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 
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Display the following 8 comments