Once More Unto the Breach: Surveying the Pentagon Hit Again
I know, I know, we're really just NOT supposed to question what hit the Pentagon, but the problem is that what happened there on 9/11 is just damn strange.
First, it is not the size of the hole that is the issue. The initial hole is consistent with the size of a 757 fuselage. But where the hole is and the complete damage pattern is not entirely consistent with a 757 impact.
Here are the main anomalies, as I see them (and I will be mainly referencing the excellent PentagonResearch.com site for this analysis):
1) as shown in my post about a month back, a 757 would have to fly one inch off the ground to be able to hit the Pentagon with its wings only impacting the first floor. I don't think this approach path is feasible-- and all available evidence suggests the flying object came in at a level path-- since the ground was not touched in front of the impact area. Moreover, the picture in the post I linked to doesn't show it, but there were several obstacles in the way of the plane right in front of the Pentagon wall: a construction trailer and a couple of cable spools. Not that these items would have impeded the plane significantly, but it would have been impossible for the plane to go over the spools (which were at least six feet high) and then still only hit the first and second floor only. Take a look at this picture and you will see what I mean. I can't see how a 757 (body plus engine height of 16 foot high-- ignoring the tail) went over the cable spools and only impacted the first two floors. The engines would have knocked the spools over if the plane came in that low.
2) The fuselage of the plane must have crumpled up considerably to spew the lettered sheet metal debris found in front of the Pentagon. In fact, when the plane hit the reinforced concrete of the Pentagon wall, you would expect the plane to crumple and blow up. And certainly the video the Pentagon released shows a large explosion apparently at the impact point. Yet, if the plane blew up when it hit the wall, why aren't there more signs of the fuselage and its contents on the ground? Those large pieces of the fuselage would not have flown off the plane's body and be found 50-100 feet from the impact site if the fuselage HADN'T blown up. Why are there only a few select pieces of painted fuselage there? Moreover, there was no sign of passengers or seats found lying in front of the Pentagon that indicated the fuselage had blown up. It makes no sense.
3) The plane certainly crumpled and disintegrated quickly once it was inside the Pentagon, as both the black boxes from the tail region of the plane were found near the impact site very near one of the seats from the cockpit. So what parts of the plane retained so much momentum and structure to produce the swath of damage that ends in a large "exit hole"? And apart from the heavy structural columns that the plane parts encountered, there were a very large number of concrete walls. The plane was of course huge and would expect to produce a lot of damage. The landing gear are indeed very strong and large and might have produced a great deal of the damage. But given that much of the forward momentum must have been lost upon the initial impact as well as the fact that many columns and walls needed to be broken through, which would also cause loss of momentum, I can't see what part of the plane makes the perfectly round exit hole. Moreover, if the tail and at leats part of the cockpit ended up near the impact site, then clearly there was not so much forward momentum carrying the plane deep into the building. And what ever went deep in had to go through several walls and avoid pillars, which were largely not badly damaged deep in.
4) The blown out doors on the A-E drive which are far off from the main damage swath. There is simply no explanation for this damage, and how it could have occurred from a 757 impacting at an angle.
5) There is no sign of the wings or wing debris from a 757 outside the Pentagon, and 757 wings simply would not have gone completely into the entry hole. The engines would fit through the larger side holes but not the complete wings. The wings were very large.
CONCLUSIONS:
1) I can't rule out a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. But I find it highly unlikely a normal 757 hit the building and caused the complete damage pattern by itself.
2) I don't think any plane fragments were planted to make it look like a 757 hit. However, I am suspicious of the fragments left on the lawn. I can't help but wonder if there were some sort of large explosive device containing a few select 757 parts that was exploded when the flying object impacted the Pentagon.
3) The overall damage, with the deep penetration, is consistent with what one would expect from a cruise missile or other large missile. The cruise missile obviously conflicts with eye-witnesses and with the debris that looks like it is from a 757. Conceivably two missiles coming from slightly different angles that could account for the light pole damage and the damage to the west of the main swath, but there are no witnesses referring to two flying objects. The other reasons to think a missile hit are 1) the circular path taken by the flying object before hitting, 2) the body would be smaller and could fit in the impact area more easily, 3) the Amalgam Virgo military exercise involved hijacked aiplanes and a cruise missile attack. If there was a cruise missile attack, the missile must have been painted to look like an AA jet. The main problem with the missile theory is the eye-witnesses, who every militant 9/11 conspiracist who believes "a 757 hit the Pentagon" loves to cite. It is hard for me to evaluate eye-witnesses over the internet, and eye-witnesses are notoriously unreliable. However, enough eye-witnesses claimed to see a large jet plane hit the Pentagon that we have to take that very seriously. Plus, there was enough debris from a jet to look like a jet did hit. So a straight cruise missile attack is unlikely.
4) What might be more likely than a cruise missile is that some sort of medium-sized jet was used as a remote-controlled drone to hit the Pentagon and this drone contained addtional explosives, perhaps it even carried a missile of some sort. This would account for the inside damage pattern as well as the light pole path and perhaps for the lack of interior contents that spilled out as the plane exploded on impact. This might explain why black boxes were found but the contents never revealed.
I am going to have to go with this last idea for now. I'm tired and I can't think of anything better for now.
First, it is not the size of the hole that is the issue. The initial hole is consistent with the size of a 757 fuselage. But where the hole is and the complete damage pattern is not entirely consistent with a 757 impact.
Here are the main anomalies, as I see them (and I will be mainly referencing the excellent PentagonResearch.com site for this analysis):
1) as shown in my post about a month back, a 757 would have to fly one inch off the ground to be able to hit the Pentagon with its wings only impacting the first floor. I don't think this approach path is feasible-- and all available evidence suggests the flying object came in at a level path-- since the ground was not touched in front of the impact area. Moreover, the picture in the post I linked to doesn't show it, but there were several obstacles in the way of the plane right in front of the Pentagon wall: a construction trailer and a couple of cable spools. Not that these items would have impeded the plane significantly, but it would have been impossible for the plane to go over the spools (which were at least six feet high) and then still only hit the first and second floor only. Take a look at this picture and you will see what I mean. I can't see how a 757 (body plus engine height of 16 foot high-- ignoring the tail) went over the cable spools and only impacted the first two floors. The engines would have knocked the spools over if the plane came in that low.
2) The fuselage of the plane must have crumpled up considerably to spew the lettered sheet metal debris found in front of the Pentagon. In fact, when the plane hit the reinforced concrete of the Pentagon wall, you would expect the plane to crumple and blow up. And certainly the video the Pentagon released shows a large explosion apparently at the impact point. Yet, if the plane blew up when it hit the wall, why aren't there more signs of the fuselage and its contents on the ground? Those large pieces of the fuselage would not have flown off the plane's body and be found 50-100 feet from the impact site if the fuselage HADN'T blown up. Why are there only a few select pieces of painted fuselage there? Moreover, there was no sign of passengers or seats found lying in front of the Pentagon that indicated the fuselage had blown up. It makes no sense.
3) The plane certainly crumpled and disintegrated quickly once it was inside the Pentagon, as both the black boxes from the tail region of the plane were found near the impact site very near one of the seats from the cockpit. So what parts of the plane retained so much momentum and structure to produce the swath of damage that ends in a large "exit hole"? And apart from the heavy structural columns that the plane parts encountered, there were a very large number of concrete walls. The plane was of course huge and would expect to produce a lot of damage. The landing gear are indeed very strong and large and might have produced a great deal of the damage. But given that much of the forward momentum must have been lost upon the initial impact as well as the fact that many columns and walls needed to be broken through, which would also cause loss of momentum, I can't see what part of the plane makes the perfectly round exit hole. Moreover, if the tail and at leats part of the cockpit ended up near the impact site, then clearly there was not so much forward momentum carrying the plane deep into the building. And what ever went deep in had to go through several walls and avoid pillars, which were largely not badly damaged deep in.
4) The blown out doors on the A-E drive which are far off from the main damage swath. There is simply no explanation for this damage, and how it could have occurred from a 757 impacting at an angle.
5) There is no sign of the wings or wing debris from a 757 outside the Pentagon, and 757 wings simply would not have gone completely into the entry hole. The engines would fit through the larger side holes but not the complete wings. The wings were very large.
CONCLUSIONS:
1) I can't rule out a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. But I find it highly unlikely a normal 757 hit the building and caused the complete damage pattern by itself.
2) I don't think any plane fragments were planted to make it look like a 757 hit. However, I am suspicious of the fragments left on the lawn. I can't help but wonder if there were some sort of large explosive device containing a few select 757 parts that was exploded when the flying object impacted the Pentagon.
3) The overall damage, with the deep penetration, is consistent with what one would expect from a cruise missile or other large missile. The cruise missile obviously conflicts with eye-witnesses and with the debris that looks like it is from a 757. Conceivably two missiles coming from slightly different angles that could account for the light pole damage and the damage to the west of the main swath, but there are no witnesses referring to two flying objects. The other reasons to think a missile hit are 1) the circular path taken by the flying object before hitting, 2) the body would be smaller and could fit in the impact area more easily, 3) the Amalgam Virgo military exercise involved hijacked aiplanes and a cruise missile attack. If there was a cruise missile attack, the missile must have been painted to look like an AA jet. The main problem with the missile theory is the eye-witnesses, who every militant 9/11 conspiracist who believes "a 757 hit the Pentagon" loves to cite. It is hard for me to evaluate eye-witnesses over the internet, and eye-witnesses are notoriously unreliable. However, enough eye-witnesses claimed to see a large jet plane hit the Pentagon that we have to take that very seriously. Plus, there was enough debris from a jet to look like a jet did hit. So a straight cruise missile attack is unlikely.
4) What might be more likely than a cruise missile is that some sort of medium-sized jet was used as a remote-controlled drone to hit the Pentagon and this drone contained addtional explosives, perhaps it even carried a missile of some sort. This would account for the inside damage pattern as well as the light pole path and perhaps for the lack of interior contents that spilled out as the plane exploded on impact. This might explain why black boxes were found but the contents never revealed.
I am going to have to go with this last idea for now. I'm tired and I can't think of anything better for now.
posted by spooked at 11:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home