9/11 - Pentagon hit - Where are the plane parts?

I’ve been watching some 9/11 programs lately on the pentagon hit specifically… and there doesn’t seem to be any pictures, films, videos, or even many eyewitness accounts of a plane hitting the pentagon. Most of the announcements and “eyewitness” accounts report hearing a plane hit the pentagon based on radio or television reports. I have not seen anyone actually say “I saw the plane fly right into the building.” I really don’t doubt that it did, but for a city as large as DC, and a complex as big as the Pentagon, it just seems strange to me. Especially when stray surveillance cameras never showed up after the fact showing a plane flying close to the ground and/or into the Pentagon.

I know about the conspiracy theories out there and don’t want to get into that here if we can avoid it. (if we can’t, I figured GD was where this would end up).

A plane leaves a LOT of debris. Where did it all end up? They found plane parts all over the general vicinity of the twin towers (I remember one lady being taken out by a landing gear assembly). I don’t remember hearing or seeing anything regarding the plane’s parts.

I’m watching one right now, and it’s strange to me that the plane, coming in at a relatively parallel to the building, wouldn’t leave a bigger hole in the side. Maybe it’s the scale, but it looks like it should be bigger.

There have been approximately nine thousand threads on this subject. The quick answer is the plane mostly ended up inside the Pentagon.

You should not rely on truthers say so’s they always forget to mention what was shown in the trial of Moussaoui:



The truthers also typically mislead many by showing only images of the holes in the second floor of the pentagon or the one inside the final ring of the pentagon that was reached. when the camera shows the big picture one can see that the hole (on the outside of the building that) the truthers claim was small was in the second floor and the hole/holes that were present in the first floor matches the width of the plane and wings.


You have to remember that the Pentagon is the world’s largest office building. The hole looks so small because the building is so damnn big.

That is so just in part. Most often the truther sources “forget” to mention that the hole was on the second floor and miss that the evidence on the ground showed that the main impact happened in the first floor.

I have found that when dealing with conspiracy theories the best sources of debunking come from skeptics that do not have any patience with nonsense like the “there were no planes” idea as they try to keep a resemblance of being grounded in some reality.


(scroll down to the pictures)

The maker of the site does believe in the theory that Bush and Cheney let 911 happen. That is silly too, but I can understand where is he coming from, the theory of “no planes” has nothing to stand on.

Planes are light, fragile things by design.

Have you ever seen this video of an F-4 Phantom fighter jet crashing into a concrete wall? It was part of a test series on the safety of nuclear reactor containment buildings.


Nothing left of the thing that would be recognizable as aircraft parts.

I like that video, my favorite bit when debunking the idea that a fighter jet was the one that crashed into the pentagon is just to mention all the light poles that the plane knocked down close by, it would be impossible for a fighter jet to knock down all the ones that fell down, not to mention that a fighter jet would have more trouble to continue flying after hitting them.

The video I linked early shows the position of the fallen light poles at the 30 second mark:

I think it’s funny because people think unless the hole in the Pentagon is shaped like an airplane it’s fake. As if a real airplane hitting a building would leave some sort of a cartoon shaped, outline.

Well, the plane that hit the WTC north tower left a pretty decent outline.


However, the WTC tower exteriors were made of engineered steel and glass, not reinforced concrete, a fact most wingnuts seem inclined to disregard.

Engineered steel and glass? Are most buildings made of natural steel and glass? What does that mean?

Seriously, the Pentagon is huge. You can look at it in photographs but you won’t get the full idea unless you see it in person. It’s absolutely massive.

Sorry, it was poor wording.

What I meant is that the steel structure of the WTC was engineered to be light, and strong only under loads that it was expected to experience. The Pentagon is massively overbuilt in comparison. Meaning, it is not surprising that the plane did more visible damage to the WTC than the Pentagon.

“Precisely engineered” or something is what I should have said.

He means it’s not made of reinforced concrete like the Pentagon is, which is why he said “not reinforced concrete” immediately after “engineered steel and glass”.

This video, along with the jet disintegration video, answer most of my questions. I’ve never seen the photos in the simulation video on youtube before (the ones at the end where numerous airplane pieces are seen scattered).

The only ironic part was the pentagon video camera really doesn’t show the plane. It sort of shows a blur that could be (most likely is) the tail of the plane, but is blocked by something in the foreground. Reminded me of the Stemmons Freeway sign blocking Kennedy taking the first bullet. If only that sign weren’t there, the Zapruder film would have captured everything. If that foreground obstruction wasn’t at the pentagon, I think a clean shot of the side of a passenger jet would have been in that frame.

Thanks for the links, all!

The video from the Pentagon only shows a blur because it was a security cam set to a very low frame rate. Think about that for a moment and the reason you only see a blur in a single frame will be obvious.


Well, the single frame is obvious, but not the blur. The frame rate has nothing to do with speed of acquisition of a single frame. It’s just a crappy camera with a low effective shutter speed.

If it was a Nikon D7000 set to the same frame rate, there would be one crystal-clear frame showing the airplane.

Security cameras like that are generally set to activate on an event (such as motion) and set to low res unless they are tasked to capture details. I’ve see a lot of blur images like that from fast moving objects (like cars) from such systems.


The Pentagon is one of those things that is so strange looking that it’s hard to grasp its size unless you actually see it in person. In pictures - almost always taken from the air at a distance - it’s a structure so weird and unique that it’s impossible for you to match it up with comparable structures.

Another one like that is the Eiffel Tower, which in pictures looks to me, for whatever reason, like it’s really not a big deal, maybe the height of a decent sized apartment building. But the first thing anyone says upon actually going up to it is “Holy shit, this thing is BIG.”

agreed. I understand the camera was probably a poor one, snapping pictures at a slower rate than I’d like to see to save memory space. I wouldn’t expect a security camera to be set at a high enough speed to get a shot of a plane flying by it at what, 350-450 mph? And the one frame the tail seems to be there, the shot is blurry, indicating a poor camera and high speed of the item in motion.

Also for what it’s worth, I’ve been to the Pentagon… and it IS hugh, as most have stated. Still, I never got a good feel for the impact area and the size of it in relation to the plane. I think a big part of that is that the plane probably disintegrated much more on impact than I would have expected, resulting in less of the plane (specifically the wings) from entering the side of the building like the first plane into the north tower did.

Remember, airplanes are mostly hollow tubes either containing people (the fuselage), or the fuel (the wings are mostly hollow too).
And they’re aluminum tubes. Or lighter, on some planes.