The Lie of 9-11 and it's after effects

[candycorn]

Many Americans are very proud to believe the claims of known liars, and those same people refuse to view the facts. It's like religion--buying into narratives that you know cannot be proved.

Many of them also bought into the Scamdemic. Gullible is as gullible does.

All the facts contradict the official conspiracy theory. Truth has no defense against a fool determined to believe a lie.

Please point out where the 9/11 commission REPORT is wrong on any major issue and correct the record....

 

[wist43]

Not a fetish, but a viable question.
Where are the planes, where are the bodies? If you conjure up a hypothesis as stupid as the one in this thread, you have to be able to prove at least some of your guess-work. That all those passengers just went poof is ridiculous. That no one saw nufin, is even more ridiculous. Maybe after they gassed the hundreds of passengers, they threw the bodies into ovens. And no one probably saw them sink the planes in the Ohio River because everyone in Ohio went to bed early that night...

I am the one who says, If the government says, "Go North", I suggest you go South. That is how much I trust the Government. I trust your speculation even less. It's just chock-full of holes that you try to gloss over...

As I tell anyone, whatever alternative theory someone might have is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that the official version is obviously and provably false.

If you want to poke holes in someone's theory that's fine and appropriate, but it can not be done as if to say "... therefore the official theory must be true".

Do you see the difference??

 

[candycorn]

As I tell anyone, whatever alternative theory someone might have is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that the official version is obviously and provably false.

“Obviously and provably false?”

Okay...lay out what the 9/11 Commision Report said about the major points and show us where it is wrong.

If you say it’s provably false...c’mon dingus...lay it out.

If you want to poke holes in someone's theory that's fine and appropriate, but it can not be done as if to say "... therefore the official theory must be true".

Do you see the difference??

Except you can’t poke any major holes in the 9/11 Commission report, can you dingus? We cannot list all the ways your theory makes zero sense...there isn’t enough bandwidth on the Internet.


The 9/11 Commission report remains undamaged...It must have been printed on kevlar ... it’s literally bulletproof.

Now, sonny boy, you have the floor. Feel free to lay out the “proof” you say there is.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

You seem to have a fetish for "where are the bodies", which if not explained to you in a manner that You desire, then,.... The Government Narrative has to be True.

I'll put it this way,.... If a car, ran a red light, & hit another car at an intersection, resulting in the death of the innocent driver,... If the Offender drove off,...... With Your Mindset, You'd say that since there wasn't two vehicles present at the scene,.....

Then It Never Happened.

well said.that seems to be her mindset indeed that just because the narrative explained to her isnt the one that she desires, the official government narrative must be true.

excellent analogy there as well that according to her,if the offender of a car that ran a red light killed an innocent driver and ran off,because there were not two vehicles present there,it must have never happened.well done.

I dont understand why she is asking POSTERS to figure it out when she SHOULD be demanding a REAL independent investigation into 9/11 for answers as that patriot congressmen the op is mentioned by truthseeker in the beginning in his op.

All that is irrelevent,what IS relevent is that the official version is a lie the fact that the best pilots in the world have said all the incredible manuvers the jet allegedly did they said were done are impossible for an airliner to pull off over at pilots for truth and that april gallop a witness at the pentagon who said it was missle,she was harrassed by the government and that all government protocals that cover an event like that were not followed that day and were violated.WHY is the more important question she SHOULD be asking and WHY they lied about it being an airliner when all evidence shows it was a missile. thats the IMPORTANT question she should have a fixation over if you are going to have a fixation over anything.

bore a hole in to the Pentagon, with no readily available evidence of a Jet Airliner having crashed?

My brother-in-law flies for United. He spent a month going to memorials. Not one of his friends has resurfaced...

of course they never resurfaced,why WOULD they if the government murdered them off? Lol

As he documented earlier with his operation northwoods event that took place with the CIA during the kennedy administration when the CIA was going to create a flase flag event and then blame it on cuba so they could blame cuba,they were were going to kill thousands back then,WHY would the CIA all of a sudden care not to kill off all those passengers as well? LOL to them a human life is no more than it is to us when we step on an ant.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Swapping planes is easy, you said it yourself. Go dark, cross paths, and go from there. That was detailed in the original Operation Northwoods proposal, and it is covered in the 911 New Pearl Harbor Doc.

As for passengers and other collateral issues - the answer is simple, they were killed.

The phone calls come into play here, so I think it makes sense that the passengers were already landed and sequestered.

Killing a few hundred people is Tuesday afternoon for our intelligence agencies.

you nailed it,well done.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I have explained to you several times about the poles, but like water off a duck's back, facts roll off your sad mind. You are incapable of seeing the big picture, and that makes you incapable of rational public dialogue. Perhaps you took the clot shots like DJT and are now losing cognitive function. It doesn't matter anymore. You can lead a man to knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

This dude agent candyass not only has an absurd fixation on the light poles but most importantly has DEMENTIA,he has been given the answer about the lightpoles HUNDREDS of times by myself and others over the last couple of decades yet he STILL asks the same question over and over again for decades now. WHY you or anybody here does not put someone who clearly has dementia and never remembers the answer given to him HUNDREDS of times the last couple of decades by myself,you and others,on ignore as i have done,,I just comprehend that.

 

[The Irish Ram]

well said.that seems to be her mindset indeed that just because the narrative explained to her isnt the one that she desires, the official government narrative must be true

Really? Have you always considered me close-minded? As I said, I have no trust in the government. On the other hand, making up things like, they probably just gassed all the passengers, and the bodies just disappeared, and planes just ceased to exist, is more stupid than the government version. What I desire is an alternative that isn't as idiotic as the one submitted to this thread.
So tell me, were the planes hijacked or not? What is it about the bizarre "facts" in the alternate theory that you find so compelling?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Where did the people go? Where are the passengers and crews on the planes? Were they all in on it? If the plane didn't hit a building, or drill itself into the ground, then where are the people that boarded the planes? They disappeared. Where are they?

that dear would be the question you would want to ask the PERPETRATERS that pulled this off,the bush administration ,the CIA and mossad the fact their fingerprints are all over pulling this off.


all we know for certain is what did NOT hit the pentagon based on evidence and facts and coverups,that an airliner did not hit the pentagon,that it was a missile the fact the FBI illegally confiscated the cameras of the gas station across from the pentagon and wont even produce the film of the airliner coming despte the fact there are HUNDERDS of cameras around the pentagon. and planted fake evidence and the fact the best pilots in the world at pilots for truth have said it is an impossible for an airliner to do the incredible manuvers the commission said they did,that THEY could not have done it yet we are suppose to be these ameutuer alleged terrorists pulled it off somehow? sure they did and im the king of england.

 

[The Irish Ram]

that dear would be the question you would want to ask the PERPETRATERS that pulled this off,the bush administration ,the CIA and mossad the fact their fingerprints are all over pulling this off.


all we know for certain is what did NOT hit the pentagon based on evidence and facts and coverups,that an airliner did not hit the pentagon,that it was a missile the fact the FBI illegally confiscated the cameras of the gas station across from the pentagon and wont even produce the film of the airliner coming despte the fact there are HUNDERDS of cameras around the pentagon. and planted fake evidence and the fact the best pilots in the world at pilots for truth have said it is an impossible for an airliner to do the incredible manuvers the commission said they did,that THEY could not have done it yet we are suppose to be these ameutuer alleged terrorists pulled it off somehow? sure they did and im the king of england.

Where did the people on those planes, and the planes themselves, go? So, if planes didn't hit the buildings, are you down with the drone theory? Let's test this...

im the king of england

Given the King's biological pedigree, you being related isn't as big a stretch as you may think...

 

[wist43]

I've been posting in this thread the link to 9/11 New Pearl Harbor, and I'm very familiar with the basic facts.

That said, I haven't watched the video in quite some time, so I went back and watched the segment on the speeds of the planes, 1:27 to 1:40.

VMO (maximum operating velocity) at sea level for those planes was approximately 402-414 mph. They would have been experiencing extreme flutter.

The speeds observed on radar were between 530-586 mph, per the NTSB.

The official version faces three distinct problems with these numbers,

1) without modification, the planes would not have been able to withstand the extreme resistance forces associated with those speeds without experiencing flutter and suffering at least some damage in flight.

2) without modification, the engines themselves could not produce enough thrust at sea level to achieve those speeds. They were designed to cruise at those at those speeds at 30,000 feet where the air is much thinner, not at sea level.

3) the turns and maneuvers observed on radar would have introduced even more forces on to the planes, which they were not designed to withstand at even level flight at those speeds, at that altitude.

Obvious conclusion:

The planes observed on radar and flying into the buildings were not the original passenger planes that took off from the various airports.

‐‐--‐----------------------------

Do what you will with your imagination and understanding of how these types of operations work and go from there...

But the physics of these facts alone make the official version all but impossible.

 

[wist43]

Where did the people on those planes, and the planes themselves, go? So, if planes didn't hit the buildings, are you down with the drone theory? Let's test this...


Given the King's biological pedigree, you being related isn't as big a stretch as you may think...

They take a stab at the passenger question at the 1:36 mark.

I don't agree with their conclusions.

 

[The Irish Ram]

LA RAM FAN, let's talk about gullibility.

Who was flying the 4 planes to an Ohio airport? There were 8 airports to choose from. They would all have to go to the same airport, because the "prepared gas chamber" < (kill the people that prepared it to prevent any rumors) had to be very close by. And no one at any of the commercial airports, noticed, at that stage, what would have been over two hundred people being held against their will or saw them all being bussed to a secret location. Those who did see them would have to be killed to make sure there was no one that would expose the truth.

Back to the pilots. Who flew the planes? The pilots or hijackers? When did they contact any of the towers for navigation and altitude coordinates and head for Ohio? Even hijackers needed the control tower to keep them from running into other planes trying to land. Were the United pilots and co pilots and crews in on the plan? Did they tell anyone about the "secret mission" they had been chosen for?

Don't stop there. Kill everyone in the control towers too. Because 4 planes dropping in on the same airport while buildings were crumbling by what were described as airplanes, had to raise a whole lot of suspicion.

I don't mind a good supposition at all, but it needs to be a little more sound than they were fed to the alligators in the Ohio River, or aliens took them all to Area 51...

 

[wist43]

LA RAM FAN, let's talk about gullibility.

Who was flying the 4 planes to an Ohio airport? There were 8 airports to choose from. They would all have to go to the same airport, because the "prepared gas chamber" < (kill the people that prepared it to prevent any rumors) had to be very close by. And no one at any of the commercial airports, noticed, at that stage, what would have been over two hundred people being held against their will or saw them all being bussed to a secret location. Those who did see them would have to be killed to make sure there was no one that would expose the truth.

Back to the pilots. Who flew the planes? The pilots or hijackers? When did they contact any of the towers for navigation and altitude coordinates and head for Ohio? Even hijackers needed the control tower to keep them from running into other planes trying to land. Were the United pilots and co pilots and crews in on the plan? Did they tell anyone about the "secret mission" they had been chosen for?

Don't stop there. Kill everyone in the control towers too. Because 4 planes dropping in on the same airport while buildings were crumbling by what were described as airplanes, had to raise a whole lot of suspicion.

I don't mind a good supposition at all, but it needs to be a little more sound than they were fed to the alligators in the Ohio River, or aliens took them all to Area 51...

So how do you think they disposed of the people??

 

[TruthSeeker112125]

“Obviously and provably false?”

Okay...lay out what the 9/11 Commision Report said about the major points and show us where it is wrong.

If you say it’s provably false...c’mon dingus...lay it out.


Except you can’t poke any major holes in the 9/11 Commission report, can you dingus? We cannot list all the ways your theory makes zero sense...there isn’t enough bandwidth on the Internet.


The 9/11 Commission report remains undamaged...It must have been printed on kevlar ... it’s literally bulletproof.

Now, sonny boy, you have the floor. Feel free to lay out the “proof” you say there is.

 

[TruthSeeker112125]

Really? Have you always considered me close-minded? As I said, I have no trust in the government. On the other hand, making up things like, they probably just gassed all the passengers, and the bodies just disappeared, and planes just ceased to exist, is more stupid than the government version. What I desire is an alternative that isn't as idiotic as the one submitted to this thread.
So tell me, were the planes hijacked or not? What is it about the bizarre "facts" in the alternate theory that you find so compelling?

You're fixated on a few Specific Points, where if You do not get an answer that fits Your Narrative, then You reject everything else,..... Pretty much like Your Belief in another Topic, about The "Rapture".

But in a "Secular Fashion",........ Irish, where's the Proof that America Bombed Hiroshima, & Nagasaki ? Where are all of the Bodies?

 

[TruthSeeker112125]

Well, if you can't point out anything the government commission got wrong in it's report...we just have to assume it's all correct.

Do you have anything else to offer other than wild opinions?

Many, many FACTS have been pointed out herein this Topic, which You either "Willfully Ignore", or obviously, have Monumental Issues over Comprehending the Written Word .

Hopefully, Your "Go Fund Me" will reach .05 cents here in about a year, & You'll be on the "Road to becoming Literate".

 

[Soupnazi630]

Many, many FACTS have been pointed out herein this Topic, which You either "Willfully Ignore", or obviously, have Monumental Issues over Comprehending the Written Word .

Hopefully, Your "Go Fund Me" will reach .05 cents here in about a year, & You'll be on the "Road to becoming Literate".

None have

You are running away

 

[TruthSeeker112125]

" It was CNN’s Jamie McIntyre who first questioned the official narrative. On the day of 9/11, he said on live television, “There’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”"

Part 1:

................

Home / Debated Topics Forum / Rebuttal to “Large Plane Impact Damage to the Wall of the Pentagon and Adjacent Objects”

Rebuttal to “Large Plane Impact Damage to the Wall of the Pentagon and Adjacent Objects”​

By Xander Arena | May 2024

Editor’s Note: This paper is a response to the October 2023 paper by David Chandler and Wayne Coste, which can be read here.

Download pdf

Introduction​

While describing exactly what may or may not have impacted the Pentagon’s E-Ring wall in 2001 may never be possible, this paper argues that the conclusions reached in “Large Plane Impact Damage to the Wall of the Pentagon and Adjacent Objects” (hereafter, LPI) are based upon selective use of evidence, are not internally consistent, and are ultimately not tenable in light of all available information. Alternative explanations for the damage require full consideration.

The LPI paper asserts that the damage is inconsistent with fire, explosives, or kinetic impact other than a 757. This conclusion mirrors the narrative of the American Society of Civil Engineers’ “Pentagon Building Performance Report,” published in 2003. That is the first report to highlight the generator trailer and steam vault retaining wall, among other features that LPI examines.

As an abundance of peer-reviewed research and critiques by engineers (Brookman, 2012; Cole, 2023; Hulsey, 2019; Němec, 2018; Szuladzinski, 2013) have exposed the fact that the ASCE erroneously portrayed how the three World Trade Center towers were destroyed on September 11, 2001, it is appropriate to be circumspect with respect to ASCE’s analysis and description of the events at the Pentagon.

The following point-by-point deconstruction of the LPI paper will hopefully inspire readers to delve further into all available data, so that we may all come closer to understanding what actually happened in Arlington on 9/11/01.

Rebuttal to ‘Scope of the Damage to the Pentagon Wall’​

LPI does not accurately define the scope of E-Ring damage. The 100-foot span between Columns 8 and 18 is missing both exterior cladding and many, though not all, of the columns on the first floor. But a 757’s 124-foot wingspan at the alleged 52˚ incident angle would have traveled through, not simply 100 feet, but 158 feet of E-Ring wall (Fig. 1). This would have made the impact damage done by such a jet extend beyond Column 5 (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1 – A larger portion of wall would sustain impact at 52˚

Fig. 2 – Apart from missing veneer, the wall remains intact
Note that a substantial portion of fence within this requisite impact zone has not been swept into the building, but rather has been blown outward and lies upon several vehicles parked in front (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4).

Fig. 3 – Early image shows cut tree trunk and blown-out fence

Fig. 4 – The fence is clearly blown outward onto the vehicles
At a 52˚ incident angle, an object approximately 79 feet wide would endure 100 feet of E-Ring collision. For instance, an A3 Skywarrior has a 72-foot wingspan. Compared to a 757, it might be construed as a small plane, yet it could create the 100-foot opening at the correct angle. LPI assumes that the missing façade is a consequence of a kinetic impact. Yet it is equally plausible that the façade was removed explosively.

The removal of 100 feet of cladding and columns could be achieved by coordinated explosive effects. A missile or other kinetically delivered explosive mechanism might detonate in a manner capable of removing the exterior features it travelled through. No evidence of focused blast damage was presented in the LPI paper, but that doesn’t mean such evidence doesn’t exist.

Take, for instance, the image in Fig. 5, which clearly shows the destructive force of an explosion just inside the E-Ring. The drop ceiling was blown apart, and columns toward the south were twisted in the wrong direction for a 52˚ kinetic impact. Furthermore, we should not expect the fuel-air explosion of an exploding airliner to have the impulse to bend steel-reinforced concrete columns.

Fig. 5 – This image is looking south, just inside the collapsed section
Also indicative of focused ordinance deployment is the area within the D-Ring of the Pentagon, in which the second floor was blown upward. Whoever chose to attack our collective consciousness and cut at the muscle of our Republic would certainly have had more than one tool in their toolbox. Like any complex deception, multiple facets would have been utilized. So, the claim that we can rule out bombs, small planes, or missiles, based solely on the length of a 100-foot opening, cannot stand.

Rebuttal to ‘Left Side of Opening’​

Looking at the “Left Side Impact,” LPI asserts that column 9AA is bowing inward and therefore must have been impacted kinetically. There is no basis for such an assertion. A sufficiently powerful explosive pressure wave could twist the column in the manner depicted. More importantly, the vector in which the depicted column is bent is not consistent with the purported flight path. The column could not endure a 52˚ incident angle impact and end up being bent to the east. This feature alone is completely incompatible with the LPI theory.

A larger contextual review of the columns presented in LPI’s Figure 4 shows that the square tubing is moderately twisted, but so are each of what LPI refers to as “fingers.” Each finger is bent in a unique manner across the entire axis of the tubing. A jet wing transecting that columnar tubing would not be broad enough to bend each of those fingers.

Fig. 6 – Zoomed image of columns 9A and 9AA during early interventions
The distal end of the left wing of a 757 would have impacted the building all the way to Column 5. LPI asserts that more than 30 feet of wing was just pulled inside the building around a perfectly intact Column 8. The pristine nature of Column 8 shows this cannot be the case. Also, the vector of deflection of Column 9AA rules out kinetic impact by an object moving along the light pole flight path.

Rebuttal to ‘Right Side of Opening’​

In LPI Fig. 5, the image purports that a linear kinetic impact damaged columns 18, 19, and 20 at an angle. The text in LPI Fig. 5 tells the reader that Column 18 is leaning inward and southward. The column is actually leaning outward. Besides, how would it end up leaning southward after allegedly sustaining impact from a northeast-traveling object as massive as a 125,000-pound Boeing?

Fig. 7 – LPI’s Figure 5, with new “Damaged” indicator on Column 20
Careful examination of available evidence will show that Column 18 was damaged and shifted southward only after the building collapsed. In fact, within the LPI paper, their Fig. 9 unequivocally shows Column 18 undamaged and pristinely straight. It has endured no kinetic impact at the location alluded to in LPI Figure 5. This inconsistency means that the damage to Column 18 occurred after the explosive event that removed the first-floor facade. This also means that any force impacting the E-Ring wall could not have been a discrete linear object spanning the width of those columns, i.e., the wing of a 757. As indicated by the yellow arrow overlaid above in my Fig. 7, part of Column 20 broke away further along its axis, consistent with a pressure wave. A pile of façade rubble is seen laying on the ground between columns 18 and 19 in Fig. 8 below.

Fig. 8 – Cpl. Jason Ingersoll, USMC, took the photo used here

Rebuttal to ‘Damage to Center of Impact’​

LPI’s “Damage to Center of Impact” portion is perhaps the most peculiar of all. It was CNN’s Jamie McIntyre who first questioned the official narrative. On the day of 9/11, he said on live television, “There’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”

Overlooking McIntyre’s statement, the LPI authors instead mischaracterize Thierry Meyssan’s work, claiming that Meyssan purported the second-story aperture was the extent of the damage. Yet my copy of Meyssan’s 9/11: The Big Lie (L’Effroyable imposture) says that the first ring of the building was destroyed, and it shows the photos shown in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 below.

Fig. 9 – Meyssan’s 2002 book asked many critical questions

Fig. 10 – Several official images were included in Meyssan’s work
From here, LPI’s problematic arguments persist. We are shown a drawing of a 757 sliding into the first floor on a level trajectory. This does not correlate with the suggestion that a 757 was banking when it impacted. An illustration of a banking aircraft whose engine did not impact the slab shows the top of the fuselage elevated by a few additional feet into the second floor (see Fig. 11 below).

Fig. 11 – Graphic overlay shows how a banking aircraft would actually impact
Now note that in the images below (Figs. 12–14), the second-floor column is virtually intact. It certainly hasn’t been transected by over 155 feet and 100,000+ pounds of aircraft allegedly travelling at more than 500 mph. Yet the panels on either side of Column 14 and the slab behind it appear blown away.

Fig. 12 – Another historic Ingersoll photo taken moments after the explosion

Fig. 13 – Viewers can zoom in on the Ingersoll images to learn more

Fig. 14 – Further-magnified Ingersoll imagery shows an intact column

Rebuttal to ‘Other obstructions’ (tree, retaining wall, generator, etc.)​

The LPI “Other Obstructions” section also contains internally inconsistent and inaccurate claims. In Fig. 13, the LPI authors claim the height of the tree stump matches the right-wing spar. Please review Fig. 11 to observe just how low the left engine is at even a modest bank. It is well below the spar and therefore would have decimated the slab if the right-wing spar had hit the tree at that height. The authors seem to have forgotten the implications of where the left engine would be, if indeed the right wing severed the tree. They assert that the top of the tree was torn off. An explosive pressure wave could have accomplished exactly that.

Rebuttal to “Large Plane Impact Damage to the Wall of the Pentagon and Adjacent Objects” - International Center for 9/11 Justice

While describing exactly what may or may not have impacted the Pentagon’s E-Ring wall in 2001 may never be possible, this paper argues that the conclusions reached in “Large Plane Impact Damage to the Wall of the Pentagon and Adjacent Objects” (hereafter, LPI) are based upon selective use of...

ic911.org

 

[TruthSeeker112125]

" It was CNN’s Jamie McIntyre who first questioned the official narrative. On the day of 9/11, he said on live television, “There’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.”"

Part 2:
============

Fig. 15 – Google Earth image with correctly scaled 757 on alleged path
We should consider that the angular nature of an impact would have deflected the large tree toward the east. An explosive directional charge to remove the tree could also move it about. In Fig. 16 below, the photo shows a large portion of a tree trunk that had been cut by a saw in several places. Also, refer back to Fig. 3 to see a substantial portion of a tree with a saw cut; that photo was taken immediately after the event. So, the tree actually appears to have been cut into pieces with a saw, with those cuts occurring before the event.

Fig. 16 – Zoom in to see unfinished chainsaw cuts on tree trunk
The argument that a 155-foot airplane traveling at many hundreds of miles per hour and weighing over 100,000 pounds would not have the impulse to move the tree into the building is implausible. And to think that its massive fuselage would shed only pieces of its logo and leave them scattered like shrapnel on the northern lawn is equally unlikely. A 9/11 researcher named Adam Ruff pointed out that a large percentage of the scrap aluminum bore “American Airlines” livery, relative to the very small percentage of actual airline fuselage that has lettering on it. Statistically, this makes it reasonable to infer that the same elements who may have carried out the deception also intentionally deposited those recognizable aluminum scraps on the lawn. Fig. 17 below shows a Pentagon simulation from late 2000, in which planners simulated a large airline crash at the building and deposited pieces of simulated wreckage in their model.

Fig. 17 – Images of Pentagon MASCAL planning, circa 2000
Regarding the alignment of the retaining wall and the generator, those have long been interesting features of the events of that day. If bad actors were to simulate the crash of a large plane into the Pentagon—a crash directly over what is arguably the most sensitive data cable on Earth—they would need to differentiate the explosive scene from other forms of deflagration. Strategically placing props such as light poles and a damaged trailer along a feigned linear trajectory would achieve their objective.

The retaining wall and trailer are about 60 feet apart. A 757’s engine centers are about 43 feet apart. A 52˚ approach angle places the vectored impact points just about where the wall and the trailer were damaged. But was that damage caused by a 757 or by a deceptive team with a tape measure and a devious scheme?

Fig. 18 – Generator impact would have occurred at the red circle
Note that the retaining wall appears broken, with fracture patterns that are incongruent with the alleged angle of approach. Note, too, that the ground around the fractured wall is pristine, with no gouges. Then note that an extreme bank would place the distal aspect of the left wing into the steam vault or into the ground. Finally, note that, for any large aircraft, a left bank also means a left turn. Yet LPI purports the trajectory of an impacting aircraft was straight and level.

Fig. 19 – Images of the retaining wall show many problems
On the right side of this scene, we find a damaged generator trailer and damaged fence. The generator trailer is very far to the south relative to the requisite collision point of 43-foot-spaced engines, as shown in Figs. 20 and 21 below.

Fig. 20 – Generator shown by faint red dashed line to right of red circle

Fig. 21 – Aerial image shows generator trailer knocked far to the south
Most of the released photographs from the crime scene make it appear there is a cookie-cutter engine gouge carved out of the top of the generator trailer, such as that shown in Fig. 22 below.

Fig. 22 – The generator trailer gouge looks curved from this angle
However, the image in Fig. 23 below, taken from the lawn and showing the full side, reveals the damage to the generator was very long and linear. Without more information, interpreting such an image would be challenging.

Fig. 23 – A long stretch of generator trailer is missing in this view
Fortunately, we can examine screen shots from film footage released under the Freedom of Information Privacy Act (FOIPA). In those screen shots, such as found in Fig. 24 and Fig. 25 below, we can see that there is much more going on than LPI describes. It looks as though the generator has exploded. The margins of the alleged impact side are curled and corrosively eaten away, as if from extreme heat and not from an impact made by an object. Portions of the generator closest to the building are completely blown away, and they are not in line with the light pole path vector.

Fig. 24 – From this angle, the generator trailer looks blown up
Though speculating as to what may have caused this corrosive scene is beyond the scope of this response paper, one thing is clear: to assume the generator trailer was impacted by a Boeing 757’s RB211 engine is premature. The hypothetical presence of a 500-mph, banking 757 is not congruent with the remnant physical evidence or with the scene itself. Since the existence of an undamaged Column 18 rules out impact with a large fixed wing, we may surmise that something other than a 757 damaged the generator trailer.

Fig. 25 – Close-up generator screen shot from FOIPA-released video
To explain the leftward roll required for a 757 to have hit both the retaining wall and the generator trailer, LPI asserts that impact with the trailer induced both a leftward roll and a clockwise yaw. But consider the difference in impulse from a stationary 30,000-pound generator and a 757 weighing over 100,000 pounds and flying at 500+ mph. By what mechanism would the aircraft drop to the left? And could it do so within only 30 feet or so—the approximate distance it would take to travel between the front of the generator trailer and the retaining wall—when going at that speed? The estimated 5 to 10 ft drop would conservatively have to occur within 0.04 seconds.

Considering the conjecture of LPI’s proposed yaw, is that really what we observed in the 2001 photos? I submit that a few broken pieces of cladding around Column 12 are not sympathetic with a multi-ton impact of the aft of a jet at that speed. Additionally, we observe from aircraft crash scenes all over the world that the wings and tails are easily cleaved. So, to suggest that the reinforced tail or wings could somehow be “pulled in” around concrete floors and columns is not tenable.

The damage pattern to the generator fence (see Fig. 22) is intriguing, as it clearly looks pushed directly toward the building. Fig. 26 shows that the fence post is bent cleanly at the ground, as might happen if a truck were to drive over it—perhaps before the explosive event occurred. Whenever it happened, the damage to the fence is consistent with a large ground vehicle impact, like the truck shown in Fig. 27.

Fig. 26 – The fence post is bent directly toward the building
The view of the lawn by potential witnesses was largely concealed by the topography. If criminals controlled the scene before the attack and pre-selected a caravan of traffic to occupy the bridge, many things could have transpired on the lawn before unwanted witnesses arrived. True, we cannot be certain what knocked that fence down, but neither can the LPI authors. However, we can say that a hypothetical vehicular run-in with the fence could also explain why the generator was knocked so far out of alignment.

Fig. 27 – A large truck could have been driven over the fence
One need only look at World Trade Center 7’s failure to come down concurrently with WTC 1 to see that explosive plans can fizzle and must be amended on the fly. I suspect it was not the intention of the Pentagon perpetrators to leave intact columns in irreconcilable locations (see columns 9, 14, 15, 16, and 18 in Fig. 28 below).

Fig. 28 – This composite image shows how many components were left intact
Though the LPI authors have not made their case, they ask that claims of “trickery” be proved. I ask the same. However, the only way to prove anything is to accurately assess all the information at hand. Ignoring or misinterpreting certain facts and photos may introduce logical fallacies.

Ideally, after all the evidence has been analyzed, we should be left with a credible, coherent, cohesive subset of information upon which to base our conclusions. The information accepted and introduced by the LPI authors is not that subset.

For instance, when they introduce the notion of a Pentagon flyover at the end of their paper, they present readers with a false dichotomy. A plane could have overflown the building while bombs went off inside and/or while a kinetic strike occurred from some other vector.

Too many credible eyewitness testimonies, including Pentagon police Sgt. William Lagasse and Sgt. Chadwick Brooks, do not reconcile with the assertion that AA77 hit the building along the light pole and generator path. The alternative flight pattern these numerous eyewitnesses vouch for is evidence of trickery and flyover by simple syllogism, for a large plane could not fly to the north and then bank to achieve the damage that was done inside and outside the building.

Even the US government’s own data from FOIA-released Air Force RADAR Evaluation Squadron (RADES) information places the transponder of the target to the north of the bridge, and therefore not in alignment with the ASCE/LPI trajectory. See Fig. 29 below.

Fig. 29 – Screen capture from RADES data shows an irreconcilable flight path

Conclusion​

When information about any feature of an event categorically rules out claims that would otherwise follow from that feature, then it is time to abandon those claims.

The blown-out fence at the north end of the opening refutes the claim that a large airplane wing transcended that space. The cleanly cut tree trunk found immediately after the explosive event refutes the belief that a plane ripped through the trunk. The columns that were deformed directly eastward, instead of to the northeast, refute the conclusion that impact from an object traveling to the northeast caused their damage. After the explosive event, but before collapse, the columns remaining in the E-Ring perimeter refute the narrative that over a hundred thousand pounds of airliner impacted the E-Ring wall. Column 18’s pristine condition is particularly incompatible with LPI’s hypothesis. It cannot be the case that a large aircraft of any type hit the building along the purported trajectory and left Column 18 intact. The US government’s very own RADES data refutes the notion that a large aircraft traveled over the bridge, through the generator, and into the building, as LPI suggests it did. These data points alone falsify LPI’s hypothesis.

Granted, we may never be able to prove exactly what happened that day. But by at least proving what could not have happened, we get a step closer to the truth. Given the incongruities between LPI’s preliminary conclusion and the verifiable data at hand, this author suggests researchers study all sources of primary evidence and all witness interviews before making any definitive determinations or declarations.

References​

• ​
• https://archive.org/details/FBI_FOIPA_1141552_PENTAGON_WRECKAGE​
• NTSB_AAL-77_UAL-93 directory listing​
• https://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/official-interviews​
• Brookman, Ronald H. (2012) ‘A Discussion of ‘Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse’ Journal of 9/11 Studies, October 2012.​
• Cole, John. (2023) ‘Discussion of “Spontaneous Collapse Mechanism of World Trade Center Twin Towers and Progressive Collapse in General” by Jia-Liang Le and Zdeněk P. Bažant’ Journal of 9/11 Studies, July 2023.​
• Hulsey, J. L., Quan, Z., & Xiao, F. (2019). A structural reevaluation of the collapse of World Trade Center 7. Institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks. World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) University of Alaska Fairbanks​
• Mlakar, Paul E., et al. “The Pentagon building performance report.” American Society of Civil Engineers, 2003. https://ascelibrary.org/action/showBook?doi=10.1061/9780784406380​
• Němec, I., Trcala, M., Vala, J., & Vaněčková, A. (2018). A contribution to analysis of collapse of high-rise building inspired by the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2: Derivation of simple formulas for collapse upper speed and acceleration. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 6(12), 2666-2680.​
• Szuladzinski, Gregory et al. (2013). ‘Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis’ International Journal of Protective Structures, June 2013.​

Author Information ​

Rebuttal to “Large Plane Impact Damage to the Wall of the Pentagon and Adjacent Objects” - International Center for 9/11 Justice

While describing exactly what may or may not have impacted the Pentagon’s E-Ring wall in 2001 may never be possible, this paper argues that the conclusions reached in “Large Plane Impact Damage to the Wall of the Pentagon and Adjacent Objects” (hereafter, LPI) are based upon selective use of...

ic911.org

 

[The Irish Ram]

You're fixated on a few Specific Points, where if You do not get an answer that fits Your Narrative, then You reject everything else,..... Pretty much like Your Belief in another Topic, about The "Rapture".

But in a "Secular Fashion",........ Irish, where's the Proof that America Bombed Hiroshima, & Nagasaki ? Where are all of the Bodies?

But Truth, we have video of what happened to Hiroshima. There was no attempt to cover it up. It was undeniable.
There is 0 support for 200+ being gassed in Ohio. A theory has to at least be plausible.
That the government lied, is likely. Fairies turning the passengers into toads, because the government lied, is far more unlikely than the government's version.
Without me fixated on bodies, we can go on and test the theory with other improbable notions.
Who built drones that looked just like the airplanes that people witnessed flying into a building? And then built 3 more with nobody mentioning it?

When the government told us that there was nothing to see at Area 51, eyewitnesses disagreed and told us what they saw. They were believable.
When the government told us there was no truth to the rumor that there was a shelter under the Greenbrier Resort, the people in Lewisburg, that built the underground complex, told everyone the truth. And it was believable.

There are just too many impossible assumptions in the Ohio story to make it credible...