portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements global

9.11 investigation | government

Mechanical Engineer: A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon

I saw this letter posted on Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I think more people should see this, so please spread it around. The original posting is here:  http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html
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.)

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.

Michael Meyer

eyes-on-the prize 18.Mar.2006 19:08


There has been lots of debate about the Pentagon plane. Whatreallyhappened.com has pritned numerous articles stating that a commercial airline really did hit the Pentagon. Michael Rivero postulates that the those who are pushing this story are engaged in the subtle art of disinformation.

The propaganda tool being used is called "poisening the well". Which is where the propagandist wishes to deflate the legitimate claims of his or her foes. So he invents a corilary story which gets linked to the correct claim. Whereapon, the fake story is outed and then used to prove that the rest of the story is "false".

A good example of where this tactic of "poisining the well" has been used sucessfully is the Dan Rather/60 Minutes story on AWOL Bush. The papers that were the subject of the story were forgeries produced by the pro-Bush side, and when they were reported on 60 Minutes they were immediately revealed as being so. So at the end of the week, everyone was talking about the forged papers and not about the very real story of Bush AWOL.

Now, I'm not saying that the above post is not necessarily true. But it could be a ploy to make us look foolish. So I think that we should hold off and be safe. Instead we should spend our energies on the irrefutable evidence of the 911 false flag operation.

To me, the clearest piece of evidence that the 911 events were staged is the collapse of wtc 7, which was NOT hit by an airliner. Because the facts of its demise can not be disputed, and everyone can see the logic themselves.

We can eventually look at the Pentagon hit, but the best way to expose the 911 lie is through the rabit hole of WTC 7.

I agree with dis-info about WTC 7 18.Mar.2006 20:46

Fred Bauer

WTC 7 is the most unassailable piece of evidence. But showing people the Pentagon pictures really grabs them. When you show them WTC 7 they often say things like:

WTC 7 wasn't part of "The Main Event", so it doesn't really count. (For some reason).

WTC 7 didn't kill masses of people and therefore was not an act of "terrorism". (So we should disregard it).

I had one guy say: "So what if WTC 7 was wired with explosives in advance? 911 was the best time to set it off."

I showed one guy the towers blowing up and all the evidence time and again. Finally he admitted that WTC 1 and 2 were probably blown up, but said that he thought the "terrorists" might have sneaked in there beforehand and wired the explosives themselves just in case the planes didn't do the job.

I guess I don't need to point out the flaws in this logic.

Well, people. This is what we're up against.

The flaw in the thinking (in case you are interested) 19.Mar.2006 06:09

Mike Novack stepbystpefarm <a> mtdata.com

Light mass density doesn't matter, total comprative momentum (mass times velocity) hitting the cross section of impact does, and the effect of "crumpling" is just to extend the time during which the momentum of the plane must be absorbed by the wall compared to if the wall were hit by a non crumpling object.

That time cannot be greater than the time it takes between the nose hitting and the tail end hitting (as the airframe crumples). For example, if the plane is 100' long and travellign at 400 ft/sec then the time for a totally crumpling substance (say water) cannot be more than 1/4 sec.

Back to your high school physics. The force on the cross section of the wall impacted is the momentum divided by the time. In other words, you calculate the (horizontal) force on that section of wall by taking the momentum of the plane (total mass of the body times its velocity) and divide by the maximum time assuming total crumpling. I think you will find that the result is an amount far in excess of what a vertical concret wall is designed to resist.

Michael Meyer, if you are really a mechanical engineer, you should be able to do the calculation. Look up the mass of the airbody, the presumed velocity at time of impact, use the maximum time in which the momentum could have been absobed, and calculate the force on the cross section of wall. Ask one of your "civil" engineering counterparts (you say you are "mechanical") what sort of HORIZONTAL force a section of wall of a concret building might have been designed to withstand.

JUST saying "crumples" doesn't hack it. Liquids "crumple" yes? But surely you don't mean to tell us that something being hit by a water jet at 400 feet/sec doesn't experience a VERY significant force as a result of trying to stop that jet! << look up "hydraulic mining" folks >>

The hole is the smoking gum 19.Mar.2006 14:42


Your analysis still does not explain the almost perfectly round hole through the "C" ring. I think the hole is much more relevent to the story that your do-the-math, mass, volacity, inertia (or physics) arguments.

Sometimes people who only use scientific formulas to explain events in the world fail to acknowledge that intuition also should play a key role. The hole absolutely makes no sense at all unless, like the engineer stated, that it was created by a missle, not a 757. Your analysis seems like a scientific smokescreen to me.

I think a lot of people have ended up putting their reputations on the line as far as a 757 plane hitting the building, and it seems like they are going to defend their theories to the death no matter what evidence comes up that will refute their theories.

Though not a bona fide scientist, my experiences living in a material world (like most of us), and my intuition tell me that the perfectly round hole created through dense reinforced concrete would not have been possible minus some dense projectile, not a light aluminum can of an airplane.

back to class for Mike Novack 19.Mar.2006 22:05


"JUST saying "crumples" doesn't hack it. Liquids "crumple" yes?"

Actually, liquids do not crumple. If force is applied to a liquid, it will spread out or move out of the way, or if it has nowhere to move it it will resist the force with very little compression to the point at which the container it is in breaks. Also, Michael Meyer said much more in the article than "crumples", in fact he addressed the shape and characteristics of the hole, the depth of the damage, AND that the plane's engines (which of course would have very large and very, very hard parts in them, which are made to withstand the temperatures of burning jet fuel) were not found. Something he did not mention: where did the wings go? They certainly didn't disappear through that small hole.

So, what is your agenda, Mr. Novack?

Faulty Assumptions = Faulty Conclusion 31.Mar.2006 12:12

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 to the third floor. 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.

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 merely 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, his conclusion is invalid.