|
Mr. Metcalf, I'd like to reply to your article on the Pentagon and aircraft debris, Warning - this won't be a short reply! Please visit this link for some explanations and photos I provided to threads at Free Republic which assist in answering some of the questions from the non-believers: http://www.fitzweb.com/military/pentagon/index.html My website posts primarily respond to people thinking the act was a truck bomb, not an aircraft. I'm Chief Master Sergeant John Monaccio, I'm the senior Air Force enlisted police officer for the Air Force. I was in the Pentagon on Sep 11th, in room 1B461, when we were attacked. I personally participated in rescue and recovery operations immediately after the attack, and for days afterwards, and have direct observations of many details not mentioned previously, and of what I claim in this e-mail. The French web site's questions have a validity due to the restrictions (my word) on news coverage and photos from the site - you don't get the entire picture from what's been released. I would suggest looking at the questions from a different angle to see why there was such a disparity in coverage from WTC and the Pentagon, thus leading to questions. From the beginning, WTC was an open book with continual coverage, the Pentagon was not. The Pentagon houses 25,000 people, most of whom work on classified information in the routines of their day. The attack blew unimaginable amounts of classified documents and other classified media into open areas. Security containers were dislodged, sensitive operations areas blown open, and classified computers and papers littered the site. The raging fires created drafts carrying classified papers into the air and distributing them everywhere on the grounds of the Pentagon . The corresponding law enforcement response brought in agents from every possible three letter abbreviated force, many who work undercover or covert operations. Protecting their identity is a concern so they can live to fight another battle another day. I suggest those are the reasons why access to photos, videos, etc., have been limited. For example, I was in room 1B461. The plane's inertia carried aircraft remains all the way through the building coming to rest on the outside walls of our offices. We discovered cockpit wreckage at our feet while attempting to rescue people from a Navy operations area. I worked with the FBI gathering evidence in an attempt to confirm the company the airliner was from so they could track it back to it's point of origin. While doing so, we found certain religious items from the hijackers. The evidence collection process was filmed by a civilian crew working for Arlington County. The crew filmed the evidence amongst reams of classified information at the scene. Similar problems with classified existed everywhere. Photographers had the same problems of any picture they took on scene. Now to the questions: 1. The first satellite image shows the section of the building that
was hit by the Boeing. In the image, the second ring of the building is
also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The
four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the
initial explosion.
2. The next two photographs show the building just after the attack.
The aircraft apparently only hit the ground floor. The four upper floors
collapsed toward 10:10 am. The building is 78 feet high.
3. Look at the photograph of the lawn in front of the damaged building.
4. There are photographs, which show representations of a Boeing 757-200
superimposed on the section of the building that was hit.
There was wing damage, but remember the plane's wings are 1/8" aluminum against solid granite. The wings disintegrated and spewed small parts and pieces across some 800 feet by 300+ feet of area to the front of the building. If you look closely at the pictures I posted, you'll see an impact hole that basically accounts for the fuselage and to width of where the engines were on the wings. 5. One journalist asked: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at
all?" At a press conference the day after the tragedy, Arlington County
Fire Chief Ed Plaugher said, "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."
These are red herrings taken from a news conference just a day after
the event. The Chief was not well enough informed at that point to
answer those questions. There was a debris field in the front of
the E-Ring littered with small pieces of the plane. The fires were
still raging 1600+ degrees in other areas of the building where the plane
passed and fueled by material in the building. The aviation gas was
vaporized on contact with the building when the wings were ruptured.
The mass of the liquid was carried forward deep into the building to the
point where it started fires 240 feet into the building and up to the 5th
floor. There were no puddles of aviation gas because they were all
burning. One look at the color of the smoke rising would tell anyone
who's aware of aircraft fires all they need to know.
Notwithstanding the collective myopia in not being able to see what
we are being told, there are more questions.
· · The
belly of the aircraft contains, fuel tanks, baggage, mailbags, and cargo;
none of this type debris can be seen.
· Assuming 8,600 gallons of kerosene fuel at a specific gravity
of approx 6.9 lbs/gal (temperature considered) weight of the fuel would
be close to 60,000 lbs and would splatter everywhere.
· I have never seen an aircraft accident where the aircraft evaporated
upon impact, water, land or buildings.
My apologies for grammar, continuity, etc., I'm trying to do this quickly from work. I'd appreciate it if my words would stay between us. V/R Chief Monaccio CMSgt John Monaccio
************************************************************ Dear Mr. Metcalf: I read with fascination your article on WorldNetDaily, "So where is
the
Regards, ************************************************************
Hi: My husband and I were discussing the pics of the Pentagon.
He is a
I have read your article and it does little to serve the truth. I was at the Pentagon 2 hours after the impact and I can assure you
that
There are reasonable questions about OKC, I was a principle investigator on the case for the House of Representatives. TWA 800 has some unanswered questions but AA 77 did hit the Pentagon. Work with good science not amateurs like the french website or many of the TWA 800 folks, if you have any questions call me at 202-XXX-XXXX. Regards, John Culbertson ************************************************************ Sir It is patently offensive that we now read the ridiculous conclusion that because the FBI is in possession of the evidence, and does not choose to share it with web site authors, that it does not exist. That is on an intellectual par with skinheads choosing to disbelieve their older ideological classmates engaged in genocide. Some 125 of our compatriots no longer work here because they saw and felt the impact of the plane in question. Many of us got to breathe the fumes and rancid smoke for days afterward. A friend of mine was in a busload of people that had the plane pass right in front of them. I know of a plane in the air that radioed in what the airliner was doing, and others who launched to see what they could do. Thousands of us felt the building shudder, heard the thud, and saw the flames and smoke rising to the sky. Forgive us if we don't buy the notion it was all an elaborate hoax. The investigations of murderers do not take place in the news media, but by careful people studying the pieces of aircraft that weren't vaporized, the security film and the testimony of FAA controllers and the aircrews who were in our sector at the time. If you would like them to conduct the investigation differently, please address your concerns to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They can be reached at FBI National Press Office, (202) 324-3691. VR
************************************************************
Geoff, I too came across the French web site several days ago and was
intrigued. I had also just viewed CNN's report showing the video from the
Pentagon's security camera. Considering the whole thing a hoax, I did a
Google search for every image online associated with the Pentagon crash.
I viewed hundreds of photos, from the military sites, photo journalists,
and citizens. In NONE of the photos, could ANY debris recognizable as an
airliner be seen! Some of the photographs were taken within hours of the
crash. I am also perplexed over this issue. While the French web site was
the starting point, I found it hard to understand why there were no pictures
published showing ruined aircraft parts, or even body bags from the Pentagon.
Someone needs to be talking to the waste handlers to see what was removed
from that site, and examine the garbage dumps where Pentagon debris was
sent. By the way, I did a careful frame by frame examination of the
CNN video that someone put on the web and also failed to see an object
large enough for an airliner. We don't need mysteries like this.
3. Where's the plane? I believe it burned. Yes, it was only the outer ring of the Pentagon that was directly affected;
the Pentagon was a heavy brick and masonry building, not like the WTC's
relatively light construction. The plane was apparently descending
when it hit, so a lot of the force would've been directed through the ground
floor and into the opposite basement wall; much of
Since most of the airplane was aluminum and plastic, and thanks to the
aviation fuel the fire was fairly intense. I would've expected most
of the plane to melt and burn. I hope you are aware that aluminum
is quite flammable given sufficient heat; it is a fuel itself, and is used
as an ingredient in thermite. If you've ever gone camping and decided
to burn
I examined the images on MSNBC's web site. The pictures' quality,
aside from JPEG compression artifacts, are about what I would expect from
a security camera, images compressed to show 4 cameras on one video monitor.
The sequence seems consistent with the low frame rate recorded by the time-lapse
VCRs often used in security systems. I captured the first three frames
shown on the page and enlarged them (images are
While it would not have been enormously difficult to forge these images, I don't see anything inconsistent here. I'd have to opine that conspiracy theories about Flight 77 are premature. I'd suggest your next step is to try and locate any eyewitnesses to the plane's descent or crash. Your article so where is the plane? has kind of stumped me as well.
But if you look at the footage, something is moving at an extremely high
rate of speed towards
Thank you! Andrew Kalionzes ************************************************************
Dear Mr. Metcalf: I live in Northern Virginia, near Washington DC. On the morning of September
I suppose that a conspiratorial view of the world would say that these
phone calls were pre-planned. I don't know how to address that.
Jack Smith ************************************************************
Ask the same question of the World Trade Centers and the plane in PA. The first shot of any explosion shows the initial flames outside the building on the lawn going to the building. The pilot actually flew it into the ground and skipped it into the building. Combine that with the armored construction of the Pentagon and any reasonable person taking some real assumptions with physics can figure it out. Although I believe there is more to the story than some frayed wires on 800, they are really fishing to create some conspiracy theory on this one. Besides, we had phone conversations from Barbara Olson describing where they were until it hit. I guess no one wants to talk about that angle? Ron Ogletree
Some of us watching the scene via TV had questions also: I didn't notice the same type of wreckage that one would notice if an aircraft hits a building, but as most people do, we ignore our senses and believe what authorities tell us. But the lack of sensory validation haunted me for several days. And now this article raises some of the same questions. What is the real truth? Was it a bomb? Or what hit the Pentagon? I didn't see a plane hit the Pentagon in the security camera footage. I saw an explosion. Or was what we believed we didn't see part of subconscious attempt to shield ourselves from the terrible reality? And, don't officials usually take the aircraft remains somewhere and reconstruct the it for investigative purposes? And, what about human remains? What happened to the 189 aboard that flight? Apparently, those people are not alive. Was there a Flight 77? Yeah, this is really weird!! Well, I guess the French aren't the only ones asking questions. ********************************************************** Dear Sir,
My own experience and small knowledge of explosive materials tells me that truck bombs blow primarily up and out and not so much down. An airplane makes a major hole in the ground and in the side structures where the wings impacted. The light weight of the wings - their benefit is in the structure within the two surfaces - would cause them to bounce back from a concrete structure. And the engines would have ripped off while continuing into the structure like missiles. One other thought about the explosion, sir. Could the truck bomb have revealed a hidden underground lair below the surface of the ground, which made the necessity for the load of sand? This is a great story, which ranks with the mystery of Chandra Levy(sp). Thanks,
************************************************************ I can't answer all of your questions, but I do have comments on three
of
Where's the wreckage? In every crash scene that I have seen pictures
of in
Why was only the first floor hit? I haven't seen any speculation
on just
Why no damage from the wings? The wings don't weigh anywhere near as much as the main fuselage, and especially as you get out to the tips, their structural strength drops off. The pentagon as a whole is a very solidly built building, lots of concrete went into it's construction. Additionally, the section that was hit had recently been strengthened to better absorb bomb blasts. It's possible that if we had better, closer up pictures, we would be able to see that there was extensive surface damage to the building, but nothing sufficient to cause collapse. The only pictures I ever saw of the outside were from long range. Mark Wilson
************************************************************ I also looked at the msnbc photos. they were time lapsed.
but before the
we gotta remember that france is a hotbed of arab terrorism. they
don't
laszlo d. Lombardo
I just finished reading "So where is the plane?" I have to admit, I looked at the same footage when it was released and wondered where the plane was myself. I, however, have a more nagging ponderance. I was on a college campus the morning of 9/11. At one point there was a report of a hijacked plane in PA being chases by an Air Force fighter jet. There was all kinds of speculation as to what the result of the scenario would be, including the passengers overtaking the plane, knowing they would die anyway. However, fighter jets are certainly much faster than passenger aircraft, aren't they? I thought for sure it would be shot down. Have you taken a good look at those crash site photos? There is not on bit of plae parts to be found. Poof! It was all gone in an instant. What do you think? Colleen Smith ************************************************************
Good questions in your article. However, a good
Scott Fleckner ************************************************************ Hi Geoff- Thanks for writing that piece questioning flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. I well remember at the time thinking that something seemed wrong with that story. But there were eye witnesses that claimed to see the plane come in low and then heard a boom and saw the fireball and smoke. (Don t recall hearing of anyone actually seeing the plane hit the building.) But anyway, I too thought the damage looked wrong for a big plane strike. One more thought... remember all that terrible footage showing the second planning hitting WTC south? Remember how the fireball blew forward, on through the building, out the other side and beyond in the direction the plane was going? Now go look at the pictures from the parking security camera of the Pentagon fireball. Which direction does the fireball go? Compare it to the WTC south fireball. Of course every crime needs a motive and opportunity. Why would the government lie about this? And where is that plane? I can t decide which is harder to believe: that flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, or that it did not... -brian ************************************************************ Sir, I don't even know where to start with you about the 757 hitting the Pentagon. I saw the remains of the engines in the North parking lot of the Pentagon as well as melted aluminum and other debris left from the aircraft. When the 757 hit the reinforced concrete and steel shell of the Pentagon, it exploded as you can see in the time lapsed photography on the MSNBC site. It fractured into small pieces and then the jet fuel burned at over 3000 degrees fahrenheit and reduced what was left to ash and puddled melted aluminum blobs. That is why almost 50 bodies have not been found and never will be. They were reduced to ash. You need to educate yourself on the physics of catastrophic aircraft accidents and why very little is left in high velocity, full fuel load crashes. I used to fly the F-4 Phantom, a 25 ton behemoth of a fighter jet that was built like a locomotive. Yet in high speed crashes, very little is ever recovered of it. I saw the remains of one Phantom that crashed at over 600 mph and the largest part left was the tailhook. Everything else was vaporized or reduced to parts no larger than your thumb. The pilot and weapons system officer were reduced to mist and we put what we found of them into 6000 ziplock sandwich bags. You need to go to the US Air Force Flight Safety Office or the NTSB and ask for an education in the dynamics of aircraft crashes. Maybe then you will correct your ignorant column. Lt Col (ret) Tom McClain
************************************************************
I have heard this theory being talked about before but before we jump off a bridge with disinformation which the government is only too happy to provide in order to divert attention away from the real aspects of this event I have a couple of questions that I want you to answer- 1. With all of the traffic at that time of morning on the expressway near the Pentagon nobody witnessed the plane striking the building? If nobody had don't you think we would have heard something from some of these people by now? 2. Please explain just exactly what happened to all of the people who vanished who were supposed to have been aboard that flight. Did space aliens abduct them? (hearing twilight zone music in the background) or did the government take them out and execute them all?
You see, there are some major holes in this theory. Why not examine the real story regarding the 15 Mossad agents who were
arrested by the FBI at the scene of the event. Or the over 300 Israelis
who were arrested and deported all around this event who had ties to Israeli
intelligence. Or the most recent 120 Israeli "art students" who were deported
who all had ties to either the Israeli military or else Israeli intelligence.
Or the 2 Mossad agents who were arrested in Mexico City October 10th wandering
around the Mexican Congress building with bomb making material and weapons.
Or the one high ranking CIA agent of Jewish descent who had shorted a number
of stocks prior to the 9/11 event relative to the insurance companies that
insured those buildings. Or the 2 Israeli businesses who were absent from
the WTC the day of the attack. One moved to Virginia the week before and
the other had nobody at work that day. Or the fact that only 4 Jews died
in the WTC event. One of which was the special operations agent on one
of the planes who!
Or how about the 4 part story that was published in Fox news by a Mr Cameron that exposed a number of aspects of possible Israeli involvement in the 9/11 event but was pulled due to ADL pressure on Fox. Why waste our time with bull shit diversions when there are so many
blatant facts that point in another direction?
CelticKnight88 ************************************************************ The problem with getting people to understand and pay attention when one talks about TWA 800 or Oklahoma City is having sources that also are spouting theories that a plane didn t hit the Pentagon. What next? We never landed on the moon? Kennedy s brain still alive in a jar at Parkland? The MSNBC photos are photos, not a film! There are delays between each! Look at the first photo where you see an explosion and then look at the next photo and you can see a huge difference between the sizes of the fireball. This delay is why you see a picture with nothing going on and then a fireball, if the camera only takes a photo every 3 seconds, then you can logically account for the plane hitting the building and not being photographed. There were hundreds of witnesses on the highway that saw the plane hit the building! Are you going to use dozens of witnesses to support your theories (which I agree with) on TWA 800 and Oklahoma City but then discount hundreds that saw the plane hit the Pentagon? Duh! Secondly, the Pentagon is a different type of building than the WTC. The Pentagon s main material is concrete; thick walls of concrete. Of course the dynamics and physics of a fuel laden plane hitting a building like the pentagon will be different that hitting a building like the WTC! Same in Chicago if a plane hit the Hancock versus hitting the Merchandise Mart. Couple that with the new materials being used in the Pentagon in their remodeling project. If you notice, the section of the building to the right of where the plane hit is hardly damaged. WGNTV had a story recently about why. There is a material made by a company in Illinois. It s was originally designed as a pick up truck bed liner but they ve discovered it s properties make it a remarkable building material. There were video demonstrations of two small sheds, one with the material painted on and the other without and an equal amount of explosive being blown in each. The shed with the material stayed intact, only the doors blew off. The shed without the material was blown to the ground. This material is now being used throughout the Pentagon as it is being remodeled. Finally, you are basing your argument on something told to you on a website designed by a Frenchman? Geez, how low can you go. Richard Lane ************************************************************ Hello,
Thank you, Laurie ************************************************************
Dear Geoff: Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! I have been wondering why I have been unable to see the plane for 6 months!! I don't obsess on it, but everytime I see the pictures, there is NO PLANE!!! When the latest 'security film' was just released and a frame shown with a script that says in effect, "Here you can plainly (no pun intended) the plane in the upper right corner just before it hits." Now I'm 55, and my eyes are definitely NOT what they used to be, but I can not see any plane. I saw the one that hit the North Tower, the one that hit the South Tower and the hole in PA (though I haven't seen that one, but maybe I missed it). BUT, I have never seen the plane that hit the Pentagon! I brought it up with my 18 year old son who dismissed it with, "Oh, it was melted right down." I want to believe that with all my heart, but when I can't see it flying in to the building and right after where there was NO TAIL showing... I just can't buy it. I know this is a silly question considering where it hit, but why haven't any witnesses stated such "I saw the front end as it lay there is the wreckage." Do you remember the Sioux City commercial plane crash? Granted it didn't hit a building and it had dumped as much fuel as possible; but it hit very hard (no hydraulics) and rolled and crashed and crashed. It was a horrific sight. Again, where is the plane? Sincerely,
************************************************************ Mr. Metcalf: I was intrigued with your article and sensed your reticence in purporting a conspiracy or a cover-up. Being of open mind and not overly trusting of either government or the media, I reviewed the links in your article on Worldnetdaily.com. These are my conclusions/suppositions/questions: 1) I believe that I do see the plane (or at least an elongated white object) in the MSNBC video. In the first frame, there is a white object just above the far right red cone. This object is not in subsequent frames. 2) This object does appear to hit the ground prior to hitting the Pentagon (as the audio describes). I base this on the dustcloud/smoke/fire which appears in the second frame of the video to the right of the main fireball. This is also behind and to the right of another building next to the Pentagon which is in the shadows in frame one, but stands out in front of the fireball in frame two. This building (possibly a guard building) can also be seen in the fifth picture on the French site. In this fifth picture, also notice the ground near the apparent impact (approximately near where the closest fire truck is positioned). The ground in this area does not appear to be grass covered. It appears to be dirt--perhaps recently plowed by an aircraft. If it were merely burned, I believe it would appear more black than brown. I cannot explain the lack of debris. 3) If the aircraft had in fact burrowed in, that would detract from its forward momentum. This could possibly explain why only the first ring was affected. 4) Inasmuch as the damage not corresponding to the aircraft dimensions, a couple points to consider: First, the dimensions of the aircraft height given on the French site may (I'm not sure--haven't done the research) correspond to an aircraft sitting on the tarmac with its landing gear deployed. Sitting on its belly the aircraft would certainly be shorter. The relative height would also be reduced by any amount that the aircraft "burrowed in". Second, as for damage caused by the wings, in the fifth picture from the French site there does appear to be some enhanced damage to the lowest level on the left side of the entrance point. I cannot determine any enhanced damage on the right side due to collapse. 5) As to the gravel and sand which was spread over the lawn, this could have been to facilitate the movement of heavy equipment needed for excavation and recovery. 6) I believe that some aircraft debris has been recovered. Weren't the black boxes recovered? I cannot explain the lack of debris in the pictures. Perhaps its forward momentum carried it forward into the Pentagon. Perhaps the pieces are so small that they are indistinguishable in the pictures. Finally, it is not surprising that a few pictures, with inexact detail, do not answer every possible question regarding the sequence of events. What would be surprising is if, armed with these few pieces of evidence, we could exactly piece together the entire sequence of events on that fateful day. It seems to me, based on the evidence presented, much more plausible that the aircraft did plow into the Pentagon on 9/11. If it had crashed anywhere else, surely we would know. Ted Olson would know. Regards, Eric Livingston ************************************************************
I enjoy a good conspiracy as much as the next person but this is over the top and not worthy of WND reporting unless there is an aspiration of becoming a tabloid news agency. Perhaps the tag line should read, Airliner seen using it's cloaking device in pentagon crash - now there's a conspiracy! I'm not sure of the angle of attack of the jet and have heard no reports concerning its path but it sure looks like a large silvery object and what appears to be the vertical stabilizer behind the tan box in the right side of the video. Also judging from where the explosion appears to emanate it would seem likely, IMHO, that the jet impacted at a very shallow angle very nearly skidding across the lawn before hitting the pentagon. Where are the plane parts? Where is the jet fuel? When has an airliner ever hit a structure as hardened as the pentagon from what was probably a very low angle of attack? Watching the video of the tower impacts it would seem that a great deal of the planes were consumed during those events and the tower buildings were far less rigid than the pentagon. I have friends that were working very near the pentagon that day and when evacuated they reported a very strong odor of jet fuel. In the future please avoid such obvious silliness in your reporting and leave the French out of these matters. They haven't done anything interesting since they gave up without a fight to the Germans. Gary Smith
************************************************************
Dear Mr. Metcalf: I find your article "So Where is the Plane?" a bit
weird, but
Edward J. Zaiko ************************************************************
Hi Geoff: Leave it to the French to concoct this ill-timed conspiracy theory.
1) How can a Boeing 757-200 - weighing nearly 100 tons and traveling
at
- Think about how and when the Pentagon was constructed.
Layers and
- The link to the MSNBC footage also gives a clue. The
audio clearly
2) How can a plane 44.7 feet high, over 155 feet long, with a wingspan
- Again the MSNBC audio is to be cited. If you assert that
the plane
3) Where is the debris? Any debris! Did it all disintegrate on contact?
- The momentum of the wreckage would have carried the internal
4) When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?" Assuming 8,600
- Did they see the fireball? Did they just expect the fuel
to spill
5) Where are the seats, those with passengers buckled in would be ripped
- Air Force flight surgeons have a medical term for pilots
who don't
6) I have never seen an aircraft accident where the aircraft evaporated
- To reiterate: Just because you don't see it happen doesn't
mean it
7) One other question raised on the French site asked why it was
These explanations are just my assumptions but I think they're pretty
Geoff, the fact that these people have no better use of their time than
Andy Hauke
************************************************************ Get real, I Saw this months ago ,it's not new
on the internet. So
NOTE: All tracks are solid lines, save the one that "hit" the pentagon which is a dashed line Just thought you would like to know
************************************************************ Geoff, You asked! On the MS-NBC footage I can see what should be the
You raise many good questions especially the size
I noted this: It appears the plane (no landing gear
In order to substantiate the impact to the building
As for the trucks and tractors: As a result of fuel
Perhaps what we see here is a fluck. Crash another
Maybe God is the only one with the answers you seek
Dave L ************************************************************ Mr. Metcalf, David Copperfield, the magician, could not do a
Shalom. Rachel ************************************************************ I personally saw a B-52 go down in a farmers field near Riverside,Ca
in the
************************************************************ It seems to me, last year (Sept 11th) I saw an actual film clip
(on television) of the plane flying overhead being recorded by a video
camera (from a hotel security?),
With the photos released last Friday (Mar. 9th), a television newscast
highlighted where the jet was in the first frame, i.e. a white blotch in
the first frame. The second
Anyway, my two cents.
************************************************************ Instead of speculating on the absurd story about Flight 77, why didn't
If you go to this URL and scroll down, you will find a picture of a
In this instance, you are as irresponsible in your reporting as any
of
Alexandra H. Mulkern
PS Barbara Olson is hiding out in one of VP Cheney's undisclosed
************************************************************ Sir,
************************************************************ Dear Mr. Metcalf: I was shocked when I came across your article on flight 77 this morning.
I had been thinking about the pentagon on and off since 9/11. Every
time I would see the
Then the photos from the security camera were released last week.
How curious that the camera didn't catch the plane actually hitting the
Pentagon. From picture 1
Now that suspicions are being raised, I now wonder, if there was no plane, what caused the explosion. On 9/11, I was watching NBC. One of their reporters was commenting from his office in the Pentagon when there was a rumble and you could see the room vibrate. So, something did either hit or explode that day. What it was, I haven't a clue. I hope this will be investigated at some point. Thank you. Isabella
************************************************************ Dear Geoff, I read with great intrigue and interest your story on the crash at the Pentagon. I can tell you, my sister and brother-in-law were in a separate airplane near the Pentagon at the time of the crash. They relayed to us that they saw a plane pass below the path of theirs and witnessed this plane crash into the Pentagon. If it were not for their account of what they, and the other passengers aboard their plane, saw with their own eyes, I would certainly take pause with this story. And the facts you have presented still remain curious. But I have the perspective of those who were actually there and saw what happened. A plane did crash into the Pentagon. Like the World Trade Center crashes, could the Pentagon crash have been coordinated with a separate assault, like the truck you mentioned? Sincerely,
************************************************************ I read your piece on the vanishing airliner with considerable interest. Actually, there's no problem explaining the situation at the Pentagon, but you have to look to the building itself. If the Pentagon were built as buildings are today, the plane would have sheared through the whole thing, collapsing much of what it didn't hit. But the Pentagon was built by a man named John McShain, the world's foremost expert on structural concrete. He also built Meridian Hill Park in Washington, which shows virtually no settling, no cracking, and no wear despite nearly a century in Washington's weather. And he built the Shrine of the Sacred Heart on Sixteenth Street, which also remains in mint condition with no major reconstruction, just a cleaning. In both of these buildings McShain was able to achieve effects never
before accomplished and never again seen--the "mosaics" that cover the
inside of the Sacred Heart, for instance, are integral to the structure,
rather than having been applied after completion. From the standpoint of
concrete technology, it's almost miraculous,
When he built the Pentagon, which he did in record time, incidentally, he made it a secure building that wouldn't wear out in only a hundred years or so. It was built, in fact, to withstand considerable violence, and it's also a lot bigger than it looks. While I wouldn't dispute the overlay of the plane on the aerial shot, I can say that what the plane crashed into was more like a solid cliff of limestone than like a steel-and-glass office building like they build nowadays. Knowing what I know about the specs for the Pentagon, I can see that the first structural walls would offer enough resistance to produce an impact pattern consistent with the photographs. The only thing that I wondered at was that the upper floors did collapse after the plane hit the lowest one. At a moderately high rate of speed (and I'm not sure about the speed, either, but it wouldn't take much) the plane would simply disintegrate, the way planes are pulverized when they strike the surface of the ocean head-on. Planes are lightweight, of courss, and surprisingly insubstantial. Unlike recent buildings, the Pentagon is not. In fact, I wonder how the reconstructions on the Pentagon will be able to even approximate the durability of McShain's original, without his guidance and without his particular mixes of concrete. You can get more information about him and his work, and a little about
the original Pentagon, from The Man Who Built Washington: A Life of John
McShain
Sincerely yours,
************************************************************ I am continuously amazed that World Net Daily, a publication noted for
Jet fuel is kerosene. A kerosene fire no more toppled the WTC towers, than did exploding kerosene bring down TWA 800, or did a fertilizer bomb destroy the Murrah building. I will offer $1000 to anyone who can melt steel with kerosene. It can't be done. Look at the agency sponsoring this "study"-- this should offer some clue as to its veracity. WND is a reputable, responsible news medium. Assign one of your reporters
to survey any number of engineers or fire marshalls-- ask any of them how
you melt steel with kerosene. One of your columnists, Gordon Prather is
a physicist-- ask him if he knows how to melt steel with kerosene.
NEW YORK POST
Astaneh, Shea and several other scientists - who appeared yesterday
They said the impact of the planes alone wouldn't have caused the
.Robert Shea, [is] overseeing an engineering study of the World Trade
http://nypost.com/news/regionalnews/42930.htm *********************************************************** Dear Mr. Metcalf: I cannot believe your editorial on the "missing plane" at the Pentagon.
Where are the missing planes at the WTC? The plane at the Pentagon
did less damage because it went down into the basement at such a
sharp angle. That is what kept it from going through the entire building.
Stop wasting the public's time. What do you
Terri Endicott ************************************************************
Some of us watching the scene via TV had questions also: I didn't
notice the same type of wreckage that one would notice if an aircraft hits
a building, but as most
After reading your story on flight 77, the trade towers came
to mind.
Maybe the French did not see the tower video's ?
************************************************************ I can't answer all of your questions, but I do have comments on three
of
Where's the wreckage? In every crash scene that I have seen pictures
of in
Why was only the first floor hit? I haven't seen any speculation
on just
Why no damage from the wings? The wings don't weigh anywhere near
as much
Mark Wilson
************************************************************ Regarding your article on the missing aircraft - quite thought provoking
-
Gary R. Garbin
*********************************************************** Just read your piece on the crash of AA 77. Several weeks ago there was an article on the Web which displayed photo
The author pointed out that to board an airplane on Sept 11, one would
I don't recall the URL of the Web site, but maybe one of the search
Best regards, Jerry Upham
************************************************************
Good questions in your article. However, a good
Scott Fleckner *********************************************************** __________________________________________________ Dear Geoff Metcalf, I'm not a conspiracy theorist or an engineer, but I think there is a
Alan Sullivan ************************************************************ Dear Sir:
Regarding the findable pieces of the jet that hit the Pentagon
I would suggest you review the air crash that AIRTRANS predecessor had
here in the Everglades a
Considering that it s a French Web Site should tell you everything
you need to know, or ought to know. After bread there isn t much that crowd
has, now is there?
I wish that people like you would spend your time on more constructive
endeavors rather than contributing to whacky conspiratorary theories by
passing them along.
Ken Orzel kenorzel@attbi.com ken.orzel@apella.eu.com US Tele Number 954 786 xxxx US Mobile 954 648 xxxx UK Mobile 44 (0) 7730 xxx xxx ************************************************************
It's Nutsy Fagin time again. I was in the building when we got
hit, and immediately afterwards when clearing the area was present when
eye witnesses reported
************************************************************ Hi Geoff- Thanks for writing that piece questioning flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.
I well remember at the time thinking that something seemed wrong with that
story. But there
One more thought... remember all that terrible footage showing the second
planning hitting WTC south? Remember how the fireball blew forward,
on through the
Of course every crime needs a motive and opportunity. Why would
the government lie about this? And where is that plane? I can t
decide which is harder to
-brian ************************************************************
Dear Geoff:
My God, planes are alumninum, of course the Boeing would nearly disintegrate
on impact. How much of the WTC planes were recovered?
Geoff, you are too smart to swallow a bunch of French crap. You need to clear this up. A lot of people trust you. Gen. Richardson can be reached at 703-671-xxxx, if you need confirmation. -Doug Graham
************************************************************
I have examined the French web site to which you refer, and it presents
its case in a compelling way. However, they leave out at least one critical
piece of
If you use Google to search for "Pentagon," you will eventually find
other still shots of the Pentagon building after the impact. In these photos,
you can see that the
Also, in the MSNBC footage, the resolution is not very good. However,
if you look closely, you can see a trail of gray dust rising from the ground
on the right side of
Of course, one of the best arguments in support of the impact occurring
the way we have been told, is the fact that the plane seems definitely
to be missing. If it didn't
Greg Raven (raven@corax.org)
************************************************************ Dear Mr. Metcalf:
Where, indeed, is the plane? I don't know; however, I have a good friend who saw the low-flying airliner
Looking at the shot above the Pentagon (with the aircraft superimposed),
I
What does the NTSB say? Cheers. John Iler
************************************************************
Dear Geoff, I'll bet that American Airlines could identify what part of the aircraft
Pentagon Attack Photos
According to the official story, Flight 77 flew from Dulles International
Flightpath of American Airlines Flight 77
Flight 77 Timeline
Flight 77 Mystery A Disinformation Campaign
Pentagon Investigation Progresses, Relief Work Goes On
Flight data, cockpit voice recorders found in Pentagon wreckage
Eyewitness report from a gas station supervisor
Flight 77 Accident description
Here are photos from a Free Republic posting. Photo 1
Photo 2
Photo 3
Photo 4
Photo 5
Photo 6
Photo 7 (shows the plane)
Photo 8
Pentagon Attack
According to the official story, Flight 77 flew from Dulles International
Flightpath of American Airlines Flight 77
Flight 77 Timeline
Flight 77 Mystery A Disinformation Campaign
Pentagon Investigation Progresses, Relief Work Goes On
Flight data, cockpit voice recorders found in Pentagon wreckage
Eyewitness report from a gas station supervisor
Flight 77 Accident description
Here are photos from a Free Republic posting. Photo 1
Photo 2
Photo 3
Photo 4
Photo 5
Photo 6
Photo 7 (shows the plane)
Photo 8
Sincerely, David E. Parsons
************************************************************ Dear Mr. Metcalf, Thank you for the interesting article on "Where is the Plane".
I read the
Please call C-Span and ask them for copies of their tapes that were
recorded of the structural engineers who were and are upgrading the Pentagon.
They were aired
Mark Sykes ************************************************************ I just finished reading your article that appeared on this website regarding
The question that comes to my mind, which was not addressed in your
article
Ron Nash ************************************************************
You have damaged your credibility and the credibility of WND.
************************************************************ Hello,
Thank you, Laurie ************************************************************ Hey Geoff,
Randy Adams ************************************************************ I have not been inside the crash site, however I have been inside the building many times and was close to the site immediately after the fire was put out (9/12). 1) The Pentagon was designed and built specifically with aerial bombing
in mind. The structure of the building in massive and strong.
Think concrete floors and
2) I talked to many people who had reasons to be inside the crash site
(I did not) and was told the whole plane was crammed into the inner rings
of the building
3) My understanding of what happened to the plane is that it hit
at ground level in front of the heliport and the aluminum body of the plane
compacted like a crushed
4) Aluminum burns in hot fires, my guess is only the steel parts
(engines, landing gear etc) were found intact in the areas where the fire
was hottest. Intact parts of
5) Burning jet fuel is vile stuff. The smell is overpowering
and distinctive. I was close enough to the area that when the wind
shifted the smoke to where I was to be
6) French !!!!! Hopefully this second hand information is helpful, however please respect
my privacy and do not publish or use my name or personal information.
Keep up the good
************************************************************ Dear Geoff, In response to your article "So Where Is The
I first checked out the satellite and other photos
So, then I looked at the MSNBC video, and if you
Thinking about the fact that the airplane hit the
I would suggest that you check videos of test
Although it is certainly curious as to why we
This is only my opinion, and I am giving it because
Please let me know what you find out, and/or post a
A loyal reader,
************************************************************ Good morning! As we looked at the MSNBC footage, one can see at the top of the right
corner of the far right 3-4 ft tower, with an orange cone on its right,
a white trail plume (or
interesting pics!!!!!!!
"I am aware that I owe this to God...as the chief duty of my life...That my every word and thought speak of Him..." Saint Hillary ************************************************************ Geoff If memory serves me correctly the black boxes from flight 77 wre
The French gave us this silly crap about a missile taking down Flight
You folks ever been around a crash site where the airplane impact was
The reason the outer ring was the most damaged is the plane hit short
of
Geoff - really, come on. What happened to the plane - it went BOOM!!!! Oh -and one other thing. If you look at the photos of that area
of the
Duane ************************************************************ Geoff: Good article and questions. You may have commented
on it previously, but you are undoubtedly aware of the fact that there
were no Mid-East types on any
************************************************************ Sir,
************************************************************
Why so much damage to the Pentagon and WTC Buildings?
Don't fall for conspiracy theories as there are enough real conspiracies
************************************************************
Mr. Metcalf: I was intrigued with your article and sensed your reticence in purporting
a conspiracy or a cover-up. Being of open mind and not overly trusting
of either government
1) I believe that I do see the plane (or at least an elongated
white object) in the MSNBC video. In the first frame, there is a
white object just above the far right red
2) This object does appear to hit the ground prior to hitting
the Pentagon (as the audio describes). I base this on the dustcloud/smoke/fire
which appears in the
3) If the aircraft had in fact burrowed in, that would detract from its forward momentum. This could possibly explain why only the first ring was affected. 4) Inasmuch as the damage not corresponding to the aircraft dimensions,
a couple points to consider: First, the dimensions of the aircraft
height given on the French
5) As to the gravel and sand which was spread over the lawn, this
could have been to facilitate the movement of heavy equipment needed for
excavation and
6) I believe that some aircraft debris has been recovered.
Weren't the black boxes recovered? I cannot explain the lack of debris
in the pictures. Perhaps its
Finally, it is not surprising that a few pictures, with inexact detail,
do not answer every possible question regarding the sequence of events.
What would be surprising
It seems to me, based on the evidence presented, much more plausible
that the aircraft did plow into the Pentagon on 9/11. If it had crashed
anywhere else, surely
Regards, Eric Livingston ************************************************************
Almost looks like a cruise missile to me. You can see something
streaking
************************************************************ Geoff: This has been bugging me from the beginning. You know; like there's something wrong but you just can't quite put your finger on it? Well, yesterday when I first saw the "still video" of the "crash," on every instance there was no aircraft in the video. Wuz' up with that??? I now have a "dull" amazement at the dog and pony show that we are fed by the media and our government. Who are these people and why do we continue to believe them? My personal skepticism about anything coming from the media has reached epic levels. Amazingly, they'll show their true colors in broad daylight. (As one of my friends so accurately said, "they hide in plain sight!") It just never seems to end....
Jeff Kantoff
Geoff
Didn't they say, on the day it happened, that the crash "just happened"
to hit a
So what's the alternative? A bomb planted and detonated on the outside
ring of the
I also thought it was a great leap to go after the terrorists as quickly
as we did.
Sobering stuff!! Ronald Bean
************************************************************ A Viet Nam vet and 150 miles from OKC... So I have a valid permit reason to question our government :) I enjoy a good conspiracy as much as the next person but this is over
the top and not worthy of WND reporting unless there is an aspiration of
becoming a tabloid
I'm not sure of the angle of attack of the jet and have heard no reports
concerning its path but it sure looks like a large silvery object and what
appears to be the
In the future please avoid such obvious silliness in your reporting
and leave the French out of these matters. They haven't done anything interesting
since they gave up
Gary Smith
************************************************************ So tell me what you really think about flight 77........ I don't trust Government as it is so what is your point? Question Why would they lie? Dr Watson ************************************************************ Hi, I'm glad to see someone is interested in this. I think the lack
of wreckage
Hakki Alacakaptan
While we're in X-Files mode here's a chain of improbability nobody seems
to
1 - The terrorist pilot of AA Flight 77 was a top gun and a flaky flyer. According to CBS, Hani Hanjour, the pilot of AA Flight 77 that crashed
into
"At 9:33 the plane crossed the Capitol Beltway and took aim on its
"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete
Time magazine agrees
"And each aircraft performed dramatic but carefully executed course
The Washington Post, likewise http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-
"Controllers had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed
But one month before 9-11 Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot
"At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight
The Washington Post reports the same [1] : "The Freeway instructors also were skeptical of Hanjour's skills. 'They
2 - Allah blinded the heathens' radar http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-
"Investigators are still piecing together the facts in the hijacking
of
When the box-cutter men hijacked 77 over Ohio and turned off its
3 - As the goofy Hanjour, transformed by Allah into a crack pilot, came
"As Pentagon renovation manager Evey grimly concluded, "that the
Which goes to show you the power of prayer, really. You can bet your
tush
Hakki ************************************************************ This is so unbelievable it strains, no snaps, any credibility of yours
and
Darrel ************************************************************ |