9/11 Plane speaking Part 1

What happened at the Pentagon

There is a video that circulates on the internet that is often labelled,

“This footage aired once after 9/11 and never on TV again.”

In it CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre reports live from outside the Pentagon on 9/11. He appears to suggest that no plane hit the Pentagon, but his report has been edited to eliminate the context of his words. In fact, he is answering a question as to whether the plane struck the building directly or crashed before doing so.

“There is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon, the only site is the actual site of the building that’s crashed in.”

Prior to the edited segment he reported,

"A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put out the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane."

Why has someone taken this report and presented it in such a way as to change what it originally conveyed? Footage of the full original report is now not easy to find.

The idea that no Boeing hit the Pentagon can be traced to March 2002 with the publication of Thierry Meyssan's book Hunt the Boeing. It was produced with a speed and level of investment unusual for dissident literature and by 2006 it had been translated into 28 different languages.

As 9/11 Truth gathered momentum with the 2009 publication of evidence of explosives at the World Trade Center, a fax was sent to offices in downtown Manhattan that propagated less credible tropes that have become associated with the movement (-the digital copy below has been marked as disinformation by a recipient).

It is not intuitive that a plane could penetrate a building as robust as the Pentagon, especially when a plane is conceived as an “aluminium tube,” or a “flying beer can,” as suggested by the fax. That would be like a table tennis ball going through a racket-and that is impossible, right?

Wrong.

Experiment demonstrates that a ping pong ball can travel clean through a 3/4 inch block of plywood when fired at high speed. This is due to kinetic energy. We all intuitively understand kinetic energy even if its effects are sometimes surprising. If I was to throw a bullet at you, you would not expect it to penetrate you in the manner that it would if fired from a gun.

The effect of throwing a brick at a car will be different from a car driving at high speed into a wall. A karate chop operates on this principle, as does water when it is used at high pressure to cut objects. Similarly, planes may be damaged when taxi-ing into lamp-posts and buildings, or when birds fly into them, but this does not give an indication of what happens when a plane hits a building at high speed.

In 1945 parts of a B-25 plane travelling at 200mph went through seven walls of the Empire State Building and came out of the other side. This aircraft was smaller and slower than the 9/11 planes.

In 1945, a comparatively flimsy Japanese kamikaze plane went through the steel hull of the USS Hinsdale.

Though it is of interest that, "the aluminum that modern aircraft are made of (has) a tensile strength greater than that of structural steel,” physicist David Chandler, whose research forced NIST to accept the freefall of World Trade Center 7, explains,

“What matters for penetration is kinetic energy, which depends on mass, not the hardness of the impacting material.”

Physicsclassroom.com informs us that,

“The kinetic energy of an object is directly proportional to the square of its speed. That means that for a twofold increase in speed, the kinetic energy will increase by a factor of four.”

Chandler calculates that, “the impacting plane (was) equivalent to 706 10-ton trucks travelling at 60 mph or more than half a ton of TNT.”

There is footage of a test in which an F-4 fighter jet crashes into a concrete barrier at 480 mph. The wall survives, but it was specially constructed to withstand the test. What is instructive is how the jet is reduced to ‘confetti,’ not dissimilar to other high speed jet plane crashes. Fire alone also consumes aircraft.

Still, it is not possible that poorly skilled hijackers performed the manoeuvres described of the planes on 9/11. To guarantee success wouldn’t the perpetrators have used a missile on the Pentagon? This is what was shown in what James Corbett ascertained in 2015 to be, “a decade-old easily-debunked fake video.”

Research by Aidan Monaghan reveals that in 2001 the technology existed to over-ride a plane’s controls, fly it remotely, and even to land it within a metre of its target. Why would the perpetrators risk their plot being instantly exposed by using a missile when a plane could be used as a missile?

There is a much shared meme that quotes US General Albert Stubblebine saying, “I saw a missile hitting the Pentagon not a plane,” but this is a fake quote. In interviews he expressed the opinion that he did not think a plane hit the Pentagon but he was not there to witness the event.

Were there any witnesses? What did they see?

On record there are over 180 witnesses to the Pentagon event on 9/11. 127 witnesses saw a large plane and 63 of those witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Their statements are documented and many are on film. The Pentagon is surrounded by busy roads. The incident was visible to many people.

It is obviously not possible that a plane could have entered the Pentagon leaving only a small hole in the building’s wall. The photo of a small circular hole that is often presented as the impact hole is, in fact, the exit hole of a debris flow that passed through four walls of the Pentagon’s ringed structure.

The entrance hole collapsed 45 minutes after the incident, prior to which it was photographed -although its entirety does not feature on a single image. A composite made from these photographs gives a sense of its scale.

The lack of clear video or photographic images of a plane at the Pentagon on 9/11 is taken to indicate its absence, but it is important to remember that this is not necessarily an indication of reality. If you are not being photographed reading these words, would it be true to say that it didn’t happen?

If there is any definitive CCTV evidence of what occurred at the Pentagon it is withheld by the authorities. This serves the purpose of creating the uncertainty necessary to divide those who question the official story of 9/11. It has been considered that their positions and low frame rate make it possible that no cameras adequately captured the 550mph plane. The limited CCTV footage that has been released is suggestive of a Boeing 757 trailing white smoke “generated by burning tree branches and leaves ingested by the right engine.”

We are left to assess the physical evidence. David Chandler reminds us,

“of the strong evidence for large plane impact and penetration provided by the damage path, many elements of which line up exactly with the flight path direction from the SW at an angle of 52 degrees with the Pentagon west wall. These elements include the clipped tree, five downed light poles, generator-trailer damage, low concrete wall damage, the façade hole, outside plane debris (strewn to the north because of the angle of impact), the missing, bowed and abraded (in the flight path direction) internal columns, the first floor suddenly filled with debris with the ceiling intact, inside plane debris, the C ring hole, and the debris with plane parts strewn in the A & E driveway along the flight path. These elements all confirm a flight path that is supported by eyewitness accounts, the radar data and the FDR data.

In addition, the light poles’ separation gives a wingspan in the range 100 ft to 130 ft (Boeing 757 wingspan is 124 ft 10 in), while the low concrete wall and generator-trailer damage separation indicates an engine separation of approximately 43 ft (Boeing 757 engine separation is 42.5 ft). There are over 62 eyewitnesses who saw impact. Fourteen (14) witnesses saw the light poles struck. Four witnesses saw the right engine/wing hit the generator trailer, while one witness saw the left engine hit the low concrete wall. Multiple witnesses traced the passage of the plane as it flew from the Sheraton Hotel (last radar reading) to impact at the Pentagon. The properly-decoded FDR data traces the plane’s path all the way to impact.”

In addition to these points of evidence Passenger DNA was reported to be found at the scene and jet fuel was found in the lungs of survivors, Brian Birdwell and Kevin Shaeffer.

“Such a confluence of physical, eyewitness and other evidence provides an overwhelming case for a large plane, most probably a Boeing 757-200 and flight AA 77, impacting and penetrating the Pentagon on 9/11. No other theory has even ventured to explain all this evidence using a missile, bombs etc.”

Part 2 is here.