Pentagon Photos of Flight 77 Crash

Time to move on to real issues of complicity

related pages: blog entry: May 24, 2006

It is sad that this website received its all time highest traffic load on May 16, the day the Bush regime released excerpts of a videotape purporting to show the crash of Flight 77 into the nearly empty, recently reconstructed sector of the Pentagon. Apparently, the "no plane" hoax is more popular than analysis of how industrial society could cope with Peak Oil, climate change, depleted mineral resources and declining food production.

For the record, this website has stated for over a year that it is unlikely the surveillance videos showing Flight 77 will ever be released, since the "no plane" hoax has been so successful at discrediting "9/11 Truth" inside the Beltway and dividing the 9/11 Truth (sic) Movement that the perpetrators have no interest in dispelling the "no plane" fantasies. The release of the "new" video on May 16 just pours more fuel on the "no plane" fires - especially since they do not show a clear view of the plane. Hiding these surveillance videos is just "reverse psychology" -- hiding the evidence does not mean that the evidence does not show Flight 77, it just shows that certain interests want the skeptics to think this. Declassification of the many surveillance tapes seized by FBI (and others?) on 9/11 would not tell us anything we don't already know (that Flight 77 was flown into the mostly empty part of the Pentagon). Instead, a public process to review the data on the "black boxes" that were supposedly found at the scene (according to Newsweek) would be much more interesting, since that data would either confirm -- or refute -- the many allegations that some sort of remote control / computer piloting system was used to ensure the plane hit the Pentagon in the one part that would cause the fewest casualties and the least damage to military operations.

I think the best [photo] of damage to the right of the center is the fourth one in the Metcalf set:
You can refer to the original at:
Damage to the left side is at least as extensive but there are fewer photos. The top one in this set shows that end, but some analysis is required to measure the length of the first floor breached walls:
The post-collapse photos more clearly show that the first-floor damage extended well to either side of the collapsed area.
-- Jim Hoffman
photos of Flight 77 engine and other components (in Italian)

Why it is most likely that an American Airlines 757-223 hit it the Pentagon

by Joel v.d Reijden

In my complete review of 911, I have taken up many dozens of witness accounts. When put together you get the following story: A large American Airlines jetliner came screaming over the highways with it's gears up, after having circled the Pentagon area. It balanced a little to the left an right, clipped some light poles and other stuff, barely pulled itself straight again and fired up it's engines to full throttle in the last few seconds. Some say it struck the helipad with it's left wing right before it hit the Pentagon and a few others claim it hit the ground with it's nose, only inches before the wall. Just like the two airplanes that hit the WTC; "it disappeared.". A few claim they could see the tail sticking out of the building for about one or two seconds before a very heavy explosion engulfed everything in flames. (Like the WTC) People who were close by, were blown off their feet and some even went flying. Small pieces of airplane, concrete and other rubble was blown out of the building and landed up to hundreds of yards away. The blast was so powerful it blew a few big chunks of the engines hundreds of yards through the air. An intense heat has been described, which melted the back of at least one firetruck which was standing in front of the building. ....

The witness testimonies
Keep in mind that the Pentagon has 25.000 people working there. A lot of these witnesses have high ranks in the army, navy and air force. Some of the witnesses were commercial airline pilots and many people in the neighborhood are familiar with military and commercial airplanes, since there are multiple military and commercial airfields close by. So, if all those witness testimonies form a coherent story, why then do so many people support the "theory" that an F16, missile or global hawk hit the Pentagon? The funniest thing is, that nobody even reported seeing any of those planes (or a missile). ....

I have proven the following things, which seem to make a couple of dents into the works of most of the well-known 9/11 gurus:

  1. Claims that the Pentagon hole is (much) too small for a 757-223, are false.
  2. Claims that witnesses have said they saw a missile, are false.
  3. Claims that witnesses have said they saw a small plane and implying a significant amount did the same, are misleading.
  4. Claims that witnesses have said the plane was quiet were an extreme minority and are brought to the public in a misleading way. As usual, the context has never been addressed. (In the car, windows shut, radio on. One person said it was the shock)
  5. Claims that a Global Hawk or a F-16 hit the Pentagon aren't backed up by any witnesses. So why have these theories been put forward in the first place?
  6. Quotes from the aftermath of the crash site are no proof something else than a 757 hit the building. As you can read in the quotes I gathered, even a few people who saw a large airliner dive into the building wondered about the relatively small amount of visible damage it did.

So before the 9/11 skeptics start complaining that this or that hasn't been explained to their satisfaction, first disprove the list I typed above. I personally don't care if you see a 737 engine or an alien spacecraft in a pile of rubble on a blurry photograph. I don't care if you assume there has to be an indentation of the tail on the building, even though it's complete speculation whether or not it should have left it. I don't care if you believe the color blue from a piece of wreckage on the Pentagon lawn isn't the exact same color blue from another American Airlines jet, which has been photographed under different light conditions and might have a much older or younger layer of paint. I don't care about those "Pentalawn 2000" theories if 97% of the witnesses state the plane didn't touch it. The 3% that claimed it did touch the ground said it was only a couple of feet before the wall that the nose touched the ground, which means the lawn has never been touched. (By the way, a lot of small debris has been photographed towards the left of the impact hole, maybe because the plane came in at a 50 degree angle) I don't care about things that can easily be explained away by conventional theories, like why so little of the plane has been recovered, why a hole has been punched out in one of the interior walls or basicly anything else brought forward by the conspiracy community on the Pentagon...
...until someone can disprove the above 6 issues to me. And if you cannot do that and you are not willing to acknowledge it, don't even bother sending me an email asking me to explain this week's hip theory.
People are send to the gas chamber if witnesses state a certain person has killed someone. It's very obvious eye witness accounts, when taken as a whole, are considered to be extremely reliable. Even the 9/11 research community acknowledges this, judging from their generous quotations from witnesses who claimed to have seen explosives at the WTC (or a missile at the Pentagon, or a missile hitting TWA800, or an explosion before flight 587 started to come down). On the other hand, the moment the 9/11 skeptics community is confronted with a majority of the statements made about the Pentagon, they suddenly claim "witness accounts don't mean anything, people are always imagining things". And on top of that, most of the 9/11 skeptics ignore the fact that the physical damage on the Pentagon does indeed correspond with a 757.
Just keep calling everybody a bunch of sheeps, guys.
more photos of Boeing debris in the rubble


Photo taken immediately after crash shows width of flame

from the website - taken immediately after the crash by a passing motorist (who had a clear view of the plane). Note the width of the area covered by fire (which shows that something as WIDE as a jet hit the building). None of the people who had a good view of the crash saw a cruise missile.

the "no planes" promoters imply that these people are lying about what they saw happen ...


The No Plane Promoters Are Lost in Foam

Photos by Jason Ingersoll - used by hoaxers who pretend the "hole is too small"
some photos have the full impact obscured by firefighting foam

the imprint of the plane is obscured in this photo by smoke and firefighting foam - the wing damage is not visible in this photo

shows some of the damage to the right of the hole. The area to the left of the hole is obscured by smoke. Other photos taken that morning show the wing caused damage there. The real question is how Flight 77 made such a pinpoint "landing."

shows the damage caused by the wing to the right of the central "hole" - note the broken support columns in center of the photo, just to the right of the main hole, and which direction the force against them was coming from (hint: this photo refutes the missile claim)

firefighting foam obscures the ground level damage from the wings in this photo, which is why it has been popular with some of those promoting the "no plane" claim

another photo where the firefighting foam obscures the full impact on the building


the famous "hole" in the Pentagon is visible in this photo - but so is the damage that the right wing of the plane caused at ground level

the "no plane" advocates use photos that have firefighting foam obscuring the ground level impact of the wings

when the firefighting foam is gone, the damage from the right wing (pun not intended) is visible

the real issue is who caused the plane to have this perfect flight to hit at ground level in the one part of the Pentagon that was "under reconstruction"


The following images were taken from a webpage by Sarah Roberts