Don't let a good story stand in the way of truth!

NAME.....Pentagon Attack
CODE.....WT9807
ORIGIN...Thierry Meyssan (The Frightening Fraud)
STATUS...False

On 11th September 2001, shortly after the two planes collided with the towers of the World Trade Centre, reports were filtering in that there had been a large explosion at the Pentagon in Washington. At first it was reported that a large booby-trapped truck packed with explosives caused the explosion, but this was later denied and we were told that a plane crashing into one side of the Pentagon caused the damage.

It seems that there is more to this than meets the eye, and more than a hint of a conspiracy theory. In fact, some question the existence of American Airlines Flight 77, and whether a plane did crash into the Pentagon.

The following probing questions suggests that there could be an alternative explanation other than the official version of accounts:

1. Why is it that a Boeing 757 -200, weighing almost 100 tonnes and travelling at a speed of at least 250mph, only caused damage to the outer ring wall of the Pentagon?

2. How is it that a Boeing 757 that is 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

3. How come no debris of the aircraft can be seen in the official photos of the aftermath of the incident?

4. Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

5. What happened to the wings of the aircraft and why didn't they cause any damage to the building?

6. Why couldn't the County Fire Chief explain to reporters where the aircraft was?


7. Why is it that the aircraft's point of impact cannot be clearly identified in the official photos of the crash scene?

Did American Flight No.77 crash into the Pentagon, and if not, why is the American Government lying to everyone?

Summary

The French author Thierry Meyssan in his controversial book, The Frightening Fraud, first initiated this ambitious conspiracy theory. Thierry believes that the American Government is covering something up, and that a plane did not cause the damage to the Pentagon. Many believe that he is blowing hot air as he asks many probing questions, but cannot supply any explanations as answers. Right or wrong, a conspiracy theory was born.

Hot on the trail, a website was created. The 'Hunt The Boeing!' website mirrors the claim of Thierry Meyssan that an aircraft did not crash into the Pentagon, and asks the above questions to query the official account of what actually happened. Like many conspiracies, the supporting 'evidence' is selective and therefore inconclusive. There now seems as many websites debunking the theory as those that are promoting it, and the following are answers to the above questions.

Question 1: Why is it that a Boeing 757 -200, weighing almost 100 tonnes and travelling at a speed of at least 250mph, only caused damage to the outer ring wall of the Pentagon?

The satellite photos that this question is referring to is misleading because the photo only shows a Birdseye view of the intact roofs. What the photo does not show is that the crashed plane penetrated the outer ring, second ring and the third inner ring.

Also the question refers to the size, weight and speed of the aircraft, but does not take into consideration the size and robustness of the Pentagon. The plane may weigh almost 100 tonnes but it is mainly constructed out of a thin alloy material. Then take into consideration that the side of the Pentagon that the aircraft crashed into had recently been reinforced, and the walls were constructed using a combination of Potomac sand mixed in with steel reinforced concrete, with 10,000 concrete piles anchoring each side of the building, and an insertion of steel tubes designed to stop the building collapsing.
Another point to make is that the aircraft hit the ground first before it hit the Pentagon, this initial impact would have absorbed most of the energy of the crash. The aircraft then hit the side of a solid reinforced building that has three times the floor space as the Empire State Building and is designed to shock absorb, it is not hard to see what will come out the worse.

On impact, the aircraft was travelling at a fraction of the speed as those that hit the World Trade Centre, which is mainly constructed using aluminium and glass. If you remember rightly, there wasn't a lot of the aircrafts remaining once they had passed through the building.

Taking all this into consideration, it is quite surprising that the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon caused as much damage as it did!

click on image to enlarge

Question 2: How is it that a Boeing 757 that is 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

Again, the photograph that this question relates to is completely misleading. When looking at the photo the eyes naturally focus on where the fire engine is directing the hosed water onto the Pentagon, but the point of impact is actually more central to the photo and clearly shows two floors damaged. Another major point is that the aircraft hit the ground before ploughing into the Pentagon. As already explained in the answer to question one, hitting the ground first would have absorbed most of the energy of the crash.

The aircraft penetrated three of the five rings of the building.

Question 3: How come no debris of the aircraft is seen in the official photos of the aftermath of the incident?

The aircraft, full of jet fuel, crashed into the Pentagon and exploded into an intense fireball and disintegrated as it disappeared into the interior walls of the building (similar to what happened with the World Trade Centre Towers). Most of the aircraft would have been burned up completely, although the photo in reference to this question clearly shows debris.

Click on image to enlarge

Question 4: Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

As it happens there is a quite simple explanation. In order to use heavy vehicles to clear away the debris, a temporary road was built across the soft lawn using sand and gravel.

Click on image to enlarge

Question 5: What happened to the wings of the aircraft and why didn't they cause any damage to the building?

The aircraft crashed into the ground at 45 degrees, and the wings would have disintegrated on impact with the explosion. What was left of the wings would have burned up as they were forced into the interior of the building. Besides, the wings quite clearly damaged the exterior of the building.

Click on image to enlarge

Question 6: Why couldn't the County Fire Chief explain to reporters where the aircraft was?

When a journalist asked Ed Plaugher, the Arlington County Fire Chief, "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"

Ed Plaugher replied, "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. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing."

"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."

He was then asked, "Where is the jet fuel?"

The County Fire Chief replied, ""We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the -- what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft. So -"

The vagueness of this quotation can be interpreted that the County Fire Chief is trying to cover something up, but the truth is probably that he was reluctant to make any assumptions about the situation before any hard evidence has been given. The Fire Chief was not stating that the puddle on the ground was aircraft fuel, he was in fact diverting from the stupid question that he was asked, and was simply stating that the puddle was probably melted metal from the nose of the aircraft.

Another small matter that needs to be mentioned is that the Fire Chief was asked, "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" from the journalist, and not, as the query claims, where the aircraft was? This slight diversion from the truth makes all the difference, and the question that was really asked was actually answered.

Question 7: Why is it that the aircraft's point of impact cannot be clearly identified in the official photos of the crash scene?

In most of the photos the point of impact is slightly obscured by smoke and water from the firemen's hoses, but like I said, it is only partially obscured and the point of impact can still be obviously identified in the photos.

Click on images to enlarge

Final Thoughts

Right or wrong, the debate will continue for many years to come, but I would like to ask a few more questions for you to ponder on, Why would the American Government want to go to such elaborate lengths to deceive the world that an aircraft crashed into the Pentagon? If an aircraft did not cause the damage, then what did cause it, and why lie about it? So, so many questions.