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

[techweenie]

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

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

[island911]

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?

[ZAMIRZ]

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?

[ubiquity0]

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

[Seahawk]

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.

[on-ramp]

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.......

[mikester]

It's fun though.

true...true

[rcecale]

Originally posted by on-ramp
UPDATE: after about 5 minutes of "investigating", i believe that a plane did crash into the pentagon..

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

Randy

[techweenie]

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.

[ubiquity0]

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!

[A Quiet Boom]

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.

[techweenie]

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.

[mikester]

Originally posted by A Quiet Boom
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.

Masterfully said.

[A Quiet Boom]

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.

[Saintly]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
What is the link? It won't open on my computer (blank page)?

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

[island911]

We covered this TWO YEARS AGO .. ..Plane crashed to Pentagon on 9.11? hmmh..what plane?

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

[dd74]

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?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by dd74
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.