Editor’s Note: This paper is a reply to the January 2025 paper by David Chandler, which was a response to the June 2024 paper by Mehmet Inan. For a concurrent thread stemming from the same original paper, see Inan’s June 2025 reply to Wayne Coste’s January 2025 response to Inan’s June 2024 paper.
I thank David Chandler for his comments about my paper. I also thank IC911 for permitting scholarly discussion about 9/11 issues for the purpose of understanding what really happened on that day. I hope we will be able to get a real discussion and discover the truth of 9/11.
Cropped tree and surface scar on the camera pole
The main argument of David Chandler’s paper against my identification of the plane is the banner image of his paper. Actually, the distance between cropped tree and the camera pole is more consistent with a 757-200 than a 737-400. But several aspects should be considered:
- This camera pole is far from the Pentagon. The exact position of the plane is not known with high precision. And the surface scar on the camera pole is very precise. Depending on the diameter of the pole, it suggests an impact depth of about 4″.
- Let’s consider such a 4″ impact happened to the camera pole. At the speed of the plane, such an impact would at least shear the pole, like the shear that happened on top of the generator trailer. There is no such shear on the camera pole.
- If the pole is not sheared, it should be pushed and it should be broken like the other impacted five light poles. That also did not happen.
- If the pole is not sheared, and not broken like the other impacted five light poles, it should move a little rightward at the beginning of the impact. Then, when the wing gets over the pole, the pole will no longer touch the wing, and the wing cannot touch the rung on the other side of the camera pole. But this rung is missing, which, according to David Chandler, suggests it was broken by the impact of the wing of a 757-200. And according to Google Street View, it is still missing today.
How could we explain all these inconsistencies? Let’s check all available images. David Chandler refers to four images showing this surface scar on the camera pole. Three of them also show the cut on the tree.
Figure 1 shows the banner image used by David Chandler.
Figure 2 precedes the image of figure 1 by some seconds, as the van on the road is a little further back in the figure 2. (https://media.defense.gov/2003/Feb/10/2000030817/-1/-1/0/030204-O-9999J-007.JPG) This image is presented as original of figure 1. In reality, it is a little different. Its original size is 1680×2240.
Figure 3 shows another image referred to by David Chandler. This image contains the missing rung on the camera pole. This image size is 1200×1200 pixels and it is archived here:
https://ic911.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/coppage-photo-with-rung.jpg. According to Chandler, it is from an undocumented source. This image is a little darker than the original image in figure 2.
Figure 4 is an image taken from a different angle. It shows the camera pole, but not the tree. It is available here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/The_pentagon_in_flames_moments_after_a_hijacked_jetliner_crashed_into_building_at_approximately_0930_010911-M-CI426-015.jpg
In order to get a clear vision, we must compare the same area from all images. Here are precise images of the surface scar of the camera pole in all images.
When we analyze the surface scar in figures 5, 6, 7 and 8, they are all very similar, or identical. Figures 6 and 7 are taken at the same time. At least one of them is faked to add or remove the missing rung.
Figure 8 is taken from a different angle. The image of the surface scar should be different, because it is from different angle. Figure 9 shows a comparison of figures 6 and 8. The right end side of the pole is difficult to find in the lower image because the background is of the same color. This end is visible below at the horizontal beams level. The blue lines show the end side of the pole as continuity of the lower end side. The ratios are consistent with this direction change.
In Google Street View, we can find several images of this camera pole. Figure 10 shows several images from October 2022 and May 2023. These images show the alleged right wing impact area from all available directions.
In 2022 and 2023, the camera pole had become rusty. It is homogenously rusted everywhere. If an impact with right wing of the plane actually happened in 2001, the impact zone and the area below it would be too much more rusted than everywhere else. The uniformity of the rusty area is only possible if there was no wing impact in 2001. This uniformity of the rusted area proves that in 2001, there was no impact of the right wing of the plane with this camera pole.
We must consider that this surface scar of the impact was added on the camera pole. The work could have been made by professionals considering the direction of the camera in the two available images.
Is it possible that all images of this right wing impact to camera pole are fake? During the investigation of 9/11, plenty of fake evidence were produced by many people, including officials. There is huge pollution of information. We cannot trust all images, all testimonies, all movies, or all reports. We must be very careful and check everything.
In this investigation, these images of surface scar on the camera pole, allegedly made by right wing impact, cannot be used as evidence. That means there is no reliable evidence of wing impact on the camera pole.
As the rung is still missing in Google Street View images, we must explain how is that possible without an impact of the plane in 9/11/2001. The surface scar in figure 7 is identical to figure 6. This is normal, because the picture is made from the same angle at the same time. But one contains the missing rung, not the other one. One possible speculative explanation is as follow: The first modification of the initial image was adding the surface scar of an impact of the wing as in figure 7; the rung was still on the camera pole. But only this surface scar was weak evidence. It was preferable to add new material evidence. Then they created the missing rung on the camera pole and created the Figure 6. How? Possibly, at some point after the attacks, somebody climbed on the camera pole and cut the missing rung. That’s why this missing rung is not repaired.
Is that really possible? Actually, some modifications were made on this camera pole. Additional cables were mounted; this is visible from the white strips around the camera pole that tie the cables. It is possible that during this mounting of cables, one of the workers cut the missing rung before the end of the work and getting down. That is only a possible speculative explanation. It only proves “it is not impossible”.
The right wing leading slat
The figure DC6 (David Chandler’s paper, figure 6) shows a damaged right wing leading slat of a 757-200 on the lawn. He presents this slat as “that was dislodged and dropped onto the lawn prior to the plane hitting the Pentagon wall“. For David Chandler, this is evidence the plane was a Boeing 757-200. This leading slat is also visible in the figure WC25 (Wayne Coste’s paper, figure 25) copied here below in figure 11.
But in this image, we also see people around the slat. This picture was made several days or weeks after the day of 9/11/2001. But the day of the attacks the lawn was completely cleared and all debris were gathered. We know the debris were gathered on the day of the attacks by the pictures of several persons aligned walking on the lawn searching for debris (see figure 12 below). Such organized debris gathering is used for searching all small pieces. If they did that work for gathering all small pieces, they will not leave the huge leading slat on the lawn. Also in such an impact, such huge piece does not fall in one single part; other smaller pieces should be regularly distributed around. So, this leading slat laying alone on the lawn does not come from the plane itself, it was brought several days after and put there probably for the purpose of creating evidence for the presence of a 757-200 aircraft.
Conclusions
The paper of David Chandler is based on fake evidence. The impact of the right wing of the plane on the camera pole did not happen. That’s why the camera pole is intact and was not replaced.
The leading slat of the right wing of 757-200 was brought on site days after the attack, perhaps for the purpose of creating evidence for the presence of a 757-200 aircraft.
Nothing in the paper of David Chandler proves the presence of a 757-200 impacting the Pentagon.
The most precise measurement of the wingspan of the plane is based on the damage span from the impact column 14 to the last damaged column 20 on the right side. That gives a wingspan of 95ft. This is fully consistent with the impact of a 737-400.
The claim of an impact of 757-200 must therefore be definitely rejected.
