Anybody see this FLASH about the Pentegon 9/11 hit?

[edhopper]

http://spademusic.com/flash/pentagon.swf

Is there something to this? Or is it hot air?

[tridim]

1. Nothing to see there..

Just move on.

Signed, Your Government.

[InfoMinister]

2. Snopes Has An Article On It

It's a load of crap.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[mhr]

6. Don't Believe Snopes This Time - They Have Been Duped

By the official line.

[genius]

9. Even strong Snopes supporters have pointed out that Snopes failed to do

the research on this issue. The facts are there and they just don't want to look at them on this issue.

[RH]

43. Sure.

The facts are there.

Five fallen lamp poles, for instance.

How please did that happen if they were not hit by Flight 77?

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm

[RedDragon]

30. So if the news source

disagrees with you it means they are biased or duped. Hmm I can see where that would be a safe way to think.

[mhr]

32. There Are Too Many Eye Witness Accounts And The Physical Evidence

To blindly believe a so-called credible news source.

Just look at all the credible news sources that have lied for Bush over the last four years - in particular his failure to find ANY WMDs.

'nuff said

A skeptical mind is a wise and open mind!

[WoodrowFan]

33. isn't that

isn't that the way freepers think? if they don't like it, it's "librul media."

[mhr]

34. One Should Weigh All The Evidence Instead of Blindly Trusting

So-called credible news sources.

As a pilot, I find it VERY HARD to believe that an airplane of that size and traveling at such high-speed did not leave more exterior marks on the building.

As a degreed engineer, I understand the laws of physics and the conservation of momentum. Simply stated, any mass traveling at very high-speed will do damage to most structures, including the Pentagon.

As a skeptic, I find it unsettling that no other video footage has been released of this crash other than the Pentagon guard shack photos. It seems all to convenient that the video controlled by the Pentagon is the only video to see the light of day.

[MercutioATC]

37. As an engineer, do you find any factual errors in the ASCE report?

I'm curious...never heard an engineer comment on it.

[MrSammo1]

63. Yeah

The amount of columns that they said were knocked down.

How many do you see knocked down?

[Bolo Boffin]

67. Ye gods

There are more pictures that confirm lots of columns down - from column 9 to column 19.

It's beyond dispute.

[RH]

39. Hello Pilot.

I am wondering how often, as a pilot, you crash into buildings, seeing that you'd seem know so much about it.

Last time I checked them out, Newton's ubiquitous Laws were more to do with energy, except perhaps that in this case the damage would also involve the laws of chemistry, especially with regard to flammable liquids and metals.

Simply stated then, one may alternatively have thought that a relatively small mass would cause a relatively small degree of damage to a relatively massive structure, but what do I know? Did you weigh the Pentagon? We await your specific calculations with interest.

And according to what please was any video controlled by the Pentagon? The security cam images distributed early in 2002 were not released by the Pentagon, not overtly at least. Unless, that is, you happen to have some evidence to another effect.

[AZCat]

46. Newton's Laws are about energy, but so is a collision

Newton's Laws can be used to gauge how the energy from the bodies prior to the collision is transferred, either from one body to another or from one form of energy to another. It's an interesting question about how long it takes for the combustion of the jet fuel to become a significant force in the collision, and what kind of damage is a result of that as opposed to the damage from the plane impact. I haven't read the ASCE report yet, but I wonder if they tackle this.

Small masses at high velocities can cause lots of damage. Kinetic energy is dependent on the square of the velocity, so high speeds can make up for smaller masses when comparing kinetic energy. In this case, the Pentagon is a much more complicated system because we are not talking about an isolated collision - the Pentagon is connected to the earth through the foundation. It isn't a homogeneous structure either, so it's irrelevant to talk about the mass of the entire building compared to the mass of the plane. What is important is the shear strength of the structural members of the outer wall.

Really, it's way more complicated than most people think. Collisions are funny things - think about how many automobile collisions you have seen, and how strange the damage can be to the vehicles. It's not always intuitive, and depends on a huge number of variables. Small changes in those can make a big difference in the outcome also, so it is hard to simulate without using some sort of statistical method like Monte Carlo to check a large number of trials. Small hole in the Pentagon? Sure it's odd, but when juxtaposed with the other evidence it hardly seems to be justification for an elaborate hoax.

[Ronin1]

62. Perdue University Study with Video

Good point, let's let the experts debunk..

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/popescu/pentagonVis.htm

[MrSammo1]

64. They forgot about the vertical stabilizer?

You know? That big thingie that's about 40 feet off the ground?

[Yogi]

7. I'm not convinced it's a load of crap.

eom

[WoodrowFan]

13. you convinced the earth isn't flat yet?

just asking.

[PittPoliSci]

10. I'm going with you on this one.

It is a load of crap.

[WoodrowFan]

14. thanks

as usual Snopes demolishes the crap mongers.

[tngledwebb]

50. Snopes is crap you mean?

I agree. But who you gonna believe, some dodgy internet site, or your own eyes? Suggest reading and searching deeper before you blindly trust Snopes. Read DU 9/11 threads for a start. Google Killtown. Try Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbor. And try to find in the mainstream media ANY photos that show a Boeing crash at the Pentagon. Good luck.

[roseBudd]

3. Wow

We heard so much about WTC and so little about the Pentagon

[tngledwebb]

51. Ask why?

Look at the photos. There are more and none will convince you that a big plane hit the Pentagon. Big media and other parts of Govt are complicit on this. Flt 77 crash photos are the Zapruder film of 9/11, and Pandora's box for the rest. It took me a year to run across them, and another six months to really grasp the ramifications. That's with a lot of free time, a skeptical and open mind and free access to the Web etc. The average American doesn't have that luxury.

[mhr]

4. Very Good And Captues The Essence Of The Lie!

People we were taken on 9/11.

Does anyone care?

[edhopper]

5. Thanks DU

Never mind. Always good to be able to turn to rational people here.

[Digit]

8. Compelling video

Makes the strongest case yet.

[WoodrowFan]

12. total crap

it's complete crap, made to fool the foolish and gullible.

[OneBlueSky]

11. I've seen the photos of the Pentagon wall before it collapsed . . .

and there is simply no way a 757 could have caused that small a hole . . . just not physically possible . . . which tells me two things . . . one, something else hit the Pentagon, and two, the government is lying . . . and if they're lying about this, there's every reason to believe they're lying about the entirety of what happened on 9/11 . . . the question that remains it "Why?" . . .

[MercutioATC]

16. "Not physically possible"? Check this out:

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

This explains the physics of exactly how a 757 COULD have caused the damage to the Pentagon.

...and it was written by professional civil engineers who had actual access to the site, not some layperson looking at pictures.

[OneBlueSky]

35. sorry, but this article doesn't address the question . . .

it simply assumes that a 757 was the culprit, but never addresses the size of the plane vs. the size of the impact hole . . . just glosses over it and focuses almost entirely on the structural damage to the Pentagon . . . nice attempt at a whitewash, imo . . .

on edit: what I don't understand why people are so gullible . . . nothing about the "official" 9/11 story makes sense . . . not how the towers fell, not what hit the Pentagon, not how the place in Pennsylvania came down . . . none of it . . . do you honestly think that they're telling the truth? . . .

[MercutioATC]

36. It most certainly does address your question.

"The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20). The projected width, perpendicular to the path of the aircraft, was approximately 90 ft, which is substantially less than the 125 ft wingspan of the aircraft. An examination of the area encompassed by extending the line of travel of the aircraft to the face of the building shows that there are no discrete marks on the building corresponding to the positions of the outer third of the right wing. The size and position of the actual opening in the facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18) indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building.

It is possible that less of the right wing than the left wing entered the building because the right wing struck the facade crossing the level of the second-floor slab. The strength of the second-floor slab in its own plane would have severed the right wing approximately at the location of the right engine. The left wing did not encounter a slab, so it penetrated more easily.

In any event, the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings did not make direct contact with the facade of the building and that portions of the wings might have been separated from the fuselage before the aircraft struck the building. This is consistent with eyewitness statements that the right wing struck a large generator before the aircraft struck the building and that the left engine struck a ground-level, external vent structure. It is possible that these impacts, which occurred not more than 100 ft before the nose of the aircraft struck the building, may have damaged the wings and caused debris to strike the Pentagon facade and the heliport control building.

The wing fuel tanks are located primarily within the inner half of the wings. The center of gravity of these tanks is approximately one-third of the wing length from the fuselage. Considering this tank position and the physical evidence of the length of each wing that could not have entered the building, it appears likely that not more than half of the fuel in the right wing could have entered the building. While the full volume of the left wing tank was within the portion of the wing that might have entered the building, some of the fuel from all tanks rebounded upon impact and contributed to the fireball. Only a portion of the fuel from the left and right wing tanks and the center fuselage tank actually entered the building."

Due to the "4 paragraph rule" that's all I can post, but it's a representative sample. The report definitely shows how the damage could have been caused by a 757.

[OneBlueSky]

58. fine . . . but it's dead wrong . . .

I prefer to trust my own eyes and a modicum of common sense to any collection of experts, professionals, or gurus who may have been assembled to substantiate a patently ridiculous assertion . . .

[MercutioATC]

59. Fair enough. I prefer to trust people who know what they're talking about.

I'll admit that I'm a complete layperson when it comes to plane crashes and their effects on reinforced buildings. When a panel of civilian civil engineers specializing in reinforced concrete structures and crash damage who actually had access to the crash site and aren't basing their opinions on a few photos write a report, I give it some weight.

Show me a contrary report written by a civil engineer with equivalent qualifications who viewed the site and I'll give it serious consideration, too.

Until then, we're just a bunch of laypersons talking about something about which we have no real understanding.

[OneBlueSky]

60. a couple of quick points, and then I'll leave this . . .

first, in court there's a general rule that if a witness is caught lying about one thing, his/her testimony about everything else is automatically suspect . . . in the case of 9/11, one incontrovertible fact is that large pieces of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania were found MILES from the crash site . . . meaning that the plane had to have exploded in the air and was not driven into the ground by an altercation in the cockpit, as the "official" story would have us believe . . . therefore, everything else they're telling us about 9/11 should be suspect as well . . .

and second, this is BushCo . . . do you really believe they're telling the truth about what happened that day? . . . when the entire air defense system that THEY control completely broke down? . . . what astounds me is not that people doubt the "official" version of events, but that they give it any credence whatsoever, considering both the source all of the discrepancies about what happened . . .

no, I'm not an expert at anything relating to this . . . but there are three things about 9/11 that I am absolutely, 100% sure of: 1) the planes that hit the WTC towers were not the cause of their collapse; 2) something other than a 767 hit the Pentagon; and 3) the plane in Pennsylvania exploded before it crashed . . . I have no idea what all this means, other than BushCo is lying . . . and that, quite frankly, doesn't surprise me one little bit . . .

[MercutioATC]

61. I understand what you're saying and I'm not inclined to blindly

trust this administration, but the ASCE is a respected organization and the civil engineers who wrote the report are specialists in the subject of reinforced concrete buildings. They are civilians, not military personnel or government employees of any sort.

Assume for a moment that the government really wanted to understand the crash. What would they do? They'd bring in a team of respected independent civil engineers who specialize in reinforced concrete buildings and allow a prestigious engineering organization to publish the findings. That's what they did.

I'm certainly not advocating trusting everything this administration says, but I don't see a reason to doubt the conclusions of this report.

[MrSammo1]

65. Boy......did anybody think of reading that pile of crap?

>>>>From this information the BPS team concluded that the impact of the aircraft destroyed or significantly impaired approximately 50 structural columns.<<<

50 columns? Somebody got paid good money to lie about this!

[Bolo Boffin]

68. The 50 columns destroyed include the ones inside. n/t

[MrSammo1]

70. Really?

You have to destroy the ones on the outside....in order to destroy the ones on the inside! Ahhh.......but a missile doesn't!

[peacetalksforall]

15. And bullets change their path at sharp angles.

Did this crash examination ever pass the watermelon test?

Intact cable spools.
Intact windows.

Math and physics failure.

Sheraton National Hotel and gas station film confiscated by FBI IMMEDIATELY, but no defense aircraft scrambled anywhere after start of 'hijacking'.

Three films never seen, including the film of the VA Dept of Transportation.

Tail height if standing still on the lawn - 44 1/2 feet.
Wing span if standing still on the lawn - 124 feet.
Wing holes made on the WTC, but not the Pentagon.
We are told to believe that the wings and tail of the 757 collapsed.
Any basement damage.

No media coverage.

Bad planning, bad explosives, bummer results.

And we citizens are supposed to believe Tales from the Pentagon and pass it down to all the generations that follow as the gospel truth.

[nolabels]

18. They think

:crazy:

(quite eloquent, thank you for your post)

[WoodrowFan]

21. of course

you could actually believe the eyewitnesses and the physical evidence.

but then, 9-11 conspiracy nuts are like creationists, they see what they want to see to keep their faith alive.

bye bye

[peacetalksforall]

28. Perhaps I didn't get your emphasis...

but in case you are considering me a creationist, I can only say I didn't create 9-11. I was taught to think and analyze. Darn my parents and teachers.

[RH]

40. The cable spools were not intact.

as anybody can see for themselves simply by examining the available photos, hence the obvious fact that they were not stood up straight.

A significant number of the Pentagon windows were broken, windows 40mm thick especially installed to be resistant to an explosove blast. Did you attempt to calculate the force required to accomplish that?

Nobody at all who was near to the scene to see for themselves has since been known to entertain the slightest doubt that Flight 77 hit the building.

[alittlelark]

17. The thing that got me a year or so ago

when I first saw the pic's of the pentagon minutes after the attack were the WINDOWS.

The windows 5-8 feet above the 8x10 hole were INTACT!!!

How does that happen?

[stavka]

19. They built things better during wartime.....

[RH]

41. The windows were brand new.

n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. There's also pictures of a desk with papers on it...not BURNED.

Furniture not burned. All that jet fuel and papers nearby are not burned? I don't think so.

[carlvs]

48. Not Impressed

...In 1902, investigators exploring the ruins of the city of Saint-Pierre (destroyed in the infamous May 8 volcanic eruption of Mt. Pelee) came across delicate items that survived not only a pryoclatic flow from the mountain, but also a even more severe firestorm triggered by the flow. In one extreme case, a wooden alter and lace trimmings were found to be undamaged in a church, only a few meters away from several bells that had been partially melted from the heat.

...Recent excavations of the ruins of Herculaneum (one of the Roman cities destroyed in the 79 AD eruption of Mt. Vesuvius) of have found a surprising number of delicate items that managed to survive a pryoclatic flow that has been estimated to have been so hot that it almost instantly vaporized the flesh from the skeletons of its victims, and so powerful that it blasted some buildings into the nearby bay.

So if delicate and flammable objects can survive the fury of a major volcanic eruption, I am not surprised that one could find these same type of things going on in a far less powerful explosion...

[MercutioATC]

56. The pictures of the unburned books were post-collapse.

There was a plane strike. There was a fire. Part of the building THEN collapsed, exposing parts of the interior that hadn't been exposed to the fire. In the parts that hadn't been exposed to the fire, there were things that weren't burned.

It doesn't seem suspicious to me...

[MrSammo1]

66. It can't

If the windows aren't broked, a 757 wasn't present.

Simple physics!

[Bolo Boffin]

69. And if a cat has kittens in the oven, that makes them biscuits.

Simple physics!

[not systems]

20. Well I wondered the same thing...

I heard a women on the Pacifica coverage of the
911 hearings say flatly her relatives was killed
in that flight.

She was believable.

I guess that the real question is what happened to
the people on the flight?

If they are gone then what can explain that other than
the flight crashing or a huge conspiracy that would
have collapsed under it's own weight.

Were they killed by conspirators or are they held somewhere
or are the all in on it?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

So I accept the possibility that a 747 hit the pentagon
as the most likely explanation even if several details seem
strange.

I also wonder if the pentagon is hardened in some way that
would explain the small hole and the plane folding up into it.

Maybe WWII bomb shelter technology?

[WoodrowFan]

22. stand next to the building

and you'll see the hole is not "small"

[not systems]

25. It is small compared to a 747

I am sure you will agree on that.

[WoodrowFan]

29. Yeah, but

it wasn't a 747 that hit, it was a 757 and the hole is the right size for a 757. next time, read some real websites on 9-11.

Look, a friend of mine SAW Ft 77 hit. There are dozens of other eyewitnesses and the remains on the plane. Anyone who doubts that Ft 77 hit the Pentagon has kept their mind so open their brains fell out. And no, I have zero respect for the opinions of those folks anymore than I respect the scientific opinion of a creationists. They're proved themselves beyond the pale. If you want to be in that crowd, be my guest, but don't expect me to listen.

bye bye

[not systems]

31. Dude. Chill.

I think it was an airplane and always have.

I did wonder about the hole but think that the
missing people far out weigh an doubt the smallish
hole raises.

[hang a left]

44. I don't know why that argument comes up quite a bit around here...

the missing people. One plane was shot down. There are a number of ways that I can think of disposing of inconvenient people.

[tngledwebb]

53. Your friend....

How close was he/she to site of hit? And your friend alone is not going to convince others. Better websites- tell where? Size of hole? What 'hole'- a squarish opening through a lot of smoke, maybe. Most important: where are wings, engines, tail, fuselage- etc etc. If You want to say that all that disappeared thru the doorway and melted, that's up to you. What 'Official' Conspiracy Theory believers need to do is present any image that finally confirms the mad theory that a Boeing hit the Pentagon. Just one good photo will do. I've looked at all the websites I could find for pictures to prove you right, but have yet to find any. Stories and journalistic gobbledygook by the dozen, yes.

[WoodrowFan]

55. oh please

try reading a sane site and look at ALL the witnesses. Ons econd thought, never mind. You ind is nailed shut just as a creationist's is. No facts will sway you.

BTW, he was close enough to see what kind of plane it was.

BYE BYE!!!

[MercutioATC]

57. If it wasn't a commercial jet, where did the wheel come from?

There's a "good photo" of it that I'm sure you've seen. How about the landing strut or the larger piece of fuselage on the lawn? There are "good pictures" of those....

[UdoKier]

23. Very dramatic crapola.

Why use a missile and then hide the missing 757 and all the passengers?

It makes no sense.

There were 4 planes with a given number of passengers hijacked that day. Thhere are families mourning the dead. How do you explain to them where their loved ones are if it was a missile?

Also, the plane crashed into the building, not the ground. It was not out of control as in a normal crash.At the speeds it was traveling, it's entirely possible that the wings were pulled into the building with it and incinerated.

It's all moot anyway, because even if was a missile, so what? If you think that proves a government conspiracy, it doesn't. The government could just as easily have hijacked and crashed the planes.

I can't tell you how sick I am of unsubstantiated stories about missiles and explosives at the WTC and Pentagon. Some people have way too much time and too little common sense on their hands.


By the way, I think the Columbia wasn't an accident. John Travolta shot it down from his Lear Jet. The man is a menace!!!! :evilgrin:

[RH]

42. It was not out of control ?

How do you know it was not out of control?

You're arguing against the evidence.

Since when would a plane in control collide with lamp poles?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. Buy the DVD..."911 In Plane Site"

http://tvnewslies.org/html/911_in_plane_site_video.html

Here's where you can buy the DVD. There's no way in hell a 757 made that hole in the Pentagon. This DVD makes an excellent case for something else.

My problem with the planes that hit the towers and the pentagon...if they were not passenger jets, then where are all the people who were supposed to have been killed on the planes. The documentary doesn't touch on that. :shrug: Where are those people?

[clu]

27. info

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

[Ohio rules]

38. And the cell phone conversations?

I didn't hear the film explain away the phone calls made from passangers aboard the jet.

Interesting bit of propaganda though ;)

[MrSammo1]

47. Did you see this one?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6847.htm

[hang a left]

52. I have just finished veiwing this video.

He raises very interesting questions. All of them have been debated here many times. I am convinced that this was a conspiracy planned and executed at the highest levels of our government. There isn't a debunker that has shown up at DU that has swayed my opinion. Can't wait for Crossing the Rubicon to be shipped.

[Bhaisahab]

49. Hey! I'm getting a 404 Error on clicking

are you sure that is the correct link???

[impe]

54. Couldn't open it either....

The pentagon was the "unexpected" on 9/11. If it were part of the "Plan", the gov. would have insured that there was
full video coverage....whatever hit the pentagon on 9/11 created enough fear that the FBI took over the investigation from the military and retrieved video's from all conceivable sources within minutes of the hit.