the hole in the "small Pentagon hole" claim
Jimmy Walter (reopen911.org): A sugar daddy with poison pills
... the ground-level entry area (where the walls were missing and support columns were missing or severely damaged and severed) was about 90 feet wide. Only the second floor area of the hole was small. Both In Plane Site and the Pentagon Strike web movie disingenuously use selective photos in which the 90-foot ground level hole is hidden behind smoke & water being sprayed by a firetruck, and it isn't even mentioned. But note that not all Pentagon no-757 advocates hide the real proportions of the hole in this way, which makes this misprepresentation even more egregious.
there IS wreckage, not on the lawn (another example of deceptive, selective choice of photographs) but all over the South parking lot and part of the Heliport (easily visible in the photos taken by Steve Riskus), which were in fact closer to the impact point than the area of lawn that is shown (severe telephoto foreshortening illusion makes the lawn area look close to the building). Sure, one might attempt to debate whether the existing debris field is consistent with an airliner impact, but not acknowledging its existence at all (or the existence of the ground-level 90 foot entry hole) as is the case with In Plane Site and Pentagon Strike, only serves to make 911 skeptics look like conniving liars.
Dave Von Kleist, lost in foam
for those who haven't seen 'in plane site', there's some other great shams. such as the fact that while von kleist is questioning the size of the entry hole, he's showing one of the pre-collapse photographs where the entire basement level area of missing wall and destroyed or damaged columns is completely hidden by foam being sprayed from the firetruck. the only thing visible is the second level entry hole. he shows this photograph again while suggesting that support columns weren't destroyed.
he never even mentions the existence of the basement level hole wide enough to fit the engines and inner wings of a 757. he only mentions the 14-16 foot second level entry hole.
totally blatant deceptive techniques.
OBSCURED BY FOAM: A TOO-OBVIOUS SIGN OF FRAUD
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
January 14 2007
graphic from "Frustrating Fraud"
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: What hit the Pentagon? WHERE the Pentagon was hit (nearly empty sector) is key point
From: sf911truthalliance at riseup.net
Vince Sauve posts:
It is quite frustrating that so many non experts (on crashes or explosives) and non scholars argue stridently for some wild theory completely at odds with the principle of Occam's Razor. For those who haven't heard of Occam's Razor and what it means please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
Occam's Razor has become a basic perspective for those who follow the scientific method. It is important to note that it is a heuristic argument that does not necessarily give correct answers; it is a loose guide to choosing the scientific hypothesis which (currently) contains the least number of unproved assumptions and is the most likely to be fruitful. Often, several hypotheses are equally "simple" and Occam's Razor does not express any preference in such cases.
For example, after a storm you notice that a tree has fallen. Based on the evidence of "a storm" and "a fallen tree" a reasonable hypothesis would be that "the storm blew down the tree" -- a hypothesis that requires only one assumption -- that it was, in fact, a strong wind that knocked over the tree, rather than a meteor or an elephant. The hypothesis that "the tree was knocked over by marauding 200 meter tall space aliens" requires several additional assumptions (concerning the very existence of aliens, their ability and desire to travel interstellar distances and the alien biology that allows them to be 200 meters tall in terrestrial gravity) and is therefore less preferable.
Folks, the hole in the Pentagon is big enough for all of the bulky parts of a 757 to crash through--about 15 feet on the second floor and possibly 80 feet on the first floor. There is a photo of metal wrapped around a column and other photos of aircraft debris within the building. Why should they fake this? There was debris of shredded aircraft skin on the front lawn. Why should they plant this material? How could they be sure they wouldn't be seen planting it? The first image of the security camera at the guard shack in all likelihood was digitally manipulated to cause dissension and distraction in our 9-11 skeptics/truth community (one clue was that it had the wrong date attached to it). If someone precut the bolts of the light poles and rigged them to fall over, wouldn't that leave a possibility for the automobile drivers to notice that and report some funny business on this matter? Those who say it was stage-managed to look like a 757 crashed there are just making things more complicated for them to pull it off. Why should they stage-manage the Pentagon crash at all? I think it is most logical that the hijackers, if they were truly even on the aircraft, were hijacked themselves by remote control technology. This is what makes the most sense with the available evidence.
People like Eric Hufschmid, who was one of the first to have a big impact on persuading many of us that flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, upon further discovery, have proven to me to be an incompetent researcher. And possibly even worse, he has shown a desire to discredit our work by association. He has shown a real disdain for a democratic republic. He holds himself up as being smarter than most of the public even though all the while he peddles nonsense about the Apollo moon landings as being a hoax. If you don't believe this is the case about Hufschmid just read the junk he has on his web site: www.erichufschmid.net Also, if you haven't seen my web page featuring an exchange with Eric over the Apollo business please do so. Be sure to read what he said in his last letter (this reveals his fascist pro military dictatorship leanings): http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/apollohoax.html
I don't mean to give offense to those busy people who are new to this Pentagon research or who just haven't gotten around to a study of what evidence is available and through no fault of their own have been swayed by the presentations of people like Hufschmid. I, at one time, counted myself in that same category. Hufschmid has shown that he has a lot of time available and hence has no excuses for presenting his falsities, even after a couple of us have tried to show him his errors, he hasn't budged.
Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.