Last updated:  12/02/2005

Debunking Truth or Fiction...

(To link this page, please use the following address:  http://www.geocities.com/killtown/flight77/debunking/truthorfiction.html)

TruthOrFiction.com - A Jet did not hit the Pentagon?

The Pentagon Was Not Struck by a Hijacked Jet on September 11-Fiction!

Summary of the eRumor
The allegation  is that the destruction at the Pentagon on September 11 was not the result of being hit by a hijacked American Airlines 757, but some other cause.  The theories range from the building being hit by a remote-control U.S. fighter jet to being damaged by a truck bomb.  

The Truth
There are numerous sites that promote the notion that the U.S. government is covering up the true cause of the Pentagon destruction on September 11, but the main one is from France at http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

In large headline, it asks the reader to "Hunt the Boeing," referring to the American Airlines Boeing 757 that plunged into the Pentagon.

The site is a part of speculation by conspiracy theorists and includes a book published in France by Thierry Meyssan titled "The Frightening Fraud."  In it, the author contends that flight #77 did not end by crashing into the Pentagon and that the whole thing is part of a government plot and cover-up.  Meyssan says it doesn't make sense to him that there aren't any airplane pieces left over from the crash and that the Pentagon did not immediately fall from the impact.

The web site asks several questions, which we will deal with in order.

1.  "The Associated Press first reported that a booby trapped truck had caused the explosion."
If this AP report was made, TruthOrFiction.com has not been able to find it and none of the sites that makes reference to it lists a source.  Conflicting reports are common during breaking stories and if someone did speculate a truck bomb, that theory quickly disappeared.

2.  "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?"
First, the Pentagon suffered extensive damage to more than just the outside. CLICK HERE TO SEE CHART  

According to a drawing?  Are you serious???

Also, the portion of the Pentagon where the plane hit was probably the most heavily reinforced.  In the October 3, 2001 edition of Architecture Week, B.J. Novitski wrote that the impact of the plane was in "Wedge One," which had been strengthened by recent renovation, a project that was inspired, in part, by the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. He says that contrary to what is believed, the casualties among workers in the Pentagon were not low because of vacant offices, but because of the extraordinary structural strength of the building.  Novitski says that about 80 percent of the workers in the wedge were on duty that day, but ..."the exterior walls had been reinforced with steel beams and columns, bolted where they met at each floor. Some of these reinforced walls very near the point of impact remained in place for a half hour before collapsing, allowing uncounted hundreds to escape."  The hijackers chose one of the most reinforced buildings in the world to crash into.

And isn’t that an interesting fact!  Of all the sections of the Pentagon where the alleged hijacker pilot could have crashed the plane into, he manages to fly it into the ONLY renovated and reinforced section of the Pentagon that just happens to be very light on employees working in that section.  Now, is that extreme luck, pure coincidence, or carefully planned by someone who wanted it to crash in that section, you know, to maybe test it out or something?

3.  '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?'
Eyewitnesses to the crash as well as video from a security camera at the Pentagon show that the plane struck at ground level.

Lucky that the planes engines didn't leave any skid marks on the lawn!

  Considering the description of the strength of the building (above), it is not surprising that the weaker appendages of the plane such as the tail and the wings would not have had as much of an impact as the main body.

Then what happened to the wings and the tail section of the plane?  Where did they go?  There’s no evidence of them on any of the crash scene photos!

WHY DID YOU SKIP OVER QUESTION # 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?”

Didn't you want to answer it?

4.  "Can you explain why the Defence [sic] Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?"
According to the article in Architecture Week, it was for a gravel bed that provided a road for large trucks to have access to the crash site.

Funny how there seems to be no skid marks or debris from Flight 77 on the Pentagon’s lawn where the explosion was!!!

5.  "Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?"
Same answer as in #3.  Photographs show indentations where the stronger, inner portions of the wings may have made impact, but the farther out towards the tips of the wings and the tail, the less they would have had effect.

And same question I asked in #3: “Then what happened to the wings and the tail section of the plane?  Where did they go?  There’s no evidence of them on any of the crash scene photos!”

6.  "Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?
We're not sure what this question is supposed to mean.  There are plenty of pictures that show clearly where the airplane hit the building.  For some reason, the creators of the web site chose two of the pictures that don't show it clearly.  Dick Bridges, the deputy manager for Arlington County was quoted by AP on September 14, 2001, as saying that both of the "black boxes" for flight #77 were found "...right where the plane came into the building." 

Oh yeah, if “Dick Bridges” says so, then it must be true!   Did you witness them recovering the black boxes at the crash site?  Neither did I.

If the recorders didn't get much beyond that, the plane not only struck the building at that point, but the ground as well. 

Funny, the ground right in front of the crash site seems to indicate that it didn't strike the ground as well!

The cockpit voice recorder was so badly damaged that it didn't yield any information.

It’s amazing that the recorders were so badly damaged, yet the nose of Flight 77 was said to have penetrated all the way through to the Pentagon’s 3rd ring!

Oh and by the way, one news station reported they DID manage to retrieve some data from the flight recorders, though we don't believe much of the news reports relating to Flight 77 these days...
"FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday investigators have recovered some information from the flight data recorder from American Airlines Flight 77, the hijacked jet that slammed into the Pentagon."-CNN

Other considerations...

1.  If it was not American Airlines flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, then where is the airplane and the 64 people who were aboard?
None of the conspiracy sites answers that question.  Few of them even ask it.

We would like to know where Flight 77 and the 64 passengers are too!   This is a very good question, but how could we answer this question if we don't know where the plane is and how does not knowing where the plane and it’s passengers are disprove that Flight 77 didn’t crash at the Pentagon?

2.  If it was not American Airlines flight 77, then why do they have evidence of the bodies of known crew, passengers, and hijackers?
C. Christopher Kelley of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology says that the effort to identify bodies that ended on November 16, 2001, identified all but one of the victims of flight 77.

Still, you’re relying on what people have reported.  Now obviously if it’s a cover-up, I don’t think they're going to be telling you the truth!  And who says Flight 77 couldn't of crashed somewhere else and the passengers remains were recovered there?  After all, that report was quoted saying:  "Their work also included the victims of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Somerset County, Pa."  Since Flight 77's transponder was turned off, maybe it flew to and crashed in the same area where Flight 93 did?

Plus, how did they manage to find the DNA of "all but one" of the victims of Flight 77 if when some say the plane disintegrated upon impact and any remaining debris from Flight 77 burned up afterwards?

3.  In response to the question of "Where is the Boeing," the answer is "in pieces."
There was plenty of evidence of the airplane at the site including debris from the plane,

Care to show us any of this debris?  So far I haven’t been able to see much.  Just a couple of photos that show a few pieces of debris with no burn marks on them and that look to be planted there.

as mentioned above, the remains of the passengers, and the cockpit data and voice recorders. 

All this stuff you just mentioned was just reported that it was found there.  That’s not conclusive proof that it was actually recovered there.  It wouldn't be too hard to “plant” that stuff there or just lie and say it was recovered there.

Associated Press Military Writer Robert Burns reported on September 13,2001,  that members of congress who had visited the Pentagon crash site were told by rescue officials that much of the fuselage of the Boeing 757 remained intact inside the damaged Pentagon.

Do you believe everything that you were told?  Our Government, unfortunately, has lied before, so in all probability, they could be lying to us now.

4.  Radar tracked the plane toward the Pentagon.
Much has been made on some of the conspiracy sites that the transponder in the cockpit was turned off by the hijackers so it isn't clear what happened to the plane after that. 

Yes, even most of the news organizations couldn’t track the entire flight path.

The founder of TruthOrFiction.com, Rich Buhler, is a licensed commercial pilot and says the transponder being turned off doesn't mean the plane can no longer be seen on radar.  The transponder is a device that not only makes the airplane more visible on a radar screen, but also gives the radar controller other information such as the altitude, speed, and sometimes the identity of the airliner.  If the transponder is turned off, radar controllers can usually still see what is called the "primary target."  That means there is a blip on the radar screen showing the location.  According to www.airdisaster.com, flight 77's transponder was turned off shortly after departure from Dulles airport near Washington DC, but radar controllers could see the primary target flying directly toward the White House. 

Did it every occur to you that the "blip" heading towards Washington could have been from a different aircraft?

Then the plane was seen to veer away from the White House and head for the Pentagon.

Then why wasn’t the Pentagon ordered to evacuate or take cover if they saw it heading their way?

"...neither the FAA, NORAD, nor any other federal government organization made any effort to evacuate the buildings in Washington."-CNN


So as to your original statement:  "The Pentagon Was Not Struck by a Hijacked Jet on September 11-Fiction!", I fail to see how you proved a "hijacked jet" crash at the Pentagon.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/pentagoncrash.htm