If destruction of evidence is a plausible indication of a crime . .

Let me start today's blog by echoing a comment from dz posted in my last thread. I am truly pleased at the healthy tone and genuine debate that has accompanied my recent entries. Thank you all. We're all involved in this to bring the truth to the general population, and on that basis alone, we deserve to extend to each other a proper debate forum and no name-calling.

After reviewing Erin S. Meyers terrific blog about the destruction of evidence indicating probable culpability and criminal activity, it brought me back to the blog I wrote yesterday about the airborne object hitting the Pentagon. I admit this is a red hot topic, and one that can quickly divide truthers.

So, what physical evidence, in the public domain, that was found at the Pentagon scene does or does not corroborate with a 757 heavy?

Positively identified items;

A landing gear strut can be proven with reasonable certainty to be that of a 757.
A seperate rim and tire assembly can also be corroborated thusly.

Disputable items:

Several pieces of aluminum fuselage. Much research has been done to discredit these pieces. I won't delve into it any further than to label them "disputed" today.

Conflicting items:

Diffuser case- wrong bezels for either a Pratt & Whitney or Rolls Royce 757 engine.
Turbine Fan- Wrong diameter for above, or the CPU, the third mini-motor that powers accesories.
Wing Section- way to small and tapered to belong anywhere on a 757. Looks very Global Hawk.
(see photo attachments)
Tail Section- seen in security camera stills, exiting the explosive ejecta, final frame. It is of the "inverted v" form, not the "low T" found on a 757. Inverted "v" coincidentally, is used on the Global Hawk.
(see photo attachments)

Now, about the destruction of evidence. Also attached is a photograph of the Pentagon Lawn Crew.
Please note several important items:

Debris is being removed, rather than being flagged in place, as is the NTSB protocol for aircraft wreckage.
(see photo attachments)

The people in this line are largely civilian. They, according to one who has come forward, were commandeered from stopped traffic on I-380. Look at their clothing. Either it's okay to wear jeans and hoodies to work at the Pentagon, or they are ordinary civilians, just like our source claimed. Other Pentagon employees photographed that day were either in military dress, or suits and ties.

They have black plastic garbage bags tied around their waists. I don't know about you, but I'd need more than a Hefty bag to pick up 80 tons of aircraft. Little, if any debris can be seen on the lawn. What was on the lawn has been described as "carbon fiber, bonded to thin aluminum" by this source in the line. I do not have permission to release this person's name. I offer this information qualified as such, and also cannot verify this person's claim. Aside from the description of the debris, little else could be disputed about this information by examining the photo closely.

So, if there was an urgency in removing this debris, on what basis was it justified? I posit that it was because it was immediatley recognizable as non-757 debris. I welcome your comments on this opinion.

GHwing.jpg63.06 KB
pentagontailsection.JPG17.13 KB
Pentagonlawncrew.jpg92.47 KB

A 757 has 3 landing gears and 10 rims

At the Pentagon, we see only ONE landing gear and ONE rim, both having traveled the full distance of the alleged crash. Where are the other 2 landing gears and 9 rims at the Pentagon? Did the rest just "burn up"?

At Shanksville ALL 3 landing gears and 10 rims are missing. Did they all disintegrate after hitting that "soft dirt" there?


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Agreed, and also this to consider . .


Something else to consider about the landing gear. We don't know if the "757" was alleged to have come in gear-up or down, but at max throttle, they were almost certainly stowed in the retracted position. pilotsforthetruth has done an excellent dissertation of the flight data recorder information, I'm certain they could tell us whether the gear were deployed. IF they were stowed, the gears would have been encased in an aluminum container of quite robust design. When gear doors are opened, there is a tremendous drag on them, the gear, and the supporting framework within the airframe. Where I am heading with this is that this 757 gear, that was either found or "salted" into the Pentagon debris, should be well entwined within the gear storage bay components, not looking up at us in a nearly un-entagled state.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

There is no debris at Pent or Shanks that couldn't

have been planted there fairly easy. Most of the debris seen outside the Pent isn't even burnt or scraped even after it supposedly slammed into a fortified wall at 530mph.

The most obvious planted debris is at Shanks where we are told the plane burrowed underground (tailsection and all), yet two medium sized fuselage pieces escaped and are found in the forest under the cover of trees and somehow a pristine red bandana is found.

Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Duh!.... those planes

Duh!.... those planes crashed.... you should be looking for "chrashing gear"

*adjusts blinders*



gears and rims

Who ever suggested that every piece of Pentagon debris was photographed, and every one of those photos has been posted online? We have no idea how many wheel rims or landing gear assemblies were found. In any case, please elaborate on your theory of how all these 757 parts were planted.

I agree that the Shanksville crash is highly suspicious. However, it is also a crash where we have far less evidence than we do in the case of the Pentagon. I think it's misleading of you to try and use evidence that the Shanksville crash was staged to support your no- Flight 77 theories. SOMETHING clearly hit the building, and all the evidence I've seen thus far indicates it was a 757...

I agree that any parts could've easily been planted before well

before the day of the crash. That small section of the Pentagon was being renovated for a long time, and many objects could've been planted/hidden in there over time.

They were planted by people

when nobody was looking.

I mean there is really not much to elaborate on.

Maybe you can elaborate on what happened to the missing 2 landing gears and 9 rims? How about elaborate on what happened to the tail section and why all those pieces of debris seen on the outside are unburned and nonscraped?

Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

you do know that the

you do know that the Pentagon was emptied numerous times during the rescue effort on 9/11 because of reports of incoming "aircraft" right? more than enough time to get the cameras and prying eyes away. numerous times.

Not to mention

Camera's galor around the Pentagon (The most protected building in the world) and the films released show jack sh*t.


We can go on & on about all the information we have.Which should be MORE than enough to proceed with a criminal investagation.
To think we need a public confession is absurd!
We need Congress to do there job,and answer the questions!


These parts have serial numbers

757 parts

Regarding your 'conflicting items'

Diffuser case: Unmistakably from a 757. There's no question here - military planes have very different engine designs, especially in the diffuser casings. Detailed comparison here http://www.pentagonresearch.com/081.html

Turbine fan: Also clearly from a 757 engine - this is the one that Loose Change got drastically wrong. The fan rotors of a jet engine are never even close to the diameter of the intake at the front of the engine, therefore a 5- foot wide 757 jet would have a fan rotor around two feet in diameter. The rotors on a 2- foot diameter engine like a Skywarrior's would be much smaller than the one photographed. http://www.pentagonresearch.com/079.html

Wing section: I've never examined this picture before. It looks to me like the leading half of a large tail section, but is too damaged to tell clearly. In any case, I think flying a Global Hawk or any absurdly- recognizable UAV into the building is ridiculous beyond comprehension...

Tail section: First off I think it's a bad idea to rely on this potentially- forged video for any accurate information about what hit the Pentagon. Secondly, if a 757 or any aircraft did hit the first floor of the building, there's no way the tail section would end up where it is in that photo - I'm guessing if it's real, the it has to be a piece of the roof propelled upward by the explosion. Even if it is from the impact object, there's absolutely no way you could identify the plane from such an indistinct piece of debris...

More on plane debris here: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

As for the people cleaning the lawn... One innocent explanation I can think of is that they were worried the airplane evidence would be damaged by the ongoing fire and rescue effort (the lawn was pretty torn up by the end of the day), so they grabbed some civilians and had them collect as many pieces as possible. I find it very hard to believe that they had civilians cleaning up Global Hawk parts while FBI agents ran around scattering large pieces of aluminum with pieces of 'American Airlines' lettering on them...

People who want to come up with alternatives to Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon really should study the crashes into the Trade Center more closely. Is there any plane debris ejected in the direction the plane came from? No. Are there any intact pieces of the plane that survived and came out the other side? No. Is there any evidence that ANY large pieces of the plane remained intact inside the towers? Nope.

Every indication I get from watching the WTC crashes and aftermath is that the debris at the Pentagon is exactly what would be expected from a 757 crash into the building: No large pieces anywhere, very little debris on the lawn, the survival of denser components (landing gear, wheel rim) inside the building. I really don't see where the mystery is...

Rebuttal of Anonymous Blog

First, let's talk about the security camera stills. These are in the public record. Every unique source of these photos has this piece of debris in it, if presented in an uncropped format. It's not altered.

Second, the wing piece. It's a complete wing section. Any Aeronautical Engineer will point out Bernoulli's taper, in it's entirety, in the cross section. (The shape needed to form a low pressure area over a wing, and provide lift.) No wing would have multiple tapers.

Third, about the turbine rotor. The source you cited has this to say about it, directly from the web page you referenced:

Identifying compressor rotors is very difficult. Often the modern replacements have a very different appearance from the originals. Some had tie-rod holes added due to FAA safety changes over the years etc. The same rotor may have been used at different stages of the engines as well. The little slots can have any size fan blade put in them or not at all. I investigated the RB-211 which N644AA had on it and also the JT8D which was on the 737 and A-3 Skywarrior. I made no positive ID on either. I'm afraid that the only way that we'll know for certain is if somebody can find the same age engine that Flight 77 had on it (then you'd have to know the engine replacement history) and find an old one to dismantle.

And I'll post some intact pieces coming out of the WTC towers in a little bit.

Good rebuttal, though. Nice to see such a prompt and courteous reply.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

Wouldn't quite call it a rebuttal...

How can you claim the security camera video wasn't altered? Do you have chain of custody records all the way up to that low- rez jpeg with a little red arrow sketched onto it? I still think there was a plane and they deliberately removed the frames that showed it, or just picked the one video that didn't happen to record the plane. And that doesn't change the fact that there's no way in hell you'd be able to identify a tail section after it went though a reinforced building at 500 mph...

As far as engine components go, check out this image: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/rb211-pentagon.jpg
You don't have to identify the exact compressor rotor to know the size of the engine it came from - and it's clearly impossible for a rotor that big to have come from anything much smaller than a 757's engine.

This is the best comparison I've seen: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/rb211-compariso...

The site that image is from, I linked to it earlier, does a fairly thorough examination of RB211, JT8D, J57, and AE3007H engines, concluding that the rotor must have come from a RB211- sized jet engine. Therefore, the components in the comparison picture are not only very similar in appearance, but also in size. I think you guys will have to put the rotor into the category of 'planted evidence'... It seems like a fairly insignificant component, but if you watch Loose Change it's the only concrete piece of evidence they offer in support of the Skywarrior theory. Not the strongest argument, if you ask me...

Since you asked . . .

You can go to judicialwatch.org and see the same debris in the ejecta, and many, many other sources. I re-state that these frames are in the PUBLIC RECORD.Now that you've had it pointed out, you will even see it on network TV. God knows I'm not handy enough at IT to hack all these sites and TV channels to insert an airplane tail. Yes, that's my crappy little arrow, which should indicate the paucity of my IT talent. I can't help the resolution, it's all the government released, which in itself should be quite suspect, given the array or security cameras around the Pentagon which would undoubtedly provide a better picture.

As for rebuttal, you stated that there is no similarity between a military jet engine and a civilian one in your original blog, but there is indeed a great deal of crossover use. Once again, I quote the very site you referenced:

"I investigated the RB-211 which N644AA had on it and also the JT8D which was on the 737 and A-3 Skywarrior."

737= Civilian plane
A-3 Skywarrior= Military plane

Same engine.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry


I'm sorry, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying YOU forged the video, definitely not making any silly 'disinfo' accusations here or anything... I'm just saying that it's possible (likely) the video was altered prior to being released and that makes it fairly poor evidence as to what type of plane it is. The bright fireball does not affect any of the shadows in the foreground, suggesting an explosion could have been composited into existing footage. If this is the case, then any pieces of debris in the fireball would not help us determine what hit the building.

Even if the footage was not altered, that doesn't change the fact that the tail of a plane hitting the first floor of a building like that could never 'bounce' into the position it was supposedly photographed in. The tail of Flight 77/A3/Global Hawk/a cruise missile would end up INSIDE the building, not a hundred feet above it. Therefore it's clearly impossible for your little black blob to be a part of the tail section.

737 vs Skywarrior

Actually, and this is a good indicator of how silly the Skywarrior theories are, the JT8D was never actually used on the A3 - the JT8D is a civilian engine. Much smaller than an RB211 but a civilian engine nonetheless. Any theories about a JT8D engine at the Pentagon must assume that a decomissioned A3 was retrofitted with 727 engines prior to the attack.

Obviously there is crossover in engine use, but the military doesn't employ civilian engines on fighter and bomber aircraft under any circumstances.

No 767's hit the WTCs, that's why

you didn't see any plane debris fly backwards when the explosion then the fireball shot backwards.  Notice no jet fuel still burning at the facade gashes which are at the same angle and no plane debris seen around the gashes either.

But large plane debris was found planted on top of WTC 5 right by a stair case and an engine and wheel assemble was found conveniently under a construction canopy.


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

No 767's hit the WTCs,

No 767's hit the WTCs, that's why

Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes.

The same Sith lords who say NPT is "nonsense"?

Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

I think he meant

The Sith loards that support the the No Plane Theory nonsense because it helps them get away with crashing three planes into buildings...


What happed to the fourth?

Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

The mystery is

how a commercial airliner managed to squeeze its wings through a hole barely large enough to accommodate its fuselage, then proceeded to punch through 3 consecutive rings of the Pentagon, thereby rivalling the armor piercing capabilities of full-grown bunker busters.

The mystery is also how it made a low-level high-speed approach, seemingly ignoring groundeffect altogether, whereby it dislodged lightpoles without getting severely damaged and off trajectory - all the while not being in accord with the NTSBs released flight data.

Some pieces of trash found in the lion's den don't qualify as pristine evidence, making the debate whether or not this or that part belongs to a 757 moot, wouldn't you agree?

big hole

the impact hole was 96 feet wide. http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html


96ft after the section had collapsed...

prove it

Show me one picture of this 16 foot hole. Every pre- collapse photo I've seen shows confirms that there was a 96 foot hole on the first floor (enough to encompass both engines and most of the wings) and a 16 - 20 foot hole on the second floor (for the top section of the fuselage).

Say Wha???

Where have you been? Have you read any of our arguments? I'm sorry but I find this so unbelievable that you have not seen the photos of the Pentagon prior to the collapse of the facade.

Have you seen any of our documentaries?

"Have you seen any of our documentaries?"

You mean like 'In Plane Site' and 'Loose Change'? Yes, and they're flat- out wrong about the Pentagon. The Government is deliberately letting no- plane theories grow by withholding footage, knowing they can discredit the entire movement when they prove that Flight 77 hit the building.

I was a no planer once, back in 2002 I think. Then I rezlized that the whole '16 foot hole' was complete misinformation that relied on cropping out the first floor and making it appear as if the much- smaller hole on the second floor was actually the extent of the impact damage. Fortunatlely, in the years since, sites like 911research and oilempire have done a comendable job debunking the no- plane theories, and I've learned my lesson about scrutinizing questionable claims made by the movement. This is by far the best photo of pre- collapse damage:

Here's tons of info about the extent of the impact damgae: http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-hole.html

Better yet, read up on all the 'Trojan Horses' that pose long- term threats for the Truth Movement: http://911review.com/disinfo/index.html

essay url


911 research hates you hotlinkin images...



Yeah that car goes behind the firetruck in the picture I posted... Nice shot of the damage cause by the left wingtip, though.

Make sure to widen your browser window to see the full image above, or visit the link here: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/hole11.jpg. Impact DAMGE exceeded 140 feet, the wingspan of a 757. The impact HOLE exceeded 96 feet. To suggest that your image shows the extent of the impact damage is a perfect example of how no- plane theories rely on the misleading use of limited photos.

Ok, I'm not so sure anymore

however, what about the exit hole? Don't you find it incredible that the landing gear's supposed to have punched it?

That's good

glad we're looking at this openly. The exit hole is definitely suspicious - however even if there were bombs in the building, that doesn't disprove that a 757 hit it. There's plenty of suspicious things about the Pentagon crash - most of them just don't indicate a military plane or a cruise missile any more than they do a 757. I think the landing gear of a commercial airliner is more likely to have caused that hole than anything else that could be associated with the crash (ie cruise missile warhead or fighter jet component), so it wouldn't take it as evidence of no 757.

Just keep in mind that if Flight 77 DID hit the Pentagon, then the perpetrators have every reason to make us in the movement believe otherwise. Of course it would be possible to plant hundreds of 757 parts around the building in order to fake a crash (easier than demolishing the WTC, for example), but there's simply no reason for it. And if they're going to those lengths, they'd be pretty stupid not to forge a simple video of the plane going in - instead, they release a handful of frames whose ONLY purpose seems to be to leave the nature of the crash ambiguous.

So far the "Government crashed a 757 into the Pentagon and wants conspiracy theorists to believe otherwise in order to discredit them" theory is the only one that explains both the physical evidence and the government's behavior after the fact, if you ask me. Any other theories are based on such flimsy evidence that they should be kept with the space lasers and lizards - that is, out of the public debate for now...

There's no way

that the landing gear punched this exit hole. Absolutely no way. And the pieces outside the Pentagon look very dubious - uncharred, shiny and pretty clean cut, so I think both perspectives got some merit. If they wanted to use this as a Trojan horse, wouldn't they push the Pentagon NPT much more in the media, and wouldn't they be hard pressed to set up us the bomb now? Hm...

The Exit Hole oddity

is thoroughly examined at here: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/exit.html

Is it suspicious? Yes. Doesn't mean it changes the fact that a 757 hit the building. Maybe they had bombs to destroy evidence (ie wtc7). Maybe they had explosives to ensure critical people would die (ie the dead accountants who had been working on the missing trillions, or the dead national guard troops that were there in an unknown capacity for the wargames). Keep in mind that the Pentagon would be a hub of activity that morning, with different offices of the building literally on different sides of a war from each other (most not knowing it, of course). There's lots of stuff about the Pentagon that needs to be closely examined, but none of that will happen until we get over the 'no plane hit the building' crap...


we don't know when is the critical point when they 'set us up the bomb' - for now the media does focus a lot on Pentagon and no- plane theories when the movment gets any press, and that's probably good enough for them. I suspect the big revelation wouldn't happen until there's a change in the Presidency, however, so the next guy can dig up the video and be like "hey look what Bush had stashed away" and maybe even be honest about the fact that they were just playing games with the movement. I'm just coming up with that idea as I type it, but the more I think about it...

Anyway, the bigger the movement gets the more fractured it is. I think the sooner we resolve this Pentagon debate the better, and there's lots of people out there who will never accept that they planted multiple tons of wreckage while faking dozens of witnesses for no practical gain - so I guess thats kinda an ultimatum, at least in the sense that the 'no planers' can never truly win. Is it even possible to ever put this one behind us, or will people like Killtown never give it up? I guess we'll find out...

where did the plane hit again?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Interesting shot

what's the source RT? (or where did you find it)


"Nice shot of the damage cause by the left wingtip"???

Where does that scenario place the left engine?

Is it back on the lawn?

Or, is this a "no-engine" theory you propose?

A glider?


try to remember we're talkinb about a BIG plane here; if that picture shows the left wingtip damage, then clearly the engine hole would not be visible (notice the damage extends indefinitely to the right of the frame). Find other pictures and triangulate the location of that white car to the impact hole if you don't belive me.

may be "big" but it's still level, right?

so again, where would the left engine be if the left wing tip created the damage above?

The took several hours for

The took several hours for the wall to collapse, with firefighters spraying it heavily. Prior to that time, the hole was approximately 14 feet wide.

bruce always come through

Whenever the water gets muddy, and the fog thickens, whence comes bruce, with a purely scientific and solid shot across the bow.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

Ha, I wish!

Thanks though.

I didn't know that these were ID'ed with reasonable certainty:

"Positively identified items;
A landing gear strut can be proven with reasonable certainty to be that of a 757.
A seperate rim and tire assembly can also be corroborated thusly."

What about the rest of the plane, like the engines, 250 seats, luggage, etc.?


These items have serial numbers....Even if they were from a 757 Id bet they were not from AA77

Serial numbers, indeed

If dz will allow me to continue this thread, tommorow I shall post some of the known photos of the debris on the lawn. I will leave it up to the 9.11 blogger community to decide if and/or why certain areas of these parts have been obviously blurred.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

"positively identified items"

I, too, was glad to see a more reasonable discourse in the recent comments.

I agree that any non- 757 debris would have been removed immediately. Also, the lack of NTSB investigation of any of the alleged crashes is unprecedented and is further evidence of a cover-up.

I do have a question (surprise!) about the "positively identified items".

Item #1
1) A landing gear strut can be proven with reasonable certainty to be that of a 757.


-The strut in the photo appears to be rusted (indicating it was not recently part of an operating commercial jet).

-The photo contains anomalies related to lighting and shadows.

-The location of this strut is unclear and nothing within the image identifies the location.

-The wires around the strut appear to be plastic coated (and therefore were not involved in a massive fire)

-There is no serial number visible

Item #2 .

What is meant by "can also be corroborated thusly"?


Regarding your question . .

I truly agree with all of the anomalies you present in the photos of the 757 debris. I am merely suggesting by allowing the gear strut and rim as "reasonably certain" that in side by side comparisons to known 757 components, they appear to be correct.

In no way will I make the leap that just because they are the right parts, that they confirm the presence of Flight 77.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry


(btw-nice Patrick Henry quote)

JohnGault accolade


Thanks. It's really an excellent quote. I use it for several reasons. The anguish of spirit may refer to the loss of our national pride, given the obvious participation by our government in the 9.11 attacks.

It may also subtly refer to a 9.11 truther having to part with a pet theory when evidence indicates it should be done. I have my pet theories, and some of them are not popular with the mainstream truthers. I am very careful about to whom and when I share them, as to not discredit the 9.11 truth movement. Should I have to part with them entirely when they are proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be untrue, I will do so for the good of the movement.

And a great day to you, John Gault. Thanks for the accolade.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

Those older guys in business suits scooping up debris as shown

in "Loose Change" was particularly outrageous! They need to be subpoenaed & tell us why they were blatantly destroying a crime scene!

Prosecute removal of WTC evidence, not Pentagon

Perhaps a more easily prosecuted case of evidence removal is the WTC, not the Pentagon. There's too much confusion over the Pentagon evidence. But I think everyone agrees that the removal of steel from WTC was wrong.

Fire Engineering wrote in January 2002:

"Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately."



has anyone gone to the website which is advertised on the banner hanging across the pedestrian bridge?

it's somewhat interesting....

John Milton was one of the originators of propoganda.... he also wrote "Paradise Lost"

have an fun read... if you have time.... Milton does relate politically and spiritually to the events of 911

I am curious to the reason this banner was so prominently displayed.... there are several weird notations in the text starting with the first sentence