The device entered the first floor of the building, producing
a huge fireball, before penetrating two highly resistant
buildings leaving an exit hole 2 ½ yards wide.
What kind of device is capable of doing this?
According to the official version, the hole was produced
by an airliner – a Boeing 757-200.
Lee Evey, head of the Pentagon renovation project, explained
how this happened at a press
conference on September 15. « The rings
are E, D, C, B and A. Between B and C is a driveway that
goes around the Pentagon. It's called A-E Drive. The airplane
traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the
aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into
A-E Drive. […] The nose of the plane just barely
broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending
into A-E Drive a little bit. So that's the extent of penetration
of the aircraft. »
DoD News Briefing on Pentagon Renovation : September
15, Conference,
Graphics, Contract
Contradictions
The official version is complex and contradicts itself,
so read on carefully.
To justify the absence of Boeing debris, the authorities
explained that the aircraft was pulverized when
it impacted with such a highly reinforced building as
the Pentagon.
To explain the disappearance of the aircraft's more
resistant components, like the engines or brakes,
we were told that the aircraft melted (with the exception
of one landing light and its black boxes).
To justify the absence of 100 tons of melted metal,
experts attempted to show that the fire exceeded 2500
°C, leading to the evaporation of parts of the aircraft
(but not of the building itself or, clearly, of the landing
light or black boxes).
To justify the presence of the hole, officials
now state that it was caused by the nose of the aircraft,
which, despite the rigors of the crash, continued careering
through the three buildings.
The aircraft thus disintegrated on contact with the Pentagon,
melted inside the building, evaporated at 2500° C
and still penetrated two other buildings via a hole 2
½ yards in diameter. Questions need to be asked
of Pentagon experts here. The official version has its
own holes that need filling.
The nose of an aircraft ?
Let us imagine for a moment that we had not been told
that the aircraft had disintegrated, melted and evaporated.
The question then is: Is it possible for the nose of an
airliner to penetrate three buildings and, as it leaves
the third, produce a perfectly circular hole, 2 ½
yards wide ?
The nose of an aircraft, the radome, contains its electronic
navigation equipment. To enable the transmission of signals,
the nose is not made of metal but carbon. Its shape has
been designed to be aerodynamic but is not crash resistant.
The inside casing, as well as its contents, are extremely
fragile. The nose would crush on impact with an obstacle,
not penetrate it.
OThe fragility of aircraft noses can be seen in numerous
photographs from much more violent crashes than the Pentagon
one. Take for example, the
Britannia Airways Boeing 757-204, in September 1999
[more
images], the Southwest
Airlines Boeing 737-3T5 in March 2000, the Philippine
Airlines Airbus A320-211 in March 1998 or the
American Airlines McDonnell Douglas MD-82 in June 1999.
It is not actually possible to find the nose of an aircraft
after such an impact. So it is not an aircraft nose that
could have produced the hole visible in the third ring
of the building.
Traversing three buildings
Fire fighters state they saw what they believed to be
the nose of an aircraft. The Boeing did indeed penetrate
as far as the C ring, they explain. Captain Defina told
the NFPA
Journal "The only way you could tell that an
aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose
gear." When asked about the aircraft's fuel, Fire
Chief Ed Plaugher, replied: "We have what we
believe is a puddle right there that the -- what we believe
is to be the nose of the aircraft."
Some kind of craft did indeed penetrate the three buildings.
The upper floors of the outer ring collapsed over a block
of about 20 yards, half an hour after the attack. The
two inner rings seemed to have been damaged by the fire
which subsequently broke out. They did not cave in. The
device, which landed on the Pentagon, did not demolish
it but penetrated it.
An aircraft would have demolished the building rather
than penetrate the walls. The question is: What type of
device would have been capable of producing such damage?
One possible answer is a missile. Missiles have heads
that are much stronger than aircraft noses. They are made
from depleted uranium and are designed for penetration.
Depleted uranium is an extremely dense metal that friction
heats up, increasing its penetrative capacities. Such
missiles are particularly used to enter bunkers. An aircraft
crashes and breaks apart whereas a missile of this type
will penetrate its target.
Fire fighters attest to having seen part of a plane
that they identify, albeit with difficulty, as an aircraft
nose. The nose of an aircraft, however, would not survive
such an accident. The three buildings could not have been
penetrated by the nose of a Boeing. However, a missile
head made of depleted uranium could well have been capable
of such damage.
Raphaël Meyssan
Translation: Mr Sly
1 - Eyewitness accounts: Boeing
757 or military craft ?
2 - The evidence: One hole, 2 ½
yards in diameter
3 - Possible theories: Aircraft
nose or warhead ?
PS - Coquille : En jargon journalistique,
faute typographique (no translation yet)
