What Hit the Pentagon? An Analysis.
On the same day that two planes crashed into world trade centers, another plane was reported as crashing into the Pentagon, devouring part of the newly renovated intelligence building, and taking the lives of 125 souls. Officially, it is believed that hijackers hit the Pentagon; and yet, despite clear evidence of plane debris found at the site, and eyewitnesses watching the plane crash, there are those that believe that there was no plane crash at the Pentagon. Their claims are many, from a missile strike to a bomb within the Pentagon going off. Here you will see that claims that the Pentagon was by anything other than a Boeing 757 on 9/11 are false, based upon eyewitness testimony, physical evidence of a low flying plane, and plane debris found at the sight.
In my search for the truth, I came upon a blog article by a man by the name of Craig McKee, an award winning journalist from Canada, who has been writing for 23 years. In his article "How We Know An Airliner Did not Hit the Pentagon," Craig asks a Boeing 757, with a "124 foot... wingspan" (McKee) could have possibly made such a 16 foot hole in the Pentagon. He replays the story of the hijacking, showing that the hijackers didn't immediately hit the Pentagon, but circle around it sometime, until it hit the newly renovated side of the Pentagon. In his article, McKee is skeptical of the impact, asking how so little damage could have been done, and how the plane could have simply "incinerated" (McKee) upon hitting the building. On top of that, he mentions that the Pentagon is under 24 hour surveillance, and yet there is no concrete video showing the plane. Overall, he is incredibly skeptical about the plane crash, though he never truly gives an alternative explanation for what happened.
On the other hand, we have an article by John Wyndham, a writer at 911truth.org. I was surprised to find that in his article "Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate," he used the scientific method to establish that it was a plane that hit the pentagon, while also using eyewitness testimony and physical evidence to refute the argument that a missile, or a smaller plane caused damage to the Pentagon. In his argument, he shows that eyewitnesses saw a large plane with American Airlines markings hitting into several items on the ground, like trees and light poles, and then hitting into the building itself. Two previous experiments show that a plane would have been torn apart as it hit the building, shredding the plane itself until it got smaller as it entered the building. He also shows that there was debris everywhere from planes, including wheels, the tail, the flight box, and other shredded parts of the plane, showing the reader that it was in fact a plane that hit the Pentagon, and not a missile or bomb.
In support of Wyndham's article is a completely separate article by the authors at Popular Mechanics, called "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report-The Pentagon." The article itself is a subsection in a larger report made to "debunk 9/11 myths" (Popular Mechanics). The authors claim that the holes in the Pentagon were small because other parts of the plane were sheared off on impact, and that many of those parts were flung outside of the building or destroyed in the wreckage. They also show that even though a Boeing 757 hit the building, there were still intact windows because they were made to be blast resistant, a direct refutation that a plane would have destroyed all windows nearby. In the end, they directly refute the claim that no wreckage was found, as one of the first people on the case found bodies from the flight crew and wreckage from the flight itself.
While there is the commonality between the two sides that there was indeed wreckage, they vastly disagree on what happened. The whole basis of McKee's argument comes from four questions: If a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon... 1) where was the plane debris? 2) why hasn't the Pentagon released conclusive video evidence of a plane? 3) why didn't the wings do more damage to the Pentagon? 4) why would the pilot hit the recently renovated side of the Pentagon? I'll go through these point by point.
1) Where was the Plane debris? and 3) Why didn't the Wings do more damage?
McKee explains the length (155 feet, 3 inches), the width (124 feet, 10 inches), and weight (255,000 lbs at takeoff) as background to his question, asking how a the plane that big could have created a hole that was 20 feet long in diameter (McKee). The simple answer to his question was that it was not 20 feet on the outer ring, but actually about 75 feet in diameter (Popular Mechanics). In regards to why the wings didn't cause more damage, it is important to note that a jet doesn't "punch a cartoon like outline of itself" into a building. The wings would have sheared off on impact, which is supported by the findings of the F-4 experiment, an experiment in which a rocket propelled plane was crashed into an "impenetrable" wall (Wyndham). In the experiment, the plane would have crashed into the wall been completely shredded. In the same way, the plane would have shredded within the building and out. This means that the wings themselves would have shorn off on impact and been torn to shreds. In that light, eyewitnesses who saw the plane crash into the building saw debris littered all over the place (Wyndham). Indeed, there was the landing gear found next to the "twelve foot hole" (Popular Mechanics) in the C wall, which may have been what McKee was referring to when talking about the 20 foot wall. The authors of Popular Mechanics also tell us that one of the first "structural engineers" to arrive on the scene, one Allyn E Kilsheimer, "saw the marks of the wings on the buildings" (Popular Mechanics), saw the debris with American Airlines markings on it, and even found parts of "crew members' uniforms... including body parts" (Popular Mechanics). McKee also refuses the fact that there was approximately "64 documented eyewitnesses" (Wyndham) that saw the plane crash into trees, telephone poles, a generator, and even into the building itself. This shows conclusively that there was plane debris around, which completely nullifies his claim.
2) Why hasn't the Pentagon release conclusive video evidence of a plane?
Even though plane debris has been found on the site of the attack, McKee refused to believe that and wasn't satisfied. Following the attack, there FBI told the public that they had 85 videos of the event, but hadn't released them (McKee). At the time of McKee writing his article in 2010, that may have been true. However, videos have been released since then, which show that it was a plane, though it is still debated by some (Wyndham). While McKee does have a good point that it may not be as conclusive as the public wants, putting together the videos with the plane debris can show conclusively that it was a plane that hit the pentagon.
4) Why would the Pilot go to the Effort to hit the renovated side of the Pentagon?
Admittedly, this is a question that I cannot answer, as it is a good point. The hijacker indeed made a "330 degree loop" to hit the newly renovated west side of the Pentagon. However, it does not address the issue, nor do we know the hijackers' motives and way of thinking. It is possible the hijacker thought the the western path would have been the best way to hit the Pentagon, or there may have been some other reason. I do not claim to understand why the hijacker would have done that. However, it does take away from the evidence that the plane hit into the west side of the Pentagon.
The answer to McKee's questions become clear thanks to the help of the authors of Popular Mechanics and John Wyndham at 911truth.org. Even though many questions remain, the physics described in both those articles were able to tackle McKee's tough questions, showing that the plane would have been shredded as it hit into the building, and that eyewitnesses saw the debris from the planes. And, while conclusive video evidence may not have been released, eyewitnesses and the plane debris show that the plane did actually hit into the Pentagon. There is no doubt of that.
Works Cited:
Mckee, Craig. "How We Know an Airliner Did not Hit the Pentagon." Truth and Shadows. September 23rd, 2010. https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/how-we-know-an-airliner-did-not-hit-the-pentagon/. Accessed February 17th, 2018.
Popular Mechanics. "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report-The Pentagon." Popular Mechanics. July 31st, 2017. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/. Accessed February 17th, 2018.
Wyndham, John. "Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate." 911truth. October 21st, 2016. http://911truth.org/pentagon-debate-bringing-closure-911/. Accessed February 17th, 2018.
In my search for the truth, I came upon a blog article by a man by the name of Craig McKee, an award winning journalist from Canada, who has been writing for 23 years. In his article "How We Know An Airliner Did not Hit the Pentagon," Craig asks a Boeing 757, with a "124 foot... wingspan" (McKee) could have possibly made such a 16 foot hole in the Pentagon. He replays the story of the hijacking, showing that the hijackers didn't immediately hit the Pentagon, but circle around it sometime, until it hit the newly renovated side of the Pentagon. In his article, McKee is skeptical of the impact, asking how so little damage could have been done, and how the plane could have simply "incinerated" (McKee) upon hitting the building. On top of that, he mentions that the Pentagon is under 24 hour surveillance, and yet there is no concrete video showing the plane. Overall, he is incredibly skeptical about the plane crash, though he never truly gives an alternative explanation for what happened.
On the other hand, we have an article by John Wyndham, a writer at 911truth.org. I was surprised to find that in his article "Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate," he used the scientific method to establish that it was a plane that hit the pentagon, while also using eyewitness testimony and physical evidence to refute the argument that a missile, or a smaller plane caused damage to the Pentagon. In his argument, he shows that eyewitnesses saw a large plane with American Airlines markings hitting into several items on the ground, like trees and light poles, and then hitting into the building itself. Two previous experiments show that a plane would have been torn apart as it hit the building, shredding the plane itself until it got smaller as it entered the building. He also shows that there was debris everywhere from planes, including wheels, the tail, the flight box, and other shredded parts of the plane, showing the reader that it was in fact a plane that hit the Pentagon, and not a missile or bomb.
In support of Wyndham's article is a completely separate article by the authors at Popular Mechanics, called "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report-The Pentagon." The article itself is a subsection in a larger report made to "debunk 9/11 myths" (Popular Mechanics). The authors claim that the holes in the Pentagon were small because other parts of the plane were sheared off on impact, and that many of those parts were flung outside of the building or destroyed in the wreckage. They also show that even though a Boeing 757 hit the building, there were still intact windows because they were made to be blast resistant, a direct refutation that a plane would have destroyed all windows nearby. In the end, they directly refute the claim that no wreckage was found, as one of the first people on the case found bodies from the flight crew and wreckage from the flight itself.
While there is the commonality between the two sides that there was indeed wreckage, they vastly disagree on what happened. The whole basis of McKee's argument comes from four questions: If a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon... 1) where was the plane debris? 2) why hasn't the Pentagon released conclusive video evidence of a plane? 3) why didn't the wings do more damage to the Pentagon? 4) why would the pilot hit the recently renovated side of the Pentagon? I'll go through these point by point.
1) Where was the Plane debris? and 3) Why didn't the Wings do more damage?
McKee explains the length (155 feet, 3 inches), the width (124 feet, 10 inches), and weight (255,000 lbs at takeoff) as background to his question, asking how a the plane that big could have created a hole that was 20 feet long in diameter (McKee). The simple answer to his question was that it was not 20 feet on the outer ring, but actually about 75 feet in diameter (Popular Mechanics). In regards to why the wings didn't cause more damage, it is important to note that a jet doesn't "punch a cartoon like outline of itself" into a building. The wings would have sheared off on impact, which is supported by the findings of the F-4 experiment, an experiment in which a rocket propelled plane was crashed into an "impenetrable" wall (Wyndham). In the experiment, the plane would have crashed into the wall been completely shredded. In the same way, the plane would have shredded within the building and out. This means that the wings themselves would have shorn off on impact and been torn to shreds. In that light, eyewitnesses who saw the plane crash into the building saw debris littered all over the place (Wyndham). Indeed, there was the landing gear found next to the "twelve foot hole" (Popular Mechanics) in the C wall, which may have been what McKee was referring to when talking about the 20 foot wall. The authors of Popular Mechanics also tell us that one of the first "structural engineers" to arrive on the scene, one Allyn E Kilsheimer, "saw the marks of the wings on the buildings" (Popular Mechanics), saw the debris with American Airlines markings on it, and even found parts of "crew members' uniforms... including body parts" (Popular Mechanics). McKee also refuses the fact that there was approximately "64 documented eyewitnesses" (Wyndham) that saw the plane crash into trees, telephone poles, a generator, and even into the building itself. This shows conclusively that there was plane debris around, which completely nullifies his claim.
2) Why hasn't the Pentagon release conclusive video evidence of a plane?
Even though plane debris has been found on the site of the attack, McKee refused to believe that and wasn't satisfied. Following the attack, there FBI told the public that they had 85 videos of the event, but hadn't released them (McKee). At the time of McKee writing his article in 2010, that may have been true. However, videos have been released since then, which show that it was a plane, though it is still debated by some (Wyndham). While McKee does have a good point that it may not be as conclusive as the public wants, putting together the videos with the plane debris can show conclusively that it was a plane that hit the pentagon.
4) Why would the Pilot go to the Effort to hit the renovated side of the Pentagon?
Admittedly, this is a question that I cannot answer, as it is a good point. The hijacker indeed made a "330 degree loop" to hit the newly renovated west side of the Pentagon. However, it does not address the issue, nor do we know the hijackers' motives and way of thinking. It is possible the hijacker thought the the western path would have been the best way to hit the Pentagon, or there may have been some other reason. I do not claim to understand why the hijacker would have done that. However, it does take away from the evidence that the plane hit into the west side of the Pentagon.
The answer to McKee's questions become clear thanks to the help of the authors of Popular Mechanics and John Wyndham at 911truth.org. Even though many questions remain, the physics described in both those articles were able to tackle McKee's tough questions, showing that the plane would have been shredded as it hit into the building, and that eyewitnesses saw the debris from the planes. And, while conclusive video evidence may not have been released, eyewitnesses and the plane debris show that the plane did actually hit into the Pentagon. There is no doubt of that.
Works Cited:
Mckee, Craig. "How We Know an Airliner Did not Hit the Pentagon." Truth and Shadows. September 23rd, 2010. https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/how-we-know-an-airliner-did-not-hit-the-pentagon/. Accessed February 17th, 2018.
Popular Mechanics. "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report-The Pentagon." Popular Mechanics. July 31st, 2017. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/. Accessed February 17th, 2018.
Wyndham, John. "Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate." 911truth. October 21st, 2016. http://911truth.org/pentagon-debate-bringing-closure-911/. Accessed February 17th, 2018.
Comments
Post a Comment