At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.
9:37 AM? This clock, which was frozen at the time of impact, reads 9:31:39:http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2480
This clock, however, was stopped at 9:32:31:http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=19
Whichever it is, it's not any time close to 9:37, which raises a serious question about the official timeline. If it crashed at 9:31 or 9:32, then that leaves a 5-6 minute gap of time after the crash happened. What was going on in that 5-6 minute gap of time, and why is it being covered up?
Dozens of witnesses did see a plane, but the evidence that we have now points to a flyover. The plane pulled up and flew over the building just before impact as strategically placed explosives detonated, and the plane flew behind the smoke, creating the illusion that the plane flew into the Pentagon, when in reality, it flew over it. Robert Turcios and Skarlet both say that the plane pulled up before hitting the Pentagon. This demolishes the official story, which has the plane striking the ground floor. If the plane pulled up, then the damage we see in photographs is physically impossible if the plane hit when it pulled up, so the only explanation is that it pulled up. Witnesses saw a C-130 flying overhead, and a military helicopter. This means that when witnesses see the plane that flew over flying by the other side, they will think it's just another one of the planes flying around the building. There is significant evidence that explosives were used, which would support the conclusion that the plane flew over the Pentagon. High explosives were smelled by two witnesses, and many witnesses reported that the explosion they felt was like a bomb. There were reports of secondary explosions at the Pentagon, reports of concussion, other buildings shaking, and bomb-like damage. The fire damage was inconsistent with a fuel-laden plane flying into the building. Many objects on the impacted ring were unburnt. There is hardly any debris, and the only piece of identifiable debris looks to have been planted. Witnesses also report the plane being smaller than a 757, and white instead of a 757's normal colors. This means that the flyover plane would have some 757 characteristics, but not a 757. The Size Of The Hole
When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
This is wrong. The original hole was not nearly that big. The 75ft hole they speak of was actually 65ft across, and was not the original hole. It was the hole created after the outer wall of the Pentagon collapsed. The original hole was much smaller than the one that was created by the outer wall collapsing. ASCE's findings are not credible, because a computer simulation is not credible evidence. If they are speaking of the computer simulation I believe they are speaking of, it omits the engines of the plane, and it gets the number of support columns completely wrong. In photos, the area under the hole is not one giant hole, but a collection of smaller holes, we can see this because there is building material hanging down, and if that was where the wings came through and destroyed support columns, that material would have been destroyed.
Of course it doesn't leave a cartoon outline of itself in the building, but what it would do is cause impact damage. It is improbable that the plane would crash and the wings would cause no impact damage.
As for the landing gear, I think a quote from Killtown's site gets this one pretty well:
First the punch out hole was said to been caused by the plane's nose, then the rest of the planed entered in as a "liquid mass," and now we are told that the landing gear caused the punch-out hole? I wish you guys would get your story straight.In-Tact Windows
Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do--they're blast-resistant.
"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."
Blast resistant windows are built to withstand a lot of force, but one of these windows that was 'near the impact area' was right where the tail section should have hit. It was right above the impact hole, but just another smoking gun in the case, the area above the impact hole shows no damage from where the tail section should have hit the building. Also, PM fails to acknowledge the amazing coincidence of the place the Pentagon was 'hit'. It had blast resistant windows, had a personal fire station with their fire truck outside, had the least people and the least military personnel inside, and was being renovated. Debris
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
If he was able to pick these parts up by hand, then could they not have been planted by hand hours beforehand? This would obviously be a complex operation, and to fake a plane crash, evidence would need to be planted to support the claim that a plane hit the Pentagon. Also, did you quote this man right? Did he say that he 'held the tail section of a 757 in his hand?'. A 757's tail section is 44ft tall.
As for the debris, a clear analysis shows this was planted. First of all, it's not burnt, second of all, it's sky blue, while the skin of a 757 is Patriot blue, way deeper than sky blue. Also, it was found very far from the impact point.