[Reader-list] Chaiyah asked me to forward this analysis of Pentagon attack by Gerard Holmgren

[Dick Eastman]

Gerard Holmgren establishes the following facts in corroboration of the
small-plane attack on the Pentagon.  The coverup version is an impossible
tale from start  to finish, as Holmgren demonstrates.

The discussion and evidence (below) are extensive.  Here are Gerard's
key conclusions:
-----------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Physical and mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash

by Gerard Holmgren
investigation77 at hotmail.com

It is not in dispute that something hit the Pentagon wall and damaged it.
Neither is it in dispute that AA 77 is missing. But was AA 77 involved in
the Pentagon incident? This article presents an analysis of the physical
aspects of the incident, and concludes with a brief examination of the issue
of eyewitnesses.

PHYSICAL AND MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS OF PENTAGON CRASH.
by Gerard Holmgren
investigation77 at hotmail.com

Copyright: Gerard Holmgren. October 23 2002.This work may be freely copied
and distributed without permission as long as it is not for commercial
purposes. Please include the author's name, the web adress where you found
it, and the copyright notice.

WHERE IS THE WRECKAGE OF AA 77?

INSIDE THE BUILDING?

OUTSIDE THE BUILDING?

CREMATED?

OR NEVER THERE?

It is alleged that on Sept 11, 2001 a hijacked Boeing 757, American Airlines
Flight 77, hit the Pentagon. It is not in dispute that something hit the
Pentagon wall and damaged it. Neither is it in dispute that AA 77 is
missing. But was AA 77 involved in the Pentagon incident? This article
presents an analysis of the physical aspects of the incident, and concludes
with a brief examination of the issue of eyewitnesses.

The Sept 11 crashes are unique and unprecedented events in the history of
both the press and aviation. In many cases, light plane crashes involving 2
to 3 people have triggered investigations which continued for years.
Considering that the explosion and cremation of planes had never before
happened, the lack of reporting and/or official investigation is doubly
puzzling. The issue of whether a crash results from sabotage or accident
should be irrelevant to the alarming question of why four planes allegedly
cremated themselves as a result of low to medium impact crashes.

One of the purposes of accident reconstruction in plane crashes is to
determine what failed and therefore what is subject to improvement.
Normally, the press releases the findings as news in the public interest.
Professional analytical information has not been released on the September
11 crashes. If it exists (for insurance purposes, for instance), it has not
been released. Why have authorities and the press treated the Sept 11
crashes differently? Who is doing the professional analysis and why does the
public not have access to it?

PART 1. PLANE SPECIFICATIONS

Sourced from

http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/nation/graphics/attack_757200.htm
and
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech.html

Wingspan 124 ft 10 in (hereafter rounded to 125 ft)
Length 155 ft 3 in (rounded to 155 ft)
Tail height (with landing gear extended ) 44 ft 6 in
Fuselage Width 12 ft 4 in (rounded to 12 ft )
Max fuel capacity 11,489 gallons
Max range 4449 miles
Max take off weight 255,000 lb.

The following specifications were not directly available from any source I
could find, but I calculated them based on the above figures, after
measuring diagrams and photos. Exact accuracy cannot be guaranteed, but they
are close and are sufficient for this analysis.

Tail height (without landing gear extended) 35 ft

Fuselage height (without landing gear extended) 14 ft 6 in (7 ft 3 in above
wings, 7 ft 3 in below wings)

Length of each wing 56 ft 3 in
Engine diameter. 9 ft. 6 in
Engine length 11 ft 6 in

Position of engine mounting on wing. Outer edge of engine 25 ft from where
wing joins fuselage.
Width of each tail fin 15 ft 6 in

Total tail fin span 39 ft (fuselage is narrower at this point)

An estimated 5 ft of engine is below fuselage level, making the total height
of the aircraft without landing gear extended, 40 ft.

You'll find the calculations throughout this article easier to critically
analyze, if you write down the above figures before continuing.


PART 2. ESTIMATIONS OF HOLE DIMENSIONS

Based on this and other similar photos,
http://www.pbase.com/image/536173

I have estimated the hole in the Pentagon wall to be about 65 ft wide, by
comparing it with the height of the building which is 77 ft.
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon/facts.html

Depth of damage. This is more complex.The Pentagon consists of 5 rings of
building, each separated by a space between. I couldn't find any source
which directly stated figures for the depth of the rings and the spaces, and
the perspective problems of photos make it more difficult to estimate than
the width. On the basis of aerial photos, ( see the links below ) I have
estimated the depth of the ring itself to be about 32 ft, and the open space
behind it, about the same. The outer ring collapsed , leaving a total depth
of about 65 ft that the plane could potentially have fitted into,
considering that the second ring of the building was intact.

http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-002.jpg


http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

It should be noted that the original hole was much smaller. The 65 ft wide
hole developed when a section of the wall collapsed later.

Look at the following photos, taken soon after the crash, before that
section of wall collapsed. The thick smoke and the water jets from the
firefighters make it difficult to get a clear view, but we can determine
that the hole wasn't anywhere near even 40 ft wide. Probably less than 20.
In most of the photos, it's difficult to find any hole at all.

http://66.129.143.7/june2aa.htm

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
(see the two photos in question 7 )

http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/
 (click on the trajectory section and scroll to the photo with the caption
"Hole center"and the subsequent photos)

Calculations based on the 65 ft wide and deep (including open space between
the rings) hole which developed later, are unreasonably generous to the 757
argument. Nevertheless, I will continue to conduct the analysis on that
basis. I am going to attempt to prove that it was physically possible for a
Boeing 757 to crash into that section of wall, in a manner consistent with
the photographic evidence. If I manage to prove that it was physically
possible, that doesn't prove that it happened - it simply keeps the argument
alive. If it proves to be impossible, even by expanding the assumed hole to
orders of magnitude greater than what it really was, then it didn't happen
and the argument is concluded.


PART 3. ENTRY IMPACT CALCULATIONS AT 90 DEGREE FUSELAGE ANGLE

By what means could a plane with a wingspan of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft
fly into a building, leaving a hole 65 ft by 65 ft, leaving no significant
wreckage outside? Is it possible to calculate a wing angle at which the
plane might have fitted through? If not, where is the wreckage that did not
enter the building?

The plane cannot have impacted with the wings in a near parallel to the
ground position and have had the wings enter the building. If it impacted in
this manner, the wings must have broken off before they had a chance to hit
the building. 125 ft of wing cannot pass through a wall without leaving a
125 ft hole. In order to suggest that the entire plane passed through the 65
ft hole, we must calculate the angle at which the wings would have to have
been tilted.


This can be easily done with some graph paper.

Draw a baseline, representing 65 ft - the width of the hole. Draw vertical
lines at each end, representing 77 ft - the height of the building. Draw a
line representing 125 ft - the wingspan, starting it from the bottom left
corner, towards the top right corner, at the angle necessary for the
wingspan line not to intersect the right hand vertical line. You'll see that
it is possible for the plane to pass through the 65 ft wide hole, but not
for all of the wingspan to pass within the impact area. A significant
portion of one wing has passed above the building, avoiding any impact. This
section of wing measures about 25 ft - almost 1/2 a wing.
The minimum possible amount of the plane which can have avoided the impact
area is a figure something greater than this because the analysis has been
biased by a number of factors, beyond credibility in favour of fitting the
plane through.

1) assuming the original impact area to be 65 ft wide, when we know that it
was significantly smaller.

2) assuming the lower wing tip to be at ground level, which it may not have
been.

3) assuming the angle of the fuselage to the wall to be 90 degrees, meaning
that the plane travelled straight through, not widening the impact area
beyond it's own effective horizontal width. For example, if the fuselage
struck at a 45 degree angle, with the same degree of wing tilt, it would
create an impact hole 97.5 ft wide.You can plot this on graph paper too. If
you draw two parallel lines straight up the page, crossing a line drawn
horizontally, the width of line they pass across is equal to the distance
between the parallel lines. If you draw the lines at a 45 degree angle to
the horizontal line, they intersect with an area 1.5 times the distance
between them. So as soon as any angle is postulated for the approach of the
fuselage, then the wings need to be tilted harder in order to fit into the
65 ft hole, increasing the amount of wing that passed above the impact area.
If we postulate the wings to be tilted at a ridiculous angle like 80
degrees, not only does this increase the area of wing that's passed above
the impact zone, but also causes the fuselage to be almost at the top of the
building, meaning that one of the 15 ft tail fins, now pointing almost
straight up, starts to protrude above the impact zone. It doesn't matter how
the angle of approach or wing tilt is juggled. It's impossible to fit
anything remotely approaching the entire plane into the impact zone.

Therefore, this substantial portion of the plane did not hit the building
and cannot have been pulverized amid the rubble, and must be accounted for
in some other way.

To give an idea of how much the unaccounted for section of wing increases if
we lessen the degree of bias, here is a different set of assumptions.

Original width of hole 40 ft. Lower wing tip 10 ft above the ground.

The amount of the wing which would now pass above the impact point would be
about 47 ft. And the entire upper tail fin would no longer fit in sideways,
because the bottom of the heavily tilted fuselage would be hard up against
the right edge of the hole.The wing angle could be tilted more heavily to
fit in the tail fin, but this further increases the length of wing passing
above the impact zone. This is still assuming a fuselage angle of 90
degrees, and a hole larger than what it really was. So we have to stretch
the variables beyond credibility in favour of the 757 theory just to reduce
the unaccounted for piece of wing to 25 ft.

Since this large portion of wing would not have had any serious impact upon
it, there is no reason for it to have been pulverized into nothing, unless
there was an explosion powerful enough to cremate the wings right to the
extremities. If this did not occur, then this section of wing would have
suffered no impact other than that of falling to the ground or on to a roof
after it broke off. It's conceivable that it could have broken up into a few
smaller pieces, but not to have been pulverized beyond evidence of it ever
existing. So there should be evidence of a large piece of wing, or several
pieces, large enough to be clearly identifiable, outside the crash site, or
possibly sitting on top of the rubble. Most likely, it (they) would have
finished up somewhere inside the courtyard or on a roof. The chance of it
finishing up on top of the rubble would be small, the chance of being buried
under the rubble, negligible, and the chance of being under the rubble and
smashed into pieces too small to identify, effectively zero.

No evidence exists of any such wreckage, and there is no reason why it
should not have been found and presented if it existed. We must therefore
conclude that if the 757 theory is to be kept alive, one has to postulate an
explosion significant enough to cremate an entire length of wing beyond
evidence that it ever existed. Because the only available energy source for
such an explosion is the fuel, and an explosion must generate force equally
in all directions, this forces us to the conclusion that most of the plane
must have been similarly cremated by the explosion.There is also the problem
of the tail. Being the last part of the plane to enter the building, the
wall should already have been smashed down by the time it entered. So the
tail should have suffered less impact than the forward part of the plane,
increasing the likelihood of large identifiable pieces being found. That no
evidence remains of it also forces us to postulate a massive explosion
capable of cremating it.
Before examining this question further, I will now do the same style of
analysis on the scenario of the plane hitting the wall with the wings
approximately parallel to the ground.

If this happened, it is clear that the wings never contacted the wall. They
certainly did not pass through. The hole is 60 ft too narrow, leaving 30 ft
of each wing that cannot have passed through. And there is no evidence of
any damage to the sides of the hole that would indicate contact of this
type. If the wings did hit the wall, they can't have simply bounced off,
without leaving any damage to the wall, while simultaneously cremating
themselves from the force of the impact. Especially if the fuselage was
apparently able to plough significantly into the building, before being
cremated. Not only is the fuselage penetration indicative of the test of
strength between the wall and the plane, but the wall would have been
weakened by being split open by the fuselage, making it easier for the wings
and tail as they followed. So in the event of the wings being parallel,
since no wreckage exists to support their existence, we must also postulate
an explosion significant enough to cremate the wings to their extremities,
in order to account for the two missing 30 ft sections.

Regardless of at what angle the wings may have been tilted, it is impossible
for all of the wreckage to have been impacted, buried and crushed beyond
identification within the rubble of the 65 ft by 65 ft area of wall damage.
A significant section of at least one wing, something more than 25 ft long,
never entered the impact zone, and cannot have been cremated by impact
alone, and yet appears to have vanished. The lack of any other wreckage also
indicates cremation. And since explosions generate force equally in all
directions, one can't postulate an explosion powerful enough to cremate the
extremities of the plane - tail, nose and wing tips without postulating that
the entire plane was cremated.

Therefore, it is either drop the 757 theory or postulate an explosion
powerful enough to cremate the wreckage to the point that no evidence
remains of it's existence.

Before examining in detail the explosion question, lets look at the depth of
the hole. 65 ft. The length of the alleged plane was 155 ft. Nothing
identifiable remains of any part of the plane. If we were not to postulate
an explosion we would have to suggest that the fuselage was compacted to 40%
of it's original length - at least, just to explain the lack of damage to
the second ring. That's assuming the entire depth of the first ring to have
been burst through in the initial impact, and part of the compacted plane to
have protruded out into the space between the two rings. But if such
compacted wreckage came to rest there, it would be highly visible, and
without a subsequent explosion, there is no way to explain where the
compacted fuselage went. So the entire length of the plane needs to be
compacted into the space of the first ring - about 30 ft - quite impossible.
One would have to suggest that the fuselage compacted to about 20 % of it's
length against the unyielding wall, and then suddenly burst through, coming
to rest inside as a 30 ft lump amongst the rubble. Or alternatively, that it
was still being compacted even after it burst through, meaning that as the
rear of the plane entered, the rubble and the compacted remains of the front
of the plane, were still providing significant resistance, like a person
trying to hold a door shut against a stronger opponent, and being gradually
pushed back. This can't happen. The wall either holds or it doesn't. The
plane either penetrates or compacts. It doesn't do both simultaneously. It's
possible that there could have been a certain amount of compaction before
penetration, but at some point the wall had to give way, and once it did,
there would be no more compaction. If it's going to give way, it will be
early in the process. And yet, postulating a 50 % compaction of 90 % of the
plane, before it suddenly burst through - which is quite impossible - would
still leave a final fuselage length of 85 ft to be accounted for - also
impossible. And this still leaves unsolved the problem of what happened to
it afterwards.
There's a severe problem not only with the width of the impact area, but
also the depth. Neither the fuselage nor the wings can fit into the allotted
space.
Postulating an angled entry slightly reduces the amount of compaction
required, but not by the orders of magnitude necessary to fundamentally
solve the problem. For example, if one was to redo the last calculation on
the basis of a 45 degree entry, it would be reduced to a 42% compaction of
90 % of the plane before bursting through, leaving an 85 foot length of
wreckage, which lying at a 45 degree angle, would leave about 37 ft of
fuselage extending beyond the first ring, almost reaching the second. And
there would now be either a wider entry hole, or a greater section of wing
which missed the impact zone. .Although debris of some kind exists, there is
nothing of enough substance to provide any evidence of what kind of plane it
was, and the volume is insufficient to account for anything remotely
approaching the dimensions under discussion. This is further proof that in
order to keep the 757 theory alive, we must postulate an explosion which
cremated the plane.

PART 4. EXPLOSION ANALYSIS AT 90 DEGREE FUSELAGE ANGLE

The only available energy source for such an explosion is the fuel load,
which means that the explosion must have been centred in the fuselage. An
explosion generates force equally in all directions. It had to have cremated
both ends of the plane, which means that the minimum force which can be
postulated is one sufficient to destroy a tail or nose from 77 ft away. That
's what was required if the explosion occurred in the exact centre of the
plane. Shifting it away from the centre means that less force is needed at
one end, but more at another. Since the force must be generated equally in
all directions, the smallest force we can postulate is one emanating from
the centre, if we assume the force needed for cremation to be equal at both
ends. Because any discrepancy in relation to that question is not
calculable, I will assume that to be the case. If it is incorrect, it won't
effect the integrity of the following analysis, because it reveals
fundamental problems with the scenario as a whole, which can't be solved by
shifting the problem from one part of the plane to another. An equal force
must have been generated forward of the centre point, behind it, above it,
and below it. (At least potentially so, if not blocked by the ground ) So we
must draw a 3D circle around the centre of the plane, and know that every
point on the edge of that circle was impacted by a force sufficient to
cremate the tail of a plane, and that all points closer to the centre were
subject to an even greater force.

If the plane blew up as it was entering the building, there are two basic
scenarios. 1) The centre of the explosion was inside the building. For
example, the plane entered with the wings sharply titled, and exploded after
the wings had entered (and passed above ) the impact area. 2) The explosion
occurred outside the building, because it happened earlier in the process
than in scenario 1).

The previous analysis of the depth problem tells us that scenario 1) is
impossible. If the plane was half way into the building (77 ft of
penetration), then even allowing for 12 ft of compacting, the nose would
have been hard up against the second ring when the explosion took place.
There's no sign of such damage to the second ring. Nevertheless, I'll
explore the full implications of the "inside the building" scenario, just to
make sure that nothing is left out.

Assuming half the plane to be inside the building, and the explosion to be
just inside the hole, at this time the tail is still about 77 ft to the
front of the wall. It's exposure to the blast is partly shielded by the fact
that the explosion is actually inside the collapsing section of the
building. The same goes for the nose which is, allowing for compaction,
about 60 ft forward of the blast centre, outside the collapsing ring. And
yet both were cremated. So we have to increase the alleged power of the
blast to account for the shielding of the front and rear extremities. We can
't quantify the shielding, and must note that because the wall had been
smashed down by this time, the shielding may have been small, but we can say
that the force of the explosion was something greater than what was needed
to cremate the nose and tail, had the plane been in the open.

What would have received the greatest impact from this blast? The centre of
the fuselage, and the first ring of the building. The explosion was right
inside it. So the building was subject to a force significantly greater than
that of the cremated nose and tail.

What was the effect on the building of this massive blast ? Nothing,
apparently. It had already been split open and weakened by the impact of the
plane entering it. It appears to have suffered no extra damage as a result
of the explosion. The wall face was negligibly damaged beyond a width of 65
ft - less, when we take into account that the original hole was smaller.
Neither was the inside area of the wall, behind the face, significantly
damaged width-wise beyond this point. Neither did the force of the explosion
have any effect further into the building. The second ring, right next to
the cremated nose, closer than the cremated tail, suffered no damage. If the
explosion was centred in the middle of the 65 ft hole, just inside the
building, then allowing for the width of the fuselage, it means that the
wall suffered negligible sideways damage only 26 ft from the edges of the
fuselage which was cremated. Speculation that the wall was of an
extraordinarily strong construction, apart from suggesting an impossible
strength, makes no contribution to explaining these anomalies. If it was so
tough, then how did the plane slice it's way into it to begin with? We'd
have to believe that in the test of strength between the plane and the wall,
that the plane penetrated the solid wall, but was then completely
obliterated by an explosion which had no effect on the now damaged and
weakened building. This isn't possible.

There's a further problem. A number of alleged witnesses claim that small
pieces of the plane were scattered over a wide area. One (Mike Walter, who's
report I reviewed in a previous article linked later in this article) said
he saw debris up on the overpass. Penny Elgas (report reviewed later in this
article, said a piece of the plane landed in her car. A number of photos (
examined later) purport to show small fragments of the plane, flung out
considerable distances from the scene. But curiously, none of these alleged
witnesses or any of the photos describe showers of rubble from the building.
Why aren't there stone pieces scattered all over the place, if the building
was the centrepoint of the explosion?

But this is an aside from the main proof. The scenario of the explosion
inside the building is impossible on two counts.
1) That an explosion of sufficient power to cremate a 100 ton aircraft, some
of it at distances of 77 ft away, could have no impact on an already partly
demolished stone building, which was at the centre of the blast.

2)That not enough length of plane could have entered the building, unless
one is to suggest that the explosion occurred right at the front of the
plane, which then forces one to increase it's alleged power by orders of
magnitude to cremate the rear, more than 140 ft away, compounding the
problems of reason 1.

So it's impossible for the explosion to have occurred inside the building.

In order to keep the 757 theory alive, we must postulate that the explosion
took place outside the building. Then we have the same problem in reverse.
Suppose the centre point of the explosion was the centre of the plane. If it
took place when the wings were close to the wall, then the wall was still
subject to the maximum force. A greater force than that applied to the tail.
And the nose is now the part that's shielded, inside the wall. If the 125ft
wingspan was parallel and right next to the wall and was cremated, then
there should be 125 ft of severe damage along the wall, and an extensive
area of gradually declining damage beyond this point. If we tilt the wings
at 45 degrees, to reduce the effective horizontal width and effective height
of the wingspan to about 90 ft, meaning that no part of the wing was further
than 90 ft from the blast, we must still postulate an area of massively
destructive force at least 90 ft wide along the wall face, with gradually
declining severity of damage further to the sides. There can't have been a
sudden cut off point for damage to the wall. It would have been pulverized
to nothing at the centre point, gradually reducing in severity, to cosmetic
damage such as broken windows, blackening and superficial face damage at a
point significantly beyond the wingspan width. Since the wall shows
negligible damage beyond 65 ft, the damaged area isn't wide enough to
accommodate speculation of the nearby wings being blasted into nothing. Even
if the plane went in at the crazy angle of a 90 degree wing tilt, the wing
extremities covering a total span of 125 ft, above and below the explosion
still have to be cremated, meaning that an equal span of force has to be
generated sideways along the wallface. And yet somehow the building escapes
with negligible damage beyond a total span of 65 ft. So this didn't happen
either.
The last hope is to suggest that the explosion took place almost at the
instant of impact, before the plane had significantly penetrated the wall.
This places the centre of the blast the maximum possible distance from the
wall - about 77 ft. It makes no difference to try to compound this by
suggesting that the blast was also further towards the back of the plane,
because then we have to increase it's power, to account for the cremated
nose. The wall, at the point where the nose struck, still has to be
receiving a force equal to that necessary to destroy the nose.

If we draw the 77 ft circle around the middle of the plane, the extremities
of the 65 ft hole are only about 8 ft beyond the circle, meaning that this
width of wall should still have been subject to massive force, and that we
should still be seeing very significant damage beyond this width. At 50 ft
either side of the centre of the nose, creating a wallface length of 100 ft,
the wall is only about 16 ft from the circle. So although the scenario is
not as ridiculous as the previous scenarios, it's still impossible to
reconcile the narrow area of significant damage to the wall with the
enormous forces being inflicted on the nearby plane. When one considers that
only 16 ft away, the blast is powerful enough to cremate a plane tail or
nose, the impact on the 100 ft section of wall should be dramatic.

And this scenario creates another problem. It requires the postulation that
there was no significant penetration of the plane into the wall. In this
case, then virtually all of the damage we see to the wall, was caused by the
explosion, not the impact. In this case, it's very difficult to create a
plausible scenario for the shape and size of the damage. The force would
have been at it's greatest in the centre where the nose was obliterated. It
would have been gradually less as you look to the sides. So the original
damage should have been V shaped, with the centre point of the V, in the
middle of the 65 ft hole, and the wide shallow area at the outside wall. No
such evidence exists. What we see is a neat rectangular hole. The obvious
counter argument is that the original shape of the hole has been masked by
the later collapse of one wedge of the wall, and that the early photos are
too obscured by smoke and water to tell us exactly how far and in what shape
the original damage extended. Quite so, but this admits that most of the
damage wasn't even caused by the explosion directly, but simply by the
secondary collapse, meaning that the original area of direct damage was
tiny. For example, the points on the wall 20 ft each side of the centre,
creating a total span of 40 ft, were only 5 ft further away than the tail,
which was allegedly cremated. So this area should have been ferociously
demolished in the original damage. Early photos show this wasn't the case,
and only 15 ft further to each side - points which are only about 9 ft
further from the blast than the tail, all we see are broken windows. Some
are still intact.

This photo demonstrates the absurdity of this scenario

http://www.pbase.com/image/536173

The windows you can see just outside the damage area are only about 10 ft
further away from the blast centre than the nose or tail would have been.

Trying to solve this problem is futile.The fundamental problem is that the
modest damage to the wall is not only irreconcilable with the impact of a
such a large plane, but also irreconcilable with the explosive forces needed
to destroy one.

So any scenario of the plane hitting the building at a 90 degree fuselage
angle is impossible. The wreckage is not inside the building, is not
outside, and the force of a blast powerful enough to cremate the missing
wreckage was impossible in the context of the wall damage.

PART 5 ENTRY CALCULATIONS - FUSELAGE AT 45 DEGREES

The above calculations and analysis were based on the assumption that the
fuselage struck the wall at a 90 degree angle. This wasn't because I
necessarily believe that whatever hit the wall did so at this angle. It was
because it a) favoured the 757 theory to the maximum, by keeping the entry
point as narrow as possible, and b) kept the maths simple as an introductory
reference point to the problem.The calculations change for every different
angle assumed. It's impractical to do a separate analysis for every possible
angle, but neither is it necessary. It is sufficient to take a snapshot half
way through the range of possibilities. By assuming a fuselage angle of 45
degrees, we gain an insight into the trend of how the problem changes by
angling the fuselage.
First, the parallel plane scenario. Plotted on graph paper, this shows that
at the point that the fuselage strikes the wall, the inner wing tip is only
about 18 ft from the wall. If the fuselage continued to drive into the wall
at this angle, the wingtip would strike the wall about 65 ft from the near
edge of the hole made by the fuselage. If the wing was to slice into the
wall, we should see a continuos rip in the wall extending about 65 ft until
it joined up with the fuselage hole. Meanwhile, as the fuselage was driving
deeper and wider, it would create it's own hole moving further away at 45
degrees. If the wall collapsed along the fuselage impact area, then we'd see
one long hole made by the fuselage. If it punched through cleanly, we'd see
a 45 degree tunnel, and a separate hole starting 65 ft away from the
southern edge, (assuming the plane to have been coming from the south west.)