I must agree with Ian Perkins (although I wonder if “Ian” *cough* Henderson *cough* created that account just for three comments on this subject). I’ve finally had time to read the report, and every single conclusion in the 17 (by my quick count) paragraphs of the “Findings” section refutes the possibility of the cylinders being dropped from aircraft.

Ian Henderson and his team did a very thorough engineering analysis, breaking apart the problem to individually analyze pieces (e.g. concrete without rebar, rebounding of the cylinder at location 4) and being extremely objective the point of being charitable (IMO) to the “dropping from aircraft” hypothesis.

Nothing of the observed evidence (Henderson’s team was on-site) and documentation (open source photos) fits with “dropped from aircraft” hypothesis. For one example, to make the craters at Location 2 and 4 the cylinders must have a certain velocities and angles of impact, but the deformation of the cylinders (which were physically examined) absolutely does not match with what must have happened to each cylinder to create those craters and (location 4 only) penetrate the roof .

In the end it is a matter of known materials, observed physical evidence, physics and then a bunch of math. The math just does not work with the “dropped from aircraft” hypothesis. Not a “could have been dropped from an aircraft if you squint quite right” conclusion— it is a “not possible no matter how you try to make it fit” conclusion.