By Maxwell Igan

 

   Many people claim that there are a number of serious issues in regards to the alleged 767 Airliner strike on the Pentagon on September the 11th 2001. This page is an attempt to examine some of these issues.

   Due to the fact that the public has received no real explanation from the government and we have no video evidence to study, we are forced to rely on what photographic evidence, news reports and eye witness testimony, that we are able to gather and study for ourselves. We are given one of two choices. To simply believe what we are told, or, to use our eyes and our common sense. We will now examine some of this photographic evidence.

  The first discrepancy in the official story concerns the initial reports from news readers of the day, many who attested that to them it didn't look anything like a plane had crashed into the building.

  Consider this clip for example - and there are a number of others.

 

   Following the initial reports, most news stations said much the same thing, and it was not until later that day that stories began to filter through that the entire plane had "vaporized" within the building due to the intense heat of the burning jet fuel, which bring us to the second issue. 
   Jet fuel, which is merely aviation grade kerosene, is a hydrocarbon, which only burns at 800 degrees C and can only ever reach a maximum of around 1350 degrees C in a perfectly controlled environment. That is simply fact.
 
   Consider for a moment: Aviation grade kerosene in the same as that sold for use in household appliances such as common kerosene heaters.
   When you ignite a kerosene heater you are able to regulate the flame, to allow it to be controlled. You are able to turn the flame from a dirty orange red flame to a much hotter bluish flame by regulating the flow of oxygen and fuel.
   The flame of your kerosene heater is in a controlled environment and you are regulating it in order to obtain the maximum heat potential from the flame, which is produced by a fuel that is sluggish enough to be considered safe for widespread home use. The flame of your kerosene heater glows a rich blue and is much hotter that the dirty orange and red flames we saw at the Pentagon, or at the World Trade Center for that matter - flames that were produced by this very same fuel.
   Your home kerosene heater is constructed of metal, simple low grade steel, but when you heat your house with it, the heater does not melt. The heating element you place on top of the flame is also metal, it is only tin or at best, thin steel, and it does not melt, or even warp. It has a heat coil in the form of a thin spring that runs around its base and sits in direct contact with the blue flame, and even it does not melt.

   So where did all this intense heat - enough to reportedly vaporize an aircraft - come from?

   Because of the quantity of fuel you say? After all we are talking about an aircraft here. But no, because the quantity does not affect the volatility of the fuel, it just makes the fire larger, but not any hotter. According to Fire department officials, uncontrolled dirty fires, such as those that occurred at the Pentagon & World Trade Centers will only, and can only, reach a maximum temperature of around 1250 degrees C which certainly not enough to melt or even severely weaken steel, let alone vaporize any type of metal. True the integrity of steel may become compromised from prolonged exposure to temperatures above 650 C, but we are talking about titanium alloy engines weighing at 6 tons each here, and in the case of the WTC, we are concerned 4 inch thick construction grade steel girders being exposed to an hour long fire. The girders used in the WTC had also been certified as grade A119 which required them to be subjected to temperatures of 2000 degrees for several hours.

   A third point is the fact that a Boeing 767 is about 432 feet long, 45 feet high and a 124 feet from wingtip to wingtip. In the picture below, judging by the size of the men standing in the right of the photograph and the generator trailer parked on the lawn, the Military truck can be estimated as being around 30 to 40 feet long. We can therefore calculate the size of the collapsed section of the Pentagon to be roughly 60 - 80 feet across.

   Could a Boeing 767 fit into this hole?

   Not only is this hole not big enough to allow a Boeing to enter into it, but where is the wing damage to the building? Where are the holes where the two 6 ton, 12 foot high engines slammed into the building? If the building literally swallowed the aircraft whole, then why is there no slice through center of the collapsed upper floors where the vertical stabilizer would have cut into the building?

  There is another very curious matter about this picture as well that was first brought to my attention by the documentary made by the producers of "The Power Hour" entitled "in Plane Site" and this matter brings us back to our previous questions concerning the heat of the fire.

  If the heat from the Pentagon fire was so hot that it was able to vaporize an entire 65 ton aircraft, then why is it that in this very same picture we see on the top floor, an undamaged computer monitor. And on the second floor we see something quite astonishing. Clearly visible is a wooden stood, on it rests a book with pages open. The book and the open pages have suffered no fire damage whatsoever.

   How can it be that this building was engulfed in a fireball so intense that it was able to vaporize a 65 ton aircraft with titanium alloy components and yet these two fragile items were able to survive undamaged in such close proximity to the inferno?

   Returning now to the physical damage to the building, I ask you to consider the actual size of a Boeing 767. If one is to scale a Boeing 767 to the correct size and place it in a picture of the Pentagon it looks like this:

 

     Note how the engines would have definitely scraped the ground in order to have achieved the ground floor impact point, yet lawn of the Pentagon was pristine and undamaged.

 

   How could this possibly be?

   You must really consider the actual size of a Boeing 767 that is reputed to have caused this damage. Before the outer wall collapsed the hole in the front of the building was no bigger than two windows wide. As can be seen in this photograph:

 

   Could this small hole have actually been caused by an aircraft such as this Air France 767 shown here coming into land? (below) Compare the firemen on the lawn and the fire truck in the above picture to the actual impact hole and consider we are being told this damage was done by an aircraft such as the one in this photograph.

 

    There are many people have attempted to bring these issues to the attention of the general public. For example the Documentary "In Plane Site" dealt heavily with the issue of the lack of damage to the building and visible plane wreckage at the Pentagon. The producer Dave Von Kleist was first alerted to the anomalies by a small but informative french website entitled "Hunt the Boeing - Test Your Perceptions", an english mirror of which can be found Here And rightly so because the site does indeed raise some very straightforward and valid questions.

    American Philanthropist Jimmy Walters, well known for his health and fitness Nature resorts, went as far as paying personally to launch a series of adds of American Television such as the one shown below, in an attempt to bring the matter to the attention of the public and force the media and government to address the issues.

 

 

    The Pentagon has more security cameras focused on it than almost any other building in the world, yet for five years, all the Bush Administration ever managed to make available to the public were five grainy frames, which seemed to pose more questions than answers simply because they do not show anything that even slightly resembles a Boeing 767.
   If they appear to show anything, it is the nose of a missile or small aircraft And I again draw your attention to the above simulated picture of a Boeing 767 over the whitehouse lawn  while you examine these five frames.

 

    Do you see anything that resembles a Boeing 767 in any of these frames?

    Eventually, caving into public pressure, and with great fanfare, in mid 2006, the Pentagon released what they claimed was a section of the actual footage that the original five frames had been taken from, declaring that all the conspiracy theories could now be laid to rest as here was the actual footage in which the aircraft could clearly be seen.
   Here is the footage that was released by the Pentagon courtesy of the Alex Jones Website InfoWars. And again I ask you, can you see a Boeing 767 in any of the frames of this security video?

 

  In fact what this 2006 release actually is, is the same 5 frames that were released earlier only with two extra frames tacked on at the end. This is the Pentagons huge fanfare release that solves the debate over the Pentagon strike?
   There were many security cameras covering the point of impact, one from a gas station across the road was focused right on the spot, One from the Sheraton Hotel and numerous others that all would have caught the impact from very good angles. Why did the FBI & CIA arrive and confiscate all footage from any such cameras within minutes of the attack, citing reasons of "National Security?"

   The Website InfoWars put together an animated gif using the five pentagon frames. They calculated the actual size of a Boeing 767 in relation to the size of the Pentagon and the distance it would travel between frames if traveling at around 520 miles per hour. Is it not possible that an actual 767 hitting the Pentagon would look more like what is depicted in the below animated gif they compiled?

   Even if some may consider the speed of the aircraft to be poorly judged in the animation, the size of the plane is relatively accurate is it not? Again I draw your attention to the picture shown above of the 767 on the Pentagon lawn for comparison. Did you see anything even vaguely similar in the footage that was released by official sources?
 
  Why has there been no other footage released? Why all the secrecy?

---

 

The Physical Evidence.

   Now let us examine the wreckage found at the Pentagon.

   There was a small amount of debris scattered around the pentagon lawn but all the pieces were small enough that you could pick them up with your hands. Photographic evidence show no wing sections, no tail sections, no seats, no baggage and no bodies, virtually nothing that could have come from a Boeing 767.

 

There were only small pieces of debris to be found scattered around anywhere in the vicinity of the Pentagon Building and the lawn was quite undamaged.

    The Official story tells us that the entire plane disappearing into the building and that substantial evidence of a 767 impact was found inside the building. They also tell us that almost all of the bodies of the passengers were identified by DNA.
    This is what the inside of the building looked like after the impact and once the fires had subsided.

 

 

   But where is the Aircraft? where are the wings and huge titanium alloy engines? Where is the tail section? Where are all the seats? Where is the baggage?

   That is the basic gist of the "No Plane hit the Pentagon" side of the argument.

 

to be continued...