Both pics taken shortly after impact  confirm puzzling lack of damage, and height of impact hole in pentagon, which is little higher than firefighters just visible in foreground. [Note grass in front of impact is free of skid marks from landing gear or engines]

 

 

Perhaps some of the most compelling evidence supporting both the angled trajectory and so-called "missile" theory is picture [left] of small diameter exit hole, which passed through several layers of reinforced concrete at the pentagon [strongly suggesting a hardened warhead of some kind, as can be fitted to a Global Hawk or other aircraft drone, was used]

Note [photo insert] fireman in foreground, and windows immediately above, suggests exit hole is barely eight feet in diameter.

The "aircraft" had to neatly cut through NINE FEET of bomb reinforced concrete to reach this exit point. This exit point is where engine parts were located, begging the question of how did engine parts end up here given the fact the FRONT of the building would have had to have sheared off the wings (with engines attached outboard) given the relative diameter of the hole?

See page one for in-depth examination of this vital issue.

 

THE HOLE IN THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL - examination by Gerard Holmgren

The plane weighed about 100 tons, so 1 ton of alleged wreckage would represent 1% of the plane. The fragments claimed to be wreckage of the plane would be struggling to represent 0.01% of the plane. [Photo below shows pentagon security personnel carrying away wreckage suspiciously hidden under blue tarp]

 

We know that something hit the Pentagon, that there was an interior explosion, and that where there is an explosion there will be debris of some sort.

To argue that this provides any evidence for either side of the argument is witchcraft trial logic. “You must be a witch, because you wouldn’t have been accused if you weren’t.” “We know that a 757 was there. That proves that this is debris from a 757. And the fact that this is debris from a 757 proves that it was there ...”

This debris is totally unidentifiable, and its volume is too insignificant to address the problem of unaccounted for wreckage -especially either of the 9000 pound hardened steel engines that would have hit well outside the hole, on the face of the relatively intact outer wall of the pentagon. 

Supporters of the government's "757 theory" claim this fragment (below) to be wreckage from AA 77, citing the "AA colours" as "proof".

 

 

In fact, it is the alleged AA colours which prove conclusively that this cannot possibly be part of the alleged 757 plane.

Has American Airlines invented a new kind of indestructible paint? This fragment has allegedly been violently flung out from an explosion which reduced a giant airliner to the dust and ashes and unidentifiable tiny fragments shown in the above photo. And yet the paint is as shiny and new as the day it was applied. Does it take more energy to peel and blacken paint, than to destroy 100 tons of aircraft? Clearly painted sections survive most crashes, as shown in the crash photos. But in those cases, no one is alleging an explosion catastrophic enough to nearly vaporize 100 tons of plane. They break up and perhaps burn a bit. In really fierce crashes, much of the plane may be destroyed, but even in these cases, tons of reasonably intact wreckage ALWAYS remains. So these scenarios are consistent with the recovery of painted sections, even in bad crashes. The allegation that this brightly painted fragment survived is irreconcilable with their claim that 99.99% of the plane was vaporized.

This is 'about as believable' as the kooky government stories that the alleged hijackers were identified by the discovery of their miraculously unscathed paper passports at crash sites which cremated the planes and occupants. The metal is also shiny and new looking, and there is no sign of grass singeing from the heat in the area where it landed. It is quite impossible for this to be from an aircraft which had just been reduced to a pile of ashes.

There’s an even greater problem with this piece of wreckage. The colours are wrong anyway. Take a close look at the colour scheme used by American Airlines. First, note that the alleged wreckage has a thin white stripe next to red which is of a larger area than the white stripe. Note the absence of any blue stripe. Now let’s look at an actual AA plane photo and you’ll see that that this colour scheme isn’t used. Except possibly in the American Airlines lettering itself on the top front part of the fuselage. Hold that thought.....

Note that the striped colour scheme which this crude fake has attempted to copy does not appear on the wings or tail fins. That rules out the possibility that this piece of the plane was sheared off during the approach, before the explosion, by hitting a light pole.

If there’s any possibility that it’s a genuine AA colour scheme, it can only have come from part of the American Airlines lettering, on the top and front part of the fuselage, which means that this piece could not have been sheared off on the way in, and therefore must have been subject to the explosion. And that is impossible, even if we were to pretend that such an explosion was generally possible. Furthermore the only part of the plane which it could possibly have come from is towards the front. If the explosion occurred in the middle of the plane, debris from the front area would have been flung forwards into the building not away from it. And if the explosion occurred in the front part of the plane, making it possible to blow this piece backwards, then this area of the plane would have been subject to the most powerful part of the blast, so if we were going to see surviving pieces of debris flung backwards, (especially with paintwork still intact ) they should be from the rear of the plane. And if it's alleged that it was thrown forward with such force that it hit something else and bounced back all this distance, wouldn’t the paintwork, be just a little scratched, rather than pristine?

Whoever designed and planted this fake, didn’t think it through, and you shouldn't be fooled by it.

Ok, so that's just one piece the government conspiracy kooks rely on to defend their position - is there anything else? One of the government apologist sites called "abovetopsecret" and several others boldly claim that the wheel hub found at the pentagon is from a 757 wheel. Lets take a closer look.

Snapshot at extreme left shows pentagon wreckage of a commonly used double rim wheel used on various high performance jet aircraft. Government apologists claim the shape of the spokes is the same as that on the 757, and therefore presumably couldn't have come from any other aircraft. Evidently, however, they neglected to notice the fact that the wheel found at the pentagon has only 8 spoke holes, while the wheels used on the above pictured 757 have 10. The best way to count these holes (given the damage to the pentagon wheel) is to line up opposing holes, then count the holes either side.

We've included a blow up (below) to make it easier for you. These pics were taken directly from the  "Abovetopsecret" website.....

NOTE wheel (above) found at pentagon has EIGHT HOLES

Boeing 757 wheels shown above clearly have TEN HOLES....... oops!

Then of course there is this below photo we took of an actual Boeing nose wheel...

 

and this shot of another type of Boeing main gear....

But if you think that's humorous, here are a few more that we'd like to mention, mainly for their comic relief more so than any need to refute the patently absurd. So we now direct your attention to the following photo....

According to government conspiracy nuts, this photo [their highlighting] proves "once and for all" that flight 77 hit the pentagon - well, err, at least some Boeing product made of aluminium.

Evidently, this photo shows a substance known [only to government conspiracy kooks] as "Boeing green paint" on the aircraft parts at the exit hole.

Problem with this theory.... Zinc Chromate, which is a ubiquitous primer pigment widely used on aluminum aircraft surfaces, is typically olive GREEN. It is a common zinc based primer that dates back to before the second world war... and is regularly used to "passivate" all standard 20XX series aluminum, which is commonly used on virtually all aircraft made worldwide. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING exclusive to Boeing about this green primer.

Don't believe us..... take a trip to your local airport [or industrial paint supply store] and ask for a quart of zinc chromate primer - now open the can and paint some aluminium - HEY, whatayaknow... it's green! Why heck, Billy Bob, it musta come from a boeing!

 

The next guffaw also revolves around the above area of the pentagon. Evidently this hole was not made by "the aircraft", despite their claim of the "Boeing green" we just talked about, and the aircraft parts they proudly identified. No, they claim it was made by the firefighters, and even claim somehow that this too proves it was a 757(?).

Notice the smoke damage above the hole? This means the hole was made prior to the extinguishing of the fire, and therefore we are supposed to believe they battled their way through the fire to make this hole, all the while dragging "Boeing plane parts" with them. How far these parts needed to be dragged is up to you to determine.. Either this hole was made by the "aircraft" that hit the pentagon; was in close proximity to damage and the hole was made (or enlarged) to evacuate smoke and debris; or the firefighters punched out the entire hole with axes, then dragged wreckage from the first RING(S) [according to some] of the pentagon, to this exit.

Click here to again examine this exit hole from an aerial perspective..... note how it fits the fly trajectory rather nicely.

_________________________________

[Outside Link] WERE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS DIFFERENT ON SEPT 11? Can Kerosene fuel explode and cremate an aircraft?

    There’s no evidence that an explosion of the type and power alleged to have cremated AA 77 or the WTC planes has ever happened to any other plane, or ever could in the situation of a normal crash. Although the political circumstance behind the Sept 11 crashes, and (in the case of WTC crash 2) the spectacular imagery involved was unprecedented, there was nothing unusual in the impact physics of the crashes. Planes regularly crash into mountains, streets, the ground, buildings and other planes, and are not cremated.

_________________________________

What Would Flight 77 "Eyewitnesses" Have Actually Seen?
Video simulation of 500 mph flyby suggests 'passengers in windows' comment is a fraud

[NEW STORY BELOW confirms above hypothesis]

Proof That 'Flight 77' Eyewitness Report Skewed
'I saw faces of passengers' man furious with newspaper for twisting his words.
 

_________________________________

Watch Video at below link....

You may need to install Macromedia Flash Player in order to view this animation. Click here to install it.

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/swf/pentagon_en.swf [video should load fairly quickly, depending on quality of your connection]

_________________________________

9/11 Prior Knowledge and Government Complicity - MASSIVE ARCHIVE LINK [You will need days to cover all this material]

_________________________________

Scholars for 9/11 Truth under Attack

Member's children threatened by name, teacher's position under assault. Clearly the truth is eroding their foundation of lies.

Are there any aircraft in the US Air Force Arsenal that could possibly fit ALL the available evidence? Do we assume it was a cruise missile, or perhaps it was a similar type of remote controlled or piloted aircraft?

There are two main competing theories about what could have hit the Pentagon: One is that it was a RQ-4A Global Hawk like pictured below, or some other type of military drone aircraft such as the A-3 Sky Warrior as some have suggested.

We at BC Revolution now strongly believe the culprit aircraft was indeed the RQ-4A Global Hawk..... read on..

RQ-4A Global Hawk is a high altitude, single inline turbine, long endurance unmanned aerial reconnaissance system powered by the high pressure low bypass Rolls Royce designed AE 3007 which produces over 7,000 lbs of thrust.

In April 2001, Global Hawk made aviation history when it completed the first non-stop flight across the Pacific Ocean by an unmanned, powered aircraft, flying from Edwards AFB, California, to the Royal Australian Air Force Base, Edinburgh, South Australia.

The Global Hawk is the first UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle to be certified by the FAA to file its own flight plans and use civilian air corridors in the United States with no advance notice.

The Global Hawk weights 26 thousand pounds, and can carry a sizable payload (missile 'high explosive' warhead) if fitted to do so.

Global Hawk also has flexible hinge polymer composite wings of considerable length and narrow span - something referred to as 'high aspect ratio'. In fact, the Global hawk has nearly the same wingspan as a 757 - the Global Hawk's wingspan is approx 116 feet, while the 757 has a wingspan of approx 125 - or a difference of just ten feet.

This aircraft most closely fits ALL of the available evidence put forward. Most particularly with regard to the location of a SMALL SINGLE turbine at the EXIT hole, which TOTALLY rules out any wide bodied commercial aircraft using OUTBOARD wing mounted engines!!!! Furthermore, the turbine found AT THE EXIT HOLE is consistent with the diameter of turbine used in the Rolls Royce engine fitted on the Global Hawk - approximately 24 inches. [More photo evidence examined below surrounding wing wreckage.]

Flight Specs for RQ-4A Global Hawk (note max speed)

• Ceiling: 19.8 km
• Payload 2,000 pounds (3,000 for "B" version)
• Length: 13.4 m
• Weight: 11,600 kg
• Wingspan: 35.4 m *
• Velocity: 250 km/h (cruise); 636 km/h (max)
• Endurance 31 hours (33 for 'B' version)

*Note that a "newer" version of the Global Hawk called the RQ-4B also exists which has a wingspan of 39.9 meters (or approx 130 feet) and can carry a 50 percent larger payload (explosive) than the RQ-4A. The Department of Defence officially claims to have "restructured their acquisition strategy to include the RQ-4B" as of March 2002, but as these people are known for keeping military secrets, we can't rule out this model being active or available in September of 2001.

As part of their 2002 "acquisition strategy" the DOD planned to purchase a staggering 51 Global Hawks, with 44 being the larger RQ-4B, and only 7 of the RQ-4A. This policy "triples the budgetary requirements" of the Global Hawk program.

The Global Hawk is available in two major variants, the RQ-4A, which is the original variant, and the RQ-4B, which is somewhat larger, and has a 50% greater payload capacity. The U.S. Air Force has begun focusing on this newer version. Scaled Composites and Northrop Grumman are also offering a 50% proportional shrink of the RQ-4A, currently known as the Model 396, as part of the USAF Hunter-Killer program.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-4_Global_Hawk

 Is this what some people saw slamming into the pentagon at a VERY low altitude, and very high rate of speed?

 

Both pics are of Global Hawk.

It should specially be noted that, according to official US Pentagon statements, there are TWO Global Hawks that went "missing" from inventory in what they described as "ongoing missions". 

Strange, don't you think, that two such sophisticated and FAA trusted aircraft, under constant GPS precision tracking by the military, would simply go "missing". Pull the other one guys!!!!

Lets also take into consideration this very interesting photo (below) taken at the pentagon, which clearly shows a high aspect wing section precisely matching those of the Global Hawk. The Boeing 757 does not have this long thin wing design, so this is pretty compelling evidence in support of the fact it was a Global Hawk that struck the pentagon...

___

So what about the idea that a missile 'contrail' can be seen in the released [partly censored] Pentagon surveillance video? Do these remotely piloted vehicles normally carry missile launchers that might explain this white trail?

 

This photo [at left] shows the port wing of the much smaller "predator" type drone aircraft, and shows a normally fitted missile harness for a laser guided missile. Larger versions of similar missiles can readily be fitted to the Global Hawk.

 

 

 

 This photo clearly shows a thick white vapour trail [below white arrow inserted in left pic] coming from the aircraft that shortly thereafter struck the pentagon. This type of white smoke is consistent with a solid fuel missile, and inconsistent to an aircraft equipped with hi-bypass kerosene burning jet engines.

Wing tip vortices can also be ruled out, as they only occur at high angles of attack (like steep high speed turns, landings or take off roll) coupled with conditions of high humidity (moisture) - NOT level flight.

These trails also could NOT have been caused (as someone's recent computer animated simulation laughingly suggests) by an engine compressor stall caused by impact to light poles, as compressor stalls create a condition of 'UNBURNED kerosene and re-ignition', which creates large orange flames, not pure white puffs of smoke.

Some have further suggested that the often used black/white nose of a Global Hawk can just be seen peeking beyond the box in the foreground. [For a larger version of this picture, click HERE] However, what is readily obvious is the fact that a 757 could not be hiding behind the object in the foreground, and is furthermore most unlikely to have caused this trail of thick white smoke.

Below is a scaled animation of what a 757 would look like from this (known) angle and distance. [Need we AGAIN remind you of the engine problem.... AND all the problems we haven't even gotten to on this page, like back at the WTC ? There is a big picture we need to see, not just a few trees.]

 

FACTOID: Three of the four planes allegedly used for 911 had top level Raytheon experts as passengers. Those sort of odds are highly improbable for random flights; but what is most interesting is the fact that Raytheon is a supplier of the remote control systems used (for example) in the Global Hawk.

 

Here is an example of how even large commercial aircraft can be remote piloted at least as far back as 1985.... read about the "Crash in the desert"

If such a large aircraft were to strike the pentagon at the height indicated by the video, and damage evidence, we should see some kind of damage on the pentagon grass immediate in front of the impact area. So take a look for yourself...

Aside from the damage done by the fire trucks, this lawn looks like a putting green. So why did the pentagon spend thousands of dollars filling in a hole [below photo] that clearly doesn't exist? To get rid of any forensic evidence that would indicate the suspect aircraft was actually a Global Hawk, parts of which are made of composite polymer? What other reason is there?

Not only was there no damage to the grass, NEITHER of the 9,000 pound outboard engines caused so much as a scratch to the pentagons foundation. Where did these engines go?

Above pic is from outside facing center of impact, and bottom pic gives us a close-up of where the left engine SHOULD have impacted the concrete at (according to the government) an astonishing 450 knots+.

For a more in-depth analysis of this issue please click HERE.....

Two hour video "Terror Storm" exposes government sponsored terror campaigns against its own people throughout history. [Now you can also watch the final cut version with approx 20 more minutes of documented and verified evidence of government sponsored terror in our recent history.]