Killtown's: Did Flight 77 really crash into the Pentagon?

Snopes.com's debunking attempt starts out by saying that Thierry Meyssan's claim that the damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757 is "false."

Next they seem to try to denigrate his claim by saying he doesn't offer any "real explanation" for what "did." Notice they italicized "did."

Why is it so important for Meyssan to offer an explanation of what did? If there is evidence that something didn't, why would it be up to him to guess what did? Shouldn't those questions be asked to the officials who told us what crashed there? However, Meyssan does offer a theory that a missile hit the Pentagon instead.

Next Snopes attempts to answer the seven questions in Meyssan's Hunt the Boeing! website:

1) Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

Snopes answers that the Boeing 757 not only damaged the outside of the Pentagon, but caused damage to all five rings by offering this graphic drawing as their proof.

I think that it's quite humorous that they use a graphic drawing as proof, not only because it's a graphic, but the graphic is wrong! First the graphic shows a grey line (which I guess is trying to show the trajectory of the 757) going straight up through the damaged section shown in red. However, the 757 was said to have hit at a 45 deg angle.

Also, the graphic states that the 757 tore through five floors and all five rings. However, the official version states that the 757 tore through only the 1st and 2nd floors and only up to the 3rd ring, ring C.

Next they show an article from 60 Minutes II which states the section the 757 hit had recently been reinforced during a renovation project and the article states that the 757 hit at "350 mph."

First, the speed of the plane hitting in that article, 350mph, is wrong. The official speed was 530mph (perhaps they just got it backwards?)

"American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour."

- 9/11 Commission

Second, Snopes' doesn't see the amazing coincidence that this errant plane hit the only section of the Pentagon that was being retrofitted to "bolster it against attack" and that is was best section for the Pentagon to have been hit and the worst section for the hijackers to have hit.

"Luck — if it can be called that — had it that the terrorists aimed the Boeing 757 at the only part of the Pentagon that already had been renovated in an 11-year, $1.3 billion project meant to bolster it against attack. That significantly limited the damage and loss of life by slowing the plane as it tore through the building and reducing the explosion's reach." - USA Today (1/01/02)

"Schwartz explained that renovations on the Pentagon began several years earlier and were nearing completion, particularly the section called Wedge 1, when the crash occurred.
He said the plane struck the building almost in the middle of the space where the renovation had been completed. Personnel had not completely reoccupied this area of the building.
"This contributed to the relatively low number of casualties," Schwartz said. "The number could have been far greater had the plane struck another portion of the building not affected by the renovation.” - Fort Meade/Army

Next they say exterior photographs are misleading and because they don't reveal what happened inside the building and shows a U.S. Army press release which says an "engine" from the 757 punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the "second ring."

This is incorrect according to the Pentagon which said it was the plane’s nose that punched out a hole in the wall and did it in the wall of the 3rd ring, not the second.

Next they try to compare the Pentagon crash with the WTC crashes. They state the wrong speed of the plane again and then state that the plane had some of it's energy "dissipated" after it struck the ground first.

Photos clearly show that the 757 did not hit the ground at all even with it's two large engines hanging underneath it and even a witnesses to the supposed crash said nothing hit the ground:

They then say more damage was done to the building than just the "outside" by showing this photo that shows the entire of three rings being renovated:

The official story does say the 757 penetrated all the way to the 3rd ring and photos do show a punch-out hole in the 3rd ring's wall.

2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

Snopes says eyewitnesses describe and photos demonstrate that the 757 hit the ground first which dissipated much of it's energy and that's why it didn't cause more damage than it would have and say that too. They also state a New York Times article stating hit between the 1st and 2nd floors, not just the ground floor. Lastly they mention another account which says that the plane "banked sharply," clipped some light poles, and then hit the helipad that is right in front and to the left of the section hit. The account then goes on to say that the roof of the section hit collapsed 30 minutes after the crash (which officially was at 9:37 am), but rescuers were able to pull out all the injured before the collapse. The account finishes with saying that the fires in that section were so hot that the fire fighters weren't able to approach the impact point until about 1 pm.

First, as already mentioned above, close-up photos of the scene clearly show nothing struck the ground for and also confirmed by a witness. Note that a big part of Snopes' debunking attempt falls on there claim that the 757 hit the ground first and that's why it didn't cause as much damage as it otherwise would. Since it is clear nothing struck the ground first, this puts a big hole in Snopes' argument.

Second, the photo they link to shows the photos from the Pentagon's security camera that allegedly shows the crash. However, it is impossible to tell in those photos that anything struck the ground in those photos.

Third, the account they mention says the 757 banked sharply, however there is no evidence of this that I'm aware of and it seems odd that they said the fires were so hot that the fire crews could only approach the area at about 1 pm, yet rescuers were able to approach this section to evacuate all the injured hours early and before the roof collapsed 30 minutes after the crash happened.

3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

Snopes says you can't see any plane debris because the 757 disappeared into the building and any large pieces of debris left inside burned up from in the intense fire that followed from the jet being "full of fuel." Then they mention that some small debris was visible outside, but in another photo that they demonstrate.

First, Flight 77 must have traveled at least 800 miles from when it took off near D.C. until it reached the Pentagon, so it wasn't exactly full of fuel.

Second, the debris in the photo they show is interesting for a couple of reasons:

Third, they seem to claim that most of the 115 ton plane was destroyed from the impacting the reinforced wall, exploding, and anything left burned up inside from the "intense fire" from all the jet fuel. I wonder how they would explain how all but one of the 64 passenger's bodies were able to be recovered inside the building as claimed?

4) Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

Snopes says the order from the Defence Secretary to sand over the lawn is false and the reason it was sanded over was so trucks and other heavy equipment used there wouldn't slip and slide in the grass.

I have never been able to find who it was that ordered the lawn to be sanded. Snopes' point about the heavy equipment there is a valid one, but it is still interesting that they covered up the lawn that would be seen afterwards by everyone that is was undamaged from the crash.

5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

Snopes says that the outer portions of the wing "likely" broke off during the impact and then were "pushed inward" towards the fuselage and "carried into" the building. The inner portions of the wings "probably" entered the building with the rest of the plane. Any "sizable" portions of the wings remaining were destroyed by the explosion and subsequent fire. Then they finish by saying that damage to the building from the plane's wings are "plainly visible" in photographs and present the following photo as evidence.

First, Snopes' explanation of what happened to the wingtips of the 757 is nothing short of hilarious! I don't know what would cause the wingtips to be "pushed inward" towards the fuselage after breaking off from hitting the wall and then what would carry them into the building? I would love to see a animated demonstration of that from them! Maybe it would look something like the graphic below! They also never mention the trajectory of how the 757 supposedly crashed which officially was approximately 45 deg.

Second, if the wingtips did break off from impacting the way, they should have either crumpled up and bounced off and still be visible on the ground, or be obliterated in which it would have left a visible impression in the limestone masonry wall from where that happened.

Third, the photo they provide that shows damage to the building caused from the wings is hardly "plainly visible" from such a blurred photo taken far away. There are photos that show damage seemingly caused from the wings, however there no evidence of any wings left afterward.

6) Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?

Snopes says the fire chief wasn't asked where the 757 was, but if there was anything left of the plane in which the chief said there were no large sections left by the time he was asked the next day because the plane had smashed into small pieces and then burned up and all that remained inside were smaller pieces.

Q: Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?

Plaugher: First 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. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.

Q: Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel or --

Plaugher: You know, I'd rather not comment on that.

We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know.

- DoD (09/12/01)

Notice that the chief admits there were no large sections found, but only "some small pieces" visible inside which supports some conspiracy theorists claim that no 757 crash there, but a few "757" plane parts were planted inside the building just like Operation Northwoods mentions doing when talking about faking a plane crash:

Snopes says the impact site is obscured by water spray and smoke in the photos, but a two-story high hole does exist behind the fireman. The say it wasn't possible for photographs to capture a view of the impact point from the brief time between the crash until the roof collapsed.

Actually, there are a few photos that clearly show the impact point. A couple of things are interesting to point out, it doesn’t look like the tail section did any damage to the 3rd story of the building. What happened to the tail section of this 757?

Snopes finishes their debunk attempt with an update of the "Pentagon Strike" flash video released in August 2004 and lists a couple of websites were it can be found.

In my opinion, Snopes' debunk attempt of Hunt the Boeing! is appalling. It is riddled with factual errors according to the official story, bad photos that don't prove much of their case, and imaginative physics. I'll I have to say about their debunking attempt is...