Wittenberg also stated that he himself could not have “descended 7000 feet in two minutes, all the while
performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without
touching the lawn.” and that it would have been “totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a
Cessna ...” 2
-Commercial airline pilot Ralph W. Omholt stated: ”The idea that an unskilled pilot could have flown this
trajectory is simply too ridiculous to consider.” 3
Suggested Reading: [ http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ ] [ http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html ]
(c) Consider the integrity of Hanjour’s previous certifications:
Overall, the only evidence that support Hanjour’s ability to fly with any degree of skill was his commercial
pilots license, which was evidently obtained in 1999. However, there is a good deal of evidence to
suggest that this was obtained fraudulently.
Again, as the Washington Post reported: “Federal Aviation Administration records show [Hanjour]
obtained a commercial pilot’s license in April 1999, but how and where he did so remains a lingering
question that FAA officials refuse to discuss.” 4
”I couldn’t believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills he had” -Peggy Chevrette, Jet
Tech International. 5
If fact, his skills were so bad, that even after he had evidently obtained his Commercial License, he
was actually reported to the FAA due to integrity concerns.
“Hani Hanjour...was reported to Federal Aviation Administration in February 2001 after instructors at Pan
Am International Flight Academy in Phoenix found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of
English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilots license was genuine.” 6
As a final note, it is interesting to see how the 911Commission treated the issue of Hanjour and his skill
level. In their final report they reference in one section that Hanjour was known as a “Terrible Pilot”, 7
while in another section they deemed him “the operations most experienced pilot”, with no supporting
evidence. 8
Suggested Reading: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14290
(2) With regard to the lack of plane wreckage at the Pentagon & inconsistent damage pattern:
Photographic evidence of the Pentagon available shows both an (a) improbably array of wreckage along with an (b) im-
probable damage pattern to the building itself.
(a) The wreckage found in front of the Pentagon was very sparse, at best. This is confirmed by the available
photography and testimony of people on the scene:
1
Stan Goff, “The So-Called evidence is a Farce,” Narco News 14, 10 October 2001
2
http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport
3
Email Correspondence, October 27th 2006: http://davidraygriffin.com/articles/was-america-attacked-by-muslims-on-911/
4
Washington Post 10/21/01
5
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml
6
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us/a-trainee-noted-for-incompetence.html
7
911Commission Report, 225-26, 242, 520n56
8
911Commission Report, 530n147
-Testimony:
Dean Eckmann, one of the F-16 pilots who was sent to Washington was asked by NEADS to fly over the
Pentagon and report on the damage. He stated: “there was no airplane wreckage off to the side” and
it looked like it was caused by “a big fuel tanker truck because of the amount of smoke and flames
coming up.” 1
Karen Kwiatkowski, then an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel working at the Pentagon, wrote of: “a strange
lack of visible debris on the Pentagon lawn, where I stood only moments after the impact...I saw...no
airplane metal or cargo debris.” 2
Jamie McIntyre (CNN News) stated on air he saw “very small pieces of the plane...small enough that you
can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wings sections, fuselage, nothing like that any
where around.” 3
Eileen Murphy, a nurse arriving after the crash, stated: “I knew it was a crash site before we got there...I
expected to see the airplane, so I guess my initial impression was “Where’s the plane? How come there’s
not a plane?” I would have thought the building would have stopped it and somehow we would have seen
something like part of, or half of the plane, of the lower part, or the back of the plane. So it was a real
surprise that the plane wasn’t there.” 4
Steve DeChiaro, Engineer, stated: “When I looked at the site, my brain could not resolve the fact tat it
was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building, No Tail, No Wings, No Nothing.” 5
Captain Dennis Gilry, arriving from the Fort Myer fire department wondered: “why he saw no aircraft
parts...” 6
Captain John Durrer, also a fireman: “had expected to see large parts of the plane and thought, ‘Well
where’s the airplane, you know, where’s the parts to it?” You would think there’s be something.” 7
Former Navy/ Commercial Pilot Ralph Kolstad asked: “Where are the big pieces that always break away
in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines
that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts?... where is tail
section that would have broke into large pieces?” 8
Arriving 5 hours after the crash, filmmaker Paul Cross said: “There was no passenger jet wreckage; the
lawn wasn’t scorched...” 9
April Gallop, who was injured in the attack and was inside, had this to say about internal debris: “I was
located at the E ring...And we had to escape the building before the floors...collapsed on us...I don’t recall
at any time seeing any plane debris...I walked through that place to try to get out before everything
collapsed...Surely we should have seen something.” 10
Sgt. Reginald Powell said: “I was ...impressed...with how the building stood up...And then I was in awe
that I saw no plane, nothing left from the plane. It was like it disintegrated as it went into the building.” 11
Judy Rothschadl, a media producer who managed to get inside the Pentagon said, “There weren’t seats
or luggage or anything you find in a plane.” 12
1
Leslie Filson, Air War over America... 2003, p 66
2
Karen Kwiatkowski, “Assessing the Official 911 Conspiracy Theory”
3
Jamie McIntye interviewed by Judy Woodruff, CNN, 9/1/01
4
“Responding in the Pentagon”, Office of Medical History, 96
5
Ryam Alessi and M,E. Sprengelmeyer, “An Anniversary of Agony at the Pentagon,” Aug. 1 2002
6
Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11, 69
7
Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11, 70
8
Alan Miller, “US Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot questions 911 Pentagon Story” OpedNews.com, Sept. 5 2007
9
Henry Makow, “Filmmaker was at Pentagon on 911” May 28th 2008
10
“Interview with April Gallop” George Washington Blog, July 13 2006
11
“Responding in the Pentagon” Office of Medical History
12
Randy Dockendorf, “Tyndall Native Relives 911” Yankton Press & Dakotanm Sept 11 2003
-Physical Debris Evidence:
The following footnoted link shows the majority of what was found at the Pentagon with regard to debris. 1
It is clear some type of plane struck the Pentagon, but evidence suggests that it was likely much smaller
than a Boeing 757, which weighs about 100 tons.
With regard to the lack of wreckage, Former Pilot Russ Wittenburg comments: “It’s roughly a 100 ton air
plane. An airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled
trash and parts after it hits a building.” 2
It is worth noting that the Official claim, suggested by the Pentagon Building Performance Report and
Popular Mechanics, is that, amazingly, the planes exterior crumbled up “like a sausage skin” after
which the rest of the plane “flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.” 3
(b) The damage to the Pentagon can rationally be deemed as highly improbable based on the following evidence.
- C-Ring Hole: 4
This rather clean and nearly symmetrical circular hole was made 3 rings into the Pentagon, though a web
of reinforced concreted. 5
[ Image: http://www.911lies.org/images2/entrance_pentagon_missile_911.jpg ] The improbability of this
clean hole occurring from the nose of a 757 plane, so far into the Pentagon is rather obvious in an
intuitive sense. However, first let’s consider the Official US Government Conspiracy Theory
explanation. In the “Pentagon Building Performance Report”, it stated that “The front of the aircraft
disintegrated essentially upon impact”, that is- when it hit the front of the face of Wedge 1. 6 7
If this is what happened, what exactly could make such a clean ring so far in the building? Also, why is
there no real debris around the hole itself? Where did it go? (Needless to say, the “Pentagon Building
Performance Report” does not provide any explanation for this C-ring Hole) Now, it is worth noting that
there are contradictions. Lee Evey, the program manager for the Pentagon Renovation Project
also said two days after the attack that “The Plane actually penetrated through...the nose of the plane
just barely broke through inside of the C ring.” 8 Later, Popular Mechanics later came forward to claim that
the landing gear “was responsible for puncturing the wall in Ring C” 9
Where Popular Mechanics got this idea is to be questioned as none of the Official reports denoted such a
thing. In the end, there is no corroboration of evaluation and the Official conclusion, based on a “plane
theory”, can not be held as viable or provable given the contradictions denoted.
The question then becomes, what could cause this C- Ring hole? Mechanical Engineer Michael Meyer
stated that it could have been caused by “ a shaped charge warhead or device...The Hole is circular...
and cleanly cut... as would be expected from the extremely localized and focused energy from the shaped
charge warhead.” 10
[ Missing Wings: Further Reading: http://www.physics911.net/missingwings ]
As a final point, let’s quickly consider those who claim to have seen a Boeing 757 fly through the air and
smash into the Pentagon vs those who claim they saw something else or a contrary trajectory. The reason
this is important is because when all is said and done, this testimony is really all the supporters of the “Official
911 Conspiracy Theory” can count on with regard to the Pentagon attack. For example, Popular Mechanics, in
their various attempts to refute non-official conspiracy theories about the Pentagon, have claimed that “hundreds
of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building” while providing no list or supportive evidence of this. 11
1
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentagonDebrisMontagecopy1-full.jpg
2
Russ Wittenburg, Quoted on “Patriots Question 9/11”
3
Popular Mechanics, Debunking the 9/11 Myths, p. 69
4
Image: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/exit2.jpg
5
Image: http://www.911lies.org/images2/entrance_pentagon_missile_911.jpg
6
ASCE, Pentagon Building Performance Report, 1/03, p.40
7
Link: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CBkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fire.nist.gov%
2Fbfrlpubs%2Fbuild03%2FPD%2Fb03017.pdf&ei=bPP1S53OA4T68AahhuW8Cg&usg=AFQjCNExcbH5gWSAbfzDF9TXpiGe64dlnA&s
ig2=CmdTQq157NQFbFo5W0bV3w
8
Steve Vogel, The Pentagon, p. 431
9
Popular Mechanics, Debunking the 9/11 Myths, p70
10
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticleMeyer_10June2006.html
11
Popular Mechanics, Debunking the 9/11 Myths, p. 59
An example of contradictory accounts:
Dan Mason, a Pentagon employee, as discussed in Popular Mechanics, reported seeing while stuck in traffic
just west of the Pentagon, an airliner clip three light poles during its approach. 1
[vs]
However, four other witnesses, including police officer William Lagasse, have stated on camera that the plane
actually passed on the north side of the nearby Citgo gas station. If their corroborated testimony is true, then it
would have been impossible for the plane to have stuck the light poles in the Official story’s flight path. 2
More:
“A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. “It added power on
its way in,’ he said. ‘The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.’” 3
[vs]
“ Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a
silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150
yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which
sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetery so low that he thought it was
going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn’t read any writing on the side.
The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as
if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said. 4
Further Suggested Investigation:
The Flight Path Challenged: http://www.thepentacon.com/googlesmokinggun.htm
Flight Deck Door on Flight 77 never opened to allow for Hijacking:
[ http://pilotsfor911truth.org/american_77_hijack_impossible.html ]
Flight 77 Data Recorder contradictory of Official Story:
[ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580# ]
(3) With regard to the apparent identification of the passengers:
It begs credulity to assume that if Flight 77 could essentially be vaporized upon impact, leaving very little physical evi-
dence, and yet human DNA of every passenger (except the hijackers) could be accounted for, as is claimed by the Gov-
ernment. Popular Mechanics, which has served as a mouth piece for the official story, stated that “All but five of the 189
people who died on the aircraft and in the Pentagon were later identified through DNA testing.” Oddly, the hijackers were
never identified, rather they were assumed to be the five hijackers by the process of elimination, the government claims.
This is rather strange considering a DNA match of the alleged hijackers could have possibly resolved the confusion over
the identities that surfaced later. This was confirmed in a Washington Post article. 5
Evidently no initiative was made by the Government to obtain DNA from family of the alleged hijackers. Overall, this issue
naturally lends to vast speculation and it isn’t the interest of this document to explore it in anymore detail. However, the
following is suggested for review: [ http://www.physics911.net/olmsted ]
(4) With regard to the confiscated videos of the attack.
With all the debate over what hit the Pentagon, it is very suspicious that over 80 videos, which could show further
evidence that it was indeed Flight 77 are currently being held by the FBI. While a few frames and some very distant and
poor footage has been released, nothing can concretely be identified as Flight 77 or a Boeing 757 for that matter. The De-
partment of Justice has admitted to the existence of no less than 85 videos and Freedom of Information Requests have
been denied. 6 7
Why?
1
Popular Mechanics, Debunking the 9/11 Myths, p. 67
2
http://www.thepentacon.com/googlesmokinggun.htm
3
“Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts.” The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001
4
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html
5
Steve Vogel, “Remains Unidentified For 5 Pentagon Victims; Bodies Were Too Badly Burned, Officials Say”. The Washington
Post
6
http://flight77.info/85tapes.gif
7
http://flight77.info/00new/n85reply.jpg
(5) [Shanksville]
“It looks like there’s nothing there, except for a hole in the ground.”
“Uh basically that’s right. The only thing you can see from where we were, was a big gouge in the earth and some
broken trees. We could see some people working, walking around in the area, but from where we can see there
wasn’t much left. Any large pieces of debris at all? No, there was nothing, nothing you can distinguish that a
plane had crashed there.”
[Commercial plane crash in Nigeria.]
[Flight 93 “Crash” in Shanksville.]
“The FBI and the State police here have confirmed that they have cordoned off a second area about 6 to 8 miles
away from the crater here. This is apparently another debris site... Why would debris be located 6 miles away,
could it have blown that far away? Seems highly unlikely.”
[?]
The above fragmented testimony and news reports cover or allude to the follow points:
(1) Little wreckage at the “crash site crater”.
(2) Large debris field within miles, suggesting a shoot down.
(1) With regard to little wreckage at the “crash site crater”.
Testimonies about the Flight 93 crash site nearly all show surprise as to the little debris in the immediate area. Jon Meyer
reported on the scene: “There was just a big hole in the ground....Nothing that would even tell you that is was a plane...
You just can’t believe a whole plane went into this crater...There were no suitcases, no recognizable plane parts, no body
parts.” 1
Jeff Phillips, a local worker, stated: “The crater was...just a spot that had a little fire on it...We were looking around and
wondered where the airplane was...There was no plane to be found...Almost nothing was recognizable. The only thing we
saw that was even remotely human was half a shoe that was probably ten feet from the impact area.” 2
To defend the lack of debris in the immediate area, The 911 Commission claimed that the plane was going 580 mph, while
doing something of a dive so as to send the plane underground and causing it to disintegrated into tiny pieces. 3 The first
problem is that the 580 mph figure is unsupported by evidence and the 911 does not shed light on where this number
came from. Rather the NTSB, based on the data recorded, said the plane was going between 200- 300 mph. 4 The sec-
ond problem is that there are several eye witness testimonies that challenge the idea that the plane was diving down into
the ground for such a concentrated, extreme impact.
For example:
Terry Butler, after reporting that the plane was flying low to the ground, said it “banked to the right and appeared to be try-
ing to climb (up) to clear one of the ridges, but it...then veered behind a ridge.” 5 Tim Thornsberg said: “It came in low over
the trees and started wobbling. Then it just rolled over and was flying upside down for a few seconds...and then it kind of
stalled and [did] a nose dive over the trees.” 6
(2) With regard to the large debris field within miles, suggesting a shoot down.
There are three issues which suggest flight 93 was shot down. (a) 10:03 vs 10:06 time of crash. (b) Size of total debris
field and (c) Reports.
(a) The 911 Commission Report says Flight 93 impacted the earth at 10:03:11. 7 However, this stated time
is highly contradicted by numerous sources, which mark the time as 10:06. (While 3 secs might seem like
a short time, it is very relevant, as will be shown.)
1
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=jon_meyer
2
David McCall, “From Tragedy to Triumph”