THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE {masterlist}

THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE {masterlist}
The Frustrating Fraud
Last updated January 2 2008

This post is to organize the sub-posts dealing with the analysis of the physical evidence at the Pentagon attack scene. I am not a structural engineer, forensic scientist, or airplane mechanic. I'm a janitor, but have enough common sense, basic scientific knowledge, and ability to visualize spatial dynamics and physical processes to give my analysis some worth. Some of this is just conjecture, some backed by some research. And most importantly, I’m driven by a desire to actually figure out what makes the most sense, and not be ruled by mystery and speculation. Initially my research was to decide how far off-track Pentagon Strike and 911 In Plane Site really was, but since then I have put together a plausible explanation for what physically happened there that morning centered around the impact of a plane rougly the size and shape of a Boeing 757 and seemingly painted with the American Airlines standards. It's not the only possibility, but as I'll demonstrate it's probable, likely, or at at least as plausible as any other theory, putting the lie to the myriad claims it could not be so.

Just as I was posting this starting late in 2006, the new paradigm of no-757 hoaxing was emerging – Citizen Investigative Team and the witnesses whose geometry logically rules out an impact by a missile, drone, 757, anything, with all the points of evidence addressed below fabricated independently, some in real-time, to indicate a plane strike on the official path. To demonstrate how remarkably convoluted that would be all I need do is keep plugging away at the details like I have been and take as leads the points they think they can twist into making their silly case seem to make sense. To address the witness verification, logic, geometry, and honesty aspects of CIT, I’ve gone out on several limbs listed in a separate masterlist.

In piecing this together I’ve drawn on official and governmental sources, FOIA released documents shared by others, published personal accounts, and mostly on many hundreds of photographs and the published opinions of various theorists. I'm indebted in tiny part to 911 IPS/Loose Change/Hufschmid et al for getting me started and wondering, but indebted massively to the groundbreaking works of John Judge, Mark Robinowitz, Jim Hoffman, Russell Pickering, Joel van der Reijden, Scott Bingham, and various others for showing and addressing in a sane manner ALL the evidence available and thus allowing me closer to the reality of the situation. So in drawing on the works of others, there are only so many new ideas here. What I do is try to understand a point at the basic level, verify it by what I know or can learn, and then simplify and convey the core ideas in my own way. There are no math or science prerequisites for understanding the evidence of this crime scene as I've boiled it down.

In fact, as some have pointed out, the Pentagon may have become such a focus of flawed theories because of the simplicity of the crime scene. The WTC was almost volcanically destroyed and buried, but the Pentagon was basically a five-story office building left almost totally intact. The impacted section was primarily on a single floor of the building and of course inside the plane. Identification of plane parts and bodies would be easier by orders of magnitude than the New York crime scene. And if no such evidence existed, many reasoned, this would become the “weakest link” in the official story. The scant evidence available does not bear them out – this is someone’s weakest link, but not the government’s.

> ATTACK PATH DAMAGE AND QUESTIONS
- Precision Low-Rider: The remarkably anomolous final attack altitude - admittedly quite a feat for a hulking 757. And yet...
- The widely-cited unmarked lawn: A plane so low and yet not quite THAT low. Again suspicious but ultimately a red herring IMO. It seems that however unlikely, it flew that razor's edge of altitude, pushing the envelope to the maximum.
- From the Blind Spot to the Empty Side: The lack of radar coverage over the attack route and the stroke of "luck" that had the plane hit the just-renovated and partly empty side of the building.
- The "undamaged" light poles: Testifying the 'official' flight path and altitude, were these clipped by the plane, popped with FX, or planted in advance?
- Analysis: Poles 1 and 2 proportions, shear height, clues to final plane bank, just a hint of getting into the Lloyd issue...
- Map of the crime Scene and the "obstacle Dodge." The heliport, attack path, generator, etc. mapped out and explained. Excellent resource to be updated soon to reflect the below.
- Vent Structure Damage: If the plane could be said to have hit the ground before impact, this is where it did so.
- Twisted Orange Trailers: Analysis of scrap metal at the scene with some angles and stuff. Pretty cool.
- Cookie Identification Team: The damage points that line up so well they're called 'cookie-cutter,' or too perfect, by critics. Generator trailer, fencem vent retaining wall, tree damage, general impact hole.
- Like Two Bulldozers: A new view highlights the consistency of the damage path with a 757 strike or some damn good fakery.

> IMPACT DAMAGE

- The Entry Wounds: Analyzing the tiny "16-foot hole" so many insist could not have allowed a 757. It's actually 90 feet wide.
- The "16-foot hole challenge." coming soon.
- The outer wall: how many inches of what?: External Wall construction notes - 18" of steel-reinforced concrete? 13" of brick reinforced limestone? Or what?
- Support columns Masterlist: The "intact support columns" thought to preclude a 757 - anlysis with thee linked sub-posts demonstrating incorrect official reports, questioning the status of columns 15-17aa, and the PentaCon guys' analysis of "intact" column 14aa on the second floor.
- Pentagon Foundation Damage?
- Right Wing Damage Continuity

> DEPTH OF PENETRATION
- Early revisionist accounts decided only one ring was damaged. I run rings around their deeply flawed analyses (from 2001 and 2002) for no big plane at the Pentagon. They should have learned by now, but it doesn't seem they have.
- Nine feet of Steel Reinforced Idiocy: Plane penetrates 300 feet, fraud logic penetrates nothing.
- Punch-Out Page - intro on the punch-out hole at the end of the plane's alleged penetration, masterlist of more posts on the hole.

> FIRE:
- No fires? "A Stool Sample of IPS Evidence."
- Impact fireball: Fireball Fakery: Challenge to CIT

> THE PLANE PARTS:

- Part I: The Engines: Parts that could be from almost any engine - including a 757's.
- Part II: Landing Gear: a wheel and a landing gear that look like those from a 757.
- Part III: the Scrap Over the Scraps: Fuselage segments from an American Airlines jet.
- The Flight Data Recorder {masterlist}: Found intact, with altitude, speed, etc details programmed in, and coming out weird. A lot to cover... especially the animation.

>THE BODIES:
- Faces of Death, the Moussaoui Edition: The government's release of new evidence in mid-2006 as the Moussaoui case closes - are we seeing the Flight 77 victims here?
- also covered at the end of the nine feet of idiocy piece.

VIDEO REVIEW: PENTAGON STRIKE

First released for free viewing online in mid-2004, the Flash animation short Pentagon Strike (subtitled “what hit the Pentagon on 9/11?”) immediately made waves with its slickly-produced, strong-seeming argument that something other than a Boeing 757 was responsible for the attack on the Pentagon. It was created by Darren Williams, a 31 year-old British systems analyst and member Laura Knight-Jadczyk’s Cassiopaea.org. Williams e-mailed a copy of the video to Knight-Jadczyk, who posted a link on the group's Web site August 23. “Within 36 hours,” the Washington Post later reported, “Williams's site collapsed under the crush of tens of thousands of visitors. But there were others to fill the void […] Across thousands of sites, demand for the video was so great that some webmasters solicited donations to pay for the extra bandwidth.”

My younger brother first told me about this little mind bomb in late 2004. Until that point the whole no plane argument never did sound right to me, but he swore this video would change my mind. I finally watched it and was actually impressed, if still skeptical, and started my journey to sort the glittery from the gold regarding this part of the attack I’d previously ignored.

Eventually associated as well with the Quantum Future Group and the website Sings of the Times, Pentagon Strike is still available for viewing at the same site: http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm if you haven’t seen it yet. It wouldn’t be entirely fair to call the video deliberate disinfo – Conspiatainment is a better word. It does give fair warning, opening with a screen reading in part “Critical Discernment suggested – knowledge and awareness recommended.” Of course they had a certain kind of “awareness” in mind, and knew few people at the time had much “knowledge” of the attack and would be well set-up to glean it from the video that’s done loading now…

It starts with brooding trip-hop music and a voiceover from Adolph Hitler, I believe, and text alerting us that despite the official story of the Pentagon attack, “in reality a Boeing 757 was never found.” What follows is a five-plus minute montage of still images and animated text in which circumstantial evidence like the seized videos of the attack is well-explained enough. The five stills from 2002 are analyzed incredulously, and a slew of eyewitness reports – or select snippets anyway – verifying all the tiring charges: small jet, missile, no plane parts, etc. Quoting the video’s backer Laura Knight-Jadczyk, the on-screen text reads “the very first descriptions - before the mind control machine had time to go into action” had described something “like a missile.” This was a clever way of indirectly misquoting Mike Walters (who said it was an AA jet that was flying like a missile and two other witnesses who thought it sounded like a missile).

As for the video’s physical evidence analysis – what I didn’t know then but can finally comment on – the punch-out hole analysis is better than average; they have it correctly placed and no talk of six walls. But otherwise it’s an unprecedented display of the Frustrating Fraud, all the machinations used before and repeated later. Williams again rehashes the Meyssan trick of showing a spray of fire foam while claiming to show the single small hole in the façade. Deceptive long shots of the lawn showing no debris are brandished, and only the smallest bits are shown up close – a supposedly exhaustive run-down that passed up, as usual, the telltale landing gear found inside the building. The unmarked Pentalawn and a brief golf animation are cleverly used to imply a specific 757 witness (Tim Timmerman) was lying about his whole story – just look at that lawn! The blue tarp smugglers were vaguely shown in the section on plane wreckage with a large question mark. The unburnt stool on the third floor is featured, as it was in IPS at about this same time, in questioning where the supposed 757-full of jet fuel went (answer: across the two floors beneath that – it never touched the third floor).

But such misleading “facts” are emotionally bolstered by a varied musical underpinning with well-timed highs and lows and long moments of suspense punctuated with dark techno/trip hop and screaming groove metal borrowed from the Dust Brothers (via Fight Club) and Marilyn Manson. This work clearly puts emotion above logic even as a computerized voice tells the viewer “you are now looking at the objective reality – please stay focused.” The video seems designed to snap the viewer dizzily from one point to the next, a torrent of images, “facts” and “quotes” that has worn down the skepticism defenses millions of average 9/11 Truthers and likely created thousands of new skeptics itself. After an open-minded six minute viewing experience, it would seem almost undeniable to many that anything but a Boeing 757 struck the temple.

These people know all about “mind control machines” going into action.

THE UNMARKED PENTALAWN

Adam Larson/Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Updated 5/7/07

One of the most persistently-used evidentiary leadups to no-757 claims is the Pentagon's lawn, showing narry a scratch in the photographic record despite the massive Boeing 757 that had just passed inches over it and exploded. Myriad revisionists have pointed to early eyewitness accounts that had the giant Flight 77 skimming and then actually hitting the grass before it actually hit the Pentagon’s façade. For example, Tim Timmerman reported "I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. [...] it was right before impact, and I saw the airplane just disintegrate and blow up into a huge ball of flames." CBS News reported onSeptember 26 “some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility.” How so? All photos and video from the day of the attack have shown the same unmarked lawn seen below.


Time, September 12: “There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building.” ESPN, September 12, referring to other accounts: “What - or who - caused Flight 77 to hit ground first, diffusing most of its destructive energy before it slammed into the Pentagon?” They seemed to be hinting it was heroes on board, like with Flight 93, who helped grind the plane into the ground to weaken its impact. The turf, as I’ve seen it, shows no such evidence of heroism. Besides Loose Change, 911 In Plane Site points this out with glee, and it’s been marveled over by Killtown as the miraculously resilient “Pentalwan 2000.”

Actually, there is some truth to the stories of the plane hitting the ground. It was flying remarkably low, with its port (left) wing tilted lowest. Looking along the flight path, explained in another post, this would indeed put the wingtip near or in the dirt not far from the helipad (in front of the small building at left is top picture). Below we can see where the underhanging left engine may well have nicked a low retaining wall around an exhaust structure about 100 feet from the impact site, and may have scraped some sod there as well. However, grass damage appears questionable even here, and over the vast expanse of the lawn, especially seen from a distance and far to the right as usually shown, indeed, there are no meaningful marks. This is undeniable, but even without that damaged wall, it's also another red herring tossed on the pile rotting in the sun of over-scrutiny. The official plane never did hit the ground in a real way. The no-planer’s missile never touched the ground. Even if it was blowing up just before impact as Timmerman and some evidence indicates, Nothing touched the ground, except at that one spot. So we all agree, let’s move on. Harping on this point proves nothing but a few mistaken witnesses who had after all just seen a massive jet descend from the sky to just a few inches off the ground – in their minds they expected a crash with the ground and most were probably too busy diving for cover to watch closely.

As for what the conspiracy theorists see in these mistaken accounts, some see in it the impossibility of flunky pilot Hani Hanjour NOT hitting the ground and suspect precision remote control - I find this likely myself. But others of the Loose Change variety perhaps see a clue that the Pentagon was pressuring people to lie about what they saw, and (ironically?) as the reported gouges in the lawn evaporated, so too did the reported plane for the Dave Von Kleists and Dylan Averies of the world. Perhaps some folks actually were coached to say this despite its instant disprovability as part of a Pentagon-sponsored disinformation campaign for precisely the end of spurring such useless conspiracy theories. Otherwise, I'm guessing they just thought it hit the ground.

DAVID LYNCH, LOOSE CHANGE, AND 9/11 QUESTIONS

TROUBLING QUESTIONS FROM A MAKER OF TROUBLING FILMS
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frustrating Fraud
December 20 2006

I’m a long-time fan of legendary director of psychological cult thrillers David Lynch. I never have seen Blue Velvet all the way through, but loved what I saw, and have also appreciated his work on The Elephant Man, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, and his old TV show you may remember, Twin Peaks. Wild at Heart in underrated and over-hated, Dune wasn’t right on mark but not bad either, and I recently saw his surprisingly bizarre 1977 classic Eraserhead. I’ve always felt a vague connection with Lynch, who grew up at least partly here in Spokane, which may have helped him visualize the world of Twin Peaks and other ventures. Spokane is the hub of an area many here call the “Inland Empire” so you can understand my disappointment to learn that his latest film INLAND EMPIRE (his first all-digital film and set for release soon) is about LA, not Spokane.

David Lynch, troubled by the 9/11 disinfo witout even seeing it as disinfo

It’s not the only disappointment Lynch has handed me lately. He paused in his crusade for transcendental meditation recently to come out as a 9/11 skeptic, which many found instantly encouraging. In a December 3 interview he cited the documentary Loose Change as having loosed this change in his own mind. His Dutch interviewer, apparently at Lynch’s request, showed a several-minute clip – one of the better stretches - of the New York demolitions and the coverup of the flight data recorders, both more compelling cases than the average Loose Change tripe. She asked if he found their case convincing, and to his credit he seemed mildly skeptical: “Its not so much what they say, it's the things that make you look at what you thought you saw in a different light […] you don’t have to believe everything in the documentary to still have questions”

But he comfortably cited precisely their evidence with apparently no independent research. He cited the three collapses in New York as being rather suspicious, especially given Silverstein's "pull it" quote (supposedly de-bunked now). He also called on three bits of flawed evidence at the Pentagon:

“And Those things for me, that bother me, is the hole in the Pentagon being too small for a plane, the lawn isn't messed up, and the government's not showing the plane hitting when many cameras photographed it.”

I love Lynch’s works and he himself seems like a cool and smart guy, but he’s stepped on my turf here and I must put in my two bits. I’ve already explained why the video is totally wrong on the entry wound, and just posted on the unmarked "pentalawn" issue. As for the hidden video, that is worth attention, but should not be slapped down alongside those other two without first reading my post on the issue.

Some will praise Lynch’s bold move, others will wonder if the mental illness and confusion of his films has rubbed off on him and clouded his thinking with paranoia. I would say his paranoia is right on mark and of the "heightened state of awareness” variety so needed in our country. But something - perhaps a transcendent meditative stupor or perhaps celebrity isolation – keeps him from taking it all seriously enough to check his facts first. I like to think these are the reasons for his boosting Loose Change rather than a conscious collusion with the disinfo campaign.

911 IN PLANE SITE - PARTIAL REVIEW

IN PLANE SIGHT OR JUST PLAIN SHITE?
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frustrating Fraud
December 13 2006


When Versailles, Missouri-based Dave Von Kleist saw the Meyssan-produced “Hunt the Boeing” website out of Paris, he decided it “drew some very serious questions as to what had really happened at the Pentagon.” Von Kleist aired his concerns via the Power Hour, his daily radio show with his wife Joyce Riley, and later wrote, produced, and hosted a documentary video clumsily titled 911 In Plane Site (911 IPS) – “The FIRST 911 Video to Present VIDEO EVIDENCE – Not Theories.” Directed by William Lewis of "Police State 21" and first released in mid-2004, IPS promised “September 11 changed the world. This video will change September 11.” Others agreed and promoted it; famous writer, comedian, and brilliant civil rights activist Dick Gregory plugged for it (“everyone in America should see this video”) and millionaire 9/11 truth financier Jimmy Walter funded its wide distribution and helped it get local showings and press write-ups nationwide; it proved remarkably successful and largely dominated the field - at first.

Lurid, cluttered, and unbalanced: who says you can't tell a DVD by its cover?

This video was not a wise investment for Walter’s stated cause of bringing the truth to the people, which is clear from the opening montage of 9/11 crash and collapse replays underpinned with über-serious synthesized orchestral music that drags on way too long. It hasn’t improved much before the several agonizing minutes spent examining the “attachment” beneath the windowless “military cargo plane” known as Flight 175, and of the odd-looking video of yellow flashes on the WTC’s façade before – not after but just before - the planes hit. Jeremy Baker at OilEmpire put my own thoughts well, doubting the planners would be so stupid “as to attach a large, highly visible incendiary device to the bottom of a plane that they knew would be showing its belly proudly on every TV set on the planet.”

Dave Von Kleist on the set of 911 IPS

I’m not scientist enough to totally dismiss Von Kleist’s allegations (traceable back to LetsRoll 911 at least) that the planes were firing yellow-flashing missiles from these pods, but the official explanation seems to make more sense: the pods were simply wing faring, an ordinary thing on these two aluminum planes (if distorted by glare high in the brilliant sky). The planes then gave off yellow flashes, as aluminum would do, upon impact, not before (it’s not as easy to precisely read shadows from half a mile away as he thinks). Yet at the video’s conclusion Von Kleist specifically cited his worst evidence – the pods and yellow flashes - as hard and final proof of the otherwise compelling case that “terrorists with box-cutters” were not to blame for this event. He ended by asking his viewers after seeing his great epic “where’s your line in the sand?”

While the video finds irrefutable proof of remote control airliners at the widely documented battle of the World Trade Center, when presented with a lack of evidence of the attack vehicle at the Pentagon, the video’s logic runs wild and latches onto Meyssan’s case, opening its exploration with what Von Kleist thinks is his strongest point, that the Pentagon was not hit with one of the windowless, pod-equipped, missile-firing military drones used in New York, but with a simple missile. All in all, the case is poorly made, focusing mostly on the hole in the outer wall, the plane’s alleged entry wound, giving two drastically different sizes for this hole, both of which he feels were too small to allow a 757 to pass.

One particularly embarrassing mistake in the video is Mike Walters’ partial quote describing Flight 77, “it was like a cruise missile with wings,” which was cited as evidence of a missile. But in the full interview he said clearly it was an American Airlines jet that was like a cruise missile, I guess in the sense that it was flying through the air and was being used as a weapon to pierce a bunker. Any idiot could verify this with a quick Google search, as I did, yet Von Kleist and his entourage were so proud of this evidence they sent everyone who bought IPS a free copy of CNN’s “America Remembers,” so we could see how that video also only played that part of the interview.

As with the attacks he claimed to be unmasking, I doubted so many mistakes could be made on sheer accident, and began to suspect intentional sabotage. Jeremy Baker at Oilempire, a 9/11 Truth site, agreed and wrote of widespread concern that “the producers of this film may be operatives attempting to sabotage and derail the 9/11 visibility movement from within.” Baker bemoaned the effect of this video, amplified by its wide viewing, on the larger movement:

“You don't often see so many glaring blunders in serious documentary film-making, and if you think our detractors won't hop on each and every one of them you‚re wrong. These screw-ups, like it or not, reflect on the entire community of 9/11 activists (especially the ones who so strongly support this video) and could go a long way to alienating the fence sitters we can and should be trying hard to woo.”

With nary a true claim in it, 911 In Plane Site was eventually too widely ridiculed to serve as the vehicle for “changing September 11;” I actually found Fintan Dunne’s dismissal of it as “the In Plane Shite movielet” to be mildly clever. Someof hismoreegregious 'mistakes"in the WTCanalysis arewell-covered in this anonymouly-produced video "Not In Plain Sight." Perhaps even worse, Von Kleist was too old, conservative,and Missourian to effectively reach the teeming masses of the young, urban, and gullible. Both of these problems would be addressed as the Frustrating Fraud and the other flawed seams wound their way into another video try at setting loose the change Von Kleist was unable to.

Sources:
> 911 In Plane Site, the Director’s Cut. 2006. Power Hour video. Directed by William Lewis. Writtem produced and hosted by Dave Von Kleist.
> Baker, Jeremy. “911 – In Plane Site: A Critical Review” Undated, copyright 2004. article copied from: www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#planesite http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/baker1.html

THE CRIME SCENE / OBSTACLE DODGE

THE CRIME SCENE / OBSTACLE DODGE
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Last updated 8/11/07

Ever the master of re-inventing the wheel, I’ve assembled an accurate map of the West lawn crossed by Flight77 and some key features that play into the attack. The helipad itself is pretty obvious, but the other features I’ve done in a color code system with a key. Neither the angle of attack nor the linear measurements here are mathematically precise, but generally accurate. The red lines are based on the 920-foot width of the Pentagon’s façade and indicate widths across identifiable spans of the lawn.
Lets look closer at these, from left to right. The unidentified walkway (neon green) with its small structure at the end is not terribly important in the layout or the attack, but is a good foreground reference point for the views from the CCTV security cameras. The post they occupied is just off frame here to the left, their field of view encompassing almost exactly the lawn’s area in near-useless resolution. The green expanse is of course the west lawn itself, the one so widely noted to bear no visible mark of a 757. True enought, the "Pentalawn" itself was untouched in this plane-into-building crash, but there is plenty of evidence of such a missile even in the sparesely-filled space in front of the building.

Next is the heliport (yellow), only about 100 feet from the impact site but essentially untouched. It also housed a mini-fire station with a fire engine. Obviously designed to hanndle helicopter crashes, it seems rather convenient the 757 should hit where the engine could basically spray the fires down without even pulling out. The heliport also served later in the day as the gathering point for the famous fuselage scraps.

Next the blue rectangle represents a ventilation/exhaust structure, obviously just renovated along with the rest of wedge one. This is set into the ground, and surrounded by a low concrete lip, about one foot high. This is the dark outline on the map, which suffered damage to the south wall, the vents inside scraped and mangled, and its east wall, closest to the building, was obliterated. In this photo, we see the gouge in the low south wall, bearing the curve of the bottom edge of an engine on the scale of a 757's. I don’t know the purpose of the light at left usually referred to as a locator light. It’s not far from the helipad I guess. What we have at right is the damage anyone in the know means when they say the plane hit the ground or anything on the ground before striking the building. This is the closest thing to a mark on the unmarked Pentalawn, and indeed a couple feet of turf seems scraped off right here.

This shot also gives us a good look at the next feature, the cable spools (magenta). There were at least five of these feeding communications cables into the new office space in the renovated wedge. They are at least six feet high when on edge, and some have taken these remaining intact as showing that no part of the plane was lower than that – putting a 757 too high unless it could pass through these, which of course it couldn’t. In fact these are small enough to have been passed over by the gaps between fuselage and engines, or even been rolled aside by the plane’s wake. They are built to roll after all, and probably rolled more during the explosion on impact, and so what we see here is not necessarily the configuration they had WHEN the plane came in. And anyway, they weren’t untouched – note that the one on its side at far left looks slightly deformed, probably by the main fuselage or left wing faring.

Moving on to the other side of the plane’s trajectory, we encounter the fenced-in construction area, shaded lavender. The fence was torn through at that corner by the right engine, as seen below (photoshopped to illustrate the cable spools all evident in the background).
Finally we have the backup generator (orange), parked at the stricken corner of the construction area. It’s the thing on the right above. The giant truck trailer had a front half (generator), and a back half (diesel engine). The issue of having diesel fumes being emitted right by the intake vents is beyond the scope of this site. Anyway, the generator trailer was pushed aside, suffered a burnt spot, a dent in its top, and a massive deformation of its front (generator) half, presumably by the right engine, and possible subsequent melting in the diesel fire. It started out totally rectangular and somehow ended up like this: According to the impact damage and the most astute of eyewitness accounts, the plane was indeed banking starboard high, its left engine basically scraping ground, its right high enough to smack a 12-foot high trailer. It must be noted that the majority of the warping seen here is probably not from the engine itself, but melting from the ensuing fire; it was the diesel fuel in this generator burning that caused most of the smoke at the Pentagon.
---
Not enough evidence? Here are some other quality pages with maps of the scene/details on the obstacles to help you ponder:
- My map is too close to account for the light poles, except the last one. Excellent analysis of these at Eric Bart’s site: LINK
- Desmoulins: The damage before impact LINK
- Pickering/Pentagon Research: Scene map -detailed, includes positions of fire trucks and plane scraps. LINK
- 911 review.com, Jim Hoffman: Error: Obstacles preclude a 757 LINK