The Trajectory and the Lampposts

“Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised.”[i]

                                                 — Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander

Eyewitness path vs. the official Lamppost path

There are two major subdivisions of witnesses — those that are in the contention that the airliner came down the path with the knocked over lampposts — and those that claim to have seen it fly over Arlington National Cemetery (ANC).  The former is the official story, and those that support it, are mostly top-level governmental workers and DoD contractors.  The majority of credible witnesses tended to support the “eyewitness” path (marked below). 

Eyewitness path vs. official Lamppost path

(Photo: spaceimaging.com).

There are two major divergences that this later group has with the government’s story.  First, they mostly reported that the aircraft was at a higher altitude, at least 150–200 feet off the ground; which is consistent with the BBC video of the attacking airliner.  Secondly, these witnesses don’t make the adamant claim of explicitly seeing an American Airlines 757 that deliberately crashed into the Pentagon.  In fact, most of those in this group actually gave vague descriptions, and remarked how they confused that aircraft for one that was making a landing at Reagan National Airport (RNA).  Most only saw the airliner disappear behind trees or a building, few if any explicitly claim to have had seen it crash (the BBC video did not capture the crash either).

The official trajectory path (Image: ASCE).

The diagram above shows the angle the Pentagon claims the 757 came in to the building.  Now put this together with the frames released from the Pentagon parking lot video that shows an aircraft skimming inches above the grass. 

This is an amazing evasion of large highway signs and other lampposts.  But when we look at these photographs, the whole pentagon story collapses.  As you can easily see, the plane would at one point, been in the same place as that overhead street sign and light posts.

Numerous lampposts still seem to obstruct the path

(Photos: (top left) AP/Dylan Moore (others) letsroll911.org).

The Boeing 757, with it’s 125 foot wingspan, could not have passed between all these lampposts, as the Defense Department security video shows — flying in horizontally at first-floor level.

Several witnesses claim a plane approached about 200 ft altitude.

As Elizabeth Smiley was walking home from her metro stop at the Pentagon, she “…saw the plane not more than 200 feet over my head.”[ii]

While Alfred S. Regnery stated: “On the freeway with the Pentagon not yet in view, heard a jetliner “not more than 200 yards above the ground” passed overhead, disappearing “behind black cloud of smoke”…[iii]

Disastrous consequences from a lamppost hit in Dallas. 

A small bird weighing only a couple of pounds can severely damage an airliner.  Can you imagine what a thick steel lamppost would do?  In fact, there was just such a collision:

The jet [twin-engine Gulfstream jet], en route from Love Field in Dallas, was approaching the runway when it clipped the light pole, losing part of a wing, authorities said.  Wreckage extended about 100 yards from there.[iv]

Fatal accident in Dallas (Photo: KABC).

Notice the lamppost above — it is similar to the type that is near the Pentagon.  Is the base torn up?  This is example is believable and consistent with an aircraft hitting it.  However…

There are no “500 mph” effects to the “downed” poles at the Pentagon.

Wouldn’t a 450–500 mph plane have thrown the lampposts hundreds of feet from where they were?  But instead, some poles even fall to rest underneath the lamppost base.  And even more interesting, if the top was sheared off, why would the lower portion have been broken off at the base and knocked down?  (Note the undamaged base in the above Dallas photo.)

The lampposts appear to have been cut at their bases.

Lamppost bases had their bolts cut.

Look at the bolts, they are not popped out, they were cut just under the base, notice there is very little, or no other trauma/stress related effects at the base.  No poles were bent nor remained in their upright positions.  If the supposed aircraft hit the pole near their uppermost sections, why would all the posts been cut off at the base?  Literally cut! 

Could someone have cut a lamppost path the preceding evening and laid them in the grass on the side of the highway or thrown them out of a truck that morning?  Would anyone have noticed or even cared?

Was a path cut in advance through the lampposts to allow passage?

One theory that would explain things well —lampposts were cut down in advance to allow a path for an UAV or remote jet.  The perpetrators knew that an aircraft would be utterly destroyed if it had collided with a metal post of that size.  This theory would explain way the poles were cut off at the bases, since they would not know for sure how high off the ground the jet or drone would approach at.  However, the path is just short of being wide enough to accommodate a 125 ft. wingspan of a 757.  Also, it’s interesting to see a construction site in the close vicinity of these same lampposts.  It could have been a very inconspicuous operation.

How did a lamppost weighing hundreds of pounds, crash down on a taxi and not damage it!

Some lampposts are essentially undamaged (and so is the taxi with only a broken windshield).  Did that pole weighing hundreds of pounds strike that taxi?  If it did, the taxi probably would be severely damaged and have killed or maimed the driver.

Taxi with no damage other than a broken windshield (Photo: freedomfiles.org).

A close-up showing the uninjured taxi driver (Photo: renovation.pentagon.mil).