An A3 Skywarrior hit the Pentagon - by Morgan Reynolds.

On, Sept 11. Supposedly a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. And yet there was no wreckage of this supposed aircraft. Consider the dimensions of a Boeing 757. Wingspan about 125 ft. Length about 155 ft. Height to top of tail fin about 40 ft.

Now consider the dimensions of the hole in the Pentagon wall. Width about 20 ft. Height about 20 ft. Length of main damage area about 60 ft.

So the Boeing 757 didn't go inside the building. And since there was no wreckage outside either,then it wasn't hit by a 757.

As I stated in this press interview.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:M4_uUC92usEJ:gonzomuckraker.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html+Morgan+reynolds+AT+skywarrior&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=au

"This idea that a big jet liner vanished into the pentagon is a big non-starter. It is totally laughable."…

Let me repeat - a Boeing 757 cannot vanish through a hole much smaller than itself without breaking off any parts or leaving any wreckage. It is impossible.

However, let me make it quite clear - any other kind of aircraft can do so.

As I made quite clear in the same interview when I said.

"it could have been an AT Sky Warrior."

I've since learned that the name of the aircraft is actually "A3" skywarrior. Since I finally learned the actual name of the aircraft which I was saying could have been the culprit, that enabled me to finally find out its dimensions.

http://www.a3skywarrior.com/specpage.html

Length 76 ft 4 in.
Wingspan 72 ft 6 in
Height 22 ft 9.5 in.

You may ask if a 757 can't fit through a hole smaller than itself without breaking off any parts or leaving any wreckage, then how can an A3 do so?

Well I'll answer that stupid question. I'm a Professor Emeritus and you're not. Got it ?

I'll return shortly to boasting about my qualifications ( in economics. mind you - but I've still got the letters in front of my name.)

But first I do have one small correction to make from that press interview.

I said that it "could" have been an A3 skywarrior. The fact is it was an A3 skywarrior.

For the proof of that, I'll refer you to my main site.

http://nomoregames.net/

Here you'll find links to sites that I recommend. One of them is

Physics 911.net

http://www.physics911.net/

And here you'll find a link to an article by a renowned researcher named Karl W. B. Schwarz
A3 Skywarrior: The Probable Pentagon Attack Aircraft?
http://www.physics911.net/pdf/schwarz.pdf

Read through this and you'll understand why laws of physics are different for any kind of plane other than the official story.

You'll notice that I link to this site, without any disclaimer about anything on the site.

But there's more.

Returning to my front page, here's another site to which I link without any disclaimer.

Scholars for 911 truth.
http://911scholars.org/

This site of course is run by my good friend Jim Fetzer, who also has more letters both in front of and after his name than you do. Jim also says that it was an A3 skywarrior. Jim and I do radio shows all the time, promote each other's web sites, run conferences together, and I've never tackled him on this A3 skywarrior thing. Why should I ? We're on the same page, as I showed in the above interview and in my endorsement without qualification of the physics 911 site.

And here is what Jim ( I can call him Jim - but he's "distinguished professor" to you, thank you very much) had to say.

http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/2006/02/24/st911s-james-fetzer-david-ray-griffin-morgan-reynolds-on-coast-to-coast-am/

"Fetzer also noted that in the Pentagon attack, the size of the impact in the building was too small for an airliner, and may have instead have been an A-3 Skywarrior."

http://sst911.org/interviews/fetzerinterview.html

"Well the Pentagon, very clearly, was not hit by a Boeing 757. The evidence is more consistent with a much smaller aircraft, such as, perhaps an F-16 or maybe an A3 Sky Warrior. "

Some people who call themselves 9/11 researchers have disputed this obvious fact.

For example take this ridiculous personal attack on Jim, myself, and Karl Schwarz by Gerard Holmgren. (Holmgren has since removed all of his articles from internet, but I saved some of them.)

Holmgren agrees that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, but then takes a ridiculous leap of logic to suggest that the problem of aircraft dimensions compared to building damage dimensions should be applied equally and consistently to any kind of aircraft ,not just the kind of plane suggested by the Bush Administration.

In this outrageous personal attack on dedicated and highly qualified experts in 9/11 research - myself and Jim and Karl Schwarz included - Holmgren wrote this vitriolic, unprovoked ad hominem attack.

"An A3 SkyWarrior has a wingspan of about 72 ft. Many truthlings who scoff at the idea of a 757 on the basis of the wingspan problem uncritically endorse the A3 SkyWarrior claim without even examining this problem. If it's ridiculous to assert that a 125 ft wingspan can fit through a 16 ft hole, why is it any more credible to assert that a 72 ft wingspan can do so ? Or alternatively, if a 72 ft wingspan can fold up or vaporize or whatever, then why not a 125 ft wingspan ? In which case why dispute the 757 to begin with ? If an A3 can vanish through a hole much smaller than itself without leaving wreckage, why not any other kind of plane, including a 757 ?

And if we scoff at the Government for asking us to believe without any evidence, that they identified the DNA of the passengers aboard the flight, then why believe Schwarz when he tells us without any evidence that "his team" identified an A3 part ?

Critical thinking which is justifiably applied to the mainstream story regarding the size of the wingspan in relation to the size of the hole is suddenly forgotten about in the name of "911 truth".

The best way to answer this scurrilous personal attack is with a speech I made, and which can be seen on youtube.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tQzp1aMhs-E

And here's a partial transcript.

"My name is Morgan Reynolds.I a professor Emeritus at Texas A&M University and a former Chief Economist under George W. Bush 2001 - 2002. Yes a Republican appointee. I've also worked for a think tank in Dallas called the National Center for Policy Analysis. I have 3 degrees from the great university of Wisconsin at Madison and was invited up recently to give a 9/11 talk and my theme was -President Bush ! Come out with your hands up! You're under arrest ! The people demand your trial ! For treason on 9/11! "

So I'm not only smarter than you, but I'm also braver ! And if we experts say it was an A3 skywarrior, then it was.

Let me repeat - it is "totally laughable" to suggest that a 125 ft wingspan can go through a 20 ft hole without breaking off and leaving debris,but there is absolutely no reason why a 72 ft wingspan cannot.

I'm Morgan Reynolds and I've got 3 degrees and you're not and you haven't.