What Hit the Pentagon?
the Pentagon was struck on 9/11/01 is indisputable
and is strong circumstantial evidence that the attack was an inside job.
what hit it has remained controversial in some circles,
given the refusal of authorities to produce definitive evidence
to support the official story that
American Airlines Flight 77
was the attack plane.
With security camera video from nearby businesses
having been seized minutes after the attack,
and only five selected video frames released by the military,
we are left with seemingly contradictory
physical and eyewitness evidence.
These apparent contradictions stem partly from
misconceptions about the physics of plane crashes.
vanish when one considers possible manipulations of a 757 crash,
such as the destruction of portions of the plane just before impact.
However, theories that nothing like a 757 crashed into the Pentagon
have been so effectively popularized that mainstream media attacks
on 9/11 skeptics frequently identify them as disputing only one
aspect of the official story: that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.
The Missile and/or Global Hawk Theories
Based on interpretations of the physical evidence --
in many cases based on
several researchers have proposed
theories that the damage to the Pentagon was caused
by a missile, and/or a small lightweight remote-controlled plane,
such as a Global Hawk.
Variants of this theory became popular among skeptics of the
official Flight 77 crash story in early 2002,
despite their disregard for the
eyewitness evidence that the plane seen approaching
the Pentagon was a large twin-engine jetliner.
Much of the support for the missile and/or Global Hawk theories
is drawn from the
five frames of Pentagon video,
despite their suspect source and signs of forgery.
The Two-Plane Theory
A second theory, also advanced in 2002, was researcher Dick Eastman's
small plane theory
(or two-plane theory).
It holds that a Boeing 757 did indeed swoop down
toward the west block of the Pentagon, but disappeared into
a blinding pyrotechnic display, making it appear that it had
crashed into the building,
while in fact it had cleared the facade,
overflown the Pentagon, and then banked sharply to land at
Reagan National Airport,
whose runways are only about two miles away from the Pentagon.
As the jetliner was disappearing into the fireball,
a small attack jet, such as an F-16,
approached from a different trajectory and crashed into the wall,
producing, in combination with a missile,
the damage to the facade and interior.
This theory has the advantage over other no-757-crash theories
that it is consistent with the many credible eyewitness reports of a jetliner.
However, it neither explains the eyewitness statements that the
plane collided with the building,
nor the lack of a single eyewitness statement supporting
the idea that a 757 overflew the Pentagon and then landed at the
nearby National airport.
Also, the theory raises questions about the fate of the passengers of
The 757 overflight theory is perhaps the weakest part
of the two-plane theory.
The Pentagon is surrounded by highways, and by densely populated
areas such as Pentagon City to the south.
Wouldn't a 757 overflying the Pentagon in a direction perpendicular
to normal air traffic have been witnessed and reported
by numerous individuals?
The Engineered Crash Theory
According to the above theories,
no 757 crashed at the Pentagon on 9/11/01,
despite the abundance of eyewitness reports of a large jetliner crashing.
Some of these theories suggest that events were engineered
to fool people into believing that Flight 77 had crashed.
Some include elaborate stage-magic tricks,
such as a drone painted like an American Airlines plane,
and the use of motors and cables to pull down lamp poles.
Many no-757-crash theorists want us to believe that the attack
was engineered to trick eyewitnesses
into thinking a much smaller attack plane was a jetliner.
But we can equally imagine that
the attack was engineered to make the site of a 757 crash
look to many observers like that of something else.
French researcher Eric Bart
proposed that the airliner was shredded by shape charges
both before and after it entered the building.
His theory accounts for the eyewitness near-consensus
in favor of a 757-type jetliner crashing,
for details in eyewitness statements
not consistent with a simple crash,
and for the pattern of damage to the Pentagon
not explained by other theories.
e x c e r p t
The shaped charges were ignited before the nose
touched the wall. That's why some witnesses reported signs of an
early impact, before the plane touched the wall :
Other witnesses understood that the plane hit the ground before the
"It didn't appear to crash into the building, most of the
energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, I saw the nose
break up, I saw the wings fly forward
Donald "Tim" Timmerman
"The fuselage hit the ground and blew up"
Mary Ann Owens
"The nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled
before exploding into a massive fireball"
But there was no mark of the plane on the ground.
Other witnesses reported an impact on the building :
- "The large aircraft struck the outermost corridor (E-ring)
of the five-ring building at ground level (the second floor)"
- "The aircraft went in between the second and third floors."
Why did some witnesses thought [sic] that the plane hit
the ground before the wall ? I see two reasons. First, the explosion
of the charges created white flashes around the fuselage that seemed
an early contact with the ground. Second, shaped charges in a plane
have a recoil effect like powder in guns.
Their explosions should have push [sic] back the fuselage and
slow it down, giving the impression that it hit something.
It could also make the wings detached [sic] and fly forward
because, unlike the fuselage, they were not slowed down,
"I saw the wings fly forward".
The Penny Elgas
: "At the point where the fuselage hit the wall,
it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring
surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall.
It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage
at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick.
I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits
of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the
top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and
left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings
crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it
started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing
fire in the smoke ring."
The analysis of this report is complex. However I'll try here.
First I believe Penny Elgas. Under adrenaline things go definately
The report she gave is so unexpected that I don't think she made it
up. It's just a pure factual report.
The interpretation she gave is false. : "the rubble of
churning bits of the plane and concrete".
The smoke moves are too perfect.
My speculation : The "churning smoke"
is the white flash of inside charges. Penny Elgas saw the
white flashes of these charges exploding in two overlapped
and opposite helices.
There was not a single large shaped charge in the plane. I did not
see any large shaped charge on the web. The best anti-bunker weapon
(BLU-113) is only 1.2 foot large (diameter). Instead, there were many
shaped charges (one feet diameter) inside the plane. Roughly, a one
foot diameter will make a one foot hole. These charges were arranged
in circle inside the fuselage and along the fuselage.
Thus it was possible to make a large hit on the wall with small
shaped charges. These charges were not fired all at the same time
(probably to be more silent or for having a "hammering"
effect on concrete). So what is the best
sequence for igniting all theses charges ?
Maybe things are simpler then I first thought. All the plane (fuselage
and wings) is laid on a rigid structure. This means that the bottom
of the fuselage is strong and the top is fragile. So, when a charge
explode near the bottom of the fuselage, it destroys the stiffness of
I think that the charges where put in two overlapped and opposite
helices (clockwise and counter clockwise). The explosion started at
the top front of the fuselage, continued downward and backward on each
side, joined at the bottom and continued upward and backward, and so
on ..., as Penny saw.
When explosions occur at the bottom, the plane fuselage stiffness
is damaged. Thus, next charges to explode are less strongly tied to
the fuselage. The further they are from the bottom, the more difficult
it is to tie them strongly to the fuselage. Thus, next charges have
to be attached close to the bottom. That's why I think it continued
upward (and backward) on each side of the fuselage, because next
charges can't be mechanically attached far form the bottom.
"Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also
saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring." The glowing fire
is the fireball itself that comes after the white flash.
Bart theorizes only about the use of shaped charges
in the destruction of the plane.
However, it is possible to imagine other types of weapons
may have produced a similar result.
If these weapons were ground-based rather than installed in the plane,
it would be easier to imagine that the event involved Flight 77,
since the perpetrators would not have required physical access
to the plane to prepare the attack.
The Remote-Controlled 757 Theory
The simplest theory that answers questions about the
piloting skill required by the approach maneuver
and the location of the strike is
the remote-controlled 757 theory,
in which an American Airlines 757, perhaps Flight 77,
is flown by remote control into the Pentagon.
The engineered crash theory is a subset of the
remote-controlled 757 theory.
Its added element of explosives or other weapons
destroying portions of the aircraft prior to impact
helps to reconcile the crash of a 757 with the
crash impact damage shown in photographs,
but this element is consistently targeted by critics
defending no-757-crash theories.
Researcher Mark Robinowitz,
has suggested that speculation about crash engineering,
like that about exactly what hit the Pentagon,
has served as a distraction from the provable fact of
the building was hit and its implications.
The Pentagon attack:
How the 'no plane' theories are used to discredit 9/11 skepticism
and distract from proven evidence of complicity
he provides evidence that the the no-757-crash theories
may be rooted in a false-flag psy-op to discredit skepticism
of the official story.
page last modified: 2010-12-18