|
Claims that the Pentagon was hit by something other than the Boeing 757 of Flight 77 have been raised, based on photographs
taken after the attack, in which there appears to be a lack of expected debris or damage in and around the impact area, along
with the FBI seizure and refusal to release nearby security camera footage which, it is assumed, would have captured the attack
on video. The first proponent of the "No Boeing" theory was Thierry Meyssan through his book 9/11: The Big Lie and
website Hunt the Boeing!His claims have been further popularized by the Internet videos Loose Change and "911 In Plane
Site".
On March 8, 2002, following the publication of this book, five video frames captured by a security camera at the Pentagon
were leaked. Only the first frame preceded the impact: this frame shows what may be an object heading for the Pentagon. Some
have claimed that this object is a missile, others have suggested the image may have been tampered with; many believe that
this evidence is inconclusive. On May 16, 2006, the security camera footage was released as part of a Judicial Watch Freedom
of Information Act request.However, due to a low number of frames per second, the videos are also inconclusive, thus keeping
the "No Boeing" theory alive. Security camera footage from a nearby Citgo gas station, from a local Doubletree Hotel,
and from the Virginia Department of Transportation, was swiftly confiscated by the FBI. The footage from both the gas station
and the hotel were later released following successful FOIA Requests, but neither captured the impact.
Additional photographs were released in 2006 after the Zacarias Moussaoui trial and several FOIA requests. Some show large
aircraft parts and human remains, but no content that could prove the location is the Pentagon at the correct time. One photo
shows a rotor frequently cited as too small to be a 757's engine rotor, even with all the compressor blades ripped off. This
has also been said about other found parts such as wheels. No public photos show seats, luggage, cockpit machinery, or windows.
In an interview on October 12, 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to "the missile to damage [the Pentagon]".Some
have interpreted this as a faux pas admission that it was not Flight 77 that hit the building. Others have suggested that
the word may have been carefully chosen disinformation, designed to "trap 9/11 skeptics,"citing this as the real
reason why photographs and video footage have not been forthcoming. Jim Hoffman states:
"Experts at psychological operations, the perpetrators could have anticipated that skeptics would divide into
two groups: those persuaded by eyewitness evidence that a 757 had crashed, and those persuaded by physical evidence that one
had not. The ongoing controversy could then be exploited by the perpetrators to several ends: 1) to keep the skeptics divided,
2) to divert skeptics' resources from other more productive lines of inquiry and 3) to provide a bizarre-sounding theory with
which to tar the entire 9/11 Truth Movement."
Hoffman and other members have produced essays examining the "No Boeing" claims and have concluded that Flight
77 did hit the Pentagon.Several researchers have argued that the wings would cause less damage than the plane's main body,
that photographs of large amounts of wreckage and debris matching a 757 have become available, that the appearance of the
size of the hole is typically misrepresented; and that the actual fuselage diameter of 12 feet is a much more relevant dimension
for the deepest parts of the hole than the overall 44-foot height of the 757's tail.They also emphasize reports from numerous
eyewitnesses, including commuters on nearby roads,nearby apartment buildings,and other surrounding locations. Many witnesses
saw the aircraft close up as it approached the Pentagon and described it as an American Airlines Boeing 757.
|
