Factoid: As a point of reference, there is a 60 mile "restricted air" radius around Bush's Texas ranch house... as this is the distance assessed by NORAD as being sufficient to intercept any aircraft flying into the area... Now go back and compare the distances and times that were effectively drawn around the pentagon.

 

CNN Reported No Plane Hit Pentagon

Here is a video clip from CNN coverage on the morning of 9/11. CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is obvious no 757 crashed there. His exact words are as follows below......

JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.

WATCH VIDEO>>>  http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/

Alternate link for above video: Check out this shockwave video file

UPDATE: The above video (and transcript) has now become of heightened importance in light of Jamie McIntyre's recent comments on CNN [May 16/06] following the court ordered release of more ambiguous pentagon video footage.

Mr. McIntyre now claims, that on the day of September 11/01 he did see plane wreckage (including a cockpit no less!!) at the front of the pentagon. Either Mr. McIntyre is one of those rarest of individuals who's memory actually improves years after witnessing an event first hand, or we have more evidence of media smoke and mirrors from the usual players. He also states that he "did not feel or know that a plane hit the pentagon till I actually saw it on CNN".... yet no such video was aired by CNN.  Mr. McIntyre offers us his proof that the plane that hit the pentagon must have been flight 77 for the "simple fact" that it took off that morning...... and "cell phone calls" were made from it. WATCH HIS COMMENTS HERE

Go HERE to see our analysis of this "new" video, and the media's rather curious attempt to draw conclusions for the viewer.....  plus a video simulation of what it would look like if a 757 had been captured by Pentagon video crashing into the front of the building.

____________

Related Link: Pentagon 9/11 Video Being Held Back by FBI

And now for the punch line......??

Yet another farcical 'no plane seen' release of the pentagon crash video confiscated by FBI. Seeing this video WAS considered a national security risk....

The video, recorded by a security camera at the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, was released to public interest group Judicial Watch and others who filed a lawsuit seeking the tape and other videos from that day.

CNN filed a Freedom of Information request for the video in February 2002, after the manager of the hotel disclosed its existence to CNN Senior Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre and said it had been confiscated by the FBI. CNN's FOI request was denied because at the time the tape was considered evidence in the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, who has since been convicted.
 

[What it does seem to show, however, is that the aircraft that crashed into the pentagon was coming in at very VERY low altitude, as opposed to the 45 degree angle 'steep dive' trajectory put forward by some government conspiracy theorists, as part of their 75 to 90 foot hole story. Otherwise you should be able to clearly make out the belly of a 757 over the highway overpass in the foreground.]

Lets get this "plane made 75 foot hole" fallacy out of the way first, because people like "Popular Mechanics" are (as amazing as it sounds) still using this bogus bit of info as one of the "facts" they claim as debunking the 911 truth movement.   HERE IS A FOX NEWS CLIP SHOWING BOTH THE INTACT ROOF, AND ITS EVENTUAL COLLAPSE. [Video clip is 2.4 megs]

 

Please see part II for more videos exposing serious contradictions in FACT, that the government has refused to deal with, because it conflicts with their conspiracy theory.

__________

 

Nine months of research. Can a plane hit a building twice? Wrong angle, wrong altitude, the computers can't lie. This proves that flight 77 COULD NOT have hit the pentagon!

Flight 77: The Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files

As people who have studied the handful of material (from the Pentagon) have noted, ALL of the parts shown in photographs approved and released by the Pentagon are small, portable chunks. Parts possibly consistent with the missile or "small drone aircraft" theory, and totally inconsistent with that maintained by the US government that it was a 100 ton commercial 757 airliner. No passenger luggage, engines, landing gear, tail section,  was found, nor were readily identifiable on or about the time of the incident.

Almost miraculously, the 'Armed Forces Institute of Pathology' under the rather curious code name of "Operation Noble Eagle" claimed it identified ALL but five of the bodies of Flt 77; however NO ARABS were listed among those found, nor apparently were they even listed on the passenger manifest.

 

This photo [taken September 13/01] shows what appears to be a SINGLE small high pressure engine rotor or "turbine" [approximately 22 -24 inches MAX* in diameter, when we rough measure to the leg of the person in frame (note slope of ground)] which is not only too small to have come from either of the TWO massive High-bypass engines used on the Boeing 757, which uses a multiple interconnected series of LOW PRESSURE type internal turbine discs from 41 to 29 inches, and main turbine fan of 78.5 inches: Even if we assume the smallest turbine of the 757 engine was mysteriously the only part to survive IT IS THE WRONG TYPE OF ROTOR - (please note engine housing which appears same diameter suggests high pressure, LOW-bypass engine - the EXACT opposite design of that fitted on a 757). 

[*: to measure the approximate size of the disc, take a calliper from the 9 and 3 o'clock position, then measure against the fireman's leg, which should come to his knee height. That makes the disc [assuming a 6 foot man] at no more than 24 inches. Measure your own heel to knee height for confirmation.]

Below photo is of high pressure LOW-bypass Rolls Royce Engine used in Global Hawk, or similar aircraft, and shows relative size of engine.

However, it should be noted that it is inconceivable that only one disc would remain intact (as photo shows) while ALL other discs disintegrate into the ether of nothingness! These rotors (thousands of pounds worth) are contained in a contiguous series of attached turbines.... so where are the others (or at the very least the fragmented discs) if this was one turbine of the many within a Rolls Royce 757 engine? [Still think this could be 757 engine part? Then keep reading for the clincher that puts the debate in perspective, and raises huge problems for those supporting the government position.]

[It should be mentioned here that some have claimed this part is from the APU, however this part could not be from the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) as those discs are from 8 to 12 inches in diameter. The APU is merely a source of initial power for starting the larger turbines, and electrical power when main engines are off. The 757 uses the Honeywell GTCP331-200, and for some reason detailed pictures of this APU are seemingly impossible to find on the internet. The Airbus uses a nearly identical size model APU, so we've included the  dimensional diagram below left to help you get a better idea of the size of these units.]

Even with transmission housing, generators, oil reservoirs, air intake, etc.. attached, the total combined height of the unit is less than thirty inches or 76 cm... The disc assembly front housing plate is the round plate directly in the center of the above photograph (marked with the red square) and is approximately ten inches in diameter. Picture at right gives us a colour illustration of the horizontal disc assembly. As you can see these discs are very small indeed, and nothing approaching the size of the disc in the aforementioned pentagon debris pictures.

_________

The above pictured single rotor in the pentagon debris photo is, as stated, consistent with many "pure jet" high compression jet engines associated with noisy military aircraft, as opposed to modern commercial jet airliners, which use high bypass "low compression" engines which are compliant with mandatory low noise requirements. [Below pic is of "low noise" high-bypass commercial jet engine. Note turbines are part of series of serial turbines, so why do we only see one turbine in debris photo? Also note the housing is dual layer (to permit airflow), and are of greater diameter to largest turbine housed in assembly. This is not even close to what one sees in the pentagon photos!!!!!!]

In simple terms: Military jet engines are designed to accelerate a relatively small amount of air VERY quickly; whereas commercial airline (high bypass) engines accelerate a relatively large amount of air more slowly. This results in substantially lower engine noise, as well as greater fuel economy.

 The most important fact to consider, however, is the fact that this photo is taken at the EXIT hole at the rear of 'C' ring [which is little more than ten feet in diameter] and raises the question as to how either 757 engine [which are mounted WELL OUTBOARD ON THE WINGS] could have squirreled its way through the 16 foot [or less] entrance hole, then through five more layers of 18-inch 'bomb reinforced' concrete? That is nine feet of concrete in total, and the government conspiracy theorists would have us believe the cabin caused this hole!  Laws of Physics demand that such a feat is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

 The engines should still be somewhere at the front of the Pentagon, where they would have each impacted some 25 or so feet of (either side of) the entrance hole, of 'E' ring, OR, left TWO separate and unique holes of their own and possibly penetrated some part of the Pentagon outer wall - as these engines comprise the most dense and durable parts of the aircraft, and EACH engine weights in excess of 4.5 tons [around 9,000 pounds each], and are constructed largely of high strength, high density, 'high heat tolerant' metals such as titanium and cobalt alloy steel. If anything would have left a hole, it was the engines, not the cabin body, which is essentially just a lightweight 'low density' pressurised aluminium-alloy tube.

Still confused? Well imagine throwing an empty beer can at one piece of cinder block - then a D-cell battery at another. Which is going to have the greatest potential to leave a hole? AND assuming the impossible were to occur, and only the beer can made a hole, how would two batteries strapped either side of the can get through the hole made by the beer can? Simple physics tells us the government is lying its $^% off.

Picture says a thousand words - note relative positions of engines to cabin [fuselage] body.

An estimated 5 ft of engine is below fuselage level

Above diagram from http://physics911.net/missingwings.htm illustrates the impossible physics required for either outboard engine to end up at exit hole.  Ever play pool? Where should the engines have been found?

Not only is the fuselage penetration indicative of the test of strength between the wall and the plane, but the wall would have been weakened by being split open by the fuselage, making it easier for the wings and tail as they followed. Yet as the pictures show, the wings (and engines) curiously did not penetrate.

Physical Analysis of the Pentagon Crash and wreckage....

*Click this link for more detail on this engine part, and facts about engines used on 757.

*Industry Experts Can’t Explain Photo Evidence - American Free Press

Are there any aircraft in the US Air Force Arsenal that could possibly fit ALL the available evidence?

The [left] image gives a 'birds eye' view of the physical   impossibility of a 757 [with 125 foot wingspan] flying directly over the annex (building in the foreground) and then knocking over light-poles at the Washington Blvd. overpass (toward far right of photo) before striking the Pentagon.  [See also the video at 'Part III' of this site showing "jet" impact]

 The hypothesis of "Dick Eastman" (that a small "killer jet" was responsible for the actual impact to the Pentagon) is most consistent with eyewitness accounts by all civilian observers, including testimony of Lagasse,  Riskus, and Campo - placing the "757" well to the north of the lamp pole damage; as well as the early testimony [from Steve Patterson] indicating that a much smaller plane than a "757" was seen close to the impact site. 

If these eyewitness accounts are correct, then the "757" allegedly seen over the gas station and over Washington Blvd, could not possibly be the same as the cause of the damage to the Pentagon.  

Witnesses, such as Sam Danner, have stated that they observed lamp poles falling onto the highway seconds AFTER the plane hit the pentagon, suggesting the poles were part of the staging of events as witnessed by others.

 Testimony may, of course, have been simply confused, " intentionally planted or coached" (either to lend credibility to the "official story" or "muddy the water" as the CIA trains as part of standard disinformation), and it is also possible witnesses saw a 757 (at a higher altitude),  then saw an explosion at the Pentagon and collated all the visual data in order to build a consistent mental image of traumatic and horrifying events which took place very quickly, and fit their REPEATED images of planes hitting the Trade Towers on the television just moments beforehand. Eye witness testimony can often be amongst the LEAST reliable in crisis situations, as numerous experiments into this phenomenon have determined.

Another difficulty with the official government account is how a heavy commercial airliner managed to maintain a continuous extremely low altitude and ever downward flight path at VERY high speed. Below are estimates for the aircraft altitude [sea level] at various checkpoints.

0.35 miles (Naval Annex) -- 230 feet

0.6 miles (gas station) -- 125 feet

0.75 miles (1st lamp post) -- 70 feet

0.95 miles (Pentagon hit) -- 50 feet  ASL (above sea level)

This could of course have all been cleared up if the FBI had not confiscated numerous (over 80) tapes showing the craft, or deliberately removed the frames from the closed circuit tape that was released "unofficially".

Private video of an aircraft actually crashing into the pentagon is hardly going to contain info vital to 'national security' - UNLESS of course the truth is likely to bring down a corrupt criminal government agency.  Seems clear to us that the governments' failure to disclose the truth is the ONLY possible threat to national security.

 

More Facts

All aircraft produce what is referred to as "ground effect" when landing, or at low altitude [within about  one/half lengths (0.5) of wingspan or 60 feet]. So if "the pilot" was trying hard to push the airplane down as close to the ground as possible [at a VERY high speed, in fact], the craft would have encountered this increase of lift and decrease of drag experienced by ALL low-wing aircraft. This effect makes it very difficult to land an airplane until all excess speed has been "bled off" [by flaring the plane at landing, using flaps and spoilers], and if these "pilots" were following the same "full throttle" kamikaze attack as their "twin tower" comrades, this would have been an absolutely impossible feat of flying. Not one of the alleged hijackers was even able to master flying a 1500 pound Cessna 150, let alone a 100 tonne state-of-the-art twin engine commercial aircraft!! 

In depth explanation of above: The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

            Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb
airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH

[.......]

In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not
have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a
maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high
wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise
missiles-and the Global Hawk.)
 

Furthermore, a review of the alleged "engine fingerprint" evidence ("impacts" to a mobile generator, a chain-link fence and a concrete vent structure in front of the Pentagon)  reveals another possible problem with the "official" flight path.  In order to comply with the lateral trajectory path over the Naval Annex [see above Annex photo], the plane needed to make a left turn in order to strike the 5 light poles, just missing the adjacent overhead highway sign and much taller VDOT camera pole to its right, and allow for "the engine" to hit the steam vault retaining wall and chain link fence adjacent to the electrical generator. This means that between the Naval Annex and the light poles, the plane needed to level out much of its turning bank angle to avoid hitting the ground with its left wingtip, and do this while also pulling out of its simultaneous dive as discussed just above, all in the space of a few seconds.

Hey Pentagon idiots - where's the video of this fantastic feat of flying? Is the reason we still haven't seen a tape, from your CGI guys, that not even they can fake a film showing this?

 

Because of this necessary left turn arc further to the south, it becomes physically impossible  for the plane to pick up both the 5 light poles and the engine impacts with the retaining wall and the chain link fence, and have the centerline of the 757 fuselage impact column 14.

 

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-n/damtraj.html

Click above link for an engineer's view of the situation with more detail of flight path and objects.

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

ABSTRACT

 In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges.  I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings.  And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.

Click Here for full report....

______________________

Also see below links......

Thermite Identified As Culprit Of WTC Collapse

Evidence of Demolition Charges In WTC 2

Experts Call for Release of 9/11 Evidence

pr web | March 3 2006

A society of experts and scholars has now joined with Judicial Watch in calling for release of videos that are being held by the Department of Defense, which are essential to understanding events at the Pentagon that transpired on September 11, 2001. Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which is dedicated to exposing falsehoods and establishing truths about the events of 9/11, has gone beyond Judicial Watch by calling for the release of other films and evidence that, its officers maintain, are essential to understanding 9/11.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/030306Evidence.htm

=========