Did a Boeing 757 really crash into the Pentagon

[Right Makes Might]

I haven't heard of this theory - anyone got any info? Is it for real?!

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

[MrSlayer]

1. I see no evidence that a plane hit it.

The official story is complete and utter bullshit if you look at the evidence.

[aeolian]

16. you mean

evidence like radar tracking logs and eyewitnesses?

Yeah, you can't trust shit like that. It was obviously done by a Mossad Pengiun with a laser rifle.

/sarcasm

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[MrSlayer]

46. LOL. No, I just can't see how a 126 foot plane

can fit into a 65 foot hole, burn off thousands of pounds of fuel without damaging anything outside of the impact area, break through 8 layers of steel reinforced concrete and leave perfectly symmetrical holes all the while leaving no debris. No footage was ever released, any vantage point that had a camera had the tapes confiscated immediately by the feds. The five still frames they did put out show nothing tangible. Call me kooky if you want, but that doesn't add up. Maybe you should smoke some of the kind bud and open up a bit. Or instead of being a smartass you could produce some evidence. Help me out here, prove a plane did hit it. Video would be preferable but pictures will do. From what I've seen and more importantly from what I haven't seen I cannot believe a plane hit the Pentagon.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. The hole was 96 feet wide.

The facade damage extended out beyond that.

The ASCE report has all the evidence you need. Leave off the kind and turn on the mind.

[tngledwebb]

114. Please show 96 foot wide hole photo.

You posted it before, and if you could post it every time you say the hole is 96 feet wide, it would be great help to the cause. Pics are worth 1000 words etc. Many thanks in advance.

[RH]

53. 8 layers of steel reinforced concrete?

Which eight layers were those then?

[DulceDecorum]

75. They used almost NO steel in building the Pentagon

Desperately needed for the war effort, steel was at a premium. The War Department substituted reinforced concrete for steel-and saved 43,000 tons (39,000 Mg) of steel, enough for an entire battleship. Concrete ramps were used in lieu of metal elevators; asbestos fiber was used to construct ventilation ducts. In fact, there was asbestos in the ceiling plaster, pipes, and floor coverings. At the time, these economies made a significant contribution to the war effort, but as a result of these economies-and the sometimes uncertain, inadequate, or irregular maintenance funding throughout the structure's 60-year history-the Pentagon, a national historic landmark, is in a state of severe decline. Many of the building systems have deteriorated beyond repair, and none of them has ever been replaced. Improvements or changes that were completed were carried out without a comprehensive strategy, contributing to the considerable burden on the already outdated and overloaded infrastructure.
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline01/0106feat.html

The building is old, and flimsy.
It was NOT designed to last
It was built as a short-term solution to a pressing problem.

The Pentagon—a building, institution, and symbol—was conceived at the request of Brigadier General Brehon B. Sommervell, Chief of the Construction Division of the Office of the Quartermaster General, on a weekend in mid-July 1941. The purpose was to provide A TEMPORARY SOLUTION to the War Department’s critical shortage of space. The rapidly expanding War Department envisioned a single structure in which to house all its components, as opposed to constructing multiple temporary structures as was then the practice.
http://www.dtic.mil/ref/html/Welcome/general.html

The architectural style of the Pentagon is Stripped Neo-Classical. The building was constructed out of reinforced concrete made from 380,000 tons of sand dredged from the Potomac River and supported by 41,492 concrete piles. The designers’ ingenuity not only created a building that reflected the architectural style of the nation’s Capitol but also saved enough steel to build one battleship.
http://www.dtic.mil/ref/html/Welcome/general.html

Now, some of you who have been wondering
why the nation was undefended on September 11:

Without reliable cooling, some of the massive computer facilities essential to Pentagon operations could shut down in 90 seconds. Recognizing the threat to the infrastructure of the Pentagon, Congress in 1993 authorized $1.2 billion for the structure's renovation.
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline01/0106feat.html

90 seconds.
Just 90 seconds.
One and a half minutes
to shut down
the ENTIRE Pentagon.



Oh oh.
Did I do that?

[RH]

80. That was a long time ago.

The new blast resistant windows were reinforced.

I am wondering where the count of 8 layers comes from.

[DulceDecorum]

103. What was used to reinforce the windows?

Mylar?
http://epdwindowfilm.com/scotchshield.html

Those windows were made of glass.
Y'all can say whatever you like
and when you have finished talking,
the fact will remain that glass breaks when subjected to pressure.

Glass also melts -- and it shatters without provocation when raised to high temperatures and allowed to cool suddenly.

The glass in the Amazing Penta-windows
was allegedly subjected to high heat from the jet fuel.

The Amazing Penta-jet fuel
did NOT float on water but was instead quenched by it.

Fire sprinklers. Interestingly, you know, there was a fire that raged through wedge two, the unrenovated area. If you look at wedge one, except in those areas where it was clearly fueled by jet fuel, the fire, when it tried to spread into other wedge one areas, was knocked down immediately by the fire sprinklers. There was virtually no spread whatsoever, so we saw a tremendous beneficial effect from that.
http://www.pentagon.mil/transcripts/2001/t09152001_t915evey.html

Hmmmmmm
http://www.wsp.wa.gov/fire/props.htm#aircraf
Jet fuel fires are difficult to control and fight even when there are emergency planning and preparations in advance and emergency equipment on-site. A jet fuel fire at Denver's Stapleton airport was uncontrollable and had to just burn itself out.
http://www.chemicalspill.org/Photos/next.html
But that does not concern us
because we are only dealing with Amazing Penta-jet fuel.

If you look at the photographs of the Amazing Penta-windows
next to the area of collapse,
you will see that the Amazing Penta-windows remain remarkably intact.

The new windows in the Wedge 1 area were largely intact after the impact — even those on the third floor directly above the hole where the jet entered the building.
In the Wedge 2 area, "windows more than 150 feet from the impact were shattered," Evey said.
http://www.stripes.com/01/sep01/ed091601s.html

Ladies and gentlemen,
when glass is heated it becomes pliable and fluid. As it cools, it experiences thermal stresses. In order for the glass to remain in one piece, it must be cooled slowly at the same rate. This process is called annealing.
On September 11, the glass in the Amazing Penta-windows was heated to the point where some of it actually melted.

I am home now, after spending all night watching that hole in the Pentagon--being able to see into offices where one wall was completely gone--computers still visible on the desk. It almost looks like a dollhouse, where you can see into it, and it seems that somebody still lives there. In other office windows, the glass is not shattered but melted, oozing down like candle wax.
http://members.aol.com/hfur/Lori.html

Gary Marsh, reported:
We had seen two light poles that had been hit by the approaching plane, but I was surprised there were so many others untouched.
Most of the glass had been shattered, but there were a couple with the glass melted and sagging, but still intact.
Governor Ronnie Musgrove, Mississippi's 62nd Governor
reported that:
Windows sagged and bulged, the glass melted and reshaped by the intense heat.
(In Washington, we stood no more than 50 yards from the impact site at the Pentagon. As an Army officer briefed us on the details of the attack, I could not take my eyes off the building. Pictures still hung on walls in what used to be offices. Windows sagged and bulged, the glass melted and reshaped by the intense heat. The concrete walls were black with soot and ash. It was an ugly and sobering sight.)
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/ffdd.html

The INTACT glass in the Amazing Penta-windows
cooled at an uncontrolled rate.
The thermal shock ALONE
should have been enough to cause them to shatter,
but shatter they did not,
because they are AMAZING
and because they are Penta-windows.

The plane,
on the other hand,
left not one single speck of glass.

The resultant glass has a modulus of rupture (MOR) exceeding 60,000 psi. By comparison, the basic strength of glass is generally accepted to be about 10,000 to 12,000 psi.
With Herculite II glass, lightweight transparencies can be designed that meet specific bird-impact requirements of today's high-performance aircraft while affording superior optical qualities and durability.
Transparencies with Herculite II glass are qualified on business, commercial and advanced military aircraft, and helicopters.
http://www.ppg.com/gls_ppgglass/aircraft/material.htm

Damn,
why can't these fools engineer ANYTHING to the same specs
of the terrorist-hijacker fake-passports?

[AZCat]

104. Modulus of Rupture and thermal shock

I didn't know what a "Modulus of Rupture" was so I looked it up:

Modulus of Rupture, the measure of the force necessary to break a given substance across, as a beam, expressed by eighteen times the load which is required to break a bar of one inch square, supported flatwise at two points one foot apart, and loaded in the middle between the points of support. --Rankine.


Thermal shock of glass also interested me, so I looked up some more articles.

This one on Thermal Stress Breakage has an interesting example:
<snip>
It is important to note that a clean cut glass edge will resist a tensile stress of ~2,400 psi. Due to the coefficient of thermal expansion of soda lime glass, a 1°F (0.56°C) temperature differential across the glass area produces ~50 psi tensile stress. Consequently, for a glass edge temperature of 70°F (21°C) and a center pane temperature of 120° (48°C) you will have a 50°F (27°C) differential. This results in a 2,500 psi tensile stress at the glass edge, which is sufficient to cause breakage in annealed glass.
</snip>
Note that for convective and conductive heat transfer (but not radiative) only the temperature difference matters, so whether it is 120 degrees to 70 degrees F or 140 to 90 deg. F, the rates are the same. I don't know what the glass in the Pentagon was, but the article goes on to discuss how certain kinds of glass are more sensitive to this sort of problem.

Here is a listing of various types of glasses.

[RH]

105. Steel frames.

The 40mm thick windows each weigh in at about 1000 lbs.

[MercutioATC]

108. Here's info on the Pentagon windows...

http://www.dupont.com/safetyglass/lgn/stories/2111.html

They're laminate construction and weigh over 400 pounds each (they're over 1 1/2 inches thick).

http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=380

Here's some data on blast resistant glass:

http://www.securityimpactglass.com/blast.html

[aeolian]

57. boy, you don't think that...

...that the 126-foot plane might have collapsed like a can on impact do you? Or do you think that it would stay perfectly straight and rigid as it ripped through a building.

As for the cameras, if YOU were setting up security cameras at a building, would you point them arbitrarily up into the air, maybe looking over a highway? Or would you have them monitoring doorways and other entry/exit points?

[MrSammo1]

39. Problem is

a lot of the posters here don't understand what they see and don't see. They are science poor. They let their emotions do the explaining.

[aeolian]

58. Ahmen! (n/t)

[MrSammo1]

70. Ahmen (v/t)

[MercutioATC]

71. Agreed. They refuse to look at evidence and the conclusions of

professionals and, instead, get caught up in the hype of a well-produced flash presentation or a provocative website written by a layperson.

It's a cryin' shame...I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on this.

[MrSammo1]

73. As

As everyone knows. Physical evidence always outweighs hearsay.

[MercutioATC]

74. Yes, it does. n/t

[DulceDecorum]

77. We look at disinfo

and unanimously agree that
A) it sucks (AND blows)
B) it insults human intelligence (but not that of chimps)
C) one has to be PAID to support it (and very highly at that.)

[MercutioATC]

84. I don't doubt that.

Some people will hold onto beliefs regardless of contrary evidence.

That was kind of my point.

[DulceDecorum]

112. Faith-Based Investigations (FBI) don't count.

You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.

-- George W. Bush (spoken at a Washington Dinner, March 2001)

[MercutioATC]

133. No, and neither do those done by laypersons

without access to evidence.

[DulceDecorum]

134. I take it that

you are speaking for yourself.
And if this is indeed the case,
then I HEARTILY agree with you.

[RH]

135. By way of a stark contrast to many others

who post here MercutioATC has comprehensively explained his professional qualification, and his point and purpose in contributing.

[MercutioATC]

136. That's why I listen to the experts (ASCE report) instead of CTist

radio show hosts (VonKleist).

I consider myself to have a better understanding of many ATC and aviation issues than most people because that's my profession. I don't have professional credentials (or schooling) in crash physics, so I look for the conclusions of those who do. What good would it do to try to base a realistic theory on the random utterings of people who don't know any more about the subject matter than I do?

This is a difficult concept to comprehend?

[tngledwebb]

149. Well, this is all very well and good.

But why should we trust your word on your occupational expertise? I know architects, lawyers, engineers etc and they see nothing of substance in ASCE report, except irrelevance and whitewash. Also, how can ANY patriotic Democrat, layperson or professional, accept official reports on 9/11 from THIS Govt at face value???? How??? What has this Govt ever done to engender such trust, ie. what part, if any, of the Official Conspiracy Theory DO you question? Re your favorite name calling CTist label- Remember, we got 'I trust the Official reports of THIS Govt CTists' at one pole and 'I DO NOT trust the Official Reports of THIS Govt CTists' at the other. You get your shiny hat either way, the choice is yours.

[MercutioATC]

151. Find a controller that disagrees with me and I'll certainly listen.

I seem to be the only active civilian controller posting here. You can either take my word or not, but I do have a slightly deeper understanding of the pertinent subjects than the average person.

Your question about being a "patriotic Democrat" reminds me of a question about the difference between "patriotism" and "nationalism". Nationalism is the blind support for one's country. Patriotism is the love of one's country and it sometimes necessitates pointing out the flaws that exist. I'd suggest that being a "patriotic Democrat" has a lot more to do with seeking the truth for the betterment of the Party (and the country) than disbelieving the current administration simply because they're Republicans. If the current government had told me anything that I didn't see as rational, I'd question it. There are explanations I'd like made and evidence I'd like seen, but I've seen nothing that supports any of the CT theories that I find plausible.

I don't feel that "CTist" is "name-calling". It's my understanding that a "conspiracy theorist" is commonly understood to be one who believes in a "theory" that involves a "conspiracy". Those who I've considered CTists here do, in fact, believe that there was a government conspiracy regarding the events of 9/11. It seemed like an accurate, non-offensive characterization.

[AZCat]

152. Definition of conspiracy theory

According to dictionary.com:
conspiracy theory
n.

A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.


I think your use of "conspiracy theory" is accurate and fair.

[tngledwebb]

153. Whether you are an ATC or not is irrelevant ,

one can only take your word on that, but your posts don't carry any more or any less weight because of your claim of expertise.( After all you may be the worst or the best ATC in the country for all anyone here knows.) My question still remains unanswered: what part of the Official Conspiracy Theory do you NOT accept, if any? And I don't distrust the present Admin because it's a Republican and I'm a Dem, I distrust it because of their record of lying left, right, and sideways for the past four years.

[MercutioATC]

154. Irrelevant? How so?

What level of understanding do YOU feel you have of ATC issues? I'm willing to bet it's not the same as mine.

As an example, Paul Thompson's timeline included a media quote that stressed that a plane that was two miles or 15 degrees off course was viewed as "a police car speeding down the highway at 100 miles per hour" by controllers in terms of its being something of concern. Paul left it out of his book because (by his statement) he had complaints about the quote. I'm one of the people who complained. It WAS an accurate quote, but it in NO way reflects how we view planes that are slightly off course. Without professionals bringing this to his attention, the public would have a completely view of the seriousness of a plane that was slightly off course, making the events of 9/11 seem even more suspicious.

To Paul's credit, he had every right to include the quote in his book as it was a valid media cite, but he chose not to after learning that it didn't represent the real situation.

Hell, I've seen people here that thought a "ground stop" to an airport was suspicious until I told them that we do dozens of ground stops a day for all sorts of reasons. I know I'm happy to recieve a professional's opinion, especially when dealing with technical matters.


As far as what parts of the "official story" I don't believe...

I'm not completely comfortable with the government's failure to release more of the evidence, but I've yet to see anything that contradicts their explanations. In the absence of valid contrary evidence, I'm inclined to believe the basics of the entire "official story" until I see something that disabuses me of that notion.

[TrogL]

155. Who are these architects and engineers?

I know a couple of architects and engineers personally and they all agree with the findings.

I don't trust reports, I trust physics.

[DBtv]

2. Not important now. First things first. Elect Johnny K.

Wait til after the prosecutor gets inagurated, then we will proceed with a thorough investigation.

[aeolian]

3. Oh, jesus christ

...*sigh*...

people WATCHED the fucking plane go into the building.

The Air Force tracked the damn thing over D.C.

AND: there is exactly one (1) missing 757. Not to mention the people on board that flight who are now dead.

[napi21]

33. I guess I'll have to go check, but all the women I see on TV

and those who forced the 911 commission hearings to even happen were all widows from the twon towers, weren't they? Hmmm

I really hate conspiracy theories, and don't want to be drug into this one, but you have me wondering now.

[impe]

96. Good For You!!

You should question this. If it hadn't been for the 5 widows, there wouldn't have been the
dog and pony show commission appointed by the prez. Can you imagine. The biggest security
breach in our country's history, and nothing from our government to determine why. When the
challenger(s) accidents occurred, the gov. immediately convened a blue ribbon panel to find out what
went wrong. The lack of action by the gov. should unnerve you to find out the TRUTH.

[demodewd]

124. revision

People saw A Plane approach the Pentagon.

The Air Force tracked A Plane over the DC area.

And there is no accountable proof that the plane that hit the Pentagon was Flight 77.

[RH]

145. It is absolutely not true to say that there is no accountable proof .

An autopsy was conducted.

Flight 77 passengers were thus positively identified.

Those who conducted the autopsy are there to call to account.

[Dem Agog]

4. Truly a compelling theory, I've heard it before, but...

What happened to that plane? And the people on it then?

[drunkdriver-in-chief]

21. The plane was vaporized

That's why no pics of the plane inside the pentagon have ever been shown. The wings, the fuselage, even the engines were vaporized. That doesn't happen with other plane crashes but our govt and the whore media say it happened this time.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[aeolian]

25. *smack forehead*

It hit a concrete wall at 300 mph while filled with jet fuel.

It wasn't "vaporized," it was blown to fucking bits.

Why is it so hard for people to beleive that four planes were hijacked, but everyone accepts that the other three were. We ALL watched the first two hit the WTC. We saw the wreckage of the third in PA. What is so hard to beleive about the pentagon?

They also never found the engines of the two planes that hit new york. Does that mean that the Mossad Penguin with the Laser Rifle also took down the towers?

Jesus, people...

[impe]

82. So

what punched the hole through the e-ring if the plane was blown to bits?

Also, it's too bad the plane was not made out of the same material as the white car and those spools that survived the blast.

[RH]

86. Little bits punch,

just the same as big bits.

Same goes for liquids and gasses.

[aeolian]

92. I dunno...

maybe one of the half-ton bits of metal and concrete flying around there?

...and the lucky car and spools prove...what...exactly...?

[impe]

98. Don't forget

the lucky tree!

[demodewd]

126. shaped charges

The hole was probably created by a jet flow created by shaped charges.

[Shoeempress]

5. Of course it did. What kind of weird sh!# are you willing to believe.

Check snopes. Here's the link:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[nostamj]

6. the 'no plane theory' is utter bullshit

and a distraction from legitimage 9/11 inquiry.

ever hear someone like K. Brietweiser legitimize this tinfoil crap? no. and you never will....

[Burma Jones]

7. No, Elvis did it

Or maybe Elves........

[wuushew]

8. Perhaps it was a forgery?

Since the thought process of accepting the likeliest explanation for things is no longer in vogue on this board.

[jtb33]

9. Will this rumor (BS) conspiracy EVER go away?

As I've said NUMEROUS times, it has GOT to be one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories about the events on 9/11. I guess the passengers from the missing airliner are in some underground bunker being held hostage.

[aeolian]

12. And...

...someone managed to make a car bomb that left no crater in the ground, but took out a five-story, hardened building.

Christ, people, give it up.

Four planes were hijacked, four were destroyed.

[tridim]

18. It won't go away until they release the various security videotapes

that would show a giant airliner passing over the highway on it's way to crashing into the Pentagon. There is no reason to hide these tapes if they corroborate the official story. I'm not a conspiracy nut, I'm a pragmatist and a stickler for logic.

[RH]

51. Why would the cameras show a giant airliner?

Why would a gas station security camera point at the sky, away from the gas station? Just in case an airliner happened to fly by at 500 mph?

[jtb33]

61. Logic?

Then just answer me ONE question to my satisfaction: What happened to flight 77 and where are the passengers and crew?

[tngledwebb]

116. Save the more complex questions for later.

First ask what happened to photographs, CCTV tapes, etc, that will convince skeptics a plane the size of a Boeing crashed into Pentagon. Now, some of those might be under FBI/CIA control for security purposes, but a careful review of all extant photographic records will or should convince you that there is no way a Boeing crashed into that Pentagon wall. Take a look at overhead satellite view for example. Photos of fallen lampposts, engine pieces, or scraps of metal are only circumstantial evidence, ie if you trust US media or govt reports, even 'eyewitness testimony' after the last 4 (or 40) years, that's another issue. There is plenty of 'eyewitness testimony' for Nessie, Yeti, Elvis, UFOs and the risen Christ. And always bear in mind the term 'Cognitive Dissonance', it will be a big part of your new world view afterward.

[RH]

118. Photos of fallen lampposts ... are only circumstantial evidence?

No! The lamp poles are definitley not at all "circumstantial evidence".

Overhead satellite views confirm that lamp posts were at the scene of the crime, at the pertinent time, and involved, in the path of the aircraft that hit them.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[tngledwebb]

123. YES! They are ONLY that.

How do inert objects CONFIRM anything like the time of the crime or indeed any crime at all? They could have been knocked over by a big wind, pulled over by a military vehicle, brought down by any other plane with a similar wingspan, etc. The poles are most assuredly ONLY and merely circumstantial evidence for Flight 77 hitting them and/or hitting the Pentagon. As are photos of wheels or scraps of aluminum and so on, all this 'evidence' is ONLY circumstantial.

[RH]

127. Big wind?

Military vehicle? Only in your dreams.

Keep on puffing.

:eyes:

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

10. Yes

[RobertSeattle]

11. Please go rent a 757

And fly into a building at 350 miles an hour and get back with me - thanks.

/Sarcasm

[rsmith6621]

15. Ask Tedd Williams

He lost his wife that day on AA77

[RobertSeattle]

17. I am not trying to disrepsect anyone who died on AA77

But I do believe the conspiracy theories do.

[DulceDecorum]

76. Has Ted Williams

reported the death of his wife
to the Social Service Administration?

And what was her name?
I don't seem to be able to pull up anything on her.

[TOhioLiberal]

13. my answer:

N/T!!

[Endangered Specie]

64. Amen to that.

[DrWeird]

14. Did astronauts really land on the moon?

There was a very interesting show on Fox that said they didn't.

[aeolian]

19. Humans have also never

invented the wheel, apparantly.

Oh, and the Earth is actually bananna shaped, but the government doesn't want us to know.

[BootinUp]

23. Capricorn One

They made a movie about that too, lol.

[SaveElmer]

20. And where did all the passenegrs on that flight go ?

Oh that's right...they are in on the conspiracy too!!!

What a bunch of horseshit!!

[BootinUp]

26. They were space-napped by aliens. LOL

[drunkdriver-in-chief]

42. That is the lamest argument of all

Suppose dick cheney gets drunk again and smashes his car into a pole and is killed and the govt says he was killed by someone in an SUV who crossed the center line. Then the skeptics point out the flaws in that theory (no SUV paint marks, for example, on cheney's car) and then you say " but then what happened to the people in the suv"?

[napi21]

44. Here's a link to the people who died in that plane.

http://www.sadnews.net/CTZ/0Mem/20010911/AA77-2001.htm

Are you really going to believe with all the relatives of those people, no-one would have said something? The plane is GONE! The people are dead!

[drunkdriver-in-chief]

72. Half the "hijackers" are still alive

Our govt lied about those deaths too.

[RH]

79. No they are definitely not still alive.

This ridululously ignorant, maliciouly deceptive myth must be put to stop once and for all.

A number of people with similar identities turned up in the Middle East. Not one of those people was anywhere near to the USA on 9/11 or anywhere around that time and they're not going to thank anybody for attempting to pretend that they were. Some of the FBI's supects used false identities. The FBI never pretended otherwise. It is beyond doubt that those suspects had existed separately to the people in the Middle East. Those suspects have never been seen since 9/11 except at the scene of the crime and the autopsies.

[serryjw]

22. ASK yourself this.....

The 'bad guys' planned the most incredible feat. They hijacked 4 commercial aircrafts from a cave in Afganistan.........
Why did they NOT know when NYERS went to work...and that it was an election day.......3 hours later the next day we would have lost 30,000 people.

Ask your self..they were able to hijack 4 commercial aicrafts....BUT why did they fly ONE into the ONLY part of the Pentagon that was under construction killing so few? ANY other part of the Pentagon would have killed thousands.

I hate coincidences

[aeolian]

30. I do beleive...

that the planes were hijacked from american airports on the East Coast. Perhaps I am geographically challenged.

They did know when people went to work, hence 8:30 AM in a weekday morning.

They had to work with existing flights. Airlines tend not to adjust their schedules, especially when someone asks "Could you possibly delay this flight for one day so I can kill more people?"

As for the pentagon, well, pentagons have five sides. One-in-five.

I find it hard to beleive that the planes that hit the WTC actually hit the south facing wall! I mean, there were three other perfectly good walls to hit! Why the south facing wall? HMMMM???

[RH]

49. The question does not apply.

Because there is no evidence to the effect that anybody intended to fly into the Pentagon. The notion is entirely conjectural.

[Endangered Specie]

65. Umm, being able to determine

which one of 5 sides of the pentagon was under renovation would be a difficult task for someone flying in an aircraft cockpit at 300MPH directly towards it, and who is probably more occupied with working the controls. And even if the bastard could tell which side was best to hit, it would have been too late to correct course or would have involved flying over and around again.

[LARED]

66. You don't understand the mentality

You see many of the CT'er believe that a few weeks prior to 9/11, Bush and Cheney reviewed the plan with the hijackers by standing out on the pentagon lawn and pointing to which window to hit and which light poles to impact.

[Endangered Specie]

67. I think Im starting to understand the mentality of CTers...

[Old and In the Way]

121. Don't forget Hans!

Mr. Hanjour, who's flight instructor says was incompetent to fly a Cessna, is able to fly a commercial airliner, at cruise speed, 7000 ft over Washington....do a 270 degree turn and drop it precisely between the spools and the building. What are the chances of an inexperienced pilot pulling off this feat without destroying the airframe in mid-air?

And doing it at all, 52+ minutes after the 2nd plane hits the WTC?

[RH]

146. That question is only valid if you can show

that there was any intention to fly the plane to the point where it actually ended up. As yet I have not seen a shred of evidence to show that it was intended. The notion is entirely speculative.

So in the mean time I await an explanation of why an experienced pilot on a well planned mission would have chosen to collide with five lamp poles before hitting his target when there was no necessity of any sort to do so.

[demnan]

27. People heard and saw the plane

it was in a heavily populated area. I used to live near the Pentagon about 1/2 a mile away and I know witnesses who actually saw and heard the plane as it flew over my apartment building. That's good enough for me.

As to the complicit reactions that Bush and Cheney may have been involved, via LIHOP and MIHOP I lean towards MIHOP, but I can't deny the plane having been there.

[John Doe II]

147. Eyewitness list

Because there is a lot of talk about eyewitnesses and everybody quotes some for their purpose, here perhaps the most complete list of all eyewitnesses.
http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/witness.html

Very strange after reading all of them you can prove everything and nothing. But certainly some of them are made up afterwards (maybe subconsciuously). It's hard to believe that people stated that they could see the passengers trough the window of the airplane. How can this physically be possible with an airplane going full speed. You simply would have no time to look through the windows ....

[DrWeird]

28. Did a plane really crash in Pennsylvania?

If you look at photos of the crash site, there's not a plane to be seen. Just a big whole in the ground. Clearly it could not have been a plane crash. I suspect an Amish carriage bomb.

And did you see the wreckage of Ground Zero? Never saw any planes sticking out of that. They must be lying about that too.

[aeolian]

29. That damn pengiun...

...he was busy that day, wasn't he?

[maveric]

32. How do you explain the small puncture in the side of the Pentagon?

And the fact that the supposed fuselage traveled through 3 or 4 concrete section? Where did the wings hit? Where were the wings? Did they find identifiable body parts?

Some people just refuse to believe ANY theory that may involve a conspiracy. Especially on that may point at the good old US of A.

"We dont do those thing here."

Lets not be naive and open your minds.

[RH]

54. The autopsy identified 58 of the passengers.

n/t

[aeolian]

55. sigh

It's not naive, it's called critical thinking.

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, and I'm perfectly willing to entertain all sorts of theories as to how, politically, 9/11 went down.

But this business of the 757 is such complete bullshit.

How did it travel through concrete sections? Same way a hollow-point bullet goes through wood. The momentum is forward, and perpendicular to the wall. Concrete is brittle, and becomes relatively more brittle as the energies involved increase.

Where did the wings hit? Well...right next to the fuselage. Tell you what, stick your arms straight out to the side, and run full speed through an open door. If you manage to make a notch in the walls, send me a picture. The wings were sheared off, just like your arms would be if you did the door experiment at 300 mph. Furthermore, they were loaded with jet fuel at the time. The fuel exploded and the wings were blown apart, NOT VAPORIZED!!!!! If the wings had indeed been vaporized, then the heat would have vaporized a large part of the building as well.

That explosion (remember, it was the PRESSURE that ripped the plane apart, not the heat) would have turned the people inside into salsa (please do not take offense at my graphic example, but I am going for vivid here). So I doubt any large body parts would be found, but the organic material would be there, hence the surviving DNA.

Just because information is presented in grainy slow-mo with dramatic captions and music does not mean it's true. Honestly, that's the same sort of intellectual laziness that lets shit like the SBVT fluorish.

[Infomaniac]

34. I believe its been debunked.

Snopes plus some media outlets visited the theory when the book making the claim was published. The fireball that ensued after impact would have incinerated the parts of the plane that crashed through the first three rings of the Pentagon.

[Ezlivin]

35. Two Things That Will Kill This Theory

1) The immediate release of ALL confiscated video tapes (unedited);

2) Proof that a temperature exists at which metal is destroyed but DNA is not.

Honestly, I don't know what hit the Pentagon, but until the FBI releases all of the tapes and explains how a fire hot enough to consume a plane will not destroy DNA, something is amiss.

Everyone protests "What about the original plane?" and "What happened to the people on board?" Those are legitimate questions that should be addressed later, if required by the release of the tapes.

Why doesn't the government behave proactively and put any lingering doubts to rest? It can't be hard to hand over some video tapes. After all, they don't have state secrets on them.

Or do they?

[aeolian]

59. well

#1 - I doubt security cameras were pointed at the sky above the interstate. Besides, any footage that did exist would also contain information that could identify people with top level security access (faces, license plates, etc.) The government will not knowingly release images that even hint at information like that. Never have, never will. Security.

#2 - Explosions are pressure waves. It's the pressure that ripped the plane and people apart, not the heat. The wings were destroyed, not vaporized.

[Ezlivin]

85. Well, well

#1 - There were several cameras aimed at the Pentagon:

• 2 traffic cameras which would have shown the plane passing over traffic;


• 1 security camera atop a hotel, pointed at the Pentagon;


• 1 security camera at a gas station, pointed at the entry point;


• 1 security camera at the gate, pointed at the entry path.

The resolution of most of the cameras would not have allowed the retrieval of any significant data that resolved to smaller than .5 meter, thus any faces/license plates etc would likely be unreadable. Even if they were, technology exists to blur those areas. As a former submariner with a Top Secret clearance, I've seen and handled many secret documents; the government can show some data without revealing all.

#2 - "Destroyed, not vaporized" This is an anamoly that belongs only to the planes that flew on 9/11. The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorders from both Flight 93 (Pennsylvania) and the Pentagon crash were found: http://www.npr.org/news/specials/tradecenter/tradecenter.html The WTC crashes yielded no "black boxes".

But have you heard about any of the data or voices they contain? What happened to them? Are they still looking at the data?

[RH]

87. "security camera at a gas station, pointed at the entry point"?

What "entry point", please?

Where do you get that from?

Flight 77 Black Box information was recovered. To what extent I don't know.

[Ezlivin]

90. Google "Pentagon Citgo FBI"

The owner of the Citgo gas station has said that FBI agents "confiscated" his security camera. The camera pointed over his gas pumps and directly at the area where the crash took place.

There are at least 5 tapes that show all or part of the attack on the Pentagon. Only one of these tapes has been released and it was edited.

There are two reasons to keep the tapes secret:
1) The data on the tape is secret;
2) The manner in which the data was captured is a secret.

Since every camera was in a known location and the operation of each was openly known, number 2 can be ruled out.

What data on any of the tapes could be secret? Everything outside of the Pentagon is "public domain", so activities in this area could not be considered secret.

[RH]

97. I did. Did you?

Did google come up with any "entry point" or any "pointed at" story? Not when I tried. So what please did you have in mind?

Nor have I seen anything to the effect that 5 tapes show all or part of the attack on the Pentagon. Where do you get that from?

And according to what is anything secret? "Private" would be more to the point. Everything outside of the Pentagon is not "public domain". Copyright laws apply. The FBI are therefore primarily responsible to the owners of any video material, not to you nor I.

If any police agency without permission released anything belonging to me I'd be a good deal less than happy, especially in view of the potential value of a unique photographic record.

[Ezlivin]

100. Yes

Google may not have delivered the phrase "entry point", but the point was not the exact wording, but the areas covered by video surveillance. If a camera was pointed at the wedge where the aircraft struck, that's all that is necessary to provide coverage of the "entry point."

These points remain:

1. Several publicly-owned cameras were aimed at various locations that would have shown the aircraft in flight and on impact;


2. The tapes were taken by the FBI and not returned;

If you look at where the cameras are located and what they are aimed at, you will see that they cover several different areas. While one camera may not have filmed the entire sequence, they all captured different phases. (For instance, the traffic monitoring cameras would have captured the overflight of the interstate at a very low level.)

Copyright laws extend to the maker of the document. The US Government does not have copyright laws for any film footage taken on public property. The FBI has the legal right to confiscate film footage as part of an investigation (see Zapruder's film).

Once law enforcement confiscates a video they are under no constraints concerning that video's usage. If they deem it necessary, they could show it every night on the news (perhaps to help locate someone in the video, for example) without regard to any profits you may have made off a "unique photographic record."

[RH]

101. "if"?

According to posting #85:

"There were several cameras aimed at the Pentagon:
.......
1 security camera at a gas station, pointed at the entry point;"

No "if" qualification there.

Now you are saying

"If you look at where the cameras are located and what they are aimed at, you will see that they cover several different areas."

I know where the Sheraton is and I know where the Citgo Gas Station is, and I think it a slim chance that a camera at either place would have anything significant to show. Apart from sheer speculation or wishful thinking do you have anything to show to another effect?

And what exactly excuses the FBI from copyright, or any other privacy consideration, please? Do you have something to firm up your assertion? In view of your reckless myth making on the other issue it would be foolish to take your argument at face value, wouldn't it? As a simple matter of common sense there must be a limit to their practical power, so what defines it?

[Ezlivin]

107. It's All Speculation

I don't know you personally, RH, but I'm willing to bet that you and I probably agree on more than we disagree (politically). After all, you are posting here on DU.

With that said, let me expose my own "nudity".

I know nothing about 9/11 other than what I've read, seen on the television/internet or heard from others.

I was not in New York on 9/11. I was not in Washington, DC on 9/11. I had no friends or family in either place. I personally know no one who was in either city at that time.

So all of my discussion is pure speculation, based solely upon what I've read and seen, but not experienced.

Regarding 9/11 and all of the events of that day, I only know what I've been told by the government, our press and fellow netizens such as yourself.

I watched all of the news reports on 9/11, watched the video footage of all the crashes and heard the explanation for what had happened and how it happened. I could argue with you about trivial things (such as the exact aiming point of the cameras) or larger issues (did an aircraft strike the Pentagon), but to what end?

Unless you were there and have first-hand knowledge, I suspect you are getting your information from the same sources as I do. Therefore it's really a matter of what perspective you take on the issue. Here's where I stand.

There are three ways of viewing the events of 9/11:

1. Terrorists succeeded in foiling our national defense and intel, or;


2. Our government knew of, but did not stop a terrorist attack (LIHOP), or;


3. Our government carried out the attack covertly (MIHOP).

Unless there is a permutation I missed, would you agree that the events must fall into one of those situations?

• If it is #1, then heads should roll in the Defense Department and CIA.


• If it is #2, then heads should roll all over;


• If it is #3, then heads should roll all over.

And what really bothers me is that no one has been punished. Someone fscked up, somewhere.

[RH]

110. You missed one.

The collision of Flight 77 with the Pentagon could have been unintentional, or it could have been brought down by a defense system of some sort. That would explain a reluctance to reveal some crucial
technical details, wouldn't it? The trajectory does not appear to me to indicate a pre planned attack. I think it odd that nobody wants to look into the possibility that the event was not intended.

It is not actually a crime to fuck up, is it?

What was most alarming in September 2001 was an apparent propensity to leap to conclusions, the shoot first and ask questions later tendency. I'm getting that same feeling now. Before undermining anything I like to be sure that it aint going to fall on me.

[Ezlivin]

128. In the military, everything's a crime

Well, it least it felt like that when I was in. :)

You said:
The collision of Flight 77 with the Pentagon could have been unintentional, or it could have been brought down by a defense system of some sort. That would explain a reluctance to reveal some crucial technical details, wouldn't it?

If it was unintentional, then it's one hell of a coincidence that it happened during a terrorist attack. And even if unintentional, it still managed to happen.

I've heard that the Pentagon does have a defense system; perhaps missiles. If it did work as intended, I should think that the military would exult over this successful "live-fire" missile test. Or perhaps they should fume over the failure?

Regardless, taxpayers have paid a trillion dollars into our defense system and it did not work as planned. Can we get our money back or hire new defense personnel?

You said: The trajectory does not appear to me to indicate a pre planned attack. I think it odd that nobody wants to look into the possibility that the event was not intended.

Yes, the trajectory is very odd; some air traffic controllers were noted to have said that they were impressed by the pilot's ability, performing a move that was very complex and dangerous.

The many little anamolies does tend to fuel the fires of conspiracy theorists. With all of what we've been told and shown, things still do not quite add up. I believe some people are more discomforted by these incongruities and, hence, they try to come up with alternate explanations (read: conspiracies).

You said: It is not actually a crime to fuck up, is it?

I guess it depends on which branch of the military you are in. :)

I think it is a crime if we've paid money to people to protect us and they failed. And if they failed, the exact nature of the failure needs to be probed and corrected.

Do you think we did a good investigation? Are you satisfied with the results of the 9/11 commission?

[RH]

129. Good and bad

is a matter of expectation.

Having expected nothing much from the Commission one way or the other I take it as it is. If people wanted more then they should have put more in. In Europe and in Russia the perspective is different. People who are still around who remember the devastation of the Second World War are secretly glad when at last the USA gets a taste of it. They're not going to say so but that's how they feel. Expectations of perfect security are for perfectly spoiled children.

Until we see some hard data any talk about the difficulty of the trajectory of Flight 77 before it got to Columbia Pike is idle gossip. It is the final dive to the Pentagon that bothers me. How would it help to collide with five lamp poles when there was absolutely no need in terms of a planned trajectory? I think the idea may have been to buzz low over the Pentagon for good measure while actually aiming for the Capitol Dome.

I want to know the relative location of the military C130. Some who saw said it was close. If there is a reason to withhold photographic evidence that could be it.

[geek tragedy]

111. Heads should roll.

And W's should be the first for his lazy, immature attitude towards terrorism then. And now.

[drunkdriver-in-chief]

89. So now it's a "pressure wave"???

That's what disintegrated the plane?? Has this happened in other plane crashes?

[aeolian]

91. uhh...

well, yes...every time fuel explodes.

That's what an "explosion" is. Pressure.

It's called physics. It can be very helpful.

[jimshoes]

36. One thing puzzles me about the Pentagon crash

The aluminum and steel plane vaporizes yet they are able to ID all the passengers. It just seems a stretch. I'm focusing on the election now however and this discussion can wait till after we've won the White House.

[MrSammo1]

40. Yeah

The temperatures of these vaporized jet parts should bother you. Unless they had a invisible blast furance somewhere? It's not easy to reach 4,400 degrees F.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. Why do you say the parts were vaporized?

Please provide a link to any official documentation where the plane at the Pentagon was stated to have been "vaporized."

[RH]

47. That's a trick question.

There are no such links.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. Shhhh!

I'm hoping he'll do some Googling and realize where the word "vaporized" actually came from in all this....

[aeolian]

60. it came from technical ignorance. (n/t)

[MrSammo1]

69. Didn't you hear that?

I heard it back in Nov 2001. Don't you remember the press conference, that BushCo gave? They said the wings folded and the jet vaporized. It was on all the networks!

Did they change their minds?

[Bolo Boffin]

78. Ahem. Link, please...

"It was on all the networks!" just isn't good enough. A link to a transcript would be nice.

Tell you what, here's a hint. Google the words 9/11 and vaporized.

And then tell me all about what you find.

[Bolo Boffin]

102. I'm going to assume...

...that you have now googled 9/11 and vaporized, and discovered that the only official use of the term was in a press conference about the WTC, not the Pentagon, and was referring to the bodies of WTC occupants, not the various pieces of Flight 77.

No one has ever claimed, as far as I know, that Flight 77 was vaporized.

[RH]

106. Frank Probst said that he saw an engine vaporize

when it hit the electricity generator outside the Pentagon.

His intention was not of course to provide an academic thesis. He merely described his experience as best he could.

[MrSammo1]

109. That was exactly what they said

They said the wings folded on impact and that the jet vaporized! I know what I heard. It's why I've been looking into it ever since. They lied on national TV!

Not surprising that there are no links to what was said.

They won't even take credit for the five frame folly!


===============================================================
"Where were our aircraft, when a missile is heading toward the Pentagon" - Jamie S. Gorelick <9/11 Commission>
===============================================================

[aeolian]

94. No, they didn't change their minds,

it sounds more like they are just as ignorant of the distinction between "vapor" and "debris" as a lot of other people seem to be.

[RH]

45. The autopsy did not ID all the passengers.

One passenger was not possitively identified.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. AHHHHHHHHHH!

Ye Gods, the second thread today, and the dozens in the past week!

PLEASE look at the 9/11 Forum before you post. This has been posted and debunked OVER and OVER again.

[theangrystoner]

38. Uh oh... conspiracy theory.

I'm torn between my distrust of the Bush administration and my distrust of conspiracy theorists.

[drunkdriver-in-chief]

43. "Them dastardly arabs done it" is a conspiracy theory too

And an extremely far-fetched one. How could the arabs get our air defenses to collapse on 9-11??? I have to believe our govt was involved.

[Bolo Boffin]

52. They didn't have to collapse our air defenses.

They had to evade them. Crucial distinction.

[aeolian]

56. But that's not the point of this thread

This "movie" is trying to say that no airplane was involved at the 757. As soon as you start talking about the amazing failure of air defenses on that day, then you must accept that there was an airplane involved.

[drunkdriver-in-chief]

68. You don't understand

Everyone agrees something hit the pentagon. But it was most likely a missile or a small jet. It still should have been stopped. The pentagon is the most heavily defended building in the world.

[aeolian]

93. Most likely

it was a 757.

Just because it should have been stopped doesn't mean that a 757 suddenly became a cessna with a missile.

[Endangered Specie]

62. This must have been the dozenth time this has been posted.

[Endangered Specie]

63. Sigh, Same Shit Different Day.

[impe]

83. You must be a Fly

[tngledwebb]

81. Let's go to the video tape, other photos

Pics worth a thousand words. Those with eyes to see should Google Killtown, and look at Flt 77 crash site photos. Follow links. Think. After realizing the impossibility of the Official Story re Flt 77, it may take months till one begans to grasp the next logical conclusions. Newbies and others who haven't done their homework on photographic evidence should be skeptical of the number of posts by those who accept the 'Official Conspiracy Theory' w/o reservation. Remember the latest Bush popularity polls, ie the majority isn't always right.

[RH]

88. I did think.

I think you're horribly wrong.

How do you explain the five felled lamp poles. What is your think going to say about that?

[tngledwebb]

117. By your reasoning...

the felled lamp poles are proof conclusive of a hit by FLT 77. Is this your think? And you from the birthplace of Arthur Conan Doyle and Isaac Newton!

[RH]

119. I think that your absolute failure

even to attempt to provide an alternative explanation speaks for itself, proof comclusive that you dont have a leg to stand on.

As usual you're analysing the fruit of own imagination while straining desperately to defy the reality. Never once during the history of the entite universe did I say that lamp poles are proof conclusive of a hit by FLT 77.

I shall continue to suggest that the pole damage shows beyond doubt that the airliner seen by witnesses had a wingspan of 90 feet at the very least.

[tngledwebb]

122. So it was NOT

NECCESSARILY Flt 77? Bravo Dr. Watson, bravo.

[RH]

130. Of scourse it was

NECCESSARILY Flt 77, but not just because of the lamp poles alone.

To get the hang of it you have to pay attention.

[aeolian]

95. What I find most disturbing about all this

is the number of people who don't know what the word "vaporized" actually means, and how vapor is different from debris.

Basic physics, people. No child left behind, indeed.

[RH]

99. It happens all the time around here.

The slightest drift of anybody at the time into metaphorical language is routinely seized upon as if it were a considered statement of scientifoc fact. "like a cruise missile with wings" is the classic.

It comes of course from the chronic desperation that arises from having nothing more substantial to back up the fantasy.

[drunkdriver-in-chief]

113. Don't be so literal

Nobody believes the plane was actually turned into a gas. In this context, "vaporized" means turned into dust-like unidentifiable particles.

[RH]

115. particles were identifiable.

Aluminum confetti would not identify a particular aircraft but there was no doubt about the cause. Metal confetti and larger parts fell as far as three quarters of a mile away.

[DulceDecorum]

131. What was that?

Did RH say:
Metal confetti and larger parts fell as far as three quarters of a mile away.

The plane bounced backward?

How the hell
did pieces of the plane get to land
AS FAR AS THREE QUARTERS OF A MILE AWAY?
When the passengers are alleged
to have been found INSIDE the Pentagon?

[MrSammo1]

132. Because

Some of the Agents here make up things as they go along!

[tngledwebb]

125. But 'something' hit the Pentagon

Just what it was is still a 'known unknown'. But this is the real smoking gun for 9/11, due to the availability and/or lack of photographic evidence.

[Justice Freedom]

137. Something fishy is going on...

I do not know if this has been addressed in this thread, or in this forum, but I'm curious to know(keep in mind I'm speaking from memory and I'm a bit rusty, so feel free to correct me if need be.):

Regarding the 9 11 incident, and ignoring most anomalies, lack of air defense, eyewitness accounts that are very very intriguing(some examples are seen in film "in plane site", and in the engineering site "chief engineer" accounts )vast amount of coincidences that benefited and profited many in the us, and in the administration, inconsistencies of president's account and of many other members in the administration, and lack of a proper investigation(let's just ignore things like the lack of an investigation into the inside traders who profited, and the fact the budget of the worst terrorist attack in US soil is about a third that of President Clinton's affair investigation, and it's pretty much rigged, just look at those involved.), two things stand out:

First the pentagon pics, which I hope are fake: round ground level entry hole(nearby fence still standing and all) about 16ftapprox in diameter, the hole goes through three sections that is six walls of renovated steel reinforced concrete, and many columns which IIRC were covered in kevlar-and reinforced, after going through these sections and the space in between(more than 120ft IIRC) an approx 12ft exit round hole is left. Some of the initial accounts say it was the nose, but after some time the explanation switches to an engine as culprit(yet the engine, or may I say engines as there are two quite distant, and they did not supposedly penetrate the building-16ft approx- round entry hole).

Second, and this is one I'm really curious about(so any explanation is welcome). Large plume of smoke rising from ground level, near the wtc towers, PRIOR TO the collapse of any of them, as seen on CNN(footage is showcased in films like "in plane site"). How could a simple airplane crash cause this? Or was there some construction activity, or any other activity that could've caused a gigantic cloud of smoke.

[RH]

138. Wrong wrong wrong.

The nearby fence was not still standing.

The hole did not go through three sections, that is six walls of renovated steel reinforced concrete. The ground floor continued through the outer three rings with no exterior wall. Only the upper floors formed separate rings.

There were three 'exit' holes, not one.

The entry hole damage to the ground floor was about 96 feet wide.

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/

[WoodrowFan]

139. great link, thanks

That's a very good report. Thanks, again, for the link.

[MercutioATC]

140. For analysis of the Pentagon damage see this site:

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

..written by professional civil engineers who observed the damage firsthand. It describes the damage and the way it would have been caused by a 757 crash pretty thoroughly.

It answered a few of my questions. Hope it helps.

[DulceDecorum]

142. Observed the damage firsthand??????

By the time the full Pentagon BPS team visited the site, all debris from the aircraft and structural collapse had been removed and shoring was in place wherever there was severe structural damage. The design team charged with reconstructing the Pentagon was assessing the building and preparations were being made to demolish the area for reconstruction. Consequently, the BPS team never had direct access to the structural debris as it existed immediately after the aircraft impact and subsequent fire.
<snip>
Since all debris was removed prior to the detailed inspection, the team was unable to determine specifically the level and extent of impact damage in this region of the building.
<snip>
The team members do not have direct information on the impact damage to the upper floors in the collapsed portion of the building. However, based on observations of the condition of the adjoining structure and the photographs of the building before the collapse, the following general observations may be made: ......
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

[RH]

143. The remains of Flight 77 were visible,

gathered and sifted through in the Pentagon North Car Park, there to be observed before November 2001.

And if anybody cares to go dig them them up, their location of disposal is not an official secret.

Federal officials also especially preserved a small collection of evidence, the personal effects of the hijackers and chunks from the airplane engines at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040912-125608-7761r

[MercutioATC]

148. Your "sources" have more direct information?

The ASCE report is based on the most detailed firsthand knowledge that is available to us. Given a choice, I'd listen to the ASCE engineers before somebody with no qualifications who looked at a few pictures.

[MrSammo1]

141. The Pentagon photos

are not fakes. Most people in this country have never seen them. The US government hasn't seen fit to show the pre-collapse photos just as it hasn't seen fit to tell the truth about 9/11 as a whole.

All the government has to do is release the videos that it took from area businesses. That would put an end to all this.

[RH]

144. It is absolutely not true

to say that the US government hasn't seen fit to show the pre-collapse photos. You should be ashamed to persistently mislead by repeating that sort of maliciously deceptive fiction.

Most of the photos frequently presented as if a proof of the alleged "small hole" were official issues available immediately in September 2001 from government online sources, taken by US Marine Corps Corporal Jason Ingersoll. The images were readily available, and in a high resolution format from several online sources when I assembled the html "spot the lamp pole" pages early in 2002.

And if you have not actually seen any videos taken from area businesses how on Earth do you presume to know that they would put an end to anything? According to what is it so unlikely that the material has nothing of any significance to show?

If they were released and if they did have anything to show the more likely outcome would be another two years of fatuous argument as to whether or not they were faked.

[impe]

150. Welcome to the DU

I haven't seen In Plane Site yet but intend to... believe me, MARKET, drives everything and if anyone
had a video of a 757 hitting the pentagon, we would have seen it by now. There are several major news
organizations directly in the Arlington, Rosslyn area, the US was under attack, 2 known planes were headed
to D.C. and not one major new organization captured this? I don't buy it and never will.

Remember in theaters long ago, advertisers would flash popcorn and coke pictures during films so that only
the subconcious would process and cause people to go out and buy....the power of suggestion... is alive and well
today too.

[TrogL]

156. Logical fallacies, internal inconsistencies

Typical example. They show some crash sites that are nothing but splinters then ask "where is the wreckage". Then they show other crash sites of aircraft that have crash landed then burnt and claim they're an identical scenario.

They show video of tons of wreckage flying up and over the Pentagon, then ask why there's none on the front of the building.