast determines the severity of damage one would see on Route 27. For instance, when I flip a light switch on and off real quick, for that fraction of a second light does hit me. In the same manner, a fraction of a second's direct collision between a one-ton car and 21.5 tons of jet blast force hitting that car will do damage to the car.
The 21.5 ton jet blast does hit, and when 21.5 tons of force hits a one-ton car, one will see damage.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC


Have you ever watched a boat accelerating? When stationary there is a certain amount of water being thrown back. As the boat picks up speed the amount of water thrown back diminishes.

Regarding the planes passing over the traffic, they weren't that close. How do you respond to the video shown by Kerberos of the jet fighter screaming over the head of the man standing on the tarmac? No rag doll there!

WARNING: Low Flying Aircraft...


Sorry, but Vin Narayanan said, "Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet."

Your boat analogy is flawed. The 757 isn't throwing back air, the 757's jet engines are spewing out 21.5 tons of jet blast! Why do you come up with these silly comparisons?

Since we now know that jet blast is dangerous, obviously the immature Harrier jet pilot cut the craft’s engine just before it flew over the idiot on the ground!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

jet blast

So what is this "jet blast" you mention if it is not a blast of gas?

Dangerous to Deadly


it's a blast of dangerous gasses when an aircraft's engines are on low RPM. At full throttle (as was Flight 77), jet blast is deadly.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

thanks re jet blast

Oh, thanks Brian, I thought you must have been asserting it was ball bearings but apparently you agree with me that it is gas.

Shocking Reply


you're reply is shocking! Why are you playing childish games?

It's 21.5 tons of compressed gasses shot out of the rear of EACH engine! Got it?

Dr. Jones can very well tell you what happens to cars when hit by that energy. So instead of making yourself look foolish (and by association the Journal of 9/11 Studies), you really need to have a chat with Dr. Jones.

By the way, what kind of peer review fails to point out that your article doesn't mention the absence of jet blast?

This section on Ground Effect makes no sense:

"The high approach speed at the Pentagon will have increased the ground effect force, and it
may well have been severe from the light poles to the Pentagon, but this would have lasted for
only about a second, not long enough to greatly deflect the plane, with its huge momentum.
Given the surprisingly low approach, indicated by the fact that the poles were hit, it may well
have been this brief burst of ground effect which prevented the plane from crashing before it
reached the Pentagon."

It would have lasted about a second (less even), but you miss the point here. Ground effect wouldn't have kept the aircraft just feet off the ground, it would have kept the 757 half a wing spans length off the ground!

See my comment above titled: Air Pressure And Speed Are Also Factors In Ground Effect

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC


I am sorry. I should not have played a game with you given the seriousness of the subject. Apparently you misunderstood.

Let's get back to the serious issue. Given that the plane would have been descending as it approached the poles, and that it apparently hit the first pole about 30 ft above the ground, what is the relevance of your assertions about the jet blast? Would it not have been sufficiently far above the vehicles on the road to have done no damage?

Jet Blast Also Blows Downwards


1. Since you wrote the paper on Flight 77 and the Pentagon, you should know this!
2. As the video below explains, after 20 seconds, the jet blast of a 747 engine, at full throttle, will tear up the runway (the engine couldn't tear up the runway unless the jet blast also blows DOWNWARDS!). Jet blast blows out, then downwards due to gravity. Think of a jet blast as a bullet. Gravity pulls the bullet downwards.

The car in the video was 50 yards away. The blast exhaust tubes are 15 feet above the ground. As you can observe, the jet blast doesn't fly over the hood of the car.

The maximum jet blast of the 747 engine in 2001 was 28 tons of air pressure. For a 757 it's 21.5 tons (and Flight 77 was flying at full throttle at 530 mph in the dense, sea level air).

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

how high?

The plane in the video was parked on the ground when it tipped the cars over. The 757 traveling to the Pentagon was 30 feet above the ground when it went over the road. It was also descending, so was nose down, which would have tipped the jet engine blast up a little. And your idea that the blast would be pulled down by gravity needs to be reconsidered. We have agreed that the blast is gas, not ball bearings. It is also hot, so if it changed direction enough to measure, it would show a rise, which of course would be due to gravity.

What 757?

What 757 are you talking about? Where did it go to?

which 757?

...the one Brian was talking about in the post above, that was flying at 530 mph in dense sea level air. As for me, I have never claimed I knew where the plane went or did not go, unlike a lot of people.

hypothetically speaking

"The 757 traveling to the Pentagon was 30 feet above the ground when it went over the road. It was also descending, so was nose down, which would have tipped the jet engine blast up a little."

Frank, you wrote this. Dean has been speaking hypothetically. He concludes, using the laws of physics, that if the AA77 were there going at 530mph it never would have hit the Pentagon. Yet you are speaking as if you know that AA77 was there. So where did it go?

Ludicrous Approach



Flying 530 mph would have prevented even a shallow, nose down approach from getting anywhere near the ground (let alone three feet off the ground!). The massive air pressure differential on the wings at the speeds and altitude said to exist would have sent the aircraft back into the air.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Jet Blast Is Pressurized!


jet blast at full throttle will tear up the tarmac (the tarmac is DOWNWARDS from the jet exhaust tubes), as the video explained, and the car was 50 yards distant, with the jet exhaust tubes15 feet off the ground. As the video amply shows, the jet blast did NOT over shoot the car's hood. It hit the car and threw it like a rag doll.

The jet blast is PRESSURIZED hot air, not un-pressurized! That's why pressurized hot gases can upend a one-ton vehicle that is fifteen feet BELOW the jet exhaust tubes and fifty yards distant. While pressurized, gravity will force the hot gas jet downwards.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Thank you, gentlemen.