As with Flight 77, the story and 'evidence' given to the public regarding the impacted target of the hijacked American Airlines plane (i.e. the Pentagon itself), is laced with anomalies, contradictions, confusion, and nonsensical explanations. In perhaps the finest example of skilled, even-tempered 9/11 investigation, Russell Pickering, an ex-crew chief in the Air Force and fire-fighter in Seattle, has reviewed thousands and thousands of photos and documents relating to the Pentagon and 9/11. His website www.pentagonresearch.com covers these referenced anomalies and resulting questions in great detail. (Update: his website is being renovated and updated as more information pours in, but it can be archived, and he will be up and running by the end of 2007.)
Why is there not a scratch on the Pentagon lawn after the crash of a large airliner that supposedly came in on a flat trajectory? Why did the detachable wings and tail section of the plane not sheer off upon impact at 400 mph? Why is the impact hole so small? Why in the 1500 reviewed photos of the accident scene is not one seat, cushion, or piece of luggage visible? Why did the US Postal Service not receive one complaint about missing goods and mail known to be carried on Flight 77? Why did the Secretary of Defense of the United States run out onto the Pentagon lawn after the crash for a rescue photo-op when a fourth known hijacked airplane was still airborne and the morning still wholly chaotic? Why did a construction generator trailer create such a massive explosion and fire when struck? Why is there so little conclusive evidence of a Boeing 757 at the crash site? Why did there happen to be multiple war-games being run from the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11 mimicking hijacked airplanes and terrorist attacks, causing confusion and chaos with FAA flight controllers as to whether what being reported that morning was 'real-world' or staged? How did five separate substantial lamp poles struck by the airplane cause no adverse effect on the hardware of the aircraft, nor its flight path? Why does the officially released flight data recorder show that the aircraft was hundreds of feet above those struck lamp poles as it flew past? These are all serious, important questions that need answering from a serious, independent investigation. Russell Pickering has contributed to that process.
But the two most pertinent questions and anomalies in regards to the Pentagon and the 'official story' the public has been fed have nothing to do with investigating grand conspiracies or tracking down mis-represented evidence. They have to do with unreasonable suspensions in basic logic. The first is the fact that while almost all the victims of the attack were positively identified through DNA and dental records, we are also told that there is no significant remaining plane debris within the Pentagon because the intensity of the inferno after the crash wholly incinerated the aircraft and its component parts. These are two completely different and irreconcilable narratives.
To be explicitly clear, this is what the public has been told: On one hand, in response to the complaint that there is no verifiable plane debris to positively ID Flight 77, the government claims the fire in the Pentagon was so hot that the virtually indestructible titanium engines were melted, enormous metal wings incinerated, detachable vertical tail fins swallowed whole, seats and luggage consumed, every inch of metal framing obliterated, landing gear gone, a whole enormous Boeing 757 essentially vaporized into molten rubble and dust. And yet that same raging, all-consuming inferno spared enough body parts and DNA of 184 individual human beings made of a carbon based material significantly less rugged than titanium, called skin and bone, somehow survived said firestorm in tact enough for positive identification. How is this possible? And why is no one asking this question and shining light on what should be a most distressing and absurd fabrication?
The second glaring absurdity and illogical detail of the government's narrative is the bizarre ground-level exit hole on the far exterior wall of the Pentagon's inner ring, some 310 feet away from the impact site. At first, this symmetrical hole was comically explained as the 'punch-out' hole, created by the nose of the aircraft as it ploughed through the building and came to rest. However, that impossible story changed when 9/11 researchers calmly pointed out the following photo, showing what a ten-pound goose did to the similar nose cone of a military cargo plane. The exit hole was then credited to dislodged landing gear (or perhaps some other fuselage debris?), even though no landing gear has ever been produced, nor is it evident in any of the initial photos captured outside the exterior hole.
And besides the lack of evidence, serious laws of physics directly counter the possibility of the 'official story's' explanation of the mysterious exit hole. We have been told to believe matter-of-factly that some mass from the airplane survived the initial impact and explosion, maintained its immense forward thrust, threaded its way through a 300-foot maze of stout reinforced concrete pillars, hit an exterior wall made up of 21 inch square steel reinforced concrete covered with 6 inches of limestone façade and 8 inches of brick backed with Kevlar mesh with such massive force that it punched a huge, neat, circular cut-out exit hole. And then, in a miracle as yet unexplained, that same mass with such potent forward thrust decelerated and disintegrated in the span of 30 feet, leaving not a mark on the next wall in its path, nor a physical trace of its existence.
No official explanation has been given in response to the obvious problems inherent in this given official narrative. None of the engineering or official structural reports that investigated the Pentagon crash and partial collapse, including the 9/11 Commission Report, bother to explain the exit hole. What it is, exactly, is unknown. Russell Pickering has speculated that it was a pre-planned blast hole to help with eventual rescue, evacuation, and fire-fighting needs. But this is just speculation. And again, it is not up to investigators of a crime to explain anomalies and inconsistencies. Investigators uncover and question anomalies in a story. It is up to the official story-tellers to explain and defend any inconsistencies in their given narrative. The story of the exit hole being created by zig-zagging airplane debris does not, like so many other examples on the morning of 9/11, square with the available evidence. Nor with common logic. Why not? Why is no one asking the question? And why is no one being held accountable to explain the 'official story'.