MIRACLE AT THE PENTAGON ON 9/11

Beldeu Singh

Site of Libyan Airways airplane crash at Tripoli. AP/AFP pictures. May 13, 2010. A picture of the
wreckage and the debris. Remains of 96 victims were recovered.

Dead men tell no tales. They speak through forensic science. There will be people who manipulate data
and information and even facts attempting to distort the truth but that distortion in itself also tells its
own tale. From this there is no escape. Truth prevails simply because it survives distortion. Truth can be
resurrected through science by putting information together to observe the running of the divine thread
of truth through it in its logical and coherent form and such and exercise will inevitably reveal the
manipulations sticking out sorely and usually tied to its embarrassing and hideous reasons. This happens
not just because of the power of forensic science but because God is divine, God is truth and God is a
just God and the people who serve Him.

Truth propagates itself. Lies breed more lies and a thousand lies must be told to cover that first lie until
there is a wealth of evidence of the cover-up in the form of a web of lies. These are laws of nature. Lies
are substance for interesting study to know the irresponsible and the devious minds. Lies help to
understand how such minds work and help to unravel their motives.
Excepting the people in tribal cultures who live in remote areas of the world and may have never seen a
plane, the rest of humanity in urban settings, know that when an air plane crashes, the plane breaks up
and both the plane and its payload converts into wreckage and debris from which pieces of documents
and remains of the passengers (or survivors, if any) will be found and recovered. Those who watch plane
crash investigations on Discovery Channel know it better.

Airplanes that break up leave the tale of wreckage and a large amount of scattered debris. There is
usually so much debris that it is scattered over a wide area. When a plane explodes, it breaks up and
disintegrates. The process of disintegration converts it into debris that serves as its evidence of
disintegration. It is an occurrence that creates its own story but it can be converted into a tale by
manipulation. Then the tale reveals itself as it sticks out in the midst of truth. When a Boeing 757
disintegrates it must leave behind a story of its disintegration, otherwise its disappearance is a miracle.
Did such a miracle occur when a Boeing flew into the Pentagon and disappeared into the building? They
say the solid structure of the Pentagon “shredded” the plane but where is the evidence of this
shredding. Yet they say the plane penetrated 40 ft and destroyed the pylons. The story of its
disintegration is not consistent. As the British might put it, “The plane went into thin air.” How did this
miracle happen?

A videoclip at larfilms on youtube claims that this footage will put to rest all conspiracy theorists
(larfilms - May 18, 2006 — this should put to rest all the conspiracy theorists and fake mongerers.
someone has updated and enhanced, youtube) but a careful look near its end actually proves two things
that are of critical importance. First is the obvious attempt to insult your intelligence, as if you have
never seen an airplane before. There is no doubt that the flying object moving towards the Pentagon is
not a plane at all. It serves as evidence of a very fast flying object with flames in thrust that propel it (at
0.24). It streaks at a high speed and explodes on impact, proving conclusively that it is not a plane just
before impact.

A videoclip on youtube (mikejwitson 911 case study) attempts to prove the existence of debris and
attempts to fool the casual watcher with his ‘proof’ of scattered debris but the truth simply leaps out
from his own video. At 3.45 there is debris at all. The Pentagon lawns are immaculate as shown on the
CNN footage that was first shown on the first day with fire engine 331 at work. Among the most
significant pieces of evidence against the claim of a Boeing being used to attack the Pentagon is this fact
of clean lawns without the wreckage and debris. So, this is the brunt of the manipulation for deliberate
cover-ups. This clip is a fine example of such an attempt and it should be downloaded for instructional
purposes to teach forensic science. At 3.45, the frame from an original footage shows no debris and the
spools of cables are in front of the point of impact just as in the original footage. Then, after the impact,
these spools of cables are in their original position at 4.44/5 – totally unscathed although they lay in the
path of the fictitious Boeing.

Perhaps, in the future, they may doctor another video to show that the belly of the plane was in fact
much higher! But such doctoring will not match the lowest point of impact and will not align itself with
the footage of the security camera B. This “case study” attempts to prove that a plane knocked out lamp
posts as it flew in towards its target and the engine on the left wing caught fire giving off a plume of
smoke.

In this photograph you can see the spools of cables just in front of the point of impact and there is no
wreckage of the plane, no fuselage breaking off and no aircraft debris. The walls of the Pentagon
building have not yet collapsed. The Boeing theorists like Jim Hoffman try to persuade that the impact of
a passenger jet actually punctured the reinforced steel wall claiming that a total width of 105 feet of the
wall was punctured by the wings. The walls, in fact, collapsed after about 45 minutes after impact. The
wings could not have punctured such walls. The above picture proves no such puncture of the walls.
In this picture there is no debris of the plane. The spools of cables are unscathed. The foreground is
“clean”. You also do not see thick black smoke which what you should see when jet fuel burns. The grass
is green – not burnt.

These cable spools are intact and unscathed. There is no debris on the lawn.

The cable spools are very near the Pentagon building. They were so close that the cable spool behind
the second fire-fighter from the left is toppled and suffered some damage. Notice the white soot
covering some of the cable spools. It is soot from concrete pulverized and powdered by high impact
explosive, not from the crash of a jetliner. Again there is no aircraft debris. Again there is wreckage.
None whatsoever. The lawns are clean although they are near the point of impact of an aircraft that is
155 feet long.

The cable spools are very near the building and one was extremely near the point of impact and one
cable spool is toppled. Again there is no aircraft wreckage. This picture also proves that the wall is
standing intact after impact and the walls are not punctured by the wings of a Boeing 757.
Where is the wreckage of a Boeing jetliner in this picture of the point of impact? Do you see a “clean
impact” or debris of the plane with jet fuel fire damage? The official version says - This photograph of
the C-Ring punch-out hole shows a significant quantity of aircraft debris. Is there any aircraft debris?
Take a closer look.
Look at the small size of the hole. Can a Boeing go through this solid reinforced structure? Amazingly, its
fuselage did not break but went in too! But where is it? Is that the debris of a Boeing? The cables are
hanging lose and were not pulled into the building by the 155 foot long aircraft! This point of impact is
actually what they call it – a punch-out hole made by a missile. The picture proves a very low level at the
time of impact, too low for a Boeing 757. At this level its body would graze the ground at least 15-20 ft
before impact. Notice that the 9 foot diameter hole is not a complete circle.

Look at the height of the wall. Then assess the diameter of the punch-out hole. Will a Boeing 757 go
through it? A Boeing 757 has a wing span of 124 ft and a tail height above ground of about 44 feet. The
sides on the left and right of the punch-out hole are not impacted by the wings of the plane. Where are
the wings of the plane? Notice that this is a clean punch-out. The floor is clean and the pipes just above
the punch-out hole are intact! The wall, all around the hole is in its original paint. It is not burnt or
damage by fire from jet fuel. In fact, this picture proves the absence of jet fuel. Where did it go?

Jim Hoffman says that the diameter of the punch-out hole is 9 feet. How does that correspond to the 12-
foot diameter of a 757? Why did the Boeing compress by two feet? So, if only the body of the Boeing
went in through the punch-out hole where did the wings go, keeping in mind that the total wing span is
about 124 feet? What happened to the wings and the jet’s engines? A passenger aircraft is not built like
a tank. It is not made of steel. It is not built for the purpose of a battering ram. The only thing that
causes damage from a flying aircraft is its speed. That speed works against the plane, too, on impact.
Jim Hoffman (Version 0.9, March 28, 2006) says - In this photograph showing debris outside the C-Ring
punch-out hole, an apparent piece of aircraft debris that does not appear to have been greatly distorted
shows a curvature corresponding to the 12-foot diameter of a 757. Is that aircraft debris?

Notice that the wall around the hole, especially on the left and right are clean and without impact. How
is that possible? May be in his next version, Jim can tell us how the wings fell off before impact. There is
no wreckage and no remains of victims. And does that little debris cannot come from a large aircraft,
only from a small missile. Besides, the manufacturer of Boeing is left in a big quandary about how its 12-
foot body can make such a hole and that is only 9 feet in diameter. Jim says that “the fact that the
columns are bent in the same direction, even 40 feet away from the impact center, is indicative of the
crash of an aircraft with large wings”. But how did the 112 (124-12) feet long wings get 40 feet inside
into the building through a 9 foot hole? This picture showing the clean walls proves the absence of jet
fuel. If the hole is 9 feet in diameter, its centre is only about 4 feet above ground. The jet liner’s body is
12.5 feet in diameter.
 This photograph is presented as evidence of the collision impact of the right jet engine with this
generator set that lay in its path.

A low retaining wall surrounded a structure with a rectangular footprint lying about 50 to 90 feet from
the Pentagon's facade. The structure has been described as part of a ventilation system. Post-impact
photographs show that the southwest corner of the concrete retaining wall was gouged away. The
location of the gouge lies on the path of the right engine of a 757 on a trajectory. This is an amazing is
the story by Jim Hoffman that the plane actually gouged the low retaining wall lying 50-90 feet from the
point of impact. It proves the point that if it was a Boeing 757, its belly would have grazed the ground at
least 15-20 feet before impact and its wings were low enough to collide with a trailer in its path.

Jim says that witnesses who observed the final moments of the crash stated that the plane banked left
(some saying that the left wing hit the heliport) and that its low-hanging engines hit objects on the way
in: the right engine hitting a generator trailer. One would expect the low-hanging engine that hit the
steel generator to break loose from its weak mounting on the wing but Jim would like to persuade
people to believe that it actually gouged the steel (yellow arrow in pic) plate of the generator and stayed
in its mounting in the right wing to puncture the solid reinforced concrete of the C-ring of the Pentagon.
If it gouged the generator, how did it miss the trailer? Interestingly, the airplane, flying at ground level
for the last 40 feet and definitely grazing the ground before impact at an angle of 28 degrees did not
break up, especially at the right wing and tail end. The right engine would have collided into the trailer
and come off together with sections of the wing.
A trailer is visible in this illustration of the planes trajectory. The illustration (The Pentagon Attack, What
the Physical Evidence Shows, Jim Hoffman, 28 May 2006) attempts to show that plane actually entered
the reinforced concrete and he claims that the Pentagon attack left debris scattered over a wide area.
He states that a few photographs that show portions of the lawn near the building show an extensive
debris field, easily accounting for the portions of a 757 that did not penetrate the building. Yet we see
no portion of the plane just outside the 9 foot diameter hole made by a small flying object that is
consistent with the damage caused by an impact and explosion but no jet fuel.

What is shown as debris of plane parts may be nothing more that twisted wreckage and debris from
automobiles and planted evidence. This picture proves that the walls are standing intact after impact
and there is fire in the building. The walls are not yet damaged by the fire that raged inside the building.
In a CNN Live footage found at lulu7777, one can clearly see the lamp posts that the Boeing theorists say
were damaged by the wings of the air plane are standing intact in their positions. There is no wreckage,
no fuselage and no aircraft debris. There are small pieces of debris that can be picked up by hand. It
proves as primary evidence that there was no air plane with 122 feet long wings on either side of its 12
foot in diameter body but something very much smaller.

In another video clip (The LaughingMan2007, Sept 28, 2007) there is no plane but a very much smaller
fast moving object like a missile. One comes to same conclusion in the video clip at musicmaker2001. At
YouTube - 9/11 Pentagon Attack: A Closer Look, the evidence also shows that:-

1. The flying object is very small and cannot be a large plane such as the Boeing 757, and

2. At the time of impact there is an explosion, a ball of fire that erupts suddenly and dies down and
it proves the absence of a jet and jet fuel.

In bones555a a reporter makes a clear reference to the fact that it was not a plane and the huge
explosion was caused by a missile without wings. His report aligns itself factually with many video clips
and the large body of evidence. How did they try to counter it? Not in a very smart way but in a cunning
way they try to ridicule the fact brought out by this eye witness. They could not go to the extent to show
that he is insane but they took a swipe by saying that “This reporter has obviously never seen a
passenger jet before in his life.” A reporter in Washington does not know what a passenger jet looks
like? Nice try but it is a piece of information that flows in the golden thread of truth that leads to a clean
9 foot diameter hole in the reinforced concrete wall of the Pentagon with no aircraft debris at its
mouth .

This consistent with the statement by Rumsfeld made at 9.37 am that the (pentagon) building shook like
a bomb had gone off. Obviously a bomb had gone off. It was in the tip of a missile and it made a 9 foot
diameter hole in the reinforced concrete and damaged the pylons. It left small pieces of debris that can
be picked up by hand. When a plane crashes it a reinforced wall it does go off like a bomb. The impact
damage is different and the burning jet fuel will result in obvious damage consistent with the heat it
generates, not a clean punch-out hole.

As the story is about the fact of a 9 foot diameter punch-out hole in reinforced concrete in the C-ring of
the Pentagon that cannot be made by a Boeing 757 then the question for Jim Hoffman as other Boeing
theorists is that did it penetrate the punch-out hole or are there portions of the plane outside the hole
covering an extensive field of debris? The next question is – where are the remains or the victims as the
punch-out hole looks clean?

There are things that stick out sorely in a running thread of truth. Conspiracy or not is the issue. The first
issue is whether the facts and body of information prove a crash impact consistent with a crash of
Boeing 757 or a clean 9 foot diameter punch-out hole caused by a missile. The issue of whether a
conspiracy might be just a theory or fact depends on the facts that lead to the clean 9 foot diameter
punch-out hole in the reinforced concrete wall in the C-ring of the Pentagon. That comes later after the
facts and the golden thread of truth is looked at together with the sores of lies that are in deviance to
forensic science and the facts of the damage. The story is in the hole. The motives may be outside.