Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information
August 30th, 2009

Researchers present new eyewitness testimony which they say proves the government's story to be a "monstrous lie"

A three year independent investigation into the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon has yielded new eyewitness evidence which, according to the Southern California-based researchers who conducted the investigation, "conclusively (and unfortunately) establishes as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a military black operation involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception."

They have compiled the most pertinent testimony into an 81 minute video presentation entitled National Security Alert, which has earned the respect and praise of a growing number of distinguished academics, journalists, writers, entertainers, pilots, and military personnel.

The investigation involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day. It was primarily conducted by two men named Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, also known as Citizen Investigation Team, or CIT.

"There were a growing number of people in the United States and around the world who were suspicious of the government's story about what had happened at the Pentagon that day," Ranke explains. "The doubts were initially fueled by the dubious damage to the building, which seemed incompatible with a 757 crash, the deliberate lack of transparency by the authorities, and many other issues, but they really intensified after a team of professional pilots (Pilots for 9/11 Truth) analyzed the data obtained from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) via a Freedom of Information Act request in 2006, which was supposedly from the black box of American Airlines Flight 77, and found that the last reported altitude of the plane was far too high to have struck the light poles or the building. This meant that either the plane did not cause the observed physical damage, that the government had released fraudulent data, or both."

"We were tired of the cover-up, but we were also frustrated with the dead-end theorizing that was taking place", says Marquis of the project's genesis. "We knew that the only way we were ever going to know what had really happened was if we actually went to the area, knocked on doors, and interviewed everyday people about what they saw."
When these eyewitness accounts are aggregated, they paint a very disturbing picture, say the researchers.

"To put it as concisely as possible, the plane had to have flown on a very specific flight path in the final seconds before it reached the Pentagon in order to have caused the observed damage, starting with the light poles that were photographed on the ground and ending with the directional damage to the building itself which was outlined in detail by the American Society of Civil Engineers," explains Ranke. "The government claims the plane flew on this flight path and hit the building. The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building. It is a non-controversial scientific fact that a strike from this trajectory would have caused a very different damage path."

It wasn't just witnesses who watched the plane approach the building that the team spoke with, however.

"We've also published our interview with a Pentagon police officer who saw the plane flying away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion", says Marquis. "We already knew that the plane could not have hit based on the testimony of the witnesses on the other side of the building who watched it approach, but it was still vindicating to get this kind of confirmation."

A 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll found that "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East." Nevertheless, Ranke and Marquis acknowledge it is still quite controversial to claim, as they do, that "criminal elements within the U.S. government" were complicit in the attacks.

"If you are skeptical of (or even incensed by) this statement we do not blame you," reads a note on the front page of their website, "We are not asking you to take our word for it, nor do we want you to do that. We want you to view the evidence and see with your own eyes that this is the case. We want you to hear it directly from the eyewitnesses who were there, just as we did."

Many people seem to be taking them up on this offer. Their video has already received almost 70,000 views online since it was first posted to their website a few weeks ago with only a grass roots promotional effort behind it.

Perhaps more notable than the size of the audience, however, is the caliber of some of the people in it. A newly-published compendium of endorsements on the website includes praise from a wide array of distinguished and well-respected Americans.

Emmy-award winning actor and former president of The Screen actors Guild, Ed Asner, calls the film a "reasoned, and methodical look at witness testimony the day the Pentagon was attacked on Sept. 11th".

Prolific non-ficition author Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Professor Emeritus of the University of California, Berkeley affirms that the film "successfully rebuts the official account of Flight 77's flight path on 9/11 as it approached the Pentagon".

"If you accept the placement of the plane as independently and unanimously reported by the witnesses presented in CIT's video National Security Alert, science proves that it did not cause the physical damage at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001", says FAA certified pilot Robert Balsamo.

Dr. David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé and many other titles, says he is "pleased to be able to recommend this important film with enthusiasm", while scholar, author, and radio host Dr. Kevin Barrett says that the film proves "that the official version of the attack on the Pentagon is false, and that the attack must have been a deceptive military operation, not the kamakaze crash of a hijacked commercial jet."

Scott McKinsey, an award-winning network television director, says "The DVD offers no theorizing or speculation; only corroborated eyewitness evidence contradicting the official flight data to support an overwhelming argument that a plane did not slam into the Pentagon on 9/11".

Architect Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (, a coalition of over 700 professional architects and engineers calling for a new independent investigation of the destruction of the three skyscrapers in New York on 9/11 (the third was World Trade Center 7), calls the film "long overdue, but worth waiting for" and says that it "deserves serious attention".

Retired Navy Commander and aviator James R. Compton calls National Security Alert "the best reporting I've seen in a long, long time" and "a must see for every citizen in our country".

"Government and media figures who dare ignore evidence this conclusive do so at their own peril", warns Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford, a retired Marine pilot who has flown 303 combat missions.

The full quotes from these individuals and others can be read at here.

National Security Alert can be viewed for free online here.

Show "Still Waiting For An Answer" by brian78046

Someone other than Jim???

From Pentagon witness Albert Hemphill:

To Craig Renke and Jeffrey Hill:

You gentlemen contacted me regarding my eye-witness account the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. I was kind enough to talk with you. Both of you recorded our conversations without my knowledge, nor with my expressed permission. I’m sure you are versed in the provisions of 18 U.S.C Section 2311(2)(d). I believe the American public, whom you are trying to influence would share my view and opinion that these recordings were obtained by less than full, open and transparent means; and it is less than honorable to do that to someone...and it is simply unethical.

Craig, as one on an endless quest for "truth", I believe you in particular should feel embarrassment and shamed for recording a conversation without my knowledge. Jeffrey, you and I have communicated and I accept your apology; and believe you recognized that such recording is wrong. I do appreciate your pointing out where Craig Renke posted my phone discussion with him.

Craig, I believe you owe me an apology. I have received your CD information as we discussed - I offer no opinion regarding your data, nor will I review it any further.

However, let me state clearly and concisely – for the last time: I witnessed the aircraft impact the Pentagon building on 9/11. The flight path of the aircraft was terminated by its impact with the Pentagon building. I did not see any alteration or deviation to the flight path prior to the aircraft striking the building. The aircraft hit the building – this was what I reported to friends via email after 9/11; this is what I reported to the FBI and this is what I stated to you during our “interviews”.

Even though I fundamentally disagree with you Craig, I was polite and talked to you. Yet, the same courtesy was not returned as manifest by your internet posting. An honest and honorable person would have asked if recording the conversation was acceptable. Therefore, I will not be available to you for any further communications regarding the events of 9/11. Again, let me clearly state that my unwillingness to communicate with you is not because of any external influence, any direction or orders from the Federal Government; nor any fear of reprisal by any group or individual towards myself or my family. The singular reason I will not communicate with you is because you rudely recorded our conversation, and without my knowledge, posted it on the internet. This is fundamentally wrong; and is not, in my opinion, the action of an honest person.

Let me conclude by reiterating: the aircraft hit the Pentagon. Do not ever contact me again. Please feel free to post this email on your websites.

A.D. Hemphill

Manassas, Virginia

Show "9/11 and the USSR" by brian78046

The real story with Albert Hemphill, Craig Ranke, and Jeff Hill

Interesting to see this e-mail from Albert Hemphill re-pasted here. There's a certain amount of critical background readers should know before drawing any conclusions about Hemphill, what he saw, and how his privacy was handled/violated by various parties:

Craig Ranke called Hemphill on May 25, and during their hour-long conversation, Hemphill confirmed that the plane approached the Pentagon on the north side of the CITGO gas station, just like over a dozen other witnesses at the scene. So, at the very least, Hemphill is yet another confirmed north side witness, fatally contradicting the official story - even though his name was the very first on Larson & Larson's list of alleged "South of CITGO" witnesses.

Granted, like most of the other witnesses, Hemphill thinks he saw the plane hit the building, but a rudimentary examination of the local geography and flight characteristics shows that the north-of-CITGO flight path he and others describe makes it completely impossible for the plane to have caused the observed damage to either the light poles or the building itself.

What's more, Hemphill agreed to keep an open dialogue with CIT - even after Ranke broke down what CIT's investigation has uncovered and the implications of what he had witnessed. The call ended on a very good note and it was clear that Hemphill respected Ranke, and was interested in the information. If you don't believe me, download and listen to this important phone call yourself here.

Hemphill agreed to watch CIT's National Security Alert DVD - which Ranke promptly sent him - along with a nice e-mail being totally open, linking to this website, wanting to talk more, etc. It's important to note that Ranke had no plans to publicize or post this Hemphill interview online at this point in time.

Then, later that same day, Jeff Hill AKA Shure also called Hemphill. Using his standard "I was having an argument with some folks on the innernet" line, Hill tried his best to get Hemphill to tell a different story, in the process tainting this witness against CIT and destroying any future dialogue - which is what ultimately led to the email above. Luckily for those of us actually trying to figure out what happened here, Hemphill's account was captured by CIT first, thus thwarting Hill's deliberate attempt to taint the witness.

Then Hill, unlike Ranke, posted his conversation with Hemphill online - completely unbeknownst to Hemphill - presumably to allegedly prove that Hemphill confirmed the official story. And it's critical to note Hill did this BEFORE Ranke ever posted his call. Everybody got that? I'll rephrase it again, if you didn't: Ranke did not release the call until AFTER Hill already posted his call with Hemphill... again, completely unbeknownst to Hemphill himself.

It's very important to note that it was only subsequent to Hill posting his misleading recording that Ranke was then forced to release his own conversation with Hemphill, in order to both defend his reputation and demonstrate Hill's deceptive tactics.

Then, a week later, on May 30, Hill called Hemphill a second time, in a further attempt to lead him towards the south side flight path (by sending him this image with the official flight path already marked on it!) and to see if he could get him to say bad things about CIT.

Hemphill admitted to already receiving and viewing National Security Alert, and actually played into Hill's hands by changing his account to fit more with the official story. The fact that Hill got Hemphill to subsequently change his story speaks volumes, and does not bode well for his "impact" account either, suggesting he's willing to embellish/twist his account to fit the official story. This also explains why he was upset with being recorded because now he was on record changing his story.

Hill went out of his way, during this second call, to tell Hemphill that Ranke had released his own conversation with him - without telling him why - and that Ranke was posting it "all over the internet" (it was just one posting at the P4T forum, actually) just to piss Hemphill off. It's important to remember that Hill did not inform Hemphill at this point in the conversation that he had already both a) recorded their first May 24 conversation without his permission, and b) posted on the internet for everyone to hear.

Hemphill would have no doubt appreciated knowing both this, and the fact Hill was again recording his second call with him. He also would have liked to know that it is Hill - not Ranke - who is the undisputed champion of recording phone calls without permission and posting them all over the internet.

But Hill tells Hemphill none of this, and instead lets him stew for a few minutes about Ranke recording and posting their conversation online. Finally, Hemphill confronts Hill and asks him if he is recording him at that moment, and Jeff reluctantly admits he is, and that he also had posted his earlier May 24 call online. But Hill leads Hemphill to believe that he is only doing so because he is upset that Ranke is misrepresenting Hemphill, and has to set the record right in order to stop Ranke from allegedly "twisting" Hemphill's words. The chronology here is important.

Even though he agrees to stop recording this second call once Hemphill asks him, Hill then once again utterly disregards Hemphill's wishes after hanging up, and goes and posts the entire audio of everything he had recorded up to that point online again!

All in all, it's fair to say that if Hill hadn't called Hemphill and tried to manipulate him into retracting his account - and then posting the call online - there would have been no need for Ranke to post his own recording so quickly in response, and Ranke could have (and likely would have) continued a respectful dialogue with Hemphill, and eventually gotten permission to publish the main aspects of his account. But this is yet another example of how manipulative and destructive Hill is in attempting to discredit any witness whose account deviates from the official story - now why would he do that, do you suppose?

Hopefully that offers a bit of perspective about both Jeffrey Hill AKA Shure - and this misleading Hemphill e-mail - for anyone paying attention here.

cemetery vs. right shoulder

np: "Hemphill confirmed that the plane approached the Pentagon on the north side of the CITGO gas station,"

He also confirmed he saw it over his RIGHT shoulder; how does it get from being on his right shoulder to being on "the cemetery side" of the gas station?

And like a greater number of witnesses- including many that CIT has interviewed, including ones whose accounts they claim support their N-path/flyover theory- Hemphill saw the plane hit at the base of the Pentagon. But here np is claiming he's changed his story w/o pointing out what's changed, and furthermore he's suggesting that Hemphill can't be trusted. So, if he can't be trusted, why should anyone believe him that the plane was on the "cemetery side"?

I can see people wanting an explanation for the contradictory accounts- which may be as simple as the fact that eyewitnesses often get stuff wrong- but CIT's work is not "conclusive proof" of a military deception.

Show "No contradiction - just look at the terrain" by nobodyparticular

contradictory testimony dismissed/ignored

np: "loose nuke, you ask "why should anyone believe him that the plane was on the "cemetery side"?" The answer, obviously, is because he corroborates the independent testimony of over a dozen other eyewitnesses on the scene who were best in a position to see the flight path."

You're ignoring the fact that all of CIT's witnesses with a view of the Pentagon said the plane hit. None of them saw it fly over. Many witnesses- including Sean Boger who was in the heliport control tower and could HEAR the metal on concrete impact- report that the plane hit.

Hemphill also says this; how could the plane go from his right shoulder- to the Cemetery side of the Pentagon- to the impact point? There's no evidence the plane hit anywhere else on the Pentagon. There's no evidence it flew over. So why are people claiming it did?

Show "Let's keep this on topic, OK?" by nobodyparticular


I don't endorse the practice of recording people w/o their knowledge and posting the recordings online.

Hemphill- by handwaving dismissal of the parts of the CIT witness accounts where they said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon- or in the case of Turcios, he knew it hit cuz he didn't see it fly over, it disappeared below a small hill and then the explosion- by claiming these people were all fooled, in essence this testimony is being ignored.

I'm aware of the assertions by PFT and CIT that the flight path was impossible, but they haven't proven this.

While the OP is a CIT press release, this is related to the Pentagon 'what hit' debate, so many things are on topic. To clarify about Roosevelt Roberts, the plane he referred to as over the south parking lot was "heading east ... towards DC" He also referred to a plane flying away to the southwest, but this was obviously not when it was flying east; what was the second plane? The C-130 is the only one known about that was in that general area, and while Roberts clearly describes a silver commercial airliner heading east in the general area of AA 77's alleged path, he gives less detail about the plane flying away southwest- perhaps cuz, as the C-130 was, it was further away. A claim might be made the radar data was faked, but it hasn't been proven, so someone could raise that as a possibility, unless someone can prove it was- and CIT hasn't, despite claiming it's fraudulent- why make the absolute claims?

Thanks for a straight answer at least

The only reason I responded to YT's pasting of Hemphill's e-mail was to clarify the misleading chronology and demonstrate Jeff Hill's deceptive and manipulative tactics. I appreciate hearing your position on these tactics.

But while your other questions may pertain to the original blog entry, they are off topic to the gist of my original comment on Hemphill's e-mail. And since I'm already having fun refuting all the many slurs and accusations over at the news entry on CIT's European Tour, I'm not going to engage in yet another discussion with you about all these points here. Since you are already on record as characterizing CIT's research as "disinformation", and have the power to moderate/delete posts and users at will, what's the point anyway?

Why do you continue with the false accusations?

Loose Nuke has already said that he recuses himself from moderation on blogs relating to CIT. I'm not the world's biggest fan of the moderation system here but I'm getting sick of seeing all the constant accusations.

Then who was responsible for banning a slew of CIT supporters?

I'm not aware of Loose Nuke stating that with respect to recusing himself from moderation, I'd appreciate a link. But my general point stands - the moderation and banning policies here seem to be so hit-and-miss and subjective, that there is little point in entering into a debate over CIT on this site with a moderator whose position is already clear on the issue - even if they don't directly engage in comment moderation. It's simply a fact that a number of former users here, who happened to be supportive of CIT's research, have been banned from posting here in recent months - without any good reason that I've seen - so whether Loose Nuke was responsible or not (after all, the moderators refuse to discuss specific cases), you should be able to understand why I don't want to get into a debate with any moderator on this issue, just to be on the safe side.

For some reason

For some reason, this CIT press release, which is from Aug 30, 2009, has been submitted and published again at 911blogger:

As long as it's here, I'll point out a few misleading claims:
CIT: "conclusively (and unfortunately) establishes as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a military black operation involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception."

CIT says NSA "conclusively ... establishes" this- despite their having confirmed the accounts of 9+ people who say they saw the plane hit, or place it on the S path:

""We've also published our interview with a Pentagon police officer who saw the plane flying away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion", says Marquis."

He "saw the plane;" which plane? The plane that Roberts described as being over the south parking lot was "heading east ... towards DC." What he saw at this point would've been the plane that hit the Pentagon. He also mentions seeing a plane flying away to the southwest- the only plane in the area that is known about is the C-130. He doesn't describe this plane in detail. He specifically says there were two planes.

It would be one thing to say that there are conflicting eyewitness accounts about the flight path- but CIT quotes selectively, makes leading interpretations, dismisses witnesses whose accounts contradict their theory by claiming, w/o evidence, that they're lying or agents, while excusing all the inconsistencies in the accounts of witnesses they claim support their theory, as well as the elements that contradict it; such as seeing the plane hit the Pentagon.

Furthermore, a plane flying on the N side of the Citgo could've hit the Pentagon; there were 2-3 light poles it wouldn't have hit, and it couldn't have caused the internal damage path that is alleged to have occurred but which there are few actual photos of- and it would've left a different internal damage path- but, again, few photos have been released- and this event having never happened before, who can say for sure what it would've looked like? So, even if CIT had proven the N path, which they haven't, they still wouldn't have proven a flyover.

brian7846: "you never replied to the impossibility of a 757 engine moving a 15 ton generator without the engine detaching from its pylon ("

For some reason brian is claiming i didn't respond to the above claim, even though I did so in 2 replies on that thread, and he wasn't able to refute it. I didn't respond to his last comment as he claimed the hole was only 20', even though I'd posted two links showing the opening in the Pentagon is much larger; the gash was about 90' at the base, and at the center it was large enough for the engines and fuselage. Anyway, I'll rephrase my response for this new thread. A .45 slug or a punch can knock a big man off their feet; why would anyone assume that a 6-ton engine traveling at 400+ mph can't knock a generator trailer 45 degrees? Anyway, brian, what's your source for your claim that it weighed 15 tons, and that it was located on the end of the trailer that moved? Also, as I asked twice in that thread, and you didn't address either time, how do you know that the engine didn't come off, and continue into the building? You can't know that, so why do you insist on making this claim?

You still haven't provided any evidence other than your opinion that it's impossible for a 100 ton airliner traveling at 400+ mph to crash into the ground. The claim is absurd on its face. Furthermore, as you know, the plane is alleged to have hit the light poles and then hit the Pentagon base; it wasn't flying level, though this is close to level. Pointing the plane nose down is a way of compensating for ground effect; if you turn your steering wheel to compensate for the alignment being off, it doesn't mean you're steering off the road. Why are you misinterpreting Hoffman's argument?

Show "As a matter of fact..." by brian78046

Semantics; what's important? Plus, the 'hole'?

brian: "I didn't ask for a reply concerning the Pentagon wall damage."

OK, are you conceding that the photos show "the gash was about 90' at the base, and at the center it was large enough for the engines and fuselage"?

And from reviewing my comments, I see I was referring to the generator trailer, not specifically the generator (which was in the trailer), but I actually posted 3 comments about this:

"The wings are the strongest part of the aircraft, and you claim that an engine weighing 6 tons is so weakly attached and has so little forward momentum at 400 mph that it will come off when it hits a generator TRAILER? Hardly likely."

"Your source to support your claim that the engine would have broken off if it hit the generator trailer is about an engine that fell off a plane in mid-air w/o hitting anything; there was a defect; this proves nothing. The engines are designed to break off before they tear the wings off with them, but you must concede that they're attached strongly enough to the wings to be able to move 100 tons of aircraft thru the resistance provided by air; again, not likely that in all cases an aluminum generator trailer shell will knock the engine loose. And even if it did, 6 tons at 400+ mph, it would likely have kept hurtling forward into the building. I looked at the link to support your claim that Hoffman is "all wet." It doesn't prove that the plane/engine couldn't have caused the damage."

"OK, I missed the 2nd part; the #3 fell off when cuz of a defect; the #4 fell off when the #3 hit it. Even so, I don't see that you can declare that this proves that AA 77's engine would have come off when it hit a hollow aluminum generator TRAILER. And, as I already said- how do you know it didn't- and as it would've been traveling at 400+ mph, continued on into the building? It's not like the trailer could've slowed it down much- the trailer was even knocked 45 degrees toward the Pentagon." (pg 1 and 2)

And what about this from my above reply, including in [...] a point i forgot to include:

"A .45 slug or a punch can knock a big man off their feet; why would anyone assume that a 6-ton engine traveling at 400+ mph can't knock a generator trailer 45 degrees [even if it has a 15-ton generator in it]? Anyway, brian, what's your source for your claim that it weighed 15 tons, and that it was located on the end of the trailer that moved? Also, as I asked twice in that thread, and you didn't address either time, how do you know that the engine didn't come off, and continue into the building? You can't know that, so why do you insist on making this claim?"

Show "Engine Separation" by brian78046

brian: "Now I see your reply

brian: "Now I see your reply for engine separation, "it would likely have kept hurtling forward into the building." That has got to be the most ludicrous statement I've heard! Where's the impact hole for the engine? The engine would create it's own peculiar impact characteristic on the wall. Also, as I previously said, the wing damage to the wall only supports approximately one-third of Flight 77's starboard wing. The evidence shows that a smaller aircraft entered the Pentagon."

How can you look at these photos and not see there's numerous places that a loose engine could've hurtled/tumbled into the building, in addition to the rest of a 757? How can you make your absolute claims that it definitely didn't happen?

Aircraft crashes don't always leave large debris- the plane would've been shredded on impact even as it was destroying that part of the building, and most of the debris would've gone into the building:

This DC8 crashed just after takeoff; there's nothing left recognizable as a plane, and it wasn't traveling anywhere near as fast as AA 77:

brian: "The fuselage hole should be larger than what it is, which is approximately the size of the fuselage itself. The kinetic energy of Flight 77's impact would have initially created the damage seen after the collapse of the wall. The energy of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon wall was approximately one-quarter tons of TNT! That would have taken-out the whole wall immediately, not 30 minutes later."

Speculation with no sources and no math.

Show "Correction" by brian78046

more clarifications, and some progress

i don't know if your calculations of the kinetic energy are correct, but it would be easy enough to calculate; this is what I was referring to as speculation, with no sources or math to support it:

brian: "That would have taken-out the whole wall immediately, not 30 minutes later."

Who besides you has made this claim, and if anyone has, what are they basing it on; has enough info actually been released about the Pentagon's structure that anyone could make a claim like this?

brian: "Now, the Alfred P. Murrah building was subjected to energy approximating some 2 tons of TNT originating from a distance of fourteen feet away. This is the damage resulting to the building from that blast:"

Perhaps you are unaware there's evidence there were other bombs in the Murrah building. Not that the Murrah building even correlates to the Pentagon, or a plane hitting it, anyway.

brian: "If an engine belonging to a 757 had hit the generator it would have spun upwards after separating from the pylon, either smashing high up against the Pentagon wall or landing on the roof."

More speculation, plus this ignores the fact of the hole knocked in the trailer. Brian, do you see a generator in that hole? How do you know the generator was at that end of the trailer? How do you know it wasn't below, or just to the side of the part that was hit, and that the kinetic energy impact w/ the trailer isn't what moved the trailer? How do you know the engine actually hit the generator?

brian: "Not to mention that the wall exhibits wing-like damage that is two-thirds less in length than that of a 757's wing span."

Looks like brian is no longer claiming the Pentagon 'hole' is 20', that's a positive sign. However, this still unsupported absolute concluding claim isn't: "The forensics affirm that NO 757 impacted the Pentagon."
A Boeing 757-200 wingspan is just under 125'. The hole is approx 90'. Witnesses reported seeing the wings fold back and go into the building. You haven't proved that could not- or did not- happen- so why are you claiming that you have?

Show "Physics Rule III" by brian78046