xepherys

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*

balderdash111

Nice one. No further comment.

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

balderdash111

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

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

Willravel

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.

kramus

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

__________________
And now to disengage the clutch of the forebrain ...
I'm going with this - if you like artwork visit http://markfineart.ca

Willravel

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?

balderdash111

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.

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

Willravel

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 don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

balderdash111

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.

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

Willravel

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.

balderdash111

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.

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

Willravel

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.

balderdash111

I just can't resist...

Please do try to keep an open mind.

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

Lasereth

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

Willravel

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.

balderdash111

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...."

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

Willravel

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.

balderdash111

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.

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

balderdash111

<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.

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

Lebell

cricky, you guys are still going at it??

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

balderdash111

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.

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

hrandani

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.

hrandani

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

Willravel

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'.

fastom

Best explanation i've found...

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

paulskinback

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

__________________
'Everything that can be invented has been invented.- - 1899, Charles Duell, U.S. Office of Patents.

'There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.' - Ken Olson, 1977, Digital Equipment Corporation

Willravel

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.

Cynthetiq

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 don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

pwrinkle

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.

Willravel

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.

WillyPete

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

KingOtter67

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.

__________________
KingOtter
You can't push on a rope.

Willravel

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).

KingOtter67

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? ...

__________________
KingOtter
You can't push on a rope.

WillyPete

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.

Mephisto2

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

Willravel

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.

Martian

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:



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

stevo

Case Closed.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser