Those pics do not prove that a Boeing 757 indeed was what hit the Pentagon.
I don't think a missile hit the Pentagon, but I am not convinced it was flight 77 either.
They say that the plane disintegrated for the most part, and that it hasn't been positively identified as 77, but miraculously all the passengers were ID'd through DNA?
So human DNA can not be scorched and disintegrated, like they say the plane was for the most part, and still the victims were all positively identified???
As far as the hole goes(12ft 4) , the Boeing 757 is not simply a 13ft wide cylinder, however, a Boeing 757 is a 13ft wide, 155 ft long cylinder with a tail fin that extends 45 ft into the air. Add to that the fact that there are two 6 ton steel engines slung under each wing about 6 feet to each side of the cylinder body. The wings extend out on each side for 50ft + making for a total aircraft width of 125 feet, a total length of 155 ft and a maximum height of 45 ft.
The damage doesn't seem to support a 757 crashing into it. We must consider the forward momentum of those two, inescapable, 6 TON steel engines
The two 6 ton engines were NOT dropped off on the lawn, and which, together, are as wide as the 13ft wide cylinder body!
The cylinder body is indeed 13ft 6in high, the fact that the engines extend 5 feet below the body and over six feet to either side can't be left out, meaning that, if the aircraft were actually able to successfully fly at just 1 inch above the ground (highly unlikely), the height of the cylinder body above the ground would be at least 18 ft 6 inches! Let us repeat that:
if a Boeing 757 were actually able to fly at just 1 inch above the ground, the height of the 13 ft cylinder body would be at least 18 feet 6 inches! Now, add to that the fact that the plane also includes those two bothersome 6 TON engines, AND a tail fin that protrudes 25 feet above the top of the cylinder body making for a total aircraft height of just less than 40 feet with wheels up. Obviously then, we can reasonably expect that the damage to the facade of the Pentagon would have extended up to this height IF it was a 757 that hit the building.
However, according to the official Pentagon report:
"The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft's tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."
Instead, we must give in to emotional blackmail and then engage in implausible mental gymnastics to try to explain how a 757 really could have been involved in the Pentagon attack and all because the US government says so - a government that has made lies the core aspect of its domestic and foreign policy from day one.
the large aircraft has been reduced to a mere 12ft 4 in wide cylinder..
the official Pentagon Building Performance Report stated that:
"The projected width [of damage to the facade] was approximately 90 ft, which is substantially less than the 125 ft wingspan of the aircraft"
Indeed, but there is no explanation of why there is no damage to the facade where the wings should logically have struck. Could it be that an aircraft with the wingspan of a 757 was not involved?
The Pentagon report also made note of the fact that:
"With the possible exception of the immediate vicinity of the fuselage's entry point at column line 14, essentially all interior impact damage was inflicted in the first story: The aircraft seems for the most part to have slipped between the first-floor slab on grade and the second floor."
Given the height of just the fuselage leaving out the 25 feet of tail fin, how is it possible that the immediate damage and the debris of the plane were "largely confined to the first floor"? And remember, we are talking here about a scenario where the plane is flying at just one inch above the ground!
What is more, evidence from photos of the site show cable spools that were clearly untouched by any incoming aircraft, suggesting that the aircraft would have to have been flying above the maximum height of the spools (some 6 feet) when it hit the Pentagon. In this case, the damage should have been almost entirely to the second floor!
Of course, this is not the case, which leaves us with the logical deduction that it is highly improbable that a 757 was involved in the attack on the Pentagon, and that a much smaller and more nimble aircraft was used.
how much credit are we going to give to brick and concrete that has been reinforced with relatively thin steel bars? Is such a wall indestructible? If the tail fin and wings of a Boeing 757 traveling at 400mph+ hit such a wall, could we at least expect them to leave a dent? A little scrape even?
After coming up with bizarre explanations for the lack of damage and debris, we are then forced to deal with the fact that, while the damage to the Pentagon facade is not consistent with the impact of a large commercial airliner, the damage to the interior of the Pentagon is even less so.
how did a hollow tube, made of mostly aluminum, manage to punch through the Pentagon?
So which is it? You can make the argument that a 757 was so flimsy that the Pentagon facade was relatively undamaged by the impact, or you argue that the weight and speed of the aircraft was such that it penetrated 3 rings of the building, but you can't have it both ways! Any theory that attempts to reconcile these irreconcilable claims is untenable.
You people believe seriously far out explanations to explain how a 757 could have caused the damage to the interior of the Pentagon in spite of the fact that most of it "just shredded into chunks" and was scattered all over the lawn.
The pics of wheels and landing gear etc.. could come from a different aircraft so
the alleged "evidence" of debris from a Boeing 757 in the above pictures is inconclusive.
The round hole that was left in ring C is one of the most intriguing aspects of the Pentagon attack. While we might assume that it is unofficially claimed that one of the engines of Flight 77 made this hole (the engine being the only part of a 757 that could possibly be strong enough to pass through three rings of the Pentagon, never mind that it left no evidence of its entry on the exterior of the building)
A disk that is a verifiable part of the engine of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was found at the front of the building, not in the third ring.
Terry Mitchell, Chief of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) was one of the first on the scene at this "punch out" point. In a DOD news briefing about the reconstruction of the Pentagon he stated:
"This is a hole in -- there was a punch-out. They suspect that this was where a part of the aircraft came through this hole, although I didn't see any evidence of the aircraft down there."
Later in the same briefing when referring to the same hole Mitchell must have realised his mistake and stated:
"This pile here is all Pentagon metal. None of that is aircraft whatsoever. As you can see, they've punched a hole in here. This was punched by the rescue workers to clean it out".
So which was it? Was the hole punched out by some part of the aircraft or by rescue workers? Was the pile of stuff aircraft debris, or was it "all Pentagon metal" as Terry Mitchell says?
Look at the picture of the hole. We don't need the contradictory statements of Mr. Mitchell to conclude that, due to the fact that the debris is on the outside of the building, the hole was punched out from the inside, yet how could it have been "punched out" by rescue workers when there are scorch marks at the top of the hole on the outside? Did the rescue workers punch out this hole when the fire was still raging inside? Hardly likely. Limiting air flow is part of fighting a fire. You don't make holes to let in more air while you are trying to extinguish a fire.
The engines and types of engines and the APU found at the scene are also controversial, and the likelihood that the APU disk in the photo IS from a Rolls Royce engine, but NOT from the APU of the 757 as stated by the Honeywell expert.
It has been stated that the APU is far too small to be the disk from one of the 757's main engines, given that they are between 6 and 7 ft in diameter. The disk on the AE 3007H however is a little over 3 ft in diameter, and the disk in the photo is a very good match for that of a AE 3007H, the engine used on a Global Hawk but never on a Boeing 757.
While there can be no definitive statements made on the matter, the available evidence would seem to suggest that the engine disk in the FEMA photos is probably too small to be part of a 757 engine and, contrary to what has been said, according to a Honeywell expert that makes the APU for the 757, it is definitely not a part of a 757's APU. So what is it?
It could very well be part of a Global Hawk AE3007H engine.
Damaged light poles are also a source of controversy, but was it a 757 that did this damage or another type of craft? We aren't saying that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Hardly anyone IS saying that. The only thing at issue is what KIND of plane was it?
And the black boxes...Flight data recorders were found at the Pentagon on September 14th 2001. On Feb. 25, 2002, FBI Director Robert Mueller stated that Flight 77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contained nothing useful.
Later, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said that the data on the cockpit voice data recorder was unrecoverable. No further explanation was given for these contradictory statements.
If the cockpit voice data really was unrecoverable, it would, allegedly, be the first time in aviation history a solid-state data recorder (the type used on Flight 77) was unrecoverable after a crash.
From a Scientific American feature article lauding the "Better Black Box" in their [WWW] September 2000 issue:
Nearly 100,000 flight recorders have been installed in commercial aircraft over the past four decades. The prices of the latest models generally range from $10,000 to $20,000. Their survival rate has greatly improved in recent years as the FAA has raised the certification requirements. Although older recorders using magnetic tape were susceptible to fire damage, no solid-state device has been destroyed in an accident to date.
And, there were at least four video cameras capable of recording the attack on the Pentagon.
One was on the roof of the Sheraton Hotel, a second was at a gas station across the road from the Pentagon itself, the third belonged to the Virginia Department of Transportation and was stationed on route 27, which the aircraft flew over. The fourth was the Pentagon's security camera stationed at the opposite one end of the façade from where the plane struck.
The footage from the cameras at the Sheraton, the gas station and on route 27 were confiscated by the FBI and have never been released. The only footage made available to the public was that recorded by the Pentagon's security camera. According to the Washington Times however, both the DOJ and the FBI denied responsibility for releasing the footage from the Pentagon's security camera-
"The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin. A spokeswoman at the Department of Justice, which reviews taped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras, said she could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, adding that the photos "were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department of Justice."
Of course, a simple denial does not mean that someone within the DOJ or the DOD or the FBI did not release the footage to the public - after all, we are dealing with a massive 9/11 conspiracy and the footage is from the Pentagon's very own security camera. We can assume with a reasonable degree of certainty therefore, that someone within one of the arms of the American military/ political/ industrial complex released the footage and then denied that they did so, and for a very specific reason.
Look again at the image from the Pentagon Security camera of the plane approaching the building. Ask yourself the question: where is the Boeing 757-200 in this image?
Note that the time stamp displays a date and time of September 12th at 5.37:19 pm. The DOD has offered no reason for this discrepancy, which is understandable since they claim to have no knowledge about who released the images. In the footage, the progression of seconds jumps from 19, where it starts, to 21 and then on to 22 and 23 where it ends, meaning that one second and an undetermined number of frames have been cut from the film. No explanation has ever been offered by any official sources as to why this video footage has clearly been "doctored", why one second and several frames have been removed - frames that would likely show just what it was that struck the Pentagon. Of course, this is very convenient for exponents of the official story. The footage shows something flying into the Pentagon and exploding, and since we were all immediately told that that "something" was a 757, the case is closed, right?
Quite apart from the fact that the doctoring of the video strongly suggests that someone released this footage in an attempt to provide "evidence" to the public that a 757 hit the Pentagon, while at the same time removing the incriminating frames and denying the public the right to actually see what it was, in the images above we see a stream of white smoke that is entirely inconsistent with a commercial jet aircraft.
If a 757 really did hit the Pentagon then there should be no need for outlandish theories. The evidence SHOULD be all there, and it should be a breeze to present facts that would quickly dismiss any attempts to suggest otherwise.
But we see that this is not the case and in fact the exact opposite is true! They are finding it very difficult to prove something that should be easily provable if the evidence was there for ALL to see.
They are suggesting that, on impact with the Pentagon, all of the parts of a 757 broke into pieces, flew everywhere as confetti, then somehow formed themselves into a 9 foot wide 20 feet tall concentrated column of energy (or water-like substance) that broke through 5 walls of the Pentagon leaving a neat 8 ft by 12 ft round hole in the final 6th wall. This is insane, and the evidence does not coincide with observed results.
Then there are the conflicting witness testimonies that one can use for both sides of the controversy...But really the most important thing to look at is the big picture and how the hell such a thing was allowed or made to have occurred in the first place, and that takes us to the NORAD and the terror drills, the radar screens and the orders to stand down by Cheney, the "security at the airports, the identities and the capabilities of the "hijackers" and so much more that had to have happened and made possible for this to happen in the first place.
Bottom line is that the 9-11 attacks were facilitated by rogue elements within top echelon positions of the presidential administrations of both parties, and strong evidence to suggest that a nation state like Israel and its sayanim were involved.
A vast amount of people were not needed to be a part of it or involved in the loop, and everyday Joes who were just doing their jobs were unwittingly used.
Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9-11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757 -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net
and don't hate anyone.
Oh, brother!!
