Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Viewing Single Post From: Hani Hanjour Reloaded - Official Myth Debunked
NK-44
Member Avatar

Let's look into another aspect of the maneuver-scenario:

Quote:
 
"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed." Source


The question is 'Why was there no fight going on'? Though this question might at first occur unreasonable, let's not forget the official version in the case of Flight 93: Passengers knew that they were on a suicide mission so they made the decision to strike back. Let's compare this with Flight 77.

At least ten of the 59 passengers had a military background and 21 of them were involved in government/defense related work, including Korea-, Vietnam-, and Gulf-war veterans. Which means that we can assume that they wouldn't go into death without resistance. ( compilation of infos about the passengers )

There were two cell-phone calls from flight 77. The first from flight attendant Renee May at 9:12, the second from Barbara Olsen at 9:16. This means they phoned AFTER the second plane hit the WTC.

Quote:
 
At 9:12, Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane. She asked her mother to alert American Airlines. Nancy May and her husband promptly did so.
Commission Report


Quote:
 
"'Unlike the earlier flights, the Flight 77 hijackers were reported by a passenger to have box cutters. At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. She reported that the flight had been hijacked, and the hijackers had knives and box cutters. She further indicated that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call, and that they had put all the passengers in the back of the plane. About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off. Solicitor General Olson tried unsuccessfully to reach Attorney General John Ashcroft. Shortly after the first call, Barbara Olson reached her husband again. She reported that the pilot had announced that the flight had been hijacked, and she asked her husband what she should tell the captain to do. Ted Olson asked for her location and she replied that the aircraft was then flying over houses.

Another passenger told her they were traveling northeast. The Solicitor General then informed his wife of the two previous hijackings and crashes. She did not display signs of panic and did not indicate any awareness of an impending crash. At that point, the second call was cut off." Commission Report


Quote:
 
"Herded to the back of the plane by hijackers armed with knives and box-cutters, the passengers and crew members of American Airlines Flight 77 -- including the wife of Solicitor General Theodore Olson -- were ordered to call relatives to say they were about to die." Washington Post (09/12/01)


So the passengers of flight 77 were aware that they were not dealing with a normal hijacking. They were aware that they were going to die.

I think it's safe to say that every normal person would have fight for survival, and certainly the passengers (not to forget the crew!) with military background would have fought back! Many of them were confrontated with live-threating situations before! Against maximum FOUR hjackers with BOXCUTTERS!

Was there a fight going on?


We have a report that at least pilot Charles Burlingame resisted the hijackers:

Quote:
 

Senator John W. Warner (Va.), the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, helped spearhead the campaign on Burlingame's behalf, saying he was driven in part by evidence that the pilot died fighting the hijackers, not in the crash.

"I felt very strongly that this was a meritorious case," he said yesterday. "The final cog in the wheel was the examination of his remains, which indicated Captain Burlingame was in a struggle and died before the crash, doing his best to save lives on the aircraft and on the ground." (Source)


This would not only be reasonable to expect - which pilot would give up his plane to hijackers without resistance? - but was also expected from all people knowing him.
Quote:
 

"I can assure you that Capt. Burlingame was an extraordinary individual who led an exemplary life and died a hero. While we will never know for sure what happened on that flight, the people at American Airlines who knew Captain Burlingame the best have no doubt whatsoever that he died while vigorously defending his plane and his passengers. He was, by all accounts, a courageous individual.''
"They are not giving any consideration at all to the fact that he did 25 years of service to the Navy and that he died in an unprecedented fashion. Not passively, but in what had to be hand-to-hand confrontation with one or several knife-wielding terrorist," he said.
"He always had the answers, and he always would solve the problems, but this one was bigger than him," said Mark Burlingame, who said his older brother was intensely serious about his responsibilities as a commercial pilot. "I don't know what happened in that cockpit, but I'm sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane." (Source)


From 9/11-Timeline:
Quote:
 

People who knew Charles Burlingame, the pilot of Flight 77, will later contend that it would have required a difficult struggle for the hijackers to gain control of the plane from him. [Washington Post, 9/11/2002] Burlingame was a military man who’d flown Navy jets for eight years, served several tours at the Navy’s elite Top Gun school, and been in the Naval Reserve for 17 years. [Associated Press, 12/6/2001] His sister, Debra Burlingame, says, “This was a guy that’s been through SERE [Survival Evasion Resistance Escape] school in the Navy and had very tough psychological and physical preparation.” [Journal News (Westchester), 12/30/2003] Admiral Timothy Keating, who was a classmate of Burlingame’s from the Navy and a flight school friend, says, “I was in a plebe summer boxing match with Chick, and he pounded me.… Chick was really tough, and the terrorists had to perform some inhumane act to get him out of that cockpit, I guarantee you.” [CNN, 5/16/2006] (Source)


But remember when she was in the back of the plane, Barbara Olsen asked what she should tell the captain to do. But for the captain to be in the back of the plane, there had to be a fight in the first place, as he would not gave up the controls without a fight. At least if we trust those who knew him the best. Then how did he get there, or was Olsen just mistaken, and confused Burlingame with someone other? But as she was in the first class, she would have witnessed such fight.

Let's look closer into the moments before and as the -supposed- hijacking happened.



The 9/11 Commission estimated that the flight was hijacked between 08:51 EDT and 08:54 EDT, just minutes after the first hijacked plane had struck the World Trade Center in Manhattan at 08:46 EDT. The last normal radio communications from the aircraft to air traffic control occurred at 08:50:51 EDT.

At 08:54 EDT, American Airlines Flight 77 began to deviate from its normal, assigned flight path and turned south. (Source)


This means the hijackers took over control within three minutes. The strange thing is, that there are no indications of a fight. First, unlike Flight 93 when it was hijacked, the FDR-data delivered no indications of a fight. There was no disruptive change in the flight path like drastic lost or gain of height, swinging to the left or right. Only the subsequent lost of transponder and change of course indicated a hijack, but not the plane's behaviour itself.

Watch this short clip based on the FDR-data provided by NTSB.


Another strange thing is that pilot Burlingame didn't manage to send a stress signal:

Quote:
 
And as far as hijacking the airplanes, once again getting back to the nature of pilots and airplanes, there is no way that a pilot would give up an airplane to hijackers. ...

I mean, hell, a guy doesn't give up a TV remote control much less a complicated 757. And so to think that pilots would allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150 pound guys with a one-inch blade boxcutter is ridiculous.

And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ..(Source)


Muga mentioned an interesting point about the physical stature of the hijackers. Others, too:
Quote:
 

Yet the five alleged hijackers do not appear to have been the kinds of people that would be a particularly dangerous opponent. Pilot Hani Hanjour was skinny and barely over 5 feet tall. [Washington Post, 10/15/2001] And according to the 9/11 Commission, the “so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing,” with the majority of them being between 5 feet 5 and 5 feet 7 in height, “and slender in build.” [9/11 Commission, 6/16/2004]
(Source)


Should we believe that this tall man with fighting experience would overhand the controls to a 5 feet tall man, slendered build, because he's threatened by him with a box cutter? Indeed, the FDR data indicates that the overhanding of the controls was a smooth process rather than a wild fight.

Another point to mention is the possibility that Flight 77 received a hijack-warning before being hijacked.


According to the Guardian Boston flight control tower notifies several air traffic control centres at 8:25 that a hijack is taking place.
Quote:
 

Between 8:25 and 8:32, in accordance with the FAA protocol, Boston Center managers started notifying their chain of command that American 11 had been hijacked. (Source)


However, the notification was not nationwide broadcasted, and it is reported that Indianapolis flight controller monitoring Flight 77 did not know that Flight 11, and twenty minutes later Flight 175, had been hijacked.


But Indianapolis wasn't controlling Flight 77 all the time. From the Commission-report:
Quote:
 

American 77 began its takeoff roll from Dulles International Airport at 8:20. The flight was handed off routinely from Washington Center to Indianapolis Center at approximately 8:40. American 77 was acknowledged by the Indianapolis controller, who had fourteen other planes in his sector at the time. The controller instructed the aircraft to climb and, at 8:50, cleared it to its next navigational aid. American 77 acknowledged. This was the last transmission from American 77. (Source)


The hijack-warning was broadcasted about 15 minutes before Indianapolis handled Flight 77, and at that time Washington Center was responsible for Flight 77. This is remarkable when we look at this report by the New York Times:
Quote:
 

The controllers assigned to United Airlines Flight 175 on Tuesday suspected that it had been hijacked as it flew off its assigned route. But they did not learn that another plane had been hijacked and had hit the World Trade Center until a minute or two before Flight 175 struck the center, people involved in the air traffic system said.

In contrast, controllers at the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center had much more warning that something was wrong. Those controllers, who handled American Airlines Flight 77, which dived into the Pentagon, knew about the hijacking of the first plane to crash, even before it hit the World Trade Center, those involved said. That was more than an hour before they watched another hijacked plane, United Flight 93, cross their radar screen on its way to the Pentagon. (Source)


Quote:
 
In addition, The New York Times this morning reports the controllers at Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center—who handled American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon—knew about the hijacking of American Flight 11 even before it crashed. But there apparently were no attempts at intercepting Flight 77.
(Source)


If the claims by the Commission and the NYT are true, then the controllers in Washington Centre knew of the first hijacking. So there's a high chance that also (like Flight 93 later) Flight 77 received a hijack warning, which if true, would make the official version of the hijacking even more implausible than it is already.

And let's not forget that Barbara Olsen was in the first class, but reported no fight, which she undoubtfully would have recognized if happened. Also flight attendant May reported no fight. So, were all the people knowing Burlingame wrong in their appraisment about his likely behaviour? But what evidence is there, indicating that Burlingame did indeed fight the hijackers, like Senator Warner is stating?
Are they all wrong or could it be that Olsen lied? Of course I don't mean Barbara Olsen, but her husband Ted, who reported her calls to the media and was the first one who established the thesis, that the hijackers had only boxcutters as weapons.
Remember Ted Olsen has not only "successfully represented George W. Bush at the Supreme Court last December, stopping the Florida recounts and guaranteeing Bush the White House"; but also made some remarkable comments:
Quote:
 

"The United States Government's top lawyer has said that officials have the right to lie to American citizens, telling the US Supreme Court that misleading statements are sometimes needed to protect foreign policy interests.
"It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government might legitimately give out false information," the Solicitor-General, Theodore Olson, told the court on Monday.
"It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete information and even misinformation by government may sometimes be perceived as necessary to protect vital interests."
Since the September 11 attacks, the Bush Administration has made several moves to clamp down on the flow of information. For example, last November the Attorney-General, John Ashcroft, ordered closer reviews of which documents federal agencies release under the Freedom of Information Act.
In a separate effort aimed at confounding terrorists through the use of misinformation, the Administration created - then disbanded - an office within the Pentagon that was to have planted inaccurate stories in foreign media." (Source)


After 9/11 Ted Olsen changed the story of how Barbara got into contact with him when she was on Flight 77. Until today, there is no real evidence that he really spoke with her. Unless you uncritically believe the account of a confessed liar.

The conflict of the official account with crash site observations

Some observations being made at the crash site seem to be inconsistent with the official account of Flight 77.

First, there's the story about the black boxes. Let's see where and when they were found, and by whom.


Quote:
 
The two "black boxes," crucial to uncovering details about the doomed flight's last moments, were recovered at about 4 a.m., said Army Lt. Col. George Rhynedance, a Pentagon spokesman.

Rhynedance said the recorders were in the possession of the FBI, and that officials from the National Transportation Safety Board were providing technical assistance in reading any data they contain.

Dick Bridges, deputy manager for Arlington County, Va., said the voice recorder was damaged on the outside and the flight data recorder was charred. But he said the FBI still was confident the data can be recovered from both.

Bridges said the recorders were found "right where the plane came into the building."
(Source)



Quote:
 

Army Lt. Col. George Rhynedance said the recorders from the plane that crashed into the Pentagon were in the possession of the FBI, and officials from the National Transportation Safety Board were providing technical assistance in reading any data they contain.

Dick Bridges, deputy manager for Arlington County, Va., said the voice recorder was damaged on the outside and the flight data recorder was charred. But he said the FBI still was confident the data can be recovered from both devices.

Bridges said the recorders were found "right where the plane came into the building."

(Source)


According to Bridges, both were found near the impact site, on early Friday morning. Here's another report on that:
Quote:
 

SPENCER MICHELS: Early today, searchers probing blackened rubble at the Pentagon found key electronic flight data and voice recorder "black boxes" from the hijacked jetliner that slammed into the building Tuesday.

DICK BRIDGES, Arlington County Public Affairs: FBI Agents from the evidence response team recovered both black boxes from the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon. The condition of the black box's voice recorder was described as somewhat damaged on the exterior. The data recorder was described as being charred on the exterior. I am told by those who know about these things that that really doesn't mean anything at this point, that those boxes must be downloaded and the data taken off to determine whether or not any real damage has occurred. I do not know what the status of the boxes are right now, other than the fact that they are now part of the federal investigation into this horrible incident.
(Source)


But here's a report where it is stated that firefighters found the black boxes:

Quote:
 
Early Friday morning, shortly before 4 a.m., Burkhammer and another firefighter, Brian Moravitz, were combing through debris near the impact site. Peering at the wreckage with their helmet lights, the two spotted an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long. They’d been told the plane’s “black boxes” would in fact be bright orange, but these were charred black. The boxes had handles on one end and one was torn open. They cordoned off the area and called for an FBI agent, who in turn called for someone from the National Transportation Safety Board who confirmed the find: the black boxes from American Airlines Flight 77. “We wanted to find live victims,” says Burkhammer. But this was a consolation prize. “Finding the black box gave us a little boost,” he says. (Source)


As time and location match exactly, it's safe to say that they refer to the same event. Indeed, from this report we can conclude that the boxes initially were found by firefighters, who worked closely together with the FBI, so that's the reason why the reports differ about who found them, but they don't differ about the time and location:
Quote:
 

Pentagon officials said the recorders were found around 3:40 a.m. under mounds of rubble in the collapsed part of the building, where just a few pieces of the plane remain.
Arlington County Fire Department Deputy Chief James Schwartz said the FBI found the recorders as its agents worked side by side with rescue workers. (Source)


Another statement indicates that the black boxes had almost been trashed:

Quote:
 
But even with the relationships they'd carefully built, there was miscommunication, said Combs. When evidence gathering crews were searching for the plane's black boxes -- which were ultimately ruined by the intense heat -- the black boxes almost got trashed.

Because they're not black, said Combs. "Black boxes are actually orange," he said. "Somebody almost threw them away because they didn't know what they looked like." (source)


But Combs statement is contradictionary. Even those firefighters who didn't know that the black boxes where in fact orange, couldn't have been misguided by the colour due to the fact that the black boxes where indeed black and charred from the fire.

But the most contradictionary account comes from another person. In an attempt to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories, Popular Mechanics refused the claims that there were no plane parts at the Pentagon site:

Quote:
 
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" (Source)


This stands in great contrast to all other reports of the black boxes. Not only the time, also the location, and if he found them, why was it never stated by anyone else? Are firefighters Moravitz and Burkhammer, or deputy manager Bridge, liars? Hard to believe that they were mistaken about the black boxes. Their description matches with the pictures released of the black boxes.

Posted Image

So why does Kilsheimer claim that he found the black box? And could someone really hold a tail section in his hand? Obviously, this is an exaggeration. But what's about the black box? Why didn't PM check out other reports contrary to Kilsheimer's account? We don't have to blame PM, as Kilsheimer's version became the official version.

From the Pentagon Building Performance Report:
Quote:
 
The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft into the structure.


So firefighters Moravitz and Burkhammer, and deputy manager Bridge, are liars. At least if we believe the Pentagon report. Or could it be that the man who held a tail section in his hand is a liar? Hardly to prove, but there's more on Kilsheimer then it first meets the eye.

As we have just read, Kilsheimer was the first engineer arriving at the crash site - requested by the Pentagon. Later, he headed the "Phoenix Project":


Quote:
 
Rebuilding the Pentagon following the September 11, terrorist attack.

As the structural engineer in charge of the reconstruction, he will share his first-hand experience and unique reflections. A question and answer session will follow the presentation. (Source)


Quote:
 
Immediately following the September 11 crash the Pentagon Renovation Program Office contracted with K.C.E. Structural Engineers, P.C., to oversee the recovery, demolition, and reconstruction of the site. As part of this effort, the principal, Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E., ordered materials tests on the concrete and the reinforcing steel. (Source - PDF)


So Kilsheimer was in an exponent position regarding the work on the crash site. This was also outpointed in this article:

Quote:
 
Within an hour of the Pentagon plane crash, Kilsheimer’s phone rang for requests from both Washington and New York asking him to aid in the disaster. (...)

Within minutes of arriving, Kilsheimer was on scene advising the FBI and Secret Service as to where they could and could not safely go inside the battered building. His work extended into helping other agencies research the crime scene. He and his crew would steer personnel away from potentially dangerous areas. If defense personnel needed something inside the building, Kilsheimer preferred to handle the matter himself.

“There were Navy seals who needed access to some secret places,” he recalls. “We wouldn’t let them do that. We went in and did it for them. I’d rather it be my problem if something goes wrong.”

Kilsheimer traversed the charred corridors of the scarred structure, oftentimes unsure of what he’d find. In fact, “I stepped on the plane’s black box by accident.” (Source)


But this wasn't Kilsheimer's first encounter with the results of a terrorist attack:

Quote:
 
The bearded and outspoken Kilsheimer, president of KCE Structural Engineers of Washington, has considerable experience with building collapses, including structures in the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma City federal building bombing. (Source)


Quote:
 
With a client list that includes the Department of Defense, the FBI, and the Secret Service, it’s no wonder he was called on Sept. 11. Since then, KCE has been responsible for designing and overseeing the Phoenix Project, the official name for the rehabilitation of the Pentagon. It’s a structure they’re familiar with, having worked with a basement addition that was built several years ago. “We have made a commitment that we will have butts in chairs on nine eleven 2002 at 9:38 in the morning,” he says.(Source)



Kilsheinmer wasn't the only one with a history related to other terrorist attacks. Paul Mlakar, who headed the Pentagon investigation team, and therefore is the main responsible for the Building Performance Report, which regarding to the black box issue, (indirectly) states that on-scene working firefighters were liars, has also a connection to the investigation of the Oklahoma City Bombing. Also those who investigated the WTC had a connection to the OCB-investigation. And as the OCBombing is also suspicious on itself, let's make a short excursion on that topic. I quote from my article about the obstruction of evidence in the case of the WTC:

Quote:
 

Let's look closer at Gene Corley. The BPAT team deployed to the WTC site was assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers and is headed by him. He was also the principal investigator in the FEMA study of Oklahoma City's Murrah Federal Office Building. This is of interest, because, according to the official story, the damage was caused by a 5000-pound fertilizer and fuel oil bomb packed into the back of a rented Ryder truck parked on the street in front of the building. But it turned out to be not as simple like that:
Police who arrived on the scene after the bombing discovered several unexploded bombs inside the building. This discovery was widely reported on local TV news broadcasts and confirmed through testimonies by others.
Explosives expert General Parton revealed in his analysis that the truck bomb alone could not have produced the damage to the building. He notes that, at the distance the truck was parked from the building, the pressure wave of the blast would have been ten times less than what is required to pulverize concrete. See his report, which was submitted to the U.S. Congress and is part of the Congressional Record, here.
His claims were ignored. Meanwhile Controlled Demolition Inc. was contracted to demolish the rest of the Murrah Building and bury its remains, thus preventing proper forensic examination.

There were also stories about a leaked report prepared by the Pentagon, stating that their two experts working independently of one another came to the same conclusions like General Parton. Source
Note also, that besides Gene Corley, the authors of the official report on the Murrah Federal Building, Charles Thornton (from the Thornton-Tomasseti-Group!) and Mete Sozen, were among the initial team of the WTC and Pentagon investigation. Furthermore, the fourth author on the Murrah Building report was Paul Mlakar, who headed the Pentagon investigation:
Quote:
 
"the Pentagon team is headed by Paul Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E., of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi." Source

Quoting Kevin Ryan:
Quote:
 
"Why do the same five or so individuals turn up in investigations relating to terrorist attack, when, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), there are 1.5 million engineers in the US?" Source

That's a very good question.



Back to Kilsheimer. Besides his notion about the black boxes, there's also another dubious claim in his account. Again from PM:

Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

The dubious part of this is where he states to have found them. From the German TV-Documentary "9/11-What really happened": Google Video

(if the link does not work like it should, skip to 0:19:40)

Here he claims to have found at four places remains of crew members at the A-E drive, where the fuselage left. Now let's see where the A-E drive is located:

Posted Image


And here's the exit hole, "where the fuselage left".

Posted Image

First it was said that this hole was caused by the cockpit, despite the fact that cockpits are made of lightweight material.


Quote:
 
Mr. LEE EVEY (Program Manager Pentagon Renovation Project):
Question (reporter): That seems to indicate that it came to rest in ring C, the nose cone.
Evey: Let me talk to that, because you've asked a number of questions already about the extent of penetration, et cetera. This is an overhead of the building. The point of penetration was right here, and we blocked that out to show that's the area of collapse. The plane actually penetrated through the E ring, C ring -- excuse me -- E ring, D ring, C ring. This area right here is what we call A-E Drive. And unlike other rings in the building, it's actually a driveway that circles the building inside, between the B and the C ring. 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.
(Source)


Mr. RUMSFELD: Yeah. And then came in about—between about the first and second floor over here.
And it went in through three rings. I’m told the nose is—is still in there,
very close to the inner courtyard, about one ring away." - Good Morning America (09/13/01)

"That afternoon, Captain Defina and airport Battalion Chief Walter Hood, as well as other jurisdictions' battalion chiefs, led crews inside with attack lines to fight fires on every floor of the "D" and "E" rings. The aircraft had penetrated all the way to the "C" ring.
"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific." -NFPA Journal (11/01/01)


So according to Captain Defina the nose gear was found inside and did not completely disintegrated. And someone told Rumsfeld that the nose was still there. Why should anyone lie to Rumsfeld, or did he lied himself? Or were they all mistaken?

Anyway, later the explanation of what caused the hole changed, and it is now said that the landing gear made the hole. Though never explicity stated in an official account (read again the passage above from the Performance Report), but magazines like PM claim so.

Here's another report, not speaking of the plane's nose:

Quote:
 
Sergeant First Class Maybon Pollock:
"At that point we were able to see the last part of the plane, where it stopped, basically. It was a big 8 by 10 or bigger, I’m just guessing, hole in the wall. You could see the tire, the landing gear, were just forward of it.

Specialist Kristopher Leigh Sorensen:
"I remember looking down the corridor, and you could see where part of the plane had busted through the wall, and the firefighters wouldn’t let us in. They were scared the entire wall was going to collapse. You could still see a tire and some unrecognizable little small portion of the plane."
(Source - PDF)



Indeed, if we look at this picture, we can see a tire, just behind the firefighter line to the right side of the firefighter. Compared to the line, this tire could only be from the front landing gear.

Posted Image

Now the problem is that we could not see any human remains on any footage taken in the A-E drive, which could be explained by the fact that "Out of respect to the victims, we were not to videotape body remains of any victims found," Rothschadl said. (Source)

But remember that it was said that crew members were together with the passengers in the back of the plane, at least this is the official version. If the exit hole was indeed made by the cockpit, we certainly shouldn't expect that remains of crew members could have been found there.

If the hole was caused by the front landing gear, how could the remains from people in the back of the plane being found there? Shouldn't one expect the remains of the hijackers to be found there? No, at least not if we follow the Building Performance Report. According to it, the remains of the alleged hijackers were found near the impact site.

Posted Image

Quote:
 
"The remains of most of the passengers on the aircraft were found near the end of the travel of the aircraft debris. The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft into the structure. By contrast, the remains of a few individuals (the hijacking suspects), who most likely were near the front of the aircraft, were found relatively close to the aircraft’s point of impact with the building. These data suggest that the front of the aircraft disintegrated essentially upon impact but, in the process, opened up a hole allowing the trailing portions of the fuselage to pass into the building." (p.40, Pentagon Building Performance Report)


Now that's an explanation! I've never seen a bullet causing a hole for example in a wall and essentially disintegrating when doing so. Either it disintegrates, or it manages to make a hole, but it wouldn't disintegrate after making a hole. Of course a large airplane is not a bullet, and it 's certainly possible that the cockpit/front of a plane flying that fast disintegrates on impact. But why should it then immediatley lose momentum and not being further pushed into the structure by the succeeding mass of the plane?

And indeed, that's exactly what the report states one page later:

Quote:
 
As the moving debris from the aircraft pushed the contents and demolished exterior wall of the building forward, the debris from the aircraft and building most likely resembled a rapidly moving avalanche through the first floor of the building.


How does this fit together?

Also this figure and the discussion about it on page 46/47 does not indicate that the front would have been disintegrated and its parts losing all momentum and then rest near the impact site. ("The impact effects may be represented as a violent flow through the structure of a “fluid” consisting of aviation fuel and solid fragments". (p.46))

Posted Image


The same is stated by Mete Sozen, who said that the plane crashed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. (Source)
(Remember that Sozen was also one of the four Oklahoma City Bombing investigators.)

The explanation by the Building Performance Report makes no real sense if we believe the official version, including that the crew members were in the back of the plane.

Now let's assume that Kilsheimer was right with his statement about crew members remains being found at the A-E drive. This stands in contrast to the account of firefighters and others about the black boxes being found at the impact site. Which would raise the question: how could a black box, located in the back of the plane, manufactured to resist great stress, not manage to travel deep inside the building but the remains of humans could?
But if one places the black boxes "300 feet deep" inside the building, like the Building Performance Report does, then this contradiction does not exist anymore.
But if Kilsheimer is right about his statement of crew member remains found at A-E drive, and firefighters and others were right about the black boxes being found near the impact site, then what could we conclude from that?
Most reasonable, that the crew members, or to say better, the pilots, where still in the front of the plane.
And if the hijackers remains were found at the same location where the black boxes have been found, then what could we conclude from that?
That the hijackers were, like the black boxes, in the back of the plane, at least not in front of it.
To avoid these conclusions, the Building Performance Report places the black boxes 300 feet inside the building. But there's no evidence that the accounts by firefighters and others are not true, besides one account of a man who stepped on the black boxes by accident, held the tail section in his hand and has a history of ties to Secret Service and DoD.

Let's recapitulate: it's said that the front landing gear, one of the most massive parts of the plane, the black boxes, one of the most solid parts, located in the back of the plane, and the bodies of the crew members, located in the back of the plane, managed all to penetrate the building with about the same deepness. Astounding.

Quote:
 
"The damage pattern throughout the building and the locations of fatalities and aircraft components, together with the deformation of columns, suggest that the entire aircraft disintegrated rapidly as it moved through the forest of columns on the first floor. (p.41, Pentagon Building Performance Report)


Rapidly disintegrated and remains found at A-E drive does not fit together. There's a dilemma for the official version. If Kilsheimer's statement about the crew members remains is true, it makes the official version way more implausible. Indicating that there was in fact no hijacking, but the pilots were still in front of the plane, speaking for a remote controled hijacking, which would be in line with the observations made during the time of hijack.

If Kilsheimer's statement is a lie, then we have here a man in charge who lies to the public, and we have magazines like PM, which have no scruples to spread these lies over years.

One way or another, it does not look good. And if you prefer to believe the firefighters, and not Kilsheimer and the Building Performance Report, it looks really bad for the official version.


Bottomline: Loose Change is backed up by the facts. Screw Loose Change didn't debunk Loose Change.
Edited by NK-44, Jan 22 2008, 05:30 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post
Hani Hanjour Reloaded - Official Myth Debunked · American Flight 77