The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
47 votes

What the Pentagon should have looked like on 9-11

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Bad example

Although I agree there is evidence to suggest that it wasn't a plane to hit the pentagon, this is NOT what the pentagon would look like had a real jetliner hit the pentagon. The speed of the plane is quite different and not much would have been left of the plane that hit the pentagon. The estimated speed of the plane above was around 100 mph.



Totally different situation

Much smaller plane
The flight was near the end, so the fuel tank was near empty, and the pilot likely dumped the remaining fuel. There wasn't even a fire.
The plane fell on house due to engine stall, rather than flying straight into the building at full throttle.
This pilot was probably trying to avoid killing people in the crash, rather than doing the maximum possible damage.
A house is not the least bit reinforced against falling airplane damage. The Pentagon is protected by materials designed to absorb the impact of a bomb.

And most of all, what kind of 'missile' sets a huge fire but doesn't explode? If you're going to chase conspiracy theories, come up with one that makes sense.

@relhak ... I'm sorry but

@relhak ... I'm sorry but it's JUST as preposterous to subscribe to the official story and think that a plane, with two solid Rolls Royce engines, would simply vaporize on impact. It's silly.

Jet fuel cannot melt steel in an instant.

I'm sorry, but you are

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. You take an object moving at 600mph and slam it into a hardened structure and the impact temperature is enough to vaporize steel ... let alone the thin alloys they use in the structure of an aircraft. Watch the mythbusters episode with the rocket sled and car ... a sled moving at 600mph literally vaporized most of the car and the few pieces left over were not really recognizable as part of a vehicle. Even the engine was gone.

Yeah you are right jet fuel

Yeah you are right jet fuel doesn't melt steel in an instant, but that's not what happened at the Pentagon. Many parts of the engines were found.

The government wants its constuction secrets to not be know

The pictures of construction secrets were seized off the internet, and out of peoples cameras

The only real mystery is why a third building collapsed,and why a couple of CIA contractors made money on airplane stock and spread the story of a lot of Jews having done so.

And why Dick Cheney is not in jail for acting like al Qaedas puppet on a string, to give then the war between civilizations that al Qaeda craves.

In Philly PA RichardKanePA

A small plane (relatively)

A small plane (relatively) with far less kinetic energy hitting a soft structure ... if you want to see what high energy hit into hard structure looks like please go to @3:27 on this video: and tell me WHERE The CAR WENT.

Wow... That's what a plane looks like after it crashes...

I thought that when a plane hits something it's supposed to disintegrate into nothing. . . . Guess I was wrong.. I had so much faith in the 911 pentagon story up until now. LOL

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!


Why would a plane look pristine after crashing into a reinforced concrete wall at 500 miles an hour?

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.

Also author of Stick it to the Man!


The Ring Of Power on youtube! To those of us that THINK we are awake, WE AREN'T!


The crucial question is what

The crucial question is what about the passengers? What have the families of the supposed "passengers" said? Have they confirmed that their loved ones remains were recovered at the site? Have they buried them? Have they even been interviewed at all? Did the people on the "passenger list" even exist at all?
It appears that no plane hit the Pentagon, and there's been lots of discussion about that. Obviously, the event was not as it was reported.

However, if there's been discussion about the fate of the "passengers", I've rarely or never seen it. Just some mentions of Barbara Olson, and how she supposedly called her husband from her cellphone. What happened to everyone else?


Rolls Royce engines on that plane weighed 6 tons each...steel and titanium...and they just evaporated? Yet, the official report identified the passengers by DNA and fingerprints. What type of fire was that? LOL

(Reposts from previous pages)

Did the people on the "passenger list" even exist at all?

Obviously, there were no real plane crash in Pentagon that day. The flight was simply invented and REPORTED. Same goes for the passengers of course.

No "passenger list" was ever released. We don't even have an official victims list. MSM created the list for us.

If you can control the news networks, you can create the reports you want. You probably need to enable some of your agents in the Government so that they don't mess up your operation.

So if you can control the news networks, have some agents in the Government at strategic locations, some scriptwriters, some actors and a animation crew and some money, you can create the REPORTS you need for your operation. Mostly legal also. Your operation could be regarded as free speech. Make sure that no one is killed in the operation so that you don't get involved in a conspiracy to murder.

The 911 operation management and its controlled opposition don't like that we talk so much or dispute this victim part of the story. Unless that part is perceived as real, we wouldn't have a War on Terror or all this other nonsense we have to go along with.

I guess you have not looked

I guess you have not looked very hard for a "passenger list" and haven't looked through this thread at all before posting that comment.

I answered to both of these

I answered to both of these things below when they were asked the first time.

Do you think there is anything the government could

do to prove that flight 77 hit the pentagon and end all the speculation?

No I don't. Even if they came

No I don't. Even if they came out with a bunch of videos people would say they were doctored videos.
I mean the black box from the flight was recovered along with dna from all but one of the passengers, how is THAT not proof. The only way to say it is not proof is to believe that hundreds of people that were at the scene that responded/ cleaned it up/investigated it were all in on it. I don't believe they were all in on it. I don't believe the plane parts were planted. I don't believe the over a hundred witnesses that saw the plane fly into the Pentagon are lying or in on it. But yet other people do, so no I don't think there is anything at all they could do to put it completely to rest and end all speculation.

It is an important question...

But unfortunately it is not one that average citizens will likely be able to answer -- a fact which (it is important to note) does not change the evidence proving that they did not die in a plane crash at the Pentagon

Frequently Asked Questions >> If Flight 77 did not hit the building what happened to its passengers and crew?

a small twin-jet aircraft crashed into 3 houses

at speeds far SLOWER than those commercial jets that hit the twin towers.

Apples and oranges.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" author George Smith --
Buy it Here:


all of those so called eye witnesses, are mistaken, just ask april gallop.

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

ghostdog, please check out the interviews in this documentary

There are many many eyewitnesses who all saw one large jet plane heading toward the Pentagon, and none who saw a missile. However, the witnesses prove that the (very real) plane did not hit the Pentagon. The damage was caused with pre-planted explosives like at the WTC. The plane continued on after the explosion. (The Pentagon is literally one mile from the runways at Reagan National Airport, so extremely low flying planes are a very very common sight on the east side of the building. See here, here, here, and here for examples.)

Here is what April Gallop herself had to say after viewing these interviews: "Well after I reviewed the footage and carefully looked at the information I think it should be considered as credible for public viewing and also very important for people to look at because it shows there is obviously some fabrication in the official testimony. And I think that everyone should sit down and take a look at it."

CIT on the missile theory (source):

It is true that from "very early on" many people looked at the photographs of the Pentagon shortly after the alleged impact and felt that the damage was inconsistent with a 757 crash. It is also true that many people in this category jumped to the conclusion that some OTHER airborn craft/missile/etc must have hit instead, and thus theorized about "what hit".

However, "what hit" is not a question that CIT has ever focused on or promoted. We have only found evidence for a single low-flying craft on the scene at the moment of the explosion: a large commercial-looking aircraft that was banking to its right on the north side of the gas station and therefore could not have hit the light poles or the building. The very question of "what hit" the Pentagon assumes that something did, while it is well known that we are convinced from our investigation that nothing (i.e. no airborn object/craft including the one seen by the witnesses) "hit" at all, and that the damage was caused by pre-planted explosives. We have been very explicit about this for years. (Chandler and Cole basically acknowledge that this is our view later in the essay.)

In fact, we feel that the Department of Defense purposely tried to lead 9/11 skeptics who were already correctly questioning the damage to the building down this incorrect "what hit" path. For example, we do not think that the alleged "leak" of the dubious five frames video was a real "leak" at all, but rather a deliberate disinformation campaign to get people to focus on missile and drone theories of "what hit". Likewise for Donald Rumsfeld's supposed slip of the tongue during an interview with Parade Magazine shortly after 9/11, where he is quoted as mentioning "the missile" which "damaged this building" (the Pentagon). The DoD itself mirrored a copy of this interview where Rumsfeld made this supposed gaff on their own website, and they have kept it online there for years, even to this day, helping to fuel the proliferation of missile theories.


Good info there, much appreciated,

fact is where is the video footage, 70+ plus cameras in the area and no footage of the plane hitting the pentagon,

i have supposed satellite footage showing a missile, wether its fake or not i dont know, but it was spread around intelligence agencies and leaked for a reason ,

why must we be so naive,
tons of so called footage of planes hitting the towers but none of the pentagon.

is the footage a national security threat, i think not , release it already you morons.

did anyone see that ben swann interview today of the man in syria.

not believing anything the government says , EVER!

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

Where is the damage from the wings?

people say the pentagon couldn't have been hit by an airplane bc their was no wing damage on the building (just a hole)

Few people can argue that this house wasn't hit by a plane yet their is no wing damage to the house either.. in fact as far as I can remember this hole resembles the pentagon's in shape...

the lack of airplane debris at the pentagon can be explained by the different speeds these two aircraft were traveling (as was explained by the post below mine)

in my opinion this picture does more to disprove the missile theory than it supports it.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Not a good argument...

I'm one who is VERY skeptical about 911 but this is hardly the same situation. This plane was flying VERY slow trying to land (there were 2 survivors amazingly enough) and the "supposed plane" of 911 was said to be traveling at 500 mph. One of the things I do is participate as a Pylon Judge at the Reno Air Races ( and I've seen a jet plane hit the ground at 500 mph. There was not much left and if it had hit a building, all of the pieces would have been inside of or through any structure that wasn't plate steel.

That said, the strongest argument I can make for the pentagon NOT being hit by a 767 is that the low trajectory between the fallen light pole and the side of the first floor of the pentagon would have required that the two engines dig HUGE trenches in the grass leading to the edge of the building. I never saw any trenches in the grass, did any of you??

Beware the cult of "government"...

Sonmi 541: "Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths."



apples and oranges

I don't think it helps your argument to compare a low and slow flying small jet crashing into a house with cheap siding to a jet suppposedly crashing full speed into a massive concrete structure.

Pretty weak comparison, IMHO.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose


for dose of reason and logic. You will soon be down voted and called a troll...

Ha... good!

I'm used to that! A badge of honor.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

That little jet didn't take

That little jet didn't take that house down but 2 jets took those 2 giant buildings down in NYC? Sure.

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

I was In DC a couple months after 9/11

on a High School trip. our tour bus went by the Pentagon and our teacher/tour guide warned us before hand that we were not allowed to take pictures of the pentagon. A government agent stopped our bus and went up and down the aisle to make sure no one had a camera then we went on our way