Mr. Metcalf,

I'd like to reply to your article on the Pentagon and aircraft debris, Warning - this won't be a short reply!  Please visit this link for some explanations and photos I provided to threads at Free Republic which assist in answering some of the questions from the non-believers:  http://www.fitzweb.com/military/pentagon/index.html  My website posts primarily respond to people thinking the act was a truck bomb, not an aircraft.

I'm Chief Master Sergeant John Monaccio, I'm the senior Air Force enlisted police officer for the Air Force.  I was in the Pentagon on Sep 11th, in room 1B461, when we were attacked.  I personally participated in rescue and recovery operations immediately after the attack, and for days afterwards, and have direct observations of many details not mentioned previously, and of what I claim in this e-mail.

The French web site's questions have a validity due to the restrictions (my word) on news coverage and photos from the site - you don't get the entire picture from what's been released.  I would suggest looking at the questions from a different angle to see why there was such a disparity in coverage from WTC and the Pentagon, thus leading to questions.

From the beginning, WTC was an open book with continual coverage, the Pentagon was not.  The Pentagon houses 25,000 people, most of whom work on classified information in the routines of their day.  The attack blew unimaginable amounts of classified documents and other classified media into open areas.  Security containers were dislodged, sensitive operations areas blown open, and classified computers and papers littered the site.  The raging fires created drafts carrying classified papers into the air and distributing them everywhere on the grounds of the Pentagon .

The corresponding law enforcement response brought in agents from every possible three letter  abbreviated force, many who work undercover or covert operations.  Protecting their identity is a concern so they can live to fight another battle another day. 

I suggest those are the reasons why access to photos, videos, etc., have been limited.  For example, I was in room 1B461.  The plane's inertia carried aircraft remains all the way through the building coming to rest on the outside walls of our offices.  We discovered cockpit wreckage at our feet while attempting to rescue people from a Navy operations area.

I worked with the FBI gathering evidence in an attempt to confirm the company the airliner was from so they could track it back to it's point of origin.  While doing so, we found certain religious items from the  hijackers.  The evidence collection process was filmed by a civilian crew working for Arlington County.  The crew filmed the evidence amongst reams of classified information at the scene.  Similar problems with classified existed everywhere.  Photographers had the same problems of any picture they took on scene.

Now to the questions:

1. The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion. 
How can a Boeing 757-200 weighing nearly 100 tons and traveling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only have damaged the outside of the Pentagon? 
The answer is that the plane did damage the rest of the building, it just didn't cause it to collapse.  The plane hit at a 45% angle to the face of the building.  An impact hole was clearly made (reference the web site photos), and the aircraft and wreckage continued some 240' through the rings of the building coming to rest in A&E Drive.  The engines were buried inside the building and they took many of the support columns out that resulted in the eventual collapse of the E-Ring (in conjunction with the fires).  The entirety of the E, D, & C rings were demolished as a result of the blast effect from the plane.  Check this site from the project engineers for more information:  http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/g020307-D-6570C.html  Click on the various links for more photos and explanations.

2. The next two photographs show the building just after the attack. The aircraft apparently only hit the ground floor. The four upper floors collapsed toward 10:10 am. The building is 78 feet high. 
How can a plane 44.7 feet high, over 155 feet long, with a wingspan of almost 125 feet and a cockpit almost 12 feet high, crash into just the ground floor of this building? 
You can see from the pictures I posted that the plane did just crash into the front of the building.  There are corresponding holes in the building to meet the fuselage and a limited portion of the wings and tails section.  The plane did not strike the ground first, it hit right below the second floor of the E-Ring. 
 

3. Look at the photograph of the lawn in front of the damaged building. 
Where is the debris? Any debris! Did it all disintegrate on contact? 
The debris is not visible in the pictures because of the sheer destructiveness of the impact against the scale and depth of field of the photos.  Look at my posts and you'll see a level of detail that is much better.  Critical to recall is the inertia of the mass that was the plane.  Look closely at the released video and you'll see in the frames pieces of the airliner actually flying over the top of the Pentagon's E-Ring. 

4. There are photographs, which show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit. 
What happened to the wings of the aircraft? Why isn't there any wing damage? 

There was wing damage, but remember the plane's wings are 1/8" aluminum against solid granite.  The wings disintegrated and spewed small parts and pieces across some 800 feet by 300+ feet of area to the front of the building.  If you look closely at the pictures I posted, you'll see an impact hole that basically accounts for the fuselage and to width of where the engines were on the wings.

5. One journalist asked: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" At a press conference the day after the tragedy, Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher said, "First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation. I'm talking about, but not large sections." 
The follow-up question asked, "In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing?" Plaugher replied, "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know." 
Wait a minute! Time after time (Oklahoma City bombing, TWA Flight 800, Flight 93 et al.) we are told not to depend on eyewitnesses? 
When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?" The chief responded, "We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft." 

These are red herrings taken from a news conference just a day after the event.  The Chief was not well enough informed at that point to answer those questions.  There was a debris field in the front of the E-Ring littered with small pieces of the plane.  The fires were still raging 1600+ degrees in other areas of the building where the plane passed and fueled by material in the building.  The aviation gas was vaporized on contact with the building when the wings were ruptured.  The mass of the liquid was carried forward deep into the building to the point where it started fires 240 feet into the building and up to the 5th floor.  There were no puddles of aviation gas because they were all burning.  One look at the color of the smoke rising would tell anyone who's aware of aircraft fires all they need to know. 
 

Notwithstanding the collective myopia in not being able to see what we are being told, there are more questions. 
One pilot wrote, "I flew the Boeing 747 jumbo jet, but not this 757 from what I see (or don't see) looking at these pictures, it's hard to pick out aircraft parts: 
· ·         The wingtip alone would have sheared off and bounced back into the street, the two engines would have penetrated deeper into the wall and framing structure further than any other part making a definite hole. 
That's partially what happened.  People are forgetting the aircraft was traveling at 350+ mph.  When it rammed the solid granite, the mass carried it and the engines through the E-Ring, but the less sturdy parts of the aircraft were immediately reduced to scrap.

· ·         The belly of the aircraft contains, fuel tanks, baggage, mailbags, and cargo; none of this type debris can be seen. 
Correct.  That debris was carried forward into the building's other rings and offices. 

· Assuming 8,600 gallons of kerosene fuel at a specific gravity of approx 6.9 lbs/gal (temperature considered) weight of the fuel would be close to 60,000 lbs and would splatter everywhere. 
True, and it did just that.  The initial fireball seen on the tape was not the entirety of the blast.  Much of the fuel was carried forward and into the hallways, corridors, rings, and offices.  The fuel ignited a split second later and vaporized many workers at their desks.  The ferocity of the fires on the outside of the building were caused by the aviation fuel.
· Where are the seats, those with passengers buckled in would be ripped out of the floor, for that matter, where are the passengers? 
The passengers were carried into the building with the aircraft.  Some were blown out and carried over the top of the E-Ring, still strapped into their seats.  I believe all the bodies from the Pentagon were recovered and identified, I think there were one or two passengers (and this was as of October) not yet identified.  The well being of the families dictated all aspects of casualty recovery be strictly handled with the care of the deceased paramount.

· I have never seen an aircraft accident where the aircraft evaporated upon impact, water, land or buildings. 
I'm sure in this pilots experience that's correct.  I've been to many where what you think and what you see are different.  An accident in AZ in the 80's had a KC-135 tanker being hit in the co-pilots seat by a small private plane.  This Boeing 707 jet nose-dived and made a hole into the desert.  The debris field was incredibly tiny.  Correspondingly, an accident in 1999 with a much smaller F-16 was spread over tens of acres simply from the angle of impact - that accident also did not have too many large pieces. 
· If these pictures were taken within 3 days after 9-11, there would have been definite remains of parts. I don't see any. 
Refer to earlier comments. 
I don't know what else to say except that a lack of critical thinking has been applied by some of these folks, especially the tens of witnesses that saw the plane strike.

My apologies for grammar, continuity, etc., I'm trying to do this quickly from work.  I'd appreciate it if my words would stay between us.

V/R

Chief Monaccio

CMSgt John Monaccio
HQ USAF/XOFM

************************************************************

Dear Mr. Metcalf:

I read with fascination your article on WorldNetDaily, "So where is the
plane?".  An interesting bit of corroborating evidence that was not
mentioned in your article was the security camera video released by the
Pentagon last week.  If memory serves me correctly, that video recorded an
image every 0.1 seconds.  If we assume that the plane was traveling at
550mph at the time of impact, it was traveling at 807 feet per second.
Given that an airplane 155 feet long would require 0.192 seconds to travel
past a given point, the airplane would have appeared on the video, yet it
did not.

Regards,

************************************************************
 

 Hi: My husband and I were discussing the pics of the Pentagon.  He is a
retired aerodynamicist with many years in aerospace.  He said that with that much fuel and at that speed, etc. that essentially the airplane would have collapsed like a paper bag and it and everything in it would have simply become instantly incinerated (vaporized)and part of the fireball.  It would be amazing to have even little bits of anything left of the plane or its contents.

I have read your article and it does little to serve the truth.

I was at the Pentagon 2 hours after the impact and I can assure you that
there was an aircraft. The aircraft hit the ground just before striking the
Pentagon and sliding into the rings. The aircraft was reduced to very small
debris due to the nature of the impacts (ground and building) and the fuel
did the rest as it was contained within the structure.

There are reasonable questions about OKC, I was a principle investigator on the case for the House of Representatives. TWA 800 has some unanswered questions but AA 77 did hit the Pentagon.

Work with good science not amateurs like the french website or many of the TWA 800 folks, if you have any questions call me at 202-XXX-XXXX.

Regards,

John Culbertson

************************************************************

Sir

It is patently offensive that we now read the ridiculous conclusion that because the FBI is in possession of the evidence, and does not choose to share it with web site authors, that it does not exist.  That is on an intellectual par with skinheads choosing to disbelieve their older ideological classmates engaged in genocide.

Some 125 of our compatriots no longer work here because they saw and felt the impact of the plane in question.  Many of us got to breathe the fumes and rancid smoke for days afterward.  A friend of mine was in a busload of people that had the plane pass right in front of them.  I know of a plane in the air that radioed in what the airliner was doing, and others who launched to see what they could do.  Thousands of us felt the building shudder, heard the thud, and saw the flames and smoke rising to the sky.  Forgive us if we don't buy the notion it was all an elaborate hoax.

The investigations of murderers do not take place in the news media, but by careful people studying the pieces of aircraft that weren't vaporized, the security film and the testimony of FAA controllers and the aircrews who were in our sector at the time.  If you would like them to conduct the investigation differently, please address your concerns to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  They can be reached at FBI National Press Office, (202) 324-3691.

VR 
VERITAS INVICTRIX 
Ken McClellan 
Lt Col (USAF) 
OASD(PA) Press Operations 

************************************************************
 

Geoff, I too came across the French web site several days ago and was intrigued. I had also just viewed CNN's report showing the video from the Pentagon's security camera. Considering the whole thing a hoax, I did a Google search for every image online associated with the Pentagon crash. I viewed hundreds of photos, from the military sites, photo journalists, and citizens. In NONE of the photos, could ANY debris recognizable as an airliner be seen! Some of the photographs were taken within hours of the crash. I am also perplexed over this issue. While the French web site was the starting point, I found it hard to understand why there were no pictures published showing ruined aircraft parts, or even body bags from the Pentagon. Someone needs to be talking to the waste handlers to see what was removed from that site, and examine the garbage dumps where Pentagon debris was sent.  By the way, I did a careful frame by frame examination of the CNN video that someone put on the web and also failed to see an object large enough for an airliner.  We don't need mysteries like this.
Keith Burton

3.  Where's the plane?  I believe it burned.

Yes, it was only the outer ring of the Pentagon that was directly affected; the Pentagon was a heavy brick and masonry building, not like the WTC's relatively light construction.  The plane was apparently descending when it hit, so a lot of the force would've been directed through the ground floor and into the opposite basement wall; much of
the remainder would've expended itself in pushing the walls out of line, causing that portion of the building to collapse.  While some debris might've continued and hit the second ring, it wouldn't have had sufficient force to affect the structure.

Since most of the airplane was aluminum and plastic, and thanks to the aviation fuel the fire was fairly intense.  I would've expected most of the plane to melt and burn.  I hope you are aware that aluminum is quite flammable given sufficient heat; it is a fuel itself, and is used as an ingredient in thermite.  If you've ever gone camping and decided to burn
an aluminum pot or pan clean, you'd understand first-hand.

I examined the images on MSNBC's web site.  The pictures' quality, aside from JPEG compression artifacts, are about what I would expect from a security camera, images compressed to show 4 cameras on one video monitor.  The sequence seems consistent with the low frame rate recorded by the time-lapse VCRs often used in security systems.  I captured the first three frames shown on the page and enlarged them (images are
attached); the first frame shows the plane's tail and fuselage.  Given the low frame rate I am not surprised only one image showing these details was captured.  I've also attached an image containing greatly enlarged portions of frames one and two; in the top portion the plane is directly above the security card reader/ticket dispenser (I can't tell which).

While it would not have been enormously difficult to forge these images, I don't see anything inconsistent here.  I'd have to opine that conspiracy theories about Flight 77 are premature.  I'd suggest your next step is to try and locate any eyewitnesses to the plane's descent or crash.

Your article so where is the plane? has kind of stumped me as well. But if you look at the footage, something is moving at an extremely high rate of speed towards 
the building. In the first three seconds, an object can be seen, starting above the far right road cone, and moving towards the building. It looks too low and thin to be  an aircraft. Do you have any opinions on this? Maybe a truck moving at a very high rate of speed? I seriously doubt anything could of gotten past the Pentagons  security but that definitely wasn t an aircraft. Can you please mail me back with what you think?
 

Thank you!

Andrew Kalionzes

************************************************************
 

Dear Mr. Metcalf:

I live in Northern Virginia, near Washington DC. On the morning of September
11th, I was listening to a local news/talk radio station, WMAL. Within a few minutes after the Pentagon explosion, several eye witnesses phoned WMAL and were put on the air. All described a large airline type of airplane that they saw fly almost overhead and saw crash into the Pentagon. One explicitly said it was an American Airlines plane as it was close enough to see the logo and name. This witness was on Columbia Pike, a road quite close to the Pentagon, and was in a car pool with others.

I suppose that a conspiratorial view of the world would say that these phone calls were pre-planned. I don't know how to address that.
 

Jack Smith

************************************************************
 

Ask the same question of the World Trade Centers and the plane in PA.  The first shot of any explosion shows the initial flames outside the building on the lawn going to the building.  The pilot actually flew it into the ground and skipped it into the building.  Combine that with the armored construction of the Pentagon and any reasonable person taking some real assumptions with physics can figure it out.

Although I believe there is more to the story than some frayed wires on 800, they are really fishing to create some conspiracy theory on this one.  Besides, we had phone conversations from Barbara Olson describing where they were until it hit.  I guess no one wants to talk about that angle?

Ron Ogletree
Jacksonville, FL
 

Some of us watching the scene via TV had questions also:  I didn't notice the same type of wreckage that one would notice if an aircraft hits a building, but as most people do, we ignore our senses and believe what authorities tell us.  But the lack of sensory validation haunted me for several days. And now this article raises some of the same questions. What is the real truth? Was it a bomb? Or what hit the Pentagon? I didn't see a plane hit the Pentagon in the security camera footage. I saw an explosion. Or was what we believed we didn't see part of subconscious attempt to shield ourselves from the terrible reality? And, don't officials usually take the aircraft remains somewhere and reconstruct the it for investigative purposes? And, what about human remains?  What happened to the 189 aboard that flight? Apparently, those people are not alive. Was there a Flight 77? Yeah, this is really weird!! Well, I guess the French aren't the only ones asking questions.

**********************************************************

Dear Sir,
Clearly from the sequential photos the shields were up at the Pentagon. I know that the existence of shields at the Pentagon is supposed to be a really top secret issue, but they have left themselves open to criticism now by allowing the pictures to be shown.
Since the second photo of the initial impact fails to show the tail section, which must have been invisible upon impact along with the wings, engines etc., the plane obviously must have hit a wave force that caused the instant disintegration of the whole plane. 
This shield is as real as the plane.

My own experience and small knowledge of explosive materials tells me that truck bombs blow primarily up and out and not so much down. An airplane makes a major hole in the ground and in the side structures where the wings impacted.

The light weight of the wings - their benefit is in the structure within the two surfaces - would cause them to bounce back from a concrete structure. And the engines would have ripped off while continuing into the structure like missiles.

One other thought about the explosion, sir. Could the truck bomb have revealed a hidden underground lair below the surface of the ground, which made the necessity for the load of sand?

This is a great story, which ranks with the mystery of Chandra Levy(sp).

Thanks,
Carl

************************************************************

I can't answer all of your questions, but I do have comments on three of
them.

Where's the wreckage?  In every crash scene that I have seen pictures of in
recent decades, when the plane hit the ground intact, there was very little
wreckage to be seen.  How much wreckage can be seen in pictures of the
Pennsylvania crash?

Why was only the first floor hit?  I haven't seen any speculation on just
where the plane hit.  We know that the plane was not flying level when it
hit the Pentagon, but was angling downwards.  This effect would be amplified if it actually struck the ground a few feet short of the building itself.

Why no damage from the wings?  The wings don't weigh anywhere near as much as the main fuselage, and especially as you get out to the tips, their structural strength drops off.  The pentagon as a whole is a very solidly built building, lots of concrete went into it's construction.  Additionally, the section that was hit had recently been strengthened to better absorb bomb blasts.  It's possible that if we had better, closer up pictures, we would be able to see that there was extensive surface damage to the building, but nothing sufficient to cause collapse.  The only pictures I ever saw of the outside were from long range.

Mark Wilson
Software Engineer

************************************************************

I also looked at the msnbc photos.  they were time lapsed.  but before the
explosion I coouldn't see any truck or anything else near where the
explosion took place.  so what was it, spontaneous combustion?  and where
have they got all the passangers hidden, if it wasn't a plane.

we gotta remember that france is a hotbed of arab terrorism.  they don't
like us anyway.  so why believe the like sof the snotty rude smelly french
anyway.

laszlo d. Lombardo
 
 

I just finished reading "So where is the plane?"  I have to admit, I looked at the same footage when it was released and wondered where the plane was myself.

I, however, have a more nagging ponderance.  I was on a college campus the morning of 9/11.  At one point there was a report of a hijacked plane in PA being chases by an Air Force fighter jet.  There was all kinds of speculation as to what the result of the scenario would be, including the passengers overtaking the plane, knowing they would die anyway.  However, fighter jets are certainly much faster than passenger aircraft, aren't they?  I thought for sure it would be shot down.  Have you taken a good look at those crash site photos?  There is not on bit of plae parts to be found.  Poof!  It was all gone in an instant.  What do you think?

Colleen Smith

************************************************************
 

Good questions in your article.  However, a good
friend of mine was an eyewitness to the plane hitting
the pentagon.  He was on the balcony of his condo
which looks over I395 directly facing the pentagon. 
He SAW THE PLANE FLYING LOW AND HIT THE PENTAGON.  He
ran back into his condo, got his digital camera, and
took pictures.  I agree that it is strange that you
can't see any debris.  Have you seen the sequence of
pictures in the Washington Post from the security
camera at the Pentagon?  In the first picture you can
see the tail of the plane, very blurry, but you can
see it.

Scott Fleckner

************************************************************

Hi Geoff-

Thanks for writing that piece questioning flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.  I well remember at the time thinking that something seemed wrong with that story.  But there were eye witnesses that claimed to see the plane come in low and then heard a boom and saw the fireball and smoke.  (Don t recall hearing of anyone actually seeing the plane hit the building.)  But anyway, I too thought the damage looked wrong for a big plane strike.

One more thought... remember all that terrible footage showing the second planning hitting WTC south?  Remember how the fireball blew forward, on through the building, out the other side and beyond in the direction the plane was going?  Now go look at the pictures from the parking security camera of the Pentagon fireball.  Which direction does the fireball go?  Compare it to the WTC south fireball.

Of course every crime needs a motive and opportunity.  Why would the government lie about this?  And where is that plane?  I can t decide which is harder to believe: that flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, or that it did not...

-brian

************************************************************

Sir, I don't even know where to start with you about the 757 hitting the Pentagon.  I saw the remains of the engines in the North parking lot of the Pentagon as well as melted aluminum and other debris left from the aircraft.  When the 757 hit the reinforced concrete and steel shell of the Pentagon, it exploded as you can see in the time lapsed photography on the MSNBC site.  It fractured into small pieces and then the jet fuel burned at over 3000 degrees fahrenheit and reduced what was left to ash and puddled melted aluminum blobs.  That is why almost 50 bodies have not been found and never will be.  They were reduced to ash.  You need to educate yourself on the physics of catastrophic aircraft accidents and why very little is left in high velocity, full fuel load crashes.  I used to fly the F-4 Phantom, a 25 ton behemoth of a fighter jet that was built like a locomotive.  Yet in high speed crashes, very little is ever recovered of it.  I saw the remains of one Phantom that crashed at over 600 mph and the largest part left was the tailhook.  Everything else was vaporized or reduced to parts no larger than your thumb.  The pilot and weapons system officer were reduced to mist and we put what we found of them into 6000 ziplock sandwich bags. 

You need to go to the US Air Force Flight Safety Office or the NTSB and ask for an education in the dynamics of aircraft crashes.  Maybe then you will correct your ignorant column.

Lt Col (ret) Tom McClain
Arlington, VA

************************************************************
 

I have heard this theory being talked about before but before we jump off a bridge with disinformation which the government is only too happy to provide in order to divert attention away from the real aspects of this event I have a couple of questions that I want you to answer-

1. With all of the traffic at that time of morning on the expressway near the Pentagon nobody witnessed the plane striking the building? If nobody had don't you think we would have heard something from some of these people by now?

2. Please explain just exactly what happened to all of the people who vanished who were supposed to have been aboard that flight. Did space aliens abduct them? (hearing twilight zone music in the background)

or did the government take them out and execute them all?
 

You see, there are some major holes in this theory.

Why not examine the real story regarding the 15 Mossad agents who were arrested by the FBI at the scene of the event. Or the over 300 Israelis who were arrested and deported all around this event who had ties to Israeli intelligence. Or the most recent 120 Israeli "art students" who were deported who all had ties to either the Israeli military or else Israeli intelligence. Or the 2 Mossad agents who were arrested in Mexico City October 10th wandering around the Mexican Congress building with bomb making material and weapons. Or the one high ranking CIA agent of Jewish descent who had shorted a number of stocks prior to the 9/11 event relative to the insurance companies that insured those buildings. Or the 2 Israeli businesses who were absent from the WTC the day of the attack. One moved to Virginia the week before and the other had nobody at work that day. Or the fact that only 4 Jews died in the WTC event. One of which was the special operations agent on one of the planes who!
 was probably actually involved working deep cover.

Or how about the 4 part story that was published in Fox news by a Mr Cameron that exposed a number of aspects of possible Israeli involvement in the 9/11 event but was pulled due to ADL pressure on Fox.

Why waste our time with bull shit diversions when there are so many blatant facts that point in another direction?
 

CelticKnight88

************************************************************

The problem with getting people to understand and pay attention when one talks about TWA 800 or Oklahoma City is having sources that also are spouting theories that a plane didn t hit the Pentagon.  What next?  We never landed on the moon?  Kennedy s brain still alive in a jar at Parkland?

The MSNBC photos are photos, not a film!  There are delays between each!  Look at the first photo where you see an explosion and then look at the next photo and you can see a huge difference between the sizes of the fireball.  This delay is why you see a picture with nothing going on and then a fireball, if the camera only takes a photo every 3 seconds, then you can logically account for the plane hitting the building and not being photographed.  There were hundreds of witnesses on the highway that saw the plane hit the building!  Are you going to use dozens of witnesses to support your theories (which I agree with) on TWA 800 and Oklahoma City but then discount hundreds that saw the plane hit the Pentagon?  Duh!

Secondly, the Pentagon is a different type of building than the WTC.  The Pentagon s main material is concrete; thick walls of concrete.  Of course the dynamics and physics of a fuel laden plane hitting a building like the pentagon will be different that hitting a building like the WTC!  Same in Chicago if a plane hit the Hancock versus hitting the Merchandise Mart.  Couple that with the new materials being used in the Pentagon in their remodeling project.  If you notice, the section of the building to the right of where the plane hit is hardly damaged.  WGNTV had a story recently about why.  There is a material made by a company in Illinois.  It s was originally designed as a pick up truck bed liner but they ve discovered it s properties make it a remarkable building material.  There were video demonstrations of two small sheds, one with the material painted on and the other without and an equal amount of explosive being blown in each.  The shed with the material stayed intact, only the doors blew off.  The shed without the material was blown to the ground.  This material is now being used throughout the Pentagon as it is being remodeled.

Finally, you are basing your argument on something told to you on a website designed by a Frenchman?  Geez, how low can you go.

Richard Lane

************************************************************

Hello,
     I read your article about flight 77 and your question about whether or not it hit the Pentagon.  There are a couple of web sites that are warning that this might be a story planted by the government(?) to discredit other questions "conspiracy theorists" have about all the peculiarities surrounding 9-11.  There are pictures showing debris, there are eye witnesses, etc.  Check out web sites WhatReallyHappened.com and Unknownnews.com (for 3/10) for this perspective.  It would be a shame to get trapped in a set-up to discredit those asking the questions that should be asked.

Thank you,

Laurie

************************************************************
 

Dear Geoff:

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

I have been wondering why I have been unable to see the plane for 6 months!! I don't obsess on it, but everytime I see the pictures, there is NO PLANE!!!

When the latest 'security film'  was just released and a frame shown with a script that says in effect, "Here you can plainly (no pun intended) the plane in the upper right corner just before it hits."

Now I'm 55, and my eyes are definitely NOT what they used to be, but I can not see any plane. I saw the one that hit the North Tower, the one that hit the South Tower and the hole in PA (though I haven't seen that one, but maybe I missed it). BUT, I have never seen the plane that hit the Pentagon!

I brought it up with my 18 year old son who dismissed it with, "Oh, it was melted right down." I want to believe that with all my heart, but when I can't see it flying in  to the building and right after where there was NO TAIL showing... I just can't buy it.

I know this is a silly question considering where it hit, but why haven't any witnesses stated such "I saw the front end as it lay there is the wreckage."

Do you remember the Sioux City commercial plane crash? Granted it didn't hit a building and it had dumped as much fuel as possible; but it hit very hard (no hydraulics) and rolled and crashed and crashed. It was a horrific sight.

Again, where is the plane?

Sincerely,
Mrs. Pam Lamker
Angola, NY

************************************************************

Mr. Metcalf:

I was intrigued with your article and sensed your reticence in purporting a conspiracy or a cover-up.  Being of open mind and not overly trusting of either government or the media, I reviewed the links in your article on Worldnetdaily.com.  These are my conclusions/suppositions/questions:

1)  I believe that I do see the plane (or at least an elongated white object) in the MSNBC video.  In the first frame, there is a white object just above the far right red cone.  This object is not in subsequent frames. 

2)  This object does appear to hit the ground prior to hitting the Pentagon (as the audio describes).  I base this on the dustcloud/smoke/fire which appears in the second frame of the video to the right of the main fireball.  This is also behind and to the right of another building next to the Pentagon which is in the shadows in frame one, but stands out in front of the fireball in frame two.  This building (possibly a guard building) can also be seen in the fifth picture on the French site.  In this fifth picture, also notice the ground near the apparent impact (approximately near where the closest fire truck is positioned).  The ground in this area does not appear to be grass covered.  It appears to be dirt--perhaps recently plowed by an aircraft.  If it were merely burned, I believe it would appear more black than brown.  I cannot explain the lack of debris.

3)  If the aircraft had in fact burrowed in, that would detract from its forward momentum.  This could possibly explain why only the first ring was affected.

4)  Inasmuch as the damage not corresponding to the aircraft dimensions, a couple points to consider:  First, the dimensions of the aircraft height given on the French site may (I'm not sure--haven't done the research) correspond to an aircraft sitting on the tarmac with its landing gear deployed.  Sitting on its belly the aircraft would certainly be shorter.  The relative height would also be reduced by any amount that the aircraft "burrowed in".  Second, as for damage caused by the wings, in the fifth picture from the French site there does appear to be some enhanced damage to the lowest level on the left side of the entrance point.  I cannot determine any enhanced damage on the right side due to collapse.

5)  As to the gravel and sand which was spread over the lawn, this could have been to facilitate the movement of heavy equipment needed for excavation and recovery.

6)  I believe that some aircraft debris has been recovered.  Weren't the black boxes recovered?  I cannot explain the lack of debris in the pictures.  Perhaps its forward momentum carried it forward into the Pentagon.  Perhaps the pieces are so small that they are indistinguishable in the pictures.

Finally, it is not surprising that a few pictures, with inexact detail, do not answer every possible question regarding the sequence of events.  What would be surprising is if, armed with these few pieces of evidence, we could exactly piece together the entire sequence of events on that fateful day. 

It seems to me, based on the evidence presented, much more plausible that the aircraft did plow into the Pentagon on 9/11.  If it had crashed anywhere else, surely we would know.  Ted Olson would know.

Regards,

Eric Livingston

************************************************************
 

I enjoy a good conspiracy as much as the next person but this is over the top and not worthy of WND reporting unless there is an aspiration of becoming a tabloid news agency.  Perhaps the tag line should read, Airliner seen using it's cloaking device in pentagon crash - now there's a conspiracy! 

I'm not sure of the angle of attack of the jet and have heard no reports concerning its path but it sure looks like a large silvery object and what appears to be the vertical stabilizer behind the tan box in the right side of the video.  Also judging from where the explosion appears to emanate it would seem likely, IMHO, that the jet impacted at a very shallow angle very nearly skidding across the lawn before hitting the pentagon.  Where are the plane parts? Where is the jet fuel?  When has an airliner ever hit a structure as hardened as the pentagon from what was probably a very low angle of attack?  Watching the video of the tower impacts it would seem that a great deal of the planes were consumed during those events and the tower buildings were far less rigid than the pentagon. I have friends that were working very near the pentagon that day and when evacuated they reported a very strong odor of jet fuel.

In the future please avoid such obvious silliness in your reporting and leave the French out of these matters. They haven't done anything interesting since they gave up without a fight to the Germans.

Gary Smith
Stafford, VA

************************************************************
 

Dear Mr. Metcalf:

    I find your article "So Where is the Plane?" a bit weird, but
perhaps legitimate.  Eyewitness reports broadcast the day of the
incident said that the plane crashed into the ground in front of the
Pentagon, and then slid into the building.  That would explain some of
the earlier satellite photographs you describe.
    With regards to the eyewitness reports that described the actual
crash of the plane, I suppose they could have been staged.  There could
have been collusion between some government agency and the news media.
However, this kind of conspiracy would require more than, I believe,
even the government is capable of.
    I, for one, do believe that the American citizenry is the victim of
multiple conspiracies perpetrated by those running the government and
the news media; and I laud World Net Daily and, especially, Accuracy in
Media for exposing many of them. I do not think that it does the cause
or your credibility justice  to focus on things that most likely are the
products of someone's imagination.  In the case of flight 77, I believe
that there is at least credible evidence that the plane crashed
somewhere in the vicinity of the Pentagon.  Using that fact as a start,
I believe, with further investigation, you should be able to discover
why the plane parts are not visible.

                Edward J. Zaiko

************************************************************
 

 Hi Geoff:

Leave it to the French to concoct this ill-timed conspiracy theory.
Simple reasoning can answer a number of questions put forth by this
bunch. Let's cover some, shall we?

1) How can a Boeing 757-200 - weighing nearly 100 tons and traveling at
a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour - only have damaged the outside of
the Pentagon?

   - Think about how and when the Pentagon was constructed. Layers and
layers of reinforced concrete and steel to protect against a potential
enemy bombing attack at the height of WWII. Far-fetched? The Nazis were
developing an intercontinental-range bomber called the New Yorker
capable of hitting targets in the American mainland from bases in
England had England surrendered as the French did. Fortunately enough
this section of the building was the first segment of the Pentagon to be
renovated under a refurbishment program which included more structural
upgrades to bring it up to current building standards.

   - The link to the MSNBC footage also gives a clue. The audio clearly
states that the plane may have simultaneously hit the ground (probably
at a medium angle) and the first floor of the building. The brunt of the
impact forces may have been absorbed into the ground diminishing the
impact on the building. Also remember that the intended target may have
been the White House and when, for some reason, the hijackers realized
they wouldn't be able to hit it used the Pentagon as a secondary "target
of opportunity". In order to reposition for the attack they would have
had to "horse" the plane around because the Pentagon was now either off
to their left or right or perhaps behind them. This extreme maneuvering
would have bled off airspeed and altitude and thus reducing the impact
forces still more. How do they know for sure how fast the plane was
traveling?
 

2) How can a plane 44.7 feet high, over 155 feet long, with a wingspan
of almost 125 feet and a cockpit almost 12 feet high, crash into just
the ground floor of this building? The wingtip alone would have sheared
off and bounced back into the street, the two engines would have
penetrated deeper into the wall and framing structure further than any
other part making a definite hole.

   - Again the MSNBC audio is to be cited. If you assert that the plane
impacted the ground slightly before the building, and that it was being
radically maneuvered for line-up. Radar tapes indicate the plane made a
270-degree turn to the left. The hijacker/pilot probably overshot his
aimpoint and overcorrected. The plane then was most likely in a
nose-down rolling attitude at the time of initial impact with the
ground. This would have cart-wheeled the plane and crumpled it into a
mass of steel and aluminum that plowed into the ground floor in a
skidding manner.
 

3) Where is the debris? Any debris! Did it all disintegrate on contact?
The belly of the aircraft contains fuel tanks, baggage, mailbags, and
cargo; none of this type debris can be seen.

   - The momentum of the wreckage would have carried the internal
contents of the plane into and through the building.
 

4) When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?" Assuming 8,600
gallons of kerosene fuel at a specific gravity of approx 6.9 lbs/gal
(temperature considered) weight of the fuel would be close to 60,000 lbs
and
would splatter everywhere.

   - Did they see the fireball? Did they just expect the fuel to spill
out onto the ground? The vast majority of the fuel looks to be consumed
in the fireball and any extra "splatter" in or on the building would
have been consumed in the ensuing fire, the one that burned for days
after the attack, remember? And any fuel not consumed would have been
chemically neutralized by fire fighters for safety purposes.
 

5) Where are the seats, those with passengers buckled in would be ripped
out of the floor, for that matter, where are the passengers?

   - Air Force flight surgeons have a medical term for pilots who don't
or can't escape and are killed in aircraft impacts similar to what we
see at the Pentagon. The term is "Traumatic Immolation and
Dismemberment" where only a small portion of the pilots remains (a
finger or a toe) can be recovered and identified. It's that traumatic.
More than likely a number of passengers would have suffered a similar
fate in the Pentagon crash and others, again because of momentum, would
have been thrust through the building structure. Just because you can't
see remains doesn't mean they aren't there. Just ask the WTC recovery
teams. Were these French folks part of the Pentagon recovery team? I
think not.
 

6) I have never seen an aircraft accident where the aircraft evaporated
upon impact, water, land or buildings. If these pictures were taken
within 3 days after 9-11, there would have been definite remains of
parts. I don't see any.

   - To reiterate: Just because you don't see it happen doesn't mean it
doesn't. If they want examples of "evaporating" aircraft on impact, just
look at the F-16 that crashed during an air show two years ago in which
the plane impacted in a nearly vertical attitude. Or check out news
footage of the B-52 accident at Fairchild AFB a few years back in which
the plane impacted in a nose-down 90-degree roll attitude that resulted
in wreckage no bigger than a suitcase and 4 dead airman.
 

7) One other question raised on the French site asked why it was
necessary to put down dirt and gravel on an otherwise undamaged lawn.
Heavy equipment safety is the answer. You don't just park a 20-ton crane
or a large earth mover on a grass and expect it to be stable.
 

These explanations are just my assumptions but I think they're pretty
good explanations to the questions these people pose.

Geoff, the fact that these people have no better use of their time than
to come up with these idiotic theories just angers me to no end. It
disgraces the memories of those that perished not only in Washington but
in New York and Pennsylvania as well. The next time they lose 3,000 of
their citizens in a terrorist air attack then maybe we'll talk. Until
then, they should put their energies to better use like helping the
world stop these maniacs.
 
 

Andy Hauke
Memphis, TN

************************************************************

Get real,   I Saw this  months ago ,it's not new  on the internet. So
many people requested the website whatreallyhappened.com to put it on
their web  pages  again last week,and they obliged,   but it's such a
poor  quality conspriracy, that it could only be cooked up by our own
goverment, You do know propaganda when you see it don't you? Please read "Hunt the Boeing is Hoax" on the above mentioned site, if you dare!  I mean there might be someone watching you.  Don't worry I won't
tell a soul.  You do know how to scroll down now don't you? you just put
your little finger on the button & press . Just a little more information. If you remember back to just after the "attacks" of sept 11 the media came out with a map that showed the tracks of all the planes from 
start to finish on all the planes but the one that "hit" the pentagon. the story went that the transponder the device that allows the airtraffic controller to track the plane  was turned off for the return flight to washington. here is a link to ABC's webpage.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/popoff/DailyNews/wtc_flash_airline_010912.popoff/index.html

NOTE: All tracks are solid lines, save the one that "hit" the pentagon which is a dashed line

Just thought you would like to know
Eric L Howarth

************************************************************

Geoff,

You asked!

On the MS-NBC footage I can see what should be the
plane as a still object in frame one to the far right
and frame two as a white blur streaking across the
frame into the building.

You raise many good questions especially the size
comparison. (Question 5)

I noted this: It appears the plane (no landing gear
down) drove nose first into the ground prior to
contact with the building. This would allow the impact
point to actually be below ground level. This explains
the pictures of the structure appearing to not have an
impact point. In those pictures the water from the
hoses prevent one from seeing clearly anything from
the ground to approx. the lower portion of the second
floor.

In order to substantiate the impact to the building
and lack of destruction to the building there would
seem to be a remarkable lack of what should be clear
evidence on the ground prior to the building; such as:
"AN ENTIRE WING!" or portions thereof, One of the
wings would have had to ripe off and the most logical
one would be to the pilots right. The other breaking
off at impact to the building and ground. (I base this
primarily from the photos of the trucks with gravel
and the tractors, I address later.) In what might
appear to be a "fold-back position" the left wing
would be forced back, it would mesh with the fuselage
and its destruction as opposed to tearing into the
building farther out. The wings by themselves are not
strong enough to have teared through the building in
representation with its wing span. Because luggage and
the likes are carried in the bottom portion of the
fuselage, they were simply pushed up into the center
of the plane. This would all create a compaction of
the entire plane, Imagine a catipilar as it crawls it
crunches up in the middle, the plane would do similiar
and form into a circular compressed form, coupled with
the explosion excelerating skyward in front of
building not in building (skyward: same direction as
the crunch) it would incinerate everything within that
nucleus. This would result in very little debris.

As for the trucks and tractors: As a result of fuel
flooding this area in front of the building, they
would do as they did. Again, where's the wing? That's
my question but it's based solely on the information
you provided in your article.

Perhaps what we see here is a fluck. Crash another
exactly the same way and the results might be more
catastophic then they were. Over the years we have
heard and seen many odd things happen with plane
crashes. 100's of survivors when there shouldn't have
been any. In this case, for some miracules reason, the
Pentagon and the people in the immediate area where
spared. This leads to my conclusion:

Maybe God is the only one with the answers you seek
here.

Dave L

************************************************************

Mr. Metcalf,

David Copperfield, the magician, could not do a
better job of making a 757 disappear. Though, he
could make it reappear. Given the pictures in the
news brief, there is NO plane visible. Makes you
wonder, doesn't it????

Shalom. Rachel

************************************************************

I personally saw a B-52 go down in a farmers field near Riverside,Ca in the
late '70's. The plane crashed on the first turn after take off.
(approximately 150-200 mph). The only thing left of the plane was the tail
and two engines, that's all. No wings, fuselage, only the tail fin and a
couple jet engines (out of a what?  possible eight)  This was a B-52
traveling at maybe 200 mph not the 400 or so of the 757. The French claim is
bogus. The 757 either vaporized or melted in the fireball. Remember,
Aluminum, Magnesium, and Titanium burns very fast and hot. Aluminum powder
is used in solid rocket fuel for this reason.
George

************************************************************

It seems to me, last year (Sept 11th)  I saw an actual film clip (on television) of the plane flying overhead being recorded by a video camera (from a hotel security?), 
showing the plane smashing the pentagon. I never saw that piece of film footage again. It might be the film footage FBI has in it's possession (mentioned Friday) 
which has not been released to the public.

With the photos released last Friday (Mar. 9th), a television newscast highlighted where the jet was in the first frame, i.e. a white blotch in the first frame. The second 
frame shows the explosion and a sort of smoke or vapor trail which extends right towards where the white blotch was visible.

Anyway, my two cents.
Mary

************************************************************

Instead of speculating on the absurd story about Flight 77, why didn't
you call  Lee Evey, Manager of the Pentagon Renovation Program aka the
Phoenix Project ?  He could have answered all of your questions and
probably directed you to the photographs of the Pentagon attack. The
Army Corps of Engineers web site had a grand collection of the 9-11
sites.

If you go to this URL and scroll down, you will find a picture of a
small part of the plane sitting on the Pentagon grounds while the
firemen are trying to put out the
blazes....http://www.FreeRepublic.com/focus/news/644162/posts

In this instance, you are as irresponsible in your reporting as any of
the so called reporters/journalists in the main stream media.

Alexandra H. Mulkern
Southern Maryland

PS  Barbara Olson is hiding out in one of VP Cheney's undisclosed
locations along with a retired Navy Officer and his wife who were
returning to Cal. after having attended a reunion at the United States
Naval Academy.

************************************************************

Sir,
My guess about the missing Boeing is that it should not be assumed that it struck the Pentagon straight on and level with the ground.  The photographs appear to me 
to represent the possibility that the plane was at a ninety degree angle to the ground.......that is standing up on a wing so to speak or at least at some angle other than 
level to the ground.  The aerial photo reveals much deeper penetration than the photos from the ground .........and.......have you seen any Boeings at the WTC? 
Besides all this when have we ever been able to trust the French regarding anything?  And one last point ..........what on earth could be gained by this sort of 
cover-up (if it can be called such).  And it also seems to be.......at least.........trivialization of a TRUE  American tragedy......levity and weirdness have their places but 
Sept. 11th somehow seems to be more (to me at least) more sanctified somehow......actually I feel that you all are somehow above this sort of thing.  News Max 
should handle this sort of story.......you are better than this.
Thank you for your time,
Dean Snook
Tennessee

************************************************************

Dear Mr. Metcalf:

I was shocked when I came across your article on flight 77 this morning.  I had been thinking about the pentagon on and off since 9/11.  Every time I would see the 
photos, I kept thinking that considering a jet plane had hit, there was no obvious debris.  I thought there would have been plane parts, luggage, something all over the 
area.  But nothing.  The pentagon kept saying that the area that was hit happened to have been "reinforced."  When the speed of the plane was mentioned some time 
ago, I thought, how in the world could the plane, especially at that speed, only penetrate the first ring?

Then the photos from the security camera were released last week.  How curious that the camera didn't catch the plane actually hitting the Pentagon.  From picture 1 
to picture 2, there wasn't even a shadow of the plane.  I would think that in a matter of seconds between shots, there would have been something, even a glimpse of 
the nose of the plane before impact?

Now that suspicions are being raised, I now wonder, if there was no plane, what caused the explosion.  On 9/11, I was watching NBC.  One of their reporters was commenting from his office in the Pentagon when there was a rumble and you could see the room vibrate.  So, something did either hit or explode that day. What it  was, I haven't a clue.  I hope this will be investigated at some point.

Thank you.

Isabella
South Florida

************************************************************

Dear Geoff,

I read with great intrigue and interest your story on the crash at the Pentagon. I can tell you, my sister and brother-in-law were in a separate airplane near the Pentagon at the time of the crash.  They relayed to us that they saw a plane pass below the path of theirs and witnessed this plane crash into the Pentagon.  If it were not for their account of what they, and the other passengers aboard their plane, saw with their own eyes, I would certainly take pause with this story.  And the facts  you have presented still remain curious.  But I have the perspective of those who were actually there and saw what happened.  A plane did crash into the Pentagon. 

Like the World Trade Center crashes, could the Pentagon crash have been coordinated with a separate assault, like the truck you mentioned?

Sincerely,
Linda Noyes

************************************************************

I read your piece on the vanishing airliner with considerable interest.  Actually, there's no problem explaining the situation at the Pentagon, but you have to look to the building itself.

If the Pentagon were built as buildings are today, the plane would have sheared through the whole thing, collapsing much of what it didn't hit.  But the Pentagon was built by a man named John McShain, the world's foremost expert on structural concrete.  He also built Meridian Hill Park in Washington, which shows virtually no settling, no cracking, and no wear despite nearly a century in Washington's weather.  And he built the Shrine of the Sacred Heart on Sixteenth Street, which also remains in mint condition with no major reconstruction, just a cleaning.

In both of these buildings McShain was able to achieve effects never before accomplished and never again seen--the "mosaics" that cover the inside of the Sacred Heart, for instance, are integral to the structure, rather than having been applied after completion. From the standpoint of concrete technology, it's almost miraculous, 
as are his other buildings, too.  He was able to develop proprietary mixes that cured to an extraordinary hardness, and to cure them properly even in large projects, too.  Both technically and, yes, artistically, the Pentagon is certainly an extraordinary accomplishment.

When he built the Pentagon, which he did in record time, incidentally, he made it a secure building that wouldn't wear out in only a hundred years or so.  It was built, in fact, to withstand considerable violence, and it's also a lot bigger than it looks.  While I wouldn't dispute the overlay of the plane on the aerial shot, I can say that what the plane crashed into was more like a solid cliff of limestone than like a steel-and-glass office building like they build nowadays.  Knowing what I know about the specs for the Pentagon, I can see that the first structural walls would offer enough resistance to produce an impact pattern consistent with the photographs.  The only thing that I wondered at was that the upper floors did collapse after the plane hit the lowest one.

At a moderately high rate of speed (and I'm not sure about the speed, either, but it wouldn't take much) the plane would simply disintegrate, the way planes are pulverized when they strike the surface of the ocean head-on.   Planes are lightweight, of courss, and surprisingly insubstantial.  Unlike recent buildings, the Pentagon is not.

In fact, I wonder how the reconstructions on the Pentagon will be able to even approximate the durability of McShain's original, without his guidance and without his particular mixes of concrete.

You can get more information about him and his work, and a little about the original Pentagon, from The Man Who Built Washington: A Life of John  McShain 
Brauer, Carl M.
1996, 300pp., ill., cloth binding, ISBN 0-914650-31-9, $49.50
which is available online at http://www.hagley.lib.de.us/publicat.htm

Sincerely yours,
Kevin Orlin Johnson, Ph.D., Assoc. AIA
Dallas

************************************************************

I am continuously amazed that World Net Daily, a publication noted for
challenging the veracity of government lies and cover-ups (TWA 800, Murrah Building, Waco, Foster, etc) is so afraid and/or unwilling to challenge the official goverment "explanation" for the destruction of the World Trade Center. The following clip was snipped from your own webpage.

Jet fuel is kerosene. A kerosene fire no more toppled the WTC towers, than did exploding kerosene bring down TWA 800, or did a fertilizer bomb destroy the Murrah building. I will offer  $1000 to anyone who can melt steel with kerosene. It can't be done. Look at the agency sponsoring this "study"-- this should offer some clue as to its veracity.

WND is a reputable, responsible news medium. Assign one of your reporters to survey any number of engineers or fire marshalls-- ask any of them how you melt steel with kerosene. One of your columnists, Gordon Prather is a physicist-- ask him if he knows how to melt steel with kerosene.
 

NEW YORK POST
March 7, 2002 -- WASHINGTON - The Sept. 11 hijackers hit the Twin Towers in the perfect spot to cause their collapse, expert engineers told Congress yesterday.

Astaneh, Shea and several other scientists - who appeared yesterday
before the House Science Committee - said they believe the towers fell
primarily because of the tremendously hot fires.

They said the impact of the planes alone wouldn't have caused the
towers to collapse, but the fires burned so hot they melted and weakened
the steel columns and floor beams - causing the floors to fall in a massive
chain reaction.

.Robert Shea, [is] overseeing an engineering study of the World Trade
Center collapse for President Bush's Federal Emergency Management Agency.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://nypost.com/news/regionalnews/42930.htm

***********************************************************

Dear Mr. Metcalf:

I cannot believe your editorial on the "missing plane" at the Pentagon.  Where are the missing planes at the WTC?  The plane at the Pentagon did less damage  because it went down into the basement at such a sharp angle.  That is what kept it from going through the entire building.  Stop wasting the public's time.  What do you 
think.....it was a bomb.  I leave near the Pentagon--there was plenty of coverage to see where the plane went.  I also KNOW people who saw the plane just 
outside their window (on the 10th floor) just a few miles away from the crash--trust me that plane went down.

Terri Endicott

************************************************************
 

Some of us watching the scene via TV had questions also:  I didn't notice the same type of wreckage that one would notice if an aircraft hits a building, but as most 
people do, we ignore our senses and believe what authorities tell us.  But the lack of sensory validation haunted me for several days. And now this article raises some 
of the same questions. What is the real truth? Was it a bomb? Or what hit the Pentagon? I didn't see a plane hit the Pentagon in the security camera footage. I saw 
an explosion. Or was what we believed we didn't see part of subconscious attempt to shield ourselves from the terrible reality? And, don't officials usually take the 
aircraft remains somewhere and reconstruct the it for investigative purposes? And, what about human remains?  What happened to the 189 aboard that flight? 
Apparently, those people are not alive. Was there a Flight 77? Yeah, this is really weird!! Well, I guess the French aren't the only ones asking questions.
 

  After reading your story on flight 77, the trade towers came to mind.
The planes that struck them did not have their wings fold back and
fall to the ground, 60,0000 gallons of fuel did not splash everywhere
and for the most part, the planes vaporized right before our eyes.

Maybe the French did not see the tower video's ?
 Mike

************************************************************

I can't answer all of your questions, but I do have comments on three of
them.

Where's the wreckage?  In every crash scene that I have seen pictures of in
recent decades, when the plane hit the ground intact, there was very little
wreckage to be seen.  How much wreckage can be seen in pictures of the
Pennsylvania crash?

Why was only the first floor hit?  I haven't seen any speculation on just
where the plane hit.  We know that the plane was not flying level when it
hit the Pentagon, but was angling downwards.  This affect would be amplified
if it actually struck the ground a few feet short of the building itself.

Why no damage from the wings?  The wings don't weigh anywhere near as much
as the main fuselage, and especially as you get out to the tips, their
structural strength drops off.  The pentagon as a whole is a very solidly
built building, lots of concrete went into it's construction.  Additionally,
the section that was hit had recently been strengthened to better absorb
bomb blasts.  It's possible that if we had better, closer up pictures, we
would be able to see that there was extensive surface damage to the
building, but nothing sufficient to cause collapse.  The only pictures I
ever saw of the outside were from long range.

Mark Wilson
Software Engineer
Freedom Scientific, Inc.
11800 31st Court N.
St. Petersburg, FL 33716
PH: (727)803-xxxx ext. 1023; (800)444-xxxx
Fax:(727) 803-xxxx
email:  MarkW@freedomscientific.com
Check out our website!  www.freedomscientific.com

************************************************************

Regarding your article on the missing aircraft - quite thought provoking -
it is my belief (most of) the plane was destroyed as it approached the
Pentagon, perhaps by a ground-to-air or air-to-air missle.
I also have another question to pose: How many bodies have been recovered?
A lot of reporting about the remains (many identified) at Ground Zero but
I've read/heard nothing of any passengers or crew found at the Washington
crash site.

Gary R. Garbin
Columbus, Ohio
Grgthatsme@aol.com

***********************************************************

Just read your piece on the crash of AA 77.

Several weeks ago there was an article on the Web which displayed photo
copies of each of the four passenger manifests of the hi-jacked
airplanes.  There was not one arabic or islamic sounding name on any of
the four manifests!

The author pointed out that to board an airplane on Sept 11, one would
need to show a photo ID and the gate agent would have to check the ID
against the manifest.  So how is it that no arabic names are on any of
the four documents?

I don't recall the URL of the Web site, but maybe one of the search
engines could find it.

Best regards,

Jerry Upham
prof29@comcast.net

************************************************************
 
 

Good questions in your article.  However, a good
friend of mine was an eyewitness to the plane hitting
the pentagon.  He was on the balcony of his condo
which looks over I395 directly facing the pentagon.
He SAW THE PLANE FLYING LOW AND HIT THE PENTAGON.  He
ran back into his condo, got his digital camera, and
took pictures.  I agree that it is strange that you
can't see any debris.  Have you seen the sequence of
pictures in the Washington Post from the security
camera at the Pentagon?  In the first picture you can
see the tail of the plane, very blurry, but you can
see it.

Scott Fleckner

***********************************************************

__________________________________________________

Dear Geoff Metcalf,

I'm not a conspiracy theorist or an engineer, but I think there is a
reasonable explanation for the questions you raise about wreckage of Flt.
77. The Pentagon is a very solidly constructed building, with a massive
amount of stone used in its facade. Furthermore, the section struck had just
been reinforced during an extensive renovation. Ordinarily if a plane
crashes into a building, some of the kinetic energy is absorbed by the
collapsing structure. Here the analogy is a flight-speed impact into the
side of a mountain. The plane was virtually vaporized. No mystery involved,
just basic physics.
Thanks you for your informed skepticism. Your articles are a valuable bridge
between rational and irrational suspicions.

Alan Sullivan

************************************************************

Dear Sir:
 

 Regarding the findable pieces of the jet that hit the Pentagon I would suggest you review the air crash that AIRTRANS predecessor had here in the Everglades a 
few years back.  There was nothing, got it, nothing left. An entire DC-9 was compressed into something the height of a pancake that that was down in the muck 
about 25 feet. Aircraft are not meant to crash into hard objects like buildings and the like and their structures are not like cars which rarely crash at 500 MPH. The 
same can be said of the planes that hit the WTC as only the engines are made of parts hard enough to stay together after contact with a building.
 
 

Considering that it s a French Web Site should tell you everything you need to know, or ought to know. After bread there isn t much that crowd has, now is there?
 
 

I wish that people like you would spend your time on more constructive endeavors rather than contributing to whacky conspiratorary theories by passing them along. 
American and United lost four planes, passengers and crew, plus thousands on the ground. Does the location in Pennsylvania not have an airplane? Perhaps if one 
flew up your bum at 500 MPH we couldn t find YOU! Grow up! That s what I tell my 8 year old and that s what I m telling you.
 
 

Ken Orzel

kenorzel@attbi.com

ken.orzel@apella.eu.com

US Tele Number 954 786 xxxx

US Mobile 954 648 xxxx

UK Mobile 44  (0) 7730 xxx xxx

************************************************************
 

It's Nutsy Fagin time again.  I was in the building when we got hit, and immediately afterwards when clearing the area was present when eye witnesses reported 
seeing the aircraft go in.

************************************************************

Hi Geoff-

Thanks for writing that piece questioning flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.  I well remember at the time thinking that something seemed wrong with that story.  But there 
were eye witnesses that claimed to see the plane come in low and then heard a boom and saw the fireball and smoke.  (Don t recall hearing of anyone actually seeing 
the plane hit the building.)  But anyway, I too thought the damage looked wrong for a big plane strike.

One more thought... remember all that terrible footage showing the second planning hitting WTC south?  Remember how the fireball blew forward, on through the 
building, out the other side and beyond in the direction the plane was going?  Now go look at the pictures from the parking security camera of the Pentagon fireball. 
Which direction does the fireball go?  Compare it to the WTC south fireball.

Of course every crime needs a motive and opportunity.  Why would the government lie about this?  And where is that plane?  I can t decide which is harder to 
believe: that flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, or that it did not...

-brian

************************************************************
 
 

Dear Geoff:
I am now a talkshow host for WRCG in COlumbus, GA., but I was a press sec for Rep. Mac Collins two weeks before Sept. 11, wshen I took this job.  On the 
morning of the attack, I called a friend of my father's who I knew well, Gen. Richardson of High Frontier (they help push SDI).  I wanted to talk about how this 
might mean we should work for ballistic missile defense.  To my surprise, he told me, he had been looking out his window toward the Pentagon and saw the plane 
plow into the Pentagon.  I'm not sure what more proof you need.

My God, planes are alumninum, of course the Boeing would nearly disintegrate on impact.  How much of the WTC planes were recovered?
The jet didn't pentrate enough?  Remember that plane the kid flew into the bank building?  It hardly made it in the window.  The Pentagon is a lot stronger than that 
building.... plus, the rings are a lot like laminate armor.  The plane would disintegrate, particularly since a lot of the energy was eaten up by the impact inot the ground 
and the building.  After all, the planes, flying at full speed, didn't make it through the WTC buildings.  No jet fuel?  Jet fuel would have burned up.

Geoff, you are too smart to swallow a bunch of French crap.  You need to clear this up.  A lot of people trust you.

Gen. Richardson can be reached at 703-671-xxxx, if you need confirmation.

-Doug Graham
WRCG

************************************************************
 

I have examined the French web site to which you refer, and it presents its case in a compelling way. However, they leave out at least one critical piece of 
information.

If you use Google to search for "Pentagon," you will eventually find other still shots of the Pentagon building after the impact. In these photos, you can see that the 
Pentagon building is four stories high (that is, four stories above-ground) at the point of impact. While only a small section of the second floor shows any evidence of 
impact (on the photos on the French site), other photos seems clearly to show that the first floor was wiped out by the impact. The plane was going fast enough that 
it penetrated the building completely. This no doubt contributed to the collapse of the section above the impact point.

Also, in the MSNBC footage, the resolution is not very good. However, if you look closely, you can see a trail of gray dust rising from the ground on the right side of 
the image, just after the impact. This tells me that the plane was travelling very fast at the time of impact, and that it grazed the ground just outside of the outer wall of 
the Pentagon before the impact.

Of course, one of the best arguments in support of the impact occurring the way we have been told, is the fact that the plane seems definitely to be missing. If it didn't 
hit the Pentagon, where the heck is it?

Greg Raven (raven@corax.org)
Costa Mesa, CA

************************************************************

Dear Mr.  Metcalf:
 

Where, indeed, is the plane?

I don't know; however, I have a good friend who saw the low-flying airliner
streak over the tennis courts at the Army-Navy Country Club just moments
before she heard the explosion. And I myself heard a frantic caller to a
talk radio station tell the host he had just passed the Pentagon and saw a
plane fly into it. (The host asked the caller if he was sure, and the caller
assured him he was, iterating again that he had witnessed it.)

Looking at the shot above the Pentagon (with the aircraft superimposed), I
can see where the wings might have hit -- they look like slits on either
side of the main crash area. But you're right about the aircraft parts being
strangely absent. Even the recently-released security video only shows an
explosion.

What does the NTSB say?

Cheers.

John Iler
Bethesda, Md.

************************************************************
 

Dear Geoff,

I'll bet that American Airlines could identify what part of the aircraft
this piece of wreckage came from.
http://www.fitzweb.com/military/pentagon/e13.jpg

Pentagon Attack Photos
http://www.fitzweb.com/military/pentagon/index.html

According to the official story, Flight 77 flew from Dulles International
Airport in Washington, D.C. to Ohio, a more than 300-mile flight. In Ohio
it was hijacked, made a full turn and flew more than 300 miles back to
Washington, D.C.

Flightpath of American Airlines Flight 77
http://emperors-clothes.com/images/timemap.gif

Flight 77 Timeline
http://professor2222.tripod.com/Flight-93/Fl93.Pentagon.htm

Flight 77 Mystery A Disinformation Campaign
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0203/S00051.htm

Pentagon Investigation Progresses, Relief Work Goes On
http://www.disasterrelief.org/Disasters/010914pentup/

Flight data, cockpit voice recorders found in Pentagon wreckage
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/terrorism/nation/0914pentagon.html

Eyewitness report from a gas station supervisor
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html

Flight 77 Accident description
http://aviation-safety.net/database/2001/010911-3.htm

Here are photos from a Free Republic posting.

Photo 1
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/plan-large-incrustation.jpg

Photo 2
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/avion-incrustation.jpg

Photo 3
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/facade-intacte-1.jpg

Photo 4
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/020307-D-6570C-003.jpg.JPG

Photo 5
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/avion-incrustation.jpg

Photo 6
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20020307/capt.1015538733attacks_pentagon_photos_ny131.jpg

Photo 7 (shows the plane)
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/caption/781/image

Photo 8
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20020307/capt.1015538599.attacks_pentagon_photos_ny132.jpg

Pentagon Attack
http://www.fitzweb.com/military/pentagon/index.html

According to the official story, Flight 77 flew from Dulles International
Airport in Washington, D.C. to Ohio, a more than 300-mile flight. In Ohio
it was hijacked, made a full turn and flew more than 300 miles back to
Washington, D.C.

Flightpath of American Airlines Flight 77
http://emperors-clothes.com/images/timemap.gif

Flight 77 Timeline
http://professor2222.tripod.com/Flight-93/Fl93.Pentagon.htm

Flight 77 Mystery A Disinformation Campaign
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0203/S00051.htm

Pentagon Investigation Progresses, Relief Work Goes On
http://www.disasterrelief.org/Disasters/010914pentup/

Flight data, cockpit voice recorders found in Pentagon wreckage
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/terrorism/nation/0914pentagon.html

Eyewitness report from a gas station supervisor
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html

Flight 77 Accident description
http://aviation-safety.net/database/2001/010911-3.htm

Here are photos from a Free Republic posting.

Photo 1
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/plan-large-incrustation.jpg

Photo 2
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/avion-incrustation.jpg

Photo 3
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/facade-intacte-1.jpg

Photo 4
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/020307-D-6570C-003.jpg.JPG

Photo 5
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/avion-incrustation.jpg

Photo 6
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20020307/capt.1015538733attacks_pentagon_photos_ny131.jpg

Photo 7 (shows the plane)
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/caption/781/image

Photo 8
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20020307/capt.1015538599.attacks_pentagon_photos_ny132.jpg

Sincerely,

David E. Parsons
Denver, CO

************************************************************

Dear Mr. Metcalf,

Thank you for the interesting article on "Where is the Plane".  I read the
article and was intrigued.  I decided to look at the references in your article and
 I believe that I may have found the plane.  If you look at the first photo
in the MSNBC montage, look above the gate mechanism to the very right of the
picture,  there is a distinct aircraft tail shape that is not in the next photo.
Take a look and see if you agree.
 

Please call C-Span and ask them for copies of their tapes that were recorded of the structural engineers who were and are upgrading the Pentagon. They were aired 
long ago and my memory about them is incomplete, but they showed a walk through of most of the damaged areas along with very detailed explanations of why the 
plane did as little damage as it did. The area where the plane hit was recently renovated and its structure resembed more of a fortress than an office building. The 
engineer that conducted the walk through was extremely proud of how well his company's engineering withstood the blast and went out of his way to show why the 
building didn't immediately collapse. If memory serves there were people on the floors directly above the impact site who survived because the building absorbed 
much of the energy as it was apparantly designed to do. I hope this is a useful pointer.

Mark Sykes

************************************************************

I just finished reading your article that appeared on this website regarding
the plane involved in the attack on the Pentagon. I find it interesting and
I agree that it appears there are some serious discrepancies regarding the
story.

The question that comes to my mind, which was not addressed in your article
is, if it was a truck bomb or some other explosion, what happened to the
plane and the individuals on the plane? Just curious.

Ron Nash

************************************************************
 

 You have damaged your credibility and the credibility of WND.
Az Jim

************************************************************

Hello,
     I read your article about flight 77 and your question about whether or not it hit the Pentagon.  There are a couple of web sites that are warning that this might be a story planted by the government(?) to discredit other
questions "conspiracy theorists" have about all the peculiarities surrounding 9-11.  There are pictures showing 
debris, there are eye witnesses, etc.  Check out web sites WhatReallyHappened.com and Unknownnews.com (for 3/10) for this perspective.  It would be a shame 
to get trapped in a set-up to discredit those asking the questions that should be asked.

Thank you,

Laurie

************************************************************

Hey Geoff,
I just read your op-ed on WorldNet.com about "So Where is the Plane?". I
remember when this happened (9/11), I read in a few places about the fact
that the plane hit a section of the Pentagon that had just been refurbished
with new, thicker, more resilient walls. I think that if the structure were
stout enough, then the plane could have virtually disintegrated on impact.
This is especially true of the wings. An airplane (even of that size) is
really quite fragile, structurally speaking.
So, my scenario would be as follows: Since the plane hit a structure that
was pretty much not going to give, all of the debris, including the fuel,
ended up in a pretty small area, compared to what we're used to seeing in
air crashes. Since it's all right there together, it all pretty much burns
up.
Just some thoughts.

Randy Adams

************************************************************

I have not been inside the crash site, however I have been inside the building many times and was close to the site immediately after the fire was put out (9/12).

1) The Pentagon was designed and built specifically with aerial bombing in mind.  The structure of the building in massive and strong.  Think concrete floors and 
columns are the norm.  The area that collapsed was old (WWII) construction, and the intact area that did not collapse was the recently renovated/reinforced
portion.

2) I talked to many people who had reasons to be inside the crash site (I did not) and was told the whole plane was crammed into the inner rings of the building 
(outside of the "B" ring) and a hole had been punched through the "D" and "C" rings ("E" collapsed) with exterior damage to the "B" ring.

3)  My understanding of what happened to the plane is that it hit at ground level in front of the heliport and the aluminum body of the plane compacted like a crushed 
soda can as it passed through the structure of the building.  The tail was found only a short distance from the nose with the wings folding up and following the plane 
into the hole.

4)  Aluminum burns in hot fires, my guess is only the steel parts (engines, landing gear etc) were found intact in the areas where the fire was hottest.  Intact parts of 
the fuselage must have been exceptions, not the rule.

5)  Burning jet fuel is vile stuff.  The smell is overpowering and distinctive.  I was close enough to the area that when the wind shifted the smoke to where I was to be 
very nauseated by it (the knowledge that it was more than jet fuel burning will live with me forever).  When the fire was out I went near the hole and could smell raw 
jet fuel even from a hundred yards away.

6) French !!!!!

Hopefully this second hand information is helpful, however please respect my privacy and do not publish or use my name or personal information.  Keep up the good 
work.
Brian Heanue

************************************************************

Dear Geoff,

   In response to your article "So Where Is The
Airplane?", I will offer my opinion.

   I first checked out the satellite and other photos
on the French link, and based on that information, one
would certainly question why there are no marks from
the wing sections on the outside of the Pentagon
building, on either side of the damaged section.

   So, then I looked at the MSNBC video, and if you
jump back and forth between the first two frames, you
can definitely see a bright object, shaped like an
airplane, coming in from the far right edge of the
first frame, then hitting the ground, in the second
frame, and also hitting the building. (Granted, you
can't make a positive identification of the aircraft
from those photos. Given the type of camera, the
narrow field of view, and the speed of the aircraft,
it is amazing you can even see the plane at all.)

   Thinking about the fact that the airplane hit the
ground first, and presumably without the landing gear
down - wouldn't the engines have impacted the ground
first, and ripped the wings off, before the relatively
narrow fuselage entered the building?

   I would suggest that you check videos of test
crashes of similar airplanes, without landing gear
down and locked, and see what happens to the wings.
This should give you a better explanation of how a 757
could have caused the damage we saw to the pentagon,
without the wings ever hitting the building.

   Although it is certainly curious as to why we
didn't see more pieces of the airplane, I doubt that
there would have been much left after the ground
impact, then hitting a very hard stone structure, and
the ensuing fire. The fire also burned for a long
time, and I remember hearing comments about the smell
of jet fuel, from people that were inside when the
(presumed) plane hit, but were able to escape. The
blast at impact, smoke, and fire afterwards, also
looked a lot like what we saw from the planes hitting
the WTC.

   This is only my opinion, and I am giving it because
'you asked for it'. I would also like to see WND
approach this rationally, and not give the publication
a bad image.

   Please let me know what you find out, and/or post a
follow-up article in WND.

   A loyal reader,
   Mr. Francis M. Borso

************************************************************

Good morning!

As we looked at the MSNBC footage, one can see at the top of the right corner of the far right 3-4 ft tower, with an orange cone on its right, a white trail plume (or 
the plane?) which apparently travels (with???) into whatever causes the explosion - one can see the white trail plume at the backside of the explosion impaction -  I 
just used the mouse to drap the footage clip to right before impact and then to impact several times......Question - is this the associated press truck (I don't think so) 
or the airplane traveling on the ground, if so, then where are the long skid damage marks???

interesting pics!!!!!!!
JA
 

"I am aware that I owe this to God...as the chief duty of my life...That my every word and thought speak of Him..."  Saint Hillary

************************************************************

Geoff

If memory serves me correctly the black boxes from flight 77 wre
recovered.  If memeory of the new reports serves me correctly common
joes on the road SAW the airplane hit short of the Pentagon - the
resulting explosion is what caused the damage.

The French gave us this silly crap about a missile taking down Flight
800 - now this stuff about flight 77.

You folks ever been around a crash site where the airplane impact was
directly into the ground?  There isn't a whole lot left of the plane to
pick up.  Much like the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania.

The reason the outer ring was the most damaged is the plane hit short of
the building.  The explosion of the plane is what took out the outer
ring, the fire did the rest.  You also have to REMEMBER  that part of
the Pentagon had just been refurbished and specifically upgraded to
protect against things like this.

Geoff - really, come on.  What happened to the plane - it went BOOM!!!!

Oh -and one other thing.  If you look at the photos of that area of the
Pentagon I think you would agree that a truck bomb couldn't have done
that.  Where would you park it when virtually all of the fire trucks are
on the GRASS!!!!!

Duane

************************************************************

Geoff:  Good article and questions.  You may have commented on it previously, but you are undoubtedly aware of the fact that there were no Mid-East types on any 
of the aircraft, based on passenger lists and that the whole job was remote-controlled from the ground. P

************************************************************

Sir,
  I read your article in WND this morning questioning what
happened to flight 77 which has been said to have struck the
Pentagon on 9/11/01.  I'm sure that I don't have all the
answers but I wanted to point out that the structure has
been undergoing renovation which was designed to make it
more impervious to attack.  That particular wing of the
building that was struck that day had just been finished and
was not yet fully occupied (that is why the death toll was
so low).
  Is it possible that the beefed up structure could account
for some of the anomalies raised by the French?
  Thank you for you consideration.
    Allyn Barnett

************************************************************
 

Why so much damage to the Pentagon and WTC Buildings?
Concrete is not stable under extreme heat. It disintegrates at 500
degrees or less. It becomes explosive when exposed to temperatures over
1500 degrees. The fires at the WTC and pentagon were much hotter then
that.. Steel becomes weakened when exposed to temperatures of less than
a thousand degrees. The steel beams Used in construction of all
buildings of this size were not insulated well enough to protect them
and prevent the transfer heat into the massive concrete structures and
cause even more damage. I know these things because as a construction
supervisor I deal with these limits all the time! It is a miracle that
these building withstood what they did! There were structural
deficiencies in the WTC buildings. They did not have a strong concrete
core to support the center of the building. This core would have housed
elevators and other mechanical and electrical traces that would have
allowed for evacuation and communication for a much longer period of
time.  Water system would have been able to do a better job with the
fire. The lack of this core structure is the real crime here!

Don't fall for conspiracy theories as there are enough real conspiracies
out their to harm us!
Where is the Plane?
Throw a soda can into a camp fire and wait awhile. What happens? It
melts! Aluminum melts at LOW temperatures! Even a campfire will turn a
can into a nugget the size of a dime. That's where the plane is!
USE YOUR HEAD AND DON'T BE SUCH AN IDIOT! You are not contributing to
anything that is positive!
Ed Lawson

************************************************************
 

Mr. Metcalf:

I was intrigued with your article and sensed your reticence in purporting a conspiracy or a cover-up.  Being of open mind and not overly trusting of either government 
or the media, I reviewed the links in your article on Worldnetdaily.com.  These are my conclusions/suppositions/questions:

1)  I believe that I do see the plane (or at least an elongated white object) in the MSNBC video.  In the first frame, there is a white object just above the far right red 
cone.  This object is not in subsequent frames.

2)  This object does appear to hit the ground prior to hitting the Pentagon (as the audio describes).  I base this on the dustcloud/smoke/fire which appears in the 
second frame of the video to the right of the main fireball.  This is also behind and to the right of another building next to the Pentagon which is in the shadows in 
frame one, but stands out in front of the fireball in frame two.  This building (possibly a guard building) can also be seen in the fifth picture on the French site.  In this 
fifth picture, also notice the ground near the apparent impact (approximately near where the closest fire truck is positioned).  The ground in this area does not appear 
to be grass covered.  It appears to be dirt--perhaps recently plowed by an aircraft.  If it were merely burned, I believe it would appear more black than brown.  I 
cannot explain the lack of debris.

3)  If the aircraft had in fact burrowed in, that would detract from its forward momentum.  This could possibly explain why only the first ring was affected.

4)  Inasmuch as the damage not corresponding to the aircraft dimensions, a couple points to consider:  First, the dimensions of the aircraft height given on the French 
site may (I'm not sure--haven't done the research) correspond to an aircraft sitting on the tarmac with its landing gear deployed.  Sitting on its belly the aircraft would 
certainly be shorter.  The relative height would also be reduced by any amount that the aircraft "burrowed in".  Second, as for damage caused by the wings, in the 
fifth picture from the French site there does appear to be some enhanced damage to the lowest level on the left side of the entrance point.  I cannot determine any 
enhanced damage on the right side due to collapse.

5)  As to the gravel and sand which was spread over the lawn, this could have been to facilitate the movement of heavy equipment needed for excavation and 
recovery.

6)  I believe that some aircraft debris has been recovered.  Weren't the black boxes recovered?  I cannot explain the lack of debris in the pictures.  Perhaps its 
forward momentum carried it forward into the Pentagon.  Perhaps the pieces are so small that they are indistinguishable in the pictures.

Finally, it is not surprising that a few pictures, with inexact detail, do not answer every possible question regarding the sequence of events.  What would be surprising 
is if, armed with these few pieces of evidence, we could exactly piece together the entire sequence of events on that fateful day.

It seems to me, based on the evidence presented, much more plausible that the aircraft did plow into the Pentagon on 9/11.  If it had crashed anywhere else, surely 
we would know.  Ted Olson would know.

Regards,

Eric Livingston

************************************************************
 

 Almost looks like a cruise missile to me. You can see something streaking
by. Is it possible for someone to make an analysis of the size of the object
that is streaking by, by making comparisons and measurements of the film?
The distance between the camera and the point of impact can accurately be
measured.

************************************************************

Geoff:

This has been bugging me from the beginning. You know; like there's something wrong but you just can't quite put your finger on it?

Well, yesterday when I first saw the "still video" of the "crash," on every instance there was no aircraft in the video.

Wuz' up with that???

I now have a "dull" amazement at the dog and pony show that we are fed by the media and our government. Who are these people and why do we continue to believe them?

My personal skepticism about anything coming from the media has reached epic levels. Amazingly, they'll show their true colors in broad daylight. (As one of my friends so accurately said, "they hide in plain sight!")

It just never seems to end....
 

Jeff Kantoff
 

Geoff
I just read your article about the Flight 77 plane at the Pentagon... now that's a
scary feeling to go through that French site. I usually avoid all the conspiracy
stuff... but this one... there IS / WAS no plane there!!

Didn't they say, on the day it happened, that the crash "just happened" to hit a
section that had been recently reinforced? I thought that was a little suspicious at
the time, but later just shrugged it off.

So what's the alternative? A bomb planted and detonated on the outside ring of the
Pentagon... by whom?

I also thought it was a great leap to go after the terrorists as quickly as we did.
The American people wanted justice served on the people who did this to us. The
government IMMEDIATELY jumped into hunting out terrorism worldwide. That's not what
we wanted. They seemed to already have their own agenda "scripted" and just waiting
for the right moment to set it all in motion. At least I thought they were waiting.
This makes you wonder if there was any "waiting" for a golden opportunity at all, or
if that opportunity was created?? I never really believed all this New World Order
stuff... I've read it all, and filed it away as "what if?"... may be time to rethink
it.

Sobering stuff!!

Ronald Bean
Stigler, Oklahoma

************************************************************

A Viet Nam vet and 150 miles from OKC...

So I have a valid permit reason to question our government :)

I enjoy a good conspiracy as much as the next person but this is over the top and not worthy of WND reporting unless there is an aspiration of becoming a tabloid 
news agency.  Perhaps the tag line should read, Airliner seen using it's cloaking device in pentagon crash - now there's a conspiracy!

I'm not sure of the angle of attack of the jet and have heard no reports concerning its path but it sure looks like a large silvery object and what appears to be the 
vertical stabilizer behind the tan box in the right side of the video.  Also judging from where the explosion appears to emanate it would seem likely, IMHO, that the 
jet impacted at a very shallow angle very nearly skidding across the lawn before hitting the pentagon.  Where are the plane parts? Where is the jet fuel?  When has 
an airliner ever hit a structure as hardened as the pentagon from what was probably a very low angle of attack?  Watching the video of the tower impacts it would 
seem that a great deal of the planes were consumed during those events and the tower buildings were far less rigid than the pentagon. I have friends that were 
working very near the pentagon that day and when evacuated they reported a very strong odor of jet fuel.

In the future please avoid such obvious silliness in your reporting and leave the French out of these matters. They haven't done anything interesting since they gave up 
without a fight to the Germans.

Gary Smith
Stafford, VA

************************************************************

So tell me what you really think about flight 77........

I don't trust Government as it is so what is your point?

Question

Why would they lie?

Dr Watson

************************************************************

Hi,

I'm glad to see someone is interested in this.  I think the lack of wreckage
isn't the real dsicrepancy. Nobody seems to realize that the section the
plane hit was specially hardened just before S11. The plane hit the helipad
and broke up there before hitting the building's facade, which probably
totally pulverised it. The approach trajectory and the impact itself were
incredibly precise. Here's what I gather happened to the plane and the
Pentagon (this is a repost of my Nov 18 message to
lbo-talk@lists.panix.com):
 

Hakki Alacakaptan
---------------------------------
http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/0111/1875.html
 
 

While we're in X-Files mode here's a chain of improbability nobody seems to
have noticed. Looks like Allah was at the controls of 77, and God was
protecting the Pentagon.

1 - The terrorist pilot of AA Flight 77 was a top gun and a flaky flyer.

According to CBS, Hani Hanjour, the pilot of AA Flight 77 that crashed into
the Pentagon was an ace. http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,310721-
412,00.shtml :

"At 9:33 the plane crossed the Capitol Beltway and took aim on its
military target. But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast
and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were
then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn.

"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete
circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. "The
steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight
for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had
better flying skills than many investigators first believed. "The jetliner
disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the
tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph."

Time magazine agrees
http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,174639,00.html :

"And each aircraft performed dramatic but carefully executed course
corrections, including a stunning last maneuver by flight 77. The pilot of
that plane came in low from the south of the Pentagon and pulled a 270-
degree turn before slamming into the west wall of the building. "

The Washington Post, likewise http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-
dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A14365-2001Sep11 :

"Controllers had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed
directly at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching
speed -- full throttle. But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide
mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so
tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane
circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west,
whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers'
screens, the sources said."

But one month before 9-11 Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-
usflight232380680sep23.story  :

"At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight
instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker
Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four
hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a
pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small
plane. However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the
slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of
August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-
engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license
and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight
instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more
lessons."

The Washington Post reports the same [1] :

"The Freeway instructors also were skeptical of Hanjour's skills. 'They
told me he flew so poorly that they were not willing to give him an
endorsement to fly our planes,' Bernard said. Hanjour's two instructors
did not return calls and were not home Sunday, but Ann Conner, the mother
of one of them, said her 19-year-old son, Benjamin, went aloft twice with
Hanjour. They flew the school's routine flight path - half-hour to hour-
long segments in oblong loops over the airport - and did not stray into
restricted airspace over the Pentagon, flight instructor Bernard said.
Hanjour's 'piloting skills were terrible, considering' he was licensed to
fly multi-engine planes, Ann
Conner said..."

2 - Allah blinded the heathens' radar http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-
dyn/A32597-2001Nov2?language=printer :

"Investigators are still piecing together the facts in the hijacking of
American Airlines Flight 77. But the sector of limited radar coverage at
an Indianapolis "en route center" helps explain one of its mysteries: Why
did the Boeing 757 simply disappear from radar screens for a half-hour or
more, turn aroundover southern Ohio and get back into Washington airspace
before anyone noticed it or knew that it had been hijacked?"

When the box-cutter men hijacked 77 over Ohio and turned off its
transponder, the plane disappeared from Indianapolis' screens because
Indianapolis didn't have a _proper_ radar. It just had a "beacon radar" that
picked up transponder signals. That was real lucky for Hanjour because his
watch showed about 8:56 and his ETA was 9:45. The second WTC tower would be
hit in about 3 minutes. Indianapolis didn't warn anybody because it assumed
there was a technical problem. Such was standard procedure.

3 - As the goofy Hanjour, transformed by Allah into a crack pilot, came
roaring towards the Pentagon at treetop height,  the Good Lord had already
seen to it that the damage should be limited. The west wing of the building,
called Wedge One, had just been reinforced against bomb attack. If 77 had
hit anywhere else, the Pentagon would have been toast
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-1.html :

"As Pentagon renovation manager Evey grimly concluded, "that the
[terrorists] happened to hit an area that we had built so sturdily was a
wonderful gift."

Which goes to show you the power of prayer, really. You can bet your tush
there's a lot more praying Christians in the Pentagon that there were in the
twin towers of Mammon. Or maybe the mighty symbol of the Pentagram protected
the nations' brave commanders. But hold on, then they would be praying
to...nah, that can't be right.

Hakki

************************************************************

This is so unbelievable it strains, no snaps, any credibility of yours and
damages the credibility of WND. It demonstrates you can question anything,
especially on the internet.

Darrel

************************************************************