The Pentagon: What most likely happened
If I came to one conclusion from the whole investigation it would be that Flight 77 Boeing 757 did not collide into the side of The Pentagon. Anything or anyone that states that flight 77 collided with the Pentagon is wrong. It is physically not possible that flight 77 could have crashed into the building. There are 3 majors factors that support this theory. These are, the fact that there was little to no rubble from the plane and no fire damage to the building , the size of the hole left in the building and that there is no video footage of the attack.
The strongest evidence supporting this the fact that the hole that was left from the collision is not even close to that of which flight 77 should have left. According to Boeing’s own web site, the 757 is 155 feet, 3 inches long. It has a wing span of 124 feet, 10 inches. And it is 44 feet, six inches high at the tail. Yet created a hole of 73ft in height, and 65ft. The hole that was left was approximately half the size of what it should have been. This alone proves that there is no way that it was flight 77 that collided with the Pentagon.
Secondly more evidence that proves this theory is that there is little to no rubble or evidence that any sort of plane had been any where near the Pentagon. There was no bodies found at or around the crash site. This is highly unbelievable for there to be no bodies amongst the rubble when everyone on-board died instantly. To strengthen this there was no sign of plane rubble or luggage at the supposed crash site. There was only small parts of plane debris that could have easily been moved by hand. There was no luggage from any of the passengers.
There are a lot of photos of the Pentagon after the attack and all of these have one thing in common, there was very little fire damage to the Pentagon. This was inconsistent with the two attacks on the Twin Towers as they apparently collapsed due to the large fire damage to the buildings. So how come their was so much fire damage to the WTC's but very minimal to the Pentagon? The 757 has a fuel capacity of 43,490 litres. When the plane collided with the building people justified their being no wreckage from the plane due to the fact that the explosion would have caused so much heat for the plane and its contents to evaporate but if this was true wouldn't their have been fire damage to the actual building. A very famous photo taken after the attack shows the lack of fire damage to the building. In this photo it is clearly seen where the 'plane' entered the building and there is an office right near the edge where a book is open on a desk with absolutely no damage at all.
The strongest evidence supporting this the fact that the hole that was left from the collision is not even close to that of which flight 77 should have left. According to Boeing’s own web site, the 757 is 155 feet, 3 inches long. It has a wing span of 124 feet, 10 inches. And it is 44 feet, six inches high at the tail. Yet created a hole of 73ft in height, and 65ft. The hole that was left was approximately half the size of what it should have been. This alone proves that there is no way that it was flight 77 that collided with the Pentagon.
Secondly more evidence that proves this theory is that there is little to no rubble or evidence that any sort of plane had been any where near the Pentagon. There was no bodies found at or around the crash site. This is highly unbelievable for there to be no bodies amongst the rubble when everyone on-board died instantly. To strengthen this there was no sign of plane rubble or luggage at the supposed crash site. There was only small parts of plane debris that could have easily been moved by hand. There was no luggage from any of the passengers.
There are a lot of photos of the Pentagon after the attack and all of these have one thing in common, there was very little fire damage to the Pentagon. This was inconsistent with the two attacks on the Twin Towers as they apparently collapsed due to the large fire damage to the buildings. So how come their was so much fire damage to the WTC's but very minimal to the Pentagon? The 757 has a fuel capacity of 43,490 litres. When the plane collided with the building people justified their being no wreckage from the plane due to the fact that the explosion would have caused so much heat for the plane and its contents to evaporate but if this was true wouldn't their have been fire damage to the actual building. A very famous photo taken after the attack shows the lack of fire damage to the building. In this photo it is clearly seen where the 'plane' entered the building and there is an office right near the edge where a book is open on a desk with absolutely no damage at all.
Lastly huge evidence that supports the idea that it was not a plane that crashed into the Pentagon is the lack of video footage from the collision. The Pentagon is the main military base for the United States Of America. It also has 24 hour surveillance footage from numerous different angles so there is no doubt that at least one of the cameras would have picked up the collision. To this day there has not been any footage released to the world of the attack. The only thing that has been released is a set of 5 still photos. There was also a petrol station that was located across the street which would have had clear video footage of the collision but just minutes after the attack on the Pentagon the FBI came and confiscated the video tapes from the store. What does the government have to hide?
I know for a fact that it was not a Boeing 757 plane that caused the attack at the Pentagon ? But what could it be? the most likely theory would be a smaller commuter plane or a missile as there shape of the impact hole would make more sense if it were from one of these two. The lack of evidence of plane parts and the lack of fire damage would be justified.
I know for a fact that it was not a Boeing 757 plane that caused the attack at the Pentagon ? But what could it be? the most likely theory would be a smaller commuter plane or a missile as there shape of the impact hole would make more sense if it were from one of these two. The lack of evidence of plane parts and the lack of fire damage would be justified.