Did a plane really hit the pentagon?

[Dis]

and did anyone stop to think most of the debris from the plane ended up inside the building? . and there were no pictures of that, it was a classified area after all. planes don't explode like a grenade

[Velociryx]

Yep...Dis makes a good point, and I absolutely thought about that! It's quite likely that if the plane did NOT hit the ground first, then it would have plowed into the building and somehow (not likely, but POSSIBLY) every bit of it wound up inside the building.

Trouble with that is this:

The plane is 15 yards high....45 feet. That's at least three, verging on four stories high.

Now EVEN IF the plane impacted the building at its base, there's NO WAY the photo COULD look like it does in photos three and six on the site mentioned at the start of the thread.

See that long stretch of intact flooring? ALL of that should be impact damaged if the plane did NOT hit the ground first.

All of it.

It's not, which raises a question in my mind.

As to vast conspiracy theories....I will admit that I enjoy reading them, but I'm not a believer.

I DO, however, think that there are serious questions out there, the answers to which are being artfully (and sometimes not-so-artfully) dodged.

Why is that?

That's the crux of the matter, for me.

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Umm... I watched TV pretty much all day on 9-11 (they sent us home from work) and I remember some debris. Not a LOT, but definitely debris. Like Dissident says, it's likely that most of the plane ended up inside the building. I've never seen the Pentagon close up, but it's a pretty big building, and awfully solid. If the aircraft hit low and plowed in, most of the wreckage would be all jumbled up with the building debris.

Like Vel and others, the direction Bush and Co. are heading in alarms me, but frankly I don't think there was any conspiracy related to the Pentagon plane attack.

-Arrian

[Zealot]

That's funny, because I also saw the whole events on that day on CNN, since I was at home the whole day, and I really didn't see any debries from anything that wasn't part of the building!

Now that Vel mentions the size of the plane, and after seing the photos, I'm really freaking out, because there's no way, and let me put in bold, NO WAY that a Boeing crashed the Pentagon. Live with it, don't live with it, I don't care.
There's a Boeing missing, and something explosive hit the Pentagon, but it wasn't that missing Boeing! That's for sure!

[TCO]

Zealot, you're an idiot.

[Velociryx]

In my mind, an idiot is one who accepts what he is told without question, and even if there are a number of factors that don't make sense in light of the popular explanation, refuse to believe anything other than the "official" story.

That we are questioning, and doing so without subscribing to hair-brained conspiracy theories makes me think that those of us bothering to question the official word on it are not idiots.

But....perhaps you're right. We shouldn't question.

And when the Department of Homeland Defense opens up those government tattoo parlors all over the country and some law is passed that decrees that "for purposes of national security, and to keep track of the bad guys, we should all get neat little barcodes tattooed onto our arms" we shouldn't question that either.

Just be good little sheep.

Baaaa.

-=Vel=-

[TCO]

Velo, I've done and seen a lot more **** than you have. Save the drama for the computer games.

[Velociryx]

GP: I wouldn't be the ranch on that, but hey...'s your party, you can believe what you want.

I do note though, that you decided NOT to debate the questions at hand any further. Perhaps that's because there was a bit of truth to my post? Or, perhaps not.

My main point (re-iterated yet again) is that it's okay to question the official story when the facts seem not to add up.

My deepest apologies if you're opposed to that.

-=Vel=-

[Salvor]

God it's easy to get people going these days. I looked at those pictures, and there sure is a lot of debris in every one of them. No, none of it looks like a plane. But how many of you guys have ever visited the site of a plane crash? Does the debris look like a plane? No, it does not. Just a bunch of twisted metal that often resembles a caved-in building.

Sure, when it skids into an open field or over water, you can find some pieces that are recognizable as engine parts, fueslage sections, arms, legs, whatever. But this wasn't a skid into an open field. This was much different. As has been stated several times before, the Pentagon is built of concrete and granite. Let's see, a solid wall of concrete and granite vs. a hollow shell of very thin aluminum. Which will prevail. End result: Pentagon 1, plane 0.

Damage to only one floor? Did you look at the same pictures I did? I see deep cracks in the walls, lots of charring, and flames leaping from almost every window all the way up to the roof. This is considered "no damage"? Oh, you mean the fact that it took an hour or so for the building to completely cave in. Allow me to refer you to the previous paragraph. The primary impact point, where the nose probably hit and the rest of the fuselage followed (like a missile -- I think somebody already compared it to a sabot round) probably knocked a hole in the wall, and the fireball weakened the structure to the point where it eventually collapsed. Why is this so hard to believe? Let's see. Do we have any basis for comparison? Was there ever any other tall building that was struck by a jet airplane but didn't collapse entirely until about an hour later? Hmm, good question there.

Really, how can anyone really expect a jet plane, which is basically a very very thin aluminum can filled halfway with kerosene, crash into a concrete wall at 250 mph and remain recognizable as an airplane? If there WAS any debris that was recognizable as an aircraft, I'd start believing it was planted there as a coverup for something else.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Trouble with that is this:
The plane is 15 yards high....45 feet. That's at least three, verging on four stories high.

Now EVEN IF the plane impacted the building at its base, there's NO WAY the photo COULD look like it does in photos three and six on the site mentioned at the start of the thread.

Actually, the tail height is 44.5 feet high measured from the ground with landing gear down according to specs from Boeing website:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/ext.html

If you look at the drawing. The fuselage is probably only 20 feet high, tops. maybe only 15.

Therefore, the a/c would likely only take out a couple of floors of a building. The tail would be destroyed by the reinforced walls of the Pentagon.

Of course, the conspriracy website provides misleading info about the plane's height by not mentioning that it is referring to the total height of the aircraft when measured from wheels to tail.

[ravagon]

Thankyou Tinkai. Something factual.

It seems to me that the large majority of the "conspiracy" theorists (no offence intended to anybody ) evidence is based on what is probably mistated/misunderstood info.

When spokesmen indicate a destroyed floor of the Pentagon it doesn't mean that one floor was utterly annihilated and no others touched. "Destroyed" or whatever word(s) was/were used is a relative term - especially in light of a number of airliners crashing into buildings. It doesn't mean that there wasn't extensive damage to adjacent floors rendering them "nearly" destroyed in the opinion of whoever made the call.
When photos taken in a sensitive area (ie: the Pentagon) do not show certain evidence it doesn't mean that there wasn't any to see.
(a) People had to interfere with it in order to extinguish the collateral fires.

(b) Its the Pentagon. Its a classified area. Photos etc, particularly in this case almost certainly weren't allowed to be taken freely. Classified material and all. The firefighters were even restricted in putting the fires out due to restrictions relating to this. I have no idea when exactly these photos were supposed to be taken (after some of the debris had been moved perhaps?) but they almost certainly weren't taken right on impact. Furthermore on the floor thing I'd be interested to know the height of those in the Pentagon - 20 odd feet (You yanks and your imperial measurements, sigh ) doesn't seem that untoward to me...

(c) Were ther no witnesses able to corroborate aircraft crashing into the place?


[Vel I think you've been playing with that signet ring of yours too much ]

[TCO]

Hey!!! I haven't seen any plane pieces in the pictures of then World Trade Center. Maybe there wasn't a plane impact there either!!

[Bereta_Eder]

I hate being late in a thread


So what is it? that a plane did not hit the pentagon (=greek word meaning "5 angles - this was a friendly linguistic contribution from paiktis)

so what hit it a truck?

so where did the plane go?????

[Dis]

the plane is in area 51 in the nevada desert. I drove by it last week (I have access to that area).

[Zealot]

Originally posted by GP
Zealot, you're an idiot.

Gee, let me remind who usually insults me... Oh yeah, hum, tramps, gipsies, some sons of whores. They usually ask me for change before. Seems that you past that part... You weren't getting any anyway, so you don't need to tell me in wich class do you belong.

Baaaa!


Now back to grown up talk, for those who want to see the impact of the plane, here are the pictures of it!

http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp?cp1=1

See? See? It's right there!!! Now do you believe it?

[Velociryx]

That's good footage, but it only ADDS to the questions, in my mind.

The guy clearly states that the plane hit the GROUND first. 'k...so where's the torn up lawn?

Also, if there was a plane, would it have been too much to ask for them to submit a sixth photo in that series (tacking one more from the security camera to the beginning of the sequence) where you know....they actually show a....ummm...plane?)

-=Vel=-
ps: Rav...yep...
lol

[Velociryx]

Was on my way out the door when I left that other post, but wanted to comment on Tingkai's post as well. Outstanding information, and an excellent point that the only relevant portion of the craft's height is the fuselage.

I'll readily admit that given a total fuselage height of 15-20 feet, the impact damage of the Pentagon is about right (1 floor gone, 1 floor badly damaged--mostly gone--the rest caved in). That is, making the assumption that the plane hit at or near ground level of the building.

But with the new link posted on this thread a couple posts above, I'm back to wondering about the ground.

If it is as the guy on the "video" indicated, that the plane hit the ground first, and then plowed into the building....should there not be some indication ON the ground that something 15-20 feet high, travelling at least 250mph and filled with fuel HIT the ground? I just went back to the photos to look.

Nada.

Another thing that strikes me as interesting is the "video" itself that was recently referenced here is that it's composed of still shots. Since I find it unlikely in the extreme that the Pentagon (one of our nations top secret buildings, and in the Nation's capitol) would use single frame (shutter) cameras for security, I must conclude that the frames were cut from a video feed in the Pentagon parkinglot. Given that, I guess I'm wondering why they cut the frames out that would have showed the plane descending (so we could all see the angle of descent and stuff). Just seems odd to me that they'd intentionally take that out before releasing the tape.

-=Vel=-

Until you show me the missing Boeing, and other evidence suggesting some other explosive blew up that section of the pentagon... I'm going to say all non-757-impact believers are idiot trolls.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Zealot
That's funny, because I also saw the whole events on that day on CNN, since I was at home the whole day, and I really didn't see any debries from anything that wasn't part of the building!

Now that Vel mentions the size of the plane, and after seing the photos, I'm really freaking out, because there's no way, and let me put in bold, NO WAY that a Boeing crashed the Pentagon. Live with it, don't live with it, I don't care.
There's a Boeing missing, and something explosive hit the Pentagon, but it wasn't that missing Boeing! That's for sure!

If you didn't see on film the planes hitting the WTC, how much plane would you have seen?

[Zealot]

The towers collapsed. It's much harder to identify any fuselage within the rubble. Not that it might be impossible, though.
But don't try to compare with a 757 that didn't even scratch the Pentagon's lawn!

[Velociryx]

Sava - Just out of curiosity, since when does questioning something make one an idiot or a troll? Especially in light of the fact that the pentagon's OWN FOOTAGE never actually shows a plane? I think it's a fair question....my apologies if you don't, but I can agree to disagree with you *without* calling you an idiot.

Slow - The day of the attack, they were interviewing lots of people on the street in and around the area. One group of people interviewed were sitting at some coffee bar/shop a few blocks away when a large section of the plane's engine came down on the sidewalk/street outside. This was only one of SEVERAL sizeable portions of debris that came directly from the planes that day. Nothing like that at the Pentagon site, however.

-=Vel=-

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Sava
Until you show me the missing Boeing, and other evidence suggesting some other explosive blew up that section of the pentagon... I'm going to say all non-757-impact believers are idiot trolls.

So no one sees in the impact area the 757, and we're the ones who have to show you the missing Boeing? You can't provide evidence that the plane was there, and we have to search it for you?
And we are the idiots? HA!

I'm only calling the people that blindly believe your theory without evidence idiots. If you believe your scenario because of evidence... you aren't an idiot... well at least not because of your belief in that scenario anyways.

I saw footage on CNN of the plane hitting the pentagon... that pretty much convinced me a plane hit the pentagon.

I suppose it could have been computer edited... maybe? but why go to that much trouble? Plus.. how do you explain all the eyewitness accounts of people seeing the plane hit and hearing the plane hit? Did the conpirators have loudspeakers set up blaring low flying Boeing sounds over the speakers?

If you're going to make a case for some f*cked up theory, be prepared to explain everything.

I doubt you are an expert at logistics and crash analyzation. But maybe your theories come from your 20+ years of working at the NTSB... if not... then your theories are the product of your idiot-troll minds.

Thank you... please come again.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Sava
I saw footage on CNN of the plane hitting the pentagon... that pretty much convinced me a plane hit the pentagon.

You mean that CNN already had cameras in position near the Pentagon's perimeter? That sounds interesting!
Could you please provide a link to that footage, so we can all get our doubts clear, and end this conversation once and for all?

[Velociryx]

Sava: I'm not putting forth any theory at all. I'm merely asking questions. If you have seen footage of a plane crashing into the Pentagon, I'd like to see it, because I didn't see it on 9/11, or any time after that. If you have a link, that would answer the question in my mind.

Thus far, however, the only "footage" I have seen of the crash itself was provided by Zealot on the link above. In it, the frame where the plane should have been is missing.

I find that odd, and merely asked why.

I also find it odd that if the plane hit the ground first, and then plowed into the Pentagon, why was the lawn not torn up?

So I asked why.

This is not me fronting some conspiracy theory...this is me curious about how a 757 can crash into the ground and leave no mark.

That you consider the question trollish is...surprising to me.

-=Vel=-

I didn't realize none of you have seen this footage.

I saw it on CNN or FoxNews.. I can't remember. It was last week and the footage was from a security camera pointed at the area. I'll try finding it online and I'll post the link.

Basically, you see the plane for like half a second and the it plows into the building about 1 story up and then there's a huge explosion.

There isn't debris scattered everywhere because the plane got annihilated inside the pentagon. When the planes hit the WTC, tons of debris didn't get expelled in the initial hit.

Plus, the pentagon is steel-reinforced concreted with Kevlar coating. It's no wonder debris didn't get scattered.

[Zealot]

You're not talking about this footage, are you?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp?cp1=1


And about that coating in the Pentagon's building, well I'm no Engineer, but I believe that the points you made a reference to make exactly the point that the building is so hard, that it would hardly penetrate the building, but would get expelled from it.

Yes, that's the footage... unfortunately the poor quality makes it impossible to see the plane... I now understand your theories. When it was played on the news originally, you could see the plane.

[Velociryx]

Very cool! I'll keep my fingers crossed that you can find the link, cos in truth, I don't LIKE having questions like that floating around in my mind. (and, if you find one from FOX, then you'll make Uncle Wiglaf happy! )

I could buy that, had the plane impacted with the Pentagon first, it'd have been pretty much toasted, but the official line seems to be that it hit the ground first.

Since the ground was the primary (and initial) point of imact, I'm a bit surprised there's not at least something of the plane left there.

-=Vel=-

[SlowwHand]

True. The ground is much less dense than a building.