# What hit the Pentagon?



## psi_radar (Oct 28, 2004)

An interesting piece of multimedia concerning the 9/11 strike on the Pentagon. Sorry if this is a re-post. 

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

Hypothetical: So, if what hit the pentagon was not a 757, what was it and what happened to the plane that went missing?


----------



## someguy (Oct 28, 2004)

Why would it not being a 747 matter?
It happend.  Things blew up.  I don't see why I shouldn't belive them.


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 28, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> Why would it not being a 747 matter?
> It happend.  Things blew up.  I don't see why I shouldn't belive them.



IF this were true...it wasn't a 757, then there's the mystery of where the missing 757 went, and what actually hit the Pentagon. If a missile or a commuter plane hit the pentagon instead, then why wouldn't we be told the truth? And why can't we see the suppressed video tape?

This is all just hypothetical of course. I thought the images and evidence as presented were compelling, but not bullet-proof evidence. If we could see the suppressed video tape, then most likely the evidence would be definitive one way or another.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 28, 2004)

Hmmm, I have not read the article in detail. Yet, I find this idea difficult to believe. Why? Because there were people who worked in that building that posted on sites like this or on Escrima Digest, just a few days afterwards, that talked about the clean up.

Some people are always looking for conspiracies.   :idunno:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 28, 2004)

Axly, it was Bigfoot. He fell out of his flying saucer.


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 28, 2004)

Well you can blame it on conspiracy theorist if you want. The photographic evidence and *lack* of it is far too compelling. 
Think about it. The attack on the WTC was enough to galvanize the American People to go to war. Like Pearl Harbor and the Maine. 

If you want to believe the (government controlled) media then okay... all I got to say is ... *BAA* 

Meanwhile I'll sit here and keep saying Woof! Until the *real* truth is known. You'll know it when you feel it.


----------



## someguy (Oct 28, 2004)

Oops 757 is what I meant.
Mainly I see no reason to disbelive the offical story.
Bah I'm a sheep but at least my wool coat keeps me warm at night.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 28, 2004)

Axly, advanced societies like ours constantly produce this sort of urban legend. 

It helps cover up the real scandals, which are always hidden in plain sight.

Repressive desublimation, anyone?


----------



## someguy (Oct 28, 2004)

Repressive desublimation
Ah run away.  It's another one of those word thingies.  

Hmmm Strange the way mine an macavers posts happend.  I didn't read your post as I posted but both dealt with being a sheep.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 28, 2004)

Well it is people like me that carry sheep shears. "NEXT!"


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 28, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Well you can blame it on conspiracy theorist if you want. The photographic evidence and *lack* of it is far too compelling.
> Think about it. The attack on the WTC was enough to galvanize the American People to go to war. Like Pearl Harbor and the Maine.
> 
> If you want to believe the (government controlled) media then okay... all I got to say is ... *BAA*
> ...




MACaver,

Lack of evidence. Ok show airplane parts from the WTC? I Believe those images form the camra's were planted, to cover up the fact that there was a well place explosive in the buildings.  Heck I saw David Copperfield make the Staue of Liberty disappear on TV. Could not a airplane be made to look like it hit a building?

As to galvanize America. I disagree. I would have liked to have seen more evidence before war was declared in Aghanastan or in Iraq. I guess I am just an impurity in that steel that was formed from the fires of the WTC.  :idunno: 

As to the truth, have you talked to anyone who worked in the building?  So you have other sites that show this lack of evidence? The Pentagon was designed to take bomb hits, as the visable head of the military, versus the Trade Towers which were designed to move in the air so as to not to fall down. Totally different design requirement, and physics involved. The WTC had some much more potential engery then the Pentagon ever thought of having. Hence the numerous attempts to attack it. Not just as a symbol, but also for the destruction it would cause. 

Just my thoughts though, and until you can present me with this said truth, I will continue to believen the people I talked to or e-mailed that were in the building when it was hit, and involved with the clean up. As I was not there, I have to weigh, who am I going to believe. People days after the event still in shock or years later people talking about it on the internet.

My apologies if I have upset you or yoru beliefs, I never said you were wrong, only what I believed, or thought based upon what evidence and information I have.

 :asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 28, 2004)

Duplicate post do to system lag. My apologies


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 28, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I would have liked to have seen more evidence before war was declared in Aghanastan or in Iraq.



Myself, I would have liked to have simply seen war declared in either of those circumstances.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 28, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Myself, I would have liked to have simply seen war declared in either of those circumstances.



PeachMonkey,

I agree that Congress did not declare war. Yet with the Presidential acts that allow the same functionality to occur as war, and the veterans get combat pay and such, it is technicality I also would have liked to seen. It is there for a purpose. It is a Legislation Check on the Executive branch. Yet, I guess we do not need it any longer. 
 :idunno:


----------



## TwistofFat (Oct 28, 2004)

*S*ept. 11, 2001 was one of the saddest day in US history. On 8:10AM, ET, AA flight 77 departed Washington's Dulles airport for Los Angeles with 58 passengers, 4 flight attendants, and 2 pilots. 5 Al Quatta hijackers aboard took over the plane and changed its course back to Washington. On 9:41AM, ET, the hijacked plane crashed into Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. The incident took life of more than 200 innocent people.​





*List of Pilots, Crew, Passengers and Hijackers crashed into Pentagon**Flight 77:**Washington to LAX :*
*AMERICAN AIRLINES BOEING 757**Pilots:*
*Charles Burlingame*, 51, Va.
*David Charlebois*, Washington, D.C.
*Crew:*
*Michele Heidenberger*, 57, Chevy Chase, Md.
*Jennifer Lewis*, 38, Culpeper, Va.
*Kenneth Lewis*, 49, Culpeper, Va.
*Renee May*, 39, Baltimore, Md.
*Passengers:*
*Paul Ambrose*, 32, physician
*Yeneneh Betru*, 35, Burbank, Calif., director of medical affairs, IPC
*MJ Booth*
*Bernard Brown*, 11, student, Leckie Elementary School, Washington
*Suzanne Calley*, 42, San Martin, Calif., Cisco Systems Inc.
*William E. Caswell*, 54, Silver Spring, Md., physicist, U.S. Navy
*Sarah Clark*, 65, Columbia, Md., sixth-grade teacher, Backus Middle School, Washington
*Zandra Cooper*, Annandale, Va.
*Asia Cottom*, 11, student, Backus Middle School, Washington
*James Debeuneure*, 58, Upper Marlboro, Md., fifth-grade teacher, Ketcham Elementary School, Washington
*Rodney Dickens*, 11, student, Ketcham Elementary School (Washington)
Eddie Dillard
*Charles Droz*, 52, Springfield, Va., vice president for software development, EM Solutions Inc.
*Barbara G. Edwards*, 58, Las Vegas, Nev., teacher, Palo Verde High School in Las Vegas
*Charles S. Falkenberg*, 45, University Park, Md., research director, ECOlogic Corp.
*Dana Falkenberg*, 3, University Park, Md.
*Zoe Falkenberg*, 8, University Park, Md.
*James Joe Ferguson*, 39, Washington, D.C., educational outreach director, National Geographic
*Darlene Dee Flagg*, 63, Millwood, Va.
*Wilson Bud Flagg*, 63, Millwood, Va., retired Navy Admiral and pilot, American Airlines
*Richard P. Gabriel Sr.,* 54, Great Falls, Va., managing partner, Stratin Consulting
*Ian Gray*, 55, Washington, D.C., healthcare consulting firm president
*Stanley Hall*, 68, Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.
*Bryan Jack, 48, *Alexandria, Va., senior executive, Defense Department
*Steven D. Jake Jacoby*, 43, Alexandria, Va., chief operating officer, Metrocall Inc.
*Ann Judge*, 49, Great Falls, Va., travel officer manager, National Geographic Society
*Chandler Keller*, 29, El Segundo, Calif., propulsion engineer, Boeing Co.
*Yvonne Kennedy* 

*List of Victims at Pentagon:*​
*US Army:*
Lt. Col. *Canfield Boone*
Sgt. First Class *Jose Calderon*, Puerto Rico
Lt. Col. *Jerry Dickerson*, MS
Maj. *Wallace Cole Hogan Jr.*, FL
Lt. Col. *Stephen Neil Hyland Jr.*, CA
Sgt. Maj. *Lacey Ivory*, MO
Lt. Col. *Dennis Johnson*, WI
Maj. *Steve Long*, GA
Lt. Col. *Dean Mattson*, CA
Lt. Gen. *Timothy Maude*, 53, Fort Meyer, VA
Maj. Ron *Milam, *OK
Spc. *Chin Sun Pak*, OK
Capt. *Clifford Patterson*, Alexandria, VA
*William Ruth*, Maryland
Lt. Col. *Dave Scales*, Cleveland, OH
Sgt. Maj. *Larry Strickland*, Washington, D.C.
Maj. *Kip Taylor*, MI
Sgt. *Tamara Thurmond*, AA
Lt. Col. *Karen Wagner*, TX
Staff Sgt. *Maudlyn White*, Virgin Islands
Maj. *Dwayne Williams*, AL
*US Army Civilian Employees:*
*Samantha Allen*, Hillside, MD
*Craig Amundson*, 28, KS
*Melissa Rose Barnes*, 27, Redlands, CA
Retired Master Sgt. *Max Beilke*, Laurel, MD
*Carrie Blagburn*, Temple Hills, MD
*Angelene Carter*, Forestville, MD
*Sharon Carver*, MD
*John Chada*, Manassas, VA
*Ada Davis*, Camp Springs, MD
*Amelia Fields*, Dumfries, VA
*Cortz Ghee*, Reisterstown, MD
*Brenda Gibson*, Falls Church, VA
*Ron Golinski*, Columbia, MD
*Carolyn Halmon*, Washington, D.C.
*Sheila Hein*, University Park, MD
*Jimmie Holley*, Lanham, MD
*Peggie Hurt*, Crewe, VA
*Brenda Kegler*, Washington, D.C.
*David Laychak*, Manassas, VA
*Teresa Martin*, Stafford, VA
*Ada Mason*, Springfield, VA
*Robert Maxwell*, Manassas, VA
*Molly McKenzie*, Dale City, VA
*Diane Hale McKinzy*, Alexandria, VA
*Odessa Morris*, Upper Marlboro, MD
*Ted Moy*, Silver Spring, MD
*Diana Padro*, Woodbridge, VA
*Debbie Ramsaur*, Annandale, VA
*Rhonda Rasmussen*, Woodbridge, VA
*Martha Reszke*, Stafford, VA
*Cecelia Richard*, Fort Washington, MD
*Edward Rowenhorst*, Fredricksburg, VA
*Judy Rowlett*, Woodbridge, VA
*Robert Russell*, Oxen Hill, MD
*Marjorie Salamone*, Springfield, VA
*Janice Scott*, Springfield, VA
*Michael Selves*, Fairfax, VA
*Marion Serva*, Stafford, VA
*Don Simmons*, Dumfries, VA
*Cheryle Sincock*, Dale City, VA
Retired Lt. Col. *Gary Smith*, Alexandria, VA
*Pat Statz*, Tacoma Park, MD
*Edna Stephens*, Washington, D.C.
*Sandra Taylor*, Alexandria, VA
*Willie Troy*, MD
*Meta Waller*, Alexandria, VA
*Sandra White*, Dumfries, VA
*Lisa Young*, Germantown, MD *US Navy:*
*Kris Romeo Bishundat*, 23, Waldorf, MD
*Christopher Lee Burford*, 23, Hubert, N.C. 
*Daniel Martin Caballero*, 21, Houston, TX
Lt. *Eric Allen Cranford*, 32, Drexel, N.C.
Captain *Gerald Francis Deconto*, 44, Sandwich, MA
*Johnnie Doctor Jr.*, 32, Jacksonville, FL
Commander *Robert Edward Dolan*, 43, Florham Park, NJ
Commander *William Howard Donovan Jr.*, 37, Nunda, NY
Commander *Patrick Dunn*, 39, Fords, NJ
*Edward Thomas Earhart*, 26, Salt Lick, KY 
Lt. Commander *Robert Randolph Elseth*, 37, NY
*Jamie Lynn Fallon*, 23, Woodbridge, VA 
*Matthew Michael Flocco*, 21, Newark, DE 
Captain *Lawrence Daniel Getzfred*, 57, Elgin, NE
Ronald *John Hemenway*, 37, Shawnee, KS
Lt. *Michael Scott Lamana*, 31, Baton Rouge, LA
*Nehamon Lyons* IV, 30, Mobile, AL
*Brian Anthony Moss*, 34, Sperry, OK
Lt. Commander *Patrick Jude Murphy*, 38, IL
*Michael Allen Noeth*, 30, Jackson Heights, NY 
Lt. *Jonas Martin Panik*, 26, Mingoville, PA
Lt. *J.G. Darin Howard Pontell*, 26, Columbia, MD
*Joseph John Pycior Jr.*, 39, Carlstadt, NJ
*Marsha Dianah Ratchford*, 34, Prichard, AL 
Commander *Robert Allan Schlegel*, 38, Gray, ME
Commander *Dan Frederic Shanower*, 40, IL
*Gregg Harold Smallwood*, 44, Overland Park, KS
Lt. Commander *Otis Vincent Tolbert*, 38, CA
Lt. Commander *Ronald James Vauk*, 37, ID
Lt. Commander *David Lucian Williams*, 32, OR
*Kevin Wayne Yokum*, 27, Lake Charles, LA 
*Donald McArthur Young*, 41, Roanoke, VA
*US Navy Civilian Employee: *
*Angela Houtz*, 27, La Plata, MD
*Brady Howell*, 26, Arlington, VA
*Judith Jones*, 53, Woodbridge, VA
*James Lynch*, Manassas, VA
Retired Capt. *Jack Punches*, 51, Clifton, VA 
*US Navy contractors:*
*Julian Cooper*, 39, Springdale, MD
*Jerry Moran*, 39, Upper Marlboro, MD
*Khang Nguyen*, Fairfax, VA
*Marvin Woods*, 58, Great Mills, MD 
*Others:*
*Donna Bowen*, Verizon Communications
*Allen Boyle*, Fredericksburg, VA
*Rosa Maria Rosemary Chapa*, Springfield, VA
*Gerald Fisher*, consultant, Booz-Allen Inc.
*Sandra N. Foster*, Clinton, MD
*Herbert Homer*, Milford, MA
*Robert J. Hymel*, Woodbridge, VA
*Terrance Lynch*, consultant, Booz-Allen Inc.
*Shelley A. Marshall*, Marbury, MD
*Patricia E. (Patti) Mickley*, Springfield, VA
*Scott Powell*, BTG Inc.
*Charles E. Sabin*, Burke, VA
*Karl W. Teepe*, Centreville, VA
*Ernest Willcher,*consultant, Booz-Allen Inc.
*Edmond Young*, BTG Inc. 


*Passengers: *(continues)*Norma Khan*, 45, Reston, Va., nonprofit organization manager,
*Karen A. Kincaid*, 40, lawyer, Wiley Rein & Fielding in Washington
*Dong Lee*, 48, Leesburg, Va., engineer, Boeing Co.
*Dora Menchaca*, 45, Santa Monica, Calif., 
*Christopher Newton*, 38, Ashburn, Va., executive, Work Life Benefits
*Barbara Olson*, 45, TV commentator and lawyer
*Ruben Ornedo*, 39, Los Angeles, Calif., propulsion engineer, Boeing Co.
*Robert Penniger*, 63, Poway, Calif., electrical engineer, BAE Systems
*Robert R. Ploger III*, 59, Annandale, Va., software architect, Lockheed Martin Corp.
*Lisa J. Raines*, 42, Great Falls, Va., senior vice president, Genzyme Corp.
*Todd Reuben*, 40, Potomac, Md., tax and business lawyer
*John Sammartino*, 37, Annandale, Va., technical manager, XonTech Inc.
*Yang Shuyin*, 61, Beijing, China
*Diane Simmons*
*George Simmons*
*Mari-Rae Sopper*, 35, Santa Barbara, Calif., women's gymnastics coach, UC Santa Barbara
*Robert Speisman*, 47, Irvington, N.Y., diamond industry salesman
*Norma Lang Steuerle*, 54, Alexandria, Va.
*Hilda Taylor*, sixth grade teacher at Leckie Elementary School, Washington
*Leonard Taylor*, 44, Reston, Va., technical group manager, XonTech Inc.
*Sandra Teague*, 31, physical therapist, Georgetown University Hospital
*Leslie A. Whittington*, 45, University Park, Md., professor, Georgetown University
*John Yamnicky*, 71, Waldorf, Md.
*Vicki Yancey*, 44, Springfield, Va.,
*Zheng Yuguang,* 65, Beijing, China
*[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]*
[/size][/font]


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 28, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> MACaver,
> My apologies if I have upset you or yoru beliefs, I never said you were wrong, only what I believed, or thought based upon what evidence and information I have.
> :asian:


Not at all Rich, isn't that what these discussion boards are all about??  
I was of course speaking from my own personal observations and conclusions. A jet that large has to make a hellva lot more damage traveling at that much speed. Granted the Pentagon was/is made of largely concrete... thus enough to stop a plane in it's tracks no? 
The WTC... steel and glass, and we all saw how the plane simply just plowed right into the buildings with almost no resistance (til they hit the center support columns). 
I too have a friend who works (as a civilian) in the Pentagon.. he says that he is very surprised at the lack of damage done to the building and the lawn. Fortunately he was at the Capitol building running an errand when the _whatever_ it was hit. 

I'm of the opinion that we must constantly question the authority which provides us with information... since they largely engage in dis-information on the basis of "National Security." 

Your two bits, my two bits... may not be the same bits but hey... it's discussion not argument. 

Peace :asian:


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 28, 2004)

I don't doubt flight 77 crashed (or was shot down) with all on board, or that the Pentagon was hit by something, but I remember watching the footage on 9/11 and noting how little wreckage was visible. 

For me, this is like a challenged play in the NFL--there could have been something different than what was called, but the right camera angle wasn't there. So I won't overturn the first official ruling. I would be interested in hearing first-person accounts of the rescue workers there and whether or not they recovered larger pieces of the plane and/or remains of any of the passengers. 

As for conspiracy theories, I don't think there's any harm in questioning the "official line" of any story. Sure, there are more sinister things afoot. Just read 1984, particularly the section where Wilson gets to read the book explaining the methodologies of his oppressive government. There are some seriously scary parallels there. Or for something even more concrete, read the report The Project for the New American Century, of which Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were key architects. 

Over time, as truths are revealed, conspiracy theories can gain a lot wider acceptance, maybe because we can gain emotional distance from the subject to be objective. For example, it's pretty much accepted these days that JFK wasn't killed by just one gunman. 30 years ago, not too many would make that claim.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 28, 2004)

Actually, I was thinking--capitalism, patriarchy, colonialism, poverty, as being more important than the Grassy Knoll guys.


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Actually, I was thinking--capitalism, patriarchy, colonialism, poverty, as being more important than the Grassy Knoll guys.



The other examples I presented--the perennial war/empire construct in 1984, and the PFNAC--directly address most of those issues, if in more specific terms. I mentioned JFK because it's an example we all know and can reference; I don't think I assessed a heirarchy of importance to any of this. If you want to do that, then yes you're right, those items you mentioned are more important, more of the big picture.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 28, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Granted the Pentagon was/is made of largely concrete... thus enough to stop a plane in it's tracks no?



Yes, it was designed to stop big things from getting in easy.



			
				MACaver said:
			
		

> The WTC... steel and glass, and we all saw how the plane simply just plowed right into the buildings with almost no resistance (til they hit the center support columns).



Actually, it was fire from the jet fuel that super heated the metal structures, combined with the damage done to the structure upon impact. Hence the weight of upper floors caused the building to collapse as if there were explosives in a demoliotion of a building. The building collapsed.

Arguement is the presentation of two sides, and discussing them, and or presenting counter points. 

Peace 
 :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 28, 2004)

The answer is simple.

Show us the missing video and explain the inconsistancies.

It won't happen.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 28, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Yes, it was designed to stop big things from getting in easy.


Here is an article in reference to the design, and how that design assisted in limiting more widespread damage.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/24/attacks.pentagon/


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 28, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Here is an article in reference to the design, and how that design assisted in limiting more widespread damage.
> 
> http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/24/attacks.pentagon/



Those Dang Engineers


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 28, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> ...Actually, it was fire from the jet fuel that super heated the metal structures, combined with the damage done to the structure upon impact. Hence the weight of upper floors caused the building to collapse as if there were explosives in a demoliotion of a building. The building collapsed...
> 
> 
> Peace
> :asian:



So what happened to all that fuel at the pentagon? Same plane, same load of fuel, not as much fire. (note unburned book in photograph of wreckage).


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 28, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> The answer is simple.
> 
> Show us the missing video and explain the inconsistancies.
> 
> It won't happen.



Yup.  :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Actually, I was thinking--capitalism, patriarchy, colonialism, poverty, as being more important than the Grassy Knoll guys.



Ya well, not to hijack the thread, but what if the "capitalism, patriarchy, colonialism, poverty" dudes are the grassy knoll guys?

Pardon my digression.  Hardheadjarhead where are you?  We discussed this long ago and I liked what you said...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 28, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> So what happened to all that fuel at the pentagon? Same plane, same load of fuel, not as much fire. (note unburned book in photograph of wreckage).




Well not having been on ground zero, yet a three story building re-enforced for a large attack, and that airplanes have engines on the wings that would be ripped off instead of traveling with the plane into the building. The central body would act like a spear and penetrate, yet the fire supression system of the pentagon combined with the fuel and fire contained versus an open platform such as the towers, would allow for less burn damage. As I said I was not on ground zero, so I base this statment upon knowledge of systems, engineering, and what I call common sense in the fact of how would I design a building that may have to face a tank attack or small missile attack. Also How would I use the interior design to contain the enemy and allow for maximum usage for friendly troops. Hence localized fire supression systems that could be set off to limit the water damage as well as to contain any fires.

Also the Pentagon is concrete with the redundacy of multiple structures, versus the towers that were made of steel and glass, which is much more suseptable to heat damage from burning jet fuel.


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 28, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Well not having been on ground zero, yet a three story building re-enforced for a large attack, and that airplanes have engines on the wings that would be ripped off instead of traveling with the plane into the building. The central body would act like a spear and penetrate, yet the fire supression system of the pentagon combined with the fuel and fire contained versus an open platform such as the towers, would allow for less burn damage. As I said I was not on ground zero, so I base this statment upon knowledge of systems, engineering, and what I call common sense in the fact of how would I design a building that may have to face a tank attack or small missile attack. Also How would I use the interior design to contain the enemy and allow for maximum usage for friendly troops. Hence localized fire supression systems that could be set off to limit the water damage as well as to contain any fires.
> 
> Also the Pentagon is concrete with the redundacy of multiple structures, versus the towers that were made of steel and glass, which is much more suseptable to heat damage from burning jet fuel.



I agree with you about the central fuselage acting as a spear. That's logical. However, Boeing 757 and most large passenger and cargo planes carry their fuel mostly in the wings (that, you're right, should have sheared off--where are those?) and a single central tank. If we go by your model, then the bulk of the fuel (66.66667%) would be on the outside of the pentagon.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 28, 2004)

I recall Upnorthkyosa had a debate going on this some time back...I thought it was settled.  Its a vicious urban legend that was started in France, a half-brained fiction that ignores the pain of the relatives of those killed in the attack.

Did some people think they saw a small plane?  Probably.  Yet _thousands _ more saw an airliner...some of whom were journalists on their way to work.  There was slow traffic that day, and many, many people saw an airliner smack the building.  The first reference below provides some of their testimony.


http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm

http://www.geocities.com/roboplanes/757.html



Dave Dobler posted a great response to all of this on morons.org.  Scroll down the page a bit when you get there:

http://web.morons.org/forum/topic.jsp?id=56


For me, I'm not going to argue against it.  I did that once.  Those that want to might check the references above.

I'll say this:  Those who buy into conspiracy theories like this get stimulated into thinking...but it is irrational thinking.  _It is pseudo-intellectual mind candy. _  Junk food for the brain.   It panders to that part of the mind that yearns for knowledge--even if its bogus--and plays to that hunger for the revelation of hidden truths that many of us have.  We feed our sense of discovery by embracing stuff like this, but without discovering anything.  We feel we're iconoclasts by going against the opinion held by the majority--but we betray our individulalism by not honoring it with cogency.

If you want cognitive stimulation, find something of merit to read rather than stuff of this nature.  If you want to feel you're "on to something" and privy to something few else know about, read some stuff by James Randi or "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan.   Edge away from that part of your mind that calls you to believe in a myth and propogate it.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 28, 2004)

Thanks for the links Steve.  I knew I'd seen some rebuttles out there, but I'm rather brainmushed this week.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 28, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Thanks for the links Steve.  I knew I'd seen some rebuttles out there, but I'm rather brainmushed this week.




Me too.  Must be solar flares.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 29, 2004)

> I recall Upnorthkyosa had a debate going on this some time back...I thought it was settled.  Its a vicious urban legend that was started in France, a half-brained fiction that ignores the pain of the relatives of those killed in the attack.



As I said at the beginning, sorry if it had already been discussed. I did a quick search and didn't come up with a match. Vicious? How so?



> Did some people think they saw a small plane?  Probably.  Yet _thousands _ more saw an airliner...some of whom were journalists on their way to work.  There was slow traffic that day, and many, many people saw an airliner smack the building.  The first reference below provides some of their testimony.
> 
> 
> http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm
> ...



Steve, the listings you showed me are fairly compelling, though I still have to wonder why the FBI won't release the suppressed video if all is as it is said to be, or why there's a punch-hole at ground level. I will also never believe that it is a disservice to individuals who die in an incident as horrendous as this one to question the circumstances surrounding their death. As to "junk food for the mind," well, there's no more important task for us as citizens and humans to question and confirm rather than accept and validate without further investigation. Thanks,

Pete


----------



## raedyn (Oct 29, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> There's no more important task for us as citizens and humans to question and confirm rather than accept and validate without further investigation.


Good point. It is a worthy task to question, even if the answer ends up being they were right all along.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 29, 2004)

*Vicious? How so?*

By a number of definitions of the word.  

64 people were on that plane.  Each had family members.  Resurrecting their pain by bringing up impure and faulty notions of their loved ones deaths is vicious.  Playing with an event like this to satiate one's paranoid fantasies about devious plots is heartless...and mindless. 

*
I still have to wonder why the FBI won't release the suppressed video if all is as it is said to be, * 

If there were indeed any of these alleged videos, why should they?  To indulge people who choose to ignore the THOUSANDS of witnesses to the event?  So...do we then speculate that the government had a "mind control ray" wherein they implanted false memories of an airliner hitting the Pentagon?  

The FBI very well may not be "suppressing" anything.  Have you or anyone here made inquiries as to the videos?  Do they even exist?  If you can speculate as to the existence of an airliner, I suppose I can play the game with video footage.  If there were no tapes, and the FBI came forth and said so...they would be accused of suppressing or destroying them.  If they came forth with videos, and they revealed nothing...they would be accused of editing them.  Its a "no win" situation for them.

*I will also never believe that it is a disservice to individuals who die in an incident as horrendous as this one to question the circumstances surrounding their death. * 

See above.

*As to "junk food for the mind," well, there's no more important task for us as citizens and humans to question and confirm rather than accept and validate without further investigation. * 

Skepticism such as this has no intellectual weight and does nothing more than arrogate those touting it.  Were it not for footage of the planes hitting the WTC, people would state that missiles did the deed...or, as has been posited as a reason for their collapse, pre-planted explosives.  It is speculation run amok being dressed up--and badly so--as forensic investigation.  

Raedyn, please note that conspiracy theorists do not tend to admit to error.  It robs them of the illusion of power that the conspiracy theory gives them.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 29, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> I agree with you about the central fuselage acting as a spear. That's logical. However, Boeing 757 and most large passenger and cargo planes carry their fuel mostly in the wings (that, you're right, should have sheared off--where are those?) and a single central tank. If we go by your model, then the bulk of the fuel (66.66667%) would be on the outside of the pentagon.




Well as all models are not 100% correct, I would still expect that the wings would have ended up in the first section of penetration. The kenetic energy of their motion would have been enough to enter, get ripped off, and remain in a single location that could be contained and have fire surpressant available to assist.


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 29, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> *64 people were on that plane.  Each had family members.  Resurrecting their pain by bringing up impure and faulty notions of their loved ones deaths is vicious.  Playing with an event like this to satiate one's paranoid fantasies about devious plots is heartless...and mindless. *
> 
> Their deaths are, unfortunately, tied to a historical event. I doubt that this bit of multimedia filtered through the web will impact them more than the nine gazillion times 9/11 is brought up by politicians for their own motivations or the media for theirs.
> 
> ...


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 29, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Well as all models are not 100% correct, I would still expect that the wings would have ended up in the first section of penetration. The kenetic energy of their motion would have been enough to enter, get ripped off, and remain in a single location that could be contained and have fire surpressant available to assist.



One of the links that Steve sent stated that the particular thermal and ballistic dynamics of this crash sucked the wings inside the building, where as you said they were doused with fire suppressant from the building and then the trucks outside.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 29, 2004)

Just my two cents on these subjects:



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> *Vicious? How so?*
> 
> By a number of definitions of the word.
> 
> 64 people were on that plane.  Each had family members.  Resurrecting their pain by bringing up impure and faulty notions of their loved ones deaths is vicious.  Playing with an event like this to satiate one's paranoid fantasies about devious plots is heartless...and mindless.



It is how you approach the question, makes all the difference. 

If you make a statement, and show links or actual evidence that can be discussed, then this is alright in my mind.

If you make statments, that are unfounded, with no real proof, and all of it depends upon paranoia and the fear someone might be hiding something, then this is not the right way to accomplish this. My opinion.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> *
> I still have to wonder why the FBI won't release the suppressed video if all is as it is said to be, *
> 
> If there were indeed any of these alleged videos, why should they?  To indulge people who choose to ignore the THOUSANDS of witnesses to the event?  So...do we then speculate that the government had a "mind control ray" wherein they implanted false memories of an airliner hitting the Pentagon?
> ...



First, I agree with Steve, go request to videos and show they are denying them. Show people who say their video was taken from them and not returned. They I will admit there is video available.

Now to address the possibility of video being present.  The pentagon building and the response time may be considered National Security, as this is where much of the day to day work of the military is accomplished. This way, no one will be able to study the video (* if it existis *), to learn how to better attack the building the next time.

The biggest concern about Security and items or ideas classified as secret or what ever, is that people will take little bits of information and put it together, and then figure out something that is classified.

I did the same thing to a friend in his office, with no classified information. After his repots and research was complete it became classified. He had to laugh, because I told him it would be. (* The events have already happened back in the mid 90's this data is actually public knowledge now *). Yet, for a period of time it was considered classified.

This is not to support people beliefs that there is video, only if you go and prove there is video this is to address why it might not be released. So, I respectfully ask you to go ask, and use the "Freedom of Information Act" to request.  :asian:



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> *I will also never believe that it is a disservice to individuals who die in an incident as horrendous as this one to question the circumstances surrounding their death. *
> 
> See above.



While I agree the questioning is a good thing. There are ways of doing it.

i.e. I here you train with a fraud that got his certifactes out a craker jack box. 

or you might try something more like:

I was curious about your instructor. Others have not had good things to say. I would like to talk to him, and or ask him, about his training and see for myself.

The first is very insulting and vicious, the second is polite and respectful yet, will get to the same end. Just my opinion though.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> *As to "junk food for the mind," well, there's no more important task for us as citizens and humans to question and confirm rather than accept and validate without further investigation. *
> 
> Skepticism such as this has no intellectual weight and does nothing more than arrogate those touting it.  Were it not for footage of the planes hitting the WTC, people would state that missiles did the deed...or, as has been posited as a reason for their collapse, pre-planted explosives.  It is speculation run amok being dressed up--and badly so--as forensic investigation.
> 
> ...



Confirmation is good. Start with the federal governement.  Contact ABC/NBS/CBS/Fox/UPN/CNN/et al and see if any of their reporters had video that was suppressed. I am sure that at least one will come forward. Contact teh national government and ask for the videos. I would be curious to see what answer you get.


 :asian:


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 29, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> While I agree the questioning is a good thing. There are ways of doing it.
> 
> i.e. I here you train with a fraud that got his certifactes out a craker jack box.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure who you're addressing here, me or the theorists who made the multimedia. I'll assume it's me. I think I've been polite and respectful, even contrite so far. If you don't think so, then you might be inferring more from my writing than I intended to imply. 

This was my first stop for information since people on this board have a wide range of opinions and resources, and I knew I could come away with credible input. I'm not trying to propagate rumors or misinformation, if anything I'd like to debunk it. If I wanted people to just say "f-yeah man, the shadow government," I could go to any of the university coffee houses near me and bring up this topic.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 29, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> I'm not sure who you're addressing here, me or the theorists who made the multimedia. I'll assume it's me. I think I've been polite and respectful, even contrite so far. If you don't think so, then you might be inferring more from my writing than I intended to imply.
> 
> This was my first stop for information since people on this board have a wide range of opinions and resources, and I knew I could come away with credible input. I'm not trying to propagate rumors or misinformation, if anything I'd like to debunk it. If I wanted people to just say "f-yeah man, the shadow government," I could go to any of the university coffee houses near me and bring up this topic.




Psi_Radar,

If it was directed at you I would have said so. I was making a reply to Steve and adding in my generic thoughts, for some could not believe how Steve might think that way. I was just offering a different point of view. If you take it to heart and wish to reflect upon it and make some changes then so be it. I did not mean it directed at one person in specific, only generic reply, hence no opening direction to a person. 


 :asian:


----------



## psi_radar (Oct 29, 2004)

Rich,

Ok then.


:asian: 

Pete


----------



## MA-Caver (May 19, 2006)

If THIS http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/170506reallylook.htm 
video was shown intially, I would've believed it... but the official video released... still makes one say... yeeeahh...riiiggghhhtt! http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12818225/


----------



## Sapper6 (May 19, 2006)

so you're saying, you believe it wasn't an commercial aircraft that hit the building?


----------



## crushing (May 19, 2006)

MA-Caver said:
			
		

> If THIS http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/170506reallylook.htm
> video was shown intially, I would've believed it... but the official video released... still makes one say... yeeeahh...riiiggghhhtt! http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12818225/




It's kind of funny that a "crude collection of        doctored frames" is considered to be more believable than the actual video.

Can anyone in surveillance on this forum give us the usual fps of video surveilance systems?  It sure isn't 24 or 30 fps like film and tv.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2006)

Here are a couple of scholarly opinions on the matter...

*



A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon 
by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer 


To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven: 
I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757. 

I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads). 

The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around managing the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to near-atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure region of cruising altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind. 

If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely. The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel. 

This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy, impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous wall with windows etc. is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact, and subsequent buckling of the aircraft. 

We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.) 
  EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C 

American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete wallsa total of nine feet of reinforced concretebefore exiting through this hole. 


It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion. 

How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated. 

I do not know what happened on 9/11, I do not know how politics works in this country, I can not explain why the mainstream media does not report on the problems with the 9/11 Commission. But I am an engineer, and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges are used to "cut" through materials. 

I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757 incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft (which I also feel is impossible), the fact that the two main engines were never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a gas station and hotel, which they have refused to release. 
You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757.  
Sincerely, 

Michael Meyer
		
Click to expand...

 
And...





News Conference Statement 
by George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.) 
Scholars for 9/11 Truth 
Alexandria VA, 13 March 2006  


I'm George Nelson; I served four years of enlisted service, and 30 additional years as a commissioned officer in the Air Force---- Please, let me begin by saying, that I get no pleasure or personal satisfaction whatsoever from speaking out in opposition to the US government's official conclusions, and the 911 Commission's official report of the tragedy that occurred on September 11th, 2001.  

I'm a trained aircraft accident investigator. I completed the University of Southern California's accident investigation course in 1989. I was an aircraft maintenance manager throughout my military career and was assigned additional duties as a member of accident investigations for the Air Force. In every case of an aircraft loss, an accident investigation was always conducted and a report was issued through command channels, and it made no difference if the loss was due to an obvious accident or if it had been shot down by enemy fire. An investigation was always conducted, and a report was always filed, even if the plane was under 5,000 feet of water and not recoverable.  

In the case of all four reported aircraft losses on 9-11, each one was reported to have been carrying commercial passengers aboard scheduled commercial airliners. Federal Aviation regulations in Part 121, governs the operations of all scheduled airlines that operate inside the United States, including foreign airlines, which transit through our airports in commercial operations. In the case of each aircraft loss that occurred on 9-11, the regulations are very clear and unambiguous investigations were required, and the reports would have covered the loss circumstances in excruciating detail, including all collateral damage incurred. Especially in the cases of such horrendous loss of life, collection of physical evidence would have been paramount in determining the precise causes of each loss. Scientific and reasoned deductions are permitted only after an exhaustive search and analysis of physical evidence has been completed. Hundreds of parts from each of those four aircraft are critical for safety of flight, and as such, must be meticulously controlled by only one-of-a-kind, dedicated, serial numbers. These parts are required by FAA regulations to be tracked and removed and replaced at a designated number of flying hours or a number of actual cycles. Just like the toughness of black boxes, these components are virtually indestructible and relatively easy to find among the crash wreckage. Each of the aircraft would have two engines that are nine feet in diameter, and would have had many of the critical, serialized parts installed. Several sets of massive landing gears would have been easy to find and identify, and each of these parts would have been linked to one, and only one aircraft in the world. The aircraft parts from the two World Trade Center buildings, the Pentagon and the hole in the ground at Shanksville, Pennsylvania would have disclosed the specific identity of each aircraft, and those parts did not vaporize as some Pentagon spokespersons have reported. The parts may have since vaporized but not during the reported crashes. The well-known Black Boxes were reported to have been found, but were immediately confiscated and seem to have since, disappeared.  

Independent news photographers and investigators at Shanksville, Pennsylvania were kept far away from the reported aircraft crash site by security cordons and guards. The public could only view the crash site by an aerial photo. The photo shows an impact area only 20 feet long by 10 feet wide, and the photo shows no sign of crash wreckage inside the small area. Most small fighter planes create larger holes than that, and again, no aircraft accident report has been made public. This only serves to heighten the public's growing skepticism of the 911 Commission report.  
And then we have the reported crash of a Boeing 757 with a 125-foot wingspan that was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon. It made a 16-foot diameter hole in the building at ground floor, and penetrated three inner rings of the building and left an almost perfect circular hole as it exited the third inner ring of the building. If an aluminum Boeing 757 had struck that fortified building, there would have been more aluminum on the ground outside than what went inside, yet there was little visible evidence of an airplane crash on the outside. What physical evidence that could have been of some value, was immediately carted away under cover. And once again, there's the annoying problem of the missing Black Boxes.  
In the interest of time, I'm going to relate just one more piece of key evidence. The aircraft that was reported in the government's official story to have crashed into the south tower was United Airlines, Flight 175 carrying 65 passengers, including the crew and five highjackers. One of the television news cameras captured the Boeing 767, just as it was banking into a left turn, seconds before striking the building. Underneath the fuselage, installed across the starboard aircraft wing root, is a visible, large piece of equipment that most viewers have called a Pod. Many have speculated what purpose the Pod might have served on a passenger carrying, scheduled airliner, but such speculation is pointless at the present time. The fact is, that such extraneous equipment would have never have been installed on a Part 121, scheduled airliner in the first place. Every piece of equipment proposed for use on an aircraft after its production must be issued a Supplemental Type Certificate by the FAA prior to installation. No record of an STC was found that would authorize such external equipment to be used on a Part 121, Boeing 767 airliner. This leads to a more disturbing speculation, that the airplane seen hitting the south tower was not UAL flight 175, but a plane that had been substituted for flight 175.  

The National Transportation Safety Board decides which of three organizations will take the lead role in Part 121 accident investigations. Sometimes the NTSB will assume the lead, and in some cases they will assign lead responsibility to the FAA, but most always if criminal foul play is suspected, the lead role will be assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with the technical assistance of both the FAA and NTSB. It's fair to say, in this case that the NTSB suspected criminal foul play on 9-11, so which agency had primary responsibility for the investigations and required reporting? Where are the reports? Where is the physical evidence to back up those reports? Does anyone recall TWA Flight 800 that was bound from the US to Paris about four years ago? The FBI was assigned the lead roll, suggesting that foul play was suspected, and the FBI gave almost daily reports on the evening news channels, but ultimately the FBI's conclusion was, that a spark in one of the internal fuel tanks caused the fatal explosion. At least we all knew in that case, there was an investigation conducted, such as it was.  

I could go on and on with the many weaknesses in the 9-11 Commission's report, but there's little reason to belabor the details, so I'd like to offer just two or three websites where anyone who's the least bit interested can find most every weakness in the 9-11 Commission report. In these few minutes we've just begun to scratch the surface. For further information, we suggest you research the following websites for yourself, but there are many more credible sources available. Check out--- www.st911.org; www.physics911.net or the website edited by the couple sitting to my left; www.wingtv.net/.  
 I'm frequently asked by people hearing me speak about9-11, Why in the world are you speaking out about this tragedy? Doesn't it worry you? I answer the same way every time I'm asked----- Because I'm a man with a conscience. You can see by my age that I must have grand children, and I do. I'm about to turn this country that I deeply love, over to my children and my grand children. And as I look around, I don't like what I see happening to it.
		
Click to expand...

 
Do your own research.  Draw your own conclusions.
*


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 19, 2006)

Well being an engineer, and having read previously that the pentagon was built for containment and also absorbtion for assualt.

I also remember hearing people saying that the Towers would not fall either with a simple airplane hitting them. Yet given tests of extreme heat on metal under load you get collapse and once collapse begins then it cascades. 

I also remember reading a post on the Escrima Digest from a person who was in the building when it was hit. He used the term the building was hit, and that clean up and finding bodies was underway and of a higer priority then posting, but was grateful to let those who asked about him that he was still alive. 


People can believe that a group of civilians tried to take over a flight in air that was under terrorist control, yet others cannot believe that a building built to stand up to just about everything but a nuke was not destroyed and his thought of how it should be on the outside of the building. 


When accidents happen wierd things happen, even to the best designed building or vehicle, be it a plane or an automobile. 

I have seen and talked to some lawyers about accidents where my company was in court for a law suit for fire. The battery of the car was twenty five feet out of the car embedded in a tree. The engine was also embedded into a tree. If the engine cannot turn and the battery is not attached there is no power to have a fire from the design of the vehicle.  But as people were burned and the jury is about emotions then an award was issued. 

So how was the fire started and continued to get fuel from the back of the car into the cabin? 

Wierd things happen, people have a source of ignition with them that is consumed in the fire. Yet design is design, and wired thing happen. 

I am confused by those that are unable to accept an obvious point and must look for something more complicated.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I am confused by those that are unable to accept an obvious point and must look for something more complicated.


 
These guys are experts in their fields and they are only basing their conclusions off of what they see.  Our government holds all of the cards and they could provide evidence that could rebutt all arguments, even against well educated experts, if there story is true.  I'll wait until that happens.  As for now, this is anything but obvious.  I think that legitimate questions exist.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 19, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> These guys are experts in their fields and they are only basing their conclusions off of what they see. Our government holds all of the cards and they could provide evidence that could rebutt all arguments, even against well educated experts, if there story is true. I'll wait until that happens. As for now, this is anything but obvious. I think that legitimate questions exist.



Am I not an expert Engineer also? Ok I did not work on planes but I did work with Armor and also Balistic weapons. Does not my opinion or view also make sense?


----------



## MA-Caver (May 19, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> These guys are experts in their fields and they are only basing their conclusions off of what they see.  Our government holds all of the cards and they could provide evidence that could rebutt all arguments, even against well educated experts, if there story is true.  I'll wait until that happens.  As for now, this is anything but obvious.  I think that legitimate questions exist.



It's been four years... what possible "National Security" matter could they be wanting to protect? Besides why "wait for an opportune moment?" Probably to help W's polls boost back up from the dismal 29% he's sitting on.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 19, 2006)

Also what about those who within 24 hours claimed it was a plane, that were at ground zero. 

That is moving real fast for the government and their brain washing or convincing people of what they think they saw.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 19, 2006)

MA-Caver said:
			
		

> It's been four years... what possible "National Security" matter could they be wanting to protect? Besides why "wait for an opportune moment?" Probably to help W's polls boost back up from the dismal 29% he's sitting on.



Besides the obvious politcal issues which I do not doubt are at part of the heart, but as for safety if one released the exact details then others would have a road map on how to destroy the Pentagon.

A friend of mine asked another friend of mine about how long it took to power up his nuclear reactors on his ship. Before he could answer I said it was classified. The third person commented, "Classified?". I replied yes, as if I knew how fast they powered up and how fast to come up to max speed, I could back calculate knowing the average efficiency of the reactor the number of rods and cores they were using. 

There are obvious things out that people ignore and or do not realize what it can do in the right hands.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Well being an engineer, and having read previously that the pentagon was built for containment and also absorbtion for assualt.


 
I happen to have a degree in physics, so I kinda understand some of this stuff...



> I also remember hearing people saying that the Towers would not fall either with a simple airplane hitting them.


 
According to the engineers who built the WTC, the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of multiple 727 strikes, hurricanes, conventional bombs, etc.  They were over-engineered to a very high degree.



> Yet given tests of extreme heat on metal under load you get collapse


 
Actually, according to the head of the department in charge of materials testing for the company that actually tested the WTC steel, the steel should not have failed...

See Kevin Ryan's letter

http://www.rense.com/general59/ul.htm

It should be noted that Mr. Ryan was fired after asking these questions...



> and once collapse begins then it cascades.


 
This is physically impossible.  It violates the law of conservation of momentum.  See structural engineer Judy Wood's Phd argument...

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html



> I also remember reading a post on the Escrima Digest from a person who was in the building when it was hit. He used the term the building was hit, and that clean up and finding bodies was underway and of a higer priority then posting, but was grateful to let those who asked about him that he was still alive.


 
I'm glad that he made it out of there...



> People can believe that a group of civilians tried to take over a flight in air that was under terrorist control, yet others cannot believe that a building built to stand up to just about everything but a nuke was not destroyed and his thought of how it should be on the outside of the building.


 
The explanation stating that 19 terrorists armed with box cutters hijacked four commercial air planes and flew them into some of the most heavily guarded structures on the planet is a conspiracy theory...in the truest sense.  



> When accidents happen wierd things happen, even to the best designed building or vehicle, be it a plane or an automobile.
> 
> I have seen and talked to some lawyers about accidents where my company was in court for a law suit for fire. The battery of the car was twenty five feet out of the car embedded in a tree. The engine was also embedded into a tree. If the engine cannot turn and the battery is not attached there is no power to have a fire from the design of the vehicle. But as people were burned and the jury is about emotions then an award was issued.
> 
> ...


 
Weird things can happen.  Yet, even those need to have an explanation.  And even then, certain things are predictable.  For instance, the explanations cannot violate the laws of physics.  Nor can they push the realms of extreme probability without extraordinary proof.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Also what about those who within 24 hours claimed it was a plane, that were at ground zero.
> 
> That is moving real fast for the government and their brain washing or convincing people of what they think they saw.


 
I don't know what happened, Rich.  I am not convinced by the governments theory.  In my opinion, they have not provided the evidence to support their theory.  Further, the sheer amount of lies and distortions contained within leads me to believe that they are lying.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Am I not an expert Engineer also? Ok I did not work on planes but I did work with Armor and also Balistic weapons. Does not my opinion or view also make sense?


 
I respect your opinion.  However, I don't think that you've taken a look at some of the details of this thing.  There are alot of very educated people out there analyzing the information that is available and coming up with the conclusion that there is no way, based on the current information, that the official story can be true.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Also what about those who within 24 hours claimed it was a plane, that were at ground zero.
> 
> That is moving real fast for the government and their brain washing or convincing people of what they think they saw.


 
I think that Steven Colbert summed it up best...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1766908,00.html



> "Over the last five years you people were so good - over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out ... Here's how it works: the president makes decisions ... The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spellcheck and go home ... Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!".


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 19, 2006)

Here we go again....

Save the tifoil, read this thread again http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30749

PLENTY of experts way more credible than any HS teacher have weighed in on this. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS agree with the collapse. Ill take their word over some conspiracy theory hack with an astronomy degree in physics any day.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 19, 2006)

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 19, 2006)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html

Welcome to the companion Web site to "Why the Towers Fell," originally broadcast on April 30, 2002. The program follows a team of forensic engineers during their in-depth investigation of the precise causes of the Twin Towers' collapse. Here's what you'll find online: 

Did You Know?

1. Most structural engineers were surprised when the World Trade Center towers collapsed.

2. Engineers believe that part of the reason why the towers remained standing as long as they did after impact was because of redundancy in their design: The weight of upper floors pushing down on columns lost in the impact was transferred to other columns nearby that were left intact.

3. Only four people escaped either tower from above the floors where the planes struck, using what appears to have been the only stairwell not destroyed or blocked by the impacts: Stairway A in the South Tower.

4. One of those survivors recalled that when struck by United 175, the South Tower swayed in one direction for seven to ten seconds before swinging back and stabilizing.

5. The World Trade Center was designed to withstand hurricane-force winds.

6. It was also designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, though engineers apparently did not take into consideration the plane's fuel load.

7. Each plane that hit the Twin Towers released an estimated 10,000 gallons of flaming jet fuel into the buildings.

8. Temperatures of the fuel fire may have reached 2,000&#176;F.

9. Though no evidence has turned up that the fires burned hot enough to melt any of the steel, eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength because of the intensity of the fire.

10. While there are signs that the fire melted aluminum from the fuselage or wings of at least one of the planes, there is no evidence that the aluminum burned.

11. Many structural engineers feel the weak link in the chain within the towers was the angle clips that held the floor trusses between the interior and exterior steel columns.

12. The angle clips were smaller pieces of steel than the columns and therefore gave out first.

*13. Each floor was designed to support approximately 1,300 tons beyond its own weight, but when one or more gave way in the intense fire of the impact zone, the combined weight of higher floors crashing down reached into the tens of thousands of tons.*

14. Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons.

*15. There was no chance of either tower tipping over, for a 500,000-ton building has too much inertia to fall any way except virtually straight down.*

*16. Each 208-foot-wide building would had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base.*

*17. Each building collapsed in about ten seconds, hitting the ground with an estimated speed of about 125 miles per hour.

18. The collapse was a near free-fall. With no restraint, the collapse would have taken eight seconds and would have impacted at about 185 miles per hour.*

19. The reason the 110-story towers collapsed into a rubble pile only a few stories high was that they were about 95 percent air.

20. The roughly 300,000 tons of steel from the World Trade Center is fully recyclable and represents just a single day's production by the U.S. steel industry.

Sources

Note: Unless otherwise specified, all sources are NOVA/WGBH. 

7. "Towers Fell as Intense Fire Beat Defenses, Report Says," by James Glanz and Eric Lipton, The New York Times, 3/29/02, p. A14.
8. Ibid, p. A1.
13. "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation," by Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso, JOM: The Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, December 2001, available at www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
15. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
20. Ibid.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 19, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I respect your opinion. However, I don't think that you've taken a look at some of the details of this thing. There are alot of very educated people out there analyzing the information that is available and coming up with the conclusion that there is no way, based on the current information, that the official story can be true.




I do not doubt that people have different opinions.

I never said the government never has lied to us or not given the whole truth.

Live video for the second plane flying into the second tower with the first plane being later showed on personal video. 

Would any one believe it if it had not been seen by so many?

So what caused the collapse? Pre-planted explosives? So the US Government killed thousands of people so they could create the freedom act, and homeland security? I think not. I do believe that parties took advantage of a situation as many do who are in power when such a situation arises.


Yet it seems that people are quick to only look at one side. 

As to physics, this is good. The basics make sense and can be explained by experts to make their opinion sound right. 

I argue all the time with Ph D's because they only have theory, and have no idea what happens under pressure and also under different temperatures. 

I have been in meetings where people could not agree because both sides are able to present something in a simple manner for a presentation for the boss types to make a decision. If no concurrance is found then no decision is made so the new idea is not used until other data can be found. 

People who start out with the comments that they are educated and also have experience with something that has limited relationship to the subject at hand, but it distracts and it impresses people, so they listen to the rest. 

It is a way to write using positive words and negative words to get your point across it is also part of the standard brain washing techniques that all politicians and others in power use to control people and get people to think the way they want them too. 

Being a physicist I would hope that you had an open mind to question for sure, but also recognize that sometimes the easiest answer is the correct answer. 

I still think that people took advantage of a situation not people planing this devious act, that would be almost impossible to hide.


----------



## Ray (May 20, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Did You Know?
> 
> 1. Most structural engineers were surprised when the World Trade Center towers collapsed.


Did you know?

1.  The titanic was unsinkable?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Here we go again....
> 
> Save the tifoil, read this thread again http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30749
> 
> PLENTY of experts way more credible than any HS teacher have weighed in on this. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS agree with the collapse. Ill take their word over some conspiracy theory hack with an astronomy degree in physics any day.


 
m(1)v(1) + m(2)v(2) = m(t)v(t)

Do the math yourself.  That is all other people did.  They attempted to check the results that NIST came up with and those results could not be replicated.



> http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html



Just as in the other thread, all of your sources are nothing but the official story cut and pasted into other journals.  There are lots of claims made, but when you get into the details, they all run into the same problems.  I'm not going to go into detail on this in this thread.  You can read the other one if you want to see what I'm talking about.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I do not doubt that people have different opinions.
> 
> I never said the government never has lied to us or not given the whole truth.
> 
> ...


 
I've gone back and forth on this issue several times.  And from all that I have read on this, from the official reports to their rebuttles, I've come to the conclusion that I don't have enough information to come to a conclusion.  I don't know what really happened.  

I think that the questions that these physicists, engineers, other experts are asking are valid ones.  And I think that putting them to rest would be the best thing for our country.  I would support the government if they would release all of the evidence for independent review, but they have continually refused to do this.  

In regards to the topic of this thread, the same group that filed a FIOA to get the tapes of the plane hitting the pentagon is still pushing for the rest of the tapes.  The tapes the pentagon released, are not clear at all.  Some of the wider angles from places farther back most assuredly would have captured something better.

As far as editing goes, the technology exists that would immediately determine if the tape had been altered.  I say, release the tapes, lets have them independently varified and lets put this matter to rest.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 20, 2006)

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml



> _Why did the building fall so quickly?_
> The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html



> NOVA: You've said that the fire is the most misunderstood part of the World Trade Center collapse. Why?
> 
> Eagar: The problem is that most people, even some engineers, talk about temperature and heat as if they're identical. In fact, scientifically, they're only related to each other. Temperature tells me the intensity of the heat -- is it 100 degrees, 200 degrees, 300 degrees? The heat tells me how big the thing is that gets hot. I mean, I could boil a cup of water to make a cup of tea, or I could boil ten gallons of water to cook a bunch of lobsters. So it takes a lot more energy to cook the lobsters -- heat is related to energy. That's the difference: We call the intensity of heat the temperature, and the amount of heat the energy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 20, 2006)

Mister wizard time:

Who can squeeze a pop can from top to bottom?

Most people cannot as they cannot compress the can and or the sealed liquid inside

Yet if we pop the top it is easier as long as you allow the air to escape via the top and not be compressed.

So now we take a really sharp knife or saw and cut as small a slice in the dise of the can as we want. Empty the liquid and the can be compressed even easier than from the top as the structure of the can has been damaged. The small slice will rip open and create a bigger whole.

Do the same experiment with the pop still in the can and the slice on the side. It is hard to do as one has to compress the liquid to over come the stress point of the slice so it get bigger and the liquid escapes and becomes even easier as you compress it down. Of course just like folding a piece of paper there is a limit on the number of time you can fold it you also have a limit on how far one can compress it as now you have to over come the strength of the compressed metal. 

Once the top of the build 10+ floors started to collapse it had over come the strenght of the building and continued to collapse. 

The second plane hit lower and damaged the structure lower, and this caused more weight or mass to be above the damaged floor. I think the second tower hit did fall first. I will have to go back and look and refresh my mind.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 20, 2006)

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

Claim:   The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side. 

Status:   False.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 20, 2006)

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000&colID=13

Scientific American



> The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 20, 2006)

This is a GREAT article!

http://www.alternet.org/story/12536/



> Not good enough: Such a plot -- to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes and make it appear as if it all was done by another party -- is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence. It would require dozens (or scores or hundreds) of individuals to attempt such a scheme. They would have to work together, and trust one another not to blow their part or reveal the conspiracy. They would hail from an assortment of agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, Customs, State, FAA, NTSB, DOD, etc.).
> 
> Yet anyone with the most basic understanding of how government functions (or does not function) realizes that the various bureaucracies of Washington -- particularly those of the national security "community" -- do not work well together. Even covering up advance knowledge would require an extensive plot. If there truly had been intelligence reports predicting the 9/11 attacks, these reports would have circulated through intelligence and policymaking circles before the folks at the top decided to smother them for geopolitical gain. That would make for a unwieldy conspiracy of silence. And in either scenario -- planning the attacks or permitting them to occur -- everyone who participated in the conspiracy would have to be freakin' sure that all the other plotters would stay quiet.



And isnt that what all this skepticism of the collapse studies comes down to? The gvt is covering up some conspiracy? BUNK! What the gtv IS guilty of IMO was shoody intelligence work and a failure to act when acting was necessary.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Mister wizard time:
> 
> Who can squeeze a pop can from top to bottom?
> 
> ...


 
Imagine there is absolutely nothing between the floors.  m(1) = 454,454,454 kg and v(1) = 0.  Use absolutely any distance you want to determine v(2), it doesn't matter, I used 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 m.  m(2) = m(1)*2 (+ m(1) for each subsequent floor).  It will not fall at freefall speed.

Now imagine the steel columns supporting the floors.  A good analogy for this would be a pencil standing upright on a desk.  Slam your hand down on its sharpened point.  How much does it resist?

The official explanation is physically impossible.  This is why NIST resorted to computer models which they refuse to release the specs...

Here is a review of the report from a structural engineer used to giving these reports...



> 2. From another structural engineer:
> 
> "A couple of months back I examined [Jones] claims in detail. Initially I was a bit incredulous so I downloaded all the official reports basically expecting to find holes in the good prof's hypothesis.
> I'm a professional civil engineer with a lot of experience in the construction of major structures and I was just astounded at what I found. In my COO days if my staff had put up reports like that relating to a disaster on my patch, there is no way they would have been accepted and I would have been asking some very tough questions: The [official] reports are not at all convincing.
> ...


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 20, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Imagine there is absolutely nothing between the floors. m(1) = 454,454,454 kg and v(1) = 0. Use absolutely any distance you want to determine v(2), it doesn't matter, I used 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 m. m(2) = m(1)*2 (+ m(1) for each subsequent floor). It will not fall at freefall speed.
> 
> Now imagine the steel columns supporting the floors. A good analogy for this would be a pencil standing upright on a desk. Slam your hand down on its sharpened point. How much does it resist?
> 
> ...



Yes and the Ph D 's that argued with me told me that a certain switch would not react a certain way that we had field data for. They forgot to compensate for humidity in the case and then fluid that can freeze into ice.

In theory on paper it is real hard to prove why it fell. But it fell.


----------



## Jimi (May 22, 2006)

I do not believe that a space saucer or some other wild craft hit the Pentagon. My only criticisim of the FBI gathering video footage from areas surrounding the Pentagon, is that it can put conspiricies to rest, release the footage. I do not like seeing time, energy, and taxes spent to gather info and then  sit on it. If someone wants to believe in assanine theories, let them have their fantasy. Arguing that someones inquest into the other supposed videos,(where are the tapes now and what's on them), tears open the wounds of friends and family of the poor souls lost that day, misses the point. We all want answers, why not silence them with fact? Instead, people are told, don't question us, we know better. Then show us the better truth, people can't swallow the "you can't handle the truth!" response. Maybe showing such video that may have been confiscated can show where the Govmt can improve it's response to such a tragedy. Playing 3 card monty with the publics curiosity breeds distrust. If some fool spouts off with his conspiricy theroy, he will probably be dealt with. Withholding info usually does not help. I thought this was about, WHAT HIT THE PENTAGON? not theroies should be squashed. Just my opion.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 22, 2006)

Jimi said:
			
		

> I do not believe that a space saucer or some other wild craft hit the Pentagon. My only criticisim of the FBI gathering video footage from areas surrounding the Pentagon, is that it can put conspiricies to rest, release the footage. I do not like seeing time, energy, and taxes spent to gather info and then  sit on it. If someone wants to believe in assanine theories, let them have their fantasy. Arguing that someones inquest into the other supposed videos,(where are the tapes now and what's on them), tears open the wounds of friends and family of the poor souls lost that day, misses the point. We all want answers, why not silence them with fact? Instead, people are told, don't question us, we know better. Then show us the better truth, people can't swallow the "you can't handle the truth!" response. Maybe showing such video that may have been confiscated can show where the Govmt can improve it's response to such a tragedy. Playing 3 card monty with the publics curiosity breeds distrust. If some fool spouts off with his conspiricy theroy, he will probably be dealt with. Withholding info usually does not help. I thought this was about, WHAT HIT THE PENTAGON? not theroies should be squashed. Just my opion.


Exactly my point. Four years later and they *refuse *to release CLEAR CUT IRREFUTABLE video footage or hell, even fuzzy, blurry but clearly identifiable images of a huge jet liner hitting the pentagon... what *POSSIBLE* reason do they have for sitting on it and letting the government and present administration take all this flak? _What_ national security issue could they have to need to keep secret about pre-plane pentagon that's more important than post plane pentagon? 
It's what's driving these so-called nuts (and you can see how they're discredited already) nuts! 
I'm not a moron and neither do I wish to think ill of my government (stupid to do so anyway), but to patronize me and millions of others that "we wouldn't understand" like we're children is taking it too far. Hell, I thought WE THE PEOPLE were in charge of these United States and thus have the right to know what goes on *in* our own country. Or did I miss something? 

I've said it before. I *love my country* and will die defending it. But I'm having a lot of trouble trusting/loving my government.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 23, 2006)

A plane hit the pentagon.

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


----------



## Jimi (May 23, 2006)

I don't doubt that a plane hit the pentagon, the fact that other commercial aircraft were used that day makes it so likely, that a belief that something other than a plane hit the pentagon is shear fantasy. I don't see how someones inquest into what other evidence was gathered by the govmnt opens wounds of the families and the country. The govmnt should answer to us, any hint at showing evidence seeming like the 3 shell game makes people want to believe in some non-exsistant conspiricy. Maybe the footage people are asking about shows how an aircraft could fly low enough to not be noticed is such a security risk, other terrorists may become copy cats. But it has been done now, so that cat may be out of the bag. If our govmnt can do anything it likes without showing evidence for its efforts and our taxes, then there is no true checks and balances anymore. A PLANE HIT THE PANTAGON! I agree that whole heartedly, some others brought up questioning where is this evidence gathered by the FBI or whatever agency got a hold of it, and that gave some people imagination food for thought to think all kinds of notions.


----------

