Does the math and physics add up?
 

From: Mark Johnson
To: mark.johnson.jjyo@statefarm.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 10:12 AM
Subject: Does the math and physics add up?


I am sending this to some of you just that there are question, and others of you who I know are pilots and engineers. I don't have answers at this point, but I do have questions. This is not my original thought, but I am following up with this because I wanted to see the evidence myself before I asked questions after hearing others discussing it.
If the plane below was on its way from the East Coast to the West Coast it had to be about 3/4 full which means approximately 8600 gallons of fuel. How are the walls in picture one still white and not covered in sut/smoke stains after 8600 gallons. Not just the interior, but look at the front wall face in picture one. Granted, the top is smoldering.
 

Picture 1

Now look at the width of the building that was hit in picture 2. I'm trying to figure out how this plane hit. The best way to do this is to look at the steel guard rail at the bottom of the screen
 

Picture 2

Generally the space between each support beam for the guard rail is 4 to 6 ft.  Lets give it the benefit of the doubt saying it is six.  The length of the building damaged is 6 of these guard rails.  You can not see on the bottom right of the building there is a slightly larger chunk missing right behind the front of the fire truck.  So lets sat 6x6 = 36 ft now lets add 25% which should over compensate for the optical difference from the guard rail to the building.  Now this is 45ft.  Now look again at the specifications of the plane below.  The wing span is 124 ft.  Almost 3 times the size of this hole in the building.  Also, looking at the front and top of the building.  Even if the wings "broke off" I don't see any marks or cracks beyond the "hole" in the building.  Now lets say the plane came in at a 45 degree angle from picture 3 below, we can see the plane's wing did not hit the ground or if it did, not by much because there would be a huge gouge in the ground or the wing would have broke off and or bent an taken out more of the building.  Along with a boat load of fuel being all over the ground.  So the distance from the top edge of one side of the whole to the bottom edge of the other side of the hole would be about 60 feet.  So if the plane went in perfectly with the edge skirting on the ground, there is 56 ft of wing before you get to the Exterior Cabin, so you would have nearly the whole cabin and one entire wing sitting on the center courtyard if the airplane split in half.

 

Picture 3

 

For some additional size ratio, in picture one, you can see that the pentagon has "4 floors".  Now look at picture 4, if you take the firemen at 6ft tall, you can estimate each floor is 10 to 12 ft high.  Giving a total of about 48ft tall much much shorter than the wing span of the 124ft 10 inches.  Now also, the height of the tail is 44ft 6 inches, so where is any of it?

 

 

Picture 4

Finally, the real nail bitter for me is Picture number 2.  Look at how the floors are stacked on top of one another.  Shouldn't most of the floors be blown in and laying on the inner courtyard instead of stacked on top of one another?  Even the roof is laying on top of the other floors.

 

	Background Info ------------------ -200 Background -300 Background 757 Interiors 757 Facts -300 Milestones 757 home Technical Specs ------------ 757-200 757-300 757-200 Freighter
Technical Characteristics - Boeing 757-300
The Boeing 757-300 has the lowest seat mile operating cost of any single-aisle airplane on the market, and a lower cost per trip than any twin-aisle airplane. The 757-300 is already known for passenger-pleasing reliability. In its first year of revenue service, it achieved a reliability rate of 99.64 percent. The 757-300 has an all-new passenger cabin interior.
757-300 Passengers Typical 3-class configuration Typical 2-class configuration Typical 1-class configuration   N/A 243 280 Cargo 2,370 cu ft (67.1 cu m) Engines maximum thrust Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B 43,500 lb (193.5 kN) Pratt & Whitney PW2043 42,600 lb (189.4 kN) Maximum Fuel Capacity 11,466 gal (43,400 l) Maximum Takeoff Weight 272,500 lb (123,600 kg) Maximum Range 3,395 nautical miles (6,287 km) Cruise Speed Mach 0.80 Basic Dimensions   Wing Span   Overall Length   Tail Height   Interior Cabin Width   Body Exterior Width 124 ft 10 in (38.05 m) 178 ft 7 in (54.5 m) 44 ft 6 in (13.6 m) 11 ft 7 in (3.5 m) 12 ft 4 in (3.7 m)

 

You can see the rest of the pictures of 9/11 here at http://www.thepowerhour.com/gallery/91101Photos

I flew the Boeing 747 JUMBO  Jet., but not this 757.  I retired before this came into service.    
But, from what I see( or don't see) looking at these pictures; its hard to pick out aircraft
parts.  The wingtips alone would have sheared off and bounced back into the street, the engines
(2) would have penetrated deeper into the wall and framing structure further than any other part making a definite hole.  The belly of the  aircraft contains, fuel tanks, baggage, mail bags, and cargo; none of this type debris can be seen. Assuming 8600 gallons of kerosene fuel @ specific gravity of approx 6.9 lbs/gal (temperature considered) weight of the fuel would be close to 60,000 lbs and would splatter everywhere. Where are the seats, those with passengers buckled in would be ripped our of the floor, for that matter, where are the passengers? I have never seen an aircraft accident where the aircraft evaporated upon impact, water,  and or buildings. If these pictures were taken within 3 days after 9/11, there would have been definite remains of parts. I don't see any. However, digital computer photos can be doctored up to suit any lawyers cause.
From the photos shown, there isn't no fly in this pudding.

Big Al wrote:

Erk, you flew this type plane I'm sure when flying for Pam Am all those
years.  What's your take on this?  Should there be any parts of the
plane left?  Why does it not show any plane parts at all?
Dewey, you are a pilot also, what is your take on this?  Has he a valid
concern that no plane parts are left.

====================================================

 

  Here the Pentagon hadn't even collapses yet according to the next pic--- Part of the Pentagon collapsed after the plane struck
 

Here is a link with some additional pictures http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1538000/1538570.stm

 

Here is a link that documents that the picture being shown is from 9/12/2001 in the am.  http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.washblade.com/pics/010912pentagonattack.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.washblade.com/national/010912a.htm&h=152&w=200&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPentagon%2BAttack%2Bpictures%26start%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

=======================================================

OK, I've gotten a boatload of emails asking if I really bought off on the pictures that just happened to be released now when the heat has been turned up.  I'm only responding to those who I know can be objective.

 

I don't buy it for a second.  The light is to different in each picture in brightness.  The outer lens cover (I don't know what it is really called) can be seen in some pictures and not in others from the same camera.  The sun shows in only one, and all these pics were taken in a matter of seconds.

 

The "high tech" Pentagon one of our most secretive installations, which was built to handle a large attack, video surveillance is so poor that it shows a plane going at about the same speed as a bomb could only pick up that smudge. 

 

No, I don't buy it, and it is really sad to say that.  However, I admit I hope I am wrong.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Well, in another strange turn in events, TODAY after 6 months, the government released video footage showing the crash at the Pentagon.

It can be seen here at http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp.  I have three photos excerpted for your viewing.

 

This is what is viewable of the plane in the air immediately before it hit the ground as it slid into the building.

 

 

 

The tail section?

 

I don't get the significant change in lighting within a matter of seconds, but I'm not going to take the tangent.  Also, I wouldn't put

anything into the the date and time.  It is probably either Greenwich time or the time the photo was actually cataloged for evidence.

<Back to Flight 77 Page