[Sandwich]

Very interesting.

Not saying I believe it, but I'm not saying it's wrong, either. Thoughts?

[kasperl]

no offence, but old.

it has been disproven quite a long time ago, you might want to google for 9-11 and false conspiracy theorys, it might turn the counter evidence up.

[diamondgeezer]

There certainly seems to be a lack of Boeing, but I have two questions:

1) Why say it was a plane when a booby trapped truck is just as good for anti-terrorist propaganda. Well, almost as good.

2) I assume the flight which supposedly hit the Pentagon was real, right? I mean if four registered planes full of real people were hijacked that day, what happened to the fourth one if it didn't hit the building? Are the passengers being kept silent by the government? Or was that Boeing actually a phantom flight full of fake people invented by the CIA?


Bah, kasperl mate - post slower next time aight?

[magatsu1]

why would the goverment lie about it ?
I think a truck bomb would be less disturbing than a hi-jacked plane full of people.

wouldn't the plane just crumple when it hit the building/ground.
ever see how much a car crumples when it hits a concrete block ?

[diamondgeezer]

When that Concorde went down, all that was really left was a Concorde-shaped scorch mark. The actual plane was ripped in to tiny little bits.

[J3Vr6]

The pentagon is one of the most reinforced buildings in the world.  It's the friggin US Defense building.  That thing can take a beating and keep on licking.

I always understood that the plane hit the ground before it went into the building.  Looking thru the pictures you don't see any break up, though.  Granted, those pictures weren't taken from far away.

The question about why they poured sand and gravel on the ground was just stupid and idiotic.  Anyone who's ever been by a construction site knows they pour this as a foundation for the x-ton trucks that come in and out so they don't sink in the grass.

[diamondgeezer]

What is it they said on the Simpsons?

There's a lot of flag burners
Who have got too much freedom
I want to make it legal
For policemen to beat them
'Cos there's limits to our liberties
At least I hope and pray that there are
'Cos those liberal freaks go too far

[magatsu1]

maybe they use super strong grass aswell, so that's why the lawn didn't look too bad

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by magatsu1
why would the goverment lie about it ?
I think a truck bomb would be less disturbing than a hi-jacked plane full of people.

wouldn't the plane just crumple when it hit the building/ground.
ever see how much a car crumples when it hits a concrete block ?

I'd find a truck bomb more disturbing.... because if you can get a truck into the Pentagon, you can get it anywhere......

[karajorma]

I've said it before and it's worth repeating.

The assassination of JFK really screwed America up didn't it?

I mean after that people are willing to believe any rubbish on the basis of the fact that if the American government could get away with shooting their own president despite every single rational American knowing that LHO didn't act alone then they could get away with even more weird crap.

As a result we get all kinds of crackpot stuff from Men not landing on the moon to the face of Satan appearing in the smoke from the twin towers.

Personally I think someone brave should run on the "I'll tell you who really killed JFK" ticket. It would be a landslide victory (if they lived long enough to make it into office )

[Knight Templar]

I'm sure this was already posted here at least once...

[mikhael]

Originally posted by magatsu1
why would the goverment lie about it ?

Well, how about this:

I think a truck bomb would be less disturbing than a hi-jacked plane full of people.

Call me crazy, but maybe, just maybe, the powers that be wanted people more scared, not less?

[adwight]

That's the first time that I've seen that, and I find it to be interesting.  The evidence does point that the airplane  never hit the building, because there simply aren't any airplane parts there... Interesting...

[Sandwich]

Ok, ok, I'll reveal the next part of the "puzzle"!

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

[IceFire]

Seen it before....every time I believe it less and less.  The fire chief never evaded the question like they author thinks that he is, there are clearly parts of the plane left, the lawn WAS damaged and thus sand was dumped on it, and eye witnesses less than an hour later were reporting that the plane hit the ground just short of the building...totally disintigrated (anyone seen airshow footage of multi billion dollar fighters disintegrating on grass fields?  the same planes that are designed to absorb battle damage?) and thus the wreckage flew into the Pentagon.  Easy to explain...plenty of eyewintess reports, plenty of evidence, and no real reason to cover it up.  Its obvious the Pentagon isn't an impregnable fortress on the topside...so whats to hide?  Nothing.  Not even American pride goes that far.

Besides, there's plenty of stuff thats probably underneath the Pentagon they could never touch with a hundred airplanes.

[Fineus]

I imagine the whole question of disintegration can be answered by the question:

Q: What happens when you chuck a metal frame into the ground at several hundred miles an hour?

A: The same thing that happens to everything else.

[Beowulf]

Valid thoughts, but ultimately wrong.
I still don't doubt "official" version of events.

(1) Aircraft really consist of very little mass: they are mostly aluminium tubes housing nothing but space and people.

(2) Aircraft contain LOTS of fuel. It burns. Modern aircraft are usually consumed in fire at an astounding rate--note the impressive fire-fighting equipment at military bases.

(3)The left side of the wall, the part that remains undamaged is due primarily to the fact the the Pentagon was going under renevations (thankfully). The undamaged part was the reconstructed part, the right had yet to be done. Notable are the new windows installed--they are so stong as to render the concrete walls actually weaker, therefore causing the walls to be reinforced.

(4)The relatively small portion of damage is due to the fact that the aircraft came in at a bank, hence the wings were at an angle.


~Beowulf.

[Odyssey]

[color=cc9900]Hell, it's not even a proper metal frame. Jetliner wings are not dissimilar to doped-fabric wings, but with metals instead of wood and stretched fabric. They're designed for strength transverse to the direction of travel, so they can cope with the stresses of lift along their length. Not for longitudinal stress - they crumple, and rightfully so. I've flown gliders, which even with a doped fabric and wood construction probably have stronger wings in relation to their size, and if you want to kill yourself the best way to do that is to touch a wingtip on the ground during take-off. If it sticks, blam, you're stuck in the middle of a frickin' huge two-pronged cartwheel. Now imagine a jetliner doing that - because of the different shape, you'll end up with one end (probably the cockpit) smashing into the ground at high speed with the rest not far behind. That is not a Good Thing™, especially with a lot of fuel in the wings. So they're designed not to be uber-strong, and hence why you can see some (leading section where the wings join the hull, I expect) wing damage on the pictures but absolutely nothing else.

And, for a little happy from-memory quoting:[/color]

In the continuing battle between man in machines flying hundreds of miles an hour, and the ground at zero miles per hour, the ground has yet to lose.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Odyssey
[color=cc9900] Jetliner wings are not dissimilar to...[/color]
 

this always puzzled me... why don't you just say

"Jetliner wings are similar to"...


anyway,

why would the goverment lie about it ?

are you one of those poor individuals that trusts everything the government tells you?

[Fineus]

I think in this instance he just can't see what point they'd have for saying a plane hit it instead of a truck with a bomb on it.

Frankly, neither can I...