Did a plane really hit the pentagon?

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Also, the WTC wasn't constructed out of paper machet, but it got REAMED!

No. But it was not built to sustain a 727, and a 4,000 degree jet fire that was so hot Hollowed and incinerated out 8 floors.

Had those planes hit the ESB. They would of bounced right off. Because ESB is made of granite. (just thought I would throw that in for fun )

[Grrr]

Originally posted by ravagon
The WTC collapse appeared exactly like a controlled demolition because it was. The terrorists analysed the buildings structural design in advance and targetted the most vulnerable points they could in a specific effort to take the building down.

If I was one of those terrorists I'd make the building fall over, that would do a LOT more damage.

[Velociryx]

Let me be quick to reiterate here. I'm not saying I'm firmly in the conspiracy theorist camp....I'm just saying there are QUESTIONS....valid questions given the body of evidence.

But nobody wants to talk about them.

That's odd to me, and makes me MORE suspicious. Generally, if someone doesn't wanna talk about something, it's cos they're something to...hide?

-=Vel=-

[Dis]

nobody answered my question.

where is the 4th plane?

Until I see parts of the 4th plane elsewhere I'm inclined to believe it crashed into the pentagon.

plus in the news after the attacks they discussed pulling small bits of the plane out.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by faded glory
WTC collapse was pretty fvckin simple. The floors pancaked on one another. Thats the only reason they collapsed inward. The Hot jet fuel softened the Steel floor beems (not the structural) and all the wieght of the floors above began to pile on 1 floor below the crash. Eventually it couldnt take it. Both collapses happened like this.


There were no Demo charges

If only the steel floor beams were weakened it was rather hard for the entire building to collapse. The load of the building was supported by the structural steel frame and the core. Steel floor beams suported only the load of indivdual floors. They didn't support the loads of the floors above.

Suppose the floor beams on the floor that was struck was weaken enough, all that would happen was part of that floor would collapse down to the one below it.

[Velociryx]

Tell you where it wasn't....it wasn't on the lawn of the pentagon.....not even fragments? That's pretty stunning. The plane that didn't hit anything had a debris field five miles long.....there shoulda been SOMETHING...tail section on the lawn....but...nada.

So that's an excellent question, I think.

Where'd it go?

-=Vel=-

[Dis]

it was edited with photoshop. I'm sure there was debris. the pentagon had the enlisted personnel clean it up.

[Velociryx]

But the links to the source photos are the exact same way...and when the pics were taken, there hadn't yet been time for that kinda cleanup....it's just...odd, I think.

-=Vel=-

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by faded glory
They trained how to fly commercial planes. It would be just like landing and accelerating

Pilots do it all the time when they land.

I am not sure how many air trips have you taken. It takes a lot of preparations and time to land correctly. Even with all the precautions accidents still happen from time to time, and we're talking about highly skilled pilots with lots of flight time.

I found it rather implausible for a person with limited training in the wrong sort of aircraft to be able to fly a large jet the way he supposedly did.

[Velociryx]

The oddest thing to me is this:

One of two things HAD to happen. Either the plane came down in the lawn in front of the building and plowed into it (which would explain impact damage on just the first floor...MAYBE) but then would have left the front lawn torn to hell and back, OR

The plane hit the building dead on....no torn up lawn, but it would have caused impact damage on more than the first floor.

-=Vel=-

[Dis]

This thread really bothers me. I don't give a fu*k about damage to the building

First of all why would they cover this up?

One reason is the air force used F-16's or F-15's to blow the airliner up. But then where are the eyewitness accounts of debris falling from the sky (there were eyewitnesses in Pennsylvania). The east coast is highly populated. You don't have remote regions as in the west. There are hicks that live in every nook and cranny of the east coast including the mountains.

If the air force didn't destroy the plane, then were is it. Why are they covering it up? We know for sure the plane was hijacked. The FAA confirmed this.

Second of all, if the plane didn't do the damage then what did? There was no time to engineer an attack on the pentagon using other means. The pentagon has no explosive. Who knows how far away the nearest weapons station is (I know of one in eastern maryland near the bay). The pentagon didn't have time to blow up their own building.

What if a truck bomb did blow up the building? Why cover this up? There is no reason.

The only other explanation is the Pentagon was accidently blown up. By what? Missles from a F-15? There is too much damage for that.

This whole f*cking thing is whacked. Why would anyone entertain this conspiracy theory.

I could see believing in pearl harbour being know of and the moon landings. Because there is motive for both of those conspiracies. But what of this one?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by faded glory
WTC was not made like the normal buildings. It was made with economy and hieght in mind. A system called "Legs" were used. Im not 100% sure of the details. But its what caused the collapse. The leg beams couldnt take the heat and began to crash and fall off onto the floors below.

IIRC it's just a regular skyscrapper with steel structural frame and a large inside core.

Originally posted by faded glory
You can see this on TV when the camera's pan to the holes in the WTC. You can see these things peel one bye one and flaming debris fall.

In other words, exactly like ones caused by a controlled demolition.

[Velociryx]

I dunno dude...but the fact is that the damage pattern to the pentagon are not consistent with the story.

There should either be a torn up front lawn OR impact damage to more than one floor. Possibly both.

There's not.

Why not?

I dunno.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do not see how the present accounting of events can cause the damage shown in the photographic evidence.

I'm not saying it was a conspiracy, I'm saying it's....very strange.

-=Vel=-

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by faded glory
No. But it was not built to sustain a 727, and a 4,000 degree jet fire that was so hot Hollowed and incinerated out 8 floors.

Huh? The fire wasn't 4000 degrees, not even in Fahenheit. It was about 800-900°C. If jet fuel fires are that hot than there's no need for things such as the arc torch.

It didn't appear to have incinerated 8 floors, either.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You gotta be jesting.

The spots the terrorists hit weren't even close to "most vulnerable points."

Those are where most loads were being supported, i.e., in the lowest basement around the core and the columns.

I did say the most vulnerable points they could




Grrr, making a building "fall over" in the sense you mean was beyond their ability to accomplish with airliners. They would have had to eliminate a substantial lateral portion of one of the lowest floors (basically like cutting a tree down with an axe) or exert greater pressure (Note pressure, not force) on the upper regions of one face of the building (like a sailing boat capsizing).