9/11 Hoaxes: No plane hit the Pentagon

NOTE: This article was written a couple years ago by me as part of a series of articles to debunk hoaxes within the movement. There are some slight changes, but not so much in context as in code, since I had to convert the BBcode version of the file into HTML. Any errors that came across as a result of the conversion (i.e; broken links, no image, etc...) will be addressed as quickly as possible.

9/11 Hoaxes

No plane hit The Pentagon

By Kamen Fattorusso



9/11 Hoaxes is a series of articles I'll be starting which analyzes hoax theories, misinformation, and disinformation among the 9/11 Truth Movement. This is not a hit piece but rather an essay which seeks to improve the knowledge and research among 9/11 Truthers. The subjects I write about will be hoaxes that I find false and/or discrediting to The 9/11 Truth Movement.

Firstly, I'll be starting with one of the biggest and I feel most dangerous hoaxes that are spread around: that no plane, or perhaps a plane smaller than a 757, crashed into The Pentagon on September 11th, 2001. A great deal of those among The 9/11 Truth Movement support this theory and promote it to other people, truthers and non-truthers. This is largely due to it being promoted by well-known, prominent 9/11 activists such as Phil Jayhan, Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, Jason Bermas, Killtown, Thierry Meyssan, Gerard Holmgren, and others. Admittedly, I too once believed in this theory because at the time I felt the evidence to be rather extraordinary and overwhelming. However, a closer look reveals that the theory has very poor foundations and support, lacking in coherency or substantiating evidence. I choose to write about this first due to a recent exchange with another 9/11 Truther, who based on her bulletins seems to be a reasonably intelligent person, and I feel it's dangerous for anyone who's smart and serious about the movement to be excitedly promoting hoax theories that discredit reasonable theories by association. Most hoaxes in the Movement aren't very popular and most people realize how flawed it is, but unfortunately this is not one of them. This applies to the whole of The 9/11 Truth Movement, as well, for there are those among the movement, such as Steven E. Jones and Jim Hoffman, who do not believe that no plane hit the Pentagon but some may assume they do since a great deal of other truthers do. Thus, this hoax negatively affects people who don't believe in it.

This article will be organized by taking one fragment of evidence or claims used to support the theory, which will be followed by my rebuttal. The hoax claims will be typed in bold whereas anything related to said claim, such as a quote or closely-related claim, will be typed in the same passage in Italics. Lastly, before I start, I'd like to quote something by Victoria Ashley in her article, “Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11”.

“It is important to note that falling for mis- or dis-information is not a sign of weakness or a failing, but is actually part of a natural human sense of fairness, compassion, and flexibility. Most false claims depend on these admirable qualities to spread. And more than likely, most sincere people working hard to spread truth have been taken in by hype at one time or another before looking into the details. Some prominent advocates of false claims may themselves have been duped or manipulated, or simply don't have the ability to critically evaluate the evidence.”

If a plane hit the Pentagon, where's the plane? Why is there no debris on the lawn?

Perhaps the most well known foundation for this claim, as well as the entire No-plane theory in general, is Thierry Meyssan's ”Hunt the Boeing” web page. The claim suggests that, if a plane hit The Pentagon, then large pieces of debris, particularly things like wings, the engine, and the fuselage, should be scattered and about, yet all that is seen are small, insignificant pieces of debris, which seems to suggest that no plane really hit the Pentagon. This is related to the following idea.

A 757 can't just obliterate like that on impact.

But to the contrary, a plane most certainly can and most certainly will incinerate the way it did when it hits a hard wall at such a fast speed. In fact, in 1988, Sandia National Labs conducted a test involving an F-4 Phantom crashing into a wall of concrete at about 480 mph and a velocity of about 215 meters per second. To quote, “The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines — onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact.”

The following photos illustrates the result(for size simplicity, I'm going to provide a link to the photos rather than directly input them here).

http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image1.jpg
http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image2.jpg
http://www.sandia.gov/images2005/f4_image3.jpg

As you can see, the F-4 Phantom has been completely pulverized, consistent with the crash at The Pentagon. This is not all. Even assuming that there did need to be some amount of debris left over from the crash, you should not expect to find most of it in the lawn. Not in this scenario. Judging by the dimensions of punctures in the facade(which I will elaborate on in a later passage), the vast majority of debris entered inside the building, and not out on the lawn. Regardless, there is still a rather wide and extensive field of debris. While there are few to none large pieces of debris, we should not expect that as seen above with test with the F-4 Phantom.

The fuselage is not burnt. How can a piece of debris, which supposedly came from a speeding jetliner that completely incinerated, have not been singed?

Should the plane have been singed? There are a myriad of photographs of jetliner crashes that show unsinged pieces. For example, take the following picture into account.



There are contradictory witness accounts. Surely, this means that those who claimed to see a plane can't be relied on.

Saying “those who claimed” seems to imply that there was anyone who saw something other than a plane. The witness accounts are not contradictory. There are some which are less specific than others, but that's all.

”So it looked to be maybe a 20 passenger corporate jet, no markings on the sides, come in at a shallow”

This is one of two quotes that some use to suggest that indeed, the accounts were contradictory, but what's less reported is that both quotes came from witnesses who were very far away and that both people were the only ones to describe something so far away from what [i]did[/i] hit The Pentagon.

Here is a list of witnesses and what they reported seeing. The list was created by Joël v.d. Reijden:

about 89 The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones.
at least 45 The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.
at least 23 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases a large jet.
at least 22 The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening.
at least 17 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the highways.
at least 12 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane increase its throttle at the last seconds.
at least 11 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a C-130H flying 30 seconds behind a jetliner.
at least 5 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically stated they saw the plane had its gear up.
at least 2 The amount of eye witnesses who stated that they saw a small corporate jet, without doing any creative interpretating [sic] of the witness accounts.
at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn't relevant!
at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash.
at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash.
at least 3 The amount of witnesses who reported the sound of the plane was quite noiseless. (One of them acknowledged it was the shock)
at least 1 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had it's gear down. (Indirect, said a wheel hit a pole)
at least 25 The amount of witnesses who have said something that might point to the use of explosives or incendiaries. (White flash, powerful blast waves which blew people through the air, molten glass, burning aluminium, [sic] spreading debris over hundreds of yards back to where the plane came from, including 2 engines, the missing plane itself, etc.)

As you can see, witness testimony in no way suggests no plane hit The Pentagon, but rather suggests that one truly did.

What about the light poles? How could a jetliner crash through five lightpoles and still hit The Pentagon at full throttle.

The only time I can recall seeing this point in a film or article was in the documentary Loose Change. Specifically, the narrator, Dylan Avery, states that there was a crash on November 22nd, 2004 where a plane was pulling in, clipped a single light pole, and crashed. In fact, they state(and correctly) that the wing was outright ripped off. So how can a Boeing 757 maintain such speed through five light poles? There are two things not taken into account for this point to appear valid. One point involves the planes, and the other involves the light poles.

For the planes, there are too many differences to make a valid comparison. The plane that crashed in 2004 was a Gulfstream II. A Gulfstream II is relatively small compared to a Boeing 757, a fairly large jet. The Gulfstream II was only flying at about 150 mph, whereas the Boeing 757 may have been travelling at speeds as fast as 530 mph.

For the lightpoles, not only is he ignoring potential differences in composition for the light poles, as they were in entirely different crash sites, but also ignores the fact that highway lightpoles are built with breakaway bases(this is done for the safety of motorists).

Thus, it is not surprising that a Boeing 757 or a jet of similar size travelling at high speeds would be able to rip through five light poles stationed on the highway. Loose Change also asserts that the wings were not damaged, but I must ask what evidence they've obtained that leads them to believe this? Who's to say the wings weren't damaged? Beyond this, the CNN.com story of the Gulfstream II crash says that the crash wasn't caused by hitting the light pole. By neglecting this fact, Loose Change overexaggerates the damage the light pole did to the plane. But even assuming the light pole was the sole cause of the crash, there are still plenty of reasons, as stated above, to expect a Boeing 757 to maintain it's speed until it's crash into The Pentagon.

The hole in The Pentagon is far too small to have been caused by a Boeing 757. It's completely inconsistent with such a crash, so it must have been caused by something else. Perhaps a cruise missile?

To the contrary, the dimensions of the hole are entirely consistent with a Boeing 757 crash. This misconception is largely due to the promoters of such theories, whether intentionally or unintentionally, only showing photos of the second floor damage, where the first floor damage will be hidden by hoses or smoke. Photos of the damage to the Pentagon can be analyzed and compiled to deduce the precise dimensions of the hole, as seen in the following photo. Areas in red are areas which lack any significant damage.



This photo also shows the feasibility of the dimensions. Notice the light-brown colors shaded in around portions of the red-shaded area. This is where lighter damage was done.



On the second floor, there was indeed about 18 feet of significant damage. This would likely have been caused by the vertical tailwing. The first floor, however, shows a span of damage ranging to about 96 feet of significant damage. To give a better idea of the damage, I will quote Jim Hoffman from his essay “The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows”.

On the first floor, the primary puncture extended from column 8 to column 18. Three leaning objects in the first floor space left of the hole center are often assumed to be displaced remains of columns 15, 16, and 17. However, this analysis shows that those objects are more likely to be fallen pieces of the second floor slab than columns. Thus, it appears that the crash initially left a first floor hole that extended unobstructed for 96 feet. Surviving column 18 marked the rightmost extent of the hole, but to the right of it is another hole extending to column 19. Thus the total width of punctured walls on the first floor was at least 105 feet.
On the second floor, the puncture extended from column 13 to column 15. Photographs show a hanging object in the position of column 14. This appears to consist in part of remains of the steel reinforcements that were part of column 14.

As you can see, the dimensions are entirely consistent with a Boeing 757 crash. As a matter of fact, they are entirely inconsistent with a strike by a “cruise missile” or anything of the sort.

What about the round hole in the C-Ring?

First of all, for those unfamiliar with the Pentagon structure, it is composed of nine sections, and going through all of these sections are five “rings”. The “C-Ring” refers to the ring in the middle. This picture shows the Pentagon's rings clearly, as well as it's sections. In the interest of space, the image will be linked to.

http://www.ceo.ncsu.edu/attack/nyc-images/pentagon.jpg

Now that that is out of the way, the hole in the C-Ring is the final point of penetration by whatever hit The Pentagon on 9/11. Many people find it rather small compared to a Boeing 757. Here is a picture of the hole.



The hole measures about 9 feet in diameter. A 757's fuselage measures to be about 12.5 feet in diameter. So how could a plane make this hole.

Well to start with a little observation, note that the hole rests right on the ground. Rather peculiar considering the “16-foot hole” that no-plane theorists frequently promote was located on the second floor. Now correct me if I'm wrong, seriously, as this is a presumption of mine and not anything I've directly looked into, but missiles typically don't move progressively down like that. I've always been under the impression that they move in a straight line until their massive penetration potential is stopped. Again, not even sure about that, but I thought I'd address a possible anomaly.

But on to the real evidence and real facts, quoting Jim Hoffman in his article “The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence shows”:

However, the mass of a jetliner is not uniformly distributed throughout its shape. The fuselage of a 757 comprises only about a quarter of the area of its frontal profile, but makes up well over half of its mass. The distribution of the mass within the fuselage is far from uniform. Most of the structure is located in the lower third of the fuselage, as are the heavy components such as the landing gear. In a high-speed collision with a building, only the parts of the aircraft with the greatest density and total mass, such as the lower third of the fuselage, could be expected to penetrate far into the building. That part also has a small frontal profile -- approximately the size of the punch-out hole.

There is little more to say on the C-Ring hole, as it is clearly plausible for it to have been caused by a Boeing 757.

Is it merely coincidence that The Pentagon was struck in the least-populated section, which had been undergoing renovation, and was struck by going in a complicated maneuver when it would have caused more damage and life toll hitting it by diving in, AND was struck in the area which killed mostly people in the Naval Operations Center, which housed the Office of Naval Intelligence(ONI), a RIVAL of the CIA, as well as being on the complete opposite side of where where the Secretary of Defense would have been?

Absolutely not! This is a valid point brought upon by almost all 9/11 Truthers, and rightfully so, for it clearly shows that the government was either terribly convenient or were directly involved with the attack on The Pentagon. However, this doesn't prove that a missile or anything except a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon.

If a Boeing 757 struck The Pentagon, then why have NO tapes been released showing the attack? All footage of the attack has been confiscated and unreleased except for the five frames which don't show a plane at all! If the government has nothing to hide, then why keep these tapes secret?

When I present many of the points I explain throughout the essay, I commonly get something to the effect of “I refuse to believe a plane hit The Pentagon until I see those tapes.” For this reason, I find this an important point to address. Even if we are to assume that lack of footage is a reasonable basis for denying physical evidence and common sense, we have to think critically. Let's start now. Do you believe that government insiders are hiding the tapes because they're afraid of showing no 757 or do you think that they're hiding them intentionally because they're having fun keeping the no-plane hoax going?

For years now, the theory that no plane hit The Pentagon has been discrediting the movement. Let's create a plausible scenario where a large portion, let's say at least 80%, of the population believes that the government was directly involved with the events of September 11th. Now let's use modern estimations and implement them into this eighty percent, and say that at least 75% of those in the Truth Movement believe that no plane hit The Pentagon. Now let's say the government, due to high demand, is forced to release the tapes. These tapes, in this scenario, will show a Boeing 757 crashing into the building. The video will have no signs of editing and the plane will be seen very clearly. Can you imagine how damaging this would be to The 9/11 Truth Movement?

By not releasing those tapes, they are feeding the no-plane theory, and they know that they are feeding the no-plane theory. By releasing only five frames of footage that don't show a Boeing 757, they feed it even further. By releasing the May 16th, 2006 footage that still doesn't show a 757, they feed it even more. They fuel debates about what hit The Pentagon, rather than put them to rest. If no plane did hit The Pentagon, wouldn't they not release any frames at all of any footage so as to not make the public skeptical?

The no-plane hoax is very effective at putting The 9/11 Truth Movement on the fringe. Thus, waiting for footage which could very well put to rest these hoax theories does not benefit the movement, but rather is a significantly damaging risk.

Why does a white line mark the trajectory of the crash days before the crash occurred?

Another point that I've heard exclusively in Loose Change, the exact quote is:

And finally, why do satellite photos taken four days before 9/11 show a white marking on the front lawn, marking almost the exact trajectory of whatever hit the Pentagon four days later?

Loose Change downplays the “almost” in their claim, as the path of the line was separated from the path of the plane crash by at least ten degrees. The path was there initially for underground purposes.

Reports claim that the plane bounced off the lawn, but photos clearly show that the lawn is in perfect condition!

No, photos show that a large portion of the lawn where the plane didn't bounce is in perfect condition. These photos tend to be deceiving due to the perspective, which makes things seem closer to The Pentagon than they really are. Take the following photo, where the chain-link fence at the right of the picture appears to be very close to The Pentagon.



As it turns out, that fence is about 100 feet away from the facade of the building. Now to take a look at the following photo, we see that the lawn was not in perfect condition, to say the least.



Hani Honjour was a very incompetent pilot. There's no way he could pull off such a complicated maneuver into The Pentagon.

An excellent and very valid point, indeed. However, like the valid claim I mentioned earlier concerning the area where The Pentagon was hit, this is evidence of an inside job, not that no plane struck the building. Both of these valid points are often used by both those who believe a plane did hit the building, and those who believe a plane did not hit the building. As the latter group is attacked and debunked while using the valid points, it will discredit the former group by association.

Conclusion

Given the vast quantity of claims surrounding the “no-plane-at-The-Pentagon” theory, I'll undoubtedly find myself updating this article to counter yet more hoax claims that support an even worse hoax theory. However, I'd like to think I've done a pretty sufficient job in taking most of the major points thrown around, some minor ones too, and countering them to show that absolutely none of the claims or evidence used to support the no-plane theory are plausible. The physical evidence suggests a Boeing 757 struck the building. The witness testimony suggests a Boeing 757 struck the building. To top it all off, basic common sense suggests a Boeing 757 struck The Pentagon. Theories that no plane struck the Pentagon have no basis in fact or logic, and deviate from real witnesses and real facts.

I hope any who have fallen for this hoax theory will take this information into account, form more plausible conclusions, and will avoid falling for any other hoaxes pertaining to 9/11 in the future, as well as analyze their current theories and determine whether or not they're plausible.

I'd like to give thanks towards Jim Hoffman for his outstanding research in analyzing the Truth Movement and debunking this hoax claim, which awoke me from the belief that no plane struck The Pentagon, and also towards Victoria Ashley, who's article, “Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11”, inspired me to start 9/11 Hoaxes.