New Paper Refutes Pentagon 'Flyover' Claims
Frank Legge
(B.Sc., Ph.D., Chemistry)
and
David Chandler
(B.S. Physics, M.S.,Mathematics)
September 2011
Introduction
The legal and political implications of 9/11 have turned scientific research in this area into a high stakes competition for the minds of the public. Pertinent information has been kept secret, the corporate media has systematically kept "damaging" information (such as video images of the World Trade Center Building 7) out of public view, 9/11 research has been marginalized, and the official investigations have failed to answer, or in many cases even address, the most troubling questions. One development that appears to be a tactic in the ongoing cover-up is the high profile promotion of transparently false theories, "straw men," the only purpose of which appears to be to allow the 9/11 Truth Movement to be ridiculed.
With the tenth anniversary of 9/11 upon us, the battle for public perceptions has intensified and there is a heightened campaign to undermine the scientific basis of the truth movement. Dr Judy Wood has published a book asserting that the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were felled by "dustification" of the steel, which she claims is achieved by the use of "directed free energy". 1 It is, however, obvious that the steel was severed and fell in normal lengths, otherwise intact, as seen in conventional demolitions. The similarly foolish idea that the WTC towers were demolished by nuclear explosives, long ago refuted, 2 has also been recently revived, with a new claimant appearing, Jeff Prager, 3 but this appears to be having little influence so far. No explanation involving "directed free energy" or nuclear devices could account for the way separate explosions appeared in the Twin Towers, layer by layer, descending at a precise rate, as the towers came down. 4
It is important to distinguish between devious false claims, intended to weaken the truth movement, and false claims which result from accidental errors. There can be errors of interpretation of evidence, calculation errors and misleading testimonies from witnesses who fail to correctly remember the event they observed and describe.
An example of an unfortunate calculation error is found in the work of Pilots for 9/11 Truth (PFT). This group has a long-held position that the topography near the Pentagon would rule out impact by American Airlines Flight 77 (AA77). This position was based on a calculation that the plane would necessarily experience an unsurvivable force of 10.14g if it attempted to pull up from the dive on approach to the Pentagon.
PFT based its calculation on a path that was somewhat different from the path of the plane as shown in the files initially provided by the National Transport Safety Board (NTSB), reportedly from the flight data recorder (FDR). The NTSB data appeared to show that the flight terminated at a point too high to have hit the Pentagon. Instead, to make the possibility of impact more feasible, the PFT calculation was based on the assumption that the plane actually came in much lower, level with the top of the VDOT antenna tower near the Navy Annex. It was shown by several researchers that this calculation was incorrect due to a substantial error in determining the radius of the pull-up arc.
This error in turn produced an excessive value for the required g-force. The error was increased by assuming, without evidence, that the plane traveled in a straight line at a constant descent angle from the top of the antenna to the first light pole hit. If this artificial restriction is removed, and the plane is allowed to follow a curved approach, the pull-up can be spread over a wider arc, increasing the radius of curvature and reducing the wing load. Calculation shows that paths can be found such that the force generated would place no undue stress on the aircraft, being well below the design limit of 2.5g.
Continued here
See also:
Flight AA77 on 9/11:
New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
Frank Legge and Warren Stutt
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf
What Hit the Pentagon?
Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
Frank Legge
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon
Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html
“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Namecalling, and Threats
Gregg Roberts
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-28/debating-what-hit-pentagon-exaggeration-namecalling-and-threats
Dawn Vignola’s Account vs. CIT’s Methods
Erik Larson
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/dawn-vignola-account-vs-cit-methods-by-erik-larson/
- Victronix's blog
- Login to post comments
Excellent
Reading it now.
---
Edit: This portion of comment removed at the request of the author
Thanks
You might want to let globalresearch.ca know about that.
This is an important essay to have out for the Anniversary, given that the "flyover" claims are still being aggressively promoted by some. The flight path diagram with the g-forces really makes the case of the impossibility of the flight path.
Done
I didn't know who to contact, I thought this would be quickest. It would be wise to edit my first comment to remove the references to the security problem mentioned. I mailed crgeditor@yahoo.com and BCC-ed Justin.
2 Major Accounts: AA 77 Hit Pentagon Via “North of Citgo" Path
If one believes these reported observations are mutually exclusive, please explain in scientific terms why. Why is an AA 77 impact via a “north of Citgo” path deemed impossible by some, even when much of the on scene accounts report such?
Before proceeding, I agree there is virtually no evidence of a Pentagon fly-over by AA 77.
With all due respect, this work does not definitively rebut the “north of Citgo” evidence, as its calculation-based conclusions arbitrarily rely on the extreme 552 mph AA 77 speed alleged by official information that is totally unsupported by the on scene eyewitness accounts. Moreover, the study seems based on a pre-existing point of view that arbitrarily incorporates or disqualifies information on that basis.
The following study quote seems to be an unreliable basis for concluding aircraft speed:
“There is good reason to believe that the testimony by the same and other witnesses that the plane was accelerating is more reliable, since it was based on the sound of the motors revving up ... We will base our calculations on the official speed, 530 mi/hr, as a low estimate, and the FDR speed, averaged for the last four seconds, 552 mi/hr, as the more realistic estimate. ”
“Accelerating” and “revving up” does not necessarily equal a 552 mph ground speed.
Using Morin’s (3,000 feet from impact point) average estimate of 12.8 seconds (averaged from his cited 13-18 seconds, minus the 2.7 seconds the sound of impact requires to reach his location) from sighting to sound-of-impact, a ground speed of 160 mph for AA 77 can be deduced (a problematically low estimate, but much closer to the very realistic 180 mph recommended approach-to-landing speed recommended for major commercial Boeing/Airbus jets, than the extreme 552 mph)
The alleged radar and suspect AA 77 FDR data is accepted uncritically by this study as true and as evidence that the witness accounts are false. Why, on the other hand, aren’t the corroborating witness accounts not instead accepted as evidence that the suspect FDR and radar data is false? With all due respect, Stutt’s FDR data decoding does not verify the FDR data authenticity, which is obviously very important.
Question: On what scientific basis does one favor the alleged speed of 500+ mph attributed to the FDR/radar data as opposed to two independent witnesses who report much lower speeds? (Reported engine sounds don’t seem to be a reliable scientific basis for estimating aircraft speed) The alleged official (and unobserved) groundspeed of 552 mph is critical to this study’s calculations. Because the 552 mph assertion seems suspect, much of the paper’s conclusions are quite arguably unreliable.
AA 77 being reported south of or directly over Columbia Pike by some while being between the Sheraton and Navy Annex, does not necessarily equal AA 77 being south of Citgo, when it reaches the vicinity of Citgo, if AA 77 was flying a less than 552 mph banked right turn, as described by nearly half a dozen witnesses.
The only realistic trajectory that seems to account for all on scene witness observations is depicted below.
Note: There does not seem to be any scientifically based arguments or explanations within the study for why LaGasse, Brooks and Turcious are wrong about their nearly identical "north of Citgo" accounts. These people are quite credible because they either worked at the Citgo station (Turcious) or were law enforcement professionals trained to observe and report who frequented it (Brooks and LaGasse).
Question: How does one scientifically reconcile multiple accounts of a right-banked AA 77 with the study allegation that AA 77 traveled a straight path?
The following Hemphill account utilized within an earlier draft of this study, strongly implies AA 77 was observed traveling directly over Citgo and not along the required official flight path. If not, upon what scientific basis would one disagree?
Hemphill (looking east from an east-facing Navy Annex window, toward the Pentgaon): “then I hear a roar and look out the window at the plane … over my right shoulder … over the gas station … ”
From Hemphill's perspective, AA 77 would arguably appear over Citgo even while traveling away from him via a "north of Citgo" path.
A plausible motivation for creating an impression of a “south of Citgo” approach (see yellow line in below embedded image) would be an opportunity to safely introduce an easily recoverable false FDR near the C-ring hole exit (yellow circle). AA 77’s FDR after all has no inventory control serial numbers attributed to it and represents the only tangible evidence of hijacker control of the 9/11 planes. Indeed, as seen in the embedded picture, there seems to be more evidence of fire damage south of (or left of) the C-ring hole than near the hole itself, the type of damage which might be expected in the aftermath of a more “north of Citgo” impact as opposed to a “south of Citgo” impact. (see red line in embedded image) Moreover, the C-ring hole strongly resembles the type of hole created by an explosive wall breaching kit.
And powerful explosions not unlike those created by explosive wall breaching kits were recorded at the Pentagon following the reported AA 77 crash there.
Aidan
The NoC path is impossible because the all the other evidence says so, (Radar, FDR, Citgo camera plane shadow SoC, tree #1, clipped VDOT pole, light poles & Lloyd England's cab, generator, tree #2, engine imprint, directional damage with angled columns, exit hole with visible plane debris, DNA splatter pattern, etc. etc.) including SoC witnesses such as Madeleine Zakhem, Terry Morin, Keith Wheelhouse, Father McGraw, and Roosevelt Roberts, and all impact witnesses, which includes most of CIT's own witnesses.
If you believe NoC + impact, perhaps you should read CIT's take on that matter. I don't need it, but since you endorse them, maybe you do.
"Using Morin’s (3,000 feet from impact point) average estimate (...)"
Terry Morin is a SoC witness.
"With all due respect, Stutt’s FDR data decoding does not verify the FDR data authenticity"
False.
"Question: On what scientific basis does one favor the alleged speed of 500+ mph attributed to the FDR/radar data as opposed to two independent witnesses who report much lower speeds?"
Answer: the scientific method. CIte me credible scientific research expounding the 'unparalleled accuracy' of witness testimony, even if 'corroborated' (read: cherry picked) if you wish to prove me wrong.
"The only realistic trajectory that seems to account for all on scene witness observations is depicted below."
Your flight path accounts only for your vivid imagination.
"Note: There does not seem to be any scientifically based arguments or explanations within the study for why LaGasse, Brooks and Turcious are wrong about their nearly identical "north of Citgo" accounts. These people are quite credible because they either worked at the Citgo station (Turcious) or were law enforcement professionals trained to observe and report who frequented it (Brooks and LaGasse)."
Wearing a badge or working at a gas station does absolutely nothing for your credibility in the scientific domain. Nor does self-confidence. What matters is a thorough understanding of the intricacies of witness testimony, its flaws, and the pitfalls of interviews, including those conducted by heavily biased wide-eyed zealots, who accuse witnesses of mass murder if they do or say things they do not understand.
"Question: How does one scientifically reconcile multiple accounts of a right-banked AA 77 with the study allegation that AA 77 traveled a straight path?"
Witness testimony isn't scientifically credible evidence unless thoroughly understood for all its pitfalls, and corroborated by physical evidence. That said, you ignore SoC witnesses and you ignore impact witness, since impact means SoC. There is no NoC damage path.
"The following Hemphill account utilized (...)"
Hemphill is a SoC witness and he saw the plane hit a light pole. He despises CIT for what they've done. I agree with him.
"A plausible motivation for creating an impression of a “south of Citgo” approach (see yellow line in below embedded image) would be an opportunity to safely introduce an easily recoverable false FDR near the C-ring hole exit (yellow circle)."
Meaningless conjecture and wishful thinking.
"AA 77’s FDR after all has no inventory control serial numbers attributed to it "
False.
"Indeed, as seen in the embedded picture, there seems to be more evidence of fire damage south of (or left of) the C-ring hole than near the hole itself"
That's a roll up door, Aidan.
"Moreover, the C-ring hole strongly resembles the type of hole created by an explosive wall breaching kit. "
No it doesn't.
"And powerful explosions not unlike those created by explosive wall breaching kits were recorded at the Pentagon following the reported AA 77 crash there."
Things in and around the Pentagon were exploding, like the generator, oxyacetylene tanks, and a jet went through the sound barrier over DC.
Please stop.
@Snowcrash: Your Unscientific Opinions Are Noted
Thank you.
Note this
Tail imprint at column 14. Slight left bank.
I don't know, maybe you should debate CIT about NoC + impact? I can't be bothered. We had that last year with Chris Sarns.
Tail imprint?
Wouldn't a tail bank of that angle imply that there would be SOME (maybe significant) ground damage from the left wing?
Just askin'.
None of this seems to add up to a 757. The flight path, the speed of the plane, the witness discrepencies, none of it adds up.
Ground damage
Yeah that section to the left of column fourteen looks squeeky clean.
Come on!!
The Pentagon.
Kevin Ryan covers what's most important at the Pentagon.
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-17/visibility-911-dozen-questons-about-flight-77-kevin-ryan
A dozen questions about Flight 77 and the Pentagon that might lead to justice, and one that won’t
There are many questions to be answered about the events at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Here are a dozen such questions that, if answered, might help to bring about justice.
1. Exactly how was Flight 77 hijacked, considering, among other things, that the alleged hijackers were said to be identified as security risks (possibly linked to al Qaeda) when they tried to board, and were not physically imposing (all 5 and a half feet tall or less, and slender in build)?[1]
2. How was the nation’s air defense system disabled on 9/11, and how could anything have hit the Pentagon approximately 80 minutes after the first plane was known to be hijacked?
3. Why was Dick Cheney tracking Flight 77?[2]
4. Why were explosive experts, who had a history of covering-up the OKC bombing and have since been accused of obstructing other investigations, hired to write the FEMA report? (Mete Sozen and Paul Mlakar).[3],[4]
5. Why did the roof of the Pentagon collapse 30 minutes after impact, giving additional evidence for the use of explosives? Note: The use of explosives at the Pentagon seems to be in agreement with the use of a large plane, which would have had little penetrating power.
6. Why was AMEC, the company that had just finished refurbishing Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, hired to lead the clean-up effort at Ground Zero?[5]
7. Why did the NTSB not make public reports on any of the planes as is the normal procedure?[6]
8. Why did none of the planes squawk the hijack code?
9. Why was the official explanation for alleged phone calls made by Flight 77 passenger Barbara Olsen changed several times, and ultimately how could Ted Olsen’s story make any sense?[7]
10. Why did high-ranking Pentagon officials cancel travel plans for the morning of September 11 “…apparently because of security concerns.”?[8]
11. How could Hani Hanjour still have successfully piloted Flight 77 given his poor qualifications?[9]
12. Why are those interested in The Pentagon not intently reviewing documents released by the FAA and 9/11 Commission that reveal startling questions about the aircraft and events of that day?[10]
Why are these questions NOT being pursued by independent investigators? That’s because the attention of many potential investigators has been hijacked by the much less useful question of “What hit the Pentagon.” This is certainly the favorite subject of intentional disruptors and official story supporters.
Choice of words is important
Orangutan, I notice you use the phrase "What hit the Pentagon" in your argument. It should be noted that the three papers on the subject of the Pentagon attack that I have been involved with, and all the other significant papers on the subject, are founded on the assumption that the plane which approached the Pentagon was a large commercial airliner. The papers do not pay more than passing attention to "what hit". They discuss whether the plane hit or flew over.
To say we are all going on about "what hit" is a misrepresentation and it harms the discussion by deflecting attention from the important question of whether the plane hit or flew over. I know you wouldn't be doing this to deliberately harm the discussion - it will be just that you hadn't thought about it.
So why is it important to get the words right? What is the point of this discussion? Here are the facts:
1. The case that all three buildings at the WTC were brought down by controlled demolition is virtually irrefutable and easily understood by the majority of people who take the time to study the evidence.
2. Not enough people have taken the time to study the evidence for demolition, so not enough people are calling for a real investigation into 9/11. Polititians will not act for a minority - they lose their jobs at the next election if they do.
3. A large proportion of the activists who are trying to persuade more people to study the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job believe the plane flew over the Pentagon.
4. The majority of the public believes that the plane hit the Pentagon.
What is the only logical conclusion one can come to from a study of these 4 points?
The answer is simple. If an activist mentions that the plane did not hit the Pentagon to a member of the public he will, with high probability, lose credibility and will be unable to influence the person to study the WTC demolitions with the care it needs. An opportunity will be lost. We cannot afford this loss of efficiency in spreading the truth. This is not some parlour game - this is the most serious business that any person of good conscience can become involved with. Do we want 9/11 to disappear in the mists of time like the assassination of JFK? No. We all know, and most of the public know, that the assassination was an inside job, yet nothing was ever done about this case. Exposure was too slow and the case became too old.
This is not simply about winning the argument - it is about winning the argument as fast as possible, before it is too late to matter.
I totally reject the assertion that the question of whether the plane hit, or did not hit, is of little importance. Speed is vital, and misguided activists will slow down progress. A slight change in speed may make the difference between success and failure.
The evidence that the plane hit vastly overwhelms the evidence for flyover. We should do what we can to help educate the activists.
importance
>>I totally reject the assertion that the question of whether the plane hit, or did not hit, is of little importance.
Yes, I think different people mean different things by this, and are attempting to put the fire out on the debate, but nonetheless, we can only imagine how the public views such a phrase. So if we can, it would be best to try to keep it in relative terms for the public. Not sure what those terms would be, though.
Action should relate to audience
The public is not bothered about whether the plane hit or missed the Pentagon. It is the activists who are divided and arguing with one another. The most logical approach when dealing with the public is to totally avoid raising the Pentagon issue. Talk about the demolitions at the WTC; talk about the failure to intercept, and Mineta; talk about the warnings which were ignored. If questioned about the Pentagon by the public, do not assert the plane missed, but steer the discussion to how the plane hit the only section which had been strengthened, and how that section was occupied by military auditors.
For the activists, the message is "study the evidence". The idea that the plane missed was very attractive as it would prove the authorities are lying, if true. But apparently it is not true or at least not proven. It is time to accept that the flyover line failed, and let go of the exiting idea. And when you look at it, what do you see? You see that the demolition is a pretty exiting idea as well, and the case that the authorities are lying is very strong. Nothing is lost by dropping the Pentagon.
I second this notion.
I second this notion.
I third this notion.
This is exactly what I do anyways, and what I've been doing for years. This is the best advice that can be given at this point.
Audience is important but also
Yes, but there is also a massive literature out there that claims that all the conspiracy theorists think a missile hit which the MSM repeats it like a manta on every anniversary.
Looking at the current wikipedia section on the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories I saw that it implies there was not even any dispute at all, and goes on and on about missile and too small hole claims. I had to add in several notes about researchers who disagree, but over time, the editors erase those -- they like for there to be only one side out there, the missile. Then they win.
The goal is to frame us as all "no plane" advocates, and its part of the information war.
Ignoring that can also suggest that, "well, we don't all agree, so I just don't talk about that," as opposed to openly refuting that framing and explaining how "no plane" extremists like Morgan Reynolds show up and are suddenly on the MSM making nutty statements -- examples like these are generally not that hard for average people to understand. Explaining how the early films and media on the Pentagon carefully presented only the evidence to suit a nutty case, while pretending a great deal of evidence refuting it did not exist, is along those same lines. Average people get it, but you have be up front about it -- the Pentagon no plane claims are generally on the level of hoaxes designed to manipulate viewers, not actual analyses of evidence.
I agree that ignoring it is best in some cases. But we also can't ignore the reality of the ongoing efforts to paint us all as nuts, and that requires open resistance and explanation, time, energy and work. We can't just "erase" the missile section of a 9/11 wikipedia page (or we'll be blocked by admins, who will just put it back) -- instead it has to be corrected and put in context.
And in general what I've discovered is that if you just ignore hoaxes, they just grow like weeds while you aren't looking and pretty soon are taking over.
You are perfectly right Vic,
we should be providing the case that the plane hit to the activists. A quick read of your posts suggests that we disagree on this.
The apparent difference of opinion between us is resolved by noting that people like the editors of Wikipedia, who provide misinformation about the Pentagon, are in fact activists, and I agree they should be opposed, like all other providers of misinformation.
Frank
I hope that comment about Wikipedia means you got word from John Bursill? If not, I'll try to set up a new e-mail account and contact you.
Victoria, I believe we should say a planet hit the Pentagon. This is the easiest way to avoid problems, because we would be speaking the truth. Ever since I've began saying this, I've seen positive change. No hit piece writer could blame me (nor Frank Legge, Warren Stutt, Adam Larson, Erik Larson, Russel Pickering) for not addressing the issue. I disagree that discussing what hit the Pentagon is a distraction: explaining historical facts about 9/11 should be a 9/11 Truth core value.
I think the ongoing campaign of mis- and disinformation about the Pentagon calls for consistent rebuttal from us. You and Jim have done your part admirably.
Epic scene from new comic covers Pentagon correctly and swiftly
Does this take away from the thread? Let me know by votes or thoughts - otherwise I love this art and the story is spot on, backed by citations.
That's great but
I was more captivated by the gadget-craving indifference of the people around the doc. Nicely captured. It's that 'crying bloody murder, falling on deaf ears' storyline thing. Always gets you.
Good to see that's stated unequivocally though. You can do it in different ways, one is simply relaying the official explanation and another is going beyond merely echoing the official account but asserting confidently that a plane hit based on a personal assessment of the evidence. Either way, this is much better than if it would've said that a missile zig-zagged through five light poles, then a truck bomb and a wall breaching kit exploded while a commuter jet flew over the Pentagon remote controlled by a C-130 which was in turn remote controlled by an E4B.
Then again, artistic license. Artists gotta have liberty in what they do. Freedom of expression and all.
Chopped image
Is there any way to see the right hand side?
Of course.
YES!
I have reposted this full page and two others at Cosmos' recent post:
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-07/rick-veitch-911-and-big-lie#comment-252885
Snowcrash
I am puzzled by your comment. I have nothing from John Bursill about Wikepedia.
Frank
I will set up new e-mail and contact you.
To add one more question...
To add one more question and make it a baker's dozen, would it prudent to ask why 39 of 40 employees from the Office of Naval Intelligence killed? This seems very suspicious to me and a complete of audit of their on going investigations at the time coupled with a complete audit of financial transactions made by accounts listed under the umbrella of black ops would provide great insight. I know, it's wishful thinking.
thanks all..
peace
dtg
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"I have known war as few men now living know it. It's very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes."
-- Douglas MacArthur
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Did Stutts also decode Flight Deck Door?
This paper credits Warren Stutts with decoding the last few seconds of the FDR for FL 77. I remember reports that Stutts also decoded the Flight Deck Door parameters, showing that the cockpit door remained closed throughout the entirety of the flight.
Was that ever confirmed to be accurate? Just curious.
I fully support Kevin Ryan's approach to the Pentagon
full support
Yes, many people support Kevin and Frank and David's efforts and appreciate that thankless work to redirect efforts away from endless debate and to expose fallacies and hoaxes.
Flight deck door
The door is shown as closed throughout the whole flight. Official NTSB document lists this parameter as not operating, therefore no conclusion on the door can be drawn from the FDR.
An informative paper.
I hope this will finally put to rest the "flyover" theory that never had any evidence to support it in the first place.
german news magazine stern
presents belongings of 9/11 victims in their latest edition, among other this:
http://www.habiru.de/Dirk_Gerhardt/MemoryCard.jpg
The memory card from Charles Burlingames mother.