The damage "imprint" initially sustained by the Pentagon on 9/11/01 does not allow that the killer jet had a starboard wing engine, does not allow that it had a vertical stabilizer reaching above the fourth floor. Furthermore it shows damage where there shouldn't be any, damage that is consistent with high-explosive blasts near ground level and penetration by bunker-buster missile warheads into the second floor south of the crash vicinity. Simple inspection of this evidence below will convince you yet again that the killer weaponry was not a Boeing 757 jetliner.
One of the very first crash site photos taken by witnesses.
According to civil engineers who inspected the wreckage two days later, the nose of the attacking plane hit at the location shown below, a column between two windows, designated in the engineer's report as column #14. This column marks the center of the crash imprint left by the killer plane.
If the fusleage and vertical stabilizer hit column #14, then we must ask where is there any evidence of a starboard engine hitting at columns #16 or #17? And why is there any damage at all on the second floor between columns #18 and #20?
Here is a diagram prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) engineers who examined the structural condition of the the pillars in the damaged section of the Pentagon three days after the attack.
The engineers recorded the different levels of damage done to supporting pillars at the first-floor level of the crash region, including the exterior pillars between windows, using this system of catagorization:
Pink squares: In collapsed area. Presumed to have had significant impairment (these are guesswork)
Red squares: Missing, broken, disconnected, or otherwise without remaining function
Blue squares: Impacted with large deformation and significant impairment of function
Green squares: Heavy cracking and spalling with some impairment of function
Yellow squares: Cracking and spalling with no significant impairment of function.
(note: "Spalling" means chips have been knocked off the pillar.)
The question now arises: Had the killer jet been a Boeing 757 that nosed into pillar #14, as depicted in this diagram, at which location, in terms of pillars, would the starboard engine have had to have hit the building?
Overlay of Boeing 757 on the American Society of Civil Engineers Diagram by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins
So let's test the Boeing thesis: Verify that no starboard wing engine (i.e.,t he engine hanging from the wing to the right of the seated pilot) penetrated anywhere on the first floor between columns 15 and 18.
No sign of engine penetration from pillar #16 to pillar #18. Pillar #15 is blasted away, especially near ground level -- yet had the killer jet been a Boeing 757 with engines hanging lower than the fuselage, the lowest part of pillar #14 would not have been touched by any part of the Boeing. Clearly, by looks of it, the pillar has been blasted away, not burned away.
The damage is too extensive on the ground floor at column 14 below the two-window hole that was made above it. Also the damage at column 16 on the first floor where the starboard (right-side) engine is supposed to have hit (but clearly did not) is insufficient. There was a large trailer parked at column 14 at the time of the attack. The trailor, we may surmise, was blown to smithereens apparently by a bomb -- and may account for much of that confettii debris on the heliport landing pad. Possibly the bomb, was intended to enlarge the hole made by the small jet or missile that actually did hit the wall. Barbara Honegger has already established that bombs went off in the Pentagon before the alleged time of impact. This trailer bomb would be just one more of those.
While the perpendicular angle of approach in this diagram is wrong for the killer jet, the diagram does show the size of a Boeing 757 with respect to the spacing of Pentagon columns and the windows between them.
From: michael [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009
Subject: Re: Pent. pic
good day! glad to hear you've seen this before, i've only met a few who have.
as to your questions:
i have a great deal of experience and training in professional photography and computer graphics, retouched or altered photos are easy to spot in any higher grade graphics programs unless the photo scanned, if not digital, is scanned at very low resolution.
there were actually two explosions, one from some type of small aircraft that hit the building and the other from a truck bomb: you can see the back of the truck blown out with flames coming from it in other photos of the scene near the chain link fence to the right.
lastly, it's obvious no large passenger aircraft hit. i was in the Air Force and was involved in crashed aircraft recovery, i know how much is left after a crash and the size of the debris field, one clean up was after an aircraft hit a hillside while doing close to mach 1, there was still considerable debris. no aircraft vaporizes entirely on impact no matter the speed it was traveling and the pristine lawn speaks for itself, not the mention the cable spools.
thanks for the reply, have a great day.
This picture shows column #14 location on the second floor. There appears to be a vestage of the column still hanging there. But the picture also shows, to the right, the other, unexplained, damage on the second floor at pillar #s 17, 18 and 19 -- not explained at all by the pillar #14 plane crash.
Note above that the damage caused by a vertical stabilizer does not reach above the second floor level. Yet a Boeing 757 tail fin should reach up to the middle of the fourth floor level, had the killer jet actually been a Boeing 757.
The hole in he fence indicates a plane or missile travelling very low. The damage to the second floor (between pillars 19 and 20 -- see diagram above) could not have been caused by what hit the fence. In fact this hole in the window between columns 19 and 20 and the damage to the facing to the left of it on the second floor cannot be explained by the wing of the plane.
Obviously the story of the banking plane was made up on the spot and put out by planted disinformationist witnesses to explain away the damage on the second floor so far south (to the right of) the crash centered at pillar 14. The claims that the plane's port engine dragged in the grass and that the plane pivoted on the dug-in wing, "cartwheeling into the building," or that the plane "bounced," are contradicted by pristine grass and by the fact that there is no damage where the engine would have had to have hit at or above the ceiling of the first level (the second-story floor) at column 16.
Witnesses who say they saw an engine go by them -- may have seen the killer jet (or missile) which would more or less approximate the size of a Boeing engine.
Thus we have no hole for the engine at column 16 and a hole that can only be explained by yet another object (missile) between columns 19 and 20 on the second floor.
One of the fire trucks positioned itself south of pillar 14 and proceeded to emit a spray of water towards the north covering with spray the features of the crash. There is not apparant reason for this action other than to conceal the damage from view. Within 20 minutes the wall of the Pentagon collapses destroying the evidence described above -- yet the part of the building that collapsed is to the right of where the "airliner" supposedly entered the building at a fifty degree angle headed northeast. The fire had been put out by this time. The collapse and the spraying of water by the fire truck to cover the damage appear to be instances of the concealment and destruction of evidence respectively.
Coverup actions -- water curtain and collapse -- after spraying across the hole so no one can see, at 10:15 a.m. everyone is ordered away "because another plane is coming" -- as soon as the truck leaves the wall collapses
The Pentagon was hit. The main fire was out in less than 10 minutes -- but a firetruck positioned south of the crash was spraying water northward creating a curtain of spray that concealed the damage (or lack of damage) done to at the first-floor level. (Remember, early clear photos show there is a pillar still standing where a starboard engine would have had to have hit had the plane (or missile) been a 757. The spraying of this curtain preventing a clear view of the damage continued until suddenly everyone was ordered away from the building because "another plane was on its way" -- this order was given after Flight 93 had crashed (at 10:03 a.m.) and after the President had already been notified it had crashed. This order to evacuate came from the Secret Service. At 10:15 fire and rescue workers removed to the cover of the famous Washington Blvd. overpass (of lamppost and black taxi fame) to the southwest of the crash. Think how absurd this is!!! The firetruck screening the damage from view was removed and then -- in the same minute -- the wall collapsed over the crime scene, destroyin the evidence of pillar 16 and all other evidence of the damage imprint -- including the unexplained hole and damage on the second floor between columns 19 and 20. The removal of personnel and the collapse are both given as happening at 10:15 a.m.
Clearly the truck was spraying to cover the evidence while preparations were made to demolish the the wall destroying the evidence. The almost instantaneous following of the collapse after the removal of the curtain of water -- the events happening within a minute of each other -- is powerful evidence.
It should also be noted that since the nose plane is determined to have struck pillar 14 and that the plane hit the west wall from the southwest, coming at a 50-degree angle, the interior damage must have been more extensive to the northeast of the crash point -- yet it is a section that is west and southwest of the crash hole that comes down -- where presumably less damage to support pillars was done. The wall, I am suggesting, should not have collapsed as it did.
The case for sabotage -- for destruction of evidence -- by persons inside the Pentagon is strong just on the basis of this information -- but when combined with what we have established about the Boeing flying over the Pentagon along a course that completely misses the lamppost on Washington Blvd -- the case is made beyond any minute shadow of a doubt.
-- the collapse and the withdrawal for fear of another plane on the way came within one minute of each other -- After spraying across the hole so no one can see the limited damage to the first floor (fortunately clear pictures were taken before this), and continued emitting a curtain of water until everyone was everyone is ordered away "because another plane is on its way" -- even though Flight 93 had crashed and the President and DoD were notified -- yet this warning originated with the Secret Service, not the air force. Fire and rescue workers at the Pentagon in response to the attack are evacuated to a nearby highway overpass -- the truck leaves and within two minutes the wall that the fire truck's spray had been concealing suddenly collapses -- the evidence of the wall damaged by the crash now gone forever.
Less than a minute after the truck is withdrawn, the building collapses destroying the evidence of the imprint.
Evidence of the imprint destroyed by demolition.
There is much more evidence to share. There are at least seven other lines of evidence as compelling as this one, that have been known since 2002, but largely neglected thanks to gatekeepers and false-theories that have been floated to cause distraction and repel people of sound judgement. See for example: http://www.bedoper.com/eastman/small_plane/index.html
I think we have the evidence we need to convince the town that they are being tricked.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!
The Five-Sided Fantasy Island
Richard Stanley & Jerry Russell
Jim Hoffman - His Booby Trap For 9/11 Truth Seekers
By Joe Quinn
9-11 Review -- What Hit the Pentagon
Video analysis and simulation of Pentagon aircraft
Pentagon Video Security Gate Cam September 11th
Eric Bart " It was a plane bomb"
Deciphering Dov Zakheim
Condoleezza Rice And The New World Order
Some articles from 2001
150 9-11 smoking guns
Conspiracy Research For Politically Incorrect Populists
David Ray Griffin - The New Pearl Harbor (2004)
Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus
What the US government doesn't want you to know about the "terror pilots" and their friends