The New Zealand Government, like all compliant and suitably aligned western democracies (so-called), is involved in a frantic move to push through anti terrorist legislation in the wake of the 11th of September, 2001 tragedy.
With very draconian law changes being touted, we the common people of New Zealand, along with the rest of the worldwide community it would seem, are expected to forfeit whatever hard won rights we have in the name of national security.

Our traditional rights are founded, for the most part, upon Magna Carta and it has taken 700-years to accumulate them. Although these days we enjoy only watered down versions of "human rights" once guaranteed under several Acts, charters or treaties, what remains is very precious to us and is not to be surrendered lightly or without just cause.

It seems that each country embarking upon this quest toward fascist totalitarianism has its own handpicked figurehead to "champion the cause". Here in New Zealand our most outspoken adversary to the new wave of international terrorism is a Member of Parliament called Phil Goff, who's doing all that he can to push his anti-terrorist incentive into law with "urgency", devoid of proper consultation with, or submissions from, the public.

If you're a big player, mover and shaker on the international monetary scene, wishing to dupe, exploit, rape and pillage New Zealand, then we have many "rent a prick" politicians who can advance your cause and help you get what you want.

This nice young man has come to the informed conclusion that New Zealanders have too many rights to privacy and freedom. He wants us to surrender a % of them in case some "Taliban raghead" or "Osama wannabe" decides to blow something up at the arse-end of the world. Phil can protect us from all that but, unfortunately, it'll cost us…freedom has a price.

The Hon. Phil Goff seems to know what's best for all of us, having the vision and analytical prowess befitting the Rhodes scholar and Oxford graduate that he is. He's destined to become a "bright shining star" in the "new world order".

Not wishing to be so presumptuous as to question Phil's obvious superior intellect or paternalistic need to safeguard us from foreign threats, I would, at the same time, like him to clarify just a few points that I have lingering questions and reservations concerning.


Figure 1: One of these giant aircraft crashed headlong into the outer wall of the Pentagon at 9:43 a.m., September 11th 2001…or so we've been told by American Government officials. The terrorist activity of that day provides the Hon. Phil Goff with an excuse to introduce his "Anti-terrorist Bill" for heightened surveillance, powers of detainment and arrest of all New Zealanders.

Ok Phil, you're well placed in government with access to every kind of research facility you could possibly need for advice. We know you wouldn't ask us to give up so much before you'd researched the matter fully… so could you please provide solid answers to allay our fears and suspicions that there's a con afoot?
Let's go through that official Pentagon storyline one more time:

Well Phil, that's clear enough…100 tons of Boeing, laden with enough jet fuel to get it from Dulles Airport on the Eastern Seaboard … to California, 2000 miles across country, doing a kamikaze dive directly into the outer façade wall of the Pentagon. Tragically, there were 53 passengers on board, 5 aircrew, as well as 6 madcap hijackers. It was pretty much a direct hit into the side of the Pentagon at a minimum of 250 MPH. That's a lot of mass, inertia and explosive power for any building to sustain. So, let's see what the "point of impact" looked like for almost an hour before the outer wall finally collapsed.

Figure 2: This is the exact spot where the plane is reported to have hit into the bottom story of the building and it was within this section that the outer façade of the building collapsed almost an hour after initial impact. Photo taken by CPL William Ingersoll of the U.S. Marine Corps.

Anyway Phil, let's go to another photo and look for debris or try to find the elusive hole in the side of the Pentagon where a passenger plane 14.9 yards high (13.62 metres), 51.7 yards long (47.27 metres), with a wingspan of 41.6 yards (38 metres) crunched through the building.

Figure 3: This picture shows the so-called impact point of the aircraft and the segment of the outer façade that collapsed within the first hour after the initial explosions were heard. Just to the upper left of the fire engine a vertical seam can be seen, which segments or separates 2 parts of the building. One can count 7 windows to the right of that seam and thereby ascertain how much of the outer wall finally fell. The tail section height of the plane extended up 2/3rds the overall height of the Pentagon (or to the top of the second row of windows down from the roofline)…so how did the huge plane crash only into the bottom story? Why are the majority of windows unbroken?

For very high resolution pictures go to:

Figure 4: There she goes!...within the first hour the outer façade sags and partially falls, bringing the roof down with it. When the dust settles it becomes visually apparent that there has been large scale internal damage to the building, none of which is due to a large passenger plane breaching the frontal wall or penetrating the building through the roof. The collapse of the frontal façade and roof is due solely to loss of structural integrity amongst internal support members in the badly gutted interior. Photos by U.S. Army, Sgt. Carmen L. Burgess.

Let's see what this segment of the building looked like 3 days later.

Figure 5: Aerial shot taken by DoD, Tech. Sgt. Cedric H. Rudisill on the 14th of September 2001 showing the area where a 100 ton aircraft, fully laden with fuel and with a wingspan of 125 feet, supposedly crashed into the outer face of the Pentagon at the ground floor level…which necessitates asking the Hon. Phil Goff, enthusiastic purveyor of New Zealand's new anti-terrorist legislation, a few more questions:

Figure 6: This picture gives us some idea of the logistics of getting a huge aircraft travelling at tremendous speed into the allotted space behind the outer wall. Nothing works no matter how one attempts to argue the case. The wings of the plane would have caused severe damage to the building, either at the front or through the roof. The official version of what happened is that the plane hit the ground floor at the front of the building. Inasmuch as the plane didn't punch through the exterior wall then it has to be on the front lawn…where is it visible in the first pictures taken at the impact scene or any pictures taken thereafter?

Figure 7: One must remember at all times that the gaping hole in the building was not there after the alleged crash and that the outer façade stood complete for almost an hour until fires and structural damage behind the outer façade weakened it sufficiently for the wall to collapse. So what kind of tangible evidence should we have seen at the Pentagon in the days or weeks following the crash?

The typical scene that goes with any passenger plane disaster is a huge amount of very visible debris. A plane can crunch into something at tremendous force and be engulfed in an intensely hot inferno thereafter, but the aftermath is always highly recognisable. This is an example of a very badly burnt out hulk. The so-called Pentagon plane didn't even breach the outer perimeter wall so, therefore, must be on the front lawn mostly intact. It's not seen there because it never existed and the damage to the Pentagon occurred in some other way.

Figure 8: A typical burnt out wreck from one of the multiple passenger jet air disasters that have occurred over the decades ...this one at Tenerife in the Canary Islands about 30 years ago.

Figure 9: Tis plainly seen…no plane in this scene. The psy-ops boys could play golf on that lawn…not a skid mark or significant hazard anywhere down the fairway.


One would reasonably expect Phil that, if you're not a complete imbecile, you've done some research into this whole WTC drama and the Anti Terrorism Bill you're so passionate about is based upon factual information…so please tell us the following:


To ask us to believe that a huge, one hundred ton passenger plane smashed full face into the front of the Pentagon without breaking the windows of the building is unacceptable in the extreme, so how do we strike a balance between what witnesses supposedly saw and what's remotely possible under known laws of physics?

Figure 10: This picture vividly indicates how untenable and ridiculous the official story actually is. The structure shown is a reasonably accurate facsimile of the Pentagon's "outer wedge, E block"structural skeleton, drawn to scale and shown opposite a Boeing 757-200... also shown in true scale. The landing speed of a Boeing 757-200 is 250 MPH, but a suicide pilot would, undoubtedly, have wanted to achieve the greatest impact velocity possible and speeds approaching 450 MPH would have been achievable. The aircraft's fully laden weight at takeoff is a maximum of 114 tons, however it was reported to have been airborne for 40-minutes before the crash and had only a small contingent of passengers, crew and hijackers on board, numbering 64 individuals in total.

Under such circumstances what was the potential capacity of the building to withstand the impact forces involved? Let's supply a few facts to engineers and await their response to see what the true effect would have been:

Figure 11: This central region within the photo is considered by most researchers to have been the exact point of "ground zero"impact. Note how there is still glass in the windows above, covered in foam spray. Although impact from a large passenger plane is utterly out of the question, there is possible evidence that an open section of the bottom story was struck by a small unmanned drone aircraft or a missile that got in under the building. There was renovation work going on in this region of the Pentagon and sections of the bottom story were exposed and open.

Note the impact blister in the frontal masonry immediately above the "truck pool" fence. Although masonry surrounding the blister, especially beneath it, has been sprayed by white foam, there is still a large residual carbon/ soot mark around the blister, indicating it was the probable epicentre of an explosive blast. The "powder burn" extends high up the face of the building in all directions. The blister is directly on a very thick and strong frontal buttress column.

Let's get a clearer view of this point before it slumped almost an hour after the initial explosion.

Figure 12: The region under the building just forward of the cluster of cable spools (centre of the photo) was, possibly, struck by a small projectile that exploded beneath the structure. Some witnesses described seeing a small object, like a Cessna 172 aircraft, hitting the Pentagon. Whatever it was (drone or missile), it seems to have followed a corridor of trajectory between the truck compound (far right of the photo) and the cluster of cable spools, before, possibly, under-tucking the building and exploding beneath. Alternatively, an impact indentation (blister) can be seen on the second story. A far more plausible scenario is that this blister was the strike point of an exploding drone, with the more extensive and severe damage being caused by "in house" charges laid beneath the building, which went off simultaneously to the drone aircraft striking the outer face.

If this were the case, then the drone was laden with specialised explosive and was meant to vaporise upon contact with the building. Some U.S. military, in flight released, laser guided missiles are fabricated largely from paper based materials and are designed to leave no traces to indicate missile type or country of origin. Such weapons are deployed in "psy-ops" wars, where there is a necessity that an "act of aggression" incident cannot be traced back to any particular government.

In the case of a small drone blistering the outer wall, such an explosion would have been solely for dynamic visual effect. It would have dissipated its force quickly in an impressive fiery explosion, capable of very little damage. The idea of the drone would be to provide a "showy" Hollywood spectacle, as well as a glimpse of something "incoming" seen momentarily by a few bystanders, which would later be accepted as having been the Boeing 757-200 described in "official" accounts. The perspective of size can be easily confused if the glimpse is too fleeting, out of the corner of the eye. Many people saw a very low flying Boeing 757, which buzzed Washington D.C. shortly before the Pentagon explosion (a memorable decoy, undoubtedly). It was closely followed by a C130 military transport plane.

A Pentagon time delay security camera appears to have caught a glimpse of a small drone or missile, with the following dramatic and highly visual impact result.

Figure 13: A small missile or drone is caught by a Pentagon time delay camera and creates a spectacular display as it hits the face of the building. The energy from the explosion dissipates quickly, but is visually very impressive.

Under this scenario the real damage to the building would have come from strategically placed charges beneath and within the building, detonated at the exact moment the drone hit.

Engineers need to assess the direction in which the under-columns are buckled in order to know the direction from which the destructive explosive force came. In Figure 12 several buckled columns are seen. A column beneath the "blister" leans slightly outward and to the right. A large column centrally is severely buckled to the left and outward, indicating an explosion from deep within the understructure.

In consideration of the Figure 12 photo evidence, showing an intact façade with unbroken windows... and buckled columns under the building... there is no possible way anything larger than a small plane or missile was involved in the frontal attack. The best guess is that an incendary drone provided the visual outer wall spectacle, whereas explosive charges within provided the destructive force that buckled the columns.


We are expected to believe and blindly accept that a giant Boeing 757-200 slid in and secreted itself under the Pentagon, where the headroom space was far too small to accommodate the height of the fuselage. The giant aircraft didn't break through the building to the other side, about 64 feet to the rear, but compacted itself deeply beneath the ground floor level, which had a width less than half the aircraft's length. The exceptionally strong wings of the plane didn't shear through the columns like the cutting edge of an ax, but were broken off by the frontal columns. The wings then slid in under the building with all of the rest of the aircraft. The giant tail section of the plane, which was 2/3rds the height of the outer façade wall also managed to tuck nicely under the building and get so far in as to be unrecognisable and undetectable in all the photos taken at the scene. There was no "belly flopping" effect of the crashing plane, causing gouging or marking on the front lawn.

Throughout this whole crash, no part of the plane, including the low slung engines, actually touched the lawn and all overflew the cluster of cable spools situated only about 20 feet out from the façade, inasmuch as the spools remained intact and undisturbed. There was no blowback of debris from the plane and all parts of the aircraft became lodged under the building, where the huge mass of material vapourised or melted out of sight into nonexistence, despite the fact that the initial conflagration was short-lived and quickly dowsed by the fire brigade.

Somehow through all this, the body of the plane's legitimate pilot was retrieved, identified and later buried at Arlington National Cemetary. The lingering question remains, "at what location within the United States did he and all other passengers of flight 77 actually perish", as, clearly, it was not at the Pentagon?

None of the "official" fanciful notions about a Boeing 757-200 are possible to achieve within the known laws of "physics", where one deals with mass, inertial forces and the space occupied by well as tangible reality.


Mr. Doutre,

I'd like to address some of the issues you raise in your article at
In the article, you state that "None of the "official" fanciful notions about a Boeing 757-200 are possible to achieve within the known laws of 'physics'", with regards to the attack at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. I am a physicist, so I'd like to clarify some things for you.

The outer walls of the Pentagon are made of solid granite and reinforced concrete. The portion of the building where the attack occurred was reinforced further a few months prior to the attack, including the installation of windows designed to withstand a powerful blast (similar to the Oklahoma City bombing), since that side of the building faces a major highway, so was thought to be the most likely target of a possible attack.

A Boeing 757, like other similar airplanes, is a hollow structure of aluminum, which is considerably weaker than the granite and reinforced concrete that the building is made of. There has been considerable testing of flying planes into structures made of reinforced concrete, and the end result is essentially the same (provided the concrete structure is well made) - the plane is obliterated. I don't mean that it is just crushed, I mean that it is obliterated. The largest piece you would find would likely be small enough to fit in your pocket. Further, the aluminum the planes are constructed of melt at high temperatures. There is a HUGE difference between an airplane crashing into land (which usually also occurs at a angle considerably off of 90 degrees) and an airplane crashing orthogonally into a solid structure made of reinforced concrete and granite.

In addition to that, it is also quite visible in the photos on your webpage where the plane hit, as it did manage to breach the wall. Look at the first photo on your webpage of the Pentagon in flames. See the window with the orange flames behind it? (it's directly above the white car parked out front) Now count windows to the left of that one. Look at where the third and fourth windows to the left of that window SHOULD be. I say should be, because they are not there. There is a big gaping hole where they should be, roughly the size of the fuselage of a 757. This hole is also visible in the photo below that one.
Now, as for the wings. Have a look at the photo you took from the french website, with the 757 drawn in red. Look at either wing, and then directly in front of the wings. The bottom floor in front of the wings is gone. In that photo, something has already been put in place to stabilize the building, so there are what looks like wooden structures there. But look down a couple photos at the one showing fire trucks and firemen out in front of the Pentagon, as it is still burning. In this photo, to the left of the caved in area, you can clearly see where the bottom floor was taken out by the left wing. The right side is obscured by the collapse of the structure.

So from these very photos on your website, it is quite clear that the damage was most likely caused by something like a 757 - with the large hole punched out (a few windows to the left of the window with the fire in it, like I mentioned), and the destruction of the lower levels to the left and right of the entry hole. Like I mentioned, there are no remains of an airplane because of the solidity of the structure it crashed into, and the heat of the ensuing blaze.

Anyway, you asked for the input of structural engineers (I also have a degree in civil engineering, in addition to my physics background), and there it is. As for the potential capacity of the building to withstand the impact forces involved with the crash of a 757 - there is considerable capacity for it to withstand it. Reinforced concrete structures are quite strong, much stronger than the aluminum airplanes. With the crashes at the WTCs, the explosions occurred primarily deep inside the buildings because of a much different structure (a strong steel framework, but no solid concrete walls).

Now, on a personal note - I deeply resent the sentiment that us "evil Americans" are some form of international bully, killing people at our whim. The US gives far more aid to other countries than any other nation. There is none other even close. When a nation is hit by a hurricane, monsoon, or earthquake, taking lives and causing immense monetary damage, we are always the first and the foremost to offer assistance. We GIVE (not just loan, but GIVE) billions of dollars to other countries in aid, every year. When people are being killed for no reason, we are the ones who try to defend them. I'm not going to claim that the US is perfect, and I know that some of our leaders have been far less than noble, and guilty of malevolent acts. But at least we try to make the world a better place, at great personal expense (both monetarily, and in the loss of lives to Americans who die trying to defend citizens of other countries), despite the fact that much of the world still hates us.
At any rate, before you jump on the bandwagon of slandering the US, please try to consult someone with some scientific background about whether or not the "facts" you are trying to spread have any validity to them.

Mike Briggs
Michael S. Briggs UNH Physics Department (603) 862-2828

"Never judge a man until you've
walked a mile in his shoes. Then
when you do judge him, you'll be
a mile away and you'll have
his shoes."


Hi Mike,

First of all I am an American citizen, born in California and with family scattered across the length and breadth of the United States. My father was a US naval officer serving in the Pacific theatre throughout the duration of WWII and is buried in a military cemetery in Utah.
New Zealanders and Australians are still very grateful for the assistance of the US forces during those dangerous years and have remained good friends and sound allies to the US for over half a century, participating alongside US troops in virtually every conflict since WWII, the Korean War or Vietnam.

I'm as devastated and angry as everyone else at the mass murder of Americans on September 11th. This country, as well as many others around the world, reacted spontaneously and with deep genuine compassion at America's plight and sent immediate assistance, financial and otherwise.
So let's drop the unnecessary and sour "Yankee Go Home" side to your letter and deal with the actual issue.

I have spent a large part of my working life in the building industry and am familiar with the methods of construction used in the 1941-1943 building of the Pentagon, which was, undoubtedly, steel reinforced, formed & poured concrete construction. The inherent strength of such bearing components is far inferior to modern pre-stressed beams. I would also assume that concrete of that vintage would be getting quite crystalline, as well as increasingly hard and brittle with age after 60-years. I know how hard old columns can become, as I've often had to drill or chisel holes in them to attach modern fixtures.
The façade cladding, despite the fact that you describe it as "granite", remains reasonably thin, except in the occasional outer buttress column sections, one of which occurs immediately to the left of the collapse zone. Also, the building's skeleton could be described as sufficient without being overbuilt, with beams having a depth of 20 inches and supporting columns being 18-inches square in girth. There is nothing particularly startling or spectacular in this description of the Pentagon's original, inbuilt strength factors of design.

Let's consider the points you raise:

Figure 1: From the directives you give, this is where the plane's fuselage punched through into the interior. This picture is to scale, but shows a reasonably flat on direct hit. The plane can be angled anti-clockwise 15 to 30-degrees if you prefer, causing the right wing to impact first. Let's concentrate on the hole, supposedly made by the 757-200's fuselage and attempt to gain some appreciation of its size.

Figure 2: Here's the spot Mike, from the high-resolution photo found on the French website. This shows the full width of the hole, which is only two windows and a centre column space in overall width…or about 10 feet. The hanging piece of centre debris is the remains of the shattered, blown out column, which was reduced to some clumps of concrete held together by reinforcing rods. You'd get a Volkswagen through the hole if it weren't for the residual floor to ceiling reinforcing. Getting a huge passenger aircraft with a fuselage width of 14 feet minimum is out of the question.

Add to that the necessity to provide access for the wing spars, which run beyond the jet engines to a minimum width of 52 feet. The metallurgy required to produce the spars is at the leading edge of technology and they are exceptionally strong. At the very least, the windows and structure to each side of this hole would have been obliterated and the hole would have been huge.

The hanging remains of the vertical column, or fully intact horizontal beam, plus a whole lot more structure above, would have been smashed by the tail section and sustained considerably more than some minor chipping of the frontal floor joist beam 4-6 inches behind the granite cladding. The overall height of 757-200 fuselage is 38 feet, including the tail section. This is with the landing gear up in the retracted position.
How many ft/lbs of shock pressure would it have taken to slice that beam holding up the 3rd story…considering its depth and width were only 20 inches? Why wouldn't a tough tail section, shaped like a knife-edge and with the accrued inertia of an oversized axe travelling at 300-400 MPH, be able to crash through that beam? The same argument applies to any upright columns, relatively thin façade cladding or window frames encountered by the plane's wings.

Mike, when I called for input from structural engineers, I wanted them to do number crunching on the potential resilience of a building of that vintage and structural integrity, to withstand the forces of a crashing 757-200. I appreciate your contribution, but require hard facts devoid of emotion. I can appreciate that what is being insinuated is too horrible to contemplate and so the easy answer, possibly, for you and many others is to simply accept the official explanation, which I have tremendous difficulty with.

Far too many innocent people died on September 11th 2001, or continue to die as a result of it, for us to gloss over the evidence. I want to know what "in hell's name" is going on...based upon a fully scientific explanation.

Despite your assessment of my position, attitude or lack of empathy for the American people, I consider myself to be a true patriot. I support and uphold the Constitution of the United States, which is based upon the Magna Carta and will do all that I can to see that those rights remain available or become available to the masses worldwide. My allegiance is to people…not to manipulative governments, which are, increasingly, executive arms to, and fully controlled by, big business.

You made mention of the Oklahoma City bombing… perhaps we'd better leave that subject alone for the moment, as you wouldn't like what I have to say about it.

Best wishes,
Martin Doutré.
"I had no shoes and I complained,
until I met a man who had no feet".




This article posted on March 11th 2002, exactly six months to the day since the mass murder of thousands of innocent people in the United States.

Those who perpetrated the terrible crimes of September 11th 2001 are unrelenting in fomenting war and carnage across the globe…sift the evidence carefully and you'll see exactly who they are!

Hell used to be defined as a place where the French are the mechanics, the British are the cooks, the Germans are the police and the Americans are the lovers…

Who assigned the Americans the role of being the world's police force and enforcement arm for the IMF, exploitative multinationals, Wall Street bankers and oil cartels, etc?

We'd all much prefer it if you "grunts" in the American military would transfer to the role of being the world's "lovers"...who knows, in time you might get the hang of it...

Martin Doutré.