Did a plane really hit the pentagon?

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Dissident
although you have to wonder how the pilot was skilled enough to get the plane that low without actually landing the plane on its belly.

Step 1: Excelerate

Step 2: Get low.....hug the ground. Remember your flight training!

Step 3: Kaboom and Die..

[Velociryx]

Just off the top of my head, and in regards to the Pentagon site, here are some questions I have:

1) Where IS the plane? Where's the debris field? The wings? The tail? ANYTHING?!

2) Where's the dug up portions of the lawn? After all, the official story is that the plane fell short of the building by a few yards and then hit....so....where's the trough?

3) How is it that a plane 2-3 stories high can only cause impact damage (regardless of the angle of impact) on the first floor of the building?

4) Why WAS only the outer ring damaged? This is nowhere NEARLY consistent with the damage patterns we saw from the WTC.

5) Whatever became of the AP report of the truck and bomb?

Inquiring minds wanna know.....

-=Vel=-

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Grrr
I am by now becoming pretty sure that 9-11 is a load of bull ****.

Both the pentagon and the WTC were destroyed by the US government in the largest conspiracy to date.

For instance, why is there no debris on the lawn. A plane explodes in all directions.

Why did the WTC collapse appear EXACTLY like a controlled demolishion.

You are joking right? ?
Planes do not explode in all directions. Planes are not meant to explode at all so they aren't certainly aren't designed to explode in such a way that the shrapnel is scattered in all directions.
Hand grenades are examples of devices designed to explode in (almost) all directions and not all of these.

The WTC collapse appeared exactly like a controlled demolition because it was. The terrorists analysed the buildings structural design in advance and targetted the most vulnerable points they could in a specific effort to take the building down.

LOL@Bob

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Dad now works in the DIA, and knows a couple things that would make your head spin.

How would you know?

If he told you, he broke the rules. If he didn't, you are just making things up.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Just off the top of my head, and in regards to the Pentagon site, here are some questions I have:

1) Where IS the plane? Where's the debris field? The wings? The tail? ANYTHING?!

Do you know the probability of a conspiracy here? Almost none... Every had a jet fuel fire? Christ sakes...nothing survives.

2) Where's the dug up portions of the lawn? After all, the official story is that the plane fell short of the building by a few yards and then hit....so....where's the trough?

It didnt hit the lawn. The media orignally reported a helo crash because at the time. Nobody knew what the hell happened. No pictures existed. And apparently...no one saw a plane. It was *assumed* because that was the weapon of choice that day. And it was pretty clear that what it was. And only a few eyewitnesses were around. But rumours were so easy to spread that day.

3) How is it that a plane 2-3 stories high can only cause impact damage (regardless of the angle of impact) on the first floor of the building?

Huuh? An entire secton got taken out.

4) Why WAS only the outer ring damaged? This is nowhere NEARLY consistent with the damage patterns we saw from the WTC.

Your wrong Vel. It went through two sectons.It is also the fact the Pentagon wasnt made of Glass...and thin steel beams. It was made of Concrete and Granite.

5) Whatever became of the AP report of the truck and bomb

Rumours were really easy to spread that day. I can still remember at work "Oh they knocked over the seattle tower" "LAX is under attack". AP reported it, it was false. Somebody had called in a hoax explosion.

[Dis]

and the most important question of all:

if the 4th plane didn't hit the Pentagon, where is it? Where are the passengers?

let me guess... area 51.

stupid conspiracy theorists.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ravagon
The WTC collapse appeared exactly like a controlled demolition because it was. The terrorists analysed the buildings structural design in advance and targetted the most vulnerable points they could in a specific effort to take the building down.

You gotta be jesting.

The spots the terrorists hit weren't even close to "most vulnerable points."

Those are where most loads were being supported, i.e., in the lowest basement around the core and the columns.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by faded glory
Step 2: Get low.....hug the ground. Remember your flight training!

You're talking about a commercial airliner, not a light plane.

You don't even start to comprehend the problems involved.

[faded glory]

WTC collapse was pretty fvckin simple. The floors pancaked on one another. Thats the only reason they collapsed inward. The Hot jet fuel softened the Steel floor beems (not the structural) and all the wieght of the floors above began to pile on 1 floor below the crash. Eventually it couldnt take it. Both collapses happened like this.


There were no Demo charges

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You're talking about a commercial airliner, not a light plane.

You don't even start to comprehend the problems involved.

They trained how to fly commercial planes. It would be just like landing and accelerating


Pilots do it all the time when they land.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


How would you know?

If he told you, he broke the rules. If he didn't, you are just making things up.

::shrugs:: He hasn't told me anything, other than "The Government as done enough weird Crap to not take the blame for this one."

As I trust my Father, I believe him.

[Velociryx]

Faded...have a look at the aeriel photo on the link provided at the start of this thread. You can see where the damage is....the Pentagon is constructed in layered rings....only the outermost of those is damaged. True, and entire section OF the outer layer is damaged, but no more.

Also, the WTC wasn't constructed out of paper machet, but it got REAMED!

In another photo on that link, you can see an *entirely intact* section of the upper floors of the pentagon, where it collapsed onto the hole...no impact damage at all....it just fell in. There should have been damage there, but there's none.

Wierd....

-=Vel=-

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You gotta be jesting.

The spots the terrorists hit weren't even close to "most vulnerable points."

Those are where most loads were being supported, i.e., in the lowest basement around the core and the columns.

WTC was not made like the normal buildings. It was made with economy and hieght in mind. A system called "Legs" were used. Im not 100% sure of the details. But its what caused the collapse. The leg beams couldnt take the heat and began to crash and fall off onto the floors below.

There is no conspiracy here,

You can see this on TV when the camera's pan to the holes in the WTC. You can see these things peel one bye one and flaming debris fall.

[Lonestar]

Just like to remind everyone here that the Pentagon was built in WW2 along as "Blockhouse" bombresistant building. Especially as they whacked the section that just got done renovating, you shouldn't be surprised that the damage was "So little".

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by faded glory
Do you know the probability of a conspiracy here? Almost none... Every had a jet fuel fire? Christ sakes...nothing survives.

First of all, nobody was speaking of a conspiracy except you people.

Secondly, parts of airplanes have always survived crashes. In fact the usual procedure is to attempt resconstruct as much of the airplane as possible to determine the cause of the crash. I have never ever seen an airplane crash with no derbises left.

Originally posted by faded glory
It didnt hit the lawn.

So the plane hit the ground floor without hitting the lawn, all from somebody who had a bit of training at a flight school, who wasn't trained to fly large jets like these?

Originally posted by faded glory
The media orignally reported a helo crash because at the time. Nobody knew what the hell happened. No pictures existed. And apparently...no one saw a plane. It was *assumed* because that was the weapon of choice that day. And it was pretty clear that what it was. And only a few eyewitnesses were around. But rumours were so easy to spread that day.

That's the whole point. In the WTC attack people saw planes coming in. Where is the plane, or what's left of it, in this case?

Originally posted by faded glory
Huuh? An entire secton got taken out.

Not initially. The upper floors collapsed later in the fire.

Originally posted by faded glory
Your wrong Vel. It went through two sectons.It is also the fact the Pentagon wasnt made of Glass...and thin steel beams. It was made of Concrete and Granite.

Only the outer ring was damaged. Now if I were a terrorist I'd aim to do the most damage as possible. The approach taken doesn't seem to be it.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Also, the WTC wasn't constructed out of paper machet, but it got REAMED!

No. But it was not built to sustain a 727, and a 4,000 degree jet fire that was so hot Hollowed and incinerated out 8 floors.

Had those planes hit the ESB. They would of bounced right off. Because ESB is made of granite. (just thought I would throw that in for fun )

[Grrr]

Originally posted by ravagon
The WTC collapse appeared exactly like a controlled demolition because it was. The terrorists analysed the buildings structural design in advance and targetted the most vulnerable points they could in a specific effort to take the building down.

If I was one of those terrorists I'd make the building fall over, that would do a LOT more damage.

[Velociryx]

Let me be quick to reiterate here. I'm not saying I'm firmly in the conspiracy theorist camp....I'm just saying there are QUESTIONS....valid questions given the body of evidence.

But nobody wants to talk about them.

That's odd to me, and makes me MORE suspicious. Generally, if someone doesn't wanna talk about something, it's cos they're something to...hide?

-=Vel=-

[Dis]

nobody answered my question.

where is the 4th plane?

Until I see parts of the 4th plane elsewhere I'm inclined to believe it crashed into the pentagon.

plus in the news after the attacks they discussed pulling small bits of the plane out.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by faded glory
WTC collapse was pretty fvckin simple. The floors pancaked on one another. Thats the only reason they collapsed inward. The Hot jet fuel softened the Steel floor beems (not the structural) and all the wieght of the floors above began to pile on 1 floor below the crash. Eventually it couldnt take it. Both collapses happened like this.


There were no Demo charges

If only the steel floor beams were weakened it was rather hard for the entire building to collapse. The load of the building was supported by the structural steel frame and the core. Steel floor beams suported only the load of indivdual floors. They didn't support the loads of the floors above.

Suppose the floor beams on the floor that was struck was weaken enough, all that would happen was part of that floor would collapse down to the one below it.

[Velociryx]

Tell you where it wasn't....it wasn't on the lawn of the pentagon.....not even fragments? That's pretty stunning. The plane that didn't hit anything had a debris field five miles long.....there shoulda been SOMETHING...tail section on the lawn....but...nada.

So that's an excellent question, I think.

Where'd it go?

-=Vel=-

[Dis]

it was edited with photoshop. I'm sure there was debris. the pentagon had the enlisted personnel clean it up.

[Velociryx]

But the links to the source photos are the exact same way...and when the pics were taken, there hadn't yet been time for that kinda cleanup....it's just...odd, I think.

-=Vel=-

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by faded glory
They trained how to fly commercial planes. It would be just like landing and accelerating

Pilots do it all the time when they land.

I am not sure how many air trips have you taken. It takes a lot of preparations and time to land correctly. Even with all the precautions accidents still happen from time to time, and we're talking about highly skilled pilots with lots of flight time.

I found it rather implausible for a person with limited training in the wrong sort of aircraft to be able to fly a large jet the way he supposedly did.

[Velociryx]

The oddest thing to me is this:

One of two things HAD to happen. Either the plane came down in the lawn in front of the building and plowed into it (which would explain impact damage on just the first floor...MAYBE) but then would have left the front lawn torn to hell and back, OR

The plane hit the building dead on....no torn up lawn, but it would have caused impact damage on more than the first floor.

-=Vel=-

[Dis]

This thread really bothers me. I don't give a fu*k about damage to the building

First of all why would they cover this up?

One reason is the air force used F-16's or F-15's to blow the airliner up. But then where are the eyewitness accounts of debris falling from the sky (there were eyewitnesses in Pennsylvania). The east coast is highly populated. You don't have remote regions as in the west. There are hicks that live in every nook and cranny of the east coast including the mountains.

If the air force didn't destroy the plane, then were is it. Why are they covering it up? We know for sure the plane was hijacked. The FAA confirmed this.

Second of all, if the plane didn't do the damage then what did? There was no time to engineer an attack on the pentagon using other means. The pentagon has no explosive. Who knows how far away the nearest weapons station is (I know of one in eastern maryland near the bay). The pentagon didn't have time to blow up their own building.

What if a truck bomb did blow up the building? Why cover this up? There is no reason.

The only other explanation is the Pentagon was accidently blown up. By what? Missles from a F-15? There is too much damage for that.

This whole f*cking thing is whacked. Why would anyone entertain this conspiracy theory.

I could see believing in pearl harbour being know of and the moon landings. Because there is motive for both of those conspiracies. But what of this one?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by faded glory
WTC was not made like the normal buildings. It was made with economy and hieght in mind. A system called "Legs" were used. Im not 100% sure of the details. But its what caused the collapse. The leg beams couldnt take the heat and began to crash and fall off onto the floors below.

IIRC it's just a regular skyscrapper with steel structural frame and a large inside core.

Originally posted by faded glory
You can see this on TV when the camera's pan to the holes in the WTC. You can see these things peel one bye one and flaming debris fall.

In other words, exactly like ones caused by a controlled demolition.

[Velociryx]

I dunno dude...but the fact is that the damage pattern to the pentagon are not consistent with the story.

There should either be a torn up front lawn OR impact damage to more than one floor. Possibly both.

There's not.

Why not?

I dunno.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do not see how the present accounting of events can cause the damage shown in the photographic evidence.

I'm not saying it was a conspiracy, I'm saying it's....very strange.

-=Vel=-

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by faded glory
No. But it was not built to sustain a 727, and a 4,000 degree jet fire that was so hot Hollowed and incinerated out 8 floors.

Huh? The fire wasn't 4000 degrees, not even in Fahenheit. It was about 800-900°C. If jet fuel fires are that hot than there's no need for things such as the arc torch.

It didn't appear to have incinerated 8 floors, either.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You gotta be jesting.

The spots the terrorists hit weren't even close to "most vulnerable points."

Those are where most loads were being supported, i.e., in the lowest basement around the core and the columns.

I did say the most vulnerable points they could




Grrr, making a building "fall over" in the sense you mean was beyond their ability to accomplish with airliners. They would have had to eliminate a substantial lateral portion of one of the lowest floors (basically like cutting a tree down with an axe) or exert greater pressure (Note pressure, not force) on the upper regions of one face of the building (like a sailing boat capsizing).