Pentagon Pre-Impact Plane Explosion Hypothesis

PentPIPE - based on Physical Debris Evidence

www.youtube.com/watch?v=knOQ923jinw 

Pentagon plane crash planners had a problem.  A plane could not enter into the Accounting Department to destroy records of the missing $2.3 Trillion.  Most of the plane would be left on the lawn by the wall.  So explosives were planted inside the Pentagon during the "reconstruction" to make the outer wall even stronger.  Ironically, the wall was secretly made weaker in preparation for 9/11/2001, so at eat the engines could penetrate.  Explosives were also planted inside the plane to scatter the debris into small pieces, so people would not question that the plane entered the Pentagon walls.

There is abundant physical evidence of a plane of some kind, crashing at the Pentagon. We can consider two areas:
1. Outside the Pentagon - what most people could see immediately after the plane crash
2. Damage to the Pentagon itself - as determined by the investigators

There are 3 sources for the physical evidence:
1. Explosives planted in the plane's luggage cargo area
2. Impact of Flight 77 itself with the Pentagon wall
3. Pre-planted explosives in the Pentagon

Was there a lot of debris on the Pentagon lawn?  Yes

Rick Shaddock's bike route in 2001 went from his DC Waterfront condo over 14 Street Bridge in the bike/walking path, around the Pentagon parking lot, and back, about 3 miles each way.  On 9/11/2001 he saw the news and biked to the site, noticing small debris on Route 395 and the surrounding grass.  It may be hard to see debris in some photos but in person the plane parts were plainly visible.  There were small plane parts around the Pentagon.

Outside: How did the debris get scattered on to the Pentagon lawn North and South?

Explosives in the plane, as well as the plane's impact, perfectly explains the debris on the Pentagon law.  Other theories force us to consider that they were all planted by hand (difficult), or expelled out the hole then turning in mid air.  (Parts would only go one main direction out the hole).  The first version of Loose Change implied they were all planted.  If the plane exploded inside the Pentagon, then the part (below) would have to go West out the hole, then turn North while in motion, and land on the lawn.  A curved trajectory would violate Newton's First Law of Motion, that an object tends to stay in motion in the same direction, unless acted on by an outside force.  A plane exploding just prior to impact would send parts flying in a straight path in all directions, and scattered across the lawn. This is exactly what we see.  

How did the plane part land here from the plane?
Newton's First Law of Motion
An object stays in motion, in the same direction, unless acted on by an outside force.

The above graphic shows the most "generous" Old Theory part path.
The Official Conspiracy Theory requires an even sharper angle for the part path.
The expected location should be in the diagonal direction towards the light poles.

The Actual Location, just outside a circle in the grass, beyond the heliport,
 would require a curved trajectory.  That's quite a "curve ball"!
The Expected Location of the Plane Part is in the direction straight out the hole.

Note that the grass is worn in that direction, as if often walked on,
possibly by planners of the 9/11 attack, staging the light poles.

Plane parts could not fly out the hole, then turn a corner.
The plane must have begun exploding outside the Pentagon wall.

How did the Pentagon get a 100 Foot long Gash ? 

The damage from the Plane was 71 feet to the North and 26 feet South
plus the 16 foot hole for a total of 113 feet.  Why was it so widely dispersed?

When the Pentagon Pre-Impact Plane Explosion (PentPIPE) occurred, the plane parts scattered in all directions (North, South, East, West) as well as Up and Down.  This explains why we see the damage so widely dispersed, rather than concentrated on the entry hole.  Only from outside the wall, could those areas be damaged.  The blast from a plane in the hole would not go outside, towards the West, turn around, then go back to hit the wall going East.

What happened to the two titanium engines of the plane? 

If a plane did hit the Pentagon, then why don't we see the marks for them in the wall, or significant remains of them?

This question assumes that the plane was Flight 77 and had two such engines.  This EFP&PT proposes that a plane definitely hit the Pentagon, but is not definite about which type of plane.  It could have been a plane that had engines that were more fragile, and would disintegrate upon impact.

Damage to the Pentagon supports the Explosives Filled Plane & Pentagon Theory
Parts are so small, they are hard to see from a distance, making the lawn look untouched.

The Pentagon hole was too small for an INTACT plane

General Stubblebine is correct that the hole is too small for an INTACT plane.
But a plane breaking  into smaller parts by a Pre-Impact Plane Explosion (PentPIPE)
perfectly explains the observed damage, including the small hole,
lateral scattering of plane debris along the wall and lawn,
and lack of recognizable plane fuselage and wings.

PentPIPE, intended to minimize the unpredictable damage to the Pentagon
(the predictable damage to the Accounting computers was done by pre-planted explosives
during the remodeling project), caused the additional bonus of confusing some
Truthers into thinking no plane hit the Pentagon at all.

How Were Explosives Planted in the Pentagon?

Prior to 9/11 the Wedge 1, the western fifth of the Pentagon was undergoing remodeling and reinforcement.  The Pentagon Renovation Project began with the side that was hit.  It was nearly complete by 9/11, and best prepared for a plane impact.  Then why did it perform so poorly?  Not only were there holes going through 3 wings (C, D, E), but the outer facade completely collapsed.  This is poor performance by any standard. The answer is that most of the damage was caused by powerful Pre Planted Explosives (PPEs) in the Pentagon.

What happened at the Pentagon follows a pattern that is very similar to what many 9/11 Researchers find at the World Trade Center, such as over 1475 Architects and Engineers of AE911Truth.org. The pattern is that a plane definitely hit the building, but is not the cause of the major damage - which was actually caused by Pre Planted Explosives. 

At the WTCs, the PPEs are believed to be nano-thermite explosives planted in the elevator shafts and ceiling panels - to go off AFTER impact.  So it would be a Post-Impact Plane Explosion (WtcPIPE).  Scientists Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Niels Harrit, and Dr. Jeffrey Farrer identified red-grey chips of high tech military grade explosives in the dust of the World Trade Centers, with powerful microscopes and chemical analyzers.  This finding was published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal.  This finding was confirmed by an independent chemical engineer, Mark Basile of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

How could anyone get explosives in to the World Trade Centers? 

This could easily be accomplished at night, and even during the day by the elevator modernization crew.  Ace Elevator won the largest elevator contract in history and was working in the shafts for 9 months prior to 9/11.  SecuriCom, which had ties to George Bush's brother Marvin, was providing security for the WTC, United Airlines, and Dulles Airport, all involved in 9/11.

 
EFP&PT: Damage was more than what a plane could do by itself, which only damaged the E Ring
This theory proposes that the Plane only penetrated the outer E Ring at nearly a 90 degree angle.
The Orange Dots signify possible locations of Pre Planted Explosives, going at a 45 degree angle.

Likewise, there was modernization going on at the Pentagon, during which it would be easy to plant explosives in approximate 45 degree angle pattern from the exterior wall towards the C ring. This UPT proposes that the plane hit the Pentagon at a near 90 degree angle.  This would be the angle which will cause maximum damage to the plane, and most likely make it disintegrate.  The project also installed blast proof windows and strengthened the wall.   It was hard to predict what a plane would do upon impact, and the perpetrators did not want to do TOO much damage to the Pentagon.

This corresponds perfectly with what most of CIT's witnesses said, and wrote in their diagrams.   They drew the plane impacting the Pentagon at nearly a 90 degree angle.

	The blue line is the proposed flight path The red line is the Official flight path
North of Citgo Flight Path Official Story South of Citgo Flight Path	Flight path drawn by witness: Darrell Stafford

The presence of two different angles provides a reason for witnesses to be in dispute.  This serves the perpetrators, who would want that a debate would go on for as many years as possible, perhaps forever.  People would assume that a plane at each angle would cause the damage. 

A debate could go on, splitting the Truth Movement in to opposing camps.  This tactic worked, as there has been a debate for years on this, even resulting in banishing of each other from their respective electronic forums.

But a plane at neither angle, 45 nor 90, could cause such damage to the inner rings of the Pentagon.  According to the UPT, it is not necessary that the plane cause the internal damage to the Pentagon.

Studies using actual aircraft, crashing in to a brick wall, show that the plane disintegrates completely in to parts.  A plane is made of relatively light weight material, which would disintegrate on impact.  Aluminum is no match for steel reinforced concrete.  In order to get damage to the internal rings, pre -planted explosives would be necessary.

Why was it necessary for the inner rings of the Pentagon to be damaged? 

Why would it not be enough for the outer wall to be hit?

Jesse Ventura posits that there were financial records being kept in the West Wing that needed to be destroyed. This would provide a plausible reason for not being able to balance the Pentagon budget, or to account for nearly $2.3 trillion in transactions, as reported by Donald Rumsfeld on the day before 9/11, and as testified before Congress, including being grilled by Senator Robert Byrd.

If not for the explosives, we would have observed that a plane impacted the Pentagon at a 90 degree angle, and only penetrated the outer wall.  How inconvenient and embarrassing for the perpetrators to go through all that trouble, the plane bounced off the wall on to the lawn, and none of the records inside the Pentagon's Accounting Department were destroyed.  But PPEs planted a precise points would make sure that the targeted records were destroyed, possibly evidence of billions of dollars spent on illegal Black Operations.

The purpose of the PPEs was to provide a path of destruction at a 45 angle inside the Pentagon.  The light poles were "frosting on the cake" to reinforce the 45 degree path.  It would be relatively easy to have small charges that could detonate remotely, "to pop the light poles out of the ground" as stated in Loose Change. 

It is dubious that a light pole could go in to a cab window without causing damage to the hood.  So Lloyde England was speaking truthfully when he thought he was off camera and said "I'm in it" as an unwitting, and unprofiting participant in the staging of the taxi aspect of the Pentagon attack.

There has been much discussion of the reported 85 security cameras around the Pentagon and speculation as to why they are not being released.  Some predict that this is because no plane would be seen, and has even given rise to theories that a missile hit the Pentagon.  According to this EFP&PT, the reason the Pentagon will not release the photos and videos is that it will show that the approaching plane was on the wrong trajectory.  It hit at a 90 degree angle, rather than a 45 degree angle.

Photos show the blast going upwards.  This could not happen to that degree if the blast had to go out the hole, then up.

Why control the damage at the Pentagon?

The objective was to do sufficient damage to the Pentagon that the public would be outraged, but not too much as to delay the repair for more than 1 year. 

Why would the perpetrators bother to plant explosives, if the plane would do it? 
Why stage the 45 degree approach to the Pentagon?
Why not just let the plane do it?

We must remember that they had only one chance to hit the Pentagon on 9/11.    They had to plan for all possible contingencies.  What if the wind blew the plane too far north?  What if it blew too far south?  What if a ground effect pushed it up and over the Pentagon?  What if the plane did not hit the Pentagon hard enough?

All these situations could be accounted for by the use of carefully placed Pre Planted Explosives.  They could be put in the same rooms as the records that they wanted to destroy.  They could prepare evidence for a definite trajectory regardless of what happened to the plane.  The ideal would be that the plane approached at a 45 degree angle, to match the internal damage.

There are two possible reasons for the discrepancy between the plan and reality.
1) It could have been planned to divide the witnesses.
2) It could have been an accident, due to unpredictable wind blowing the plane

In the above diagrams, the red line is the trajectory of the plane.  The arrow head is where the nose of the plane came to rest.

It should be noted that few claim that the nose of the plane made it to the C Ring.  Explosives would explain the hole.  

During the renovation of the West Wing of the Pentagon, in a Top Secret environment, boxes of old plane parts could have been brought in, with approval of top level perpetrators.  If no one was able to open the boxes, as 9/11 approached, no one would know.  Presumably, on the morning of 9/11, the boxes would be unpacked, and the plane parts were strewn about.

In this statement by Frank Legge:

CIT claims that their 13 witnesses, who describe the path of the plane approaching the Pentagon as being to the north of the former Citgo service station, provide irrefutable proof that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon in the manner described in official accounts and must therefore have flown over. http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebutting-cit

CIT is correct that the plane approached the Pentagon on the north side, but is incorrect in stating that this "must therefore have flown over."  It does not logically follow. Another option exists. The plane could have hit the Pentagon at a 90 degree angle and disintegrated.

Column 18 bashed to south - because the plane came from a North of Citgo path.

The 6 Photo Frames Released by the Pentagon

In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) request, the Pentagon finally, and reluctantly release the following 6 frames, instead of all the photos from the 85 security cameras the FBI reported were operational on 9/11.  Also, note the the date on the photos is wrong.  It starts at "Sept. 12, 2001 17:37:19" which is not even Greenwich time.  The time is over 1 day off.  The photos show signs of being manipulated.

Why is the plane blowing up outside the wall, and we don't see the plane go in the wall first?

Another explanation is that, in a plane of pre planted explosives, they exploded just prior to impact.  Note in the following photo, you can still see a bit of the plane's tail exploding towards the right.  This would include the two engines.  Therefore, we do not find a hole for them in the Pentagon wall.

From photos released by the Pentagon
The Smoking Gun - going off!
Note that the tail is visible flying towards the right

The lack of two engine holes gave rise to theories of a missile, or that the plane flew over.  But this can be easily explained by an explosion just prior to impact, that disintegrated the two engines.

Impossible vs Possible
by Newton's Laws of Motion and Physics

The Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT, red line) proposes the plane continued through to the C Ring.
The Explosives Filled Plane & Pentagon Theory (EFP&PT, yellow line) proposes it only went through the E Ring,
and that Pre Planted Explosives made the rest of the holes through to the C Ring.

The Pentagon refuses to release the full photos possibly because
the plane was on the wrong trajectory (90 degrees to the wall) and
Pre Planted Explosives in the plane went off a split second prior to impact
to reduce the damage to the Pentagon

Pentagon Impact Areas

Why Was the Hole So Small?

Many reliable witnesses, both from CIT and PIO, say that the plane that approached the Pentagon was a large passenger jet.  However, it did not need to be so big as to cause 100% of the damage in the Pentagon.  It only needed to be large enough to cause about 33%.  It could have been smaller than a Boeing 757, and still be considered quite large.  It did not need to be a Boeing at all, but any reasonably sized aircraft, which was painted with the American Airlines colors.

It is possible that explosives could have been attached to the two jet engines, which are often made of titanium, to make sure they exploded in to bits, upon impact.  It could have been a specially prepared plane, for all we know. It was capable of maneuvers that neither Hani Hanjur, or a Boeing 757 could make.  The plane could have indeed "vaporized" but not just by the impact with the Pentagon, but combined with explosives.  This would help make sure that tell-tale plane part serial numbers would not disprove it from being Flight 77.  It is possible that the plane was remote controlled, and loaded with explosives, not passengers, so that it would seem to disappear in to the side of the Pentagon, rather than bounce off the thick concrete wall.

Why would an Exploded Plane Makes Less Impact?

A plane that explodes just prior to impact makes less damage than an intact plane.  When the parts are dispersed, so is the impact.  The impact is distributed into many contact points, rather than combined in one contact point.

For example if you drop a 10 pound brick on your foot, it hurts, even with shoes on.  But if you drop 10 pounds of gravel on your foot it does not, even bare foot. 

The explosives in the drone plane fragmented and softened it up.

Why Smaller than expected Engine or Tail Fin Marks in the Pentagon Wall?

There were no engine or tail fin marks, as found on other flights, because the plane could have contained explosives, which blew the entire plane apart, just before it reached the wall of the Pentagon.

Notice that there is a considerable explosion outside the Pentagon wall.  There appears to be a tail fin in this frame, which may have exploded in the next frame.

Why such a big flame?

It may seem obvious that jet fuel would make big flame, if ignited by a spark.  But does an aluminum jet on a concrete wall make a spark?  If Boy Scouts are trying to start a fire, do they rub an aluminum soup can on a rock?  Or on steel?  No.  

What if a plane hit the Pentagon, and the kerosene jet fuel spilled out and just got everything wet?  What if a plane hit the World Trade Center, made a hole, but no flame?  What if no hot coffee pot or electrical spark ignited the fuel?  Then it would be difficult to claim that the buildings came down due to fire.

In order to make an immediate, huge flame at the Pentagon, and at the World Trade Centers, explosives were probably put on the drone aircraft.  This ensured a huge fire ball, which could be stated as the cause of the collapse.

But some witnesses said they saw the plane enter first, then explode

Think about this claim for a moment.  Does it sound plausible?  The plane was reportedly going over 500 miles per hour. That is like a speeding bullet. Can these people claim to see a bullet enter a target, then explode?   It is nonsense.  It happens much too fast for the human eye.  It happens in a small fraction of a second.  So we need to be skeptical, and even suspicious, of people who make this claim. The perpetrators would try to imply that the plane entered the Pentagon first, then after some time exploded. This is not even corroborated by the Official photo (above) showing the plane clearly exploding outside the wall of the Pentagon.  We are not provided with any photo showing a plane going in to the building, without a burst of flames.

How fast was the plane going? 

The official story is that the plane was going super fast, like 500 mile per hour.  A fast speed supports the penetration through the Pentagon Accounting Department to the C Ring hole.  But who is supplying the data?  Government agencies keep track of this.  The Flight Data Recorder is suspect, as the data does not make sense.   To minimize the damage to the Pentagon, the plane would go slower.  Pentagon Police Officers William Lagasse and Chad Brooks reported the plane going slowly enough for them to read the markings, as it approached the Pentagon. 

Why Strike the Pentagon at a 45 Degree Angle to the wall?

A 45 degree angle of attack has advantages and drawbacks for the perpetrators.  If a terrorist wanted to hit the Pentagon, a 45 degree angle would mean it would be a glancing blow, and thus would be counter-productive to their mission to do maximum damage.  If the perpetrators were American, a 45 degree angle would do the least damage.

For example, if you hit something at a 45 degree angle it may well bounce off. The force might not be great enough for the plane to go through the E Ring, much less the D and C Rings.

For example, if you are boxing, and hit your opponent in the stomach at a 45 degree angle he hardly feels it.  The force is distributed laterally.  But if you hit him at a 90 degree angle, he will feel it. 

Why did they pick this angle?  Perhaps is was because it would do less damage to the Pentagon.  After all, it was their own building.  The perpetrators wanted damage that could be repaired within months.

Perhaps because there are more light poles to show a direction.  On the 90 degree angle approach there are only 1 or 2 poles.  It could also be that, because criminals have warped thinking, they didn't think this out, and made a mistake.  Criminals often underestimate investigators. That's how they get caught.

The purpose of a 45 degree angle may have been due, a little bit, to the availability of street light poles. But a major reason is that it provides a margin of error, in case the plane did not hit at the planned spot.  If it hit a little to the left or right, that would be better masked in a diagonal line of damage.  If the line of damage was perpendicular to the wall at a 90 degree angle, then the plane better hit right at that spot.  Otherwise you would end up with a very suspicious looking line of damage.

Why Strike the Pentagon at a 90 Degree Angle to the wall?

The best direction for a plane wishing to do damage to the Pentagon would be head on, at a 90 degree angle.  This applies the maximum weight and momentum to the building wall.  By the Law of Conservation of Momentum, it also does the maximum damage to the plane.  It would cause it to disintegrate.   If the plane was not really Flight 77, then the perpetrators would want it to disappear as much as possible.

This is a video of an F4 Phantom Jet hitting a wall at about 500 miles per hour.  Notice how the plane disintegrates, while the wall appears intact.  This matches what many witnesses saw - the plane merging right into the building.

This is why explosives were necessary. An aluminum plane cannot do so much damage to a steel reinforced concrete wall.  The parts would be scattered about the lawn, and even on to the highway, as was the case on 9/11.

This theory also hypothesizes that explosives in the plane, particularly the engines, set to go off upon impact.  This is why so many parts are on the lawn, and why there are not two holes for the engines, nor the wings, nor the vertical stabilizer.

It may well have been the plan to strike the Pentagon at a 45 degree angle. 

Did the plane fly level to the Pentagon lawn or at a typical 3 degree landing angle?

Plane approached Pentagon at an impossibly low to the ground altitude, knocking over light posts, according to the Guilty Party, who we should not trust with any "facts" about the Pentagon plane crash.

Plane approached at a  steep angle, which Pentagon photos would reveal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_approach Flight 77, taken over by Boeing's Remote Control technology, approached the Pentagon at about 3 degrees, the same angle planes approach runways hundreds of times each day.

Did "Mother Nature" Intervene on 9/11 to give us Clues?

There was a wind blowing east that day. Perhaps the wind suddenly ceased, forcing the plane, which assumed a constant east wind, to the North West. Or perhaps there may have been a sudden gust, forcing the plane to over-compensate. Fortunately, "Mother Nature" caused it to take the NOC path, rather than the planned SOC path, giving us a clue that something was not right.  Perhaps "Mother Nature" intervened by chance, to give us a clue, blowing the plane off course, causing it to over-compensate and take the North of Citgo path, deviating from the carefully planned South of Citgo approach to avoid the Department of Transportation tower.

Something else may have gone wrong with the "best laid plans" of the perpetrators for AA Flight 43 from Boston, the "Fifth Plane", which was grounded due to mechanical problems, probably was intended to hit World Trade Center 7.  http://911review.org/Wget/fifth_plane_hijack_911.html

Why did the Perpetrators give us clues?

In their effort to save the Pentagon the full damage of a plane, they exposed themselves.  If the plane made a standard impact, then we would see all the signs of a plane crash.  No one would question it.  But, because the damage was odd, that started the "conspiracy theories" and the 9/11 Truth movement.  The perpetrators did not plan on so many questions.   They underestimated the public, and over-estimated their ability to fool everyone.

Why Stage the Light Poles?  Why not just hit them with a plane?

The planners of the Pentagon attack must have been meticulous, and probably spent years accounting for each contingency.  It is not so easy to hit light poles reliably, and keep flying.

In the event of an unexpected flight path, caused by unpredictable winds, the perpetrators wanted some evidence that establishes a clear direction of flight to the Pentagon.  It should have occurred to them that if a plane actually hits light poles, a wing could come off, and the plane would come immediately down.  Then they would be faced with the embarrassing situation of having a plane on the front lawn, not reaching the Pentagon, then the Pentagon explodes.  Then, obviously explosives were in the Pentagon and people would be asking who put them there.

There was never any intention of the plane actually hitting the light poles.  The perpetrators depended on public ignorance of what would happen when a plane hits a light pole.  George H.W. Bush was expecting a plane in Dallas when it hit a single light pole and crashed at Love Field (same airport JFK came in to in 1963).  The plane went out of control after hitting just one pole, even with an experienced pilot.  If he was in control he would have landed somehow.  But the pilot died.   So how are we to seriously believe that an inexperienced pilot like Hani Hanjur could control a plane that hit 6 light poles and kept flying?

The purpose of Staging the Light Poles was to reinforce the alleged direction of the plane, to be consistent with the line of explosives planted inside the Pentagon, and the directional damage.  As it turned out, they were necessary.  Their "best laid plan" went a bit astray.  It may be that wind blew the plane too far north, so that it impacted the Pentagon at about a 90 degree angle.  The light poles helped to convince the public that the trajectory was actually more like 45 degrees.

The light poles could have been put down the night before 9/11/2001, or with a small remote controlled explosive that would cause them to tip over as the plane approached the Pentagon.  With everyone's eyes on the bright flash of the explosion, few would notice the light poles falling over.  It is important to note that no formal investigation was done on the poles, to see if any explosive residue was found on them.  They were quickly taken away to some unknown location.  They were not properly studied by investigators, nor the 9/11 Commission.

Another possibility is that, after the light poles were prepared for staging, someone realized that a 45 degree angle approach would mean that the plane would mostly bounce off the Pentagon wall.

More photos of the Light Poles.  Note the improbably straight cut at the bottom of the base that supposedly happened when the plane struck the top.

On the other hand, there is this list of Light Pole witnesses.

Would Standing Pole SP-B be in the way of NOC approach?

Light pole SP-B was in line for one of the many possible paths from the North of the Citgo gas station. As you see from the diagram below, the plane could have passed between the poles which are apart.  The wing span of a 757 is only.

But, even so, let's suppose the plane went directly over the top of SP-B, and see if the plane could clear the top of it, and still hit the Pentagon.  CIT has done an investigation on the Required low and level impact, versus standing poles and obstacles on the North Side path.
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-can_north_side_plane_hit.html#northsidepoles

They point out the ASCE did not find any significant damage to the Pentagon foundation.  This would be consistent with the EFP&P Theory, as a shattered plane which had just exploded, could not do much damage to the Pentagon foundation.

We see several paths the plane could have taken to avoid the poles
The plane has only two potential obstacles to a west side, 90 degree impact into the Pentagon. There appears to be enough room to fly over SP-G and between Standing Pole SP-A and SP-B.  If it went over SP-B the plane would need to descent 10 feet per 100 feet to hit the Pentagon. (Note the suspicious diagonal path through the grass in the same direction as the Official Flight Path.)
Boeing 757 is 44.5 feet high 155.25 feet in length (Source: AerospaceWeb.org) Plane needs to go down 10 feet for every 100 feet it goes to the right		Pentagon Wall 77 feet tall
Light poles are 40 feet tall. (Source: Pilots For 911 Truth)	Distance from Standing Pole SP-B to Pentagon Wall: 400 feet	(Source: Rense.com)
Source: Google Maps aerial view of Pentagon with 50 ft scale extended to the right We can count eight (8) 50 foot increments, or 400 feet, from SP-B to the Pentagon.
The above diagram was made from an Excel spreadsheet you can check StandingPoleBToPentagon.xls   The scale is 1 cell per 10 feet.
Depending on the Plane's speed, how long did it take to go the 400 feet? Under 1 second Slow Medium Fast 300 miles per hour ® 400 miles per hour ® 500 miles per hour ® 5 miles per minute 6.7 miles per minute 8.3 miles per minute .08 miles per second .11 miles per second .14 miles per second 440 feet per second ® horizontal 587 feet per second  ® 733 feet per second ® .91 Seconds .68 seconds .55 seconds 44 feet per second ¯ vertical 58.7 feet per second ¯ 73.3 feet per second ¯

It seems reasonable that the plane could fly at a 10% descent rate, dropping 40 feet for every 400 feet going forward.   This would be about a 5.7 degree angle of descent.  SP-B does not seem to be a deal breaker for the EFP&P Theory.  But this is a question for Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

Light pole on the above graphic, and Excel spreadsheet was cropped from a photo of an actual light pole around the Pentagon for authenticity.

Is this approach aerodynamically possible?

Take a look at the angle of approach.  You don't have to be an expert pilot.  Does such a small, 5.7 degree, nose down approach look "impossible" to you?

What hit the Generator?

There was an electrical generator outside the Pentagon.  It could have been hit by parts of the exploding the plane, or it was moved by force of the explosion of the plane, just prior to its impact with the Pentagon.

http://911review.org/brad.com/Pentagonattackgeneratorphotos.html

How did the plane debris go out the hole, then turn at an angle?

Good question.  It can't.  If debris is shooting out the hole, it goes mainly in one direction.  Flying debris cannot "turn corners" in mid air.  Newton's First  Law of Motion states that Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and in the same direction, unless acted on by some other force.  This shows that the plane must have exploded at least partially outside the Pentagon wall.

Columns 18 and 19 Shown
"Bashed" Inward and Southward

Vicinity of second floor slab.  Column 18 was leaning inward and southward
About 18' above second floor slab
About 36" above second floor slab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki68D54oJj4#t=47m32s
This is consistent with a North of Citgo flight path.

Jamie McKintyre quote: pieces "small enough you could pick up with your hand"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHeYFTPG4KQ

Pre-Impact Plane Explosion is the answer to the question
"Where is the plane?"
It was largely exploded prior to impact

Was the plane really Flight 77?  Yes or No

Possibility #1: Yes - Asphyxiated Occupants, Bombs in Baggage, Remote Control

The plane could indeed have been Flight 77.  This would make the False Flag Black Operation even harder to detect.  The parts could be identify it by serial numbers.  People could identified by DNA. 

Bombs could have been put in bags in the luggage compartment ready to go off on impact.  The Cabin Air Pressure Outflow Valve could have been opened by remote control, to let the air out of the passenger section, as well as the cockpit.  Without air, this would render everyone incapacitate, then unconscious, then dead.  The plane became a vacuum at high altitude, with the occupants unable to escape, or open the windows to get air.  The plane would proceed under remote control, and crash into the Pentagon.  Remote control was a standard feature for Boeing 757 and 767's.

Passengers may have been able to make calls from seat back phones were possible.  But cell phones had to be faked.  Additional calls, using voice morphing may have been made to ensure that the planned story got out to the press.

Two Types of Luggage Smuggled into the Cargo Section
of the Planes to be Triggered by Remote Control

Explosives
to ensure a smaller hole at Pentagon
and large fire ball at the WTCs.

Explosives
Detonated by remote control just prior to hitting the Pentagon wall

The baggage could have also contained explosives, or placed next to bags with explosives, so they were not detected in the wreckage.

Suffocated Occupants, Bombs in Baggage,
Remote Control of Cabin Outflow Valve (COV) and Flight Management System (FMS)
RCoCOVaFMS

The plane could indeed have been Flight 77.  This would make the False Flag Black Operation even harder to detect.  The parts could be identify it by serial numbers.  People could be identified by DNA. 

Depressurization Hypothesis: Remote control of the Cabin Outflow Valve (COV) would cause air to be released from the fuselage at high altitudes. This caused depressurization of air in the fuselage, the main body of the plane.  This suffocated and incapacitated the crew, passengers, and hijackers into unconsciousness.  Hypothermia would also set it in due to loss of heat.  Additionally, the oxygen source for masks could have been disabled by covert agents on the ground crew, possibly with knock-out gas.  Even if they were available, in cases of extreme and rapid cabin depressurization, the oxygen masks are ineffective for long, especially above 10000 feet.  Cabin depressurization may have shown up on the Flight Data Recorders (FDR).  So it would be crucial for the perpetrators that the FDRs were "not found" or were "had no useful data" on 9/11.

Is Remote Control of a Jet Possible?  Yes - Boeing developed and patented it

"December 1, 1984. A remote controlled Boeing 720 takes off from Edwards Air Force Base and is crash landed by NASA for fuel research.  Before its destruction, the plane flew a total of 16 hours and 22 minutes, including 10 take-offs, 69 approaches, and 13 landings."   Cl;ick for Remote Controlled Jet sequence From Loose Change video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-gJGwqBhHI Click for more information about Remote Control of Planes

Possibility # 2: No - Substituted Drone Plane

A problem with Possibility #1 is that the Boeing could not fly so fast, and turn with such G force.  The plane could have been substituted during the time that the radar went out.  Here is a paper about possible Flight 77 Substitution, based on the work of Dr. David Griscom.  He points out that there are hundreds of old plane available at the "plane grave yard" at David-Monthan Air Force Base near Tucson, Arizona.

It would have been more convenient for the perpetrators to have a modified, remote controlled plane.  This would give them months to prepare it with just the right placement of explosives. It could do the high speed maneuvers that were seen, and less resistance to doing the operation.  It would eliminate last minute jitters by the pilot, possibly aborting the crash.

Possibility #3: Yes and No - Flight 77 lands, loads explosives, passengers disembark, then it takes off to the Pentagon

This is a possibility, since there was a time that Flight 77 was too low for radar.  But it is more complex, and requires precise timing.  Sounds like there is a lot of room for error on this option.  But it is a possibility to be considered.

 

Either way, the plane could have been packed with explosives to go off upon impact

It would be even more convenient to have explosives on board.  They could be timed to explode the plane just prior to impact, to reduce the damage to the Pentagon wall.  Explosive charges could be placed in the engines, to blow them up.  This would explain why we don't see a big hole in the wall.  This would reduce the damage to the Pentagon.  After all, the military did not want to do too much damage to their own building.  Just enough to fool everyone.

 
Bombs could have been placed in bags in the baggage compartment

What happened to the Passengers - if they were not knocked out?

This theory proposes the passengers were suffocated when air was released from the cabin. 
But here is a page the deals with this possibility from a prior version of this theory, no longer supported.

Where there really Hijackers?  Yes or No

Yes: The hijackers were indeed hijackers.  Their intent was just to hijack the planes,  land them at an airport, then make some demands, holding the passengers as hostages.  Demands could have been millions of dollars, the closing of military bases in Saudi Arabia (most the alleged hijackers were Arabian), or some such benefit.

No: The hijackers were duped by the perpetrators.  They were deceived and double-crossed.  They could have been knocked out with the same gas that made the crew and passengers unconscious.  The hijackers were killed in the crash along with everyone on board.

Naturally, the hijackers would have wanted to make some demands, and actually get something for their time, money, and efforts.  They did not intend to die, according to this theory.  What good does dying do them?  People don't kill themselves for no reason.  What good does killing a lot of innocent people do?  Why give the Muslims a bad name?   Cui bono? 

There has to be a motive, for someone to go on such a mission to kill themselves.  Even if terrorizing America gives them a thrill, they would not get to see it.  The idea of hijacking a plane and killing one's self goes against basic human instinct.  It is a preposterous notion that demands a lot of evidence.  But the American public believed such a bizarre story.  Not even "devout Muslim" and lap dancer lover Muhammed Atta would kill himself for no benefit.

What if even one of the 19 hijackers got "cold feet" and thought twice and refused to go on board.  Even one could foil the mission in flight.  If he was the pilot he could steer away as the building approached.  Or a hijacker could join with the passengers, say "I don't really want to die" and overthrow the hijackers. 

In this scenario, the mobile phone calls could have been real. Also, some faked calls could have been added though voice morphing technology, to be sure that specific stories out to the press, such as the presence of box cutters.  The hijackers may well have had box cutters, as described.

What about Atta's will, found in his suit case, that "just so happened" to have missed the connection through Boston airport?  Why would he take a will on a plane if he thought it would crash?  The will could have been planted.  Did other hijackers leave a last will and testament?  Many people write wills, just in case, who have no intent to hijack a plane. Why didn't the hijackers call their parents to say good bye before 9/11?

It is a much easier to find guys to hijack a plane and live, than to hijack a plane and die. That's why they could get 19, plus more, to volunteer.  If Al Queda was recruiting hijackers for the mission, it would be much easier to get volunteers by offering $1 million each for a standard hijacking.  It does no one any good to accept $1 million to kill themselves, because they would no longer be around to receive the payment, nor enjoy it. 

The organizing perpetrators knew that they would never have to pay the hijackers, because they would be gassed in the plane and killed in the crash.  So the perpetrators could even offer the hijackers $1 billion each.

Why did some hijackers only want to learn how to take fly and not to land?  They had every intention of landing.  They would depend on the Auto Pilot to land the planes.  "No one thought of using planes to crash into buildings" said Condoleeza Rice and George Bush. Neither did the hijackers, in this scenario.  Only the true perpetrators thought of this.

It is possible that some, or all of the hijackers were actually covert agents, who had been recruited to help catch a hijacking ring.   After the hijacking, they each planned to cooperate in convicting the other hijackers, confident that they would not themselves be prosecuted.  In reality, they were all scheduled to be sanctioned by the clever perpetrators who organized 9/11.

Each group of hijackers did not know about the other 3

In this scenario, each group did not know about the other 3 groups.  They may have been told there will be some other remote controlled drones involved, in case they were to get word that planes were flying in to buildings. They considered themselves the only plane with live people on board.  They did not envision that they would be gassed and killed as well. 

 

What about Flight 93?  By the time the first 3 planes crashed into the WTCs and Pentagon, news of this was getting to the people on Flight 93 via mobile phone calls  The passengers, crew, and hijackers got word that the hijacked planes were crashing in to buildings.  This was bad news for everyone on board, including the hijackers.  None of them wanted to die.  The hijackers probably realized they had been double-crossed and sacrificed. 

Perhaps the gas mechanism failed to knock them out.  Perhaps someone broke a window let good air in, causing depressurization.  Or perhaps the hijackers struggled to gain control of the airplane against the Auto Pilot.  Either way, they could not be allowed to live and talk.  They had to be shot down in Shanksville, or the Auto Pilot turned the plane's nose down by remote control.

In such an operation there were multiple contingency plans.  Flight 93 may have been the "backup" plane for Flight 77 in hitting the Pentagon.   The perpetrators, being Americans, had no real intent to hit the White House or the Capitol.  The Pentagon was the only building in the Washington DC area that had pre-planted explosives.  So, when Flight 77 succeeded, the radio signal was given to the explosives in the baggage section of Flight 93 to detonate, as it would have just before impacting the Pentagon, so it crashed in Shanksville.

It is also possible that Flight 93 was planned to be the 1 failure of the hijackers, and the 1 victory, to show that America was not totally vulnerable.  It could also have been a "backup" for Flight 77, in case it missed the Pentagon.  Or in case Flight 77 did not take off, as happened with Flight 43.  In this carefully laid plan, there were multiple contingency plans.  Without knowing any details of flight 93's crash, Dick Cheney said "I think an act of heroism just took place."1  Cheney had no way of knowing what had happened on board.  This was part of a carefully pre-planned script, for every contingency.

Who were the hijackers really?  Some of the people have turned up alive, so there was Identify Theft.  One of the men lost his passport.  So we may never know who they really were unless we have a thorough investigation.   The 19 hijackers may have been covert assets, possibly of the CIA, who "knew too much" about something, or had outlived their usefulness.  Sending them on a hijacking mission was a "convenient" way to get rid of them, and they were sanctioned for elimination.

---

 

Why did the rest of the building cave in?

The initial impact photos show the upper floors to be quite stable.  So why did they suddenly collapse?

This was to cover up the small hole, lack of wing marks, and other signs.  A scatter analysis may have shown that the plane had exploded just prior to impact. This had to be quickly covered up.  Pre-planted explosives in the upper floors could have brought the rest of the section down.

Before the collapse

After the collapse

The upper floors were not so bad that they would have crashed down by themselves.

Why was the crime scene covered up?

Indeed.  Why cover over the lawn, then put up tents on top of a Federal crime scene?  Here's a photo of "Camp Cover Up".
 

Why a Closed Military Trial for those held at Guantanamo?

This is so the water-boarded "confession" will not be exposed.  A "defense attorney" will be appointed who will not try very hard.  Statements will be suppressed and carefully spun before being released to the public.  Of course none of the evidence for 9/11 as an inside job will be permitted to be discussed.  It will be a kangaroo court.

Why Haven't Any of the Perpetrators Come Forward?

Why should they?  They feel what they did was justified for America, to increase military spending and bring "democracy" to the world.  They believe killing about 3000 people was worth "saving" 300 million Americans.  Also, they would be implicating themselves and their associates in murder.

A Consideration of Other Theories

The small hole at the Pentagon, with few wing marks, has been a quandary, leading some 9/11 researchers to hypothesize:

Theory	Basic Idea	Drawback
Missile	Small hole was caused by a cruise missile	Witnesses said a larger plane approached the Pentagon
Small Plane	A small plane, painted as AA, hit the Pentagon	Some witnesses said it was a large plane
Folden Wings	A plane, folded its wings back to make a small hole	No one saw this happen
Fly Over	The plane went up and over the top of the Pentagon	Many witnesses would have seen that
Hologram	A hologram of a plane went in to the Pentagon	Technology is not known to exist.
No Plane	No plane was there.  It was all done by explosives	Many people saw a plane.
Official Story	A plane hijacked by terrorists flew in to the Pentagon	Hani Hanjur bad pilot. Plane could no go so fast

Isn't this theory contradicted by 911Review?

The issue of the size of the hole in the Pentagon has divided the truth movement.  So far there have been only 2 choices, that not everyone agrees with.  This forces people to take 2 "black or white" sides.  People had to pick 1 or the other.

1. The hole is so small that only a missile or no plane hit the Pentagon.  0% of the damage was from Flight 77.

2. The hole is as large as one would expect from a crash.  100% of the damage was from the Flight 77.

 

Neither choice has been satisfying to everyone. If we go with #1, we are forced to discount those who saw a Boeing 757.  If we go with #2, we are forced to discount the statements of General Stubblebine, main stream news broadcasters, and others who remark on the less-than-expected debris.  People had to take sides.

 

But there is a 3rd possibility, a "gray" possibility - not "black or white".  The size can be somewhere in between.  The damage could still be from a 757 and make a smaller hole.  Explosives would fragment the plane, and lessen the impact.  Explosives in the Pentagon did the remainder of the damage. Whether the damage was mitigated 25%, 40%, 60% or whatever remains to be determined.  My theory approximates that 33% of the damage was caused by explosives in the plane and 66% by explosives in the Pentagon.  But it could have been 50% - 50%, 60% - 40% or whatever.   We are just not limited to 2 choices: 100% versus 0%.

 

911Review was a major inspiration for this theory, read years ago.  A review of the Review provides evidence fully supporting this new theory.  (Although the Review is limited to the old "100% versus 0%" thinking.)

 

The publicly available photographic evidence is fully supportive of this theory:  everything from main stream news, to the frames released by the Pentagon. 

 

The 96' gash on the first floor was made by the plane, along with pre-planted explosives, according to this theory.  There is no more need for a "black or white" choice - either plane, or explosives.  It was a combination of both. 

 

It is important for the truth movement to have a plausible theory that unifies the opposing sides.   This theory accommodates the best and most evidence and testimony of both sides, the North of Citgo and the Plane hit the Pentagon. 

 

Forcing people into an artificial limit of 2 choices is what has wasted time.  There are really 3 choices. 

 

We don't have to pick from a "menu of 2 choices" any more.  Some percentage of the damage was caused by explosives in the plane, and the remainder by explosives in the Pentagon.  The only question is what percentage was done by each.

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but not with the full impact of an intact plane.  It was Flight 77 - partially exploded.

Materials and Situations needed to pull off 9/11:

Boeing aircraft capable of being flown by remote control
19 Hijackers who think they are doing a hijacking to land and make demands, or
    Covert Agents who think they are helping to catch hijackers and will not be prosecuted.
Explosives in a suit case, trigger to go off before impact (Pentagon) or after impact (WTCs)
Gas to be released in to cabin by remote control to knock out crew, passengers and hijackers
6 War game simulations to confuse NORAD and air defense, and provide plausible cover
Opportunity to pre-plant explosives under a plausible cover
    WTCs: ACE Elevator Company working in the elevator shafts and ceiling panels of WTC
    Pentagon: Renovations of Accounting Wing of the Pentagon
 

Conclusion:

This paper presents a plausible Pentagon Pre-Impact Plane Explosion theory referred to by the acronym PentPIPE.  This means that there were Pre Planted Explosives (PPE), with Staging Light Poles (SLP) including the taxi window, with a plane passing North Of Citgo, and the Plane Impacted the Pentagon.  One variation proposes the plane had passengers.  Another proposes it was a drone, substituted when Flight 77 went off radar, as hypothesized by Dr. David Griscom

Either way, this theory accommodates the largest number of witness statements, and the physical evidence.  Both views, the North Of Citgo and the Plane Impacting Pentagon are true.  Not one or the other. 

The plane did about 1/3 of the damage, and explosives did the other 2/3, approximately.  Now we can all shake hands, and work together to get a New Investigation of the events of 9/11.

Now we have a better idea of what happened at the Pentagon.
Now it is time to Write Your Congressman
Demand a New 9/11 Investigation
To get the complete answers

A Better Way to Build an Invincible America
If little Afghanistan cannot be conquered in 10 years,
America is already Invincible to attack by anyone.
We don't need such a military presence or weapons.
We need creativity, intelligence, and peace.

 

---

How rogue elements in the Military Industrial Complex pulled off the biggest "protection racket"
scheme for "job security" in history, and fooled over 300 million Americans for almost 10 years.

---

Look!  Up in the sky, and the Pentagon!
Was it a Bomb?
Was it a Plane? 
NO. 
It was a Bomb AND a Plane!

---

Old Abstract

The Explosives Filled Plane & Pentagon Theory (EFP&PT) proposes two scenarios of a remote controlled plane with explosives in the baggage compartment: 1) Flight 77 itself with gas to knock out the passengers and crew, or 2) a drone plane substituted during the radar and transponder blackout (accounting for its flying so fast). The explosives blew its wings, tail and engines into bits, just prior to impact. The explosion created a suddenly wingless plane, blown into smaller parts, thus creating a smaller hole without distinct wing or tail marks.
 

Your ideas are most welcome
email to info@911Pentagon.org

References:

1 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x85113

http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

911Review.com

Official 9/11 Commission Report - PDF - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Zelikow
CitizenInvestigationTeam.com - PentaCon, C.R., Aldo Marquis
Pump It Out.com Forum - Jeffrey Hill
A New 9/11 Hypothesis - Dr. David Griscom

http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2893
Major General Albert Stubblebine, Natural Solutions Foundation

911 Planes Exceeded Their Software Limits / Cell Phone Calls Could Not Have Been Made
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=48

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad

http://www.911timeline.net

www.911-strike.com/remote.htm

 

 

---

Pentagon Small Hole Explained

Many people have said that the hole was too small at the Pentagon.
Then they erroneously conclude there was no plane, or it flew over,
or speculate there was a missile, even though over 100 witnesses saw a passenger jet.

The missing factor is something so simple, and obvious.
Something every 9/11 truth activist know was used in the controlled demolition at the WTCs.
Pre planted explosives.

Explosives could be in the plane, hidden in the cargo areas, so
as it approached the Pentagon, shattering it into small pieces
which were found all over the lawn.

Some so small that they were not visible from a distance
causing even smart scholars to conclude the lawn was untouched.

Here is a demonstration, using a model of the AA Flight 77.
Notice that if you smash it against this box, symbolizing the Pentagon.

The planners of 9/11 did not know for sure if aluminum can penetrate concrete and steel.
so pre-planted explosives in the buildings were important.

For the WTC to collapse according to the official story,
A big fire ball inside was essential. 
If the plane largely bounced off, then that would ruin the official explanation
for brining down the towers, which had asbestos and had to come down anyway.
So Ace Elevator Company was in the shafts from 1994 - 2001/9/11
the perfect place to plant explosives, with 7 years to do it.
They were not even mentioned, much less investigated, by Bush's 9/11 Commission.

In the case of the Pentagon they reinforced the wall to be hit.
The purpose was to destroy the Accounting Department's computers
which well inside the Pentagon.  So explosives inside had to be planted.