The lack of damage to the lawn is explained by momentum, the plane hit the side of the building at a downward angle, momentum would have carried all of the plane and damage from the crash foward from the impact site. If a metorite strikes the ground at an oblique approach angle all the damage will be infront of the impact and you can verify this by tossing a stone into a sand pile at an angle. Why was the plane on a downward angle? At best the plane couldn't have flown less than a couple hundered feet off the ground on approach, after seeing the pentagon the terrorists would have gunned the engines and dived.

Second, the age of the pentagon, the construction materials and knowledge of the engineering used at the time easily explains the damage to the pentagon. It's fairly complicated but the pentagon is three seperate buildings, built quickly with either precast concrete panels or masonry. Given the location (east coast) and the time of construction (pre-wwi) it's easy to say the structural walls are a concrete without any form of reinforcing. Concrete has little to no tensile strength and as a result impacts on the side of the building would have quickly punched a hole in the side and carried the plane into the building.

From my understanding of the crash most of what was left of the plane ended up in one of the sub-basements. As far as the atomization counter-arguement, the plane you have seen in those tests is crashing into a nuclear reactor containment vessel. The concrete is around 6' thick and reinforced by #18 steel reinforcing that is so close together you can't put your arm into the gaps. There is a significant difference in the construction strength of the containment vessel and 1920's construction of what was supposed to be a temporary building.

This is among the best "non-conspiracy" posts in this discussion so far. Excelent work, rahvin. The problem is the hole on the other side. The object clearly did not leave any kind of burn marks or damage to the lawn, making the only poissible decent angle pretty steep. This would have sent the nose of the plane through the first and second stories going into the basement and sub basement. Makes perfect sense. But what about the photo of the 16' hole in the inner most wall? http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pi...n-punchout.gif
This hole is located on the inner most wall and is on the exact path of the projectile, HOWEVER, it is parallel to the crash on the front of the building. http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pi...chout-path.jpg
If the plane hit at a downward angle, which would have lead it to a very much downward angle crash, why is there is there a 16' hole there? Odd, indeed.
Also, the 747 that hit the Pentagon ahd roughly the same amount of fuel as the planes that struck the WTC, and you can see in videos taken that there were prettty serious explosions upon impact for both. The fire at the WTC was able to destroy
(what I've been told by engineers) one of the best reinforced structures in the world. It was actually built to take a plane strike. So those buildings obviously collapsed after a while. In this picture taken on September 15th, 2001, you get an excelent
overview of the damage. http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pi...goncompare.jpg So a steel reinforced building was gone in a matter of hours, but the Pentagon just saw some fires and one collapse due to the initial impact.

First 16' seems inflated, looking at those pictures I would say 10' diameter, which looks to be about the size of one of the engines. The engine is the only truely solid piece on the plane. As far as why it went out the side of the building I have no idea, although I seem to remember from the video's they showed that the plane hit with one wing elevated which would have changed the trajectory of the engine on that wing as opposed to the rest of the plane. I'm not going to really speculate on it because afterall the behavior after impact is going to be very unpredictable depending on each individual impact in the buildings the engines would have made but at 600mph or so and the massiveness of the engines would have made for a very solid projectile.

Now the fire issue when trying to compare against the WTC is a VERY bad comparison. The WTC had NO active fire suppression system, the building survived the impact it was the fire that softened the steel and collapsed the building(s). The pentagon on the other had very likely had an active and aggressive fire suppression system and as a result the fuel on board was not able to do the damage it was able to do in the WTC. Even still the fire damage to the building is rather extensive but it was left standing because it didn't have a steel frame that was holding the building up.

I really can't see how this is even an issue.

Look under his nick, apparently banned.

Does anyone have a place to get better pictures? most especially of BEFORE the collapse? While the holes do seem to line up, the damage in the patch does not seem consistant. I'd like to get a better angle on that one connective area betwee the set of rings that the engine supposedly must have passed through. Unless the engine was tossed over 2 rings to land in the courtyard and roll through the building to punch that hole thre should be more damage to the connecting area between the rings in the path. Anyone else notice that, or is it just me? (to the left of trj.)

*Apology for the 16' thing. I should have been more specific. The firefighters measured it to be roughly 16' WIDE, not tall. It was only about 11' tall. Good eye. One thing; it wasn't going 600 mph. This huge engine that punched the hole burned to a crisp? Why so little fire damage where it would have burned to nothing?

The WTC had fire sprinklers (the same as the Pentagon has). So the fire supression system prevented any serious fire damage (like frame melting), but the fire was easily able to melt away almost the whole plane? Also, the Pentagon does have steel reinforcement.

The Pentagon is constructed with 42,000 40 cm. (15") square steel reinforced concrete pillars. The graphics below, provided by the DoD, shows the extent of the damage from the attack on 9/11 as destroyed pillars. By their count, there were 32 pillars destroyed, and a lesser number stripped to their steel reinforced core. What is astonishing is the fact that the destroyed pillars form an almost perfectly straight line on a 45 degree angle. Nothing in the chaos of the disintegration of a soft shelled mass of fluid like an airliner hitting a stone, concrete and brick wall with steel reinforced load bearing pillars, would lead you to expect an almost perfectly linear path of destruction. A plane is like a sausage skin: it doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact.
http://911review.org/images/pillars.jpg
The damage to the interior is too deep and too collimated to be from the liquid fuel of an airliner.

Again, thank you for posting honestly and respectfully.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf [The quote above is on the top of page 10]

You are correct, the plane wasn't traveling 600mph it was going 530mph. And no I don't believe the engine burned a crisp in any of the crashes, it was likely found somewhere on the other side of the hole in the wall where the picture wasn't taken. Like this:

http://www.911-strike.com/engine_rotor.jpg

The WTC had sprinklers but the system would have been incapable of the providing the water flow that would have been necessary to even try to extinguish the fire. The fire was several hundered feet up and consumed 3 whole floors, to supply the water necessary there would have needed to be a massive water tank on the roof or a super pressurized water piping system, as the pressures that would be needed to supply pressurized water at that height with a pumping system would have been extreme. The forensic study also concluded that the crash likely destroyed the sprinkler system on the floors in question but even if it hadn't the supply lines would have quickly depressurized. There are massive engineering problems with trying to supply flow rates that high in the middle of a sky scraper.

The pentagon on the other hand would have been fed with a large connection point to the municpal system and solid gravity driven pressures that would have supplied the volume and pressure needed to keep the sprinklers that survived running.

I'm sorry you dismiss it so quickly, frankly >220,000 lbs (that's empty curb weight) moving at 530mph has a significant amount of momentum. That momentum cannot be dismissed just because the skin is comprised of aluminum. Instrument panels, seats, luggage, human bodies and even liquid fuel become capable of structuraly destroying 15" columns. You have to remember when they say it was destroyed they aren't saying it was turned to powder, only that the column was severed or compromised to the point that it could not longer bear a load. I simply can't dismiss what you do, my education (civil engineering btw) and my review of the forensic analysis's that were presented in the engineering trade magazines completely explain what occured.

The pentagon crash was not even interesting to me as an Engineer, the WTC was far more fascinating as the building was designed to withstand an impact with a plane that is larger than the one that hit it. I was astonished that the impacts collapsed the structures (I still remember my astonishment when I watched it happen), although I still believe the second collapse was only triggered by damage from the first collapse and had the first tower not collapsed the second would not have. The Pentagon simply reinforced that redudant designs with the ability to load shift was a procedure that should be used more to prevent loss of life in disasters like that which occured. If you would like a more technical discussion of what occured and you have the skills to understand the material I suggest you consult "The Pentagon Report".

https://www.asce.org/bookstore/book.cfm?book=4241

FANTASTIC!!! (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really interested) I was hoping to discuss this with someone who actually has the credentials. The hole in the outer wall of the outer ring - the initial strike point of the projectile; plane or otherwise - was about 14-16 feet wide (according to relating the size of the fire engine to the size of the hole in several pictures). Now each ring of the Pentagon has an outer and inner wall. Each wall is approx. 18" thick. This is steel reiforced concrete. That means that the impact point was 36" of steel reinforced concrete. This means a total of 9' of steel reinforced concrete from entry point in the outer ring, to the exit point of the inside of the inner ring. Could a 757 have punched out a 14-16' wide hole on entry and have pierced 9' total of steel reinforced concrete to make a hole of almost exactly the same dimentions?

Now the nose of a plane is not made of reinforced aluminum or anything of the sort. The nose of a plane (the part that would have been doing the punching) is called a "crashdome". This is the area of the plane that is below and infront of the cockpit; the area that would first impact. This crashdone is where the plane stores electronic navigation equiptment. To enable the transmission of signals, the nose is not made of metal, but carbon. It's shape has been designed to be aerodynamic but it is not crash resistant. The inside casting, as well as its contents, are extremly fragile. The nose would crash on impact with an obstacle, not penatrate it. You NEVER find a nose in a crashsite that involves a head on colision (the type in this case). THEREFORE, it is impossible that this carbon nose punshed a perfect 2.5 yard diameter circular hole in the steel reinforced buildings.

As for the WTC, I agree that it is an engineering conundrum. I'll meet you on the "what happened on 9/11" thread.

The walls were NOT reinforced, the columns were, and the spacing is quite large looking at the pictures (the picture of the hole has a column on the left of the picture, no other is visible). The walls were constructed of CIP (cast in place concrete panels (according to the information I have found, but in the pictures it looks like masonry). Either way concrete without reinforcing has much poorer impact strength than you may think (and unreinforced masonry is the poorest performer under lateral loads).

In addition, there is no way that wall with the hole in it is 18" thick, the concrete visible is about 4"-6" (which is consistent with what it should be), in addition there appears to be wood framing behind the concrete that would have provided the attachment zone for wallboard and an area to run utility cables (so total wall thickness could have been 18" but that would have been insulation and wallboard and would have provided very little resistance to projectiles.

Concrete from that era would have been lucky to achieve higher than 4000psi strength (compressive, as I said tensile is non-existant). In an impact you can disregard the strength of the mud that is in the tensile zone which is approximately half the thickness. So assuming a wall thickness of 6" conservatively, 6 walls penetrated and 250000lbs traveling at 530mph I would say yes I can easily imagine that happening. The initial impact is going to transfer momentum to the first wall which then becomes part of the projectiles passing through the building.

Consider something for just a moment, the engines on the 747 weigh about what a small car would, just how much damage would a car traveling at 530mph do to that structure?

Secondly, your arguement about the nose cone is just silly. It wouldn't matter if the nose cone was made of sheet metal, because as you said it's just going to be smashed, what you haven't considered is that the frame of the plane starts behind that nose cone and the frame of the plane is going to have SIGNFICANT strength and 250000lbs attached to it.

I dont' know if you are saying that you think the nose penetrated the far wall, but I can say that it is apparent to me that one of the engines made that trip, the picture I linked shows engine debris outside the building and honestly it looks like the same people in the foreground as your picture of the wall.

The walls are reinforced, in addition to the columns. The walls are not CIP. CIP would not have had the ability to hold off the impact of the wings or the tail (looking at the picture of the oroginal impact, you can easily tell the tail and wings made basically no damage to the walls, which is impossible). I really can't tell how thick the concrete is from the pictures, and I've been looking for months. I have a pretty good source for my information, and I suppose you do too. I'd like to take a more direct approach - simply request the information from the city of D.C. or call and find out the company that constructed it and ask for the blueprints - but something tells me that'd put me on a terroist list or two. So, in this case, I guess we'll have to agree to dissagree.

BTW, had the plane been moving at 530 miles per hour, it would have to have been traveling at between an angle of 47 degrees even 90 degree - but for the sake of the crashsite, I'd say somewhere between 47 and 67, otherwise it ould have hit the roof, not the wall. Any lower, and the drag would have slowed it substantially. Therefore, either the plane hit at an angle that would have put the plane down into the ground ( this contradicts the only video evidence of the Pentagon crash), or the plane was traveling much slower (contradicting the investigation), or the projectile was something that gets less resistence. I studied at Embry Riddle (Aeronautics School, Daytona) for about 3 years in case you're wondering.

I'm wondering why the wings and tail didn't even leave a noticable mark. Whether the walls are CIP or reinforced, I'd expect the reinforced walls to be at least 'nicked' by the impact of wings on a plane traveling at even, lets say, 350 miles per hour.

I swore to myself that I would stay clear of this topic, but I was reading through an old National Geographic over the holidays and came across this picture in the July 2002 publication. The source in the magazine pointed me to spaceimaging.com, where I've linked this picture from.
http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/...on_9_12_01.jpg
Just some observations I want to make...The pentagrass is green and untouched, but on the other side of the street. And this is the first time I've seen a picture posted here with two (2) holes punched through the sides of the pentagon, not one like the flash animation shows. To me it looks pretty obvious that a plane struck the side of the building and pretty much disentegrated while the 2 very dense engines punched all the way through.

willravel, forgive me but Im going to address this to you....Im at work and dont have a lot of time to look this up and I thought you might know off the top of your head.

Ya'll are talking about the kind of concrete and construction of the building....didnt I read somewhere that this section of the pentagon had been closed due to major structure remodeling, thats why there werent as many people in the area where the plane hit as there would have been if renovations werent being done? If so...do you recall what exactly was being renovated and would this have any impact on the arguments about what the pentagon was constructed of....in that area anyway?

Stevo- that's a great picture! I hadn't seen this one before. You were quite observant to see that. Notice that the burned spots viewable from above follow the connecting hallways that connects all of the rings. This part is not reinforced the same way the rest of the buildings are. Those parts actually caved in because they were no longer supported by the reinforcement that is between them. Imagine you have a grape with a ruler on it. If you smash the grape, the whole ruler colapses, not just the middle. It's a poor comparison, but I think it illustrates what I'm trying to explain. Also, the plane (or projectile) came in at a decent angle. It did not hit the wall straight on. Looking at the picture, I'd say it came in over the right overpass. Great find, though. Thanks for posting.

You're absolutely right, ShaniFaye. According to news articles before the attack, there was constrution on the very part that was hit, thankfully saving the lives of possibly hundreds of people who would have been working otherwise. As with usual news from the petnagon, the news of renovation was a bit vague. I'll ask my Uncle (who happens to work there from time to time) the next time I see him, but I'm honestly not sure. All I heard was just that there was some major construction being done there. Good question. Thanks for posting.

That was great, I wish the FBI would release the video, but i guess that unlikely to happen.

http://roguesw.com/images/evidence.gif

A few estimations on my part, but it's close enough. Just to put some scale onto this thing.

There's a lot thats just too convenient. For example the point htat was raised that thre was construction in the section taht was hit and not as many people. Considering the size of the pentagon, what are the odds that the plane would hit the one section that was being worked on and not full of people? Also i found it a little convenient that the part of the wall collapsed before anyone had any real time to take a good look at the small hole that was made by the plane impact. It seemed as soon as people started to question the wall there was no more wall to question.

If i remember correctly the reason the part of the pentagon was being fixed up was due to a small fire that broke out in the section. Again i find it strange that the plane crashed into this section and not another section.

However to be acturatein the picture above the little 30ft marker shoud be shifted slightly to the left to where the collapsed part of the building is. I find it odd (again) how the collapsed section seems to line up well with the sise of the span between the engines YET the HOLE that was made in the building was only 16ft or so around. Also that there was little sign of collateral damage on the side of the building where, say, the wings would inpact. You'd think the wings of a plane impacting at ~500mph would atleast break some windows.

That is precisely correct, ObieX. You are clever to notice that the windows where the wings would have impacted didn't brake. Certianally the best windows I've ever seen!

I just finished rereading the 9/11 Comission Report. Yikes. A wonderful array of dodged questions and wrong answers. Anyone who likes the comic strip might like the 9/11 Commission Final Report. It's quite funny.

For those who asked "who really is responsible?":
9/11 was the greatest crime in American history. The official story of 9/11 posits that 19 Arab terrorists hijacked four planes and crashed three of them into well-known American landmarks, costing more than three thousand Americans their lives. Yet no conclusive evidence has ever connected these alleged Arab terrorists to the actual crime. Only a campaign of media hysteria centered around vague and unproved aspersions from Washington has swayed the American people into accepting government's story, which amounts to a massive hate crime against Muslims.

So who dropped the ball? Who's reponsibility was/is it to investigate what happened and try to bring th guilty to justice? Why the Attorney General, of course. "The Attorney General, as head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government, represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. The Attorney General appears in person to represent the Government before the U.S. Supreme Court in cases of exceptional gravity or importance." Exceptional gravity and importance. Like 9/11 maybe? Well, as it has been made pretty obvious in this thread, the 9/11 investigation missed some tiny details.

Details like:
- all of the wrekage from the twin towers was shipped off, sold, and melted down before FEMA or any other investigators could test it.
- a multitude of people were present in the wtc when the planes hit and saw and heard explosions going off, dozens of floors below the plane crash. (there was no cumbustable fuel in the building beyond the plane fuel)
- a multitude of people persent noticed that the commercial airliner had no windows. Rather odd, eh?
- video evidence shows the building was demolished using explosives, as it is impossible for the heat to be evenly distributed over the entire structure so that it completly melts and collapses all at the same time.
- even the FEMA report admits that they are confues and baffeled as to how building 7 of the WTC collapsed
- the investigation team supposedly found on of the terrorists passports in the wrekage of the wtc.
- the video of the 757 hitting the pentagon was at the wrong speed (if it were correct, the plane would have been going approx. 275-325 mph, which contradicts the reports).
- the damage at the pentagon is not consistant with the damage that should have been there. The windows where the wings were said to hit weren't even broken! Th hole in the back wall is the wrong size (for the fuseloge OR the engines)
- the tapes that recorded the pentagon crash were taken and never returned
- almost no smoke or heat damage to the pentagon despite 8600 galons of burning fuel that wouyld have been left by the 757
- firefighters were told to pull out of building 7 immediataslly before it collapsed, despite the fact it only had a minor fire.

None of these were addressed by the investigators or the 9/11 Commission or the Attorney General.

What should the Attorney General have done? First, instead of locking up every headscarfed Muslim between Boston and West Covina, he would inquire discreetly about every single financial transaction that was made in the two weeks before 9/11, and quickly determine exactly who made the most significant profits. In a very short time he would discover the names of the investors who made millions from those "put" options purchased on United and American Airlines. Ever heard the term "war profiteering"? Those people would be brough in for legal questioning. These people, not being very strong under pressure, would simply fold. Suddenly we would have some names and trails to follow. The FBI and other aronymed people would actually do their jobs and go out and make arrests. Indictments, hundreds of them, for treason, conspiracy to commit mass murder, and obstruction of justice. They would be sentenced, and the "War on Terror" would essentially be over, as it is baseless.

Of course this could only happen with a real Attorney General who worked for all the people and not just the rich. Also, it's important to to remember this could only happen in a legitimate democracy.

Oh, silly me, I forgot a detail. 7 of the 19 people blamed for the hijackings are still alive. Lol. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1559151.stm

Oh that deserves it's own thread in tilted politics or atleast here.

I appreciate that, Obie, but I doubt I'd get any constructive responses. The last time I mentioned it, I was shouted out of the post with things like "stay in paranoia!". It was kinda silly.
A lot of these people believed thast Agent Orange was safe, the Gulf of Tonkin incident really happened, or the young lady (who was working for Hill & Knowlton) who came to Washington to tell the world that babies were being ripped from their incubators by Iraqi soldiers in a campaign to convince Americans that we should start bombing Iraq.

It takes quite a bit to convince people who have forfeited control of reality to our mass media. When you read through my posts in Politics, they have to be riddled with quotes from CNN, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, and BBC news in order to be taken seriously. Do you know how hard it is to seperate truth from BS coming from those sources? This does belong in Politics, but that doesn't mean it would be accepted.

I just do the best I can to prepare people for the truth. :thumbsup:

/thread jack for a sec

willravel you forgot it has to be compared to hitler and hating other races as well :lol:

/end thread jack

That's true!!! You're as observant as ever, ShaniFaye. At least some people know. I'd feel really stupid if I was the only one.

Since you mentioned it, here's a rehash of links to media coverage of 9/11
including an interesting admission about the alleged 9/11 hijackers by FBI
director Mueller....they left no paper trail ! The 9/11 Commission determined
that Osama Bin Laden did not fund the 9/11 attacks. What do we really know ?

visit some of the links that I have compiled here and then
post what you know to be fact about the 9/11 hijackers. Your government has
done a wonderful job of informing the press on this subject..... :lol:

HOLY SHIT, HOST!!! This means that I have enough info, and sources, to finally start building my thread for Politics.
I'll give you full credit for these links when I finish! :thumbsup: !!

That is if you don't disappear, or die in a mysterious plane/car crash before you get the chance. :p

Hahahahaha....heh....huh.....*looks around*

Wow, thanks for the link. I had never thought about that theory occuring at the Pentagon. Not completely convinced but it does raise questions.

Author’s note: Before I begin, I invite you to read the 9/11 Commission Final Report (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/) and the FEMA report on the WTC collapse (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html).

What is a patriot? A patriot is someone who loves and defends his or her country. But what does a patriot defend his or her country from? Usually you hear ‘patriot’ to describe those who defend America in the military, or those who lose their lives for our country. Those 3000 people who died on 9/11 were attacked by an enemy of America, and they will always be considered patriots in my mind.

I love my country. I love the people. I love our Constitution. I love our land. I love our freedom. We live in a country with astronomical potential for good and we are a people with the best intentions. We seek to better ourselves and the world.

As a patriot, I was devastated, just as I’m sure all of you were, by the events of September 11, 2001. I watched in horror as planes crashed into the buildings. I felt numb when shock overtook me as I realized that I had just watched the greatest terror attack in America’s history. I watched the death count and missing persons count rise and my heart broke. Then another plane crashed into the Pentagon. “My God”, I thought, “we are facing a full out attack.” The Word Trade center, the symbol for American strength of economy, and the Pentagon, the symbol for american defense and military, were in ruins.

The healing process never really heals us completely from things like this. To this day, 9/11 is a very sensitive subject, as so many people were hurt by it.

We struck back with mighty force. The al Qaeda networks were torn apart and training camps were atomized by our powerful weapons. We tracked terrorist networks around the world, and brought them to justice.

Justice. Another word that so very much applies to this. We were attacked to the very core. We wanted and deserved justice. The moral punishment for those who had done wrong is what we deserved and still deserve.

This post is about patriotism and justice. This post is about our moral and patriotic obligation to find those who are guilty of attacking us and bring them to justice. This post is about truth.

The following are points that contradict the official report given to us by the American Government and the press. If you are still sensitive to 9/11, please consider hitting the back button, as this may disturb you.

- all of the wreckage from the twin towers was shipped off, sold, and melted down before FEMA or any other investigators could test it.
http://www.s-t.com/daily/09-02/09-10-02/a02wn021.htm
http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stori...01180259.shtml

- a multitude of people were present in the wtc when the planes hit and saw and heard explosions going off, dozens of floors below the plane crash. (there was no combustible fuel in the building beyond the plane fuel):
seismograph readings from 34 km from ground zero http://www.american-buddha.com/sept.15.gif
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/people.html (from a people magazine article that was quickly erased); see Louie Cacchioli
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/jun...gnoredclue.htm bomb sniffing dogs removed from wtc days before attack.
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg interview with firefighters from ny. Warning, profanity.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/report...2004_00091.htm Here's the complete text of the New York Court's decision denying the press' right to access the complete oral histories/interviews taken of firefighters' and other workers about 9/11 as well as access to phone calls made to 911 on that day.

- video evidence shows the building was demolished using explosives, as it is impossible for the heat to be evenly distributed over the entire structure so that it completely melts and collapses all at the same time:
Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001. http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm
In the videos of the collapse (http://911review.org/Wiki/Sept11Videos.shtml) you can see the buildings exploded into fine dust, not collapsed pieces. Also, the buildings come down in about the same time as a free fall (about 15 seconds)- there was no friction of a collapse. This means that the building’s steel reinforcement was all melted to the point of giving at the exact same rate, despite the fact the fires were limited to the upper floors. Also, the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire is insufficient to melt steel. The temperatures measured of the core of the rubble, five days later, exceeded the maximum temperature for a kerosene fire.

- even the FEMA report admits that they are confused and baffled as to how building 7 of the WTC collapsed (as it is riddled with scientific and logistical errors):
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/7collapse.avi, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc-7_1_.gif both show that the building had basically no smoke coming from the building, and it also shows a collapse speed to rival the speeds of the WTC 1 and 2. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, and (as was admitted by FEMA) very little debris actually came in contact with WTC 7.
According to the FEMA report on Building 7, debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. This means the debris had to travel across WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.
Also according to the FEMA report, the backup mechanism (that should have shut off the fuel oil pumps when a breach occurred) failed to work, and the fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the tanks on the ground floor to the fifth floor where it ignited. The pumps emptied the tanks of all 12,000 gallons of fuel.
The extant fires raised the temperature of the spilled fuel oil to the 140 degrees F required for it to ignite. The sprinkler malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire.
The conclusion from FEMA: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”
They would have investigated, but the wreckage was already sold as scrap and was being melted down.

- the investigation team supposedly found one of the terrorists passports in the wreckage of the wtc:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1546927.stm
This is probably the most impossible thing I’ve ever heard. The explosion that created a fireball and crushed the plane and melted one of the best steel reinforced structured in the world allowed a passport to fall gently to the ground. So untouched, in fact, that they could tell who it belonged to!

- the video of the 757 hitting the pentagon was at the wrong speed (if it were correct, the plane would have been going approx. 275-325 mph, which contradicts the reports) and was the wrong size:
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomfive/P...hanalysis1.jpg The Pentagon measures 921.6 feet along each external face, half of this distance, marked on the diagram between the central corridor and the upper-left corner of the Pentagon (cyan) is 460.8' . Take this base measurement as a scale and measure the distance from the rear of the plane in the photo (red dot), along the approximate path of the jet (dark-green line) to the impact point. The distance the tail traveled between frames (heavy red line) is approx. 450', which is just short of the originally estimated 465' or 3 lengths of a 757, which is 155'.
So, 450 feet traveled in 1/30th of a second = 13500 feet/sec. = 2.55 miles/sec. = 153.4 miles/min. = 9204.54 mph = 7997 kts. = Mach 12.11
Even if you alter the path of the jet to a direct (90 degree) impact trajectory, (which introduces other unexplainable issues such as intact light-posts and trees, clearing the embankment, not to mention those anomalous hydro spools) you still end up with a final velocity exceeding Mach 6.

- the damage at the pentagon is not consistent with the damage that should have been there. The windows where the wings were said to hit weren't even broken! The hole in the back wall is the wrong size (for the fuselage OR the engines):
http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.ph...&group=webcast is a good overview.
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pentcrash.jpg shows a very famous picture of how the 757 matches up with the damage. As you and I can plainly see, the wings left no damage to the limestone side of the Pentagon. Now when a plane hits a steel reinforced concrete wall, it is going to be smashed to bits, but the idea that it left no impressions is absurd.
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/crash2a.jpg shows that the smoke to the right of the impact is black versus the smoke coming from the building. Note also that they do not store fuel for the helicopters at the helipad to the right of the picture.
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pi...e-pylons-a.jpg Speaks for itself.
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/wreckage2.jpg Note also that American Airlines does not have a flag of this size on the exterior of their planes. So why does this plane have one?
The Pentagon is one of the most heavily guarded and watched site on the Planet, with some exceptions to perhaps Area 51 and NORAD. With Radar systems capable of tracking objects right down to sea level, Friend or Foe Systems, and Satellite systems, it amazes me that a rogue Boeing 757 could hit the Pentagon with out warning after 2 planes already had hit the World Trade Center. The Pentagon is equipped with the latest State of the Art technology in the War Room.
http://killtown.911review.org/chart.html is a full response chart based on the FAA and NORAD reports.
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pi...n-punchout.gif This is a picture of the inner-most wall. That hole is roughly 16’ wide and 11’ tall. Now each ring of the Pentagon has an outer and inner wall. Each wall is approx. 18" thick. This is steel reiforced concrete. That means that the impact point was 36" of steel reinforced concrete. This means a total of 9' of steel reinforced concrete from entry point in the outer ring, to the exit point of the inside of the inner ring. Could a 757 have punched out a 14-16' wide hole on entry and have pierced 9' total of steel reinforced concrete to make a hole of almost exactly the same dimentions?
Now the nose of a plane is not made of reinforced aluminum or anything of the sort. The nose of a plane (the part that would have been doing the punching) is called a "crashdome". This is the area of the plane that is below and infront of the cockpit; the area that would first impact. This crashdome is where the plane stores electronic navigation equiptment. To enable the transmission of signals, the nose is not made of metal, but carbon. It's shape has been designed to be aerodynamic but it is not crash resistant. The inside casting, as well as its contents, are extremly fragile. The nose would crash on impact with an obstacle, not penatrate it. You NEVER find a nose in a crashsite that involves a head on colision (the type in this case). THEREFORE, it is impossible that this carbon nose punshed a perfect 2.5 yard diameter circular hole in the steel reinforced buildings.

- almost no smoke or heat damage to the pentagon despite 8600 gallons of burning fuel that would have been left by the 757:
http://www.thepowerhour.com/images/9...ages/stool.jpg The roof is still intact and has virtually no fire damage. Notice the computer monitor and stool that the 8600 gallons of fuel were unable to even burn. This picture was published by Time, Newsweek, and People.

I am asking you (the reader) to please refute these. If I am right, this means the foundation of all terrorist military actions over the last 4 years was not only baseless, but there was a deliberate cover-up.

I believe every word that was said in that film. NO WAY IN HELL does a fully fueled 757 do that little damage. I'm a pilot and I see those things every day at work.

The government doesn't represent us anymore. They haven't for a long long time.

Welcome to the first step of seeing the bigger picture, Hardknock. You're not by any means alone. Feel free to ask questions.

It strikes me as funny. Most people don't trust Bushco anymore because of the WMD and Iraq/al Qaeda ties being bullshit. Somehow everyone completly trusts the story about the al Qaeda carrying out the terrorist attacks without question. Maybe it's a matter of tiume before people can finally reflect back and realize what a shotty story we were given.

Have you ever watched the plane hitting the trade center in slo-mo? Looks like a flash of fire when it's still 50 ft from the building.

As a pilot I totally disagree with your statement. I DO know what a plane crash looks like and I can tell you first of all, there would be SOME type of debris left over from the "crash." Aircraft wreckage always leaves SOMETHING behind. Wings, tail, engines, something. A few pieces are always noticeable. Based on that alone, I am led to believe that the gov't is lying to us. (like that's a surprise) I'm willing to be that the aircraft was shot down somewhere over water and the real wreckage is at eh bottom of the Atlantic or at some disclosed location where the gov't went in and very quickly and quietly cleaned it us because everyone's attention was focused on New York, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania.

WOW! I just barely watched the video for the first time, and was completely blown away. I never heard about this theory, but was always suspicious about the events of 9/11. I completely believe everything that was stated in that video. Theres this Philosphy teacher at Long Beach State, who believes that the US government is covering up something as well. He stated that it is common practice for military jets to be scarmbled, whenever a commercial aircraft goes off course or loses contact. On 9/11 four aircrafts lost contact and went off course and not a single military jet was scrambled. I was wondering if anyone here knows this to be true.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

Debunking the 9/11 myths

i wouldnt say debunking.

that article hardly ever links to the evidence it states, so we are left with beliveing what it says. which is not good enough in my opinion. most of the evidence is testimony by someone or other, that is not good enough.

but my favourite line refering to the pantagon incident on page 6 " one wing hit the ground". but it has been seen in many images that there was no damage to the ground, a fact that the article doesnt even try to contradict. a wing hitting the ground at 500mph+ will damage it.

Check out this shockwave video file of a clip from CNN coverage on the morning of 9/11. CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is obvious no plane crashed there.

Clip archived by TheWebFairy.com; from a DVD available on MaeBrussel.com. Transcript by Total911.info:

Jamie McIntyre: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happenm immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.

Comments?

it seems that everytime i hear something new about this, i agree with the latest theory, so i guess u could say i believe some aspects of this

I'd guess... 1 in 5?

As for those that blindly accept the governments propaganda, take note that as a military person, soon to be training in intelligence, *I* don't trust the government 100%. I serve because i love my country, and I'll lie if they tell me to lie for the greater good... but it doesn't mean I TRUST them. In fact, most military personnel I know don't trust the government very much. *shrug*

Nice one. No further comment.

I'm sorry to say it, but that suggests you are open to persuasion and need to do more critical thinking.

It could also suggest that Hampshire is able to have an open mind where others might not. It does, after all, take an open mind to not accept everything you're told.

She plays very good piano, and sings a capella as well. Very talented young lady, that Avril Lavigne.

It was just an attempt to be silly and illustrate a point. You can put in Madonna/Britney/etc. where I said Avril if it helps.

Anything about the dissapearing 757? :confused:

Not really, no. Isn't he doing exactly what you are critiquing? Accepting the latest theory every time? They can't all be right, can they?

Will, I am getting sick and tired of this constant attitude - that anyone who disagrees with you has a closed mind and is some sort of mindless sheep blindly accepting the lies being spoon fed by the military industrial complex.

Stop it.

I was trying to lighten the mood you set. I've read quite a few of Hampshire's posts, and I decided that he was able to keep an open mind and try to apply new information to what he knows. For all you or I know, he has the same thought process as I do, so he would be having as open a mind as I have in this.
Hahaha. "Stop it", eh? Wow. balderdash111, press the back button if you can't take it. I'm hardly forcing you to read and post here. You choose to enter this discussion, so you have to deal with it. Go get over being sick and tired in one of the multitude of wonderful threads in this forum

I will continue to post what I believe so long as it adhears to the rules of TFP. I don't answer to you by any means, therefore I don't think it's your place to tell me what to do.

Do you have anything to post about the Pentagon or 9/11?

Cynthetiq

I wasn't going to post again in this thread (see my edit above), but I thought you deserved an answer.

I strongly support the idea that everyone can express their opinion and, as I myself have done, that included expressing their opinion about someone else's opinion.

However, I personally believe that when people express their opinions in this forum, those who disagree should treat the original posters with the respect to which they are due. I object to willravel's posts not because they are wrong (though I am quite certain they are), nor even because they reveal someone completely comitted to a particular "underground" theory of events despite evidence to the contrary. I object to willravel's post because of his/her condescending "man/woman on a mission" tone. He/she speaks as if those who disagree are unable to have an "open mind" and instead blindly accept the version of events put forth by the government and the "mainstream media."

I suppose I was blunt in my plea for willravel to stop taking that tone, and if anyone (including will) took offense, I apologize for that. However, please understand that my post had nothing to do with me being able to "take it," as willravel suggested. It was an effort to construct a more productive dialog.

I guess I should know better, this being the "Paranoia" forum after all. But I naively assumed that those who posted their theories of events would welcome discussion with those who disagree, rather than be dismissive of opinions that are different from their own.

I'm a dude, so you can change the 'he/she's to 'he's. Also, "Stop it" isn't a plea, it's a demand.

I was not dismissive but adversarial (taking an opposite position) because that is the nature of discussion like this one. You snapped at me, so I suggested a break from this thread.

Hey, dude....

No, you are being dismissive. Honestly, this really isn't about me. I'm voicing my objection to your tone of superiority.

Being adversarial = "I disagree, what about this: ________"

Being dismissive = "I don't care what you think, your opinion is not valid" or, to use your terminology (paraphrasing) "you are not open minded enough to accept the truth."

Anyway, if nobody else minds your tone, so be it. I will leave it as my pet peeve and continue to roll my eyes whenever you do it.

FYI, you may or may not find this interesting: an NITC powerpoint from earlier this month explaining in detail (well, all the detail powerpoint will permit) how and why WTC1 and WTC2 fell.

Sadly, they seem to be delaying their report on WTC7 for now. Read into that what you will (I read limited staff and greater priority being put on the twin towers)

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Publi...0505_final.pdf

*EDIT* Ooh, a better one: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_Part_II...ence_Final.pdf

*EDIT* I stand corrected: here is the powerpoint on WTC7:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%...se%20Final.pdf


Hey will, feel free to self-righteously proclaim the irrelevance of these questions, but I am curious:

how old are you?
what do you do/where do you go to school?
what level of education have you achieved?
if you have a college degree, what was your major?
if you have a post-graduate degree, what is it in?

Feel free to be vague on details if you want. I am not trying to learn your identity.

Let's agree to disagree about my previous tone. From now on I will make a conscious effort to be as far from dismissive as possible (being dismissive would be counter productive anyway).
You're call, I suppose. Tell you what, let me know the next time I say something dismissive.
Well, I'll need to be a bit vague, but I can tell you I am 21, I have my BA in psych and I am on my way to my masters. My mom has been a psychologist for years, so I have plenty of second-hand experience (as well as some disfunction normal to those who have psychologists in their immediate family). I went to Santa Clara U. for my BA, but I cannot tell you where I am getting my Masters, as it would make it very easy to get my identity. I'm married and I have a normal job and a wonderful infant daughter. I'm not a genius, and I'm not an idiot. Most of my friends say I'm clever. I'm also curious by nature.

The 9/11 stuff has been more of a hobby for me, but it's not a passing interest. It's something I am very interested in getting to the bottom of (sorry, linguistics was never a strong point). I'm not trying to piss anyone off. I'm not trying to spread paranoia. I'm not trying to turn everyone against the government or anyone else. I saw something that didn't make sense. I investigated it a bit, and ended up finding a lot more that didn't make sense. Then I happened upon OpieCunningham's post about 9/11 and it escelated from there.

As much as I hate to do this, I'm going to have to respond tomorrow to the NITC stuff. I wanted to respond to your personal questions first (as they are easy to answer), and I want to have time to read over the NITC stuff and formulate a response.

I just can't resist...

Please do try to keep an open mind.

I watched the flash movie again. I still won't believe with 100% confidence that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, but I will believe with 100% confidence that there is a seriously odd lack of information regarding the incident. Honestly...where are the videos?

There's a hundred videos and pictures of the planes crashing in NYC but not a damn pixel of the "plane" crashing into the Pentagon. The only reason I don't believe that it was a missile is due to the fact that I don't know exactly how a plane would behave when crashing into a 5 story wall going hundreds of miles per hour. I know how it *should* behave, but many things in this world never behave as they *should.*

The most frightening aspect of the entire ordeal is a single question: If the Pentagon was hit by a missile, then where the hell did the other plane go...and furthermore, why did the government cover it up? I realize that shooting down a plane would be unbelievably bad "press" for the government, but the US would realize that a horror like the WTC should be prevented when able. It's not like the plane was on the way to Candyland...it was on the way to destroy a government facility with people inside. I believe a choice based on the greater good for the greatest amount of people would not be unreasonable.

-Lasereth

If the Pentagon was hit by a missle:
1. We were attacked by a foreign threat who somehow had a missle and were somehow able to fire it at the Pentagon from the air. This means that they had either a helicopter (more likely) or a jet with missle firing capabilities (much less likely). The legistics of this possibility are astounding. Getting a helicopter isn't easy. Getting a helicopter where security is lax enough to get a missle launcher of some kind on is very difficult, even pre 9/11. Getting that helicopter near the Oentagon without being noticed is realistically impossible.
2. A domestic group or person (terrorist) attacked the Pentagon. Same legistics as the previous, but slightly easier to get a helicoipter.
3. The attack was allowed. Do you remember how long after the WTC crashes the Pentagon happened? It was long enough to scramble fighters. It was long enough for the FAA and NORAD to scramble the fighters to get to DC, NY, Boston, or any other major city in the area.
4. I dunno, maybe it was an attempted coup. Perhaps someone or some people who had access to NORAD, and a slew of other national defences allowed or executed the attacks.

One thing to bear in mind is that there is a lot of video of the *second* plane hitting the WTC, not the first. Only 1 vid of the first that I know of, and that only through the blind luck of a documentary filmmaker who happened to be shooting outside near the site.

Once the 1st plane hit, every camera in NYC was pointed at the towers to catch the drama and thus -coincidentally for the cameramen, perhaps by design for the plotters - the 2nd plane when it hit.

I, for one, am quite convinced that a plane hit the pentagon. Not least because I happen to know someone who was driving right by the Pentagon when it hit, and who saw the whole thing.

It's long gone by now, but he sent to me and a bunch of his friends a fairly long, detailed account of what he saw that morning, and I recall him saying that he saw the plane before it hit and thought to himself something like "shit, that plane is flying low...."

Are you also mmiller0617, or friends with him/her? You're "I was there" claim reminded me of a post by someone with the sn mmiller0617 about how he or she was there on the highway when the projectile, plane, missle, whatever, hit the Pentagon. Of course the story had glaring inacuracies with documented info on the attack, such as thing like debreis on the road (the only debreis on the road were the normal wrappers and newspapers you'll find on Hwy 395). The odds that someone in a community of 50k knows one of the maybe 120 people on that highway at that specific time on that day and that happened to look up when they heard a low flying object are too astronomical to calculate. I'm not dismissing you're claim, but you have to admit that it does beg a lot of trust from people who will probably never meet you in person.

Still going through the NIST stuff, I'll get it to you before the weekend.

Nope, I'm not him/her and we've never met so far as I know. The person I know is not a close friend of mine, but is a very close friend of a circle of friends of mine (they all went to college in DC together), and I have met him a few times in the context of large gatherings of those friends.

So, is it possible that person is lying? Sure, anything is possible.

<cue crickets>

That deadline came and went. Not giving you a hard time b/c I recognize that there is a lot of information to digest there, but wanted to see if you were still looking at this or had just given up.

cricky, you guys are still going at it??

Not really, no. I was just checking in to see if will had had a chance to get through the NIST report. Curious to see if he still thinks the science doesn't support the conclusion that the buildings weren't taken down through demolition.

pocon1, you are guilty of assuming you know everything of the circumstances, all of the information that these decisions to cover up the material were made.

Equating a botched blowjob to a world-wide conspiracy may sound good but it's ridiculous.

In short, I agree with willravel. You are wading in as a layman pretending through "common sense" you can assume the papacy.

Sometimes the shepherd must watch in silence as the sheep pulls the wool over their own eyes.

Sincerest apologies, but I've been away from computers in general for a few weeks. Work required a trip out of the country. I'm back for a very short time. I've only had a chance to skim the report, but I have to say that it sounds like a lot of it was simply repeated from the FEMA investigation. I hope that the NIST can manange to do their own in vestigating and not lean on the shotty investigation that FEMA published. I'm more curious as to how the final report will read. Again, apologies on missing the 'deadline'.

Best explanation i've found...

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/pent...deoframes.html

Further to the comments regariding the whereabouts of the non-existant crater in front of the building, I would like to point people in the direction of this link from a plane that went down in Scotland - The Lockerbie bombing. Admittedly the plane exploded from the inside, then came down, but this is the kind of destruction it does to the ground from the sheer weight of the machine. Notice the HUGE TRENCH and debris littered EVERYWHERE

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/crashdehabsh...erbie%2001.jpg

Fantastic link! That is very good evidence...more evidence to add to the case slowly building. Thanks for keeping an open mind.
I can't say I wish there was a comparable 757 crash to show, but it would certianally help. The 747 that was brought down was around 875,000 pounds, to the Pentagon 757's 255,000 pounds. That means the 747 is about 3.5 times the weight of the 757, which puts a ding in the comparison (this being my 'devil's advocate' response). Still....to have almost no debries and no smoking trench should make it obvious to everyone that this comparison is important.

I don't remember how I was reminded of the Lone Gunman pilot episode, but I recently downloaded it. I remember seeing it, but for some reason keep forgetting about it.

the website that I was reading happened to have this picture and discussion.

i have actually been to the pentagon, and have stood exactly where the wreckage was. now there is a memorial room there, very somber. basicly our tour guide, a coast guard ceremonial guy, pointed out the path of the plane through the window. it banked over arlington cemetary, and actually hit the ground before it hit the pentagon, where there used to be a helipad which isn't there anymore, then it hit the building. So it skipped before actually hitting the wall. This would take a lot of its energy and momentum away so the damage wouldn't be as bad as most people think because they are ignorant to this information. Also the part of the buildling it hit was under renovation being reinforced and strengthend to be bomb proof, so this also limited the damage that it took.

your theory would be true if the forensic teams and whatever that find peoples remains and body parts did not find a single dna from the people who were supposed to be on the plain. i don't work for the faa so i don't know how well bodies survive these types of crashes, but if i were you and i wanted to prove the missle thing, i would investigate into this matter.

Thank you for posting. I hope you will look at the photos of the crash that were taken immediatally after. I may have missed it, but I don't remember seeing any sign of impact before it actually hit the side of the building.

Most of the information has long since been classified.

I saw this video and thought of this thread.

It's not an answer to all your questions, but it does answer some.
Yes, aircraft can atomise on impact.
Yes, the govt has tested for aircraft impact. In this case an F4 into the wall of a nuclear plant.
http://media2.big-boys.com/bbfiles/concreteplane1.wmv

Interesting thread, but I'm afraid in this instance I'm going to have to apply Occam's Razor. If the easiest explanation is that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon, then I believe it.

Concerning the 'nosecone' and the hole punched through... nobody said that a plastic nosecone punched through that interior wall. All they said is that a hole was made. Kinetic energy, concrete, debris could easily have been propelled fast enough to do something like that without the plane actually physically blasting through. Think about Newtonian laws of motion.

The Pentagon had just finished rennovations to contain fire, and explosions. We're not talking about the drywall and steel interior of the WTC's here. We're talking about basically an above ground bunker with steel-reinforced concrete.

When people attempt to do comparisons, they try to avoid naming the actual object. For instance 'that tornado sounded like a freight train!' It would be silly to say 'that tornado sounded like a tornado'. Plus, I doubt that many people actually know what a missile sounds like. I'm sure it probably doesn't sound like a movie missile, since movie gunshots sound nothing like real gunshots.

Like it was said before, airplanes are made to fly. They aren't made to be bunker busters. Remember the flight in Florida that crashed into the Everglades in a virtually nose-down position? Very little of that plane was found, and it certainly didn't burn up, and it crashed into mud, not concrete.

The world doesn't always conform to our expectations. So sometimes, our expectations must conform to the world.

Oh, and before I go, dismissing someone's argument and saying 'You just don't have an open mind' isn't real good sportmanship. Because what you're basically doing is saying that their arguments aren't worth your time, and thus, closing your mind to their side. And that doesn't benefit anyone.

When the facts are in contrast to what you mighty consider the easiest explaination, it ceases to be the most likely explaination and thus Occam no longer applies.
But why was it so curcular? The simplest answer is something that is cylindrical and very, very hard. Occcam says: a missle is the most likely reason, not coincedental debreis.
Then what was able to puncture clear though all the rings and create that infamous hole?
Agreed. The people sayting it sounded like a missle is far from proof.
Don't you think the wing of a plane hitting the side of a building would break the glass?
It is possible, and not improbable, that our government has the want, the means, and the testicular fortitude to lie to us. Is it not reasonable to include that in drawing conclusions about what we hear from them?
Circular time...but aren't you dismissing someone simply because they dismissed someone else? Just kidding.
If you click the paranoia buttton, you should know that anything and everything you read will require an open mind. That being said, I welcome any sceptics (or realists, if you prefer).

Your 'facts' are merely questions, not facts. All you really have is a series of questions. They are very interesting questions, but I think the majority of them can be answered through reasonable means without resorting to a government coverup (which we have seen by past events, generally don't turn out that well).


No, Occam's wouldn't suggest a missile here. The simplest explanation is that when you have a 155' tube striking a building at 350 mph, generally the kinetic force is going to propel debris forward in a circular pattern. It doesn't need to actually punch the hole itself. The debris that it imparts its energy upon can do that.

I don't know what kind of glass it was. Some glass, yes. There are a lot of these little details that the very interesting questions leave out. You describe 'glass' and think household window glass. This wasn't necessarily household window glass, and could very well have been bullet-proof glass.

The questions also leave out the question of the angle of energy of the plane itself. If it was at a downward angle, and it was hardened glass, it could have been hit with very little of the kinetic energy from the plane itself.

Again, there are too many details in the event that merely asking questions doesn't really lead to answers. "Why didn't the glass break?" may seem like a very simple question and lead to some very speculative answers, but there are many details in the answer that a casual speculator wouldn't even consider. There are a lot of assumptions in the question, in other words.

You may believe so, but I don't. The size and scope of the cover-up in this case (something that happened in front of many many witnesses) is too large , really. Nixon couldn't cover up something that happened in his office in front of 3 people, Reagan couldn't cover up his dabblings in Central America, and Clinton couldn't cover up what happened in his office between him and Monica, even though the door was mostly closed.

Ahh, but I'm not the one that accused someone else of not having an open mind simply because someone disagreed with me. It's possible for me to hear the argument, consider it, and then dismiss it and still retain an open mind. The previous accuser considered that simply because somebody dismissed their claims they must not have an open mind. Therefore, they do not have an open mind enough to consider the possibility that the accusee actually DOES have an open mind, and yet still rejected their claims.

Do ya follow? ... :)

One thing that makes me wonder now that you guys mention 'missile'.
You do know that most missiles use solid propellant right?
And that propellant gets used up in the first few seconds of flight. At least with AA missiles. The missile uses its kinetic energy for the remainder.

For a missile to still sound like its engine is stll roaring its got to be fired from pretty close to the target.

A US military vehicle firing a missile of whatever guidance towards the Pentagon would draw immediate attention to itself.

Also, there's only a few missiles big enough to be considered as large as the ones from peoples' accounts. The Phoenix is one, but is AA and moves at Mach 4, the others would be anti ship missiles and they require a sophisticated firing platform too.

How many years has it been now?

I can't believe this thread is still alive.

A plane was crashed into the Pentagon. Deal with it people.

Sheesh...


Mr Mephisto

There is an old expression: pictures don't lie. Some of the facts I speak of come from those pictures born of the September 11 massacres. Look at those pictures. They are scattered all over this and the other three 9/11 threads. The computer screen that survived the crash into the Pentagon speaks in volumes. That is just one such fact.
Are you sure? Can you say that with certianty? Or are you guessing?
You give bullet-proof glass a lot of credit. Call a local glass company and ask them if a bullet proof glass could possibly survive an airplane crash at plus or minus 350 mph.
We had the official released video. We know the downward angle. Those four little frames show the official government story.
Of course. At the end of the day many questions will never have answers. It's only the important ones that need answers. How did the WTC North and South collapse? Where was the debris at the Pentagon? Why was the investigation of the WTC impeeded when the metals were shipped off before the FEMA team was finished and before any formal investigation could happen? Why are those who were blamed for the 9/11 attacks still being found alive? Where is the proof we were promised (see Condaleeza Rice's speech after 9/11) that implicates OBL, the al Qaeda, and those heald responsible? Why did so many claim to hear bombs going off in the WTC immediatally before it's collapse? Why did the collapse produce puff lines normally associated with controled demolition? Why would anyone leave Jennifer Aniston (because this thread is often way too serious)?
More people were directly effected. Let me put it this way. How many people KNEW there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I'm not talking about government officials, I mean normal people. How many normal, average Americans knew there were WMDs in Iraq? I'd guess at it's peak it was over three quarters of the populous. How easy was it to simply plant the idea back in 2001, then nurture tthe idea and watch it take root and very soon it is considered to be fact? Turns out that either the government was lying, or the government was incompetent. One way or the other, they and we were wrong. How did we find out that we were wrong? It came out long after the war that it caused. It came out after it served it's purpous. Then it came out relatively quietly, and very few peope seemed to care. Bush won the election, despite leading America into war that killed thousands of innocent civilians and our own soldiers based on either faulty information or lies.
I follow. How can you be 100% sure of someone's intent without telepathy? I usually have an open mind, save for entertainment gossip. All I did was ask people to have an open mind, because it clearly takes an open mind to consider this thread seriously. There are those who will simply post every once in a while and say something like "You're all nuts. It was a plane" without any argument or proof of consideration. It is towards those who I direct my request to keep an open mind. At least consider it seriously, as those who are involved in this conversation are pretty serious about what we're talking about. It is a matter of showing respect to the conversation, and thus to those conversing.

I'm jumping in late and not reading the 7 pages of debate preceding this, so forgive me for any reiteration.

First off, in regards to the video a grainy still and some uneducated opinions do not a solid body of evidence make. Yes, several of the eyewitnesses have commented that it sounded like a missle. Have any of those witnesses actually heard a missle, or a 757 at that range? And as to the size, it's very difficult to make an accurate guess at the size of a plane going 350 mph, especially when it's juxtaposed against the sky, as you have no frame of reference and therefore can't tell if the planes 100 yards away or 1000. These aircraft are incredibly loud and due to that may have lead some of the witnesses to believe that the plane was much nearer than it actually was.

Next, forensic analysis of the crash (lifted from interviews of private firms in Popular Mechanics, not done by me). First, the windows. These aren't bullet proof windows, they're blast proof. This is a much stronger type of window designed to withstand the force of a bomb going off next to the building. The windows in the area directly struck by the plane were destroyed, but windows on the upper level were well able to handle the force caused by the hit.

Next, the hole. This was not made by a 757, nor was it made by the nose cone. In actual fact, the hole was made by a landing strut; this is backed up by images of the area between the rings where a rim with the NTSB mandated double bead design for passenger aircraft was found.

The plane, a comparatively light passenger aircraft not designed to withstand any collision more rigourous than birdstrike, struck the wall of the pentagon, a structure designed to withstand immense amounts of force. The plane was travelling at approximately 350 mph, which translates to a lot of kinetic energy; excuse me for not doing the calculations. This energy caused the aircraft to disintegrate; unlike a crash into the ground where the plane may divert some of it's kinetic energy by skidding along the earth (digging up wide furrows like the ones shown in the movie), this aircraft struck the Pentagon with nearly all of it's forward momentum intact. That momentum wasn't sufficient to cause the plane, signifigantly less structurally sound of the two objects to punch through the Pentagons walls, although the solid steel landing strut was able to sufficiently concentrate the energy behind it to puncture several rings. The rest of the energy, having nowhere to go, tore the plane apart. There was a lot of wreckage on site, although none is clearly visible in the images on the movie. Observe:

http://www.news.navy.mil/management/...-6157F-001.jpg

This image shows debris from the plane scattered across the Pentagon lawn, the nearest piece clearly bearing the airline markings.

Case Closed. :thumbsup:

What does this mean? America did this?

The conclusion is objective. My conclusion based on the facts might be different than yours. In actuality, I still haven't drawn a conclusion yet, though I have my suspicians.

Could America have done this? Well...citizens of the United States might have been in on what happened, if that's what you mean. It's even possible that members of the government and intelligence organizations were in on it. It's more likely that they were incompetent, in my eyes. The only real 'evidence' that the government was in on it were the ridiculous 9/11 commission and FEMA reports. But, again, they might simply be signs of gross incompetence. This wouldn't be the first time the government was incompetent, and it wouldn't be the last.

Hunt the Boeing
 

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...erreurs_en.htm

Can you find the Boeing? :thumbsup:

Wow, what a mix of interesting questions with ones with absolutely no common sense.

Picture 3 (from the lawn of the damaged building) - no debris from the plane on the lawn? Wow, a plane moving 500 mph (or so) hit the ground floor and there's no debris from the plane on the lawn? Hmm, simple physics would seem to dictate that all the debris would keep traveling forward with the rest of the plane... Why would there be debris at the front of the building?

Picture 4 (showing sand and gravel being spread on the front lawn) - why would the contractor spread sand and gravel across the grass? It's standard procedure to do so with heavy machinery moving back and forth. It keeps the machinery from sinking into mud and muck. Cranes are expensive, and you want to make sure they don't tip over when they're lifting something. How is this evidence of a conspiracy?

old and busted. What is this like the 18th thread on the "disappearing boeing" or something? What ever happend to the good old days of alien abductions and whatnot?

I agree. I pine for the days of lacidasily wondering who was on the grassy knoll and those rainy days spent by the fire discussing how the aliens built the Pyramids. :D

But if a plane indeed hit the building why is the facade of thebuilding still intact. a Boeing 767 is over 150 feet wide and over 40 feet tall, why are there still windows still intact right where the plane allegedly struck the building.

Because in the first picture the hole is hidden by the smoke and in the second the building has collapsed around it. Again, common sense.

But the hole itself is small. Its like pushing a fist through the opening of a soda can. Some plane wreckage has to be somewhere, and the wings possibly did get clipped as it entered the building, but where did they go. If fire trucks are first on the scene then we should see those wings, landing gear, etc. on the outside of the building. right?
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

Again, simple physics would dictate that the wings would be sheared off, and if they didn't penetrate the hardened concrete, they aren't going to go backwards, which is what they would be doing if they ended up on the lawn. There's also the issue that if anything was flung backwards, the energy needed to change the trajectory 180 degrees is going to be high enough that any pieces are going to have to be necessarily tiny. Large pieces would have been torn completely apart.

okay and the fact that they did not find any luggage, seats or other pieces of the fuselage is questionable. If they were able to retrieve and reassemble parts of flight 93 and flight 800 which both crashed at the bottom of the ocean, why could they not do that to any of the four planes that crashed on this day

You've never taken a physics course, have you? Flight 800, according to the report, had a midair explosion of a fuel tank according to the official report. Regardless, all witnesses reported that the plane broke apart. That means that the fuselage was unpowered, or at least significantly underpowered to make no difference. The pieces immediately began to slow down as air resistance took effect. Terminal velocity at sea level is roughly 150 mph (I don't remember exactly), although it would be higher at a higher altitude. Regardless, their speed of roughly 450 mph (remember that Flight 800 was a heavier plane that was climbing at the time of the incident) would be reduced fairly quickly, although I don't think that they would slow to terminal velocity by time of impact. My point? The fact that they found bigger pieces of Flight 800 than the flight that hit the Pentagon is irrelevant because the two planes were moving at much different speeds, hit different surfaces and had different forces acting upon them.

Luggage and seats are going to burn pretty well at 2000 degrees, and I seem to recall the building burning for a couple of days. What part of your luggage is going to survive just 1 hour at 2000 degrees?

As far as the fuselage, remember that this is a plane running at full power doing maximum speed (estimated at 550 mph by the website you linked) hitting at an oblique angle. Basically the entire plane went from doing 550 mph to 0 mph in less space than it's body length. Given that the Pentagon was originally designed to withstand aerial attack, it's not surprising that it had hardened walls. The stresses involved would have shredded just about any material - and then you got the fuel detonation behind that.

Again, this is basic physics and there's no mystery here.

Nope I've never taken a physics course. For a building that had temperatures of 2000 degrees roaring through a portion of it, I'm surprised that there wasn't further damage on the offices right next to the collapsed wall (as seen in the presentation on http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk).

The below link is a videoclip from CNN shows reporter Jamie Mcintyre, making some very surprising statements, "From my close up inspection, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon..."

http://letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/files/documents/Cnn.Pentagon.Jamie.Mcintyre.swf

Also 2 of the named hijackers, still on the FBI list as perpetrators, named by the FBI and still on their list as those responsible, or Khaled al Mihdhar and Salem al-Hazmi are both Alive and well! Don't need a physics course for that one.

Also on www.letsroll911.org, they have a demonstration of the power of a airliner's jet engine and how it can push objects for a great distance.
http://www.letsroll911.net/images/simulation.mpeg

They used this demonstration to pose the question as to why those wire spools still are sitting close to the building if a jet engine just roard past them and into the building.

Also the actual hole in the building, prior to it collapsing was about 14ft by 16 ft. Which is less than have the size of the plane's width and height.

Given that you know for a fact that these are the same two individuals named by the FBI and not folks that share a common name, I'm sure that the FBI would love to talk to you to get a better idea of where these two guys are. :D

A quick google of my own names turns up the fact that I'm a former member of the New York Rangers and current playing for a minor league team in Canada but that I also recently published an anthropology textbook, that I died in 1879, 1936 and most recently in 1983 and entire site on wild hog hunting (actually my third cousin who I thought spelled his name differently but apparently doesn't) along with the actual information about the real me.

That demonstration is lots of fun, and it's even accurate. However, the assumption is that the engines approached from an angle that would effect the spools. The spools in question were never in play.

As far as the hole in the building, that's not surprising at all. The concrete is going to "give" as little as possible and try to make sure that the plane fits through the smallest hole possible. You could squeeze me through an entire keyhole if you applied enough force - or make an entire jetliner go through a 14' x 16' hole.

BTW - I revised my post #10 to make it clearer. I didn't like the way it read.

Let's have a quick recap, for those of you just joining this thread.
Carry on. :D

Wrong!

/shuffles off to the corner to self-reflect on apparent closemindedness

Howard Johnson is right!

Given the record of contact between the plane via cell phone calls from hijacked passengers, I'd have to guess if it was something other than a massive cover-up. And why would they go to the trouble of covering it up instead of just saying, "yeah, some guy with a truck fulla juice blowed it up"?

And why would Ted Olson sacrifice his wife?

Wow.
The_Jazz has some of the best arguments I think I've ever seen on Tilted Paranoia.
Nice work!

I've got too many projects sitting on my desk that will take longer than I have left before I leave, so I get to revisit this. Yay, me! More wrongwrongwrong! as Redlemon so accurately put it.

Collapse is a result of structural damage, not fire. One may contribute to the other but not necessarily. The Pentagon apparently has an efficient fire suppression system that extenguished some of the smaller, peripheral fires. You'll note that there wasn't an absence of fire damage, which is not the same as the "further damage".

OK, let's look at a similar crash - well, similar in some respects. Flight 585 in 1991 in Colorado Springs was a 737 that flipped upside down and crashed at a near-verticle angle. The plane that hit the Pentagon hit at a near horizontal angle, and I think that we can discount the force of gravity as having any real role to play here other than trying to calculate 585's speed. The 737 was intact with engines at high speed as the pilots were trying to recover. I think that its safe to say that the plane was moving at least 550 mph when it impacted, and possibly higher. Acording to the NTSB, the impact left a crater 39 feet wide in a media (earth) softer than the hardened concrete of the Pentagon. It was also only 15 feet deep. The question then becomes the meansurement of the hole - typically craters are measured from high point to high point. There's also the physics of cratering, which basically means that the neighboring material is pushed to the point that it rebounds and turns into ejecta. With the Pentagon, there wouldn't be any true cratering because of the fundamental makeup of the building - it had rooms, so most would-be ejecta is going to flow in that direction. Fracturing would be contained by the room structure itself - you see that if you try to punch a honeycomb.

I now owe Mr. Domkowski an apology for telling him that I'd find a practical application for his class!

Oh, and to my FBI monitors who are obviously paying me to keep the lid on the real data on the crash, your check is late. Pay up before I start posting what actually happened on TFP Paranoia! You know, the truth that Bigfoot and Dracula, in conjuction with the Rand Corporation, piloted the plane into the building to try to get the Knights Templar and the Jews to stop exercising their absolute power over the media and Hollywood and put "Matlock" back on the air.