So where is the plane?

WorldNetDaily ^ | 3/10/02 | Geoff Metcalf

[CalConservative]

I receive a lot of strange information from a wide variety of sources. Some of it is intriguing. Some of it is flat-out weird. I try (and frequently fail) to temporarily set aside my own personal prejudices to objectively as possible consider the merits of both the intriguing and weird.

Recently, an interesting French website has been asking questions about the crash of American Airlines Flight 77, which reportedly crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11.

The conventional wisdom has been inculcated into us that there were four terrorist hijacked airplanes that tragic day. But there are refutations for each of the official scenarios floating around. The conspiracy theory industry hasn't been this jazzed since the JFK assassination.

However, in the shadow of the creative writing, multi-phased propaganda and bovine excrement, there are several questions that at least should be asked and answered.

The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.
– Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels

The French website has pictures of the Pentagon from Sept. 11. I looked at the pictures shown and, frankly, (despite my visceral reluctance to buy into another conspiracy) can't answer the questions raised. Maybe our readers can? Click on the French link and let us know what you think. I have also viewed the MSNBC footage over two dozen times and I still can't see the plane. Can you?

---

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?

---

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?

---

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?

---

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?

---

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."

---

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.

• The belly of the aircraft contains, fuel tanks, baggage, mailbags, and cargo; none of this type debris can be seen.

• 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.

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

• 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.

Whatever inexplicable anomalies exist, the passengers on Flight 77 died that tragic day. Barbara Olson called her husband from Flight 77 and told him about the hijacking in progress. There was most certainly an American Airlines Flight 77 with real people on board, and families in grief.

What did happen to the plane? Where is it?

[Cultural Jihad]

WTF were they thinking???

Geoff likes to ham it up with conspiracy theories all the time. His customer base includes the militia nutcase mentality and libertarian ideologues. Hopefully the ad revenue for WND will have increased for them, lest their efforts at shoveling out this drivel be a complete waste.

[MARTIAL MONK]

I'll disagree with you all day on a lot of things but you're right on this. Doubters should check out the threads from the days immediately following 9/11. There are dozens of eyewitness reports of the plane hitting the building. Rescuers inside the building describe climbing through aircraft wreckage to help victims.

This begs the question; What kind of mind stands logic and incontrovertible proof on its head to grasp for a illogical and unprovable conspiracy? Is this disconnect from reality insanity or is it healthy skepticism?

[Redcloak]

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?

Quite simple. Because it wasn't going at 250 MPH. Go to that MSNBC page with the Macromedia Flash viewer of the impact. After it runs, grab the control and flip back and forth between the first and second frames. The first thing you'll likely notice is the dust trail following the plane in the second frame. Then you'll likey spot the plane itself in the first frame; a shiny object that isn't in the subsequent frames. Flight 77 struck the ground before impact. It then skidded into the building and struck the first floor. Because it struck the ground first, it burned off energy before contact with the building. This lowered the kinetic energy of the hit. Combined with the building's great strength, the slowing of the aircraft minimized the damage.

[Cultural Jihad]

Is this disconnect from reality insanity or is it healthy skepticism?

Or something nefarious, or just plain stupid, and arrogantly French.

[pt17]

It's really not necessary for anyone to trash WorldNetDaily since they do it quite well by themselves.

[LadyDoc]

The Pentagon side that was hit was partly empty because they had just finished a job of reconstruction. Not only were the walls made of masonry, but they had just been strengthened with anti Bomb material. When the plane went in, it went in through the second and third ring. However, the hole was small, and the upper building didn't immediately collapse since it had been reinforced so strongly.

A truck bomb would not have penetrated so deeply: Even the Ok city bomb didn't penetrate too deeply. and a truck bomb would have left a hole downward (explode in a circle, not in a slash like a plane. ) Finally, the truck bomb would have left an axel.

I understand the Frogs are ignorant. But Geo Metcalf should be ashamed of himself. Most of the information on the Pentagon was on C Span.

I remember stories after an American Airlines plane went straight down near Pittsburgh. The local firemen etc working there said there was little left of the plane. Ditto for a plane going straight into a bomb protected wall, then four more walls (inside and outsides of the three rings that were penetrated).

[Budge]

Does any one have an explanation for why the plane doesn't show up on the Pentagon's own camera?

But it does show up on the Pentagon's footage. I used to be a professional photographer and it took me several runs before I saw the plane skidding along the ground, wheels up. It also explains why the plane didn't penetrate the building as far as it would have had it not hit the ground first.

Any doubters should ask Barbara Olsen's husband, Ted if she was just playing a joke on him.

[TomB]

I have never seen an aircraft accident where the aircraft evaporated upon impact, water, land or buildings.

Mr. Metcalf, say hello to flight 93.

[TomB]

Some new pictures posted by someone at the Pentagon at the time in response to this stupid, stupid conspiracy theory.

[Fury]

I saw on a thread the other day when these were released a picture someone had posted that was clearly a large twisted piece of aircraft aluminum laying on the lawn in front the Pentagon building. It was silver on the outside and had the funney green primer they use on the other side. There was no doubt that it was aircraft sheeting.

Some loon is gonna say they planted it, and that they never recovered the black boxes either. Remember when they couldnt get anything off of the black boxes? The plane hit the building so hard it practically vaporized.

Where is the Desk?

Agreed. On some other thread, one of the main advocates of something perhaps other than a plane causing the damage at the Pentagon just stuttered when asked where the people have gone to that were on that flight that "perhaps did not" hit the Pentagon. Never mind the people that on FR described the plane flying torward the Pentagon and I believe in the case of two reports, saw it hit the Pentagon.

The same crap is over on DU. People that propose some of the zany theories for the explosion and destruction at the Pentagon are going to continue to do this when the next tragedy comes along. It'll never stop.

[Teacher317]

The purpose of this psy-war isn't about where the plane is; rather it's to instill distrust for our government at a time of war.

As if we didn't have plenty of reasons to distrust government before 9-11. This is the latest great example that government should not be trusted. ("UNLIMITED FORCED DRUGGING OK'D BY COURT")

[Teacher317]

From that thread:

"Picture 13 shows more of the debris field, including a twisted piece of the American Airliner."

[Teacher317]

(note to self... check out post 32!)

[Kozak]

"Where the heck were those legendary SAMs that are supposedly stationed on top of the White House??"

It wouldn't have mattered. At that speed with that size plane it would have hit as it was breaking up and impacted in the same spot. They are designed to bring a plane down, not stop it's flight path.

[Kozak]

I personally got to investigate several aircraft accidents while a flight surgeon in the Air Force. In one an F-4 impacted at high speed 600+knots into a scrub pine forest on a bombing range in Florida. The aircraft impacted at a shallow angle going through the trees like they were a cheese grater. There wasn't a SINGLE piece of the aircraft left bigger then a couple of square inches except for one of the the 20mm cannon barrels. If you didn't KNOW it was a plane, you would have been damn hard pressed to identify it as such unless you were an expert.

This entire "controversy" is so nauseating I can't stand it. It doesn't matter that we have the flight track of the aircraft, that we have eye witnesses, that we have survivors, that we have rescue personnel, and photo's clearly showing aircraft wreckage, the PIN HEADS keep at it.

[Johnny Shear]

World Net Daily is a JOKE!!!!

It's a FREAKING embarrassment that it's considered a "Conservative" website.

Sad...

[TomB]

(note to self... check out post 32!)

LOL! Teach, I came this (fingers a hair-width apart) close to doing the same thing.

Rather conclusive picture, no?

[TomB]

This entire "controversy" is so nauseating I can't stand it.

Frustrating, isn't it?

Although it is probably instructive to note that most of the usual suspects who jump on every conspiracy theory have, up to now, avoided this topic.

Looking at the picture in post 32 (and, ahem Teach, post 53), you can see very well just how thin the skin of an modern jetliner really is. Imagine that hitting a highly reinforced concrete building at over 300 mph and it isn't hard to imagine not much of it remaining intact.

[DallasDeb]

I feel certain there was an airplane. But I also remember thinking, in the far reaches of my mind, the area looks too neat. Could it be that the airplane had a significant-sized bomb on it that caused disintegration of the plane?