Fuselage Debris on the Pentagon Lawn

[spooked911]

Most people who've looked at the pictures of the Pentagon crash have seen this picture of what clearly seems to be a chunk from the fuselage of an American Airlines plane:


This piece of debris has generated a lot of debate, but one thing that should not be debateable is that if this piece came from flight 77, then it came from the first third of the fuselage:


According to the conventional version of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, the front of the fuselage knocked a hole in the wall and penetrated into the building, and then the plane blew up as it impacted inner columns and as the wings hit the building. This would mean this piece of debris HAD to go back out through the impact hole, through the explosion, to get back on the lawn. This piece would seem, therefore to be a 9/11 version of the "pristine bullet", since it has emerged all by itself onto the lawn, relatively unscathed from the fire.

So here are the questions (you had to know they were coming):
1) If this piece of debris was blown off the fuselage of American flight 77, how exactly did it get on the lawn, at least a hundred feet from where the plane hit the building?
2) How come this piece does not look the least bit singed or soot-stained?
3) Doesn't this piece indicate the fuselage blew up? If so, why aren't there many more pieces of fuselage debris around it on the lawn?
4) If the front of the fuselage blew up, then why aren't interior content of the fuselage on the lawn such as luggage and seats and bodies?
5) If the rest of the fuselage and wings and tail blew into small pieces of metal confetti, as some would like to believe, then how come this piece came off in such a large chunk?

Here is another picture of the Pentagon crash scene:

[hack89]

1. The top of the fuselage is much weaker than the bottom half.

Think about the last time you were in a plane - the passenger compartment is nothing but air and a thin skin of metal. The plane beneath you is a different matter - to absorb the stress from the wing and landing gear, it is much more substantial with heavy metal structures like the wing spar box and the support for the nose wheel. Half way down this page are some photos that show this well:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

When the aircraft hit, it is reasonable to assume that the denser, stronger bottom half of the fuselage penetrated while the weak, relatively fragile top half was peeled off and scattered in all directions. This would account for no fire damage - it was not scattered by the explosion.

The reason there are no bodies and luggage is that they penetrated the building with the lower half of the fuselage (remember that the seats are firmly attached to lower half.)

Why would you assume that the plane would disintegrate into uniform chunks - there was certainly enough random forces and interactions going on to argue against this.

[spooked911]

2. Those are good points, however--

if the piece was merely "scraped off" the top of the fuselage, why would it end up so far away from the impact site?

AND-- if the top of the fuselage was "scraped off", why are there so few pieces of it outside of the Pentagon?

[spooked911]

4. So the 20 foot high tail got scraped off too, right?

Thta must have come off in a pretty big chunk. Where did it go?

[philb]

3. Only way to resolve this is for Administration to release withheld evidenc

Why are they withholding the remains of what hit the Pentagon and
the videos showing what hit the Pentagon.

The following is information on a FOIA request that is relevant and importaqnt in this regard.

Pentagon F77 FOIA request for confiscated Pentagon security camera tapes,etc.
http://www.flight77.info/

on the morning of september 11th, 2001 the FBI visited at least two private businesses near the pentagon and confiscated several security camera video tapes.
business #1 is the cigto gas station with several security cameras aimed in the direction of the pentagon. flight 77 flew directly over the gas station at an altitude of roughly 50 feet, less than 3 seconds from impact.
business #2 is the sheraton national hotel. it is known, based upon a prior FOIA report filed by CNN which requested the tapes - that the sheraton's security cameras DID capture the plane - however because of national security, the FBI won't release the video.

I believe that a judge has ruled that the FBI must release the tapes or provide good cause for not doing so by June 21. People need to follow this issue.

What possible national security purpose is served by consficating and covering up evidence of what hit the Pentagon??
Who is being protected by this policy if the attack was by Flight 77 and piloted by Hani?

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Why call for release of evidence, when you won't believe it when

released by the monolithic government that's withholding it?

There is nothing from a government source that you or anyone arguing for an alternative theory would believe had not been faked unless it happened to corroborate your theories. You don't want evidence, you want confirmation of what you already believe. Your beliefs about what happened are unfalsifiable. There is no way you can be wrong - there is no evidence allowed to distract you from the truth. It's the fervor of creationism.

And this "you" I'm talking about isn't directed at you, phlib, specifically. I'm hoping that everyone here will see if the "you" fits.

[Frederik]

13. Why do you think the films are not released?

Oh, yes, Bin Laden could use it as propaganda. Any other reason?

Why not be a little more specific about those who, according to you, "want confirmation of what you already believe"? If it's an accusation that is not directed at anyone in particular, then why make it?

I personally think it is more likely than not that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. But I'm not convinced. There are enough anomalies for my doubt to linger. I would very much like to have the question answered, and seeing those videos would certainly help a lot.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Don't get me wrong; I'd love to have the films released

Plus any other pictures we haven't seen. But then I'd also accept what I see in those pictures and films.

I don't have a clue other than what's been offered - they're part of an ongoing investigation and my suggestion that they'd be in an al-Qaeda propaganda film before the day was out. Well, they would, no question of that, and I doubt many of the Pentagon brass want them to have that kind of bragging rights.

Regardless, I'd like to see the films released.

And I guess I could have more clear about my "accusation". It is directed at a group in particular - specifically, people who believe that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon or that the WTC buildings were demolished by explosives. Anybody in that catagory can consider those remarks directed at them specifically. I just didn't want phlib to think I was singling him or her out.

What anomolies still feed your doubts about Flight 77?

[Moochy]

29. Who needs evidence, its all faith based right?

Yeah you are right, better to just not file the FOIA.

:eyes:

[Kevin Fenton]

5. Meyssan says

I can't see the photograph, but I think I know which one you mean.

In Pentagate Meyssan says it's not from a Boeing at all, but from a helicopter parked at the heliport - he thinks that the colours are slightly wrong and also claims the DoD never identified it as part of the Boeing. I suppose it might come from a helicopter or other vehicle.

The photo was taken my a guy named Mark Faram, a photographer for the CNA agency. Meysssan does not doubt its authenticity and says it was taken very early on.

As far as I'm aware, most plane crashes generate debris of varying sizes, so I don't see anything remarkable about the size.

The fuselage was obviously affected by an explosion at some stage, although this was most likely inside the building. If the plane did explode over the lawn (and I'm not saying it did), there may be an innocent explanation for this, for example that a fuel tank was ruptured and exploded after hitting something on the lawn (e.g. part of the heliport).

I think the photo also counts slightly against the missile theory in that if it were put there deliberately by somebody trying to make the scene look as if it was AA 77, then why put only one piece in such a dumb place?

If the plane really did explode over the lawn, surely there should be more pieces, but, for all we know from the ad hoc photos taken, there may have been other pieces that weren't captured on film.

I don't think this piece of debris counts particularly for or against any specific theory.

[spooked911]

6. Well, I think we can infer some things from this piece of evidence

Thus, this piece came from the front of plane but doesn't show any sign of going through an explosion or fire. Thus the only explanation is that the piece was scraped off or shredded off the top of the plane as it went into the Pentagon, and then the ensuing explosion blew this piece some ways away from the impact site.

The questions that arise then are:

1) why aren't there many more large pieces from the fuselage like this on the lawn? This is what the photographer had to say: "That was the only piece of wreckage of any SIZE that I saw, but was by no means the ONLY piece."
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/757debris.html

2) if the top of the fuselage was scraped off by the plane entering the Pentagon, then surely the 20 foot high tail of the plane must have broken off as well. Where did it go?

[Kevin Fenton]

7. You can if you want to

(1) Why aren't there many more large pieces from the fuselage like this on the lawn?
Assuming it really is from the plane, so what? One piece of debris has to be the biggest piece. Perhaps there were more pieces that he didn't see, for example because they were closer to the wall and (partially) obscured by debris from the building. I suppose he had a look around, but I doubt he made an exhaustive search of the area. He said there was one big piece and lots of little pieces.

(2) "If the top of the fuselage was scraped off by the plane entering the Pentagon, then surely the 20 foot high tail of the plane must have broken off as well. Where did it go?"¨
Don't know about scraped off - the height of the entry hole was big enough to let the whole of the fuselage through with a little to spare. If it was from the plane and was detached during the entry, then I would imagine that the plane disintegrated on impact and this piece was thrown clear by the forces acting through the plane rather than by hitting a piece of the facade.
I don't really understand your point here, are you saying that just because there was one large piece of the fuselage then the tail should be intact as well? Why, given the rest of the fuselage was smashed into bits? The hole is high enough to admit the lower part of the tail anyway.

[spooked911]

9. I'm just saying it is suspicious that this one piece of fuselage debris

is out on the lawn, where the only explanation is that it was scraped off, when the large tail is nowhere to be seen.

Here's an important question: did the plane blow up AS the plane impacted the outside wall and started to crumple up, or did the plane blow up after the nose pentrated the outside wall and the wings contacted the wall?

[Kevin Fenton]

11. Why scraped

Why is the only explanation that it was scraped off? Why is it impossible for it to be thrown clear by impact forces acting on the plane as it disintegrated (or are you counting this as a version of "scraped off"? Why should the tail, as opposed to the left wing tip or a bit at the back of the plane, be visible as well? The piece of debris in question probably comes from a part of the plane some way distant from the tail, so why should similar things happen to them?

I don't think it's possible to say exactly when the plane exploded. How could we know that? It's quite possible that the fuel tanks did not explode simultaneously and that some may have exploded outside and some inside. It's even possible that a collision with something on the lawn (e.g. the steam vault at the heliport) caused an explosion aboard the plane. However, I think a fuel tank should not explode immediately it impacts something, but there should be a gap of a second or two, during which time the plane will obviously move forward.

I don't see anything particularly suspicious here. The debris on the lawn certainly doesn't prove it was Amercian 77 as advertised by the US govt., but it is not inconsistent with a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

[spooked911]

23. Since this piece would have come from the front of a 757

then it is of interest to know when the plane exploded and if this part of the plane was in the building when the plane exploded or if the piece was scraped off before the explosion.

This piece would have entered the building well before the tail and thus it is surprising the tail would disappear and not this piece.

[Kevin Fenton]

24. How could we know that

"then it is of interest to know when the plane exploded and if this part of the plane was in the building when the plane exploded or if the piece was scraped off before the explosion."
I don't think there's anyway we can work any of that out for sure. Any conclusions would have to be pretty tentative. Again, why do all the fuel tanks have to explode at the same time?

"This piece would have entered the building well before the tail and thus it is surprising the tail would disappear and not this piece."
Lots of other pieces would have entered the building well before the tail and it is not particularly surprising that the tail has disappeared along with them.

[spooked911]

10. Exactly what letter is this?

Is it a "a", "c", "e" or "n"?

http://77debris.0catch.com/

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/080.html

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/debris.html

[LARED]

12. Why would that matter??

Unless you can establish it is a letter other than the ones in AMERICAN, what is the point?

[demodewd]

16. lots of different points

There's a lot of different points to be established,LARED. Is the lettering the standard size for a 757 AA livery? Would this lettering though appearing to be from a 757,be from a different craft? Why does the piece appear so clean and fire and soot free? Was this piece planted? Why is it the only livery piece apparently located on the lawn?

[LARED]

18. response

Is the lettering the standard size for a 757 AA livery?

Without a reference point there is no way to tell the size from the image.

Would this lettering though appearing to be from a 757,be from a different craft?

You mean a different American airlines model?

Why does the piece appear so clean and fire and soot free?

Maybe it wasn't in the fire. Maybe the blast pushed it away without there being any discernible soot or other things that may indicate a fire. I'll give you a personal story, many years ago I investigated a small flash fire in an housing that surrounded a NG burner. No one saw any soot until I took a glove and wiped the inside panel. After that there was no question in anyone's mind if there was a flash fire.

Was this piece planted? Why is it the only livery piece apparently located on the lawn?

The only piece?????

[spooked911]

22. The problem is those other pieces could be from the building

pieces of office paper.

As has been noted, this was one of the few recognizeable pieces of airplane debris on the lawn.

There actually were a couple of others, and they also had letters on the as well. We don't have such good pictures of them hoever.

I think for the sake of completeness, it would be nice to know if this lettering was consistent with an American 757.

[demodewd]

15. Who agrees or disagrees?

To me,the location of the main inferno indicates that the "plane" exploded at the very front of the building.

Who agrees or disagrees?

[Ezlivin]

17. I don't see plane wreckage, but I do see the hot fires of

the explosives that were put into place during the recently completed renovation.

[spooked911]

21. My best guess is that the fire is coming from just inside the building

and the plane exploded just after going in, or as it went in. But if it did, then one would think more large pieces would be spewed out.

On the other hand, one website wondered if that fire was merely from the tree that was right where the impact was...

[MrSammo1]

26. If

You watch the show "Miracle at the Pentagon" you will see that it's a gas main burning.

[MrSammo1]

19. Listen!!!

2005-06-06_Dave_vonKleist_Interviews_Nila_Sagadevan.MP3

[spooked911]

20. Unfortunately the link doesn't work

[MrSammo1]

25. Try it from here!

http://911verses.com/

Click on.........THESE ISSUES.

You'll find it there.

[spooked911]

28. What an interesting site.

Thanks.

[spooked911]

27. Sorry the picture links got buggered. They worked at saturday and sunday.

and now some of them died.