Friday, September 9, 2011

Comparing Pics of Crashed Passenger Jets & the Pentagon on 9/11

Here's one of a passenger jet hitting a STEEL bridge. Man, that bridge sure took a pounding, huh?


Here's a pic of a crashed Turkish Airlines passenger jet that wrecked while trying to land.


Finally a pic of Rwandair Flight 205 hitting a building:


Now the infamous pic of the Boeing 757 that we're told crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.


Any Questions?

NO ONE knows WHAT REALLY HAPPENED at the Pentagon on 9/11 except the back-stabbing Israeli Zionists and the traitorous American NeoCON scum that pulled off that FALSE FLAG/INSIDE JOB.

Although I'm no self-styled expert on everything under the sun, I do have a construction background in pouring concrete and later on, I eventually became a union bricklayer for awhile before working 20+ years as a career firefighter for a Midwestern FD, so I've got a little experience in matters concerning building construction and what happens to the same during fires.

This you can take to the bank: There's no way in Hell an aluminum-skinned passenger jet that has an aluminum airframe created that initial punch-out blast hole in the Pentagon, and went thru SIX WALLS for a total of NINE FEET OF HEAVILY REINFORCED CONCRETE, concrete that was reinforced even more after the OKC bombing, since the Feds figured the Pentagon could be a target.

No way, No how a Boeing 757 created that damage at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Until we take back our country from the murderous fucks that completely hijacked our nation on 9/11, indict, arrest, try and after they're found guilty, have some of them 'Dance on Air,' until then, we won't know WHAT REALLY HAPPENED at the Pentagon on 9/11.
The argument posed by some is that the Boeing disintegrated (variation: "vaporized") when it hit the Pentagon. However, there was a big hole in the Pentagon, so SOMETHING must have caused that hole, as big 16-foot holes don't appear in concrete by themselves.

Do you like math? If so, there's a basic calculation for what would have happened to the Boeing if it did indeed descend, as the official story holds, upon the Pentagon and crashed right into it. Ever heard of "G" force? The g-force of an object is its acceleration relative to free-fall. (Wikipedia) If you do the math, using the officially "professed" speed of the Boeing, its mass, its location, and the way it turned ... the effect of G force(s) would have yielded a virtual weight of about 8.5 million pounds for Flight 77, which alone would have caused it to disintegrate BEFORE striking the Pentagon.
So what made that hole?? Here's the math on the "crash" ...

With a virtual weight of about 8.5 million pounds, Flight 77 could not have levelled off before striking the Pentagon. It would have crashed before it reached the Pentagon.

This single fact is sufficient to refute the official account of "Flight 77."

Neither Hani Hanjour -- the alleged pilot trainee "noted for incompetence", nor the Boeing 757, would have been in any condition to fly with "the top of the fuselage of the aircraft no more than 20 ft above the ground" (Pentagon Building Performance Report, p14).

Pilots for 9/11 Truth did another calculation by lowering the height of "Flight 77" below that shown by the FDR. They lowered it to to the top of the Virginia Department of Transportation communications antenna that sits below the alleged flight path.

With this very conservative case, they calculated the force on the Boeing 757 at 11.2 Gs. "11.2 Gs was never recorded in the FDR. 11.2 Gs would rip the aircraft apart" they state.

What hard evidence has the government released to support its position? If you have that evidence, we'd like to see it.

Scientific, and other evidence, reinforce the conclusion: the official account of Flight 77 is false.


  1. Greay post Greg as we approach the 10 anniversary of the biggest lie ever told.

    A missile hit the pentagon. A missile is consistent with both the entrance and exit holes caused.

    Keep up your great work.

  2. Very interesting and appears pretty conclusive. If a passenger jet did hit the Pentagon I would expect debris consistent with that type of crash, so, where is it?

  3. I've always found the passengers of flight 77 to be very interesting (there were only 64 of them, though the capacity of a 757 is listed as being 186 to 289 persons). Many were ex-military, including a retired Admiral. One used to work at the NSA and another did a lot black ops stuff. But these guys couldn't fight off 5 hijackers armed with knives and boxcutters?

    Of course we're getting this information from former attorney general Ted Olson, whose wife called him collect (or was that a cellphone?) during the flight. She felt nobody was in charge and asked her husband to tell the pilot what to do. Really? But how can we believe Ted Olson, a man who said, "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." (My source for all these observations is

  4. Oops, Ted Olson was the *solicitor* general at the time, not the attorney general. Anyway, here's David Ray Griffin's take on Olson's key testimony, based on some highly unlikely phone calls:

  5. Greg,

    I'm back! Been busy with this one below, hopefully you'll like it.


    ... the back-stabbing Israeli Zionists and the traitorous American NeoCON scum that pulled off that FALSE FLAG/INSIDE JOB.

    (Of course I have to use portion of it as part of the title.)

    We can't thank you enough, Greg!

  6. Thanks for the pic, Musique, never realized Rahm the Cruel Emmanuel looked so good in a dress :)


Please stick to the topic at hand. Anyone trying to hijack this blog with long, winding comments about other topics or spam will be booted.

Fair Use Notice

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity's problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make 'fair use' of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about 'fair use' and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.

Blog Archive