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?

[ProudEagle]

Outstanding, and thanks for the post. However you do realize that you summarily taken away a weeks worth of show topic for Art Bell?? Let's see.....500+mph into a solid object. I'm surprised there was that much of it left. And did Mr. Metcalffe bother to note the size of the hole left by a 757 in Pennsylvania? Not much left there either.

[Palmetto]

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?

A Boeing 757 is not 45 ft. high. Not even close, unless maybe you include the rudder, which would have almost zero impact consequences.

The people running this site know this as well as anyone, so their argument can be considered intentionally deceptive, and all other "evidence" therefore ignored.

They're going to have to come up with something better than this to discredit Barbara Olsen.

[unamused]

Naahh....somebody'll just start a new thread on it tomorrow...

[ProudEagle]

I just sent that photo to Geoff Metcalf/WND and asked him to let the dead rest in peace. I also sent it to the email address link on the french website and asked them to place it on the series of photos they have on their conspiracy page. Wanna bet they won't do it?

[aristeides]

Your link and the links in the thread referred to in #50 appear to have gone dead. I have yet to see a picture in which my untutored eye can recognize either a plane or plane wreckage.

If that plane was overflying D.C. that morning, it does seem very odd that no pictures have appeared anywhere of the plane in flight.

[Teacher317]

maybe this will work? It's a large photo with the upper 70% being firefighters in the smoky distance (70-100 ft) trying to put out the building fire. In the bright green grassy foreground is a man-sized piece of aluminum with what appears to be part of a red curve (circle?) with a thin white border around it. The rest of the piece is unpainted, with lines of regular rivets showing. The curvature of the piece is pretty tight, making me think it might be from the tail, because it's far too small and regular to be from a main part of the fuselage.

[ProudEagle]

You're correct. Underneath and just forward of the horizontal stabilizer assembly (tail section). The rounded "cheat lines" of the striping are where the left and right fuselage paint scheme meets underneath the back of the aircraft. The photo can be tricky, but judging from the distance from the building one can get a sense of the ferocity and violence of the impact. God rest their souls.

[aristeides]

Yes, that link worked. I am close to being satisfied. Can you tell us anything about the source of the photo

I guess I never doubted seriously that a plane hit the Pentagon. But I was and continue to be puzzled that photos like this have only appeared now, and that we still have no pictures of the plane in flight before it hit the Pentagon. Can it be true that no one took such pictures, over half an hour after the second plane hit the WTC?

[unamused]

No bet.....

[Texaggie79]

It got pulled!!! It MUST be a FR conspiracy!!!

[demdesur]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/642172/posts still exists with some discussion. Thought this was open discussion... not sure why threads are getting pulled.

[Texaggie79]

No, G.I. is open discussion............. We need more G.I.ers

[ctdonath2]

I have also viewed the MSNBC footage over two dozen times and I still can't see the plane. Can you?

Yes. It's right there on the far right of the first picture, and not there in the next picture. Flip rapidly between the two and it's OBVIOUS. As long reported, the plane actually hit the ground just in front of the building first, sliding/smearing a hundred feet or so before actually impacting the building.

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?

Easy: the impact is comparable to throwing a water balloon at someone's feet. The water balloon may weigh a pound or two - equivalent to about 1% of the target's weight - but the balloon quickly bursts and the water spreads. Likewise behavior of a 100 ton airplane hitting a 10,000 ton kevlar-wrapped steel-reinforced multi-layer hardened-concrete wall: the fragile skin of the plane (just 1/8th-inch aluminum) bursts and fuel (most of the weight) spreads rapidly. That the plane actually hit the ground first (a glancing blow a hundred feet or so away) means disintegration was well underway before reaching the wall.

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?

As repeated above, the plane obliquely impacted the ground first, smushing it flat, then slid into the ground floor. Again, flip between the first two security photos: the plane was very low compared to the building.

3. ... Where is the debris? Any debris! Did it all disintegrate on contact?

Like this?

How many times must we post that picture?

4. ... What happened to the wings of the aircraft? Why isn't there any wing damage?

Again, the plane hit the ground first, disintegrating the wings (which aren't much) and releasing fuel. There's damage, just not much compared to what was caused by the fire.

5. One journalist asked: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"

When a plane hits something essentially immovable (like a rock-like building, or the ground at ~90 degrees), there's not much left of the plane. This is obvious from many plane crash photos.

What did happen to the plane? Where is it?

I really want to believe there was a plane, but I've never seen a plane crash with no wreckage. Where is it?

DUDE! IT CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON WITH A FULL LOAD OF FUEL AND BURNED! That doesn't leave much left, and yes there were pieces lying around. If we fling you into a brick wall at 100 MPH, there won't be much left either; there isn't much difference.

[ctdonath2]

Know of anyplace where large versions of th images from that sequence can be found?

Those are TV camera images - that's as big as they get.

[demdesur]

Here are more facts - http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/pent.html

That piece of the plane was all that was left that far in front of the building... and nothing else in between. Give me a break.

[Sloth]

This is just plain stupid. The plane penetrated deep into the building. Just because the roof didn't cave in doesn't mean the inner rings weren't hit. Hell, where are the planes that hit the WTC? If I can't see a big ol' fuselage, I don't have to believe in 'em, do I? Maybe the Jews did it with bombs and holograms!