Saturday, July 06, 2002

If you look at a picture (or here or here or here) of the hole in the wall of the Pentagon that Flight 77 is supposed to have gone through, it is immediately obvious that Flight 77 could not possibly have caused the damage at the Pentagon. We're usually shown pictures of the wall at the Pentagon after it collapsed at around 10:10 a. m., which of course left a much larger opening and completely destroyed all evidence of the smaller hole left by whatever missile actually caused the damage. Just as a camel can't pass through the eye of a needle, and rich men can't enter heaven, a Boeing 757-200, over 124 feet from wingtip to wingtip and, including the tail, over 44 feet (!) high, can't get in to the Pentagon through a hole of this size. Even if the fusilage could get through, how could the wings get through? If the wings didn't get through, shouldn't they be outside on the ground? The only conceivable way the wings could have gotten in is if they collapsed right against the fusilage, but that would require that they be bent back by hitting the building. Although the Pentagon wall has a few cracked and broken windows (and at least some of the windows may have been specially reinforced to resist bomb damage), where is the evidence of metal wings hitting the wall with force (and where is the evidence of the tail hitting above the hole with force?)? The heavy engines should have gone right through the wall. How did the wings pass through this area and leave the vehicles that we can see burning (besides the obvious car, there is a vehicle like an SUV almost obscured by smoke)? Leaving aside the contradictory witness evidence and the completely implausible lack of video evidence, the size of the hole coupled with the relative lack of damage to the wall and the lack of any evidence of the wings is conclusive evidence that Flight 77 didn't cause the Pentagon damage. Some people still say that theories that Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon are some form of clever disinformation, intended to put us off looking at the real truth. The main argument may be that the picture of the hole is of another hole, not the entrance point of Flight 77. We can refute that by reference to the burning car in the foreground. This picture, with the collapsed wall clearly visible in the background, shows the remains of the burning car in the foreground, together with the remains of a burning truck, its paint now burned off (the truck is more visible in this photograph - or here, where you can also see how the ground hasn't been disturbed), that is obscured by smoke (flip between this and this). The collapsed wall now covers where the entrance point was. There is no other collapsed facade on the building (you can see that from this massive picture of the damage to the building), so this must be the area of the crash. You can also clearly see the car and the truck on the left of this photograph, with the hole partly obscured by the pole (you can also see that there is clearly no damage to the helipad or the ground, meaning whatever hit the Pentagon could not have hit the ground first, but went directly in through the hole). Comparing the Pentagon crash to the crash of El Al Flight 1862 doesn't help, as the hole left by the El Al flight is easily big enough and in no way compares with the tiny hole left in the Pentagon before the wall collapsed. My response to people who want to support the Official Story: look at the hole. Are people able to handle a terrorist attack but afraid of the implications of the fact that Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon?