|
It
might be possible to plot a credible flight path between these obstacles, but it
would have to be very specific, and even if it avoided the major obstacles
mentioned, one would think that a very specific swathe 500 - 600 yards long, of
poles and trees, matching this path would have to been knocked over, easily
discernible from aerial photos. No such obvious swathe exists. And you would
then have to disregard all eyewitnesses that suggested a different flight path,
Including Timmerman, Walter and Munsey, three often held up as proof of the
official story. (Although they all contradict each other anyway, as well as
Walter contradicting himself) But this complication is unnecessary if we reduce
the distance of the van to 15 ft. If we assert that he underestimated the
distance of the plane by 50% and overestimated the distance of the van by 30%,
it’s unrealistic, but possible. 2 seconds gives a fraction of an instant to
react, time to yell something, and time to get close to the 15ft sprint. The
first step is the slowest because of the need to turn and push off and more
ground can be covered in the following second. But
there is a nagging problem. The report strongly implies that Wallace saw it
first and alerted Skipper to it. If this is the case, we really have to add
another 2 seconds, to do this and have both men take off. Did Skipper “just
happen to see it” at exactly the same time? Is he also in the habit of walking
with his head down? ( We are talking about delays of 1/4 second as being
critical ) or did he see it a bit before Wallace, and Wallace didn’t realize
this? Maybe. Or perhaps they both saw it immediately it cleared the horizon.
Where
in this account does Wallace give any indication as to what kind of plane it
was? We don’t expect him to say AA 757, but was it large or small, civilian or
military? The reference to the alleged 757 was the creation of the writer,
inserted into the middle of Wallace’s story, giving the subconscious impression
to the not fully critical reader that Wallace himself had described it as such.
As was common in reports on this issue, the alleged witness simply said ‘the
plane”, and the writer of the story added the assumption that it was a 757, in
such a way that the careless reader could easily gain the general impression
that the witness had actually said this. Any
suggestion that Wallace told the writer that it was a large plane, and that the
writer simply didn’t quote him on this, is pure speculation. But even if we want
to indulge in such speculation, the report then becomes difficult to take
seriously, if we add extra time for Wallace to register something about what
kind of plane it was. The scenario that I’ve created to try to make the account
plausible is postulating extraordinarily quick reaction times and giving the
benefit of the doubt in relation to the added complication of whether both men
saw it at the same instant. One has to factor in becoming aware of the danger,
yelling out, and an instant smart decision to run straight for the van. Some
people might just freeze in shock in this situation and not react at all within
2 seconds. Wallace’s reported reactions are possible, but unusually sharp. In
this situation, someone is unlikely to take in the added detail of the
approximate size of the plane. Whether it was a small military jet or a large
passenger jet, either would look big and menacing in that shocked instant of
realization of what was happening. We’re postulating an immediate turn and
sprint, on registering the situation. We’ve already twisted all the other
dubious factors in this report to their limits, to try to keep it plausible. So
the unsubstantiated assumption that Wallace told the writer it was a large
passenger jet, but just wasn’t quoted as such, forces us to add at least another
hundred yards to the plane’s distance, which means that’s it’s now back into the
region where the 25 ft height starts to create further complications. The
plausibility of the report can be best maintained by giving Wallace no time at
all to take in anything about what kind of plane it was. The reference to the
757 is invention by the writer based on a preconceived
conclusion. I’m
uncomfortable with how much I’ve had to twist this report to try to keep it
credible. I suspect that it may be a fabrication, or at least a wild
embellishment. But it’s possible that someone named Allan Wallace might have
experienced something like this. If so, all it tells us is what we already know
- that something hit the Pentagon and caused an explosion. Any assertion that
this represents an eyewitness account supporting the 757 theory is without
justification, although a tentative case could be made to suggest that the noise
factor might favour the small plane theory. Any web author who presents this
account as evidence for the official story is either dishonest, or failing to
critically think through the report and deconstruct it for real
meaning. If
you read my eyewitness article, you’ll see that the illusion that “hundreds of
people identified the plane ne” has been to a large extent, created by the
unjustified juxtaposition of predetermined conclusions onto reports that really
don’t tell us anything at all, like this one. Speculation
to be argued back and forth, that a certain person may or may not have reported
it as a large plane would be relevant if the physical evidence demonstrated that
such a scenario was possible. It would be relevant in the event of a flyby
rather than a crash. But in the case of the overwhelming physical, mathematical
and scientific evidence that it was totally impossible, reports like this are
worthless to the argument of what kind of plane or missile it
was. In
my previous article, I examined a number of reports which were exposed as
outright fabrications. In the cases of Washington, McGraw and Timmerman, it was
because internal contradictions exposed their reports as impossible to believe.
In the case of Winslow, it was because an investigation into the media trail of
how the report originated, indicated strongly that no such report was ever made,
and that even if it was, it originated from third hand hearsay. In the case of
Liebner, it was shown quite conclusively that Leibner never actually made the
statement which you see in press reports and on websites, and in fact was never
even interviewed. Since I wrote the article, another fabrication of a slightly
different style has emerged, and I’m going to deconstruct this one in order to
demonstrate the desperate measures that have been used to try sell this
outrageous story. http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=28
(undated) [[
Statement from Penny Elgas
In
that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything
play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my
car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the
heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front
of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about
4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the
end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other
wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American
Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember
thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at
that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with
passengers. In
my adrenaline-filled state of mind, I was overcome by my visual senses. The day
had started out beautiful and sunny and I had driven to work with my car's
sunroof open. I believe that I may have also had one or more car windows open
because the traffic wasn't moving anyway. At the second that I saw the plane, my
visual senses took over completely and I did not hear or feel anything -- not
the roar of the plane, or wind force, or impact sounds. The
plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror
as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point
where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I
saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It
appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and
it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the
rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring
started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the
right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings
crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over
again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring.
At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an
explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here
that I closed my eyes for a moment and when I looked back, the entire area was
awash in thick black smoke... I
gingerly picked up the piece and carried it into the house. As I entered the
kitchen, I heard the radio announcer on WMAL state that it was an American
Airlines flight and I thought to myself, "I knew that." But then the announcer
said that is was Flight number 77 and he stated the number of passengers and
crew and it hit me hard that the planes had been full of innocent victims. The
radio announcer said that they were taking calls from people who had a personal
experience to share. I dialed the station. I remember that I told them that I
was "Penny from Springfield" and that I had a piece of the plane. The next thing
I knew, I was on the air and Chris Core said "Penny from Springfield, What did
you see?" I don't remember any of the rest of our conversation and coworkers who
heard it said it was somewhat incoherent. The only thing that I remember is that
at the end, Chris Core said, "How weird is that?" And I remember thinking that
his comment didn't make me feel any better. ]] Before
pulling it apart, lets note that it's undated and unverified. It appears to have
emerged about a year after the incident. Anybody can turn up a year later with a
privately written statement and say whatever they like. So the verification
standards are not acceptable. Let’s
begin with the entry of the plane into the building. This report clearly
indicates that the plane flew into the building with wings close to parallel and
that both wings entered the building. I think I am on good scientific ground
when I state that a solid 125 ft object cannot pass through another solid object
without leaving a 125 ft hole. It doesn’t matter how many eye witnesses might
allege that they saw such a thing happen - it didn’t. Anyone who alleges that
they saw such a thing is either lying or deluded to the point of insanity - or
else they saw a smaller plane, or a very sophisticated hologram or some kind of
highly advanced, secret matter teleportation technology. If it was a plane small
enough to fit into the hole, painted in AA colours, then the witness could be
telling the truth. The witness doesn’t actually say anything about the size of
the plane, so it’s possible that she could have seen this, and not thought it
through when later told that it was AA 77. Either way, this report is either a
lie or a report of something much smaller than a 757, painted in AA colours.
[[
I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the
slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. ]] If
she had a clear view of 100 yards out of each window, then she would have first
seen the plane when it was about 100 yards from her car. If you check the
location of Columbia Pike where said the plane was when she first saw it, and
Washington Boulevard, which would appear to be the road that she was on, then it
fits with such an assumption. It was allegedly coming straight towards her. The
flying time from that point, to being directly over the road is about 1/2
second. The plane is a little over 50 yards long. It takes about 1/4 second to
fly it’s own length. It allegedly discernibly changed it’s direction in the time
that it took to fly twice it’s own length -from one quarter second increment to
the next - from one plane length to the next. Even if that’s physically
possible, the human eye could not pick this up. I’ve checked this speed on the
metronome. If you say the words “too fast” at a quick pace, it’s approximately
the time of the word “too”. To suggest that any change in direction could be
detected in this time would be to assert that the plane “jumped” like a film
that’s had some frames cut out. Not possible. [[
I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It
appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and
it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the
rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring
started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the
right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings
crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over
again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring.
At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an
explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building.
]] This
indicates that the plane sliced through the building quite easily. If it’s
initial speed was 400 mph, then 300 mph seems a reasonable estimate of it’s
passage through the wall. At 440 ft per second., the whole plane would have
taken 350 milliseconds to pass through. Analyse the smoke ring cycles in the
first half of the penetration. There were two complete smoke rings in the time
of about 1/2 the penetration of the plane which is about 175 ms. 87 ms per smoke
ring cycle. Each cycle was divided into 3 distinctly visible stages. The
appearance of the smoke at the top of the fuselage, the coiling around to cross
over at the bottom, and the coiling back up to cross again at the top. About 29
ms per section. This is roughly equivalent to 1 video or film frame. Video or
film runs at speeds between 24 and 30 frames per second, depending upon the
format. About 30 to 40 ms per frame. The whole idea of this speed is that the
human eye can’t distinguish between one frame and the next, making the motion
appear continuous and seamless. Except for Penny Elgas, who has the miraculous
ability to distinguish one frame from another. Watching videos must be a real
drag for her, because she can see all the little tricks they do with stunt work
and other cutting techniques. On the brighter side, she’ll never be short of a
job as a referee or lineswoman for the international tennis circuit. They should
be lining up at her door after this report. Then another three part series. The
wings, the explosion, the tail. About 27 ms - 1 frame each. I don’t care how
much someone is in slow motion mode - the human eye and brain in combination
simply cannot register distinctly different images and event sequences at this
pace. In all, 10 distinct events have been described. 3 sections of smoke ring
times 2, the beginning of the fire, the entry of the wings, the explosion, the
entry of the tail. An average of 35 ms per image - 10 distinct images in 10
frames Again, using the “too fast” comparison, the entire entry of the plane
would take about as much time as the word ‘fast”. As another comparison, try
repeatedly clapping your hands as fast as you can from a distance of about 2 ft
between the hands, and see how blurred the movement is. Each clap is about the
total time that the plane took to enter the building - and you only get one shot
at seeing it. Now
imagine registering 10 clear separate images, in smooth sequence within each
blurred handclap, registering details such as the thickness of the smoke, and
the crossover of the rings. People
in dangerous situations can get adrenalin bursts which can trigger extraordinary
feats of strength. When someone who’s experienced this situation says that they
lifted the side of an overturned car to free their trapped partner, we are
inclined to believe it. But if they say that they jumped over a 100 ft fence
with the adrenalin burst, we know that they have crossed the line. This account
is the visual equivalent of that 100 ft fence jump. It’s physiologically
impossible. She
says that after the explosion, the tail continued to “slip" into the building.
Hold on a moment - this is the explosion which is disintegrating the plane to
nothing - blowing outwards in all directions, but the tail is continuing to slip
serenely into it at the same time as being cremated by it? Even Hollywood
doesn’t bother with this illusion in explosion scenes, because they know it’s
the exact opposite of what happens. When something is travelling forward into a
blast, it gets pushed backwards by the force. Of course, if it has strong
momentum, the two will counteract each other. But it doesn’t just keep
travelling at the same speed into the point of the blast, at the same time as
being vaporized by it, like being fed into a furnace on a conveyer belt. It
wouldn’t matter how many eyewitnesses claimed to see this happen - it
didn’t. At
the same time that the tail slipped serenely into this all consuming blast,
without missing a beat, a fragment of it was blown 100 yards back the other way,
to land in her car. Penny really should be relating this story at physics
conferences around the world. I’m sure they’ll be busy rewriting the rules of
how the universe works after verifying this. Now
the claim that she was able to see the windows and colour stripes on the plane.
In total she probably saw the plane for about 1 second. Imagine yourself stopped
at an intersection, and a car goes past at 150 mph. That’s
only some of the problem. Elgas says that at the time of initial sighting, the
plane was headed straight towards her. She can’t have got a good view of the
stripes and windows from front on, in the first 1/4 second. Then it was banking
away a little and was directly over the road, with the near wing banked up a
little, so that she was looking up at the underside of the wing. What could she
see ? Go back to those photos of 757s and have a look at the way they’re built.
The wing at the point where it joins the fuselage is just on the lower stripe,
and would obscure a very significant section of the stripes and windows from
this angle. The engine juts out significantly forward of the wing. Very little
of the fuselage would be visible from this angle, during this 1/4 second window
of opportunity. As the wing extends out further, it gets narrower, but the
closer perspective increases it’s effective width in her vision. I’m not saying
that the all of the stripes and windows were completely obscured for the whole
sighting, but there would be a ridiculously short window of opportunity to catch
any glimpse, as the plane turned from it’s front on view, to it’s wing obscured
view. Then it would have been past her, with the 15 ft tail fin , the closest
part of the plane, banked slightly, to show her the underside, and obscuring a
significant amount of any parting glimpse she might have got. The phones will be
running hot from the tennis association!! |