New York | Pentagon | Shanksville | Ghostflight United Airlines 175 | 9/11 Links | Deutsche Version

Font size | Text width + / - | Text alignment

Image - The impact hole in the North Tower of the World Trade Center, taken from three different perspectives. Below a FEMA drawing, which shows precisely the damage at the wall. This drawing has been superimposed with a scale outline of a Boeing 767. The outline was made by means of a photo of a Boeing 767 on which the airplane was photographed exactly from the front side. The Boeing 767 has a span of 156 feet, which is almost the width of 16 wall elements. During impact the airplane banked about 23 degrees. Now, at first it is strange, that the wing dihedral of a Boeing 767 is substantially smaller than the damage at the wall would suggest. This is obvious already with the naked eye, no further tools are required. Next it is evident that the holes, apparently caused by the engines, are closer to each other than the engines of a Boeing 767. And further more it is noticeable that the mighty vertical stabilizer, completely contrary to the fine wing tips, left nearly no trace at the wall. How was this possible? Was it really a Boeing 767-223 that crashed into the North Tower, or was it perhaps some other airplane?

See also: "Ghostflight American Airlines 11"  

Evaluation of the counterargument: Not convincing.

Image - The impact hole in the South Tower of the World Trade Center. This picture is similar to that one with the hole in the North Tower. The Boeing 767-222 banked here approximately 32 degrees. Also here the engines do somehow not fit the holes in the wall correctly, and once again the imprint of the vertical stabilizer, contrary to the wing tips, is hardly visible at the wall, and in the FEMA drawing below it does practically not exist at all. How could the entire airplane disappear into the building through this small hole? Was it really an airplane?

Evaluation of the counterargument: Not convincing at all.

Image - Still frames from video recordings, which show the United Airlines Boeing 767 as it impacted the steel wall of the South Tower. But actually is "impact" here not the proper expression for this strange behavior. The airplane was straightly swallowed by the steel wall with a minimum of interaction and without any visible slow down effect. Next to the right a photo series of an experiment with a jet, that was deliberately guided against a massive target. In these pictures the difference is eye catching straightaway. The airplane was here instantly torn into thousand pieces. The fragments of the airplane shot away with high energy in all directions in a right angle from the impact point. Not so the airplane which flew into the South Tower. Here at first only a slight dust cloud developed, the actual explosion however took place nearly one second later. Was it therefore indeed a real airplane captured in these pictures, or was it perhaps nevertheless only the illusion of an airplane?

Evaluation of the counterargument: There are still doubts.

Image - The alleged United Airlines Boeing 767 disappears on the left side in the wall of the South Tower. Barely one second later an oblong object sticks out at the opposite side of the South Tower, in order to inflate itself and explode shortly afterwards in a large fireball. Could this object have been perhaps the fuselage of the airplane? As the drawing further down shows, the fuselage had penetrated the wall between column 420 and 425, hit against the steel core of the tower. Two steel beams, which the core was made of, are shown in the photo above. It is therefore obviously rather improbable that the fuselage could have crossed the entire building in full width - including these steel beams - in order to show up again in one piece on the other side. But then, what strange object was it, that punched out from the wall of the South Tower?

Was the oblong object perhaps a kind of a napalm bomb? On the b/w photos on the left there are several napalm bombs to be seen. Interesting to it: These bombs have the same oblong design than the object that stuck out from the wall of the South Tower. Just a coincidence? In the photo below on the left such napalm bombs can be seen in action. Each of the two airplanes just dropped one of a napalm bomb. The fireballs developed thereby are resembling in a strange and confusing way the fireball of the South Tower on the right. Also just a coincidence? On the bottom right there is a photo of the smoke cloud from the North Tower impact. Why is this billow of smoke light gray? There were allegedly two identical airplanes that had hit the North and the South Tower, weren't it? Could it perhaps be, the different smoke development is because at the North Tower just a simple airplane had hit, but on the other hand at the South Tower however the optical impression had somewhat been improved additionally with a napalm special effect?

By the way: The airplane, in the upper left picture, has strange to say only one wing.

Evaluation of the counterargument: Unbelievable.

Image - The South Tower of the World Trade Center seen from the south-east corner. The cross marks the center of the impact hole in which the fuselage of the alleged Boeing 767 had disappeared. From the impact side a line without perspective distortions has been drawn to the opposite corner. The line runs at the height of the 81th Floor. The photo below shows the opposite punch out wall. A circle marks here the location at which the object approximately - as shown in the photos below - must have punched out. Conspicuous to it: No clear hole in the wall can be identified here. Well, this could mean the strange object was originally relative small, and then only inflated itself to its full size when already outside. The pictures below are showing how a small point became at first a round shaped object, which then developed into an also round shaped fireball. How could a symmetrically spherical shaped fireball result from irregularly sprayed fuel? And considering the amount of fuel in the tank of the right wing, was the fireball not somewhat to large anyway? Was the fireball possibly created by a kind of napalm bomb? Was the fireball therefore a great deal oversized too?

Evaluation of the counterarguments: N/A

Image - United Airlines Flight 175 is approaching the South Tower. Above two archives pictures of the Boeing 767-222 with the registration number N612UA can be seen. In the archives photos the colors of the airplane can be identified clearly. The bottom side of the fuselage, the vertical stabilizer and the engines are dark blue, the top side of the fuselage as well as the upper and lower side of the wings are light gray. About in the center of the fuselage runs a horizontal line in bright red color, which in the smaller photo (top left) can be clearly recognized as well.

Weirdly not much is remaining from these clearly and distinctly recognizable colors in the photos of the Flight UA 175 on September 11th 2001. In the first photo the airplane is depicted merely in gray tones and extremely dark, although it was a bright sunny day and the other buildings in the picture, also on there shady side, were relatively high illuminated. In the second photo, which won the Pulitzer Prize, it does not look much better. Although all buildings in the foreground are dipped into bright sunlight, the airplane in the photo appears extremely dark, nearly as black as coal. Apparently there is no difference in the photo between the light bottom side of the wings and the dark bottom side of the fuselage. Either of them appears in the photo in a dark, almost black color. In the next photo with the number 3, the picture is similar. Here the airplane looks pale as a ghost like a 3D computer graphics with its texture simply turned off. Here too the buildings, left in the photo, and the fire in the North Tower are displayed in absolutely natural deep colors. In photo 4 we see New York in sparkling sunshine, however the airplane again is black like soot. Also in photo 5, once again the airplane somehow looks just gray, although the buildings below are brightly illuminated by the sun. Photo 6 and 7 show a gray airplane with the impression of metallic shining spots although the fuselage was not silver shiny but coated with paint. Photo 8 is the all over well known CNN-photo. The building left in the picture and the fire in the North Tower - both are displayed in clear and fresh colors. Only with the airplane there is something wrong again. Once more the airplane consist only of gray tones and thereby it gives one nearly the impression as if the airplane were made of quicksilver. Photo 9 shows one more time only a shadowy "whatzit" captured by the television camera. The shady side of the tower is here clearly a shade lighter as the shady side of the airplane.

Finally in photo 10 Flight UA 175 can be seen in color. It is so far the only known photo in which the colors of the airplane can be guessed at least halfway. The weird thing at this photo however is, that the tail of the airplane strangely gives the impression as if it is bent downwards a little bit somehow. If one takes a closer look at the photos it is further noticeable, that the flap track fairings (those are the three points under each of the two wings) in the photo of the N619UA but also in a close up of a wing of a Boeing 757 clearly protrude over the trailing edge of the wing. Now however, very strangely neither in photo 10 nor in photo 2 of Flight UA 175 is this the case. Here these three points are cut flush with the trailing edge of the wing.

If all these photos are taken into account together, one could easily have valid doubts about, whether the depicted airplane is really an authentic airplane that is dealt with here or perhaps not only a kind of highly developed 3D projection from a secret laboratory of the military.

Evaluation of the counterarguments: Not completely convincing.

Image - As the nose of the airplane approaches the front of the South Tower of the World Trade Center, fractions of a second before the actual impact, there was a kind of lightning to be seen. This lightning or maybe "ignition spark" apparently originated from a pod that was mounted on the bottom side of the fuselage, impliedly visible in the photos top right and bottom left. The photo bottom right shows a similar lightning during the approach of the airplane to the North Tower. Were these lightnings perhaps generate from a military equipment in order to cause thereby an ignition of "something"? Was it perhaps a "Tesla Howitzer" which was supposed to melt down the steel girders instantaneously?

By the way: The airplane, that approaches the North Tower in the picture bottom right, does actually not really look like a Boeing 767.

Evaluation of the counterarguments: Not very likely.

Image - Close up of the face of the North Tower. At this area the left wing of the Boeing 767 had struck. Strange thing to it is the way the steel columns were damaged here. Columns 138, 139 and 140 were bent inwards and cut through. The columns did not simply break at the area with the strongest impact load, but slices from them were cut out straight. Almost the same applies for columns 141, 142 and 143. The columns were separated at the top, and torn out at the bottom of the adjacent columns. The next column 144 broke off actually in two places. The lower point of the fracture is about 3.3 feet lower than the neighboring column 143. What was the matter with the airfoil of the Boeing 767 that exactly at this location a slightly larger hole had been created? The columns 145 and 146 were, although just next to the column 144, not separate but twisted extremely. However the torsions give the strange impression as if the force, contrary to the other columns, had taken effect in some way from the left to the right towards the fuselage (precisely as with the South Tower at almost the same spot). The next two columns 147 and 148 were just slightly pushed inwards without separation, and the two columns 149 and 150 further left are practically undamaged. Oddly enough however a small piece was cut out again smoothly of the neighboring column 151. At this location the fine wing tip had dashed against.

The steel columns consisted of four steel plates which build up an approximately 14 inch square section. With sheathing this is about 18 square inch. The wall thickness of the plates varied between 0.25 and 3 inch depending upon building height, thus in the height of the impact approximately 0.4 inch of wall thickness can be estimate. In order to cut steel beams of this strength, normally a hacksaw with a hardened saw blade, a cut off grinding machine, or a cutting torch has to be used. Tools made of aluminum, for understandable reasons, are not in question here. How could now an airfoil of an airplane, just constructed from aluminum, cut through these steel members, which had to bear a part of the load of the building, so smooth and clean? Was the damage at the steel girders really caused only by an airplane, or was it assisted a little bit by something else?

The bottommost photo on the left shows columns 147 and 148 in a detailed view. These columns are squeezed on both sides and on the left column a few fan-shaped copper-colored spatters can be seen. Linear Shaped Charges are shown on the photo on the right. Interestingly the blasting agent is here surrounded by a copper sheath. Could it therefore be the columns were cut by such Linear Cutters? Maybe also for that reason the copper-colored spatters on the left column? Were the charges perhaps not powerful enough to cut straight through these columns, therefore the columns were only slightly squeezed? Could it be the outermost columns were not cut by the wing tips but rather by explosives? Is this possibly also the reason why these cuttings were at their very proper places, completely contrary to the displaced impact holes of the engines? And how could actually a free floating wing tip cut the girder exactly at the right place, if at all? This begs the question: Why cut the columns by explosives if there had been real airplanes? Or were there never real airplanes?

Evaluation of the counterargument: Not everything is a comparison, that doesn't work.

Image - The photo in the middle shows the explosion in the South Tower in its very early stage. As by the FEMA drawing became evident - as noted above in image 2 - the fuselage impacted in floor 81, the right engine in floor 82, and the right wing tip in floor 84. The damaged edge on the tower was located - as already seen in image 5 - at the height of the 81st and 82nd floor. Thus the line drawn in the photo marks here the 81st floor - this is pointed out by the damaged edge. Hence the enormous explosion, which set the entire east wall of the tower on fire, had its starting point - as also shown in additional photos - at a floor (83), in that at best the outermost tip of the right wing could have penetrated. Was the destructiveness of this wing tip really sufficient enough to cause this explosion, or was the explosion perhaps not rather caused by something else?

Evaluation of the counterarguments: N/A

Image - United Airlines Flight 175 shortly before its impact into the South Tower. But is this really Flight UA 175? The frames, which were captured without further editing from a video cassette (recorded on September 12th 2001), show the airplane from nearly the same point of view as it was already seen in image 4. Also here, suddenly the right wing of the airplane is missing. In the upper picture there is still a remnant shade of the wing to be seen, then, in the picture below, the wing turns completely translucent. The missing wing merged not just visually with the background by a glare from the sun (the remaining airplane is absolutely black), but indeed the blue of the sky can be seen where actually the wing of the airplane should have been seen. Is this one more hint that the airplane was not real but only a 3D projection? A 3D projection, in which in the inside an object was hidden, that only became visible again as it, shown in image 4, punched out at the other side of the tower?

Evaluation of the counterargument: There is no proof for this impossibility.

Image - On the bottom right there is a pale airplane (or rather its 3D projection?), above on the left there is a small orb, apparently hovering next to the front of the South Tower. On the magnified image detail it shows up that the ball consists apparently of two sides, which each of them cast a shadow - matching the position of the sun - on itself. What orb could this be now? It is obviously no airplane, no helicopter and also no balloon. Further can be assumed, that this orb resides not directly next to the tower, but rather somewhat more further in the background, thus the real size of the orb cannot be estimated that easily. Well, what could this strange object be? Possibly a part of the 3D projector that was required for the projection of the airplane? Could it be that the orb is in fact something similar to a CL-327 Guardian, a kind of unmanned helicopter? A certain similarity to the hovering orb however could not be denied.

More strange orbs can be seen on the bottommost photo (IE-plug-in required).

By the way: See also orbs and holographic cloaking technology.

Evaluation of the counterarguments: N/A

Image - On the left UA 175 close before its impact into the South Tower, on the right, for comparison, a real airplane. The attention is attracted here by two strange white spots, which one possibly could also interpret as reflections. But why however just at the base of the right wing a strong punctiform reflection is supposed to have developed is not so easy to explain. Furthermore it is not so easy to explain, why the gray streak on the dark blue bottom side of the fuselage is clearly shifted to the left side of the airplane and is thereby also tapered at the front side. Thus once again the question remains: Was the airplane actually a real airplane, or just only a deceptive looking "flying whatzit", bloody similar to the original one?

Evaluation of the counterargument: Some doubts remain.

Image - A severed wheel of a Boeing landing gear on a street in Manhattan. The arrow at the right side on the map marks the discovery site of the wheel, from this it follows that the wheel must have apparently once belonged to UA 175. Very remarkable at this wheel are now all the hairline cracks in the rubber of the tire. In fact these cracks could not be caused from the impact itself, because the tire was designed for high impact loads, and also during an overload by an accident, the tire would however be torn rather into larger pieces. Severe heat exposure is also out of the question for the cracks, because at the tire there is not the slightest trace of fire to be seen. Therefore the question arises: Do airlines actually always fly around with such porous tires?

On the comparison photo below such a tire of a Boeing can be seen in normal operating conditions. Here, oddly enough, not one single crack is visible. Could the difference possibly come therefore, because the finding in New York is an age old tire that was lying around on a junk yard a long time before? Maybe this strange gray layer on the left side of the tire originated also from there? Was the tire put aside with its face down for a considerable amount of time and because of this reposit then also the cracks had formed in the rubber mainly on that side?

If this is supposed to be so, then another interesting question arises: Why did a wheel of a Boeing had to be planted there - in what way soever - at all? Yet a real Boeing 767 would anyway have brought along its own set of wheels, what for drop this one wheel there in addition? Or was the South Tower possibly hit by an object which had in reality no wheels at all?

Besides, it is also strange that only two individual Boeing wheels were found. Just only one of each airplane. Why was none of the remaining eighteen wheels found?

Evaluation of the counterarguments: N/A

Image - An exploding North Tower, a lot of debris. Below a satellite photo of the place at which the North Tower once had stood. At a distance of approximately 460 feet from the former west face of the North Tower an element of the perimeter wall, at least 28,660 pounds heavy, is suspended well visible on the glass roof of the winter garden between 2 and 3 World Financial Center, and after all at a distance of still approximately 400 feet there are a few more similar steel segments lying on a roof. How did they get there? Bottommost there is a scale drawing about the distance of the point of impact on the roof in relation to the height and width of the tower. Drawn in is the ballistic trajectory that this element of the wall must have covered (from the height of the point of impact in the tower) in order to arrive at its finding place. Was here really only the pure force of gravity at work, or was it perhaps nevertheless still something else which had catapulted this tons weighting steel girder over the impressive distance of approximately 460 feet?

Evaluation of the counterarguments: N/A

Image - This time, for a change, not a picture but a diagram. The red measuring curve represents the seismic wave during the collapse of the North Tower, recorded by the seismological station "Palisades" (PAL) 21 miles from New York. Interesting to it are now some in different color marked points on the time axis of the seismogram. Most interesting might probably be the green marking, because exactly at this point the top of the North Tower began with its downward motion. The position of the green line in the diagram is confirmed once by the CNN clock, which was superimpose in a live TV footage during the collapse of the North Tower, and according to it, the collapse had started exactly at 10:28:23 EDT. This date corresponds within a half second exactly with the time 14:28:39.5 UTC of the seismological station, calculate with a propagation delay of 17 seconds. One more time the position of the green line is confirmed also by the velocity of the free fall of the debris from the impact height of approximately 1,198 feet. From this height the debris requires approx. 8.8 seconds to reach the ground (calculation basis is a 28,660 pound perimeter wall element), and exactly after this time interval - marked by the cyan colored line - the strong tremor began, caused by the rubble hitting the ground (some parts hit the surrounding roofs and had therefore a somewhat smaller height of fall to cover). A third time the position of the green line is confirmed by the duration that the entire collapse had lasted. That were about 17 to 18 seconds.

Since the point in time of the collapse of the North Tower stands now firm on the axis of time in the seismogram, the question arises, by what actually were the relatively strong seismic waves caused - here marked with a purple colored line - which had started 4.5 seconds before the collapse? Perhaps debris fell down on the inside briefly before the tower had collapsed completely? That would now be extremely strange, because on the one hand there was not the slightest movement of the North Tower and not the smallest dust cloud to be seen just prior to its collapse that would suggest falling debris inside the tower, and on the other hand there was a strange pause of approximately 0.9 seconds after 3.6 seconds vibration, that can only insufficiently be explained with debris falling in advance.

But what was it then, that could have triggered these vibrations right prior to the actual collapse? Could it possibly be, that a detonation in the steel core of the tower took place here? A series of detonations of 3.6 seconds followed by 0.9 seconds of silence? And during these 0.9 seconds silence the inert mass of the top started moving downwards slowly? Because of this also the 0.9 seconds gap? Hence the blown up steel core pulled down the floor slabs and the perimeter walls, not the other way around the falling floor slabs the steel core, as officially stated? That would explain, why from the outside virtually nothing of an explosion was visible, and it would also explain, why the antenna of the North Tower had moved downward right at the beginning of the collapse, and it would also explain, why the steel core, at least for a brief period of time, not remained standing by itself (see image 19, Madrid).

And here in addition a view at the seismogram from the collapse of the South Tower. Remarkable to it: Here too, exactly as with the North Tower collapse, there is at the beginning of the recorded vibrations - like pure coincidence - a strange pause of approximately 1 second.

By the way: The red collapse line is cut by the blue earthquake line at nearly the same point on the time axis which the North Tower actually had started to crumble. Just another coincidence?

Evaluation of the counterarguments: N/A

Image - 7 World Trade Center. On the left and in the middle a little bit of a fire, on the right a damaged edge, on the roof only smaller debris. Then, about 17:20 o'clock EDT, suddenly a part of the roof structure (arrows) collapses without obvious reason. Five more seconds later the whole building goes down point blank - approximately with the rate of free fall. A pile of rubble remains, on which the former outer walls of the building ended up on top of it. Practically no neighboring building were damaged during the collapse. Was this now a controlled demolition, or do buildings of that kind collapse just frequently without obvious reason but therefore dead straight? If it was a controlled demolition, how did the explosives get into the building so fast that day? Was the demolition already planned days or weeks before?

By the way: Also the official investigation report could up to now unfortunately not find an explanation how the fire could have caused the collapse.

Evaluation of the counterargument: It sounds somewhat strange.

Image - Two identical towers, two identical airplanes, nearly two identical impacts, but two very different smoke clouds. What is wrong here?

Top left the North Tower seconds after the impact, next to it on the right, the South Tower seconds after the impact. Left hand there is an orange fire ball, which immediately turned into a light gray smoke cloud, right hand there is an orange fire ball, which immediately turned into a black smoke cloud. Bottom left the North Tower some minutes after the impact. Still the trail of smoke has a bright, nearly white color, although there were some tons of kerosene supposed to be just burned here. The trail of smoke from the North Tower only turned dark some time later, as the fire began to spread inside the tower.

Now, were there two identical airplanes or not? Or did the North Tower airplane had empty tanks and possibly only the South Tower airplane had arrived with almost full tanks? Or both airplanes had relatively full tanks, but the extra large fire ball that had evolved at the South Tower was additionally created by a special effect in order to arrange the impact optically more effective? Or were there never any airplanes at all, and both impacts were solely special effects?

Evaluation of the counterarguments: N/A

Image - The lobby of the North Tower. All window panes are shattered in sequence and partly the marble paneling had fallen off the wall. The impact of the airplane in the height of the 96th floor was just a few minutes ago.

Responsible for the shattered panes, according to the official explanation, was burning kerosene, which was pouring down the elevator shafts and had then exploded in the lobby. The strange thing now however is that neither on the ceiling nor on the floor the slightest sign of a kerosene fire is visible. And paradoxically the fragments of the panes fell as well inwards as outwards. Would the pressure of an explosion inside not have rather worked in an outwards direction only? And would burning kerosene at all have been adequate to blast the marble slabs from the wall - and this without leaving thereby any signs of a fire? The windowpanes around the actual impact hole (see preceding image 8) remained for the most part intact. Thus shock vibrations by the impact of the airplane can probably be excluded for the damage in the lobby.

Could it perhaps be, that the window panes and the wall paneling were shattered by a blast? A blast in the basement of the tower going off at the same time with the impact of the airplane above, so as to inconspicuously as possible pre-weaken the supporting structure of the building for the "collapse" that was planned for later?

By the way: There was only one single express elevator that went all the way to the top to the impact zone.

Evaluation of the counterargument: Sounds somewhat far fetched.

Image - Caracas, Madrid, New York. The East Tower of the Parque Central complex in Caracas burned for nearly a day - it remained standing. The Windsor building in Madrid also burned for nearly a day - it remained standing. 1 World Trade Center burned for 102 minutes, then it crumbled completely to dust. 2 World Trade Center burned for 56 minutes, then it crumbled also completely to dust. Strange, isn't it?

Evaluation of the counterarguments: N/A

Image - Strange things happen. For example a smoke cloud where actually no smoke cloud should be. The image with the smoke cloud appears on the Naudet DVD "9/11 - The Filmmakers' Commemorative Edition" roughly at 0:54 hours runtime. And further interesting: Exactly in the direction of the cloud there is Newark Liberty International Airport located in the background, approx. 6 miles away. So, what could have caused this black cloud to rise (at the airport area?) at nearly the same time the South Tower came down (9:59 EDT) and at nearly the same time (10:03 EDT) Flight United Airlines 93 "crashed" (strangely in the very same viewing direction) in Pennsylvania? Any ideas?

Evaluation of the counterarguments: N/A

Image - This time not a strange image but rather a strange sound. The sound of a missile - strictly speaking the sound of two missiles (cruise missiles). On the left the engine sound of "American Airlines Flight 11" on route to the North Tower, in the middle "United Airlines Flight 175" headed for the South Tower and on the right a Boeing 767 approaching a runway. Lower down a excerpt from a Aljazeera broadcast; in the background clearly audible a cruise missile (Tomahawk?) hitting a target. Strangely the sound of "Flight 11" and "Flight 175", a rough roaring sound, resembles almost exactly the sound of this cruise missile in Baghdad and not at all the rather smooth and silken engine sound of a real Boeing. How could this be? Airplane or not airplane, this is here the question. Perhaps both cruise missiles were camouflaged by a holographic image of a Boeing 767? Perhaps the "pod" (bottommost picture), which can be observed on some images of "Flight 175", is a Tomahawk cruise missile not entirely covered by the hologram only visible from a specific viewing angle?

By the way: What is this deep rumbling sound during the approach of the South Tower object? May be there was some sort of an underground explosion going on?

Evaluation of the counterarguments: N/A

Image - The piece of debris on the lawn of the Pentagon. The basic color of the debris does not match the Boeing, which had flown into the Pentagon according to official statements. The American Airlines Boeing 757-223 had a silver shiny fuselage, the piece of debris in the photo is clearly painted with a dull gray ground color. Furthermore the remnant of the still visible letter on the metal sheet does also fit only at a superficial view with the "American" logo of the airplane on the archive photo. Which letter exactly it could be, stays unclear for the time being.

Evaluation of the counterarguments: Not very convincing.

Image - Close up of the alleged punch out hole in the C ring of the Pentagon. According to official statements a part of the Boeing 757 broke through this innermost wall. But what caused the damage that is reminiscent of chisel marks, and is located on bricks which were not affected by the penetration at all and are still imbedded firmly in the brickwork? Why is the wall in at least one location exactly perpendicularly broken away in a straight line, although the individual bricks are offset against each other? Perhaps this comes therefore, because the alleged wall penetration was originally a gateway or an entryway, and the whole thing was then chiseled out somewhat irregularly in order to convey the impression of a punch out?

The bottommost photo shows what a real punch out through a brick wall looks like. No perpendicularly straight line and no chisel marks can be seen here.

In the photo top left the punch out hole, which in all known pictures always retains its same shape and size, is shown in an early photograph. The junk looks here in some way like as it would have been simply planted there. The photo top right shows the hole after the most part of the junk was cleared. Remarkable to it is the plain floor. Not a sign of a single brick broken away, which had to be expected however surely, if this had been a simple wall before the penetration. Interestingly left side next to the hole a "No Parking" sign is attached to the wall.

Evaluation of the counterargument: Absolutely not convincing.

Image - A tree just next to the point of impact is on bright fire. Why was this tree not chopped down by the right airfoil of the airplane? Wouldn't that have had to be expected surely? In the photo on the left top the tree is shown as it looked before, in the photo right next the stump of the tree is shown as it remained standing after the fire. For comparison the small picture below shows the impact hole at the front after the fire was extinguish.

Evaluation of the counterargument: Not very much convincing.

Image - During the approach to the Pentagon the airplane knocked over five lamp poles. But why are lying all these five lamp poles at the very same place they had stood once before? The second lamp pole even remained lying clearly against the flight direction. The airplane had hit the lamps with relatively high speed, wouldn't the lamps have had to be catapulted away at least a few yards? Looking at the upper photo, taken almost exactly from the approach direction, a further strangeness is noticeable: Why ever approach so low, that it had to come to the collision with the lamp poles in the first place? An only slightly steeper ground angle would have entailed by far less premature collision risk, and additionally of course the overview from a higher altitude would had been a lot better till up to the end.

(Satellite photo from magellan.co.arlington.va.us)

Evaluation of the counterarguments: Could be more convincing.

Image - The pole number 1 in a close up. The steel pole, that during a storm does normally not topple down that easily, was torn from his base, extremely bent and at a height of approximately 13 feet clipped off. In what order the damages thereby occurred remains unclear however. In the middle photo lamp poles of the same design are shown for comparison. Like the drawing in the preceding Image 4 makes clear, the pole was hit by the right wing tip of the airplane. How could now a wing of a Boeing 757, only composed of lightweight aluminum and not designed to "clip off" something, batter this pole in such a manner? By a Boeing 737, as shown in the photo on the bottom, a slight contact with another airplane on the taxiway was sufficient enough to break off the right wing. Was it therefore really a Boeing 757, which clipped these and the other lamp poles?

By the way: The luminaire, which was attached in approximately 30 feet height, resides here right next to its snapped off pole.

Evaluation of the counterarguments: Quite not so believable.

Image - Smoke clouds over the Pentagon shortly after the impact of the airplane. On the right a diesel generator trailer is burning. As expected, the smoke of the burning diesel fuel was very dark, almost black. Why however did the kerosene of the airplane at the point of impact not burn just as dark? The smoke clouds here looks more light gray as one would rather expect it from a simple office fire.

Evaluation of the counterarguments: N/A

Image - The front of the Pentagon shortly after the Boeing 757 had hit there. Somewhat left of the center, where a fire is still burning, the fuselage sticks in the wall. The right engine resides behind the three cable spools in the center of the picture, the left engine is behind the two firefighters a bit covered from smoke clouds. The ruptured tail is to be seen further right in the picture. Pardon? There is nothing at all of an airplane to be seen in this picture? It should however nevertheless, certain nothing was altered in this picture. Simply take another close look. Is there really no airplane to be seen? Now that would be strange however!

Simply direct questions concerning the disappeared airplane at Mr. Lee Evey. The Pentagon Renovation Manager should know indeed where he had put the airplane which he is talking about continuously here.

Evaluation of the counterargument: It remains a big question mark.

Image - A piece of debris from a landing gear of a Boeing 757 in the rubble of the Pentagon. The piece looks very much oxidized (not burned or melted). That can actually not be explained solely by the effect of extinguishing water, because this piece, likely the lower part of the telescopic suspension of the nose gear, is usually blank and shiny, and does probably not corrode that fast even when it rains sometimes. Does this piece of debris possibly come from an earlier aircraft accident and was lying around on a junk yard a long time before, and was then planted afterwards in the Pentagon as "evidence" for a Boeing?

Evaluation of the counterarguments: N/A

Image - Close up of the impact hole at the front of the Pentagon. Above the actual hole there are no traces of the impact of the several feet high vertical stabilizer of the Boeing 757 visible. Why did the tail unit leave no visible damage at the wall? As from the superimposed outline drawing, copied from a description by Boeing, is evident, the windows and the wall above the hole, that the fuselage left behind, should in fact have been damaged clearly visible. Was the fuselage got stuck in the building on half way, and the tail unit had therefore never touched the wall? Then however the subsequent fire would have had to burn the whole tail unit within the shortest time completely and fully to ashes. Was this possible?

Evaluation of the counterargument: Not entirely plausible.

Image - Search and ye shall find - or even not. A rotor of a turbofan engine is here lying in front of the walls of the Pentagon. The diameter is approximately 24 to 28 inch - roughly estimated. Somewhat farther back, there is a round shaped housing with a diameter suitable for the rotor. Now below the design of a RB211-535E4 engine, of that the American Airlines Boeing 757-223, which is supposed to have had hit here, had two identical ones. So the question reads: Which two parts of this engine are actually lying here? That is indeed a really interesting search game, isn't it?

Evaluation of the counterarguments: That is only a theoretical guess.

Image - The famous five frames of the surveillance camera at the Pentagon. So, what can we see here? At least no airplane. That would be too simple anyway. There can be seen - depending upon viewpoint - a tail fin or a piece of debris catapulted upwards, a smoke tail of a missile or a wing with an engine cowling, a real explosion or a computer generated explosion, strange spots in the second photo due to subsequent editing but possibly also only due to overexposure, a superimposed wrong date and time stamp, that could something mean or perhaps even not, the tail of an airplane or just any arbitrary piece of debris which in the photos 4 and 5 emerges from the fire ball… There are no limits to your imagination. Everyone might see here what he would like to see, because that was probably the whole intention of the publication of these frames, though until today it is not quite clear, by whom these pictures were actually published.

If now the point of view would be, that this wing with the round shaped cowling is neither a smoke tail of a missile nor a part of a Boeing 757, the question arises, what else could it be? To what UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) could this part possibly belong to? And maybe the round shaped segment is the same round shaped segment, that was already seen in the background of image 10?

But of course, it could also be that all five frames are only computer generated images - but computer generated by whom?

Bottommost photo: "Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld returns to Pentagon inner offices Tuesday morning after surveying the damage from the hijacked plane which crashed into the building moments before." Yes, it looks that way. But strangely there is one additional stripe at the zebra crossing in this photo right side of the duct, and this stripe is clearly missing on each of the five other frames. How did this come about?

Evaluation of the counterarguments: N/A

Image - The Caterpillar diesel generator in front of the Pentagon. Allegedly this generator, that was about the size and height of a heavy truck (height approximately 13 feet), is supposed to be hit at its front side (in the photo left) by the right engine of the Boeing 757 (obvious at the drawing below). The strange thing now is on the one hand, that the damaged side of the generator rather gives the impression to have melted by heat exposure, but looks not so much as if something would have hit there. On the other hand one recognizes a kind of a groove on the roof of the generator which runs - on the basis of the original position of the generator parallel to the wall of the Pentagon - exactly in flight direction. This scratch appears to be caused by a part (bottommost photo) that protruded from the right wing of the airplane. The problem with it: First of all the generator was hit by the engine first, which however juts out that much over the leading edge of the wing, when the wing was passing, the generator would actually, due to the impact of the engine, already had slightly been pushed aside - thus the scratch would not run any longer in flight direction. And secondly the airplane was slightly banked to the left away from the generator according to some eyewitness accounts (in the bottommost photo 4 degrees), so that (because of the position of the scratch) the protruding part that is in question (outermost at the wing) could actually not at all had affected the roof of the generator. Hence how did the generator got its strange damage? Presumably this remains further on an unsolved mystery of September 11th 2001.

Evaluation of the counterarguments: N/A

Image - A tree with a scorched top right on the flight path of the alleged Boeing 757. Lacking any other explanation (this is how the tree looked before: ), the scorch mark is supposed to be caused by the right jet engine of the airplane flying over the top of the tree. So far so good. However if we take a closer look at a high resolution satellite image from Google, there is a slight problem with the right wing tip of the airplane (outlined exactly in scale ): Actually the wing tip should have hit the gantry sign (b) standing next to the tree (a), but strangely the gantry sign - also the pole of the traffic cam (c) - shows in fact no sign of a collision at all. Therefore the question is: What flying object did hit the Pentagon? Apparently not a Boeing 757. A smaller airplane perhaps? Maybe something with only one center engine as like a missile?

By the way: Traffic cams around the Pentagon. (Optimized for MS Internet Explorer)

Evaluation of the counterargument: A very strange coincidence.

Image - A small crater in the landscape near Shanksville. In this surface depression allegedly a Boeing 757-223 is supposed to have disappeared completely. Strangely however above ground there is neither a single piece of debris of a Boeing 757 recognizable, nor any other trace that points clearly to an aircraft crash.

Evaluation of the counterargument: Can't believe this.

Image - A mushroom cloud over the alleged crash site of the Boeing 757. As the smoke cloud rose, no significant smoke followed from beneath. During a kerosene fire normally dense, black smoke in shape of a long smoke trail is developed (photo right).

According to the official story United Airlines 93 was heading southeast towards Washington, D.C. as it crashed - shown on the satellite photo below. But strangely some witnesses had seen Flight 93 over Indian Lake, and strangely these witnesses saw parts falling off the plane.

See also: The Odyssey of Flight United Airlines 93 -- Powered by

Evaluation of the counterarguments: N/A

Image - The crater near Shanksville from the bird's eye view. A nearly circular hole in the ground, a few burned trees in the forest - that's just all. Wreckage of an airplane is not to be recognized from this point of view as well.

Evaluation of the counterargument: Sounds somewhat bizarre.

Image - Here something smokes quietly by itself. Unequivocal pieces of debris, which could be attributed to a Boeing 757, can not be identified in this photograph too. (Markings for orientation only)

By the way: A few crash photos with real airplanes.

Evaluation of the counterargument: Nevertheless it stays weird.

Image - Finally a few pieces of debris - or what should be considered as such. A burned buckle of a seat belt, somewhat tin and paper. That was it already. And how these pieces did get into the forest, although however the whole airplane is alleged to have disappeared completely and entirely in the impact crater, remains also a mystery further on. Or were these parts (a piston?) possibly already there before the crash?

Evaluation of the counterargument: Some fancy is required, in order to imagine this that way.

Image - The strangeness goes on. First a red bandana allegedly recovered from the crash site. But isn't there something missing here? If "crash site" means the crater as told, shouldn't there be some residue of soil visible on the bandana? Instead the bandana looks as good as new?

Secondly two pieces of airplane debris. Same question here: Shouldn't there be some residue of soil visible on it, if the debris were recovered from within the crater? And where were they recovered from, if not from within the crater? And how did they get there?

Evaluation of the counterargument: Yes, of course. I almost forgot.

Image - A concertinaed part of an airplane. Is this perhaps supposed to be an engine? It looks really a little tiny for an engine of this size, doesn't it? But anyway the engine in Murray St. was tiny, the engine in front of the Pentagon was tiny, why should this engine be any bigger? No problem with that at all. Or is this possibly the auxiliary power unit? But if so, where is the appendant airplane? Apparently it is not in the crater.

Evaluation of the counterargument: May be.

Image - The airplane plunges up to nearly the middle of its airfoils into the South Tower without the slightest impact effect, and then it disappears without any noticeable deceleration in the wall.

Image - The airplane leaves thereby a hole in the wall which does obviously not fit the shape and size of the airplane correctly. The holes, which were punched by the engines, appear to be shifted approximately six feet sidewards. The vertical stabilizer did not leave a hole at all.

Image - In a photo the rear of the engines are shining in a bright white light, although that should in fact technically not be possible.

Image - On other pictures the airplane appears - although photographed in bright sunshine - black like coal. For comparison a photo of the Boeing 767-222 N614UA.

Image - In some pictures an anomaly can be seen on the bottom side of the airplane, but then again in other pictures this anomaly is not to be seen.

Image - On a video photograph unnatural and artificial looking light reflections - of an otherwise entirely deep black appearing airplane - can be seen.

Image - At least in one picture the protruding ends of the flap track fairings - normally always clearly visible - at the trailing edges of the airfoils are missing.

Image - On four different video photographs - three were taken from approximately the same viewing angle and one from the rear - a wing of the airplane disappears as wiped away by a spirit hand. The wing appears thereby completely translucent.

Image - The tail of the airplane has already disappeared in the wall long ago, there is in the area of the impact point of the left airfoil still a smooth wall without any dust cloud to be seen. Where is the left airfoil of the airplane? Where is the impact effect of this airfoil?

Image - The structure of the airplane during the impact was - because of the collision forces which would have had to develop thereby inevitably - not deformed in the slightest way. Both right wing tips had a certain distance to each other, which was kept accurately still to the point, when from the right airfoil only the outermost wing tip was to be seen.

Image - Maybe it could have been this way? Was the South Tower of the World Trade Center never hit by a real airplane, but by an object that had only the appearance of an airplane? Was everything only a psychological operation, which had obviously not missed its deceptive effect?


Update: As of 9/28/2005 the registration of N612UA has been cancelled. 4 years and 17 days is quite a long time to realize N612UA had crashed on 9/11/2001, isn't it?

But by the way: What is the difference between "cancelled" and "destroyed"? If "destroyed" means the airplane had crashed what does "cancelled" mean? Does it perhaps mean the airplane had not crashed?

More about holographic projections, sub-atomic particle beams and Area 51 -- Powered by

New York | Pentagon | Shanksville | Ghostflight United Airlines 175 | 9/11 Links | Top

nineeleven2001.tripod.com | angelfire.com/comics/nineeleven2001 | nineeleven2001.bravehost.com
nineeleven2001.110mb.com | nineeleven2001.t35.com