Xymphora on the Pentagon Strike

pentagon impact point

Saturday, July 6, 2002, 2:37 a.m.

If you look at a this picture of the hole in the wall of the Pentagon that Flight 77 is supposed to have gone through, it is immediately obvious that Flight 77 could not possibly have caused the damage at the Pentagon. We're usually shown pictures of the wall at the Pentagon after it collapsed at around 10:10 a. m., which of course left a much larger opening and completely destroyed all evidence of the smaller hole left by whatever missile actually caused the damage. Just as a camel can't pass through the eye of a needle, and rich men can't enter heaven, a Boeing 757-200, over 124 feet from wingtip to wingtip and, including the tail, over 44 feet (!) high, can't get in to the Pentagon through a hole of this size. Even if the fusilage could get through, how could the wings get through? If the wings didn't get through, shouldn't they be outside on the ground? The only conceivable way the wings could have gotten in is if they collapsed right against the fusilage, but that would require that they be bent back by hitting the building. Although the Pentagon wall has a few cracked and broken windows (and at least some of the windows may have been specially reinforced to resist bomb damage), where is the evidence of metal wings hitting the wall with force (and where is the evidence of the tail hitting above the hole with force?)? The heavy engines should have gone right through the wall. How did the wings pass through this area and leave the vehicles that we can see burning (besides the obvious car, there is a vehicle like an SUV almost obscured by smoke)? Leaving aside the contradictory witness evidence and the completely implausible lack of video evidence, the size of the hole coupled with the relative lack of damage to the wall and the lack of any evidence of the wings is conclusive evidence that Flight 77 didn't cause the Pentagon damage. Some people still say that theories that Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon are some form of clever disinformation, intended to put us off looking at the real truth. The main argument may be that the picture of the hole is of another hole, not the entrance point of Flight 77. We can refute that by reference to the burning car in the foreground. This picture, with the collapsed wall clearly visible in the background, shows the remains of the burning car in the foreground, together with the remains of a burning truck, its paint now burned off (the truck is more visible in this photograph, where you can also see how the ground hasn't been disturbed), that is obscured by smoke (flip between this and this). The collapsed wall now covers where the entrance point was. There is no other collapsed facade on the building (you can see that from this massive [2.27 Mb] picture of the damage to the building), so this must be the area of the crash. You can also clearly see the car and the truck on the left of this photograph, with the hole partly obscured by the pole (you can also see that there is clearly no damage to the helipad or the ground, meaning whatever hit the Pentagon could not have hit the ground first, but went directly in through the hole). Comparing the Pentagon crash to the crash of El Al Flight 1862 doesn't help, as the hole left by the El Al flight is easily big enough and in no way compares with the tiny hole left in the Pentagon before the wall collapsed. My response to people who want to support the Official Story: look at the hole. Are people able to handle a terrorist attack but afraid of the implications of the fact that Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon?

Wednesday, August 25, 2004, 1:37 a.m.

On January 17, 1993, the U. S. Navy conducted a cruise missile attack against the Zaafaraniyah nuclear fabrication facility in Iraq, allegedly because of Iraq's refusal to comply with nuclear inspection requirements. One of these missiles hit the Al Rashid hotel in Baghdad. This missile may have gone off course accidentally, or it may have been intentionally directed at the hotel (a concierge in the hotel said that CNN set up a camera about 30 minutes prior to the attack and then vacated the premises, possibly showing that it had advance warning of the attack). Here is a picture of the oddly squarish entrance hole almost at ground level, and the quantity of debris left on the ground. Remind you of anything? Of course, a missile with a bigger warhead might have done a lot more damage to the inside of the hotel than was done in the 1993 attack. In June 2001, NORAD conducted a military exercise in Florida called 'Amalgam Virgo', a simulation of a cruise missile attack against an American military base. It was NORAD that inexplicably failed to stop any of the September 11 attacks. I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

Sunday, October 3, 2004, 5:11 a.m.

Is this a picture [at left] of the hole in the Pentagon caused when Flight 77 crashed into it on September 11, 2001? How about this? No, but notice the damage caused to the building and the size of the hole and compare it to this picture of the damage to the Pentagon before the Pentagon wall collapsed. The two mystery pictures are from a series of pictures of the 'accidental' attack by NATO on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade on May 8, 1999 (see also this picture from this set). That attack was by three Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, all of which hit the same corner of the building just above ground level. As was the case with the Pentagon, most of the extensive damage to the building was caused by the subsequent fire. Note also the size and neatness of the hole left by a cruise missile attack on Milosevic's official residence (from a series of photos here). I have already made the same point with respect to the 'accidental' cruise missile attack on the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad. Anyone who is really interested might want to try to compare the oddly small (in diameter) debris in pictures of the Pentagon with pictures of pieces of cruise missiles found in Serbia (in the Pentagon pictures, click on 'Download high-resolution image' to obtain more detail).

Friday, March 25, 2005, 4:27 a.m.

Mark Manning is an American documentary film maker who is one of the first people with knowledge of what happened in Falluja. He reports on such things as the use of depleted uranium and chemical weapons on Falluja, the sham Iraqi elections, and the fact that the United States can never win the war in Iraq. What struck me were interesting captions to two of his pictures:

Manning inspects a room where a 5-year-old Iraqi boy was killed in his sleep by an incoming shell. Manning said the shell penetrated through four concrete walls — without obliterating them — before arriving at its final destination. This, he said, indicated the shell's tip was packed with depleted uranium. The boy in the foreground was in the room with his brother when the attack occurred.


This hole shows where a depleted uranium shell passed through, Manning said, 'burning' holes through walls rather than knocking them down outright. Manning said so much depleted uranium's been deployed in Falluja and Iraq that the whole nation will be afflicted with radiation poisoning.

Reminds me of the neatly-edged holes in the Pentagon on September 11. Although many airplanes have depleted uranium in them, including in the nose cone, the Boeing 757 does not. It's particularly interesting that the plane apparently went right through the building starting with a neat little entrance hole — note the burning white car and the truck obscured by smoke, which like the wall, survived having the wings of the plane collapse and be dragged into the hole with hardly a scratch — and then made an equally neat exit hole, as if the building itself had very little effect on its wall-cutting ability (I've been going on about the entrance hole for a while now, but haven't thought much about the miraculous exit hole). Then, like the rest of the plane, this magical hole cutter just disappeared. We've graduated from the magic bullet theory to the magic plane theory.

Friday, March 25, 2005, 10:55 p.m.

A bit more on Depleted Uranium and September 11:

  1. I have noted that the holes left in the Pentagon are exactly the size and shape and placement of holes left in buildings that have suffered hits from cruise missiles.
  2. The reason that Depleted Uranium is so popular with missile engineers is that it has a tremendous ability to penetrate its target. It goes through metal or concrete relatively easily because it actually burns its way through, rather than relying on having to force through using its momentum (it is a 'spontaneous pyrophoric material'). That explains why the holes are so small and neat. The Depleted Uranium burns itself out in the process, leaving no visible remains, but a cloud of toxic dust.
  3. One noticeable aspect of a hit by a Depleted Uranium missile is a white flash. Such a flash can be seen on stills of the Pentagon crash released from a supposed surveillance video.
  4. One of the mysteries of September 11 is why supposed pilot Hani Hanjour, who had had trouble flying a Cessna two weeks before, decided to make an almost 270 degree turn around the Pentagon in order to hit it on the south-west wall. Not only did he greatly increase the difficulty of his flight, but he left himself unnecessarily open to some kind of anti-aircraft Pentagon defense. Since he was flying down the Potomac River anyway, why didn't he just fly directly into the north wall of the Pentagon (depicted on the right side of this picture or this picture, with a nice approach right over the Pentagon Athletic Center), which was literally directly in front of him as he came down the river?
  5. The missile that hit the Pentagon did not strike at a 90 degree angle, but came in more obliquely. If you draw a line from the Pentagon at the angle of the hit straight back into Virginia, you eventually cross the northern part of . . . Quantico U. S. Marine Corps Base, an excellent place from which to launch a trailer-mounted cruise missile (Fort Belvoir is also a possibility).
  6. An entrepreneurial law firm might want to set up some kind of survey to determine whether surviving Pentagon employees and rescue and clean-up workers suffer from an unusually high level of diseases associated with exposure to Depleted Uranium dust.
  7. I don't have much to say about the rather silly debunking effort of Popular Mechanics (Popular Mechanics? How low can you go? I guess the Weekly World News wouldn't print such drivel) except:
    • I've been over this before and won't repeat myself, but there is only one possible hole in the wall before it collapsed, something you can determine by lining up pictures of the vehicles in front of the Pentagon from various angles, and that hole is no more than twenty feet wide;
    • the wing could not possibly have touched the ground, as the ground is pristine; and
    • the fact that the Powers That Be find it necessary to attempt a debunking exercise, no matter how lame, means that they're getting nervous, and follows a pattern we've seen in all recent American conspiracies from JFK on down.
  8. Construction of the Pentagon began on September 11, 1941.

Don't think this issue is over. It's just getting started!

A copy of the entire Serendipity website is available on CD-ROM.  Details here.

The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism
Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11
Depleted Uranium Serendipity Home Page