(every point well said, it's posted here. xox.)
by - Bionic Antboy Tue Jan 4 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
assertion: I have seen tons of evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon,
including a documentary that went through step by step
how the damage was caused and interviewed eyewitnesses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never made the argument that something other than a jet plane hit the Pentagon.
In fact, I think this missile theory is totally bunk, (xox:perhaps a mix of the 2)
and may in fact be a classic "poisoning the well" scenario.
"Poisoning the Well" is a long established tradition
with any intelligence agency,
in which provably bogus disinformation is interjected
with real evidence or theories,
for the express purpose of raising doubts of validity
of ALL evidence provided by an individual.
In this case, if people are discussing a "missile" theory,
and they can be proved wrong,
then all their other analysis is equally suspicious.
The well is poisoned...
There are many who debate purely on the single axis of "Flight 77 vs. Missile",
and overlooking all the evidence that suggests something else entirely:
a smaller plane with American Airlines markings hitting the Pentagon on Sept 11th, 2001.
I know this is lengthy, but here's my reasoning...
Eyewitness Accounts:
I'd recommend taking a look at the eyewitness accounts again.
I've seen this page and others with numerous eyewitness accounts.
Many who actually refer to the size of the jet actually call it a "small or medium sized jet",
or a commuter jet with American Airlines markings.
Of course, others talk about a "very very big jet".
Often, these are people who were either almost or directly under the path of the plane.
The majority of eyewitnesses that imply a larger plane are those who refer to it as "Flight 77" or a 757,
which, to me, is evidence
that they are injecting 3rd party knowledge from media reports into their own accounts.
There are also numerous accounts of a second plane,
often identified as a C-130 cargo plane,
although according to the "official story" there was no military plane there.
Almost every eyewitness who mentions the "C-130" says
it was almost directly above and behind the impact plane.
Another interesting point about eyewitness accounts is that
more than one person specifically mentions the smell of the explosive cordite.
In an informal look at the eyewitness accounts,
when the eyewitness location at the time of impact is known,
it appears that those futher away from the direct path of the plane
describe it as something smaller than a 757.
They are much more likely to have seen the C-130
than those directly or almost directly under the plane.
Based on eyewitness accounts alone,
the most likely scenario is that a small plane
being closely tailed by a C-130 impacted the Pentagon.
Video Evidence:
There were at least 4 video sources (but probably more) that,
barring equipment malfunction, captured the Pentagon crash.
1) The gas station camera which was situated across the highway,
and pointed at the impact point.
This tape was confiscated within moments.
2) The hotel security tape, which also recorded the impact,
as hotel employees were viewing it when
it was also confiscated.
Since then, said employees have not said (AFAIK)
what exactly happened.
3) More than on traffic camera would have caught the approach
and impact at the Pentagon.
Confiscated
4) Finally, the only footage ever "released" is five frames
from a security booth.
These images were used in the NIST report on the Pentagon crash,
so regardless of being accurate, they are "official".
I'll tackle the "security footage" first.
IF this is legit untampered footage,
then it clearly suggests a plane smaller than a Boeing 757.
There is a website that covers this well...
http://0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm
Focusing on pages III - IV , which analyze the 5 frames,
the creator of this website as done a spatial analysis
that clearly shows that the plane in question is too small
to be Flight 77.
On page III, he stabilizes and animates the sequence.
flight_77 mail.com
On page IV, using 3D spatial imaging techniques, he superimposes a 757 to scale
over the location of the tail of the plane in the image,
taking angle of approach relative to the camera,
and perspective into account.
flight_77 mail.com
It's clear that the plane in frame one can NOT be a 757.
It is no more than 1/2 the length of Flight 77, and maybe less.
I also want to mention that when it comes to 3D analysis,
I've done my own, and come to the same conclusion as this site.
I've been doing 3D animation for a living for over a decade,
and have done accident simulations for court,
and injected 3D objects on live footage on numerous occassions.
The work that the author of the above page has done is pretty accurate.
Because of the low resolution nature of video,
there is some margin of error for calculating scale,
but this is WAY outside those margins.
Edit:
Of course, if said frames ARE doctored... why?
I can't comment on the first 3 sources,
as they've never been released.
One has to ask why...
more specifically, they should be asking their congressmen/women this question...
Forensics:
Another glaring point of contention regarding the Pentagon is the lack of wreckage.
Although SOME was recovered, it was not very much and it's not clearly addressed in any detailed way.
The official story claims that the explosion and fire disintigrated the jet.
The bodies of all but one person aboard Flight 77 were supposedly identified
using DNA within about a month and a half...
this too is part of the "official story".
Of course, on closer inspection, this is HIGHLY improbable.
The heat energy required to disintegrate a jumbo jet is MUCH higher
than the amount required to turn the human body to ash.
These are basic facts, but somehow,
this well-nigh impossible scenario occured.
Bodies were not ejected on the lawn,
as evidenced by the unscathed Pentagon lawn immediately after impact.
This can be seen in the earliest photos post-impact.
The lawn is neat and unscathed (which I'll touch on in a moment).
Everything was absorbed by the building, and burned up inside.
I'd like an explanation of how a fire hot enough to disintegrate an airplane
also allows 63 bodies to remain intact.
As for the amazing "Pentalawn", as some have dubbed it,
here are some photos...
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html
I don't like using the webfairy as a link,
because I think they have a lot of bogus crap,
but these are all legit photos (other than the word balloons added)
that have appeared in official publications.
At one point,
the photos of the first responders were availabe on the National Fire Protection Association website at...
http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=187&URL=Publications/NFPA%20JournalŪ
...but are now gone.
This could be a change in website design (though it looks the same) or maybe they're archived.
I only did a cursory search on the NFPA website,
and I'm not suggesting foul play on their part.
From trying to look at multiple issues,
it appears there is something delivering blank pages for many of their Journal issues.
But I digress.
The fact is that the lawn is in really good shape immediately after the explosion,
and considering the official story of bank and attitude/altitude of the plane,
there should be a HUGE gouge where the left engine penetrates the lawn many metres before impact.
In fact, the Perdue study on the Pentagon's integrity actually shows this penetration in it's simulation,
but does NOT take it into account when determining the physics of the impact of the left engine.
Not to mention that it uses the MAXIMUM angle of approach from the official 9/11 report of 3 degrees.
If the security photos are real (and they WERE used in the NIST report),
then the angle of approach is closer to 1 degree,
and the left engine/wing should have hit the ground WAY before this, and totally chewed up the lawn.
Conclusion:
The "official story" of the Pentagon is FULL of holes
when looked at from an independant critical point of view.
The aggregate of eyewitness accounts,
the forensics and the withholding of multiple video sources for over 3 years all suggest this.
Of course, even without this "how the Pentagon happened" analysis,
it's been clearly demonstated that
those in the administration knew more than what the "official story" says.
Of course, the "official story" was summed up by criminals
and people with conflicts of interest, but hey,
anyone who wants to believe a many who testified in exchange
for immunity regarding Iran/Contra, go right ahead.
Not everyone is entitled to an opinion.
They are only entitled to an informed opinion.
SOURCE:
