Photos of impact damage by American 11's right wing

[Kevin Fenton]

Here's a good one:

You can see the place the right wing hit the facade in the bottom right
corner of the photograph, on the left hand edge of the building section
still standing on the first floor (second if you are American). The
limestone facade has been stripped away and the brick infill underneath it
has been damaged. You can also see that the window next to it (above the red
booth) has been knocked out.

You can see the same thing in this photo:

The impact marks on the facade are above the green trailer.

And here's one from before the collapse:

The impact damage caused by the right wing is above the man in black with
a white hat.

There are plenty of other photos of these wing impact marks. I would ask
the "no-planers" how these marks came about, if the building wasn't hit by
a plane?

And here's a piece of wreckage from the plane other than the one shown constantly:

Note the green paint characteristic of aircraft.
Which piece of an aircraft is this?

[vincent_vega_lives]

1. Good stuff Keven

Agument I have been making for years. Never seen any response as to what caused the undercut facade damage that is being propped up by stacks of 4" x 4"'s. Just the usual CT garbage...note all the counter arguments put forth here. ;)

[jschurchin]

2. I only have one question.

What caused the hole in the "C" ring. If you are going to say it was part of the plane, I don't buy it.
9' of steel reinforced limestone and concrete walls. It would take a lot of energy and something really, really hard to penatrate that far and leave such a circular hole.
A aircraft is made mainly of aluminium and alloy's. None of it rank's that high on the Rockwell test.
Any idea's on what made the "C" ring hole?

[hack89]

3. How about ...

an engine or perhaps one of the three landing gears struts? Those would be both very heavy and very strong.

No one on this board has ever advanced a very strong argument as to what else could have made those holes - what is your opinion?

[MakeItSo]

45. Reinforced concrete does not give way to an aluminum fuselage

Without a lot of help, i.e. explosives.

At the speed the aircraft was traveling, the plane itself is like a sausage skin, according to scientists. It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact.

Don't believe me? Here's video of a jet fighter virtually evaporating into a concrete wall.

http://www.wackyvids.com/movies/aircrafts/36/amazingconcretewall.html

Yet the Pentagon plane apparently was able to punch a hole not just through one ring of concrete, but 6 REINFORCED RINGS of concrete.



Traitors may now step up to the plate and confuscate.

[Kevin Fenton]

7. Punchout hole

I don't think there was any concrete in the wall where the punchout hole is. The facade structure was limestone and brick with a concrete frame (i.e. concrete floor slabs and some concrete pillars). If the hole were made by a part of the plane, then it would have to be one of the more sturdy bits, for example a steel engine or landing gear. There are pieces of landing gear lying outside the hole, so perhaps this is what it was. Alternatively, I saw a documentary on National Geographic where somebody claimed it was made by the shockwave.

[rman]

16. That was one tightly focused shockwave...

of the sort that a bunker-buster creates.

In order to punch a hole in the inner wall of the C-ring it also had to punch through the the C-ring outer wall, both B-ring walls and the inner wall of the A ring.

Besides, the N.G. docu relies on computer animation (as opposed to computer simulation) that depicts both wings folding and the entire plane squeezing through the initial hole. Presumably this is supposed to explain the lack of wreckage outside.

[Kevin Fenton]

17. I don't follow

You wrote:
"In order to punch a hole in the inner wall of the C-ring it also had to punch through the the C-ring outer wall, both B-ring walls and the inner wall of the A ring."

However, the plane didn't go enter either A-ring or B-ring, and C ring only has one wall, the one the punchout hole is in. What do you really mean?

[rman]

19. there is space between the rings

So each ring has an 'outer' and in 'inner' wall.

 A   B   C   D
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
  | | | | | | |
* . . . . x | |
  | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |


* = 'plane' impact location
x = the punch-out hole we're talking about

Whatever it was that created x did begin it's journey at *,
leaving . (holes) in its wake.

[Kevin Fenton]

21. Not that many walls

You've got the lettering of the rings backwards and added 4 walls that weren't there, but nevermind.

"The C-ring punch-out hole is frequently cited as evidence that a dense "warhead", from a missile or cruise missile, was used in the attack. According to the argument, the object that produced the hole had to travel through five masonry walls: The facade and inward-facing wall of the E-ring, two walls of the D-ring, and two walls of the C-ring. That would seem to be too much material for any component from a passenger jet to penetrate."

"This argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Pentagon's design. In fact, the light wells between the C- and D-ring and D- and E-ring are only three stories deep. The first and second stories span the distance between the Pentagon's facade and the punctured C-ring wall, which faces a ground-level courtyard. There are no masonry walls in this space, only load-bearing columns. Thus it would be possible for an aircraft part that breached the facade to travel through this area on the ground floor, miss the columns, and puncture the C-ring wall withough having encountering anything more than unsubstantial gypsum walls and furniture in-between."
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/punchout.html

Does that clear things up?

[rman]

22. I stand corrected. But that still leaves

a comparatively small hole quite a long distance away from initial impact.
It would still require a tightly focused shock wave - how does one account for that?

If it wasn't a shock wave but for instance an engine, then where is it, and what happened to the other engine, why did it not do similar damage?

[Kevin Fenton]

23. Lots more photos

"But that still leaves a comparatively small hole quite a long distance away from initial impact."
Yes, it does.

"It would still require a tightly focused shock wave - how does one account for that?"
I have no idea how tightly focused the shock wave would have to be - it's just something I remember from a TV programme.
AFAIK it wasn't an engine, at least I can't see any engine parts outside it, either in the standard photo on the front of Pentagate or against the opposite wall, shown here:


My understanding is that after the engines the most substantial units on a plane are the three landing gear sections (I suppose they must be tough, as they hold the weight of the whole plane when it's on the ground) and there is a wheel outside the whole, so maybe it's the landing gear that did it.

Anyway, here's a photo of the hole from the other side:

You can see the last column to be hit, which was 5N. When you compare it to the other two in the shot, 3N and 3M, you can see that it must have taken quite a whack.

This diagram gives you an idea of from where the previous photo was taken:

You can see where column 5N is in relation to the punchout hole.

The punchout hole is not straight - whatever hit it, hit it at an angle of about 45 degrees.

This photo shows the two layers of bricks from the outside:

You can see that the edge of the hole in the inner layer of bricks extends further south than the edge of the hole in the outer layer of bricks.

If you look at the other edge of the punchout hole in this photo:

you can see that the opposite is true, the outer layer of bricks extends further north than the inner layer.

I don't know, how fast would a landing gear assembly have to go to make a hole in a couple of layers of bricks?

[tocqueville]

33. looks to me that the answer is in the picture of the hole above

what can make such a "perfect circular" hole like that ? Does the width fits the one of the airplane ?
Why does such "little damage" make the building to collapse ? just wondering...

[Kevin Fenton]

38. Width

I don't think the width should match one of the parts of the plane. We're just looking for a big plane part that knocked a hole in the middle of it. The angle of the hole indicates that whatever made it came from the direction of the entry hole.

The punchout hole is in Wedge 2 (the NW corner), which didn't collapse. Part of Wedge 1 (the SW corner) collapsed.

[MakeItSo]

47. Certainly it WAS a plane

A military aircraft armed with high explosives. Only very powerful explosives could have punched a hole through six rings of steel reinforced concrete. Next!

[hack89]

48. You haven't been paying attention, have you?

otherwise you wouldn't have made that statement about the six rings of reinforced concrete.

[hack89]

27. What alternative do you propose..

for the hole? What created it?

[Old and In the Way]

32. Seems to me something ought to have been filling that hole.

A nosecone, fusillage, or engine? That holes seems too uniformly circular.

I don't buy the shockware...it's too tightly focused. If there was enough hot air energy to make that hole, there should be a lot of irregularity to the damage from the perimeter of the hole, out.

[MakeItSo]

46. How about little green men? Maybe they USED shockwaves

Kevin Fenton, are you for real? Look at the video that I posted above, check with your superiors, and then come up with some disinformation that's more convincing or confusing.

[MrSammo1]

4. How about........

The missing vertical stabilizer mark?

[Kevin Fenton]

9. Facade damage

What's the futuristic flying object superimposed on the picture? And how come the tail is bigger than the
aircraft itself? - I've never seen that configuration. Also, how come you got the angle wrong - the plane did
not hit the facade level - the left wing was lower than the right, so the tail damage should be to the left
of the area you indicate on the photo (as we are looking at it). If you look at the window where the red question
mark is, you can see it's smashed. What's more, the facade below and to the right of it is cracked and marked,
as though it had been hit by a piece of aluminium.

Here's a higher resolution photo on which you can make out the damage more easily.

[MrSammo1]

12. Funny.......

you post one of the photos that exposes the deception.

And you can't even see the missing mark on the wall?

Go figure?

[Kevin Fenton]

14. The mark is there

There are two windows above the yellow fire engine. The one on the right was smashed by the tail. Below it and to the right (our right) you can see that some of the limestone facing has been knocked away and the area around it is cracked.

[MercutioATC]

5. I'm confused. Are we talking about AAL11 or AAL77?

AAL11 was a WTC crash.

AAL77 crashed into the Pentagon.

[Kevin Fenton]

6. Sorry

I meant American 77, not 11. I am very embarassed by my mistake - when I realised it the edit time had already elapsed.

[MercutioATC]

8. No need...we all make typos.

I just wanted to be sure we were talking about the same plane...


:)

[rman]

10. Right. So, what happened to the wing?

Where is it? Did it "fold" and fit itself through the hole? Did it vaporize? It definitely did not shear off and end up as a mangled piece of metal on the lawn, did it?

[Kevin Fenton]

11. Wing

The impact hole is wide enough to admit the inner one third of the right wing, so this one third very probably went inside the building. I very much doubt that a significant portion of the other two thirds folded and went inside. Being outside, the outer two thirds could not vaporise (and I really doubt anything vaporised at all, even inside the building).

Here's a good photo of some wreckage on the lawn:

Why do you think the large piece in the top right corner, the two medium-sized pieces the men are carrying and the various other pieces dotted about the photo do not come from the right wing?

[MrSammo1]

13. you're skating the issue.......

where's the vertical stabilizer mark?

[rman]

15. Even if those pieces are from the wing - about which you do not

seem to be certain - where's the rest of the 2/3d of the wing that supposedly is outside?
And where is the left wing?

Why do you think any wreckage was seized and disappeared, rather then being subjected to the usual forensic investigations?

Why does the official story include claims that the plane (or most of it) 'shattered' into tiny pieces that were blown away in the wind?

[Kevin Fenton]

18. Pieces

I think some of those pieces are from the fuselage, for example the large piece in the top right seems to be the right shape for the cabin.
According to the ASCE, two thirds of the left wing entered the building, leaving one third that should be outside.

Generally, in aircraft crashes there is a wide range of debris sizes, i.e. big, medium and small pieces. Here's a picture of some of the "confetti":

I see no reason why some of these small pieces shouldn't blow away. The debris in several of the lawn photos is indeterminate - you can't tell what part of the plane it comes from.

In many plane crashes it is not immediately clear why the plane crashed and it is necessary to determine the cause to stop it happening again, whereas in this case it was fairly obviously controlled flight into terrain caused by the pilot having a suicide wish. I guess that's why there wasn't the usual NTSB investigation.

[Make7]

20. RE: investigations

 

rman wrote:

Why do you think any wreckage was seized and disappeared, rather then being subjected to the usual forensic investigations?

According to the NTSB, they assisted the FBI's investigation concerning the crash.

September 11th terrorist attacks in New York, Virginia, and in Pennsylvania
(more than 3,000 fatalities). Responded to the Pentagon for American Airlines flight 77,
Pennsylvania for the crash of United Airlines flight 93, New York City for the crashes of
American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175. Staff supported the FBI; other
federal, state and local agencies; American and United Airlines at all crash sites; and the
Dover, Delaware Air Force Base Mortuary (victims of the Pentagon attack were taken
there for identification).

     ...

September 11th Terrorist Attacks
On September 11, 2001, terrorists took command of American Airlines flight 11, United
Airlines flight 175, American Airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93. The first two
airplanes were crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City and the third was
crashed into the Pentagon. The fourth airplane crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania,
presumably during an intervention by passengers on the flight. It quickly became apparent
that the attacks involved criminal intent. Therefore, they were under the jurisdiction of the
FBI rather than the NTSB. However, the Safety Board provided extensive support to the
FBI, involving more than 80 NTSB personnel in the investigations.

Investigative staff was assigned to each accident site to aid in locating the flight data and
cockpit voice recorders and in identifying aircraft components. The flight recorders were also
brought to the Safety Board’s laboratory for examination and readout. Additionally, Board
staff developed detailed flight animations and analysis of air traffic control radio communications
and radar data, assisted FBI staff regarding occupational health issues on-scene, and ensured
that appropriate information was provided to internal databases and the website.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/SPC0201.pdf

Cindy Keegan is a Survival Factors Engineer for the Office of Aviation Safety, Survival Factors Division, at the NTSB in Washington, D.C. Since joining the Safety Board in September 1992, she has participated in many domestic and foreign accident investigations, including the United Airlines DC-9 and Singapore Airlines MD-11 accidents in Taiwan, and the China Airlines MD-11 accident in China. Ms. Keegan also assisted the FBI with the identification of American Airlines flight 77 wreckage at the Pentagon.

Prior to joining the Safety Board, Ms. Keegan was employed as a production engineer for the McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company from 1985 through 1992. She graduated from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida with a bachelor of science.

Courses Taught: AS302 - Survival Factors in Aviation Accidents (October 2004)

http://www.ntsb.gov/Academy/profiles.htm#keegan

- Make7

[MrSammo1]

42. All that is simply

hearsay.

We have proof that no jet crashed there.

The physics of a jet crash isn't there.

Jet crashes look like a rag and bone shop.

[jschurchin]

24. Good Luck................

trying to convince people that a 757 hit that building. I just don't buy it. That aircraft weighed 60 tons, 60 TONS. What is remaining cannot weigh more that a ton or two. Where is the rest?
Two 6 TON engines, gone, no trace, don't pull up the picture of the bearing assembly it is not from a 757, or at least that is what the manufacturer, Rolls-Royce, says.
And as far as the hole in the "C" ring goes, A,B,C,D and E no matter which way you put them still equal's 5 rings,10 walls so the hole is
indeed 6 reinforced concrete walls deep into the pentagon.
Again Kevin, good luck, but until our agency's that investigated these "accidents" release ALL of the information about them, No one will convince me that a 757 caused the damage that we see.
Just a difference of opinion man nothing personal.

[DoYouEverWonder]

25. There was not enough wreckage

from any of the four planes for the NTSB to even try to rebuild any of the planes, which is SOP after every crash.

[hack89]

26. What else would cause the damage...

that is consistent with witness accounts and descriptions / photos of the damage? All the possible missiles are too small to cause the damage seen so what was it?

[jschurchin]

28. Good Question Hack.

I don't know. I'm not privy to all the weapons in our arsenal. Believe me, I am not saying it was not a airplane. Just that it wasn't a 757.

[hack89]

29. Why not?

the observed damage to the building is certainly consistent with a large plane hitting it. 140 feet of damaged facade equates nicely with the wing span of a 757. The entry hole is consistent with the distance between the two engines on a 757. What you in essence are saying is that a non-757 created exactly the same pattern of damage that a 757 would create. I think you would have to show why a 757 couldn't produce damage that remotely resembles what we saw at the Pentagon.

Concerning the number of walls, see post 21 - there were no walls between the outer wall and ring C.

[jschurchin]

30. 60 TONS??????????

Where is the parts? We are talking about 60 TONS of aircraft here. Not a cessna. 60 TONS Hack. Where are the parts. 6 TON engines, 48 TONS of fusalage, wings, seats etc. Where are the parts???

[hack89]

31. Well, first off,

there are pictures of wreckage in the building including 757 wheels, landing gear and engine. The exterior damage is consistent with a 757. The fact that I don't know where they hauled all the wreckage away does not change these facts - for all I know that wreckage is sitting in a government warehouse someplace.

But so what if I can't account for the wreckage? What does it prove - you still have no idea or evidence for what hit the Pentagon. I still have the damage to the building, aircraft parts in the building and eyewitness accounts. You merely have endless question but no answers.

[jschurchin]

34. So because they told you so............

you are willing to believe them. Come on Hack. In 1993 a U.S. Air 737 crashed nose first into the ground at over 450 mph. Guess what, whole engines, granted fucked up but they were whole. If the engines of a 757 hit the facade of the pentagon they would be on the lawn. Got a picture?
Wait, Hack, I found 1, no wait 5 pictures of what hit the Pentagon they are at http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/videoanimation.htm

See the white vapor trail? Jet engines do not leave vapor trails below about 20,000 feet. Know why? Because vapor trails are actually steam, the hot jet engine exaust hitting air that is well below freezing causes steam that is why we can see it. Just like you can see steam from a iron or a tea pot.

What causes a vapor trail at 3' above the ground?

[AZCat]

35. You are incorrect about vapor trails.

It is very common for vapor trails to occur below FL200. There's a "chemtrails" thread around here somewhere that has some good information about psychrometrics. Although there is a difference between a "contrail" and a "vapor trail" they are just variations on a theme. "Vapor trails" are usually caused by pressure changes (from passage of an aircraft) that are significant enough to lower the local dew point enough for water vapor to condense. Common initial locations are the wingtips and any other protrusions that cause local pressure drops.

[hack89]

36. No,

It is because I can look at the evidence and make up my own mind. The fact that you can't explain what caused the damage is revealing. I tell you what - you tell me what hit the Pentagon and we will debate that. We will match up eye witnesses, physical evidence, etc and see if you can actually move beyond mindless parroting of CT talking points.

[jschurchin]

37. As have I.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

[MrSammo1]

43. It's fairly simple........

That part of the Pentagon was under renovation. Plenty of time to plant the explosives.
Lucky for us they didn't plant the explosives in all the right places.

[Kevin Fenton]

39. Reinforced concrete?

What makes you think the walls were reinforced concrete? There was a reinforced concrete frame, but that just means the floors and the supporting columns. The actual walls were made of limestone and brick (outer facade) and 2 layers of brick (C-Ring facade onto A-E drive).

As for the other 4 walls you claim exist, they are a figment of Thierry Meyssan's imagination:
"The C-ring punch-out hole is frequently cited as evidence that a dense "warhead", from a missile or cruise missile, was used in the attack. According to the argument, the object that produced the hole had to travel through five masonry walls: The facade and inward-facing wall of the E-ring, two walls of the D-ring, and two walls of the C-ring. That would seem to be too much material for any component from a passenger jet to penetrate."

"This argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Pentagon's design. In fact, the light wells between the C- and D-ring and D- and E-ring are only three stories deep. The first and second stories span the distance between the Pentagon's facade and the punctured C-ring wall, which faces a ground-level courtyard. There are no masonry walls in this space, only load-bearing columns. Thus it would be possible for an aircraft part that breached the facade to travel through this area on the ground floor, miss the columns, and puncture the C-ring wall withough having encountering anything more than unsubstantial gypsum walls and furniture in-between."
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/punchout.html

Now, how about a link to a statement by Rolls Royce denying it's one of their engines?

[jschurchin]

40. One last thing.......

before I go. If you Kevin and your buddy Hack ever pull your heads out of your asses long enough to look at anything objectivly you might see that all is not as it appears.
When the NTSB report comes out it will explain everything. Oh, guess what, there will be no NTSB report because the fucking FBI has taken control of the wreckage and will not permit the Board to do it's job.
Do yourselves a favor, go read a NTSB report on a major airline crash, see how they cover even minute details. There is a reson for that, it explains what, where, how and why a airplane crashes. In the meantime please quit pulling natshit out of rice and get on with your lifes work.
Goodbye my friends.

[hack89]

41. Nice hysterics ...

I can't imagine a better way to boost your credibility! NTSB investigates crashes when there is a question as to the cause - there is no doubt in the case of flt77. All the sophomoric logic and grade school insults will never change that simple fact.

Sorry we injected a little grey into your nice black and white world.

bye bye

[MakeItSo]

44. The side of the Pentagon that was hit was the ONLY reinforced side

The project to shore up that side of the Pentagon with reinforced steel columns and blast resistant windows was completed on Sept.11.

The alleged pilot of the plane that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon had failed a simple one-engine Cessna flight training test just a week before he allegedly pulled maneuvers that even a very skilled test pilot would have found difficult or impossible.

Kevin Fenton, why confuscate the matter? We don't know what happened, but it's crystal clear that the government isn't telling the truth.

Why do YOU think the government is lying to us? Or do you believe the whole story?

Please don't go off on any twisted tangents. Just answer the question. Thank you.