portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

9.11 investigation | media criticism

A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, by Michael Meyer, a Mechanical Engineer

I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads).

EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C: American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls--a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete‹before exiting through this hole.

It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner,...
A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon
by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer

To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven:

I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757.

I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads).

The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around managing the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to near-atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure region of cruising altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind.

If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely. The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel.

This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy, impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous wall with windows etc. is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact, and subsequent buckling of the aircraft.

We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)


EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C

American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls‹a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete‹before exiting through this hole.

It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.

How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated.

I do not know what happened on 9/11, I do not know how politics works in this country, I can not explain why the mainstream media does not report on the problems with the 9/11 Commission. But I am an engineer, and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges are used to "cut" through materials.

I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757 incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft (which I also feel is impossible), the fact that the two main engines were never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a gas station and hotel, which they have refused to release.

You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757.

Sincerely,
Michael Meyer


 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html

more pictures at the Macromedia flash based film:
 http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm
Anyone who looks at the government 911 story will soon find out it's a joke. 10.Mar.2006 22:28

Fred Bauer

There has already been two wars on top of the disaster itself. If we let them get away with this, what will they do next? Now is the time to stand up for the humanity. Sometimes people will make fun of you and call you names, but what about the people who jumped out of the towers on 911 and the dead Iraqis and untold thousands of lives destroyed in the mindless wars spawned by the 911 lie? How would you feel twenty years into a fascist future hell knowing that things might have been different if only you hadn't been afraid being called a tin foil nut?

Caution ! Alert ! ! 11.Mar.2006 00:31

dis-info

Sometimes people lie.

Witness Protection Program 11.Mar.2006 02:05

spin laden productions (AP)

Since the FBI apparently seized all available footage and released none of it*, we have little choice but to rely on those many hundreds of people who were present at the time, i.e. the witnesses, to describe the scene prior to impact.

I would always rate the witness claims above the explanations of a second-hand "analyst".

* a witness explains his theory of video suppression:

"Video cameras all around...would have given a great line of site shot of that jet prior to the crash
as well as any other plane which might have been following it"



Rise above denial . . . 11.Mar.2006 03:08

whatever

Something hit the Pentagon, but it wasn't a Boeing 757. It's just another aspect of 9/11 that shows how incredibly bogus the so-called "official story" is. Face the truth- we've all been lied to on a grand scale.

 http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main


Stand up and speak out against fascism. 9/11 started us on the road to tyrannical dictatorship and neverending murder and oil wars. Although, historically speaking, I suppose it's nothing new for us. It's business as usual. Blah Blah Blah. . . . .wake the f*ck up people!!! What exactly is it going to take? Maybe another act of state sponsored terrorism?

Beware of 11.Mar.2006 07:45

Karmic Wrong Turn #23

This argument over what exactly hit the Pentagon misses the main point(s). Maybe the Pentagon was hit by a guided cruise missile; or maybe it was burned by a guided 757 hawk. Either way, something was let to hit home. They are never going to allow us to see that video tape. So we must not lose sight of the fact that nearly two hours passed from the first signs of a hi-jacking to the time of the hit on the Pentagon; and yet nothing was done to prevent a direct strike on fortress america(in the most heavily secured area on the entire face of the planet). There had to have been a stand-down order in effect that morning; and, under the new rules of engagement dating from July 2001, it could only have been ordered by 1 of 3 people--Rummy, Dickie, or W.

What's more, on that fateful day, an ultra elite pilot manages to have his super-duper U.S. Military C-130 make an appearance in the air above both the Pentagon as it is coming under attack, and a little later when the Pennsylvania sky starts falling all over hell's half-acre. Our top-gun, however, claims to know nothing about what really transpired beneath his plane.

Ahem 11.Mar.2006 08:19

Sol

 http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html

Sorry to appeal to authority here, but this guy's written some exstensive stuff regarding this.

Note to spin laden productions ... 13.Mar.2006 19:23

Jody Paulson

Couldn't help but notice one of the names on provided witness list was

"Eberle, Bobby" of gopusa.com, that is, *Jeff Gannon's old boss.*

you cannot find them online: don't look 14.Mar.2006 08:01

spin laden productions

Jody, I'm glad you looked at Eric Bart's witness compendium, and I'm glad you brought this detail about one of approximately one hundred witnesses to my attention. I would not have included Eberle in my compendium, and I didn't. Nevertheless, Eberle's flimsy testimony concords well with the composite picture that emerges from the totality of witness reportage. That composite picture is not the same as the offical one, for it includes two low-flying planes [757 & C130], a lazy indecisive holding pattern near the White House, and no evidence of a steep spiral descent. This may explain why Chip Berlet, when defending the offical narrative, says of the Pentagon witness reports:

"You cannot find them on the internet because they're not there."
 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/150221

Faulty assumptions 31.Mar.2006 17:46

Anon E. Mouse

The problem with Mr. Meyer's theory is that he makes a couple of assumptions that are incorrect.

First, he assumes that the plane penetrated in and out of three separate rings (i.e. that it passed through six exterior walls).

In fact, the light wells that define the distinctive ring structure of the pentagon don't start until the third floor. The first and second floor are continous spaces form the outer E wall to the inner C wall by the A-E drive. The plane entered the building through the exterior wall of the building at the ground floor and exited into the A-E drive. The only walls between these two points were the interior partitions of the building, drywall in the recently remodeled wedge 1 and clay tile and plaster in the older wedge 2. How he calcultes that 9 feet of reinforced concrete was there is anyone's guess.

The second assumption that he makes is that all of the exterior walls were renovated to be blast resistant. This is not the case, only the exterior "E" ring wall was so retrofitted.

He refers to the wall that was "punched out" into the A-E drive as being reinforced concrete. This is incorrect also. A close inspection of the photographs indicates that it is actually a simple masonry wall with common brick and limestone face bricks. In fact, the wall is not even a load bearing wall. The brick is infilled into a concrete frame, that was not damaged.

Based on these flawed premises, I can olny surmise that his conclusion is invalid.