A wakeup call for non-violent
New Blog! www.crookedshepherds.wordpress.com
New pentagon overflight evidence: www.thepentacon.com
The Five-Sided Fantasy Island?
An analysis of the Pentagon crash on 9-11
By Richard Stanley & Jerry Russell
This is an archive of version 0.3 (1/9/2004) -- For the current version, go to www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm
Beginning with the appearance of the "Hunt the Boeing" website by Thierry Meyssan, there has been a dedicated cadre of researchers -- including Dick Eastman, Eric Hufschmid, Gerard Holmgren, Jeff Strahl, Kee Dewdney, Carol Valentine and others -- who have argued that the Pentagon attack on 9/11 was an outrageous fraud, and that no 757 aircraft struck the Pentagon. This has generated vociferous controversy -- not so much among the general public, who find the idea of a black-ops "magic show" on 9-11 to be about as likely as any other X-Files plot involving flying saucers and shape-shifting aliens -- but among the small community of 9-11 researchers and skeptics. The lack of incontrovertible physical evidence of a 757 attack has been highly troubling, yet at the same time the amount of eyewitness testimony and physical evidence that a 757 struck the Pentagon seems substantial (at least on a casual analysis) and many of the arguments in favor of the missile theory have been subjected to relentless attacks by debunkers such as Sarah Roberts, Ron Harvey, John Judge, Michael Rivero, and JP Desmoulins.
We do not pretend that our analysis is likely to resolve this dispute -- but we do attempt to show that some of the most appealing arguments that have been used by "missile theory" advocates are based on flawed intuition. Investigators have been going down the "garden path" by over-reacting to anomalies -- such as the small hole size and the lack of sizable wing debris -- which can ultimately be explained in terms of the physics of aircraft strikes against reinforced concrete targets.
Nevertheless, there is a residual level of suspicious circumstances, video and photographic evidence, and unexplained eyewitness testimony, which raise the highly disturbing possibility that the entire Pentagon scenario was indeed a "Five Sided Fantasy Island" episode -- a pyrotechnical magic show, crafted like a Hollywood special effect. While a missile or a small attack jet may very well have been involved (as most skeptics have claimed), it's also quite possible that the damage to the Pentagon may have been entirely the result of a series of explosive demolitions, while a 757 did a low-altitude fly-over to provide a convincing illusion of an airliner impact. If this is the case, the perpetrators' motives, methods and opportunity are all easy enough to identify.
If the "757 attack" was a fraud, then it was not carried out by incompetent jerks who couldn't figure out how big the hole should have been, or what sort of engines are used in a 757. It was a deliberate, carefully planned deception which was designed and implemented to be as indistinguishable as possible from the "real McCoy". Thus, we find a very high level of detailed accuracy in the photographic record of the incident. Many aspects appear to comport very precisely with the explanation that a 757 impacted the Pentagon west wedge, just as the "official story" says.
We also acknowledge the likelihood that some of the suspicious and confusing evidence may have been intentionally planted by intelligence operatives, either to hide the scam and muddy the waters (if indeed there was no 757 that hit the Pentagon) -- or, in order to give subtle support to the Pentagon missile controversy, and draw attention away from other aspects of 9-11 which present a much more compelling case for government complicity. If this latter explanation is correct, then perhaps 9-11 investigators can be forgiven for their own imaginative reconstructions of cruise missiles and F-16 attack jets.
Regardless of the truth of the matter -- we believe that as long as there are unanswered questions about 9-11, the Pentagon crash deserves to be a matter of ongoing research and public inquiry.
Lacking an official 'conclusive' government investigation into the physical evidence of the Pentagon event of 9/11/2001, we can consider the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance report and its eyewitness testimony, and the scientific presentations referenced in that ASCE report, i.e. Sugano et al 1992 and the Purdue computer simulation, as definitive baselines for analysis. In other words, the unofficial official story.
References to reports, specifications, and witness commentary, and more photographs, are provided at the end.
"The Plane! The Plane!" (Or the lack thereof...)
Left: First frame from security camera video, purportedly showing a 757 approaching the Pentagon. Right: How a 757 should have looked, superimposed in the correct scale and perspective into the security camera image. (Source: www.misternet.org/nerdcities/Pentagon/explosion.htm )
A set of five frames from a security camera video were released by Pentagon sources on March 7, 2002, and were shown widely on US media as evidence of a plane crash at the Pentagon. This was apparently in response to the increasing notoriety of Thierry Meyssan and his French best-seller, "L'effroyable imposture", or "The Big Lie".
However -- in a bizarre, Orwellian version of the tale of the Emperor's Clothes -- none of these US media was willing to acknowledge the obvious, that there is no 757 aircraft visible in the surveillance camera image shown above on the left. As the anonymous author of the Guardian website showed: if there had been a 757 in the image, it should have been as prominent as the 757 sketched in the correct scale and perspective in the image on the right.
If anything, there appears to be the white exhaust plume of a missile, trailing behind what might be the tail of a small fighter such as an F-16 or Harrier jump jet. Advocates of the missile theory viewed this, at first, as "manna from Heaven". However, soon some investigators began to look carefully at this possible Trojan Horse, and found numerous questionable aspects: missing frames and evidence of other image manipulations. Dick Eastman still maintains that the security camera video is valid evidence -- but if Eastman's theory is correct, then shouldn't the 757 also appear in these frames, flying just over the Pentagon at the same time as the "killer jet" moves towards the target? Eastman's theory depends on a psychological masking effect well-known to stage magicians: a large, prominent and noisy object (the 757) can draw attention away from a smaller, less obvious object (the "killer jet") or the two could be confused and melded into one perception, but only if the two objects are close together in time and space.
We believe that the controversy and bickering over these images is quite possibly what the government intended. Under these circumstances, the wise thing to do is neither to accept these images uncritically, nor to reject them outright. The most statesmanlike approach is simply to point out the fact that there is no 757 here -- and to demand persistently to see the original, unaltered and complete sequence of images from this camera. For that matter, why can't we see some of the other security camera film that was seized by the FBI, some reportedly within minutes after the crash?
Another aspect of this information release may be the effect of sheer intimidation towards the 9-11 skeptic movement. The US government is so brazen in its contempt for the American people, that it is willing to openly show this video of a missile attack on the Pentagon on 9-11, without offering so much as a word in explanation or justification. These tremendously incriminating images were shown on national television, yet they hardly made a ripple in the national consciousness. In its own way, this is just as outrageous as the CIA-organized murder of John Kennedy, in front of the whole world, at Dealey Plaza some 40 years ago.
If indeed these images are real (although perhaps touched-up to compensate for artifacts in the originals) -- then some whistle-blower from deep within the Pentagon may be (literally or figuratively) turning over in his grave, in amazement over the lack of widespread, national impact for this evidence. It is as if the Zapruder film, showing the President thrown "back and to the left", had been showed, uncut, in 1964 -- with the response being nothing but a collective shrug of the shoulders.
Missing confetti mystery
As noted in the Purdue computer simulation report, there is an extensive literature regarding the effects of impact of aircraft on reinforced concrete structures. The question is important because of the possible effects of an air crash (such as, for example, a terrorist attack) onto the concrete containment of a nuclear power plant. The studies indicate that it is difficult for an aircraft to penetrate a blast-hardened, reinforced concrete containment. While the construction of the Pentagon is not strictly comparable to a nuclear containment vessel, nevertheless the western wedge had recently been rehabilitated for high blast resistance. We attempted some basic calculations (see appendix I) and found that the Pentagon structure may well have been strong enough to resist destruction by an aircraft such as a 757 flying at speeds less than 200 to 300 mph.
A key report, Sugano et al 1992, covers a rocket sled crash experiment using an F-4D Phantom jet fighter impacting into a 10 foot thick reinforced concrete block. Video images of the test are available at http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm. Sandia notes:
With very minimal damage to the concrete target block, the plane and its engines were easily converted into small pieces of metal confetti at the physical interface of the two impact objects. Upon initial impact, the follow-on rear portions of the plane yet to make contact retained their shape integrity until their respective impact. (This seriously contradicts claims by JP Desmoulins that the wings of a 757 would have folded forward, as well as claims in the popular press that the wings folded back before entering the "too-small" hole.) The resulting shear caused debris being spread out to the left, right, and rear of the impact locus, having no ability to proceed in their original vector path, having grossly failed the test of strength with the concrete block.
The significance of Sugano is that we would expect any part of the aircraft which failed to penetrate the facade of the Pentagon, to be reduced to a spray of confetti. While the building only has 10 inch thick brick and masonry infill walls, the facade's columns spaced 10 feet apart were concrete reinforced with spiral wound and axial steel rebar, and were supposed to have been reinforced during the building's renovation project in this very section. In the direction vector of the plane, the second story concrete floor slab was effectively contiguous for approximately 300 feet. Additionally, the plane's wings had to hit the electrical generator to the right and contractor's trailers to the left before possibly impacting the building. While (according to the ASCE report) the fuselage and core portion of the airplane were able to penetrate the facade and enter the building, the outer portions of the wings could not have penetrated the facade, and thus that portion of the plane (at least) should have been converted to small fragments.
The photographic record provides little evidence of a debris field sufficiently extensive to account for thousands of pounds of wing structure.
The background of this image above shows significant amounts of debris immediately to the northwest of the crash site. But it is difficult to say how much of it is aluminum from an aircraft, and how much is paper, limestone, and other debris from the explosion. In the foreground, this shows a widely-debated, large piece of debris, whose appearance comports with the starboard fuselage of the American Airlines 757. Some investigators have argued that it strains the bounds of credulity, that this piece of the fuselage could have been thrown so far from the opposite side of the aircraft at impact. Yet, if we imagine that the fuselage was involved in a process of crashing into and reflecting off of the Pentagon wall (before penetration could be achieved) then perhaps this can be comprehended as a bizarre fluke. In view of the many questions that have been raised (Is the sheet metal too thin? Is the lettering the correct size? Why isn't the paint scorched or scratched, if this bounced off the Pentagon wall?) this piece should be on display in a museum. Yet Christopher Bollyn states that "...the large piece of debris that appeared to be from an American Airlines jet has not even been inventoried by the Dept. of Defense. As a journalist for American Free Press in Washington, I have tried repeatedly to get the Pentagon to clarify the status of this important piece of debris that was seen by millions. As of this date there has been NO response to numerous requests."
In this next photo (above) by witness Steve Riskus, we see some indeterminate debris on the helipad, but the grass and the highway look clear.
A picture of the highway, http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010013.JPG (also by Riskus), doesn't show much confetti -- although there is one chunk (which might also be a fast-food wrapper), next to the standing man carrying what looks like a bicycle tire. Many other images of the scene at the Pentagon, anywhere further than 50 meters from the impact site, show little if any visible debris. This seems to contradict eyewitness testimony of large amounts of debris falling at sites as far away as highway 27.
This image of the generator trailer (above) clearly shows an absence of debris at exactly where the ASCE's star witness, Frank Probst, said that he saw "bits of metal and concrete drifting down like confetti". (Source: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/damage/moteurDroit-l.jpg)
Frank Probst eyewitness statements
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf from page 13
All three are professional staff members of the Pentagon Renovation Program Office and collectively provide a coherent and credible account of the events.
Frank Probst, 58, is a West Point graduate, decorated Vietnam veteran, and retired army lieutenant colonel who has worked for the Pentagon Renovation Program Office on information management and telecommunications since 1995. ..... As he approached the heliport (figure 3.2) he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him. According to the Arlington County after-action report (Arlington County, 2002), this occurred at 938 a.m.The aircraft pulled up, seemingly aiming for the first floor of the building, and leveled off. Probst hit the ground and observed the right wing tip pass through the portable 750 kW generator that provides backup power to Wedge 1.The right engine took out the chainlink fence and posts surrounding the generator. The left engine struck an external steam vault before the fuselage entered the building. As the fireball from the crash moved toward him, Probst ran toward the South Parking Lot and recalls falling down twice. Fine pieces of wing debris floated down about him. The diesel fuel for the portable generator ignited while he was running.
Don Mason, 62, is a communications specialist who retired from the United States Air Force after 25 years of service. He has worked for the Pentagon Renovation Program Office on information management and telecommunications since 1996. At the time of the crash he was stopped in traffic west of the building.The plane approached low, flying directly over him and possibly clipping the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him, and struck three light poles between him and the building. He saw his colleague Frank Probst directly in the plane's path, and he witnessed a small explosion as the portable generator was struck by the right wing. The aircraft struck the building between the heliport fire station and the generator, its left wing slightly lower than its right wing. As the plane entered the building, he recalled seeing the tail of the plane. The fireball that erupted upon the plane's impact rose above the structure. Mason then noticed flames coming from the windows to the left of the point of impact and observed small pieces of the facade falling to the ground. Law enforcement personnel moved Mason's vehicle and other traffic on, and he did not witness the subsequent partial collapse of the building.
Rich Fitzharris, 52, is an electrical engineer and a former residential contractor. He has been the operations group chief of the Pentagon Renovation Program Office since 1996. He was in the Modular Office Compound at the time of the crash and rushed to the site on foot, arriving before the partial collapse. He recalls that the building-near the area of impact-was in flames, and he remembers seeing small pieces of debris, the largest of which might have been part of an engine shroud. He was at the heliport when a portion of the structure collapsed. The collapse initiated at the fifth floor along the building expansion joint, proceeded continuously and was completed within a few seconds. According to the Arlington County after-action report, this occurred at 957 a.m., or 19 minutes after impact.
More Probst statements
Frank Probst a Pentagon renovation worker and retired Army officer, he was inspecting newly installed telecommunications wiring inside the five-story, 6.5-million-square-foot building. About 935 a.m., he saw the airliner in the cloudless September sky. American Airlines Flight 77 approached from the west, coming in low over the nearby five-story Navy Annex on a hill overlooking the Pentagon. He had lights off, wheels up, nose down," Probst recalled. The plane seemed to be accelerating directly toward him. He dove to his right. He recalls the engine passing on one side of him, about six feet away. The plane's right wing went through a generator trailer "like butter," Probst said. The starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blew apart.
I dove towards the ground and watched this great big engine from this beautiful airplane just vaporize. It looked like a huge fireball, pieces were flying out everywhere." He still can't remember the sound of the explosion. . . the jet
vanishing in a cloud of smoke and dust, and bits of metal and concrete drifting down like confetti.On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner's wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.
Our Analysis of Probst Account
·He sees the plane approaching him, dives to ground, observes the port (left) engine strike the corner of the steam vault retaining wall and the starboard (right) engine strike the chain link fence adjacent to the portable generator, while only 6 feet from one engine's path. This is the creation of the engine 'footprints'. Needless to say, it is remarkable that Mr. Probst is still in one piece after just being missed by 6 feet by a 757 engine and wing, allegedly moving at approximately 450 mph.
· He gets up and runs to the south, after falling twice he notices metal debris falling down around him.
· In a second account, Probst sees the port engine 'vaporize' upon impact with the steam vault retaining wall, and the starboard engine hit the chain link fence adjacent to the Caterpillar portable electrical generator.
In this case, Frank Probst had the amazing presence of mind to observe the plane coming straight towards him at approximately 450 mph, see it level out, he dives to the ground, and just happens to catch both engines as they impact objects outside the building. This after just being missed by one of the engines by 6 feet. Fortunately, the ASCE assures us of Frank Probst's probity.
Aircraft debris inside the Pentagon
Many investigators have noted that there is no evidence of the appropriate quantities of aircraft debris inside the Pentagon, where most of the plane should have come to rest according to the official story. Only a few pieces have been photographed, and these photographs for the most part are lacking in context. Semi-official sources have speculated that perhaps fire consumed the aircraft -- yet this seems highly unlikely, according to an analysis by Kee Dewdney and Gerry Longspaugh. For those parts of the fuselage and wing which were able to penetrate the Pentagon walls, we would expect the debris to be intact in much larger chunks, similar to most air crashes where the airframe has an opportunity to decelerate gradually. The lack of evidence of large amounts of aircraft debris from inside the Pentagon is a highly suspicious circumstance, which could be addressed by the release of more Pentagon cleanup photographs (some of which might have been withheld due to the presence of human remains.)
Engine debris from Pentagon, showing combustion chamber housing (Source: unknown? Found at Killtown)
Engine compressor or turbine disc (Source: http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/index.jsp, Photo #4414)
The plane debris observed in various photographs does indeed comport with that of a 757, at least to the limited degree with which they can be compared to actual 757 parts or the manufacturer's detail drawings, as shown above. The engine compressor or turbine disk appears to be approximately the correct diameter to have been used in a Rolls Royce RB211-535E4B engine, as used in American Airlines 757 aircraft. The fragment of the high pressure combustor casing also comports with the string of fuel inlet nozzle holes, the mounting bosses of which have the correct number of screw holes (6). The combustor is definitely not from a Pratt and Whitney PW2037, which is the other make of 757 engine used in the airline industry.
Some observers have claimed that these engine parts are too small to have come from a 757. The confusion is because the RB-211 engine configuration is dominated by the large turbofan at the front of the engine. However, because the RB-211 is a "high bypass" engine, the high-pressure compressor, combustion chamber and turbine are all much smaller than the turbofan.
The one picture of a wheel hub seems to match that of photographs of various 757's, some having 8 spoke reliefs and others having 9.
The question remaining here from the extremely limited amount of crudely identifiable 757 parts is what can be derived from this evidence? There were two engines on the plane, there should be many more turbine disks, blade and vane fragments, and casing fragments. There should be 9 more wheel hubs to be accounted for, as well as more landing gear parts. There should also be heavy tungsten (not Depleted Uranium) counterweight ballasts to have survived. (These counterweights are used to balance the ailerons, flaps and tail control surfaces, to prevent flutter.) Depleted Uranium is used as ballast on 747s, L1011s, and DC10s, not 757s or 767s.
So in light of all the other anomalies, one must ask whether the parts were from a 757, or were they planted as fake evidence, perhaps having been from an earlier 757 crash? Or perhaps some of the pictures were taken directly from other crashes (although this would not account for the turbine rotor, which does appear in context. Eyewitness Lagasse also reported that one engine was seen being removed from the Pentagon.) As Gerard Holmgren has noted, all of the parts shown in photographs released by the Pentagon are small, portable chunks.
With regards to the missile theory: The engine parts might comport with the Rolls-Royce turbofan engine in a British Harrier jump-jet, but probably not with a Global Hawk or other missile. The wheel and landing gear parts do not look like they came from a fighter plane or missile. After a diligent search, we have been unable to find any photographs of parts which are clearly from a fighter jet or missile, rather than from a Boeing 757.
The Quantum Flight Path
In order to comply with the lateral trajectory path over the Naval Annex, the plane needed to be making a left turn in order to pick up the 5 light poles, just missing the adjacent overhead highway sign and much taller VDOT camera pole to its right, and allow for the engines to hit the steam vault retaining wall and the chain link fence adjacent to the electrical generator. This means that between the Naval Annex and the light poles the plane needed to level out much of its turning bank angle to avoid hitting the ground with its left wingtip or engine. And do this while also pulling out of its simultaneous dive as discussed just above. All in the space of a few seconds.
Because of this necessary left turn arc further to the south, it becomes difficult for the plane to pick up both the 5 light poles and the engine impacts with the retaining wall and the chain link fence, and have the centerline of the 757 fuselage impact column 14. Column 14 was located at the center of the second story gap between columns 13 and 15. This means the building impact needed to be significantly further to the left -- unless the flight path was slightly deflected back towards the right by the forces of the engine impact with the retaining wall. Yet we can see the presence of a hanging window between columns 12 and 13 before the collapse. While a real 757 might have had trouble completely penetrating the blast-reinforced walls, the contrast between the behavior of the second-story walls between columns 11 and 13, and between 13 and 15, is quite surprising if in fact the fuselage impact was at column 13, not at column 14.
Laterally, starting at the gas station, the 757 (if it was the same plane that hit the lamp-posts and the Pentagon) must have realigned its flight path by about 250 feet southward within a distance of 1000 feet, to conform with the eyewitness testimony by Police Sergeant Lagasse, as cited by Dick Eastman. We estimate that the minimal turning radius required for this re-alignment would be about 2000 feet. Even at a ground speed of only 200 mph, this would require a turning force of 1.5 G, which would also require a bank over 45 degrees. The turn would have needed to be established and then cleared within a period of roughly 3 seconds. Also, as Eastman noted, other early indications (and testimony by Riskus) said that the 757 was seen approaching the Pentagon at approximately a 90 degree angle, which is completely inconsistent with the light pole evidence.
The above image gives a graphic view of the impossibility that the 757 could have gone over the annex (the large building in the foreground) and then knocked over light-poles at the Washington Blvd. overpass (at right) before striking the Pentagon.
Of all accounts of the Pentagon scenario, the hypothesis of Dick Eastman (that a small "killer jet" was responsible for the actual impact to the Pentagon) is most responsive to eyewitness accounts by civilian observers, including the testimony of Lagasse, Riskus, and Campo placing the 757 well to the north of the lamp pole damage; as well as testimony indicating that a smaller plane than a 757 was seen close to the impact. If the eyewitness accounts are correct, then the 757 seen over the gas station and over Washington Blvd, could not possibly be the same as the cause of the damage to the Pentagon.
Yet all of this eyewitness testimony can hardly be treated as conclusive. Some of the testimony may have been confused, some might have been planted or coached (either to lend credibility to the "official story" or to "muddy the water" by providing evidence for the missile theory), and it is also possible (in accordance with the pure demolition theory) that these witnesses saw the 757 at a higher altitude, and then saw the explosion at the Pentagon -- and confabulated that the plane was lower or smaller than it was, in order to build a consistent mental image of events which took place very quickly.
The near level vertical axis approach attitude of the alleged craft resulted in a pre-collapse impact related damage pattern to the Pentagon structure confined to the first and second floors of the building. This has led to a number of questions.
The following image (from Delorme's Topo USA 4.0) shows an elevation profile for a hypothetical 757 flight path. This clearly illustrates the descending terrain as the plane approaches the Pentagon. The Sheraton Hotel is a 17-story building near Orme Street, the Annex is a large 5-story office building between Highway 244 (Columbia Pike), Southgate Rd, and Oak Street, and the Citgo gas station is east of Joyce St. Note that the small light blue cross on the flight path corresponds to the blue crossing lines on the profiles for reference. And note that there is not much elevation change from the cloverleaf to the area of the Pentagon, but the elevation gets steeper further to the west of the cloverleaf.
Elevation profile with approximate 757 flight path
Starting over the Sheraton and ending at the Pentagon, and noting that Lagasse estimated that the 757 passed 50 feet over the Annex, and 80 feet over the gas station, and estimating that the 1st lamp post was at least 40 feet tall, we obtain the following estimates for the aircraft altitude over sea level at various checkpoints:
0 mile mark (Sheraton) -- 320 feet
0.35 miles (Naval Annex) -- 230 feet
0.6 miles (gas station) -- 125 feet
0.75 miles (1st lamp post) -- 80 feet
0.95 miles (Pentagon hit) -- 40 feet
These estimates are consistent with a continuous descent rate of about 1 foot vertically for each 20 feet horizontally. If the airplane continued on this path for its penetration into the Pentagon, it should have descended another 10 feet into the building by the time it exited the the C ring hole -- which is just possible, if the fuselage entered between the 1st and 2nd floor.
In fact, the real difficulty may be how the airplane managed to maintain this continuous downward flight path. If the pilot was trying hard to push the airplane down as close to the ground as possible, the craft would have encountered "ground effect", an increase of lift and decrease of drag experienced by low-wing aircraft operating a few feet above the terrain. This effect can make it very difficult to land an airplane until all excess speed has been "bled off". See http://www.infinity21.co.kr/non-it/wig_home/wig_aerodynamics.html .
Liquid Hammer Jet Fuel Induced Concrete Erosion, As Per Purdue?
The Purdue simulation shows a computer modeled 757 impacting into a representation of the Pentagon. It is interesting for several reasons.
·It shows the aluminum fuselage and wings of the plane being shredded by the building's reinforced columns until those columns are eventually demolished by the mass of the fuel contained in the wings and the center tank of the fuselage. The shredding of the aluminum comports with the Sugano report, which of course is in dire conflict with the photographic evidence as discussed above. (However, the Sugano paper did attempt to account for the effects of fuel in aircraft impacts -- the F4D fuel tanks were filled with water, which was presumed to have similar mechanical properties to jet fuel. No special damage was notably caused by this fluid, apart from the expected force of impact as predicted by the momentum equation.)
·Ostensibly due to manpower and computational limitations, several aspects of the event were not modeled. This includes the effect of the column infill walls, the new blast resistant windows, and the newly added reinforcement steel, the debris containment mesh, and the second story floor slab and everything above. This allowed for the survival of major sections of the 757 tail section. Also, it appears that fuel was left in the wings clear out to the extreme wingtips, as these also penetrated the simulation building in contrast to the real event. Of course, all these details that are missing, or excessive, might possibly allow for some wiggle room for when tough questions arise. It can be stated that it was not the intent to create a perfect model, just enough to show the 'major' effects to the columns.
·The damage to the columns seen in the simulation were 'calibrated' to the actual columns by empirically adjusting the simulation parameters until a match was obtained. Of course, we are left to wonder as to how compliant the calibration is to reality considering all the variables that were omitted.
·By advancing frame by frame one can see the engines vanish as if being subsumed underneath the ground level floor. While it could be understood that it may be somewhat imponderable to decide on the precise lateral point of impact and the effect of the retaining wall on the mechanical integrity of the port engine, we can see that the starboard engine has an elevation problem simply because the starboard wing has been modeled at such a low elevation so as to reproduce the actual column damage along the right side where the columns remained attached to the ceiling and bent back. Yet the plane was supposed to still be maintaining a bank to the left such that the starboard wing impacted high enough to cross the second story floor slab.
·The simulation did not attempt to render the wire spools to 3D even though their dark 2D circles can be seen in the Space Imaging satellite photo used from 9/7/2001, 4 days before the event. The plane merely flies right over them.
Aluminum Siding Saves Money when Remodeling and Reinforcing (your scams, that is...)
Pentagon facade "limestone"? (Source: http://members.fortunecity.com/911/pentagon/pentagon-retrofit.htm)
·The incident took place at the site of the 'renovation' effort which was ostensibly 5 days from re-occupancy. Of course, we have no idea what the renovators were really up to there, for all we know they could have been building a "Hollywood fake front". (Note the shoddy workmanship of the so-called "limestone" facade above, and the peculiar sheet-metal siding underneath this "limestone" veneer.) The so-called terrorists had no reason to oblige by hitting the renovation zone, but as smart as we are told they were, they should have hit the commanding brass' offices and the NMCC on the opposite side.
High-quality limestone work a few yards further away. (Source: http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/index.jsp photo 4418.)
·Column 19AA on the second floor is deflected to the right, in the opposite direction from the way that it should be.
·The impact also occurred at such a lateral location as to take perfect advantage of the expansion joint between different building sections at column 11 (the double columns - one for each side of the joint). This made the later collapse more plausible as weight was not able to transfer into the columns to the east of the expansion joint. Having the impact zone collapse conveniently limited the area that could be photographed in the coming days.
·Note the presence of numerous rectangular sheets of metal strewn across the area in font of the impact zone and up onto the rooftops of the D and C rings. These relatively pristine metal sheets appear to be roughly the size of the various facade masonry pieces.
·Firemen stated that the most externally observed fire was coming from the contractor's trailer.
·Odd metal frames were sticking up in front of the impact zone before the collapse, some of them appeared to have gas bottles mounted inside of them.
If the various anomalies are taken to indicate that no 757 hit the Pentagon, there are a variety of reasons to believe that pyrotechnics (Hollywood "special effects") were responsible for the damage, rather than an "attack plane".
·If a smaller impact plane and missile was used then significant externally observed lateral damage had to be fabricated. If the missile failed to strike the building, or if incompatible debris were revealed, there would be significant spin problems for the perpetrators.
·The flight mission as detailed in the 'official story' is also highly risky and prone to failure.
·Because of the prior two items, 100% demolition and pyrotechnics becomes preferable. Mistakes can be corrected.
Red fire truck riders of the quantum stage
·The permanently assigned red helipad fire truck which was claimed to be severely burnt during the initial impact fireball was seen to be moved around into various locations with respect to the column 1 wedge abutment doorway to the left of the impact zone. It was not mistaken for a different red fire truck as no other damaged fire truck can be seen between the 'moving' fire truck and the helipad garage further to the left.
But this red firetruck did move around after all; see pictures at http://www.misternet.org/nerdcities/Pentagon/oddity.htm.
· A green SUV located very close to the crash site, was shown with its green paint intact in several photographs taken during the initial fire. Yet it was inexplicably reduced to a burned-out cinder-colored hulk, after the bulk of the fire had died down. What happened?
·Captain Burlingame, of American Airlines Flight 77, was also the military author of the Pentagon's brand new Emergency Response Plan covering the case of an airplane impact with the Pentagon.
·Operation Vigilant Guardian was concurrently underway during 9/11 covering the case of airliners being flown into buildings. This is claimed by some to be a reason that the NORAD intercept command chain in the Pentagon's National Military Command Center was slow in responding, as they were confused by the similarity of the counter-terror exercise with reality. Or perhaps more likely, the training exercise served simply to provide cover. In any case, this and the prior item belie the government claim that no one had thought of planes being crashed into buildings prior to this time.
·FAA radar data is, like the black box data, 'unavailable' to the public to confirm any version of the flight trajectory, or the presence of other aircraft in the area.
· Victim and hijacker DNA is identified despite claims that much of the 757's aluminum has been consumed in the ensuing fire.
·And early on it was claimed that the 757's nose had been responsible for the large 'punchout' in the back of the C ring (despite the fire consuming the aluminum), with the columns shredding the aluminum, and yet no significant plane aluminum was found this far. Later it is claimed that firemen enlarged the hole, as seen in the photos, for better access. Because a landing gear mechanism was found just inside the hole, it could not be from the landing gear. It could not be from an engine as we saw pictures of one having been shredded. The only thing left from a 757 could possibly be the heavy tungsten counterweight ballast. If so, then why didn't we get to see this? A nice egress hole has psychological import: this evidence eliminates the need to show damage to each and every wall of rings E, D, and C.
SummaryOur choice to study the Pentagon was based on the hope that we would find the "smoking gun", the unanswerable argument that would persuade any open-minded person that the US government was complicit in 9-11. We did not find a conclusive "sound byte" or "elevator pitch" that begins to compare (as an introduction to 9-11) with the insider trading scandal, the Air Force failure to respond, the black ops intelligence connections of the "terrorist" patsies, the forewarnings from governments around the world, or the strange collapse of WTC Building Seven.
In spite of the many anomalies and inconsistencies, 9-11 skeptics need to realize that a wide variety of evidence comports with the conclusion that a 757 impacted the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Many eyewitnesses reported seeing a 757 approach the Pentagon, and some claimed to see that same aircraft impact the facade. A C-130 cargo plane is also reported to have been flying close behind, which might account for some of the confusion in other eyewitness testimony. Contrary to much of the Internet analysis, the impact hole is also quite possibly consistent with a 757 -- even though it appears to be too small. The light-pole evidence is consistent with a 757 aircraft (if the poles were rearranged by passers-by) and the "engine fingerprints" appear to require an impact by a twin-engine aircraft with the exact engine spacing of a 757.
On the other hand, there are a number of highly suspicious circumstances which are inconsistent with this "official story". The insufficient debris, the eyewitness inconsistencies, the quantum flight path, the shoddy "movie set" facade, and the missile plume in the "security video", all point to the likelihood of a hoax. Much of the observed physical evidence in the photographs also comports with full demolition, which would have provided orders of magnitude better operational surety of proper completion without the undue risk associated with an impact plane missing its target, either using terrorist hijackers or domestic agent provocateurs.
Although we believe the complexities of such a sham are well within the capabilities of any reasonably competent Hollywood special effects department -- we must also acknowledge that for most people, the idea that a government bureaucracy could conceive of such a plot is simply beyond hilarious. Politically, there is a possibility that an emphasis on Pentagon questions will be taken as evidence of insanity on the part of the "conspiracy theorists". Is it wise to focus more attention on this Pentagon topic, while there are now plenty of less debatable grounds to show that the US government is acting as a criminal enterprise? There's plenty of room for activists to disagree about issues of emphasis, even among those who believe the evidence that the Pentagon attack was a fraud.
We do not mean to add to the bickering that has surrounded this topic. We don't claim that we have sufficient evidence to solve the case once and for all. We can't prove that the Pentagon attack was entirely carried out as an explosive demolition (as opposed to the involvement of a small plane or missile in the attack). We don't even feel that we can prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that no 757 hit the Pentagon, yet at the same time we are loathe to debunk the skeptics and give unqualified support to the "official story".
We do hope that we have given our readers an appreciation of the subtle complexities of this case, and that the possibility of a pyrotechnic "magic show" at the Pentagon will be increasingly recognized by 911 skeptics.
Based on the Sugano et al. paper, we have attempted to calculate the forces that would be involved in a hypothetical crash of a 757 against the Pentagon. The results are tantalizing yet uncertain.
First of all, we believe this analysis fully explains why "the hole was too small". The wingtips and the tail of a 757 are quite light in weight compared to the fuselage, wing roots, and engines; thus it's very unlikely that they would have had sufficient impact force to crash through the facade. Thus, if a 757 struck the Pentagon, it makes perfectly good sense that the wingtips would have been smashed into confetti by the impact, leaving the facade largely unperturbed at those locations.
If the impact of the "757" occurred at a relatively low velocity, such as 200 mph, it seems questionable whether any part of the aircraft would have penetrated the Pentagon wall. On the contrary, the plane probably should have been entirely smashed and shredded. Furthermore (and perhaps this is the most important point) if I'm making this calculation correctly, the planners of the operation would have been aware of the problem, which might have led to the logistical decision to use pyrotechnics and / or a missile or missiles to penetrate the facade.
At high speed (400-500 mph) penetration of the facade is much more likely (though perhaps not certain) -- yet a high-speed attack directed at the first floor of the Pentagon would have been difficult to carry out accurately with a 757, because of turbulence and ground-effect.
There are enough uncertainties in this calculation, that we would be very uncomfortable claiming that it would be *impossible* that any part of the aircraft would have penetrated the facade. But, if it is accepted (based on other evidence) that 9/11 was an inside job, then this analysis may help to explain why the planners might have decided to use missiles or pyrotechnics, rather than relying on a 757.
There is a similar situation with the WTC towers -- the planners could hardly have tolerated the uncertainty of an uncontrolled collapse -- so they would have needed to place some explosive charges, to prevent the towers from tipping sideways and destroying all of Wall Street.
According to Sugano et al, by far the most important determinant of the impact force is the term F=alpha*V^2*u, where u is the mass (per unit of length) of the airframe which is abruptly smashed against the wall, and alpha is a correction factor equal to 0.9. So if we use the figures in the ASCE report for the weights and dimensions of the 757 aircraft, and apply some reasonable assumptions about the distribution of mass within the wings, we can estimate the impact forces fairly accurately.
The wings of the 757 are tapered from the roots to the tips; from the drawing in the ASCE report, we estimated a chord length of 8 meters at the roots, 5 meters at 7 meters out, and 3 meters at the tip. The thickness of the wing is tapered proportionately, so the mass of the wing's structure should be roughly proportional to the square of the chord. The ASCE report says the mass of the wing structure is 13,500 pounds in each wing. If this mass is distributed as the square of the chord length, then 8750 pounds of this is located within the first 7 meters of the wingspan, while the remaining 4750 pounds are in the tips. Furthermore, the engines weigh 11,900 pounds each, and the landing gear weighs 3800 pounds. The fuel mass is 14,600 pounds for each wing, and since the tanks were partly empty, most of this mass would have run towards the lowest part of the tanks (that is, towards the center). Thus, we have a total of as much as 39,050 pounds in each of the wing roots, and only 4750 pounds in the tips (the outer 10 meters of the wingspan.) This should make it clear that the penetrating power of the extremities of the aircraft should be quite limited compared to the penetrating power of the core portions.
Using F=alpha*V^2*u, alpha=0.9, we can estimate the force loading for each linear foot along the width of the airplane. We used a velocity of 90 meters/sec (200 mph) although it's very possible the "aircraft" was traveling much faster. We can also calculate the pressure in psi, using estimates for the cross-sectional area of each part. We obtained the following values: wingtips, 21,000 lbs / ft (152 psi); wing roots, 200,000 lbs / ft (413 psi); fuselage, 111,000 lbs / ft (83 psi); engines, 200,000 lbs / ft (221 psi).
All of the psi loading values are well below the yield strength of concrete, which is about 3000 psi. We also need to look at the overall loading of forces onto the columns of the structure. This is much more difficult to estimate, since it's hard to say how much of the load bearing on the limestone and brick infill would be coupled into the columns, and how much would be directly transferred into deflection of the limestone & brick. But if we assume that the force on the columns comes only from the portion of the aircraft bearing directly on those columns, then we can use the values for lbs / ft directly, for our load estimates on the columns.
We found an on-line calculator for the "moment capacity" of reinforced concrete beams, at
For 12" square beams with 8 square inches of rebar-cross-sectional area, 1" cover, concrete cylinder strength=3000psi, steel yield strength=45000psi (values estimated from the ASCE report) the calculator returns a moment capacity of 1812 in*kips.
According to this source
the load-carrying capacity of a beam loaded at the center, is equal to the moment capacity divided by 4. If this is correct, then the capacity of the Pentagon columns, treated as beams for a horizontal load, would be 450,000 pounds. This is greater than any of the estimated loads per linear foot, by more than a factor of 2. And, it is far greater than the estimated wing-tip loading.
If the "aircraft" were traveling at 400 mph, all the load figures would be quadrupled, indicating that the beams would be unlikely to survive, except at the wingtips.Parenthetical note about the WTC
The Sugano results also explain the bizarre appearance of videos showing the WTC aircraft disappearing into those buildings like knives into butter, without slowing down (which has led researchers such as "Webfairy" and others, to hypothesize that those airplanes might have been holographic effects.) The force exerted backwards from the crash through the airframe is not sufficient to cause significant deceleration of the parts that haven't impacted yet, at least from a visual point of view. In the case of the F4 experiment, although the airframe behind the crash zone experienced a 100G deceleration, this was only sufficient to slow the tail by 30 meters per second (out of 215 meters per second) during the 70-millisecond duration of the impact. (However, we do not claim that the literature on reinforced-concrete hardness to aircraft impact would be directly applicable to the WTC impacts, in terms of whether the observed damage to the WTC buildings was consistent with the official story. The 14" square columns of the WTC were made of steel, albeit only 0.25" wall thickness at the upper floor levels, so local crushing and bending effects would need to be evaluated. Square cross-sections compress into 2 flat and parallel planes rather easily with lateral force applied.)
http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm - Scroll to the bottom of the page for video and stills
http://www.sandia.gov/media/images/jpg/f4_image1.jpg - F-4D impact into concrete block
http://www.nci.org/01nci/09/npp-planecrash-quotes.htm industry claims that nuclear containments can withstand air crashes
Dick Eastman yahoo group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/20 - Lagasse testimony
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/21 - more Lagasse testimony
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/27 - discussion of Riskus testimony
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/30 - map of flight path
Confetti Summary from Eric Bart
"I didn't see any evidence of the aircraft down there" Terry Mitchell
"No large pieces apparently survived" Michael Tamillow
"All over the highway were small pieces of aircraft skin, none bigger than a half-dollar" Mark Faram
These metal 'confetti' have been blown up high in the sky "looked like white confetti raining down everywhere. The 'confetti' was little bits of airplane, falling down after being flung high into the bright, blue sky" Clyde Ragland
"The sky was darker than normal, but still didn't think much of it.Then I saw little bits of silver falling from the sky" Will Jarvis
"There was an enormous fireball,followed about two seconds later by debris raining down" Donald R. Bouchoux
"When the debris shower stopped, people began getting out of their cars" DelawareOnLine
"A column of 50 FBI officers walked shoulder-to-shoulderacross the south grounds of the Pentagon, picking up debris" Washingtonpost
"no 757" websites
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm "Too small hole"--3D simulation
http://www.effroyable-imposture.net/ Thierry Meyssan
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/wings.html More on those trees - "the burning bush speaks?"
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/nose.html The punch out hole
http://www.physics911.org/ Articles by Kee Dewdney, Gerry Longspaugh, and Gerard Holmgren
http://www.public-action.com/ Carol Valentine
http://www.public-action.com/rescue.html discussion of Office of Naval Intelligence -- gives "Washington Post, January 20, 2002, front page of Style section" as the source of the information that people from this office were killed.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/index.html Jeff Strahl's talk.
http://911review.org/ Encyclopedic info source
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1592090281/qid=1073629908/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-9442390-8503911?v=glance&s=books Pentagate book, with a review by Christopher Bollyn stating that "...the large piece of debris that appeared to be from an American Airlines jet has not even been inventoried by the Dept. of Defense. As a journalist for American Free Press in Washington, I have tried repeatedly to get the Pentagon to clarify the status of this important piece of debris that was seen by millions. As of this date there has been NO response to numerous requests."
http://anderson.ath.cx8000/911/pen06.html Mirror of Sarah Roberts
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm "Spot the poles" by Ron Harvey
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html Mike Rivero
http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackCctvVideo.shtml Review of security video evidence
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56670-2002Mar7¬Found=true Official sources questioning the Security Camera frames
Bouchoux Donald R. commentary
Washington Post, Sept. 20, 2001
There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down.
Terronez Tony commentary
there is debris coming toward me! So my reaction was, I ducked into my passenger seat and I heard the pitter-patter of pebbles and concrete bouncing off my car. And the next thing you know, I heard this big crash come from somewhere. It sounded like glass being shattered and I thought maybe, at first, it was one of my windows so I popped up to look but everything was fine. But when I looked to the car next to me I realized that something went through (the drivers) rear windshield and shattered it. There was a hole where you could see that something went through it. Then both I and the guy in front of me looked at his rear windshield and saw what was about a four-inch hole in it and the rest of the window was shattered as if someone took a baseball bat to it. At that point I didn't know it was a plane, I thought it was a missile strike.
Pulling away from the Pentagon there was tons of stuff on the ground, big pieces of metal, concrete, everything. We got up to a certain point and there was this huge piece of something - I mean it was big, it looked like a piece of an engine or something - in the road. And there was somebody, definitely a security guard or maybe a military person, with his car in front of it making sure no one touched it. (.) I looked back and I saw the fire, it was just huge
Boeing 757-200 information
wingspan - 124' 10", fuselage width - 12' 4", fuselage height - 13' 2"
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_05/textonly/ps02txt.html - Onboard loadable software, can you say a 'hack-a-pilot'?
C-32A - military version of Boeing 757 (fleet of 4, stationed at Andrews AFB)
Rolls Royce RB211-535E4B
http://www.aa.com/content/aboutAA/ourPlanes/boeing757.jhtml - Rolls Royce RB211 used by American Airlines
http://www.eng.uct.ac.za/~victor/electric/GasTurbine.htm Very nice RB211 cutaway drawing at bottom of page
Pratt and Whitney - 757's also use P&W PW2037 engineshttp://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/ruxcw.html
Arlington County After Report with Pentagon Floor Plan and damage zone in next to last pages
The damage mapping was supposedly compiled by the FBI. From the ground floor drawing one can see the other two C ring holes are just service doors.
Purdue simulation analysis
"A basic hypothesis, informally confirmed with engineers knowledgeable in this subject, is that the bulk of the impact damage is due to the body of fuel in the wing and center tanks. Most of the aircraft structure is light-weight low-mass, and relatively low strength, with the exception of the wheel undercarriage."
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/popescu/pentagonVis_files/pentagonVis2003.mpg Simulation video. Note here that they represent the fuel being carried well inside the building.
http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html "Vigilant Guardian"
http://w4.pica.army.mil/voice2001/011207/Forensicid.htm DNA identification of fatalities
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/0514_coincidence.html Capt. Burlingame and the "Emergency Response Plan"
http://www.nfpa.org/NFPAJournal/OnlineExclusive/Exclusive_11_01_01/exclusive_11.01.01.asp Not much aircraft debris inside Pentagon
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/t09122001_t0912asd.html Also reports very little debris inside Pentagon
http://www.misternet.org/nerdcities/Pentagon/oddity.htm Green SUV, red fire truck
http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/9-11/default.htm## The 9/7/2001 pic is the one which was circulated as the strange line in the grass photo. It is legit, only the line is a wear line in the grass between manhole covers of what is apparently a conduit that runs between them and in line with the utility vaults in front of the impact zone.
Copies of the same above
http://www.ceo.ncsu.edu/attack/ Series of satellite images
WTC - BTW
The above IKONOS images are reproduced here with Space Imaging's permission. Here is their required legal information "Credit spaceimaging.com. Copyright © Space Imaging. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to publish in hard copy, broadcast and electronic media, provided proper attribution is given for each and every use."
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/index.jsp a cache of high resolution FEMA photos to the interior of the Pentagon and before that WTC pics. Please note pic IDs 4414 and 4415 for the engine rotor. Observe 4421, 4429, 4430 and 4431 for interesting debris. Click on the thumbnail to get a link to the high resolution download.
http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/07mw8.htm - Jason Ingersoll, firemen walking in front of foam operation, no confetti
http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/07mxb.htm - no confetti, chain link fence is bowed over in wrong direction
http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/07mxe.htm - Hmmm, real limestone facade fractures and is white
http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/07mxq.htm - No confetti and one of the red metal frames at the elower left
http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/07mxt.htm - There's those funny red frames at the bottom
http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/07my8.htm - The starboard engine hole in the chain link fence?
http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/347599.htm - A view from the south, and still no confetti
http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/viwebpage/pentagonattackrescue/pages/347836.htm - A night view from Arlington
http://renovation.pentagon.mil/Phoenix/9-11-2001/Page.htmll - light poles and no confetti, click on images for high res pics
http://renovation.pentagon.mil/Phoenix/9-11-2001/Page0002.html - many no confetti pictures
http://renovation.pentagon.mil/Phoenix/9-11-2001/Page0003.html - many no confetti pictures
http://renovation.pentagon.mil/Phoenix/9-11-2001/b24-DSC_0505-1.jpg - no confetti, just plastic water bottles
http://renovation.pentagon.mil/Phoenix/9-11-2001/b12-DSC_0476-1.jpg - red gas bottles at lower right
http://renovation.pentagon.mil/Phoenix/9-11-2001/f07-66641855-1.jpg - odd facade, sheet metal or masonry?
http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/010911-N-6157F-001.jpg - Besides the famous debris, where is half-dollar sized confetti. Is the further debris from a plane, the trailers, or masonry?
http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/010911-N-6157F-002.jpg- No confetti here to the north
http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/010911-N-6157F-003.jpg- No confetti here to the north
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/01748r.jpg Daryl Donley - Explosion
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/01750r.jpg "" - Eclipsed Sun
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/01749r.jpg "" - Downed Lamp Pole and fireball
http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010015.JPG - Notice no aluminum confetti in the foreground in the highway as claimed
http://criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010017.JPG - More no confetti
http://criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010011.JPG - Maybe it was the street sweeper day
http://criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010016.JPG - Why is the concrete column #8 burning? Pyrotechnics? This column's facade masonry came off, yet it was not struck by the alleged wing.
http://criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010018.JPG - no confetti further out
http://criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010019.JPG - none here either
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/2.jpg Notice intense flames on ground
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/3.jpg What's going on with the electrical generator? Is it in the right spot?
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/10.jpg Trees and the utility vault opened. Notice the guy looking in the manhole. No confetti
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/11.jpg Trees, 'melted fire truck', and the cars
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/12.jpg Trees and 'blast proof' windows
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/13.jpg Debris field or demolition ejecta and salted wreckage?
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/16.jpg Rooftops, notice rectangular sheet metal strewn about
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/17.jpg Rooftops 2, same sheetmetal
Interesting sites with pics and graphics
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/images/large/3_290.jpg Partial demolition of D and C rings well beyond the expansion joints
http://www.clarkairbasek9.com/pentagon.htm - A good downed pole