-
-
-
- Comment and photos
Brian <dobermanz2002@yahoo.com>
- 11-4-2
-
-
-
-
-
- Comments
-
- From Jed Schlackman
11-3-2
-
- Now that the photo with apparent wreckage from a plane
has appeared, further analysis can determine what really struck the Pentagon.
It's interesting that of all the debris at the Pentagon, the one piece
closely photographed is an apparent piece of the company name or logo marking.
Perhaps someone can find a way to analyze the size and scale of the markings
as compared to the markings on an intact American Airlines jet of the same
model.
-
- It's interesting to note that the red and white markings
here are curved, unlike the "A" with only straight lines in the
tail section AA logo. The letters of "American" on the jet's
side would have been close to the front of the plane and less likely to
have fallen so far from the building and escaped the exposive blast that
damaged the building so much. This piece of debris also looks materially
flimsy - If I flew on a commercial passenger jet I'd hope it was made of
sturdier stuff! This could have been a piece of a small drone craft that
was used in the attack, but it is unlikely that this came from the AA Boeing
jet.
-
- http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N644AA
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/290718/M/
-
- Sincerely,
-
- Jed Shlackman jshlackman@adelphia.net
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Peter Jones p.jones@dataspecialist.co.uk
11-3-2
-
- I looked at the picture of Boeing wreckage at the Pentagon.
Convenient that this turns up now.
-
- If it's genuine wreckage then why is there apparently
no charring on it, given that the plane was destroyed in a fireball?
-
- Why are there no other pieces of wreckage in the immediate
area? Given the presence of that piece and the magnitude of damage there
should be debris everywhere.
-
- There isn't even any real evidence of damage to the paint
work (scuffing, dirt etc) that you expect.
-
- Regards, Peter Jones.
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Bill Moore
- editor@evworld.com
-
- Jeff....I have studied this particular piece of wreckage
before, though he photo on your sites bigger than the one I saw a number
of months ago.
-
- I don't believe it came off a AA 757. American Airlines
is the only US carrier to NOT paint its aircraft, preferring to save the
considerable weight of paint by keeping its aircraft's aluminum skins polished.
This piece of wreckage clearly appears to be painted a light, powder blue.
I have looked at current American 757s and cannot find anywhere on the
aircraft where this particular piece of metal might have come off.
-
- I concur with Mr. Lackman, I doubt this piece of wreckage
came from an American Airlines jetliner.
-
- (Note - We hope someone from AA will come forward and
make a definitive statement on this issue. -ed)
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Craig
- demott@online.ru
- 11-4-2
-
-
- Dear Jeff,
-
- In regards to the so-called plane part found on the lawn
of the Pentagon, I had seen this photo somewhere else, but it was different
than what you have-which makes it interesting. (Attached is the photo I
found on another web page). Looking at the two photos, you will see that
the large piece is basically the same-the difference being is the background.
In the photo that I sent, you'll see that it view is in the same direction,
but that the major part is much further from the building. Also, that the
ground is very clean and free of debris (with the exception of one smaller
piece to the right of the large one. In the picture that you provided,
there is a lot of litter in the immediate background, along with a tree
branch and what looks like a parking lamppost. I know sure as hell that
someone did not pick up the piece and move it, just so anohter picture
can be taken. Also, why is there only one picture--the whole ground should
be littered with large and small pieces?!
-
-
-
- The only conclusion that one can come to is, that this
is simply a Photoshop picture. Now someone might argue and say that I'm
wrong, and I could be. It could be a Coral Draw program that the picture
was made with! (Real picture in the background, but the pieces added later.
Give the Feds a chance, and more Photoshop pictures will be on the way,
including suitcases and parts of people!)
-
- I'm kind of glad that the Feds came out with these pictures
(using a front organization of course). Why? Because they are digging a
deeper hole for their lies, where even the less intelligent of the country
can see what is going on. The major thing is, is all the US government
has been doing as a result of this 9-11 Attack. In short, this whole "war
on terrorism" is a well laid out lie, similar to George Orwell's book,
"1984".
-
- Respectfully submitted,
-
- Craig
-
-
- Comment
- From Pam
- Vegandoll@aol.com
- 11-4-2
-
- Jeff,
-
- It takes about 60 seconds to search google.com &
find a few photos verifying the American Airline logo, which is nothing
like the one in your photo. Go to:
-
- http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?emailsearch=airliners.net@0-24.
net&airlinesearch=American+Airlines
-
- http://members.tripod.com/mwaviation/new_page_4.htm
-
- http://members.tripod.com/Craigs_Airlines/boeing767.htm
-
- Shows other company logos on Boeings, none of which match
the wreckage photo.
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Jerry Kirkegaard
- jakirkegaard@charter.net
- 11-4-2
-
- Hello Jeff -
- After viewing numerous American Airlines photos on airliners.net.
I cannot find any location to which this aluminum piece may have been attached.
The only possibility was the name "AMERICAN" printed forward
and above the window line. I could identify the white outlining the red
lettering but could not fit this distorted fabric to any portion of the
letters in American's inventory. Another clue I was trying to make fit
was the rivet pattern of this debris which I was also trying tie in to
the same area, but had no luck there, either.
-
- Lastly, is the debris piece its self. One can get a rough
idea of the size by the spacing of the rivet lines. In this picture I could
only see rivets running in parallel lines. I could not see the lines running
at a right angle which would form rectangular patterns which are easily
viewable on the numerous photos on the net. Another angle to this is that
the debris seems to be formed in a radius not just bent, but formed. It
looks like the top half of a cylinder shape laying horizontal, it reminds
me of a engine cowling only it is much too small and the AA planes have
no red paint on the engine cowls.
- I realize this isn't much but I can't say much for the
quality of the debris photo, either, or its authenticity. Only the 'EXPERTS'
know. ???
-
- Jerry
-
- Is The Piece Of Wreckage From This AA Engine Cowling
Color Scheme?
-
- From Jerry Kirkegaard
- 11-4-2
-
- http://airliners.net/open.file/256351/L/
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- From George
george@thomasmarsden.com.au
11-5-2
-
- Hi Jeff...
-
- After comparing the wreckage piece and the plane photo,
one thing stands out to me. The paint colour schemes visible on the two
photos don't match. Of what can be seen on the plane itself the red is
outlined with a white strip and also a blue strip and even on the lettering
on the plane the white is always next to both blue and red. Where is the
blue paint on the wreckage piece. I guess it could have come from a place
on the plane not visible on the photo.
-
- The only other place it could possibly be from is at
the back of the plane where the stripe that runs up the sides of the fuselage
under the windows tapers to a point just in front of the rear wings. The
blue outline seems to finish before the tip of the taper, but it is unclear
whether the white continues all the way around the red tip.
-
- Regards,
George
-
- Comment
-
- From Ted
tstrieby@sc.rr.com
11-5-2
-
- This is just an observation, but I have 35 years in aviation,
and I feel this is not wreckage.
-
- Note the lines of holes. These are rivet holes. Rivets
support underlying structure. There is no underlying structure.
-
- Rivets have "heads". When rivets "pull"
or are torn out, the area around the rivets, is also damaged. There is
no damege here.
-
- This is very thin (0.020 or less) aluminum. The damage
from the torn rivets would be VERY obvious. These rivet holes have every
characteristic, of having been "drilled".
-
- The paint isn't scratched. There seems to be paint UNDER
where the rivet heads would have been. Very strange.
-
- This piece may be 30' long (blade of grass = 1")
-
- Note the lack of color or definition, in the other debris.
-
- >If the FAA or NTSB is listening, I'm looking for
work. > >Ted
-
- Comment
-
- From Dan Cruickshank
iamghetto@hotmail.com
11-5-2
-
- Hello there,
-
- On your user comment page about "Find The Boeing"
and the minor debate about whether the wreckage featured is authentic or
not, I believe I have some decent information about this.
-
- A) There was a link given (http://airliners.net/open.file/256351/L/)
that showed what this AA flight may have potentially looked like. It obvious
from this photo that the red on the wreckage would be of the AA planes
striping and not of its logo. With that said, on the photo of the real
AA plane, the red striping is accompanied by a thick white outline and
a thinner black outlining stripe as well. The wreckage in the photo is
void of this black stripe. I'm not sure what variants there were on the
paint job, but the wreckage in the photo, if it is wreckage, is not of
the exact same plane. It may be a sloppy forgery.
-
- B) Another photo is featured (above with other comments)
that seems to be of the same wreckage piece. People seem to think however
the it is a forgery, or that its the same wreckage placed in two different
locations. It - IN FACT - is just a different angle of the same wreckage
(in the same spot). If you study the two photos, it's easy to see. The
key is to look at the ground surrounding it. In both photos, the same patches
of dead grass are clearly visible. There is one under the left end of the
wreckage, one running of screen to the right of the wreckage, and the same
patch of grass in the background.
-
- The top photo is taken close to the ground, where as
the smaller 2nd photo was taken from a higher angle. In the second photo,
these patches may look bigger, but its just a little thing called perspective.
-
- C) And to address the person who made comment of "litter"
filling the background, the same litter is visible in both, its just the
the angle of the pictures is a slightly askewed. Its the same mass of white
debris in the background, and you can even see the same group of branches
on the group as well.
-
- I'm not saying that something trippy did not happen at
the Pentagon, but just that these two seperate pictures do not synergistically
fuel the conspiracy theory :)
-
- Dan Calgary,
Alberta.
-
- Comment
-
- Wreckage Is Part Of The Helicopter
-
- From Marcel
lima@kabelfoon.nl
11-5-2
-
- Dear jeff,
-
- I think that the piece of aircraft on the field, in front
of the pentagon is not from a plane but from a helicopter that was parked
on the heli-pad. I think it's the back part of a helicopter under the tailsection.
-
- Best regards,
-
- Marcel,
The Netherlands
-
-
- Comments
-
- From Angela Jenkins
- an_august_moon@yahoo.com
- 11-5-2
-
- Hi Jeff,
-
- I am very doubtful that this picture was the 'actual
wreckage' at the Pentagon. Notice all the men just wandering around like
they are inspecting the area, and having a friendly chat AS IF the building
they are standing a few feet away from isnt really on fire?? I would think
they would want to put the fire out before they have their morning meeting
under the burning building.
-
- The three guys casually standing in the right side of
the photo beside the burning car should probably be getting soaked from
the fire hose shooting the water directly over their head, yet they dont
look wet?? And they are in no hurry to get out from under the water hose.
-
- On the left side of the photo, you find a guy standing
with his hands on his hips?? I sure hope he's not one of the first responders!!
This doesn't happen when there is an actual fire! It looks staged to me.
-
- Besides the LARGE piece of scrap metal, I see what appears
to be a bunch of tree limbs, and white "specks". The large piece
of metal could have come from anything, but I doubt it came from an AA
Airliner (color scheme is off). NONE of the wreckage looks charred, its
all white. That sure was an amazing crash, it didn't char the lawn at the
Pentagon, and didn't char anything else that is scattered around the yard.
-
- Another interesting thing to note, I do not see a single
fireman on the scene. With all the extra men just standing around, maybe
they should have grabbed a waterhose or started cleaning up that mess on
the lawn!! I'm not buying it!
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Larry W
- ibelieve26@hotmail.com
- 11-11-2
-
- Jeff,
-
- I am afraid I have only more questions and very few answers.
However, as my dad, the German engineer, used to say, "Do the math
and see how it adds up." Here goes.
-
- This was a huge plane. I had a friend that died in the
crash of an F-111 fighter plane 25 years ago. It left a blast crater 200
yards across. When this plane hit the Pentagon the building was left intact,
so the force from the blast would have been redirected back to the lawn.
Where is the blast crater?
-
- With no damage done to the lawn it means the plane flew
virtually inches off the ground for a considerable distance before it crashed
into the building at ground level. Was this pilot good enough to do that
(witout transponders or other navigational equipment)?
-
- Every plane crash on land I have ever seen, regardless
of the amount of fuel on board, has left a huge debris field of identifiable
airplane parts. Pieces of wings, engines, seats, and even body parts of
passengers. Are we to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) burned hot enough
to vaporize all traces of the plane except for this one small piece of
fuselage? And that piece had no burn marks on it at all?
-
- No one would even begin to think that because someone
could drive a car they would be able to hop behind the wheel of a semi-truck
and drive it flawlessly across a major metropolitan area to an address
without benefit of a map or directions then back that truck into the dock
the first time, all without any incident at all. Is it reasonable for us
to believe that a marginal single-engine pilot could hop behind the wheel
of one of the most sophisticated planes in the world and fly it without
navigational tools (no transponders, no tower contact) without any incident
and score three direct hits? (In case you wonder, I am attaching cockpit
photos of a Cessna 172 and a Boeing 767. Make up your own mind if you think
this is a plausible scenario.)
-
-
-
-
- I think to allow people to frame the discussion around
whether a small piece of aircraft aluminum belongs to a certain type of
plane is to look right past the pink elephant sitting in the living room.
If we continue to allow these people to establish the parameters for the
discussion then the "official version" creeps will certainly
prevail. Is it reasonable to believe the events as we are fed them, or
should we reject those assertions we know are baseless and push the discussion
to the level more likely to yield the truth? Can a bad Cessna pilot fly
a Boeing 767? Can jet fuel vaporize all traces of a plane? If it can, is
it able to do so without leaving any sort of blast crater? Once you empty
your mind of all pre-conceived notions you will see how difficult it is
to accept government assertions and you will see that the debate over a
small piece of fuselage is superfluous.
-
- Larry Wohlgemuth
|
