Editor’s Note: This paper is a response to the October 2023 paper by David Chandler and Wayne Coste, which can be read here.
Introduction
While describing exactly what may or may not have impacted the Pentagon’s E-Ring wall in 2001 may never be possible, this paper argues that the conclusions reached in “Large Plane Impact Damage to the Wall of the Pentagon and Adjacent Objects” (hereafter, LPI) are based upon selective use of evidence, are not internally consistent, and are ultimately not tenable in light of all available information. Alternative explanations for the damage require full consideration.
The LPI paper asserts that the damage is inconsistent with fire, explosives, or kinetic impact other than a 757. This conclusion mirrors the narrative of the American Society of Civil Engineers’ “Pentagon Building Performance Report,” published in 2003. That is the first report to highlight the generator trailer and steam vault retaining wall, among other features that LPI examines.
As an abundance of peer-reviewed research and critiques by engineers (Brookman, 2012; Cole, 2023; Hulsey, 2019; Němec, 2018; Szuladzinski, 2013) have exposed the fact that the ASCE erroneously portrayed how the three World Trade Center towers were destroyed on September 11, 2001, it is appropriate to be circumspect with respect to ASCE’s analysis and description of the events at the Pentagon.
The following point-by-point deconstruction of the LPI paper will hopefully inspire readers to delve further into all available data, so that we may all come closer to understanding what actually happened in Arlington on 9/11/01.
Rebuttal to ‘Scope of the Damage to the Pentagon Wall’
LPI does not accurately define the scope of E-Ring damage. The 100-foot span between Columns 8 and 18 is missing both exterior cladding and many, though not all, of the columns on the first floor. But a 757’s 124-foot wingspan at the alleged 52˚ incident angle would have traveled through, not simply 100 feet, but 158 feet of E-Ring wall (Fig. 1). This would have made the impact damage done by such a jet extend beyond Column 5 (Fig. 2).
Note that a substantial portion of fence within this requisite impact zone has not been swept into the building, but rather has been blown outward and lies upon several vehicles parked in front (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4).
At a 52˚ incident angle, an object approximately 79 feet wide would endure 100 feet of E-Ring collision. For instance, an A3 Skywarrior has a 72-foot wingspan. Compared to a 757, it might be construed as a small plane, yet it could create the 100-foot opening at the correct angle. LPI assumes that the missing façade is a consequence of a kinetic impact. Yet it is equally plausible that the façade was removed explosively.
The removal of 100 feet of cladding and columns could be achieved by coordinated explosive effects. A missile or other kinetically delivered explosive mechanism might detonate in a manner capable of removing the exterior features it travelled through. No evidence of focused blast damage was presented in the LPI paper, but that doesn’t mean such evidence doesn’t exist.
Take, for instance, the image in Fig. 5, which clearly shows the destructive force of an explosion just inside the E-Ring. The drop ceiling was blown apart, and columns toward the south were twisted in the wrong direction for a 52˚ kinetic impact. Furthermore, we should not expect the fuel-air explosion of an exploding airliner to have the impulse to bend steel-reinforced concrete columns.
Also indicative of focused ordinance deployment is the area within the D-Ring of the Pentagon, in which the second floor was blown upward. Whoever chose to attack our collective consciousness and cut at the muscle of our Republic would certainly have had more than one tool in their toolbox. Like any complex deception, multiple facets would have been utilized. So, the claim that we can rule out bombs, small planes, or missiles, based solely on the length of a 100-foot opening, cannot stand.
Rebuttal to ‘Left Side of Opening’
Looking at the “Left Side Impact,” LPI asserts that column 9AA is bowing inward and therefore must have been impacted kinetically. There is no basis for such an assertion. A sufficiently powerful explosive pressure wave could twist the column in the manner depicted. More importantly, the vector in which the depicted column is bent is not consistent with the purported flight path. The column could not endure a 52˚ incident angle impact and end up being bent to the east. This feature alone is completely incompatible with the LPI theory.
A larger contextual review of the columns presented in LPI’s Figure 4 shows that the square tubing is moderately twisted, but so are each of what LPI refers to as “fingers.” Each finger is bent in a unique manner across the entire axis of the tubing. A jet wing transecting that columnar tubing would not be broad enough to bend each of those fingers.
The distal end of the left wing of a 757 would have impacted the building all the way to Column 5. LPI asserts that more than 30 feet of wing was just pulled inside the building around a perfectly intact Column 8. The pristine nature of Column 8 shows this cannot be the case. Also, the vector of deflection of Column 9AA rules out kinetic impact by an object moving along the light pole flight path.
Rebuttal to ‘Right Side of Opening’
In LPI Fig. 5, the image purports that a linear kinetic impact damaged columns 18, 19, and 20 at an angle. The text in LPI Fig. 5 tells the reader that Column 18 is leaning inward and southward. The column is actually leaning outward. Besides, how would it end up leaning southward after allegedly sustaining impact from a northeast-traveling object as massive as a 125,000-pound Boeing?
Careful examination of available evidence will show that Column 18 was damaged and shifted southward only after the building collapsed. In fact, within the LPI paper, their Fig. 9 unequivocally shows Column 18 undamaged and pristinely straight. It has endured no kinetic impact at the location alluded to in LPI Figure 5. This inconsistency means that the damage to Column 18 occurred after the explosive event that removed the first-floor facade. This also means that any force impacting the E-Ring wall could not have been a discrete linear object spanning the width of those columns, i.e., the wing of a 757. As indicated by the yellow arrow overlaid above in my Fig. 7, part of Column 20 broke away further along its axis, consistent with a pressure wave. A pile of façade rubble is seen laying on the ground between columns 18 and 19 in Fig. 8 below.
Rebuttal to ‘Damage to Center of Impact’
LPI’s “Damage to Center of Impact” portion is perhaps the most peculiar of all. It was CNN’s Jamie McIntyre who first questioned the official narrative. On the day of 9/11, he said on live television, “There’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”
Overlooking McIntyre’s statement, the LPI authors instead mischaracterize Thierry Meyssan’s work, claiming that Meyssan purported the second-story aperture was the extent of the damage. Yet my copy of Meyssan’s 9/11: The Big Lie (L’Effroyable imposture) says that the first ring of the building was destroyed, and it shows the photos shown in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 below.
From here, LPI’s problematic arguments persist. We are shown a drawing of a 757 sliding into the first floor on a level trajectory. This does not correlate with the suggestion that a 757 was banking when it impacted. An illustration of a banking aircraft whose engine did not impact the slab shows the top of the fuselage elevated by a few additional feet into the second floor (see Fig. 11 below).
Now note that in the images below (Figs. 12–14), the second-floor column is virtually intact. It certainly hasn’t been transected by over 155 feet and 100,000+ pounds of aircraft allegedly travelling at more than 500 mph. Yet the panels on either side of Column 14 and the slab behind it appear blown away.
Rebuttal to ‘Other obstructions’ (tree, retaining wall, generator, etc.)
The LPI “Other Obstructions” section also contains internally inconsistent and inaccurate claims. In Fig. 13, the LPI authors claim the height of the tree stump matches the right-wing spar. Please review Fig. 11 to observe just how low the left engine is at even a modest bank. It is well below the spar and therefore would have decimated the slab if the right-wing spar had hit the tree at that height. The authors seem to have forgotten the implications of where the left engine would be, if indeed the right wing severed the tree. They assert that the top of the tree was torn off. An explosive pressure wave could have accomplished exactly that.
We should consider that the angular nature of an impact would have deflected the large tree toward the east. An explosive directional charge to remove the tree could also move it about. In Fig. 16 below, the photo shows a large portion of a tree trunk that had been cut by a saw in several places. Also, refer back to Fig. 3 to see a substantial portion of a tree with a saw cut; that photo was taken immediately after the event. So, the tree actually appears to have been cut into pieces with a saw, with those cuts occurring before the event.
The argument that a 155-foot airplane traveling at many hundreds of miles per hour and weighing over 100,000 pounds would not have the impulse to move the tree into the building is implausible. And to think that its massive fuselage would shed only pieces of its logo and leave them scattered like shrapnel on the northern lawn is equally unlikely. A 9/11 researcher named Adam Ruff pointed out that a large percentage of the scrap aluminum bore “American Airlines” livery, relative to the very small percentage of actual airline fuselage that has lettering on it. Statistically, this makes it reasonable to infer that the same elements who may have carried out the deception also intentionally deposited those recognizable aluminum scraps on the lawn. Fig. 17 below shows a Pentagon simulation from late 2000, in which planners simulated a large airline crash at the building and deposited pieces of simulated wreckage in their model.
Regarding the alignment of the retaining wall and the generator, those have long been interesting features of the events of that day. If bad actors were to simulate the crash of a large plane into the Pentagon—a crash directly over what is arguably the most sensitive data cable on Earth—they would need to differentiate the explosive scene from other forms of deflagration. Strategically placing props such as light poles and a damaged trailer along a feigned linear trajectory would achieve their objective.
The retaining wall and trailer are about 60 feet apart. A 757’s engine centers are about 43 feet apart. A 52˚ approach angle places the vectored impact points just about where the wall and the trailer were damaged. But was that damage caused by a 757 or by a deceptive team with a tape measure and a devious scheme?
Note that the retaining wall appears broken, with fracture patterns that are incongruent with the alleged angle of approach. Note, too, that the ground around the fractured wall is pristine, with no gouges. Then note that an extreme bank would place the distal aspect of the left wing into the steam vault or into the ground. Finally, note that, for any large aircraft, a left bank also means a left turn. Yet LPI purports the trajectory of an impacting aircraft was straight and level.
On the right side of this scene, we find a damaged generator trailer and damaged fence. The generator trailer is very far to the south relative to the requisite collision point of 43-foot-spaced engines, as shown in Figs. 20 and 21 below.
Most of the released photographs from the crime scene make it appear there is a cookie-cutter engine gouge carved out of the top of the generator trailer, such as that shown in Fig. 22 below.
However, the image in Fig. 23 below, taken from the lawn and showing the full side, reveals the damage to the generator was very long and linear. Without more information, interpreting such an image would be challenging.
Fortunately, we can examine screen shots from film footage released under the Freedom of Information Privacy Act (FOIPA). In those screen shots, such as found in Fig. 24 and Fig. 25 below, we can see that there is much more going on than LPI describes. It looks as though the generator has exploded. The margins of the alleged impact side are curled and corrosively eaten away, as if from extreme heat and not from an impact made by an object. Portions of the generator closest to the building are completely blown away, and they are not in line with the light pole path vector.
Though speculating as to what may have caused this corrosive scene is beyond the scope of this response paper, one thing is clear: to assume the generator trailer was impacted by a Boeing 757’s RB211 engine is premature. The hypothetical presence of a 500-mph, banking 757 is not congruent with the remnant physical evidence or with the scene itself. Since the existence of an undamaged Column 18 rules out impact with a large fixed wing, we may surmise that something other than a 757 damaged the generator trailer.
To explain the leftward roll required for a 757 to have hit both the retaining wall and the generator trailer, LPI asserts that impact with the trailer induced both a leftward roll and a clockwise yaw. But consider the difference in impulse from a stationary 30,000-pound generator and a 757 weighing over 100,000 pounds and flying at 500+ mph. By what mechanism would the aircraft drop to the left? And could it do so within only 30 feet or so—the approximate distance it would take to travel between the front of the generator trailer and the retaining wall—when going at that speed? The estimated 5 to 10 ft drop would conservatively have to occur within 0.04 seconds.
Considering the conjecture of LPI’s proposed yaw, is that really what we observed in the 2001 photos? I submit that a few broken pieces of cladding around Column 12 are not sympathetic with a multi-ton impact of the aft of a jet at that speed. Additionally, we observe from aircraft crash scenes all over the world that the wings and tails are easily cleaved. So, to suggest that the reinforced tail or wings could somehow be “pulled in” around concrete floors and columns is not tenable.
The damage pattern to the generator fence (see Fig. 22) is intriguing, as it clearly looks pushed directly toward the building. Fig. 26 shows that the fence post is bent cleanly at the ground, as might happen if a truck were to drive over it—perhaps before the explosive event occurred. Whenever it happened, the damage to the fence is consistent with a large ground vehicle impact, like the truck shown in Fig. 27.
The view of the lawn by potential witnesses was largely concealed by the topography. If criminals controlled the scene before the attack and pre-selected a caravan of traffic to occupy the bridge, many things could have transpired on the lawn before unwanted witnesses arrived. True, we cannot be certain what knocked that fence down, but neither can the LPI authors. However, we can say that a hypothetical vehicular run-in with the fence could also explain why the generator was knocked so far out of alignment.
One need only look at World Trade Center 7’s failure to come down concurrently with WTC 1 to see that explosive plans can fizzle and must be amended on the fly. I suspect it was not the intention of the Pentagon perpetrators to leave intact columns in irreconcilable locations (see columns 9, 14, 15, 16, and 18 in Fig. 28 below).
Though the LPI authors have not made their case, they ask that claims of “trickery” be proved. I ask the same. However, the only way to prove anything is to accurately assess all the information at hand. Ignoring or misinterpreting certain facts and photos may introduce logical fallacies.
Ideally, after all the evidence has been analyzed, we should be left with a credible, coherent, cohesive subset of information upon which to base our conclusions. The information accepted and introduced by the LPI authors is not that subset.
For instance, when they introduce the notion of a Pentagon flyover at the end of their paper, they present readers with a false dichotomy. A plane could have overflown the building while bombs went off inside and/or while a kinetic strike occurred from some other vector.
Too many credible eyewitness testimonies, including Pentagon police Sgt. William Lagasse and Sgt. Chadwick Brooks, do not reconcile with the assertion that AA77 hit the building along the light pole and generator path. The alternative flight pattern these numerous eyewitnesses vouch for is evidence of trickery and flyover by simple syllogism, for a large plane could not fly to the north and then bank to achieve the damage that was done inside and outside the building.
Even the US government’s own data from FOIA-released Air Force RADAR Evaluation Squadron (RADES) information places the transponder of the target to the north of the bridge, and therefore not in alignment with the ASCE/LPI trajectory. See Fig. 29 below.
Conclusion
When information about any feature of an event categorically rules out claims that would otherwise follow from that feature, then it is time to abandon those claims.
The blown-out fence at the north end of the opening refutes the claim that a large airplane wing transcended that space. The cleanly cut tree trunk found immediately after the explosive event refutes the belief that a plane ripped through the trunk. The columns that were deformed directly eastward, instead of to the northeast, refute the conclusion that impact from an object traveling to the northeast caused their damage. After the explosive event, but before collapse, the columns remaining in the E-Ring perimeter refute the narrative that over a hundred thousand pounds of airliner impacted the E-Ring wall. Column 18’s pristine condition is particularly incompatible with LPI’s hypothesis. It cannot be the case that a large aircraft of any type hit the building along the purported trajectory and left Column 18 intact. The US government’s very own RADES data refutes the notion that a large aircraft traveled over the bridge, through the generator, and into the building, as LPI suggests it did. These data points alone falsify LPI’s hypothesis.
Granted, we may never be able to prove exactly what happened that day. But by at least proving what could not have happened, we get a step closer to the truth. Given the incongruities between LPI’s preliminary conclusion and the verifiable data at hand, this author suggests researchers study all sources of primary evidence and all witness interviews before making any definitive determinations or declarations.
References
- https://archive.org/details/FAA_RADES_NORAD_FOIA_Data
- https://archive.org/details/FBI_FOIPA_1141552_PENTAGON_WRECKAGE
- https://archive.org/download/NTSB_AAL-77_UAL-93
- https://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/official-interviews
- Brookman, Ronald H. (2012) ‘A Discussion of ‘Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse’ Journal of 9/11 Studies, October 2012.
- Cole, John. (2023) ‘Discussion of “Spontaneous Collapse Mechanism of World Trade Center Twin Towers and Progressive Collapse in General” by Jia-Liang Le and Zdeněk P. Bažant’ Journal of 9/11 Studies, July 2023.
- Hulsey, J. L., Quan, Z., & Xiao, F. (2019). A structural reevaluation of the collapse of World Trade Center 7. Institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks. https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
- Mlakar, Paul E., et al. “The Pentagon building performance report.” American Society of Civil Engineers, 2003. https://ascelibrary.org/action/showBook?doi=10.1061/9780784406380
- Němec, I., Trcala, M., Vala, J., & Vaněčková, A. (2018). A contribution to analysis of collapse of high-rise building inspired by the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2: Derivation of simple formulas for collapse upper speed and acceleration. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 6(12), 2666-2680.
- Szuladzinski, Gregory et al. (2013). ‘Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis’ International Journal of Protective Structures, June 2013.
