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 t