Attack Plane Was An El Al Lookalike
Flights 77 and 1862 both had "vanishing" wings
Joe Vialls, May 2002
|El Al Flight 1862, Amsterdam|
|El Al Flight 1862, Amsterdam||American Airlines Flight 77, Pentagon|
Many weeks ago I wrote a report designed to rebut arcane French
suggestions that American Airlines Flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon
on September 11, 2001. According to the French, the building was
allegedly hit either by a much smaller aircraft, or perhaps by a bomb
planted inside the Pentagon by its own ”evil” occupants, the United
Though I was not surprised by such extraordinary suggestions from a bunch of wine swilling Parisians, I was certainly surprised by the immediate and rampant American response. Within days, hundreds of US bulletin boards and web sites were awash with similar claims. It was an incredibly successful “divide and rule” exercise that pitted American against American, and civilian against soldier. Needless to say, the French were delighted.
The apparent problem was quite simple. American Airlines Flight 77 was a Boeing 757 twin-jet with a wingspan of 124 feet, but the hole in the Pentagon was less than 124 feet across. Conspiracy heaven! Obviously then, according to those determined to undermine American national security, the attack aircraft was a remotely-controlled F-16 fighter or Martell missile, almost certainly guided to its American military target by a crazed four-star American general buried deep inside Cheyenne Mountain at NORAD headquarters.
My original report sought to stem this rising tide of disinformation by using the personal example of a British Mach 2 Lightning fighter with a wingspan of 35 feet, which vanished completely into a hole in the ground with a diameter of only 22 feet. Unfortunately I could not prove this with a photo because the 400 mph Lightning crash occurred at the height of the Cold War, and anyone [including me] caught taking happy snaps of the impact crater with a Brownie box camera, would probably still be locked up in the Tower of London today.
What I should have done instead, was conduct a simple Internet search for photographs of civil equivalents of this exact phenomena where a big plane vanishes into a small hole. So should the French… Not far north of the wine-swilling Parisians lies the elegant Dutch city of Amsterdam, whose residents had a terrible shock at 6:35 PM on October 4, 1992. Henk Prijt in the suburb of Bijlmer put it this way:
“We were in the living room, watching the sports program on television, like so many others in our neighborhood did that Sunday evening. It was a few minutes after sunset when I noticed an airplane flying low. Low-flying airliners are nothing special here since we live near Schiphol and the route over our heads is one of the busiest for Amsterdam airport.
“But this particular plane did something strange: it flew in the wrong direction. I didn't pay much attention and it flew out of my sight. Shortly after, however, there it was again, coming right at us as we stared out of the window. My son yelled and dashed for the back of the house. As he looked out the door he saw something no one should ever have to see: the huge plane plunging into the next block, some 250 meters to the east of our building.”
What Henk Prijt Junior saw was Israeli El Al Flight 1862, a massive 747 Jumbo freighter with a wingspan of 212 feet, crashing horizontally into the apartment block. At the point of impact in Bijlmer, El Al Flight 1862 weighed 680,000 pounds, roughly three times the gross weight of American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon
Shortly after take-off from Amsterdam for Tel Aviv, the Israeli jumbo lost both starboard [right side] engine pods, and was attempting to return for an emergency landing on Schipol Airport’s runway 27. We know from the official accident reports that although now fatally under powered, El Al Flight 1862 remained under control while descending into the building, and thus was horizontally orientated at the point of impact.
“At 17.27:30, as the aircraft was climbing through 6500ft, the no.3 engine and pylon separated from the wing in an outward and rearward movement, colliding with the no.4 engine causing this engine and pylon to separate as well. An emergency was declared and the crew acknowledged their intention to return to Schiphol Airport and reported that they had a no.3 engine failure and a loss of engine thrust of both no.3 and 4 engine.
“At 17.28.57 the Amsterdam Radar controller informed the crew that runway 06 was in use with a 040 deg / 21kts wind. The crew however requested runway 27 for landing. A straight in approach to runway 27 was not possible because of airplane altitude (5000ft) and distance to the runway (7mls). The Amsterdam Arrival controller then instructed the crew to turn right heading 360deg and descend to 2000ft. During this descending turn the El Al crew reported that the no.3 and 4 engine were out and that they were having flap problems.
“Final clearance was given to turn right heading 270 to intercept the final approach course. When it became apparent that the aircraft was going to overshoot the localizer, the controller informed the crew accordingly and directed them to turn to heading 290 to try and intercept the final approach path again.
“A further instruction was given a 310 heading and descent clearance for 1500ft. These instructions were acknowledged and the crew added that they were experiencing control problems now as well. While reducing speed for the final approach, control was lost and the aircraft crashed into an apartment building in the Bijlmer suburb of Amsterdam.”
Though the photos at the top of this page are good enough to illustrate the points I intend to make, larger ones would have been much better. Unfortunately, someone seems to have done a good job of “scrubbing” the Internet of these images. Even the British BBC had managed to “accidentally” break the links to its better photographs of the crash site. Bearing in mind what was on board the El Al plane, and its final destination, this is hardly surprising.
Nestled amongst the mostly innocuous cargo on board the jumbo was 50 GALLONS of dimethyl methylphosphonate, intended for Sarin nerve gas production at the Jewish Chemical and Biological Weapons Factory in Nes Ziona, near Tel Aviv. Despite frantic attempts to cover up this catastrophe, which today affects the health of more than 600 Dutch citizens, word finally leaked out – as indeed had the dimethyl methylphosphonate. The Times of London noted:
"Israel has repeatedly accused Arab and Islamic countries hostile to it of manufacturing such weapons on a large scale, but has never admitted possessing biological or chemical weapons, just as it has never owned up to a nuclear capability, although it is an open secret that the country has at least 200 nuclear warheads” … “the shadowy biological institute situated in the growing suburban community of Nes Ziona, is believed by many foreign diplomats to be one of the most advanced germ warfare institutions in the Middle East."
Israel’s covert production of American-supplied weapons of mass destruction, interesting though it may be, has little to do with explaining how large aircraft can be fitted into small holes, so we’d better get back to the subject in hand.
Take a close look at the Bijlmer photographs and the Pentagon graphic,
because we are about to take a short though very simple crash course in
the dynamics of flight. Not for us the overly complicated scientific
equations, and accredited academic “experts” who manage to
confuse everyone apart from their own students.
In the simplest of terms and purely for background information, the energy produced by any object hitting another object, is the product of the first object’s mass [weight] multiplied by its velocity [speed]. In these terms Flight 77 had a mass of 240,000 pounds when it hit the Pentagon at +/- 450 mph, and Flight 1862 had a mass of about 680,000 pounds when it hit the Bijlmer apartment block at 255 mph. Both aircraft therefore produced colossal energy on contact with targets constructed from very similar materials, i.e. concrete.
A high proportion of the mass in any aircraft is contained within its fuselage, which presents a very small cross section at the point of impact, relative to the thin but very wide and fragile wings. Thus in both cases the high mass and low cross section caused Flight 77 and Flight 1862’s fuselages to punch holes deep into and through the concrete targets.
The wings are a different matter. By design the wings are immensely strong but also very brittle, and in both these cases swept back for aerodynamic efficiency. Put simply they cannot compete with the speed [velocity] of penetration of the fuselage [mass], and simply snap off on impact. This is an aeronautical reality that can be observed in thousands of assorted crash photographs.
The problem when an aircraft hits a flat building is that, although the wings snap off, they still have enormous inertia and will continue moving forward if at all possible. With swept wing aircraft, the tendency is for the angled wings to collapse back along the sides of the fuselage section, very much in the manner of swing-wing aircraft such as the General Dynamics F111 and Panavia Tornado.
Now think about this very carefully, because these events are happening at hundreds of miles per hour – hardly the ideal medium for visual observation. Because both aircraft have swept wings, the first part of the wing to hit the target is the wing root at the inner front of the wing, considerably further forward than the wingtip.
In the first microsecond of impact the front of the swept wing starts to fold back as it collapses, and perhaps in the next two or three microseconds the wings are crushed inwards and backwards to less than half the original wingspan. This is proved beyond any doubt by the pictures of the Bijlmer crash site shown above. El Al Flight 1862, a Boeing 747-200, had a wiingspan of 212 feet, is known to have crashed with its wings level, but the gap in the tower block is only half that wide.
Next we have the vexed question of aircraft debris as understood by the
public, i.e. identifiable parts of the aircraft that can be visually
matched to an aircraft schematic diagram, or even mechanical parts that
can be visually matched to items in the manufacturer’s handbook. Look
at the Bijlmer crash site again.
Can you see any large or even small wing sections? Can you see engines, or perhaps part of the tail assembly? In fact, can any of you positively identify any single aircraft bolt, or human body part belonging to El Al Flight 1862?
No, absolutely not, because the dynamics of the crash and the fire that followed immediately afterwards, fragmented and burned more than 300 tons of aircraft completely beyond recognition. The only way we can be sure that the photographs show us the real crash site of El Al Flight 1862 is to rely on air traffic control records, eyewitnesses at the scene, and the multiple media reports that followed.
It must be said that the French only showed American viewers the photographs it wanted them to see – a known and much abused media trick. The more comprehensive photographs circulated by the Pentagon shortly after the crash show conclusively that the aircraft penetrated three of the Pentagon “rings”, i.e. rings of office blocks circling the center gardens, each with its own “garden” space in-between. Such a structure is as difficult to penetrate by an aircraft, as a bullet fired through individual separated baffle plates on a firing range.
I have neither the Cray supercomputer nor the time needed to do exact calculations, but I can assure you that the “object” which hit the Pentagon was of enormous weight travelling at very high velocity. In fact, it was American Airlines Flight 77.
The only thing that allowed the French to put up this widespread myth in the first place, was the lack of a second aircraft directed at the Pentagon, which would certainly have been recorded by media cameras. The planners of the attack probably thought this unnecessary, because Flight 77 appears to have been largely a decoy.
Insofar as it is possible for any analyst to have an opinion, it is my opinion that the only real attack [i.e. with a strategic motive and result] was the very public attack on the World Trade Center itself, home of the established financial order within the United States, otherwise known to conspiracy buffs and George Bush Senior as the “New World Order”.
There was no logical or aeronautical reason for the long time interval between the first strike of the WTC North Tower, and the second strike on the WTC South Tower. Given their known take off times, both aircraft could easily have been used in synchronized back-to-back sneak attacks only seconds apart, not unlike those on Pearl Harbor. In fact, from an air defense perspective, this would have been the most sensible course of action.
The only viable reason to divert and delay United Flight 175 for so long, was to allow sufficient time for every network camera in New York to be focused on the twin towers. Once the sickening footage of Flight 175’s attack run on the WTC South Tower had been seen in its raw form by the public, denial would be impossible for the Administration. Without this footage, no doubt the creative establishment media would have reported a “mid-air collision” between two commercial airliners, which then “accidentally” ploughed into the twin towers. In other words, even now you would still not know what really happened.
The calculated delay of Flight 175 prevented any such administration or media illusion. Rather than being in control of the news, just for once someone else was deliberately controlling the media networks from outside. Every American citizen was obliged to watch the attack in raw form dozens and dozens of times, but it was left up to each individual citizen to work out why the attack was launched in the first place.
First option would be to believe the false line peddled by the politicians and the establishment media, i.e. that all Americans had been attacked and needed to respond collectively. Initially most people did this, grabbing the nearest American flag they could find, and volunteering to go kill someone [anyone] in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or anywhere.
The second option took far more time to sink in, but nowadays gains more currency and thus believers every hour of every day, as indeed it should, because it is the only sensible analysis of what was in reality a highly targeted attack. Americans across the continent were not the targets of this attack, but only the World Trade Center, home of the power elite who in both essence and reality controlled America and half of the known world. At a single stroke the attack inverted the power structure, throwing banks and the stock markets into a slow but steady decline.
The resulting “War on Terror” is the last pathetic gasp of a bunch of ashen-faced losers in New York and Washington DC, trying desperately to hang onto the reins of power before the American people take all power away from them permanently, which now seems inevitable in the not too distant future. If I was still living in America, I think I'd be sharpening the tines on my pitchfork.
Electronic Hijack Mother of All Lies War in Palestine Vialls Home
author is a former member of the Society of Licenced
Aeronautical Engineers and Technologists, London
This report may be copied unedited onto other websites
in the interests of public safety.