Missing Plane Parts, Other Analyses, Dispute Official Pentagon Tragedy
Debbie Lewis | 30.07.2007 08:00 | Terror War | World
The analysis of experts point out the oddities at the Pentagon during one of the most tragic loss-of-life situations in recent United States History.
With the release of the newest documentary by award winning producer William Lewis and talk radio personality Dave vonKleist, entitled 911 Ripple Effect, comes many more pieces of the “911 Truth” puzzle. The duo, responsible for pioneering the September 11, 2001 investigative documentary, shed more light on an ever-growing body of inconsistencies in a tired and hole-riddled “official version” of the September 11 tragedy. There are as many versions of answers as there are questions surrounding this horrible piece of United States history. Many of these questions surround the crash of U.A. Flight #77 into one of the most secure, if not the most secure, buildings on the planet-the Pentagon.
Interviews with such independent investigators as veteran pilot Glen Stanish, author Jim Marrs, professors and radio show hosts Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett, just to name a few, show us the array of holes in the official story come-to-life. How, indeed, does a plane fly over the most protected airspace in this country, slam into the most protected building in the world, and yet there is almost no video or photographic images to support the story? Released to the public, through the Freedom of Information Act, were a tiny few seconds of video that showed, well, nothing, yet the story remains unchanged. In fact, these few frames show nothing so detectable as a Boeing 757, yet CNN’s own disingenuous host, Glenn Beck, claims they are proof that the official story is true. Another CNN reporter, Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre, reported live on September 11, 2001, that he saw no detectable pieces of wreckage, yet in 2006 he denied saying this and claimed he took photos of the wreckage and that debris covered the disaster site.
The Analyses
Glen Stanish, a veteran commercial airline pilot and co-founder of Pilots for 911 Truth, has studied airline accidents for years. In his professional opinion, a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, “there would be an abundance of wreckage…large tails sections, indestructible landing gear, indestructible engines, wing spars, fuselage, seats, anything of the sort.” He went on to say, “That indicates to me that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.” Stanish makes another astonishing observation, “Adjacent to this hole, the windows were completely intact, and you can tell by the firefighters’ foam [that] was sprayed around the hole and sticking to the windows, [that] the windows are completely intact, …where the wings should have penetrated”
Professor and radio talk host Kevin Barrett, questions the “scenario” of a stray plane this size “waltzing” into the D.C. airspace, nearly one and one-half hours after several planes were hijacked, and hitting the Pentagon as “highly improbable.” Barrett’s contemporary, Jim Fetzer, says of the lack of debris, “You find unbroken windows, undamaged fence, [a] couple of automobiles. What you don’t find is massive piles of aluminum debris. You don’t find the wings, you don’t find the seats, the bodies, the luggage, the tail, not even engines were recovered, indicating that no Boeing 757 hit the building.”
Even more astonishing is the analysis made by Former Major General Albert Stubblebine in the documentary One Nation Under Siege, where he stated, “I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of the airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon and I said the Plane does not fit in that hole. So what DID hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What’s going on?”
Lewis and VonKleist point out some very interesting observations, as well. Commenting on the size of the engines, they state. “…If there were to be any holes at all, they would be located where the engines would have impacted the Pentagon…” yet the initial hole was reportedly only 14ft to 16ft. The importance of this is the diameter of each engine fan alone, which is over 6ft, making the engines, themselves, over 7ft apiece. This should be of great significance, since the 14ft to 16ft hole would not accommodate the fuselage and both engines. Even if the fuselage, including the rows and rows of seat and the people on board, “disintegrated” on impact, the hole was scarcely big enough for the engines.
Boeing 757 Information
Top experts interviewed by Lewis and VonKleist point out that the size of a Boeing 757 is approximately 125ft in width, 155ft in length and 44½ft in height. The minimum take-off weight, according to the Boeing website, is 200,000 pounds, “as much as a diesel train locomotive.” The plane in question has approximately 626,000 parts, not counting the 600,000 bolts and rivets holding these parts together. The engines, alone, depending on whether they were Rolls Royce or Pratt Whitney engines, weigh between 7100 and 7300 pounds each.
According to a letter sent to radio talk host Geoffery Metcalf, providing answers to some interesting questions posed by Mr. Metcalf, CMSgt John Monaccio, a witness at the Pentagon, says the 7000-plus-pound engines were buried in the building, and he had pictures posted which showed “corresponding holes in the building to meet the fuselage and a limited portion of the wings and tails section.” I tried to look at these photos on the website he provided Mr. Metcalf’s audience. That link is not there. Other video evidence does not support CMSgt Monaccio’s claims. In fact, in the first images from that day, and before the collapse of the “E-ring,” the hole is incredibly small (approximately 16ft in diameter, according to photographic evidence taken y FEMA) and there is definitely no damage on the face of the building “corresponding” to the engines or the tail section of that, or any, plane.
Looking at the video animation, released along with the Pentagon Building Performance Report, as the animated plane hits the Pentagon, vonKleist points out some very significant observations. Another major observation that is either overlooked, or just plain ignored, is that the wings of the plane are shown penetrating the building, intact. The original hole at the Pentagon, as discuss by Stanish, Marrs, Fetzer, and others, and verified by Stubblebine, was only 14ft to 16ft, which is slightly larger than only 10 percent of the actual width of the plane, which was 124ft. As can be seen in the actual images, there was no penetration of the wings or the engines into the side of the Pentagon.
The Official Flight Path
Pilots for 911 Truth created an animation using the flight data recorder information found in the wreckage at the Pentagon. The information provided the exact speed and the actual altitude and heading of the plane that supposedly crashed there. This should be of tremendous interest, as the actual path of that plane does not remotely match the “official” version of the tragedy. Consequently, what it does show is the plane at an altitude of 235ft just moments before it should have impacted with a couple of curiously downed light poles on the road in front of the Pentagon. How could the plane have taken out the light poles in question if it was still well over 200 feet in the air?
Furthermore, according to the NTSB’s animated model of the flight path, per the flight data recorder information, there is a light pole that should have been downed but remained standing. Producers Lewis and VonKleist ask the question, “Is it possible that the plane that impacted with the Pentagon was smaller than a commercial Boeing 757?” He goes on to tell that the findings, according to experts with which he has spoken, were more consistent with the possibility of a smaller plane, perhaps a small jet, a UAV, or a Global Hawk used as a missile.
Conclusion
The many images, as seen on live television, provide the observant onlooker with many more questions than actual answers. This is especially true if you try to follow the “official” version of these images and happenings. Crime scene investigators use photos to detect facts about their crime scenes that may have been overlooked or missed during their initial investigation. I suggest we can do the same to dissect the “official story” and find the facts we need to dispel the “truth” we are being expected to shallow. The Pentagon/Flight 77 portion of this documentary begins at about the 37:12 mark. Let me suggest that you take a look at these video images and decipher, for yourself, what you see, by visiting www.911rippleeffect.com.
References and Resources:
Official Documentary Website:
http://www.911rippleeffect.com/
Jamie McIntyre comments: http://www.thepowerhour.com/press_release/press16.htm
Pilots for 9/11 Truth: http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
Scholars for 9/11 Truth: http://911scholars.org/
Muslim, Jewish, Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth: http://www.mujca.com/
Official Site of Author Jim Marrs: http://www.jimmarrs.com/
One Nation Under Siege: http://www.undersiegemovie.com/
Stubblebine clip from One Nation Under Siege:
http://www.undersiegemovie.com/bio_stubblebine.html
Article So Where Is the Plane? Geoff Metcalf:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777
Response to Geoff Metcalf article from witness CMSgt John Monaccio:
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com:80/pentagon/pentagon-email_20020316.html
Facts from Boeing website: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_facts.html
Engine Facts for Rolls Royce Engine from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RB211
Engine Facts for Pratt Whitney PW2000 series engines: http://www.pratt-whitney.com
Interviews with such independent investigators as veteran pilot Glen Stanish, author Jim Marrs, professors and radio show hosts Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett, just to name a few, show us the array of holes in the official story come-to-life. How, indeed, does a plane fly over the most protected airspace in this country, slam into the most protected building in the world, and yet there is almost no video or photographic images to support the story? Released to the public, through the Freedom of Information Act, were a tiny few seconds of video that showed, well, nothing, yet the story remains unchanged. In fact, these few frames show nothing so detectable as a Boeing 757, yet CNN’s own disingenuous host, Glenn Beck, claims they are proof that the official story is true. Another CNN reporter, Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre, reported live on September 11, 2001, that he saw no detectable pieces of wreckage, yet in 2006 he denied saying this and claimed he took photos of the wreckage and that debris covered the disaster site.
The Analyses
Glen Stanish, a veteran commercial airline pilot and co-founder of Pilots for 911 Truth, has studied airline accidents for years. In his professional opinion, a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, “there would be an abundance of wreckage…large tails sections, indestructible landing gear, indestructible engines, wing spars, fuselage, seats, anything of the sort.” He went on to say, “That indicates to me that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.” Stanish makes another astonishing observation, “Adjacent to this hole, the windows were completely intact, and you can tell by the firefighters’ foam [that] was sprayed around the hole and sticking to the windows, [that] the windows are completely intact, …where the wings should have penetrated”
Professor and radio talk host Kevin Barrett, questions the “scenario” of a stray plane this size “waltzing” into the D.C. airspace, nearly one and one-half hours after several planes were hijacked, and hitting the Pentagon as “highly improbable.” Barrett’s contemporary, Jim Fetzer, says of the lack of debris, “You find unbroken windows, undamaged fence, [a] couple of automobiles. What you don’t find is massive piles of aluminum debris. You don’t find the wings, you don’t find the seats, the bodies, the luggage, the tail, not even engines were recovered, indicating that no Boeing 757 hit the building.”
Even more astonishing is the analysis made by Former Major General Albert Stubblebine in the documentary One Nation Under Siege, where he stated, “I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of the airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon and I said the Plane does not fit in that hole. So what DID hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What’s going on?”
Lewis and VonKleist point out some very interesting observations, as well. Commenting on the size of the engines, they state. “…If there were to be any holes at all, they would be located where the engines would have impacted the Pentagon…” yet the initial hole was reportedly only 14ft to 16ft. The importance of this is the diameter of each engine fan alone, which is over 6ft, making the engines, themselves, over 7ft apiece. This should be of great significance, since the 14ft to 16ft hole would not accommodate the fuselage and both engines. Even if the fuselage, including the rows and rows of seat and the people on board, “disintegrated” on impact, the hole was scarcely big enough for the engines.
Boeing 757 Information
Top experts interviewed by Lewis and VonKleist point out that the size of a Boeing 757 is approximately 125ft in width, 155ft in length and 44½ft in height. The minimum take-off weight, according to the Boeing website, is 200,000 pounds, “as much as a diesel train locomotive.” The plane in question has approximately 626,000 parts, not counting the 600,000 bolts and rivets holding these parts together. The engines, alone, depending on whether they were Rolls Royce or Pratt Whitney engines, weigh between 7100 and 7300 pounds each.
According to a letter sent to radio talk host Geoffery Metcalf, providing answers to some interesting questions posed by Mr. Metcalf, CMSgt John Monaccio, a witness at the Pentagon, says the 7000-plus-pound engines were buried in the building, and he had pictures posted which showed “corresponding holes in the building to meet the fuselage and a limited portion of the wings and tails section.” I tried to look at these photos on the website he provided Mr. Metcalf’s audience. That link is not there. Other video evidence does not support CMSgt Monaccio’s claims. In fact, in the first images from that day, and before the collapse of the “E-ring,” the hole is incredibly small (approximately 16ft in diameter, according to photographic evidence taken y FEMA) and there is definitely no damage on the face of the building “corresponding” to the engines or the tail section of that, or any, plane.
Looking at the video animation, released along with the Pentagon Building Performance Report, as the animated plane hits the Pentagon, vonKleist points out some very significant observations. Another major observation that is either overlooked, or just plain ignored, is that the wings of the plane are shown penetrating the building, intact. The original hole at the Pentagon, as discuss by Stanish, Marrs, Fetzer, and others, and verified by Stubblebine, was only 14ft to 16ft, which is slightly larger than only 10 percent of the actual width of the plane, which was 124ft. As can be seen in the actual images, there was no penetration of the wings or the engines into the side of the Pentagon.
The Official Flight Path
Pilots for 911 Truth created an animation using the flight data recorder information found in the wreckage at the Pentagon. The information provided the exact speed and the actual altitude and heading of the plane that supposedly crashed there. This should be of tremendous interest, as the actual path of that plane does not remotely match the “official” version of the tragedy. Consequently, what it does show is the plane at an altitude of 235ft just moments before it should have impacted with a couple of curiously downed light poles on the road in front of the Pentagon. How could the plane have taken out the light poles in question if it was still well over 200 feet in the air?
Furthermore, according to the NTSB’s animated model of the flight path, per the flight data recorder information, there is a light pole that should have been downed but remained standing. Producers Lewis and VonKleist ask the question, “Is it possible that the plane that impacted with the Pentagon was smaller than a commercial Boeing 757?” He goes on to tell that the findings, according to experts with which he has spoken, were more consistent with the possibility of a smaller plane, perhaps a small jet, a UAV, or a Global Hawk used as a missile.
Conclusion
The many images, as seen on live television, provide the observant onlooker with many more questions than actual answers. This is especially true if you try to follow the “official” version of these images and happenings. Crime scene investigators use photos to detect facts about their crime scenes that may have been overlooked or missed during their initial investigation. I suggest we can do the same to dissect the “official story” and find the facts we need to dispel the “truth” we are being expected to shallow. The Pentagon/Flight 77 portion of this documentary begins at about the 37:12 mark. Let me suggest that you take a look at these video images and decipher, for yourself, what you see, by visiting www.911rippleeffect.com.
References and Resources:
Official Documentary Website:
http://www.911rippleeffect.com/ Jamie McIntyre comments:
http://www.thepowerhour.com/press_release/press16.htm Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/ Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
http://911scholars.org/ Muslim, Jewish, Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.mujca.com/ Official Site of Author Jim Marrs:
http://www.jimmarrs.com/ One Nation Under Siege:
http://www.undersiegemovie.com/ Stubblebine clip from One Nation Under Siege:
http://www.undersiegemovie.com/bio_stubblebine.html Article So Where Is the Plane? Geoff Metcalf:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777 Response to Geoff Metcalf article from witness CMSgt John Monaccio:
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com:80/pentagon/pentagon-email_20020316.html Facts from Boeing website:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_facts.html Engine Facts for Rolls Royce Engine from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RB211 Engine Facts for Pratt Whitney PW2000 series engines:
http://www.pratt-whitney.com
Debbie Lewis
e-mail:
pressbox@bridgestonemediagroup.com
Homepage:
http://www.911rippleeffect.com
Comments
Hide the following 8 comments
Secrets Cannot Be Kept Forever
30.07.2007 09:54
A3 version .jpg at http://tinyurl.com/2h8sjg
How many more street corners do we have to stand on handing out these films and information before a seemingly braindead populace wakes up to reality? Is the power of mainstream propaganda THAT strong that it can faze everyone into believing the crazy but cozy (for Westerners at least!!) fantasy promulgated by a few crazy psychopaths cowering in the White House and CFR?
The poster I've dumped here may be a bit too complicated for yer average Joe and Jane 6 pack but it does FIT the chief culprits to a TEE...
The truth of that horrendous day is now oozing out like a festering carbuncle - it's up to ALL of US to help clean up the whole stinking, revolting mess. We cannot just leave it to a few brave souls like these guys you posted, David Shayler, Alex Jones and Michael Meacher.
Hey, even Galloway is dipping his toe into the Painful Deception now he's met Rodriguez!
TruthWillOut
When a man
30.07.2007 12:45
Dr Beaker
Pictures of aircraft parts and the Pentagon
30.07.2007 13:28
And was the FAA in the conspiracy too?
citpecs
Unspoken assumptions speak loudly
01.08.2007 07:35
Yet another example of the sort of patronising, insulting opinions of ordinary people held by the conspiraloons. Why is it then whenever people do not act or behave in a manner which 'they are supposed to' so called 'Truthers' fall back on the old false consciousness argument in one form or another. The truthers are a cult, they fervently beleive that they have seen the 'truth' and the mass of humanity is too stupid to realise it, though they keep trying to show 'the sheeple' the error of their ways. Frankly, if few people beleive you it is because you have yet to provide any convincing evidence to support the stageringly far fetched claims you make.
Merely citing one pilot who believes the plane into the Pentagon is impossible, has to be weighed against the fact that hundreds of witnesses saw a plane crash into the Pentagon, the fact that photographs clearly do show plane wreckage at the Pentagon site and perhaps most importantly, that passengers that were on that flight have never been seen again. Any alternative explanation has to provide adequate explanations for all these factors, and frankly, if you cannot see that explanations that revolve around mass hypnosis, mass kidnappings and murder of passengers by shadowy government forces is a far more ludicrous explanation that the so called 'official' one (I have never understood how the testimony of hundreds of people has ended up being 'owned' by the state) then perhaps we will never reach an agreement on this. Then again, even some of the 'truthers' beleive that the so-called 'no-plane' theory is a red herring perpetuated by 'spooks' who have infiltrated the movement in order to discredit it, so what is your take on that?
I do not think I am the only one who fed up of being labelled a 'sheeple' or a 'spook' simply for not buying into this internet cult movement.
cynic
Disinfo!
01.08.2007 13:10
Cynic could be a plant but is more likely just another witless anarchist clinging to a 19th century bourgeois Zionist world view and like most anarchists is chasing the little diversions the NWO set up to keep them busy doing something irrelevant while their Grand Plan rolls out unchallenged.
The Truth Movement is growing fast, more than we can say for the left, which has totally failed to open its eyes to the Straussian fantasy world we have woken up in.
Awake
Bollocks...
01.08.2007 21:12
By the way, the only 'proof' put forward that the black box case has been 'proven' has been by a couple of 'truthers' - if you are so keen on independent enquiries, I would like to see one on the so called black box evidence as well.
And you are still patronising people, by the way
Cynic
Willing dupes
01.08.2007 21:40
I counter challenge: prove they are authentic! Bring me verification. Bring me independent depositions that these photos are the real thing. Bring me a forensic report on the images.
Where are the passengers? Dead probably. They didn't blanch at offing 3000, why would another few dozen be a problem.
Hey, it's only patronization if the interlocutor's is of a similar intellect, otherwise it's plain ol' dumbing down.
Awake
You are the one...
02.08.2007 07:31
Perhaps you can also explain some of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts from that day too:
"On a Metro train to National Airport, Allen Cleveland looked out the window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. 'I thought, "There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,"' he said. Before he could process that thought, he saw 'a huge mushroom cloud. The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics'
It was so shocking, I was listening to the news on what had happened in New York, and just happened to look out the window because I heard a low flying plane and then I saw it hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next..."
"As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view, listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade Center disaster in New York, a jetliner, apparently at full throttle and not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground, screamed overhead. ... Seconds before the Pentagon came into view a huge black cloud of smoke rose above the road ahead"
As I originally stated, could you actually indicate what actually happenened at the Pentagon that day, in your opinion, providing an explanation of the factors such as the eyewitness accounts, where the passengers went (as well as the missing plane) You claim they are dead - how? Dead in a plane crash perhaps?
Also, what of the fact that even many conspiracy theorists believe the 'no plane' theory to be bollocks.
While you are at it, perhaps you could elaborate on the '19th century bourgeois Zionist world view' you are convinced I subscribe too.
I have refrained from personal insults to you - perhaps you could do the same when you respond, we can get into a 'my qualifications are better than yours' argument if you wish, but I have no doubt my 'intellect' is a match for yours any day of the week.
Cynic