And I don't quite know what to make of this, either...
 

I've seen these details before, just never all together in this format:

http://pages.infinit.net/noc/pentagon.swf

spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam . . . .











. . . .spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam . . . .










. . . .spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam . . . .



spam.

Hey tech, have you heard Zel Millers speech?

Okay. Lets just assume that this is true (not saying it is, just pretend), what's the explanation for the plane then? A plane disappeared with a bunch of people on board too, where did it go?

What is the link? It won't open on my computer (blank page)?

I spent about two minutes reviewing the link below...this WWW thing has got to stop!

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

Link fixed. -Z-man.

that is compelling

UPDATE: after about 5 minutes of "investigating", i believe that a plane did crash into the pentagon..

second shooter, grassy knoll, blah blah blah.......

It's fun though.

true...true

Dude! I knew you couldn't be ALL bad! Way ta go! hehehe;)

Randy

Well, the urbanlegends page was interesting, but the key question it doesn't address was: where did the wings go?

It's just so unlikely they would magically 'fold back.'

That's exactly what the Purdue study says. Here's commentary from another site discussing the Purdue results:

--------------excerpt------------
The Purdue Study

A group of computer scientists and engineers at Purdue University created a simulation of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon. They noted the existence of a body of literature on collisions of aircraft into reinforced concrete structures such as nuclear reactor containment buildings. A 1992 study by Sugano, et. al. documents the crash of an F-4D Phantom interceptor jet into a 10-foot thick steel-reinforced concrete block at 480 mph. 1 The study shows that most of the jet was reduced to confetti, while producing only a shallow impression in the block.

Although there are limits between the comparison of an F-4 flying into such a block at 480 mph and a 757 flying into the Pentagon's columnated reinforced masonry wall at 250-350 mph, the Sugano study raised questions for the Purdue scientists as to how the 757 impact broke out as much as it did, and how it destroyed columns deep in the building. To account for the damage they postulated a liquid hammer effect, wherein it was the impact of the jetliner's fuel that produced most of the damage. Although the Purdue study purported to support the official version of events, its blaming of the majority of damage on the inertia of the fuel is starkly contradicted by the photographs taken soon after the crash, which show both unscarred limestone where the outer wings would have hit, and smashed-away portions of walls not in the path of the wings. The simulation has the plane's wings, out to their ends, entering the building.

-------------------

Of course, a search on this stuff links you up with a whole lotta 'tinfoil hat' theorists.

I would think an F4 crahing into a 10 foot thick block of concrete would be completely different from a 757 hitting the conc. column / reinforced masonry wall of the pentagon. The masonry wall can't be more than 18" I would think, with maybe 3' deep columns. And then there are windows. A 10' thick block of concrete is a heck of alot of concrete!

Here's a thought, not that I buy into conspiracy theories but this could have happened.

Let's suppose a 757 was heading for the pentagon but instead was force to sea and shot down by jet fighters, and second jet fighter armed with missles crashed into the pentagon causing the damage. Would the military want to admit they shot down a loaded 757 even though in my mind it would have been the right thing to do and might also have been done in Pennsylvania.

The truth is I believe the offical account of what happened, and while the evidence in the video is interesting we cannot forget that this was a crash and they aren't necessarily as predictable as we may think.

Christian: you're right. I think there's a randomness factor in crashes that people overlook.

Reports have the airliner travelling at 400, 433 and 466 MPH. I dont' think any tests of crashes have duplicated the speed of the plane and the structure...

Probably the best example we have is the WTC crashes, although the outer 'curtain' walls there were pretty much just glass.

Masterfully said.

techweenie,

Notice this picture with the 757 superimposed onto the wrecked building. Remember this is a hardened concrete structure and then notice that there is damage almost exactly as wide as the wingspan. This of course was taken from the link on the urban legends website.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1094184744.jpg

It's quite a large file so you will have to wait for the download.

:)

We covered this TWO YEARS AGO .. ..http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/81611-plane-crashed-pentagon-9-11-hmmh-what-plane.html

If I didn't know better I would say tech is trying to distract. :rolleyes:

The plane may have been going much faster than 466 mph. With the engines at WOT, and in a dive, who knows how fast it could have been going - and actually, if it was at all intact before the collision. Parts of it might have broke apart, or cracked, which would destroy the plane upon impact. The Pentagon is fairly stout. I think anything hitting a ten-foot wall of concrete at high speed would be completely obliterated.

This is interesting though. But what's more interesting is what the film itself says: Were we lied to? Was the Pentagon some sort of conspiracy? Was the World Trade Center?

The only event I have real doubts about was the Pennsylvania crash. Early reports had second debris field with engine pieces and a 6 miles from the crash site. Sounded like a shootdown. Later, the government admitted having given a pilot the go ahead to shoot it down, but added that the plane crashed before anyone could pull the trigger.

That's a good point.

There were something like eight or ten lamp posts clipped off in the plane's approach...

That brings up a good point for debate. Just what should the government do if a plane is hi-jacked and headed towards killing thousands? I believe we should shoot them down, in fact I insist on it, even if myself or a family member where aboard. I believe this to be the american way and would rather sacrifice my life to save the lives of many others. Our soldiers, firefighters and police believe this as well. Certainly there is a chance that we could shoot down a plane that wasn't aimed at mass killing and the terrorists could even use this strategy against us (force us to kill our own). But let's think about it for a moment, say you're George Bush on the mornig of 9/11, the Pentagon and the Towers have been attacked, a fourth plane is in the sky and fighters have been scrambled from Wright-Patterson or elsewhere, what would you're decision be?

My personal belief is that the PA plane was shot down and the information kept form a population that was already mourning the deaths of thousands, I mourn for the pilot that pulled the trigger and hope he can find inner peace in the fact that his actions probably saved many more lives than where taken. I'd bet in fact that the order was to disable the plane by shooting out at least one engine in the hopes of a crash landing. I don't see this to be a conspiracy theory, just a potential coverup for a potentially necessary action at a time when the american people already had enough to mourn over.

Christian, there's some info here:

http://www.flight93crash.com/

and here:

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2001/10/102901_Flight_93.html

and here:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread73516/pg#pid753726

The last names the supposed 'shoot down' pilot as Maj. Rick Gibney.

I don't doubt for a second that the plane in PA was downed by the military. I have heard this since 9.12.01 or thereabouts from "a guy I worked with at the time who used to be special ops and still had a number of special ops friends"*

*standard snopes disclaimer.

I'm with Christian...while I was driving home from work that morning (towards the Pentagon actually) they were saying how another jet was inbound (actually coming up the Potomac (WTF??)) I recall screaming to noone in particular to shoot it down. Sometimes there is the greater good to think of. It's been too long now, but maybe some face *could* have been saved if the gov't were to own up that they really were able to prevent something further, even if shooting down a plane was the best they could do. :(




A plane, not a missile, hit the Pentagon (see other thread).

While I agree with you, I think we could/should avert this before it happens. Nip it in the bud. Put US Marshalls on every flight originating in the US. If a bum pulls a hijack attempt, capture him. Why give the terrorist a chance to die? Lock his sorry arse in a prison for life with no chance for parole. Prison isn't cheap. $30-40k per year, per inmate, but it's a lot cheaper than shooting a passenger jet from the sky, eh? $30-40k is cheap if bother and sister can still keep mom or dad, eh?
jürgen

I don't think we will see another successful hijacking in the US. Passengers know what is at stake now and won't sit back, so I don't think it's necessary to put marshalls on EVERY flight.

I'm with Neil on this one, I know for certain that if I was on a hijacked plane I'd do my best to stop the terrorists. I'd bet many would help me as well.

Me three. Allah will have to wait another day.

The real question is what would happen if a terrorist took over Kerry's jet???? :D

He'd "bore" them into surrendering.