Cheryl,
     
      In your "Smoking Gun 4" article, you speculate about the possibility that the Pentagon plane might have exploded before impact, based on the seismic signals. I have seen the forensic analyses of only the WTC collapse signals, and not the others, but from basic principles, please consider these differences:

      The WTC seismic signals were from the two collapses -- well-coupled, vertical sources of tremendous mass. The source of the seismic signals was not from the plane impacts or explosions -- mostly horizontal impacts that were well-damped by the building structures. A near-vertical airplane impact would also couple a lot of energy into the ground, though nowhere near as much as the WTC collapses. At the Pentagon, by contrast, the (presumed, hypothetical?) impact was nearly horizontal, thus being mostly absorbed again by the structure, leaving much less energy to couple into the ground.

      Thus, assuming seismic stations within a close enough distance to actually record whatever seismic signal there might be, you would expect a significant signal from the WTC, much less from Flt. 93, and almost none from the Pentagon. My conclusion, from my area of expertise, is that I don't think your item B.3 contributes anything to your argument.
      Having said that, I still enjoy your writing, and encourage you to keep asking these questions.

      Best regards,

      John

      Cheryl,

      In the process of debunking L'Effroyable Imposture, the Snopes site has put together some interesting information. In particular, it appears that the plane dissipated considerable energy glancing off the ground before impact. So in that sense, you are certainly correct: there could have been an explosion outside the building. The rest of the energy was dissipated in the structure, with much of it going to disintegrate the 24" outer (newly) reinforced concrete wall. At 350 mph, much of the mechanical energy should have been converted to heat in the pulverizing process, somewhat reducing the amount available for seismic waves.

      The WTC impacts had ML of 0.9 and 0.7, barely visible at Palisades, 34 km distant. The collapses were ML 2.1 and 2.3. (Won-Young Kim et al., EOS, 82, no. 47, Nov. 20, 2001, p. 565)

      Rather than reinvent a wheel here, I asked our forensics expert, Terry Wallace, if he'd looked into this. The closest records would have been from Georgetown, but they stopped operating year ago. The display signal at IRIS (AAAS building, New York Ave) comes from our Albuquerque station via Internet, as does the display at the USGS in Reston. I'm not sure what the closest digital station might be, but the possibilities include Ogdensburg, NJ; Lamont (Palisades) NY, State College, PA, and Blacksburg, VA. In other words, nothing as close as Palisades is to Manhattan for the WTC records.

      Now if you're looking for something to write about, how about denouncing Bush's (i.e. Rove's) latest global warming gambit: "OK, so it's real, already -- but we aren't going to do a damn thing about it!" (my paraphrase) They think they can score points and obfuscate the issue by claiming to have gone green, when their basic intentions haven't changed one whit.

      With best regards,

      John

      Terry C. Wallace
      Southern Arizona Seismic Observatory
      Dept. of Geosciences, UofArizona
      On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, John Derr wrote:
      Terry,

      Have you (or anyone else) looked for a seismic signal from the Pentagon crash Sept. 11? The supposed lack of same is beginning to figure in conspiracy theories, but I suspect it's simply a matter of no stations close enough to get analyzable data. From the WTC impacts, one might expect an ML of 0.7 or less.

      Please let me know if there's anything in progress, or if you have already found nothing and stopped there.

      Thanks --

      John
     
      john

      I looked pretty hard -- and to be honest I can't find any CONCLUSIVELY above the noise. I calculated an expected magnitude assuming that the impact was on the wall, not vertical (like UA flight), and got a magnitude of .8 The noise at all the stations (closest is 60 km aways) is above this.

      I have been deluged with conspiracy theorys since that fellow published his book.

      Terry

      Ruminations from the Raj
     
      Lady Seal:

      What I'm wondering is, if the plane supposedly captured on film by the Pentagon video camera is inall probability not ('in all probability not': that'sa twisted bit of speech, like a politician's way of saying 'impossible') the Boeing 757 but more likely some smaller, possibly military aircraft, then we have two planes in question: the passenger flight reportedby the news and airline company, and the mystery figther.'tis a conundrum. I'm not even playing Devil's Adovocate in the matter, more like devil's janitor. I,too, recall asking that morning, 'What about thePentagon?' The dearth of Pentagon images is laring,especially when contrasted to the flood of images ofWTC, even accopunting for the higher visibility of WTC and the fortuitous presence of a documentary film crew that morning in Manhattan.Both the Pentagon crash and the Pennsylvania crash are plagued by inconsistencies, although I've let most ofthe details wash from my mind (which is like a rusty sink trap).Those five roads make the Pentagon a much less photographable place than lower Manhattan. Icorresponded with a lady who works in DC; she confirmed for me that there was indeed at least A plane. (You recall, I'm sure, the flurry that followedthe initial release of the Pentagon vid cam footage.)

      She was incensed that anyone could 'believe such outrageous conspiracy theories'. I explained that from far away, things were muddled. She explained how the Pentagon is effectively trapped by a ring ofmoving traffic as well as somewhat obscured by the lay of the land. But, apparently, many people saw that plane, the one that performed the XX-wing fighter u-turn that only adroid could perform. I've not heard accounts of twoplanes, nor encountered comparative queries regardingdiscrepancies between different persons' accounts of the plane. SO I assume that there really was only one plane.

      The janitor wonders where the other plane -- the 757-- might be. SO mething feels dodgy alright. THe physics of the explosion and the absence of salvaged plane debris are spooky. The quality and quantity of images of the crash site all seem curiously skewed.The general pattern of delay, dysfunction, and obfuscation by the military, transportation, and intelligence agencies related to such an event speak for themselves, although what they are (not) saying is still unknown.But that plane puzzles me... the David Copperfield Effect. Its absence from the so far most logical pieces of the puzzle invites theories of exotic nature: did it fly to Guantanamo? I'm not being 'serious' in asking that question, merely suggesting by example what an awkwardly large piece would be missing from the puzzle if the plane that vaporized was NOT the 757 reportedly carrying 60-some passengers(who most certainly are not returned to their loved ones).THe Pentagon mish-mash has all the delicately wriggling enticement of a patented red herring -- but none of the logic. Why such mysterious anomaly? It certainly didn't distract from the WTC spectacle.But one thought does come to mind: if there were indeed human hijackers piloting or at least over-riding pilot controls of these planes, and if they weren't expecting to become protoplasmic vapor as part of their mission, then after the towers were struck, word could easily have gotten to them, and they may have decided that kamikaze crashing was not for them. At which point the coup artists would have had a problem... one which was handled more or less conventionally over Pennsylvania, which crash has enough eye witness anomalies and enough self-contradicting physics to make it a fairly safe conclusion that that flight was shot down, possibly destroyed, in mid air.

      There WAS a second,, low-flying plane reported in that case.ut with the Pentagon crash, how the possibly 'non-suicidal fanatics at its helm were disposed of is not quite so clear.The Penn crash left a plethora of debris, yet it too crashed into something hard enough: the planet. Why no debris at the Pentagon? YOur theory (or collation of theories) provides the best answer I've seen to that question, but does so by requiring there be two planes.Also, if I recall correctly, there were DNA verifications of some of the remains of the 757. Well, such reports would be MUCH easier to fabricate than to weave the web of collusive silence needed to vanish a 757 that perhaps DIDN'T crash into the Pentagon.But in the end we're chasing ghosts and spooks. The Empire is here and now and it is battling the Resistance seemingly everywhere, destroying planets(Afghanistan), inciting other planets (Pakistan & India) to destroy each other, turning most AMericans' minds and hearts into gibbering guava jelly......whether or not the Bad 'Uns are revealed or not orwhat, the populace needs empowering, so that more of them can behave sanely, generately, even happily. Even in a dying world, we're here to be happy and love one another, I believe.I think, though, that a rewarding approach to the 911 mysteries would be to approach it as a mystery/disaster novel. Given certain absolutes -- the data that one has -- what plot most fits the facts? Maybe there really ARE 60-some American citizens detained at Guantanamo. Maybe there really ARE an ample number of ruthless, brainwashed, soldier hypnodroids who killed and buried these people to bury incriminating evidence for the good of The Empire.Sounds insane, but people buy even crazier premises in movies. It's weird.
     
      ciao,

      raj

      Lady Seal
      :# 4 of your Smoking Gun had an exceptionally buff sheen, almost 'burnt' in some places, in fact. You did a lot of careful brainwork on that piece and it shows. I considered doing something as ambitious as your SG series but, as you've surely noticed, I'm much more a painter than a draftsman. Short attention span. My job is to make it funny enough to allow them to keep thinking, to avoid brainlock via emotional numbness. One question: I don't recall any mention of what happened to the 757 that apparently DIDN'T hit the Pentagon? Did I miss something as I crossed over to links and back? (A peril of html journalism.)

      12 years ago I couldn't believe that we were in Iraq just for oil. There was more. Even Chomsky's nicely simple explanation that it was simply a demonstration of our post-Cold War monopoly on global military dominance, doesn't totally fill the bill. I thought back then (and with a political awareness far more somnolent and lacking rogor than now,although no less fond of American policies in general) that they were itching for someone to go ballistically nuclear. Intuitive and irrational, but I still FEEL that way. And currently: I FEEL that they'd LOVE to see some part of the Asian subcontinent vitrified where not vaporized. I really do. I understand that India has an annoying habit of telling us where to stick it when so inclined.

      And I agree that Pakistan is a shadow puppet of USA policy, the Holy Ghost ofthe MIddle East holy trinity including Father Israel and Son Saudi Arabia. Fear is the mind killer, the lady said in FRank Herbert's "Dune". Pix of Calcutta turned into its own Black Hole would go a long way into shoving even more Western minds into their comforting recta. Anyway, did I miss the explanation for the missing Boeing flight?

      Sincerely,

      Raj