| The ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report: Arrogant Deception — Or an Attempt to Expose a Cover-up? Abstract |
| By Sami Yli-Karjanmaa |
This article looks at The Pentagon Building Performance Report (January 2003) by the American Society of Civil Engineers (available on the internet). The key conclusion reached is that the Report fails in its attempt to show that the structural damage caused to the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 was caused by a crash by a Boeing 757 aircraft. The main purpose of the Report seems therefore to be to back the official, untruthful story about the events of 9/11. However, part of the inconsistencies are so glaring that an intention of sabotaging the said main purpose cannot be excluded.
The key conclusion is based on nine observations which can be divided into two categories based on whether they concern events prior to or during the crash of the aircraft. As regards the first group, the overall conclusion is that the approach of the aircraft and its being damaged cannot have taken place in the the manner put forward in the Report. This conclusion is supported by the following observations:
- the aircraft's reported 42° approach angle is not possible for a B-757; >>
- the aircraft's right wing's hitting a generator cannot account for the narrowness and discontinuity of the damage to the facade as proposed by the Report; >>
- the intact cable spools in the trajectory of the aircaft are incompatible with the information on the impact contained in the Report; >> and,
- there is no evidence to support the claim of the left engine having hit a vent structure; such a hit would also not explain the narrowness of the damage to the facade. >>
For the second group, the overall conclusion is that the Report's description of the impact of the plane and of the damage caused manifestly contradicts photographic evidence from the scene. The description includes impossible, contradictory and unexplained phenomena:
- the allegation of the aircraft's fuselage sliding into the first floor has no physical credibility; >>
- the facade damage on the right side of the opening in the outer wall does not have anything in common with the shape, size and position of the alleged B-757; >>
- the facade damage on the left side of the opening are not suggestive of the proposed impact of a B-757; >>
- the tail of the aircraft left no visible marks on the facade while the Report in no way explains this; and, >>
- the Report fails to provide any kind of explanation for the hole in the wall of Ring C. >>
The uncertainties related to the alleged point of impact as well as the approach angle, vertical position and inclination of the aircraft do not weaken the conclusion presented herein that the Pentagon could not have been hit by a Boeing 757 in the manner described in the report. This is because changing one of these factors to allow the better explanation of a particular damage (or the lack of it) renders the other damage even less comprehensible.
NB. This author is aware of theories promoted to suggest that the Pentagon was indeed hit by a Boeing 757 which was destroyed before it (or all of it) hit the building. While this possibility cannot be excluded offhand — and the conclusions about the impossibility of a B-757's crash reached in this article may not be directly applicable to such a case — no substantial evidence has so far been produced to back up such a theory.
Details here.
| The Pentagon Crash Site |
| The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism |
| Serendipity Home Page |