What a boring world it would be if there were no Liberals......
El Al Flight 1862, Amsterdam
Quote from
Pentagon Attack Plane Was An El Al Lookalike
Flights 77 and 1862 both had "vanishing" wings
Joe Vialls
Many weeks ago I wrote a report designed to rebut arcane French suggestions that American Airlines Flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. According to the French, the building was allegedly hit either by a much smaller aircraft, or perhaps by a bomb planted inside the Pentagon by its own ”evil” occupants, the United States Military.
Though I was not surprised by such extraordinary suggestions from a bunch of wine swilling Parisians, I was certainly surprised by the immediate and rampant American response. Within days, hundreds of US bulletin boards and web sites were awash with similar claims. It was an incredibly successful “divide and rule” exercise that pitted American against American, and civilian against soldier. Needless to say, the French were delighted.
The apparent problem was quite simple. American Airlines Flight 77 was a Boeing 757 twin-jet with a wingspan of 124 feet, but the hole in the Pentagon was less than 124 feet across. Conspiracy heaven! Obviously then, according to those determined to undermine American national security, the attack aircraft was a remotely-controlled F-16 fighter or Martell missile, almost certainly guided to its American military target by a crazed four-star American general buried deep inside Cheyenne Mountain at NORAD headquarters.
My original report sought to stem this rising tide of disinformation by using the personal example of a British Mach 2 Lightning fighter with a wingspan of 35 feet, which vanished completely into a hole in the ground with a diameter of only 22 feet. Unfortunately I could not prove this with a photo because the 400 mph Lightning crash occurred at the height of the Cold War, and anyone [including me] caught taking happy snaps of the impact crater with a Brownie box camera, would probably still be locked up in the Tower of London today.
What I should have done instead, was conduct a simple Internet search for photographs of civil equivalents of this exact phenomena where a big plane vanishes into a small hole. So should the French… Not far north of the wine-swilling Parisians lies the elegant Dutch city of Amsterdam, whose residents had a terrible shock at 6:35 PM on October 4, 1992. Henk Prijt in the suburb of Bijlmer put it this way:..........
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stevese...n/pentagon.htm
Take a close look at the Bijlmer photographs and the Pentagon graphic, because we are about to take a short though very simple crash course in the dynamics of flight. Not for us the overly complicated scientific equations, and accredited academic “experts” who manage to confuse everyone apart from their own students.
In the simplest of terms and purely for background information, the energy produced by any object hitting another object, is the product of the first object’s mass [weight] multiplied by its velocity [speed]. In these terms Flight 77 had a mass of 240,000 pounds when it hit the Pentagon at +/- 450 mph, and Flight 1862 had a mass of about 680,000 pounds when it hit the Bijlmer apartment block at 255 mph. Both aircraft therefore produced colossal energy on contact with targets constructed from very similar materials, i.e. concrete.
A high proportion of the mass in any aircraft is contained within its fuselage, which presents a very small cross section at the point of impact, relative to the thin but very wide and fragile wings. Thus in both cases the high mass and low cross section caused Flight 77 and Flight 1862’s fuselages to punch holes deep into and through the concrete targets.
The wings are a different matter. By design the wings are immensely strong but also very brittle, and in both these cases swept back for aerodynamic efficiency. Put simply they cannot compete with the speed [velocity] of penetration of the fuselage [mass], and simply snap off on impact. This is an aeronautical reality that can be observed in thousands of assorted crash photographs.
The problem when an aircraft hits a flat building is that, although the wings snap off, they still have enormous inertia and will continue moving forward if at all possible. With swept wing aircraft, the tendency is for the angled wings to collapse back along the sides of the fuselage section, very much in the manner of swing-wing aircraft such as the General Dynamics F111 and Panavia Tornado.
Now think about this very carefully, because these events are happening at hundreds of miles per hour – hardly the ideal medium for visual observation. Because both aircraft have swept wings, the first part of the wing to hit the target is the wing root at the inner front of the wing, considerably further forward than the wingtip.
In the first microsecond of impact the front of the swept wing starts to fold back as it collapses, and perhaps in the next two or three microseconds the wings are crushed inwards and backwards to less than half the original wingspan. This is proved beyond any doubt by the pictures of the Bijlmer crash site shown above. El Al Flight 1862, a Boeing 747-200, had a wiingspan of 212 feet, is known to have crashed with its wings level, but the gap in the tower block is only half that wide.
Next we have the vexed question of aircraft debris as understood by the public, i.e. identifiable parts of the aircraft that can be visually matched to an aircraft schematic diagram, or even mechanical parts that can be visually matched to items in the manufacturer’s handbook. Look at the Bijlmer crash site again.
Can you see any large or even small wing sections? Can you see engines, or perhaps part of the tail assembly? In fact, can any of you positively identify any single aircraft bolt, or human body part belonging to El Al Flight 1862?
No, absolutely not, because the dynamics of the crash and the fire that followed immediately afterwards, fragmented and burned more than 300 tons of aircraft completely beyond recognition. The only way we can be sure that the photographs show us the real crash site of El Al Flight 1862 is to rely on air traffic control records, eyewitnesses at the scene, and the multiple media reports that followed.
It must be said that the French only showed American viewers the photographs it wanted them to see – a known and much abused media trick. The more comprehensive photographs circulated by the Pentagon shortly after the crash show conclusively that the aircraft penetrated three of the Pentagon “rings”, i.e. rings of office blocks circling the center gardens, each with its own “garden” space in-between. Such a structure is as difficult to penetrate by an aircraft, as a bullet fired through individual separated baffle plates on a firing range.
I have neither the Cray supercomputer nor the time needed to do exact calculations, but I can assure you that the “object” which hit the Pentagon was of enormous weight travelling at very high velocity. In fact, it was American Airlines Flight 77.
The only thing that allowed the French to put up this widespread myth in the first place, was the lack of a second aircraft directed at the Pentagon, which would certainly have been recorded by media cameras. The planners of the attack probably thought this unnecessary, because Flight 77 appears to have been largely a decoy.