The 9/11 Story in PICTURES, (esp. for media dumbed down dummies?).

Originally posted by snoopyuk
it would be good if someone could provide evidence on Jack White ...as i am a newbie to the whole photo analysis scene and i dont know much about him.

i feel until i know who he really is it is difficult to take in his theories....which is a shame as good probing into 9/11 in the way he has `allegedly` done is going to be the only way the TRUTH comes out ,


steve

U.K

Heres a bit to start.

educationforum.ipbhost.com...

educationforum.ipbhost.com...#

Jack White's Pentagon photographs don't so much speak for themselves as s'n-word' in the corner at the idea that anyone should be taking them seriously. Here's a hint or two:

when White says two pictures are taken from the same viewpoint ask "are you sure Jack?"

when he says "where did that barrier come from?" tell him " off the back of a truck like they always do when a few hundred tons of construction equipment arrives on site Jack"

and when he starts making up names like "bagman" try telling him that he'd be better off learning what the rules of perspective really mean rather than trying to imitate the Kennedy conspiracy theorists.

Originally posted by timeless test

when White says two pictures are taken from the same viewpoint ask "are you sure Jack?"

when he says "where did that barrier come from?" tell him " off the back of a truck like they always do when a few hundred tons of construction equipment arrives on site Jack"

and when he starts making up names like "bagman" try telling him that he'd be better off learning what the rules of perspective really mean rather than trying to imitate the Kennedy conspiracy theorists.

Everyone can see for themselves wether these points are valid or not, there are photos where alledgedly the same car is white, then it's green, then white again and of a different type, then shattered, covered by wreckage, and so on.

the pics shown on white's website are mostly forged, period. don't need to look for ways to ignore the obvious inconsistencies in them,so , the only remaining question is where did they originate. these are the guys who have to answer how they obtained them. if they can't do that, they become prime suspects. if they do cite a source ask there, and so on. probably a futile excercise, though.

as for thé debunking link, all i can see is that this guy posted on another forum and got slammed, so what? same happens here all the time, doesn't show squat. wrt. Apollo Hoax (OT btw), the pic with the photos on the lander's leg - a fabrication either way, again what's the original source. if nasa published it, they've got a problem, in terms of PR, because they'd have to admit that all their films were overexposed by cosmic radiation but too scared to admit it - or whatever, but arguing against the very existance of the pic is either deluded or deliberate obfuscation.

[edit on 25-6-2006 by Long Lance]

We were having an easy enough time discussing flaws in the presentation without ad hominem attacks on the author and just posting external "debunking" links.

If there are problems with the presentation, then discuss them directly here. If you don't know how, read over the first half page of the thread.

The point is that many of White's photographs are not forged, they are simply misinterpreted at the most basic level by someone who claims that their "specialism is photoanalysis". By this process White destroys not only his own credibility but that of others who do ask legitimate questions.

Originally posted by bsbray11
We were having an easy enough time discussing flaws in the presentation without ad hominem attacks on the author and just posting external "debunking" links.

If there are problems with the presentation, then discuss them directly here. If you don't know how, read over the first half page of the thread.

The problem with Whites presentation was pointed out in the link to the other forum. It not an attack on the author--though that is what he'd like everyone to believe--it is simply pointing out that the author refuses to correct information in his presentation after its been shown to be innaccurate. Hes even given the benefit of the doubt by ststing that all the inconsistancies could very well have been honest mistakes.
But when they're pointed out to White---he ignores it and doesn't correct the information. Over and over the pattern is the same. It doesn't matter at this point what the original source of the pics or information was---he doen't deny its false or misleading or outright fabricated. He simply ignores it and goes on without correcting the mistakes.
Why do you suppose that is?


[edit on 25-6-2006 by Vushta]

Oh dear ... yes, Jack White.

I've looked at all the Pentagon photos of his and two of us suggested the original poster (in another thread) post the ones he was most impressed by. No response. I've been away for a while and I've lost track of the thread but it's buried here somewhere. There are now so many threads on the same subject.

Jack White actually managed to get the engines wrong on AA77, claiming they were Pratt & Whitney - they were in fact Rolls-Royce. A simple search on the FAA will tell you that. If he got the engines wrong, how much else did he get wrong?

Post the pictures that bug you - I know there are a few that bug me - they're so totally wrong. Photoshopped, faked, you name it. I'm not blaming Mr White (much) but if you're going with a photo story to back your facts, at least get your facts right!

Originally posted by Vushta
He simply ignores it and goes on without correcting the mistakes.
Why do you suppose that is?

I suppose you're making an ad hominem arguement.

There is a serious problem at hand if only one of those officially-released photos is a Photoshop. You realize that, right?

Regardless of how often the man is right or wrong, and regardless of whether or not he cares to fix his own mistakes, we can look at every claim he makes here and discern whether or not there's (a) anything to what he's saying, or (b) anything similar to what he's claiming, but that he himself has missed, that's similarly incriminating. Information is information. You're only looking at a person and making your judgment.

I found this part of the presenation interesting:



Notice the two images in the 2nd row from the top. Pretty similar angles, pretty dissimilar positions of the monument.

On this page you can find pictures by Rick Tucker that show the Pentagon, Capitol, and Washington Monument. Look at their relative locations in the images.

Here's a sized-down version of an image from that site (check the source site above to see the Capitol more clearly in the background):



And yet this news page shows the following image, which puts the Monument elsewhere:



That same image can be found here at a Newsday.com photo gallery of 9/11.

News Day also offers this image, which appears to offer a third angle, though less obviously than the first discrepancies:



One set of images is from an individual who has appears to have no interest in 9/11 conspiracies, and the others from News networks, possibly from DoD releases, as obviously claimed the author of the site in question.

I can't find many DoD Pentagon attack photos on the web anymore, though. Any help would be appreciated, but they seem to no longer be available, and there seems to be some photoshopping in at least one of the images above, unless somewhat can clearly establish the angles and distances and whatnot. It just seems intuitively wrong.

[edit on 25-6-2006 by bsbray11]

this one shows a dustcloud rising at the lower right corner, is it photoshopped? if yes, who did it? the live footage should have been taped by quite a few people on 9-11, so any fake is probably easily discernible ! if it's NOT fake, then we have proof that something happend at the time of impact #2.

it's that simple- either-or. sure, i dunno if WTC#6 has anything to with it, seems a bit too far off, but something happened there - or it's a fake. either way, both variants are interesting, to say the least.

edit: image fix


[edit on 26-6-2006 by Long Lance]

Long_Lance, we seem to have the same art of nitpicking internet info apart.
I have read countless eyewitness remarks, and this one stood out to me as seemingly genuine and accurate :

web.archive.org...://www.ournetfamily.com/WarOnTerror/emails/pentagonwitness.shtml

This impressed me at the time I read it first years ago, as a sincere, crisp description of what happened at the Pentagon.
It was however quickly retracted from the internet. That's why I only recently found it back again via the web archive.

At approximately 9:45am I entered the old office of my friend Gary Ramos', directly adjacent to the executive director. This office, with two nice windows and a great view of the monuments, the Capitol and the Pentagon was "good digs" by any Pentagon standard. This was the office I'd been sharing while working the BMDO reorganization. Being a beautiful sunny September day in Washington, and with a head full of the horror in New York, I walked in the office and stood peering out of the window looking at the Pentagon. I pondered the breaking events of the day, wondering what this world was coming to. As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up. Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon. The aircraft was moving fast, at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to 300 knots. All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds.

The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon. It was "clean", in as much as, there were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5. What instantly followed was a large yellow fireball accompanied by an extremely bass sounding, deep thunderous boom. The yellow fireball rose quickly as black smoke engulfed the entire Westside of the Pentagon, obscuring the whole of the heliport. I could feel the concussion and felt the shockwave of the blast impact the window of the Annex, knocking me against the desk.

(NOTE : Read the whole page, it's clear this was a genuine military induced patriot, who posted a few too many discrepancies with the official story. Not sure if that was the real reason his email was retracted so early on.)

Only a few things didn't add up with other important eyewitnesses, or the official accounts.
1. The time, "9:45am" , very important, it is about 10 minutes off from the official impact time of 9:36am.
Do remember too, the strange earlier-off-times of +/- 9:30, derived from the fallen Pentagon clocks, to be found at the terrorize.dk site, posted here also. Indicating perhaps the true time of the first explosion(s) in the Pentagon.
I also -really- wondered why the 2 released DoD entrance boot camera videos didn't have a clear time stamp under them. These videos are ALWAYS timestamped !correctly!, especially at the Pentagon, for obvious security and afterwards-investigation and -identification reasons.
This could coincident with your remarks, Long_Lance, about an earlier smoke pile rising from inside the rings of the Pentagon, before the plane hit.
2. The "sharp downward angle of attack", conflicting with so many others, who observed a nearly flat approach for the last mile or so.
3. The "slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted ". All others said the plane made a LEFT wing adjustment, even say the left wing scraped the concrete of the heli pad.
I do also believe, if we follow the (official?) 36° angle of impact to the wall (so not 51 to 55° as posted so much), that following an incoming trajectory just along the east wall of the Navy Annex to avoid that huge radio mast on the opposite side of the Columbia Pike ("as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon"), and when it "crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings", then it really had to tip the right wing a bit down to hit "around corridor 5.".

Another important observation from this man :
It was "clean", "no flaps applied". I suppose if this plane was flying on autopilot, it would have used partial flaps to more easily maneuver itself at that observed speed ("between 250 to 300 knots") around the radio mast in front of the Navy Annex ("slightly left wing down", just "jinked" ) and a few other objects in its flightpath downward to the bottom floor of the West wing of the Pentagon wall. Like there were : huge traffic signs, the even higher camera mast near the right huge traffic sign spanning the whole road in front of the Pentagon ("Route 110"), light poles, trees, and trailers in front of the wall

But now the most amazing observation of this man, many minutes after the impact :

Deborah and I sat behind a vehicle with Rob Snyder, the purpose being to use the car a shield should there be a follow up attack. Rob noted, "our world has just been forever changed." Indeed it had. Within moments there was a very loud bang, which seemed to come from the direction of Henderson Hall. At least, all the heads turned towards Henderson. It is possible that this was a secondary explosion from the Pentagon or possibly an F-16 going supersonic, as they had just assumed combat air patrol above the Washington metropolitan area. After this loud report, a Marine gunny, the only one seemingly "in command" directed all military and DoD employees to cross the fence line and seek cover in the adjacent Arlington National Cemetery.

I'm sure our friends from the other side of the fence will hop in, to go after the F-16 part. Well, I don't buy it.
There were more people reporting "secondary explosions" in the Pentagon, I posted about it a few times already.
The first Rifcus photo depicts a clear white explosion flash from the entrance hole. He did NOT photograph the exact impact event, he came a few minutes later out of his car with his gear. This combines quite well with the time the Annex-man reorted that "very loud bang". Read how he came to that position where he heard the "loud bang, which seemed to come from the direction of Henderson Hall", and realize that sound will seem to come from different directions then the original, when situated in a valley.
Also remember, carbon jet fuel explosions do not depict a white explosion flash.

To make myself clear about my Pentagon event position; I strongly support nearly all of this important essays :

1. 911research.wtc7.net...
The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows, by Jim Hoffman
Version 0.9, March 28, 2006
NOTE : I only do not believe that you really could set an autopilotted approach to the West wall of the Pentagon, up to the last meters.
I think the autopilot settings would not allow that, only if someone would have altered those settings on the ground already.
Which cuts out Arab terrorists, doing it all alone.
Perhaps the (remote) pilot went on manual the last 1/2 mile.
However, if it was a remote pilot, then it will have been easy to program the whole plane's trajectory with mathematical precision !
The remote "pilot" just needed to switch somewhere over to remote control, with preprogrammed trajectory. His work was done then. He only leaned back and followed the event through a nose cone camera installed.

2. 911research.wtc7.net...
Eyewitness Accounts Indicate the Pentagon Attack Involved Explosive Detonation.

LAST-NOTE: you -have- to see : What's The Truth? How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?
This latest film, with some heartbreaking testimonies from survivers, and a victims mother, mrs.Donna Marsh O'Connor.(at the 01:03-01:07 hr positions).
Also a beautifull comparison between a few Thermite reactions by Mythbusters, and the stream of molten metal out of the burning floors of the WTC Towers.
Witnesses talk about the explosions they heard, in very graphic language.
Prof. Jones explains his position.
Also Col.(ret.) Bowman has some true things to say at the end.
www.archive.org...

Download, watch-out:942MB!
Made by DEM Bruce Lee Styles.
Windows Media (942 MB) 1 hour and 29 minutes.

There is a serious problem at hand if only one of those officially-released photos is a Photoshop. You realize that, right?

I'm not making a personal attack on White. I'm pointing out his investigative techniques of ignoring the need to correct flaws after they have been pointed out. Correcting bad information is how you arrive at an accurate conclusion.

The evidence of photoshopping (which so far there is none) is only serious depending on the context..i.e. contrast adjusted? image sharpened? flares diminished? etc. Or have they been manipulated with a concious plan to decieve? I'm sorry but ...um..moving where the monument appears to be??...the point of that would be???

Regardless of how often the man is right or wrong, and regardless of whether or not he cares to fix his own mistakes, we can look at every claim he makes here and discern whether or not there's (a) anything to what he's saying, or (b) anything similar to what he's claiming, but that he himself has missed, that's similarly incriminating. Information is information. You're only looking at a person and making your judgment.

Well..no.
You cannot make an accurate judgement of anything with bogus information..You do realize that, don't you?

"Information is information" is bogus information. Theres accurate information and theres information based on speculation and misdirection to name a few.

Originally posted by Vushta

I'm sorry but ...um..moving where the monument appears to be??...the point of that would be???

In either one of the White pages or someone here stated that it was added for patriotic effect. With the administartion wanting everyone on board for it's pre-planned invasions on Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems like a plausible explaination. It would'nt be the first time this White House has been intellectually dishonest to further it militaristic ambitions.

Yes rafermadness you're quite right. However, the point I was trying to make, (I won't speak for others), is that if you examine White's photographs rationally you will very soon see that the monument doesn't move at all - the effects he describes are entirely accounted for by changes in viewpoint.

White appears to prefer a more melodramatic explanation which he cannot back up.

I'll leave it to everyone to figure out wether the 'change in viewpoint' holds water or not, afaics, the monument is 30-40 degrees off and much too large (same for the capitol's apparent size).

finally, the point is wether official sources will resort to photoshop when it doesn't count - imagine what they will do when they believe it counts ? liars ain't trustworthy, nothing personal i mean, it's just a learning process, you know?

[edit on 26-6-2006 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Vushta
I'm sorry but ...um..moving where the monument appears to be??...the point of that would be???

As already suggested, strengthening patriotic effect, for one thing, but who's to say that it wouldn't also be to poke at the general public in the same way that the "leaked" clips seem to have? That's if there is an actual problem in those photos, but seriously:





What is up with that?

You cannot make an accurate judgement of anything with bogus information..You do realize that, don't you?

That's not what I meant. For example, based on what he presented of the Washington Monument's role in the Pentagon photos, I did some searching and found some images that seem to be, in my mind at least, mutually exclusive to a pretty ridiculous degree. Change the perspective on the Pentagon's attacked face by a few degrees, and suddenly the Monument appears to have moved thousands of feet.

"Information is information" is bogus information.

Not always. That's been the whole point of this thread so far. We're looking for problems, not only with Mr. White, but with the government's official explanation as well.

A few of us are actually trying to be indiscriminate, here.



Edit: I think I'm missing something inherent in 3D photos of the Pentagon and Washington Monument, but the news angles look possible from Google Maps. I still don't get what causes such great differences in the placement of the Monument given how far back it is, but nonetheless, Google Maps seems to show that at least the angles showing the Monument directly behind the impacted section would've been possible.



Pentagon in the bottom left, Washington Monument in the top right.

Isn't Google Earth 3D? Maybe somebody can check that. It's looking less suspicious now, but I'm still confused.

[edit on 26-6-2006 by bsbray11]

[edit on 26-6-2006 by bsbray11]

It is impossible for me to edit that long first link in my post above to www.ournetfamily.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Pentagonwitness, since I have pasted the post from a Wordpad window, which seem to trick the 6500 character counter under my ATS post window. When I try to insert the first - [url= - etc to fix that too long link, my cursor disappears. So I used a few times the page back button, to save my post from disaster.
And I do not want to risk to switch the whole post for a new one, somehow I think the whole post will disappear totally then.
Moderator, please?

So I will EDIT and thus add to my last post above this way for now :

The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft, he seemed to survey the area and depart in on a westerly heading.

I'm sure our friends from the other side of the fence will hop in, to go after the F-16 and C-130 part. Well, I don't buy it.
F-16 don't go supersonic above a city without a cause. There was no cause. And if a F-16 went after flight 93, it first would have to put on its afterburners, which is a very distinctive sound, which this experienced Annex man surely would have mentioned.
And the 2 jet fighters which at last appeared in the skies above Washington, we have a whole report from on line, and they only flew subsonic, guided by military flight controllers. Much later arrived other military planes, so those do not fit the Annex man report.
Much later than 9/11, the Airforce suddenly pulled an Air Natl Guard C-130 out of their hat, after first denying the existence of any C-130 at all for more than a week. Only reluctantly, after some photos turned up on the internet with a C-130 in it, flying through the smoke collumn of the burning Pentagon. That same C-130 was namely reported near the crash of flight 93 in Shanksville.
What a damn coincidence, one of the more than thousand that strange day.

This picture from mr Meysan from France will facilitate the visualization of the last 1/2 mile of the flightpath of flight 77 :



END EDIT.


A few more, highly interesting sites :

911review.com...
The hanging collumns in the first pictures of the Pentagon crash scene, on the ground floor and one in the plane-body-entrance hole are not remnants of collumns, but hanging down parts of floorslabs.

911research.wtc7.net...
Video of the Pentagon Attack: What is the Government Hiding?

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...
Comments regarding Prof. Jones’ "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"

www.journalof911studies.com...
The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001. All content is freely available online.
An Invitation to Submit :
The Editors invite article submissions from all researchers working at the forefront of investigations related to 9/11/2001 and its aftermath.
Editors: Prof. Steven E. Jones and Prof. Judy D. Wood.

gordonssite.tripod.com...
Example text : A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point.

The kinetic energy being considered is that of the impacting mass of the falling section. There is kinetic energy in the now moving lower storeys but this has been lost by the impacting mass. The only source of energy which is available to the falling mass is potential energy and unless that energy is released by collapse of further columns the falling mass will come to a halt. As the propagation wave continues to load columns further down the tower the energy will spread through lower storeys as elastic strain energy which is recoverable, unlike plastic strain energy. As the upper section decelerates, the force which it is capable of exerting will reduce, and the elastic deflection will reduce in response. As this drops the elastic strain energy previously absorbed by the lower storeys will convert back to potential energy. In other words it will unload, or bounce. The towers were best characterised as being a series of springs and dampers, being struck with a large but relatively slow moving and less substantial series of springs and dampers.

Damage in this analysis aside from the storey removed in order to initiate collapse is limited to the damage to the two storeys which impacted each other, and even this was not sufficient to move the impacted columns through the plastic shortening phase and into the rapid plastic phase which is characterised and accompanied by the onset of buckle points. It should be noted that this concentrates the energy of the impact. In reality several of those storeys nearest to point of impact and especially those with columns of lighter cross section in the upper falling section would each suffer a portion of that damage. This would further serve to dissipate the energy at points remote from the collapse front.

This text is also here as a PDF file :
worldtradecentertruth.com...

www.gieis.uni.cc...
WTC - 9/11, Independent Analysis of Scientific Evidence Relating to 9/11
All The Latest Information...

www.team8plus.org...
Animation showing military precision of flight paths.

OK, I am new member on the site although I have been lurking for quite a while. SO I hope not to get reamed by anyone, lol. I am no expert just a very interested US citizen. With that said, I believe the evidence in these photos did nothing to convince me of a conspiracy. And I ctually went through the whole thing. I think it is silly to much so much stock in this guy's extensive comparisons. To be honest, I didnt even see half of the discrepancies he spoke of and the other half just were not very conclusive to me. Just seemed like changes in perspective or something that can be explained without the aid of conspiracy theory. In all, it just seemed like the man is trying to hard to find things that are not there.

Another issue I have with the conspiracy theorists point of view. Why must they use such slanted language if they are just trying to get people to make an educated decision about the events of 9/11. Just seems like all the sarcasm are a bullying technique to "bring people to the other side"

reading these links will assist you to make an educated guess what exactly happened around 9/11.
The guess will be all yours, the feed is mine and the authors of these essays :

911research.wtc7.net...
www.ratical.org...
worldtradecentertruth.com...
worldtradecentertruth.com...
worldtradecentertruth.com...
worldtradecentertruth.com...
worldtradecentertruth.com...

Ofcourse there's a lot of other, contradictionary info to be found on the internet and in books and videos, but this is a conspiracy site, which logically leans to the side of complicity of factions in the US military and government regarding 9/11.
The first link gives the most historic info to begin with.
Lots of sub-links in there, and also in the other links.

Since it seems to be my reply to this thread that appears to have sparked the whole debate as to the authenticity of the research, I'll put in my two cents worth, as to why I made my statements.

Before I state anything else, I do want to say that I found many things wrong with the logic used in the photographic presentation, however, even with the errors in logic I found, I don't find any of them contradictory to my reasons for becoming more open to my opinion that something other than a 757 struck the Pentagon.

That said, I am quite familliar with the area, and was even on the crew that erected the drape over the damaged section of the Pentagon while reconstruction took place. When that drape was erected, the site looked pretty much as you all have seen it after the collapse of the wedge, only with the fires out, and large debris cleaned up (though the light poles were all sitting on the lawn, piled neatly, ready to be hauled off). Surveying the site that day, having heard the initial theories stating it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, and not a 757, I can still pretty safely say that it was NOT a missile (and even if missiles from an armed military passenger plane hit, the plane itself also hit). Given the construction of the outside walls of the Pentagon (reinforced concrete, hardened steel, kevlar, and limestone - all told, about 16" thick), that hole was made by no less than a plane.

The reason that I am willing to accept the notion that it wasn't a 757 that hit is because of some of the written speculation and photographs of military passenger jets posted on the site. I know quite well that most people wouldn't be able to identify the make and model of a plane flying by at 550 mph, low to the ground. They'd look for quick identifiers - number of engines, the presence of passenger windows, and the logo on the tail section. It's quite likely that an 80' long military jet mocked up to look like an AA flight could easilly be mistaken for something larger at that speed, that close to the ground - it's a little tough to count passenger windows at that point. I know that I wouldn't be able to make a proper identification in such an event, and I even have a fairly decent knowledge of commercial jets. I also hold to reason that most people would also not be able to make an identification of such a plane in such an event. This fact holds most eyewitness reports to be suspect, when looking for proper identification of the aircraft.

Additionally, the fact that one lightpole, which should have been in the trajectory for an airplane with a 120 foot wingspan was still standing (the pole shown still standing on the exit ramp off of 395) looks a little suspicious. Having said that, I could see how an untrained pilot in a commercial aircraft would possibly miss the pole. Chances are, even with the computerized flight systems, he wasn't coming in steady. Most likely, the plane was rocking back and forth, as the pilot tried to maintain control of the plane long enough to hit the intended target. Another note on the website's assessment of lightpole damage: the site states that the light poles were cleanly sheared off, with little impact damage. This is quite possible, given the altitude, speed, and attitude of the incoming jet. It's the same principle as is behind the old "yanking the tablecloth, and leaving the dishes" trick. The force is applied so suddenly and so sharply that the surrounding materials don't have a chance to respond to the force, before it's no longer being applied, thus resulting in minimal collateral damage. The bases would snap after the fact, because the residual sway in the post, after losing a significant amount of weight at the top (the removal of the boom arm with the light), caused by massive, quick impact, would have strined the breakaway system at the base of the poles, causing them to fall. Finally, the idea of the poles landing on the turf with little to no damage to the grass is also quite easy to explain. The type of lightpole used on that section of 395 is actually pretty common across the East Coast (if not the entire US). Those poles, even being roughly 50 feet high, often weigh less than 500 lbs, due to their tubular construction out of aluminum. Additionally, the break-away points at the bottoms of the poles (and also found at the base of the box at the bottom of the poles - designed to break away cleanly in the event of a car accident), doesn't fully snap until the pole is completely horizontal to the base. This ensures a soft landing for the pole. Typically, when one of these poles fall, there may be indentation of the earth/sod that it falls on, but there rarely is a gouge where they fall. This completely explains the lack of turf damage in the photos shown on the site.


I still believe wholeheartedly that it was, in fact, an airplane that hit the Pentagon, but I'm no longer 100% certain that it was a 757, given possible eyewitness mistakes and somewhat illogical damage (or lack thereof) along the trajectory path. Additionally, the idea that a remote was flown into the Pentagon more closely follows the plot laid forth in the Operation Northwoods document, and would also explain why no bodies of airplane passengers or crew were found.

A final note on the fact that no bodies were found: it is possible that a jet, loaded with fuel, ready to made a trans-continental flight, crashing and exploding in a reinforced structure, could very well vaporize the occupants of said jet (it's a well known fact that an explosion in a confined space, with fuel to burn, could actually burn hotter than it would otherwise).

All of this said, having seen both sides of the argument, I'm honestly not sure what to believe at this point, besides the fact that it was certainly a plane of some sort that flew into the Pentagon. Any theory falling within that criteria is a theory I'm willing to at least listen to.