What struck the Pentagon on 9/11?

Many 9/11 researchers believe that the Pentagon was struck by a missile, a belief made widely popular by Loose Change. This theory is supported by the appearance of the Pentagon and the nature of the damage. The Pentagon was struck in the only section that was specifically renovated to bolster it against attack. This supports the theory that a missile was used to create the 16 foot hole since a drone aircraft would not cause significant damage to such a robust structure. Those who looked carefully at the debris at the Pentagon discovered evidence of airplane parts from a midsized aircraft, far smaller than AA 77, a Boeing 757. Although there are many conflicting eyewitness accounts, many seem to agree that it was a “mid-sized” plane that “appeared to hold about eight to 12 people”. Many have therefore speculated that it was an unmanned global hawk drone aircraft that was remotely piloted to strike the Pentagon.

My theory is that the Pentagon was struck by an aircraft called the Predator that fired a missile (possibly an AGM-114 Hellfire missile) at the time of the impact. This theory seems to account for all of the available evidence. The missile that was fired from the Predator accounts for the damage to the outside of the Pentagon as well as accounts of smelling cordite or explosives. The Predator could certainly be considered a “mid-sized” plane that “appeared to hold about eight to 12 people”. The CBC described: “The Predator was an unmanned aircraft, remotely piloted by CIA technicians in neighbouring countries or even back in the United States. The drone was equipped with a camera that would beam back real-time video images to CIA headquarters.”

See the Predator in action at 42min 34sec into this video.


[The above video is called ‘The Secret History of 9/11’ and aired in September 2006 on CBC. The first half of the movie details the lead up to 9/11, similar to ABC’s Path to 9/11, except less bias. The second half of the program deals with the 9/11 attacks themselves and contains many notable statements by Richard Clarke, Lee Hamilton, and others that most people in the 9/11 truth movement have not heard before.]

When I first saw the Predator in this video, I noticed that the nose of the plane looked very similar to the white object that appeared in frame of the Pentagon video tapes. I also noticed that the wings of the plane were very long which I thought could make the plane wide enough to knock over the light poles.

According to Russell from Pentagon Research: “The minimum wingspan required to create the pole damage was approximately 100 feet. The maximum wingspan before you would have had additional poles impacted is approximately 140 feet. The wingspan of a 757-200 is 124 feet 10 inches. This accounts for the minimum of 100 feet and allows for a 16 foot tolerance which is exactly what we see in the diagrams.” But according to wikipedia, the wingspan of the Predator is 42 feet 8 inches but also later says it has a wingspan of 48.7 feet, and that the wingspan is dependent on the block of aircraft. It appears that there are a few different models, of the Predator, and from the picture below, the wingspan of larger models may be long enough to have struck the light poles.


So I think that some version of the Predator could have been the plane that struck the Pentagon on 9/11. More research needs to be done on this subject. It needs to be determined if the engine used in the Predator matches the one that was found at the crash site. This is pretty much as far as I’m willing to research this, so I’m hoping that someone or a group of people can examine this issue more closely.

P.S. I’ve updated my movies section again, check them out at http://www.truth911.net

I’m also extending my offer for people to submit additional information for my website to build it up as a complete resource.

Show "Many?" by JamesB

Would those be the people

Would those be the people who were visited in the hospital by The Dark Suits and told "You saw a Boeing. Repeat after me: you saw a Boeing."

Or would those be the Pentagon employees? Or the people who claimed to see faces in the windows of a jetliner going hundreds of miles per hour? Perhaps the people who saw something whiz by and later said it was 77 although they couldn't name any identifying details?

Btw, I know someone who works in Arlington who claimed to a news source that she saw it from her desk. Problem was, her window faced in the wrong direction. I think she either imagined it or wanted to be in on the action.

I remain agnostic on what happened at the Pentagon, but many of the witness statements published in the WP and other local papers seem to have been either cherry-picked, coerced, or invented. And the power of the OCT is very strong, strong enough to convince some people that whatever they saw must have been 77.

Show "Conspiracy Theory Logic" by JamesB

Actually, I prefer to look

Actually, I prefer to look at ALL the evidence, consider the sources, and dismiss pre-drawn conclusions. That's what separates us, Jimmy-me-boy.

Show "NWO efficiency" by JamesB

Pentagon Strike Revisited

Pentagon Strike Revisited

Not sure what happened at the Pentagon? Then…

Take some time to read some of these detailed and vivid 200 eyewitness statements claiming that a plane hit the pentagon (remembering that 25 000 people work at the pentagon).

Then take some time to read Jim Hoffman’s analysis of Loose Change dealing with the Pentagon.

Take a look at photographs showing strong evidence that a plane hit the pentagon.

Then take the time to see an analysis of the plane parts seen in photographs.

Then take some time to read the common misunderstandings about the pentagon strike.

Then take the time to see that there were only 2 eyewitnesses describing a small plane (out of more than 200)—keeping in mind that they still saw a plane. No one saw a Global Hawk or a Predator.

And then remember that the pentagon was built to resist missile strikes. What do you think happens when a plane hits a target like that?

Then take the time to see that yes, there was actually debris on the lawn remembering what happens to a plane when it crashes into a solid target.

Then take a look at the plane debris inside of the Pentagon.

Then take a look at the light pole evidence at a highway next to the pentagon. Then ask yourself how the heck could they knock them over in the morning when everyone was driving to work? How could they get away with that? Why would they want to do that? Then read the eyewitness testimony explaining that yes—a plane knocked them over


Then take the time to see that yes… the hole was big enough.

Then ask yourself (as Jim Hoffman has):

  1. Why did many eyewitnesses report seeing a large twin-engine jetliner approaching the Pentagon and, in many cases, crashing into the building?
  2. What gouged the construction yard generator in location in the path of a 757's flap canoe?
  3. What punctured a hole in the Pentagon's about 18 feet wide on the second floor and about 90 feet wide on the first floor?
  4. What was the source of the aircraft debris, some of which appears to match parts from a 757?

And then remember that if you think that explosives were used, it doesn’t discount that a plane still hit the building. Remember the World Trade Center?

And then remember that Jim Fetzer strongly focuses on supporting the no plane theory as well as the Directed Energy Weapon theory—causing many scholars to leave ST911.

Then take some time to look at the Scholars for 9/11 Truth Justice Website which links to research showing evidence that a plane hit a pentagon.

Then ask yourself what motive would they have to fake a plane strike hitting the pentagon?

Then ask yourself what difference does it make? How does a plane hitting the pentagon or not affect their complicity? The NORAD stand-down shows that they are guilty of treason either way.

And then take a deep breath, and look at all of the available evidence (not some of the photographs taken out of context, and not some of the eye-witness testimony, and not some of the available photographs, etc, etc.)

…and then decide what really happened–remembering that it doesn’t make any difference. They are guilty of treason either way.


“Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."


“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

A Boeing 757 flying feet above a highway @ 530 mph

would blast cars off the road & make people deaf.

Moreover, the initial impact hole at the Pentagon was 16' in diameter. A B-757 has a wingspan of 125', not to mention the 2 giant steel/titanium engines.

Read the Eyewitness Testimony

Read the Eyewitness Testimony. They said it was loud... look at the photos of the hole I linked to. Clearly there are holes where the engines were if you look at it.

As usual Arabesque

EXCELLENT analysis.

i may need to give you credits in my next film

I'd love to help you out John

In fact I was preparing a nice list of questions for Jim Fetzer... perhaps you could really hammer him with these.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."


"Take a look at photographs showing strong evidence that a plane hit the pentagon."

To say this strong is a bit much for me. The small of physical evidence left by a 757 impacting a building just does not make any sense at all. What happened to the rest of the plane? Surely you don't buy the vaporated theory.

Small amount evidence in these pictures. Surely, leaves open the option that the evidence was planted.

Interesting analysis. Pentagon is not the key. WTC7, free fall collapse is all we need to prove our case. IMO.

“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

Surely you don't buy the vaporated theory.

I'll admit it doesn't look like what you would think it would look like...

But the assumption is: Do we know what it looks like when a plane crashes into a building designed to survive missile strikes? Do you think it's just going to bounce off it at 500-600 miles an hour?

Maybe this happens:

The aluminum?

There was pieces of aluminum around the pentagon. There are photos of people picking up the pieces. If they wanted to fake a plane hitting the building how could the put all of those pieces all over the place? Why would they waste the effort?


“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."


How idiots like this are always doing exactly what they are claiming others are doing.

The OCT has ignored countless bits of solid evidence that proves well beyond any doubt that the OCT is just pure bullshit.

I trust almost nothing that I see from the MSM as they have proven themselves to be complicit over & over again.

anyone have any thoughts on

anyone have any thoughts on my post? i dont' want this tread to be turned into a shit show

Show "I already had some thoughts" by JamesB

There is a saying something

There is a saying something like "The great thing about America is that you can believe whatever you wish, but know nothing". That is what I thought after reading your post.

I don't agree with you, but then again I guess we all have opinions. Instead of trying to prove each other wrong I would rather pressure for a real investigation with real subpoena power. That way if your right I can say congratulations, and if I'm right I can say "told you so!" :D

AA-77 did not strike the Pentagon

Please see:

Yes, it was likely a small plane, a missile, or a small plane & pre-planted explosives inside the renovated section.

I also believe that switched drones struck the WTC.

Flight 93 may have been the only real commercial airliner that went down that day--and not in Shanksville, but some 10 miles away. (The Shanksville site was a missile strike or pre-planted explosives.)

(Anyone who might have been a real person, e.g., Barbara Olson, could have been put on AA-93 & "gotten rid of" that way.)

Show "Hello......" by JamesB

there ya


Steve Patterson - "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.

On your link only one guy described it as a small plane, that is exactly what I said in my first post. One is not "many"!

Meseidy Rodriguez - "it was

Meseidy Rodriguez - "it was a mid-sized plane" Washington Post

Mid-sized plane

A 757 is a mid-sized plane. It is less than half the size of a 747. A commuter jet (8-12 people) is a small plane. A Predator by comparison, is positively tiny.

You still didn't explain how someone who is not on crack could mistake a Predator for a commercial jetliner. Not only are they much smaller, and a completely different shape (twin inverted tail, no swept back wings), they are not twin engine jetliners, in fact they are not jets at all, they have a single propeller at the back of the aircraft! A Predator only has a cruising speed of 80 MPH, my Mustang can beat that in 3rd gear.

When you go to airshows and watch those little biplanes buzzing around the sky, do you regularly mistake them for 747s?


The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones.

about 89

The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.***

at least 45

The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases there's no indication the witnesses were talking about a small jet.

at least 25

The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening.

at least 22

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the the highways.

at least 19

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane went full throttle only at the last seconds.

at least 12

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a C-130H flying 30 seconds behind a jetliner.

at least 11

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had its gear up.

at least 6

The amount of eye witnesses who stated the plane had it's flaps up (not deployed). Witness 1 saw a 757, witness 2 and 4 both saw an American Airlines, witness 3 saw an American Airlines 757. No known witnesses stated the opposite.

at least 4



The amount of eye witnesses who stated that they saw a small corporate jet, without doing any creative interpretating of the witness accounts.

at least 2

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn't relevant!

at least 0

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash.

at least 0

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash.

at least 0

The amount of witnesses who reported the plane was pretty quiet. (One of them acknowledged it was the shock. Another one saw it was an American Airlines jet, saw it had its gears up and saw light poles being knocked down. Others were in their cars, all windows up and the radio on)

at least 4

The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had its gear down. (Indirect, said a wheel hit a pole)

at least 1

The amount of witnesses who have said something that might point to the use of explosives or incendiaries. Update: This has all been explained to my satisfaction by General Benton K. Partin. You can read what he had to say about this in part 11 of this article. I only wonder about the two witnesses who said they smelled cordite, but that's about it.

at least 25

  “We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

for the millionth time...AA77 obviously did not hit the Pentagon

 Look at the size of the fire engines in this picture.  How gullible does someone have to be to believe that this is a picture of a building into which a 757 just plowed?  The video frames released by the Pentagon also make it clear that whatever hit the building was not a 757.

The strategy is clear--simulate a plane crash by firing a missile into an area containing fuel tanks and prepositioned explosives, then lie lie lie.  Have others lie.  Repeat the lie so that everyone who wants to help out knows what to say they saw.  Have people also pose as truth activists who SWEAR that AA77 HAD to have hit the Pentagon, and that pointing out the obvious fat that it didn't is somehow a disinformation tactic.

Rinse, repeat.



Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Actually it did

The no-plane hoax is disinfo designed to discredit the truth movement. It has fooled intelligent people including Griffin—I even believed it at one time. It’s very easy to look at photos out of context and be “couch potato” analysts. Look at the photos I compiled above showing that the hole is big enough. And who controlled access to the photos and videos? Who resisted releasing photos of the plane parts from inside the building? The Pentagon of course. Why would they do that? By the way even the infamous pentagon video showing the explosion seems to have been altered. There appears to be have been frames taken out. This doesn’t support one theory either way—but it also doesn’t disprove that the plane hit the pentagon. Contradictory evidence not lack of evidence disproves a theory. It shows that they could have taken out the frames showing the plane. Why do certain individuals focus their energy on the pentagon (like Jim Fetzer) when there is more compelling evidence elsewhere?

Furthermore I think calling all truth activists who think that a plane hit the pentagon disinfo is not very constructive. I could sit here and call you the same for what I think is obvious evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon.

Calling 200 eyewitnesses liars is the exact same logic that the no-plane WTC theorists use. It’s one thing to call them liars—it’s another to prove it. Perhaps you should read the testimony yourself and see if you think that most of it was faked? It looks very detailed and genuine to me. Why would they go through all that effort? And if you think a missile hit the pentagon--not one eyewitness reported seeing one. If something strange happens--people report it. See the explosions in the WTC.

I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise if someone will show me why all of this evidence does not prove a plane hit the pentagon.

Furthermore do you think that all disinformation is obvious junk? I seem to remember you saying that somewhere…

For many days the Pentagon didn’t release any evidence showing that a plane hit the building resulting in “hunt the Boeing”. Of course you wouldn’t be able to find it if you look at all of the photos without evidence of plane in them. Why would they hold back this evidence? Some was released in the Mussolini Trial. Look it up yourself—there is evidence of the plane parts presented in that trial. If they didn’t want us to think a plane hit the pentagon why would they hide this evidence? Where is the motive in that?

I could ask you to respond to all of the evidence I cited above (which you did not), but instead I'll just ask one question:

How did they knock over lightpoles during a traffic jam by a highway consistent with the wingspan of a Boeing plane? Why would they go through all of that effort to do that when they could just leave them standing?

Why would they waste the effort to fake this during a traffic jam? More importantly: how could they fake this? Not one of the no-planers has provided an answer to this question yet that I have seen. I’m awaiting your answer.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Not logical to me

"Contradictory evidence not lack of evidence disproves a theory."

So you are claiming that the lack of the rest of the plane has no bearing on your conclusion? A theory must explain all the evidence. Not just what is convenient to explain.

“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

No I'm saying

we have limited access to all of the evidence. We can't make conclusions based on a lack of evidence.

The pentagon controlled the release of videos and photos. They selectively leaked photos not showing a plane in it in my opinion. Eventually photos showing evidence of a plane were released.

If a murder is committed and we are missing evidence to show who did it do we conclude there was no murderer? Of course not. Something knocked down the light poles. Now what was it?

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."


I'm waiting for the movie to come out!!!!
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Yes me too...

I'm convinced that if it shows a plane.... we're going to hear more 'video-fakery' nonsense... perhaps the pentagon will try and edit the videos just to give fuel for these folks.

The problem with the pentagon is that they are teasing us with this mystery. Show us the bloody videos so we can stop arguing... obviously they don’t want us to stop that.

One of the biggest problems I have with the no-plane at the pentagon is that I don’t understand the motive for doing it. It would be too difficult to fake 200+ (convincing—read them for your own opinion) eyewitness statements, plane parts, light poles—not even mentioning the Nimeta Testimony. Why would the “orders still stand” if there was no plane?

Faking it is risking getting caught (i.e. lamp-posts, eye-witnesses, 25 000 workers at the pentagon...) Flying a real plane would serve the official story of 9/11—that is it would make it look like hijackers were responsible. Why would they make themselves look intentionally guilty by taking so long to strike the pentagon? If there was no plane it wouldn’t make sense because they could attack when they wanted to—if there was a plane it would make sense; it was delayed getting there.

The delay makes NORAD look guilty (i.e. do the orders still stand?). Why would they make themselves look guilty like this intentionally?

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Arabesque, I respect your

Arabesque, I respect your opinion, but I do not agree with it.

Now you need to respect the fact those of us who do not believe a JUMBO JET hit the Pentagon are not "victims of dis-info". It is patronising and condesending. My doubts about the Pentagon started the same week of the attacks--long before "In Plane Site" and are based on my personal experiences in close proximity to heavy aircraft.

I'm trying to remember our new commintment to disagree civily, but you're making that harder; saying someone is fooled without allowing they have equally good reasons for a conflicting view is insulting. I'm not going to go into my reasons--I've wrote that essay at least twice here in blog comments. I'm going to do what you should have done INSTEAD of telling people they've been fooled by disinfo--

I disagree with you, but it doesn't matter because NOTHING SHOULD HAVE HIT THE PENTAGON.

Okay, fine--state the reasons you disagree if you want. But leave out the "you poor victims of dis-info" shite, please.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Sorry to those I have offended

It’s not my intention to make anyone feel bad about my opinion on the pentagon. I if have done so I apologize. I’m here to get the truth about 9/11 as are you. I was responding to Real Truther when he implied that I am a disinformation agent because I believe the pentagon was hit by a Boeing. That’s not a constructive opinion. In my opinion Jim Hoffman is probably one of the best 9/11 researchers—and that statement is an insult to his work. Why would he be a disinformation agent when his work is consistently excellent? What purpose would that serve to just be wrong about the Pentagon? They are guilty of treason no plane or plane as I said…. So that opinion really doesn’t make sense to me.

As I said previously, intelligent people think that a plane did not hit the pentagon. And there are also intelligent people who think otherwise. Look at the evidence not the person.

I’m willing to admit I’m wrong if that’s the case. I used to think that there was no plane.

Careful Examination of Jim Hoffman’s research convinced me otherwise. His research is convincing to me because he combines photos—not just one photo out of context which is extremely easy to do. He analyzes the plane parts. He talks about the eyewitness statements, he talks about the lightpoles. He looks at all of the available evidence—not some of it. That’s the scientific method.

If you want to get an investigation what do you think will happen when we say there was no plane? In my opinion they have evidence to show that we are wrong on this particular conspiracy theory and it could be used against us in the court of popular opinion. There were plane parts corresponding to a big boeing and they were used in a trial against the "20th hijacker".

Obviously an inept hijacker did not drive the plane into the pentagon so that's why I think they are guilty of treason either way. And the NORAD stand-down. And the Mineta testimony.

Let’s just be clear on this point—I have an open mind and I’m willing to be convinced by any credible evidence. I just hope everyone else is too.

If Scholars for 9/11 truth and Justice think that the pentagon was struck by plane, maybe we should all take the time to re-examine this… with all of the evidence. That’s all I’m asking.

In particular I would like someone to explain to me how light-poles at a highway were knocked down during a traffic jam on 9/11.  The way they fell down corresponds to the size of the plane that was alleged to have hit the Pentagon.  Take a look at this picture for yourself.


“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

"It’s not my intention to

"It’s not my intention to make anyone feel bad about my opinion on the pentagon. I if have done so I apologize. I’m here to get the truth about 9/11 as are you. I was responding to Real Truther when he implied that I am a disinformation agent because I believe the pentagon was hit by a Boeing. That’s not a constructive opinion. "

Thank you--though I think you mean to say "make anyone feel bad about THEIR opinion" (?). And I agree that implying disinfo is not constructive--I must have missed that. (Was preparing to sell at big show this weekend--very tired--I have more excuses if you want them;-) )

As for the rest, I have not found hashing this out further is constructive. You believe it was a Boeing. I respect why. I expect in return that you respect why I DON'T. But we both can agree NOTHING SHOULD HAVE HIT THE PENTAGON.

And that is a stronger position than either of our opinions.

BTW--I think RT reacted for the same reason I reacted--whether you agree or not, it can SOUND like you're being given the brush off. And we've been given the brush off so much, it's easy to feel it's just so much more shite.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

No plane at WTC vs No plane at Pentagon

Ok. Sorry to make you feel bad about your opinion. But you should read all the comments before assuming I’m directing my messages at everyone. I think his comments were far more dangerous to free speech and rational examination of ideas.

“You’re a disinfo agent because you believe this” is rather… We’ll see who’s right... and who has their foot in their mouth.

No plane at the WTC theorists say: The videos were faked therefore everything else is fake.

No plane theorists at the Pentagon say: The hole [appears it] is not big enough therefore there was no plane.

Sound familiar? That’s not good enough—you have to explain everything. And dismissing something as fake without proof is not convincing. Explain how they faked it. Explain to me how [and then why!] they faked 200 eye-witness statements. Explain to me why almost no one saw a small plane. Explain to me why no one saw a missile.

If people see something strange, they report it.

Because the hole appears to be too small no plane hit the building and because it appears that there is not enough debris...

How do you know what the hole should look like? How do you know how much debris there should have been? etc, etc… it’s dangerous to just look at photos and have a movie like imagination to assume what should be there. Real life is not always as we expect it.

Explain the plane parts. 

Explain the eye-witness testimony. Explain the lightpoles. Explain the fact that it took so long to hit the pentagon—why would they intentionally make NORAD look guilty if there was no plane? Explain the debris around the pentagon—something made that, explain the hole—something created it in the approximate shape of a plane. Look at all the photos—not some of them.

You can’t just say all of the other evidence is irrelevant. You have to explain it all. No one is taking the time to explain the light-poles to me… this is incontrovertible proof in my opinion…

But the difference is I’m not going to accuse you of being a CIA agent for ignoring it.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I'm going to assume that you're tired too--

"But you should read all the comments before assuming I’m directing my messages at everyone."

Because I thought I addressed that by saying this:

"I must have missed that. (Was preparing to sell at big show this weekend--very tired--I have more excuses if you want them;-) )"

That means I did read them, but missed something because of aforementioned tiredness. And for that I appologize. And the ";-)" shows I'm willing to drop it in good humor if you will.

So lets move on. Rather, I'm moving on. While you have excellent points, my spider -sense says this thread has too much potential to turn pear-shaped.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


Here Here CJS

Open up the files and let the people decide. Show the videos and the evidence. If we are incorrect then it's up to the accused to prove the evidence is inccorect or false.
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

We all agree on that point

We all agree on that point

The actual hole

Then take the time to see that yes… the hole was big enough.  [you might have to copy and paste the links in your browser]

And yes, it was alot bigger than that firetruck you see in that photo that is out of context.



Notice this above (combination of photos) which shows the impact of the tail of the plane and also notice the hole where the engine could have went.