Hard evidence exists that American Airlines Flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 — the laws of science refute the official account of 9/11
By Enver Masud, The Wisdom Fund
At the September 12, 2001, Dept. of Defense News Briefing, â€œAmerican Airlinesâ€, â€œFlight 77â€, â€œBoeing 757â€, were not even mentioned.
The security camera video of â€œFlight 77â€ released by the Pentagon has one frame showing something — labeled â€œApproaching Aircraftâ€ — moving parallel to the ground about 100 yards in front of the Pentagon.
This is the U.S. governmentâ€™s evidence to support its claim that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
However, the governmentâ€™s own records — Pentagon transcripts, official reports, flight data recorder, and the laws of science belie â€œThe 9/11 Commission Reportâ€.
September 11, 2001: CNN News Report
Just minutes after the alleged attack, standing in front of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, Jamie McIntyre, CNNâ€™s senior Pentagon correspondent since November 1992, reported: â€œFrom my close up inspection thereâ€™s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. . . . . The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could 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.â€
McIntyre continued, â€œIf you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that all of the floors have collapsed, that didnâ€™t happen immediately. It wasnâ€™t till almost 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.â€
This news report apparently was not rebroadcast, and a few years later McIntyre claimed on CNN (Wolf Blitzerâ€™s show) that he had been taken out of context.
Lt Col Karen Kwiatowski, who from her fifth-floor, B-ring office at the Pentagon, witnessed â€œan unforgettable fireball, 20 to 30 feet in diameterâ€ confirms McIntyreâ€™s account.
Writing in â€œ9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,â€ Kwiatowski noted, â€œa strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a â€˜missileâ€™.â€
Pentagon employee April Gallop, whose â€œdesk was roughly 40 feet from the point where the plane allegedly hit the outside wallâ€ stated in a sworn complaint (before the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York): â€œAs she sat down to work there was an explosion, then another; walls collapsed and the ceiling fell in. Hit in the head, she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.â€
Barbara Honegger, military affairs journalist, reported in her personal capacity that a pilot sent by Gen Larry Arnold (NORAD) â€œreported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.â€ She added, â€œMultiple standard-issue, battery-operated wall clocks . . . stopped between 9:31 and 9:32-1/2 on September 11â€ — a few minutes before Flight 77 that is alleged to have struck the Pentagon at 9:38.
A diagram (derived from the â€œPentagon Building Performance Reportâ€, Figure 7.9) indicates a â€œSlab deflected upwardâ€ which is consistent with either an explosion below the slab, or an upward blow by a hard object.
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) — former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, and head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence — stated in a video interview, â€œI donâ€™t know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.â€ Major Douglas Rokke, U.S. Army (ret) adds: â€œNo aircraft hit the Pentagon. Totally impossible! You couldnâ€™t make the turns with a 757. You couldnâ€™t fly it in over the highway. You couldnâ€™t fly it over the light poles. You couldnâ€™t even get it that close to the ground because of turbulence.â€
Other eyewitnesses, however, did report seeing a plane hit the Pentagon. Available evidence does not support their accounts.
September 12, 2001: Pentagon News Briefing
At the September 12, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Assistant Secretary of Defense, Victoria Clarke, Ed Plaugher (fire chief of Arlington County), and others, â€œAmerican Airlinesâ€, â€œFlight 77â€, â€œBoeing 757â€ were not even mentioned.
How significant is this?
With the worldâ€™s news media assembled at the Pentagon on the day after the alleged attack on the Pentagon by Arab hijackers flying American Airlines Flight 77 — a Boeing 757 — â€œAmerican Airlinesâ€, â€œFlight 77â€, â€œBoeing 757â€ were not considered important enough to mention at the Pentagon News Briefing the day after the alleged attack!
Fire chief Ed Plaugher was asked by a reporter, â€œIs there anything left of the aircraft at all?â€ Plaugher responded, â€œthere are some small pieces of aircraft … thereâ€™s no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.â€
When asked, â€œChief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuelâ€, Plaugher responded â€œYou know, Iâ€™d rather not comment on that.â€
The transcript reveals that reporters were being â€œthreatened or, in fact, handcuffed and dragged awayâ€.
This year, the transcript of the September 12, 2001 News Briefing was removed from the DoD website.
September 15, 2001: Pentagon News Briefing
At the September 15, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, and others, it was apparent that there were lingering doubts about what had struck the Pentagon on September 11.
When Mr. Evey said, â€œthe nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C Ringâ€, a reporter asked, â€œOne thing thatâ€™s confusing — if it came in the way you described, at an angle, why then are not the wings outside? I mean, the wings would have shorn off. The tail would have shorn off. And yet thereâ€™s apparently no evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring.â€ Evey replied, â€œActually, thereâ€™s considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring. Itâ€™s just not very visible.â€
Apparently, no one asked how â€œthe nose of the aircraftâ€ (a relatively weak component of the aircraft) remained sufficiently intact to penetrate the C Ring — the E Ring is the outermost ring.
â€˜Pentagon Building Performance Reportâ€™
In January 2003, the U.S. governmentâ€™s National Institute of Standards and Technology released the â€œPentagon Building Performance Reportâ€.
Page 35 of this report reads: â€œAn examination of the area encompassed by extending the line of travel of the aircraft to the face of the building shows that there are no discrete marks on the building corresponding to the positions of the outer third of the right wing.
The size and position of the actual opening in the facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18) indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building.â€
Had a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon, its wings would probably have been found outside the Pentagon. But these wings were not found outside the Pentagon!
Photographs, and CNNâ€™s Jamie McIntyre confirm this fact.
Page 36 of this report reads: â€œThe height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraftâ€™s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade.
This implies that whatever struck the Pentagon, couldnâ€™t have been a Boeing 757.
Page 39 of this report reads: â€œMost likely, the wings of the aircraft were severed as the aircraft penetrated the facade of the building.
Even if portions of the wings remained intact after passing through the plane of the facade, the structural damage pattern indicates that the wings were severed before the aircraft penetrated more than a few dozen feet into the building.â€
As previously noted, these wings were not found outside the Pentagon!
From the preceding it is clear that the â€œPentagon Building Performance Reportâ€ — prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineering Institute, and released by the U.S. governmentâ€™s National Institute of Standards and Technology — contradicts the official account of 9/11.
â€˜Arlington County After-Action Reportâ€™
The â€œArlington County After-Action Reportâ€ describes the occurrence of an event at the Pentagon minutes before the alleged strike of Flight 77, and the presence of Fort Myer Unit 161 at the Pentagon prior to impact.
Annex A, Page A-4 of this report states: â€œCaptain Dennis Gilroy and his team were already on station at the Pentagon when Flight #77 slammed into it, just beyond the heliport. Foam 161 caught fire and suffered a flat tire from flying debris. Firefighters Mark Skipper and Alan Wallace were outside the vehicle at impact and received burns and lacerations. . . . Captain Gilroy called the Fort Myer Fire Department, reporting for the first time the actual location of the crash.â€
Did Fort Myer Unit 161 go the Pentagon following an explosion — prior to the alleged strike of Flight 77?
It is consistent with the reporterâ€™s question at the September 12 News Briefing, â€œChief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuelâ€?
It is consistent with April Gallopâ€™s sworn complaint that â€œshe was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.â€
It is consistent with military affairs journalist Barbara Honeggerâ€™s account of â€œMultiple standard-issue, battery-operated wall clocks . . . stopped between 9:31 and 9:32-1/2 on September 11.â€
Fort Myer Unit 161â€™s arrival at the Pentagon to put out a fire prior to the strike by â€œFlight 77â€ is not consistent with the official account of 9/11.
â€˜American Airlinesâ€™ Flight Data Recorder
Pilots for 9/11 Truth state: â€œvideo captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder data released by the NTSBâ€ (National Transportation Safety Board) pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request. The â€œPentagon Building Performance Reportâ€ states (page 14): â€œA Pentagon security camera located near the northwest corner of the building recorded the aircraft as it approached the building. Five photographs (figures 3.3 through 3.7), taken approximately one second apart, show the approaching aircraft and the ensuing fireball associated with the initial impact.â€
On page 35 of this report weâ€™re told, â€œThe site data indicate that the aircraft fuselage impacted the building at column line 14 at an angle of approximately 42 degrees to the normal to the face of the building, at or slightly below the second-story slab.â€
However, the NTSB animation (January 2002), according to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, shows an aircraft flying north of the Navy Annex, not leveling off, and being too high to have hit the Pentagon.
When confronted with this discrepancy, NTSB Chief Jim Potter said: â€œI have no comment on the existence of the discrepancies.â€
Two Pentagon security officers state categorically that a plane (which they believed was Flight 77) flew north of the Citgo gas station (now the Navy Exchange) located west of the Pentagon on South Joyce Street at Columbia Pike, rather than flying south of the gas station as stated in official reports.
G-Force Would Have Destroyed the Boeing 757
Pilots for 9/11 Truth conclude: â€œArlingtonâ€™s unique topography and obstacles along American 77 â€˜final legâ€™ to the Pentagon make this approach completely impossibleâ€.
Flight 77 is alleged to have flown over Columbia Pike and the Virginia Department of Transportation communications tower located 1143 yards west of the Pentagon before striking the Pentagon at â€œ530 miles per hourâ€.
The antenna on the VDOT tower has been determined to be 169 ft above the ground with a ground elevation of 135 feet (FCC Registration Number 1016111). The ground elevation of the Pentagon is 33 feet according to USGS.
This path would have taken Flight 77 south of the gas station at the intersection of Columbia Pike and S. Joyce Street, and over the intersection of Columbia Pike and Virginia Route 27.
Flight 77 would then have been over Pentagon grounds with about 500 feet remaining to level out and to strike the Pentagon â€œslightly below the second floor slabâ€ at â€œan angle of approximately 42 degrees.â€
The Columbia Pike and VA-27 intersection presents a roughly 20 feet tall barrier in the alleged path of Flight 77.
According to the â€œPentagon Building Performance Reportâ€ (page 14), â€œThe first photograph (figure 3.3) captured an image of the aircraft when it was approximately 320 ft (approximately 0.42 second) from impact with the west wall of the Pentagon. Two photographs (figures 3.3 and 3.7), when compared, seem to show that the top of the fuselage of the aircraft was no more than approximately 20 ft above the ground when the first photograph of this series was taken.â€
Leaving aside the discrepancies between the official account of Flight 77, and the Flight Data Recorder (which NTSB refuses to answer), Pilots for 9/11 Truth calculated the force on the Boeing 757 at 34 Gs, i.e. 34 times the force due to gravity, at the point that it would have to transition from its downward flight to level flight.
With a virtual weight of about 8.5 million pounds, Flight 77 could not have leveled off before striking the Pentagon. It would have crashed at the intersection of Columbia Pike and VA-27. This alone is sufficient to refute the official account of â€œFlight 77â€ — Flight 77 cannot have violated the laws of science.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth did another calculation by lowering the height of â€œFlight 77â€ below that shown by the FDR. They lowered it to the top of the VDOT antenna.
With this very conservative case, they calculated the force on the Boeing 757 at 11.2 Gs. â€œ11.2 Gs was never recorded in the FDR. 11.2 Gs would rip the aircraft apartâ€ they wrote.
Impossible: Damage Path and Flight Path Aligned
With Flight 77 alleged to have struck the Pentagon at â€œan angle of approximately 42 degreesâ€, the flight path and the damage path cannot possibly form a straight line.
Flying at â€œan angle of approximately 42 degreesâ€ the Boeing 757â€™s starboard wing would have struck the west wall of the Pentagon before the port wing. This would cause the aircraft to veer to the right, and the damage path would be in line with the aircraftâ€™s new heading — not with the aircraftâ€™s heading prior to impact (assuming — miraculously — the plane was able to penetrate the C Ring).
However, the â€œPentagon Building Performance Reportâ€ Figures 6.2 and 6.6 show that the flight path and damage path (damage path also illustrated in the â€œArlington County After Action Reportâ€, page 23) do form a straight line extending from the center-line of the fuselage of the aircraft to where the â€œthe nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C Ringâ€.
The flight path and damage path depicted forming a straight line in Figures 6.2 and 6.6 violate the laws of science. This alone is sufficient to refute the official account of â€œFlight 77â€ — Flight 77 cannot have violated the laws of science.
Therefore, what looks like a puff of smoke — labeled â€œApproaching Aircraftâ€ in the security camera video, cannot possibly be a Boeing 757.
To conclude, the official account of Flight 77 — supported only by one frame from a security camera showing a puff of something approaching the Pentagon — is contradicted by the transcripts of Pentagon News Briefings conducted on September 12 and 15; by the â€œPentagon Building Performance Reportâ€; by the â€œArlington County After-Action Reportâ€; by the FBIâ€™s exhibit on phone calls from Flight 77; and by the Flight Data Recorder provided by the NTSB.
The official account of Flight 77 contradicts the laws of science. Flight 77 could not have withstood the calculated G-force when it would have had to level out — about 100 yards before striking the Pentagon — with â€œthe top of the fuselage of the aircraft . . . no more than approximately 20 ft above the groundâ€. The flight path of a Boeing 757 traveling at â€œ530 miles per hourâ€, striking the Pentagon at â€œan angle of approximately 42 degreesâ€, and the resulting damage path inside the Pentagon cannot possibly form a straight line as depicted in the Pentagon Building Performance Report.
On September 10, 2001, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted that the Pentagon â€œcannot track $2.3 trillion in transactionsâ€. It is alleged that the section of the Pentagon destroyed on September 11, 2001 housed records of DoD spending, and the personnel for monitoring that spending.