Pentagon Photos of Flight 77 Crash
Time to move on to real issues of complicity
- the hole in the "Pentagon Hole" claim
- TV Trained Minds: Propaganda and Photoshopped Photos
- Reasons for no-plane hoaxes: discredit the skeptics, alienate those inside-the-Beltway
- Complete "No Planes on 9/11" Timeline: history of the hoaxes
- "Identifying Misinformation" - State Department's Rosetta Stone to 9/11 Disinformation
oilempire.us blog entry: May 24, 2006
It is sad that this website received its all time highest traffic load on May 16, the day the Bush regime released excerpts of a videotape purporting to show the crash of Flight 77 into the nearly empty, recently reconstructed sector of the Pentagon. Apparently, the "no plane" hoax is more popular than analysis of how industrial society could cope with Peak Oil, climate change, depleted mineral resources and declining food production.
For the record, this website has stated for over a year that it is unlikely the surveillance videos showing Flight 77 will ever be released, since the "no plane" hoax has been so successful at discrediting "9/11 Truth" inside the Beltway and dividing the 9/11 Truth (sic) Movement that the perpetrators have no interest in dispelling the "no plane" fantasies. The release of the "new" video on May 16 just pours more fuel on the "no plane" fires - especially since they do not show a clear view of the plane. Hiding these surveillance videos is just "reverse psychology" -- hiding the evidence does not mean that the evidence does not show Flight 77, it just shows that certain interests want the skeptics to think this. Declassification of the many surveillance tapes seized by FBI (and others?) on 9/11 would not tell us anything we don't already know (that Flight 77 was flown into the mostly empty part of the Pentagon). Instead, a public process to review the data on the "black boxes" that were supposedly found at the scene (according to Newsweek) would be much more interesting, since that data would either confirm -- or refute -- the many allegations that some sort of remote control / computer piloting system was used to ensure the plane hit the Pentagon in the one part that would cause the fewest casualties and the least damage to military operations.
I think the best [photo] of damage to the right of the center is the fourth
one in the Metcalf set: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/bluehi.html
You can refer to the original at: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpg
Damage to the left side is at least as extensive but there are fewer photos. The top one in this set shows that end, but some analysis is required to measure the length of the first floor breached walls: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/damage_comp.jpg
The post-collapse photos more clearly show that the first-floor damage extended well to either side of the collapsed area.
-- Jim Hoffman
photos of Flight 77 engine and other components (in Italian)
Why it is most likely that an American Airlines 757-223 hit it the Pentagon
by Joel v.d Reijden
I have proven the following things, which seem to make a couple of dents into the works of most of the well-known 9/11 gurus:
So before the 9/11 skeptics start complaining that this or that
hasn't been explained to their satisfaction, first disprove the list I
typed above. I personally don't care if you see a 737 engine
or an alien spacecraft in a pile of rubble on a blurry photograph. I don't
care if you assume there has to be an indentation of the tail on the building,
even though it's complete speculation whether or not it should have left
it. I don't care if you believe the color blue from a piece of wreckage
on the Pentagon lawn isn't the exact same color blue from another American
Airlines jet, which has been photographed under different light conditions
and might have a much older or younger layer of paint. I don't care about
those "Pentalawn 2000" theories if 97% of the witnesses state
the plane didn't touch it. The 3% that claimed it did touch the ground
said it was only a couple of feet before the wall that the nose touched
the ground, which means the lawn has never been touched. (By the way,
a lot of small debris has been photographed towards the left of the impact
hole, maybe because the plane came in at a 50 degree angle) I don't care
about things that can easily be explained away by conventional theories,
like why so little of the plane has been recovered, why a hole has been
punched out in one of the interior walls or basicly anything else brought
forward by the conspiracy community on the Pentagon...
more photos of Boeing debris in the rubble
|Photo taken immediately after crash shows width of flame|
from the website www.criticalthrash.com/terror.html - taken immediately after the crash by a passing motorist (who had a clear view of the plane). Note the width of the area covered by fire (which shows that something as WIDE as a jet hit the building). None of the people who had a good view of the crash saw a cruise missile.
the "no planes" promoters imply that these people are lying about what they saw happen ...
The No Plane Promoters Are Lost in Foam
Photos by Jason Ingersoll
- used by hoaxers who pretend the "hole is too small"
the imprint of the plane is obscured in this photo by smoke and firefighting foam - the wing damage is not visible in this photo
shows some of the damage to the right of the hole. The area to the left of the hole is obscured by smoke. Other photos taken that morning show the wing caused damage there. The real question is how Flight 77 made such a pinpoint "landing."
shows the damage caused by the wing to the right of the central "hole" - note the broken support columns in center of the photo, just to the right of the main hole, and which direction the force against them was coming from (hint: this photo refutes the missile claim)
firefighting foam obscures the ground level damage from the wings in this photo, which is why it has been popular with some of those promoting the "no plane" claim
another photo where the firefighting foam obscures the full impact on the building
the famous "hole" in the Pentagon is visible in this photo - but so is the damage that the right wing of the plane caused at ground level
the "no plane" advocates use photos that have firefighting foam obscuring the ground level impact of the wings
when the firefighting foam is gone, the damage from the right wing (pun not intended) is visible
the real issue is who caused the plane to have this perfect flight to hit at ground level in the one part of the Pentagon that was "under reconstruction"
The following images were taken from a webpage by Sarah Roberts