What the $#@!%& Hit the Pentagon????
Yesterday I spent a lot of time (too much time actually) on the Democratic Underground 9/11 board arguing with a supporter of the official story about whether flight 77 hit the Pentagon. This person basically thinks I am crazy for not accepting the official version of events, and maybe I am. But then again, maybe I am not.
In any case, I thought it would be worthwhile to go through the possibilities in a somewhat systematic way, and perhaps this will shed some new light on this problem.
A. Problems with the Official Flight 77 Scenario.:
1) how did the incompetent Hani Hanjour pilot the plane in such a tight circular descent and come in perfectly at ground level without hitting the ground?
2) what happened to the wings upon impact? In particular, the right wing must have broken off in large pieces but is nowhere to be seen.
3) what happened to the tail upon impact? The tail should have suffered the least damage and considering its size, should not have entered the impact hole.
4) how did the plane, with its engines just inches off the ground, navigate around the large cable spools and large electrical generator in front of the pentagon but sitll manage to hit between the first and second floors?
5) how come so little plane debris was found?
6) what happened to the black boxes? Wouldn't they be of interest in reconstructing the plane's path? If they were damaged as to be unreadable, how could human remains be found that could produce viable DNA? (the same can be asked if the plane debris disappeared by incineration.)
7) why the hijacker crash in such an odd, sparsely populated part of Pentagon?
8) what produced the large, round, soot-singed exit hole on the A-E drive?
9) why didn't the air defenses for Washington DC and the Pentagon intercept this hijacked plane?
10) why is the FBI hiding videos of this crash?
11) why didn't people on the ground who witnessed the jet say anything about the incredible loud noise a 757 would make going so fast so low to the ground?
All these problems present major problems for the official story, and thus the official story is almost impossible (but not completely impossible).
B. Problems with a Scenario Where Flight 77 is Piloted by Remote Control.:
1) what happened to the wings upon impact? In particular, the right wing must have broken off in large pieces but is nowhere to be seen.
2) what happened to the tail upon impact? The tail should have suffered the least damage and considering its size, should not have entered the impact hole.
3) how did the plane, with its engines just inches off the ground, navigate around the large cable spools and large electrical generator in front of the pentagon but sitll manage to hit between the first and second floors?
4) how come so little plane debris was found?
5) what produced the large, round, soot-singed exit hole on the A-E drive?
6) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
7) why didn't the air defenses for Washington DC and the Pentagon intercept this hijacked plane?
8) why is the FBI hiding videos of this crash?
9) why didn't people on the ground who witnessed the jet say anything about the incredible loud noise a 757 would make going so fast so low to the ground?
This scenario is better than the official story, it can explain the plane's flight path better and why the black boxes might be covered up, but cannot explain the physical evidence. This scenario is feasible but not highly likely.
C. Problems with a Scenario Where a Remote-Controlled Boeing 757 that is not Flight 77 Hits the Pentagon.:
1) what happened to the wings upon impact? In particular, the right wing must have broken off in large pieces but is nowhere to be seen.
2) what happened to the tail upon impact? The tail should have suffered the least damage and considering its size, should not have entered the impact hole.
3) how did the plane, with its engines just inches off the ground, navigate around the large cable spools and large electrical generator in front of the pentagon but sitll manage to hit between the first and second floors?
4) how come so little plane debris was found?
5) what produced the large, round, soot-singed exit hole on the A-E drive?
6) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
7) what happened to the real flight 77 and its passengers?
8) the cover-up must have involved planting tissue remains into the coroner's specimens that were used to identify the victims.
9) why didn't the air defenses for Washington DC and the Pentagon intercept this hijacked plane?
10) why is the FBI hiding videos of this crash?
11) why didn't people on the ground who witnessed the jet say anything about the incredible loud noise a 757 would make going so fast so low to the ground?
While this scenario is better than the official story-- it can explain the plane's flight path better and why the black boxes might be covered up, but cannot explain the physical evidence. This scenario is less feasible than Senario B, and thus is not highly likely.
D. Problems with the Scenario where a Bunker-Busting Cruise Missile Hit the Pentagon:
1) who stole the missile and programmed it to hit the Pentagon?
2) what happened to the real flight 77 and its passengers?
3) the cover-up must have involved planting tissue remains into the coroner's specimens that were used to identify the victims.
4) scores of eye-witnesses say they saw a large jet
5) plane parts must have been planted somehow.
Thus, this scenario can explain the physical evidence much better but gets very sticky when it gets to what happened to the real flight 77 and the planting of evidence, not to mention the real problems with eye-witnesses. But certainly the missile theory can explain much that the Flight 77 theory can not. Overall this scenario is possible but relatively unlikely.
E. Problems with the Scenario that an A-3 SkyWarrior Firing a Missile (a la Karl Schwarz) Hit the Pentagon:
1) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
2) what happened to the real flight 77 and its passengers?
3) the cover-up must have involved planting tissue remains into the coroner's specimens that were used to identify the victims.
4) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
5) the 757 landing gear must have been planted.
Thus, this scenario can explain the physical evidence much better but gets very sticky when it gets to what happened to the real flight 77 and the planting of evidence. But certainly this theory can explain much that the Flight 77 theory can not. Overall this scenario is surprisingly the best fit so far.
F. Problems with the Scenario that some other sort of military plane carrying a bunker-busting bomb or missile hit the Pentagon:
1) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
2) what happened to the real flight 77 and its passengers?
3) the cover-up must have involved planting tissue remains into the coroner's specimens that were used to identify the victims.
4) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
5) the 757 landing gear must have been planted.
Again, this scenario can explain the physical evidence better but gets caught up when it gets to what happened to the real flight 77 and the planting of evidence. But certainly this theory can explain much that the Flight 77 theory can not. Overall this scenario is a surprisingly good fit.
G. Problems with a Scenario where pre-planted explosives were used to damage the Pentagon and a low flying 757 over-flew the Pentagon at the same time as the explosives went off.:
1) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
2) what happened to the real flight 77 and its passengers?
3) the cover-up must have involved planting tissue remains into the coroner's specimens that were used to identify the victims.
4) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
5) the 757 landing gear and other plane parts must have been planted.
6) witnesses would have seen the plane fly over.
This scenario might possibly explain the physical evidence better than the official story but gets caught up when it gets to what happened to the real flight 77 and the planting of evidence. Overall this scenario is weak but not impossible.
Bottom line: I cannot rule out that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. However, the physical evidence is not strong for this. From other facts we know about 9/11, I think it is quite possible that there was a massive cover-up involving flight 77 and what hit the Pentagon. I don't think the government has proven its case that flight 77 hit the Pentagon and they will need to show more evidence to convince me. (Like I'm sure they care.)
In any case, I thought it would be worthwhile to go through the possibilities in a somewhat systematic way, and perhaps this will shed some new light on this problem.
A. Problems with the Official Flight 77 Scenario.:
1) how did the incompetent Hani Hanjour pilot the plane in such a tight circular descent and come in perfectly at ground level without hitting the ground?
2) what happened to the wings upon impact? In particular, the right wing must have broken off in large pieces but is nowhere to be seen.
3) what happened to the tail upon impact? The tail should have suffered the least damage and considering its size, should not have entered the impact hole.
4) how did the plane, with its engines just inches off the ground, navigate around the large cable spools and large electrical generator in front of the pentagon but sitll manage to hit between the first and second floors?
5) how come so little plane debris was found?
6) what happened to the black boxes? Wouldn't they be of interest in reconstructing the plane's path? If they were damaged as to be unreadable, how could human remains be found that could produce viable DNA? (the same can be asked if the plane debris disappeared by incineration.)
7) why the hijacker crash in such an odd, sparsely populated part of Pentagon?
8) what produced the large, round, soot-singed exit hole on the A-E drive?
9) why didn't the air defenses for Washington DC and the Pentagon intercept this hijacked plane?
10) why is the FBI hiding videos of this crash?
11) why didn't people on the ground who witnessed the jet say anything about the incredible loud noise a 757 would make going so fast so low to the ground?
All these problems present major problems for the official story, and thus the official story is almost impossible (but not completely impossible).
B. Problems with a Scenario Where Flight 77 is Piloted by Remote Control.:
1) what happened to the wings upon impact? In particular, the right wing must have broken off in large pieces but is nowhere to be seen.
2) what happened to the tail upon impact? The tail should have suffered the least damage and considering its size, should not have entered the impact hole.
3) how did the plane, with its engines just inches off the ground, navigate around the large cable spools and large electrical generator in front of the pentagon but sitll manage to hit between the first and second floors?
4) how come so little plane debris was found?
5) what produced the large, round, soot-singed exit hole on the A-E drive?
6) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
7) why didn't the air defenses for Washington DC and the Pentagon intercept this hijacked plane?
8) why is the FBI hiding videos of this crash?
9) why didn't people on the ground who witnessed the jet say anything about the incredible loud noise a 757 would make going so fast so low to the ground?
This scenario is better than the official story, it can explain the plane's flight path better and why the black boxes might be covered up, but cannot explain the physical evidence. This scenario is feasible but not highly likely.
C. Problems with a Scenario Where a Remote-Controlled Boeing 757 that is not Flight 77 Hits the Pentagon.:
1) what happened to the wings upon impact? In particular, the right wing must have broken off in large pieces but is nowhere to be seen.
2) what happened to the tail upon impact? The tail should have suffered the least damage and considering its size, should not have entered the impact hole.
3) how did the plane, with its engines just inches off the ground, navigate around the large cable spools and large electrical generator in front of the pentagon but sitll manage to hit between the first and second floors?
4) how come so little plane debris was found?
5) what produced the large, round, soot-singed exit hole on the A-E drive?
6) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
7) what happened to the real flight 77 and its passengers?
8) the cover-up must have involved planting tissue remains into the coroner's specimens that were used to identify the victims.
9) why didn't the air defenses for Washington DC and the Pentagon intercept this hijacked plane?
10) why is the FBI hiding videos of this crash?
11) why didn't people on the ground who witnessed the jet say anything about the incredible loud noise a 757 would make going so fast so low to the ground?
While this scenario is better than the official story-- it can explain the plane's flight path better and why the black boxes might be covered up, but cannot explain the physical evidence. This scenario is less feasible than Senario B, and thus is not highly likely.
D. Problems with the Scenario where a Bunker-Busting Cruise Missile Hit the Pentagon:
1) who stole the missile and programmed it to hit the Pentagon?
2) what happened to the real flight 77 and its passengers?
3) the cover-up must have involved planting tissue remains into the coroner's specimens that were used to identify the victims.
4) scores of eye-witnesses say they saw a large jet
5) plane parts must have been planted somehow.
Thus, this scenario can explain the physical evidence much better but gets very sticky when it gets to what happened to the real flight 77 and the planting of evidence, not to mention the real problems with eye-witnesses. But certainly the missile theory can explain much that the Flight 77 theory can not. Overall this scenario is possible but relatively unlikely.
E. Problems with the Scenario that an A-3 SkyWarrior Firing a Missile (a la Karl Schwarz) Hit the Pentagon:
1) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
2) what happened to the real flight 77 and its passengers?
3) the cover-up must have involved planting tissue remains into the coroner's specimens that were used to identify the victims.
4) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
5) the 757 landing gear must have been planted.
Thus, this scenario can explain the physical evidence much better but gets very sticky when it gets to what happened to the real flight 77 and the planting of evidence. But certainly this theory can explain much that the Flight 77 theory can not. Overall this scenario is surprisingly the best fit so far.
F. Problems with the Scenario that some other sort of military plane carrying a bunker-busting bomb or missile hit the Pentagon:
1) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
2) what happened to the real flight 77 and its passengers?
3) the cover-up must have involved planting tissue remains into the coroner's specimens that were used to identify the victims.
4) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
5) the 757 landing gear must have been planted.
Again, this scenario can explain the physical evidence better but gets caught up when it gets to what happened to the real flight 77 and the planting of evidence. But certainly this theory can explain much that the Flight 77 theory can not. Overall this scenario is a surprisingly good fit.
G. Problems with a Scenario where pre-planted explosives were used to damage the Pentagon and a low flying 757 over-flew the Pentagon at the same time as the explosives went off.:
1) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
2) what happened to the real flight 77 and its passengers?
3) the cover-up must have involved planting tissue remains into the coroner's specimens that were used to identify the victims.
4) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
5) the 757 landing gear and other plane parts must have been planted.
6) witnesses would have seen the plane fly over.
This scenario might possibly explain the physical evidence better than the official story but gets caught up when it gets to what happened to the real flight 77 and the planting of evidence. Overall this scenario is weak but not impossible.
Bottom line: I cannot rule out that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. However, the physical evidence is not strong for this. From other facts we know about 9/11, I think it is quite possible that there was a massive cover-up involving flight 77 and what hit the Pentagon. I don't think the government has proven its case that flight 77 hit the Pentagon and they will need to show more evidence to convince me. (Like I'm sure they care.)
posted by spooked at 6:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home