Did a plane really hit the pentagon?

[Dis]

and did anyone stop to think most of the debris from the plane ended up inside the building? . and there were no pictures of that, it was a classified area after all. planes don't explode like a grenade

[Velociryx]

Yep...Dis makes a good point, and I absolutely thought about that! It's quite likely that if the plane did NOT hit the ground first, then it would have plowed into the building and somehow (not likely, but POSSIBLY) every bit of it wound up inside the building.

Trouble with that is this:

The plane is 15 yards high....45 feet. That's at least three, verging on four stories high.

Now EVEN IF the plane impacted the building at its base, there's NO WAY the photo COULD look like it does in photos three and six on the site mentioned at the start of the thread.

See that long stretch of intact flooring? ALL of that should be impact damaged if the plane did NOT hit the ground first.

All of it.

It's not, which raises a question in my mind.

As to vast conspiracy theories....I will admit that I enjoy reading them, but I'm not a believer.

I DO, however, think that there are serious questions out there, the answers to which are being artfully (and sometimes not-so-artfully) dodged.

Why is that?

That's the crux of the matter, for me.

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Umm... I watched TV pretty much all day on 9-11 (they sent us home from work) and I remember some debris. Not a LOT, but definitely debris. Like Dissident says, it's likely that most of the plane ended up inside the building. I've never seen the Pentagon close up, but it's a pretty big building, and awfully solid. If the aircraft hit low and plowed in, most of the wreckage would be all jumbled up with the building debris.

Like Vel and others, the direction Bush and Co. are heading in alarms me, but frankly I don't think there was any conspiracy related to the Pentagon plane attack.

-Arrian

[Zealot]

That's funny, because I also saw the whole events on that day on CNN, since I was at home the whole day, and I really didn't see any debries from anything that wasn't part of the building!

Now that Vel mentions the size of the plane, and after seing the photos, I'm really freaking out, because there's no way, and let me put in bold, NO WAY that a Boeing crashed the Pentagon. Live with it, don't live with it, I don't care.
There's a Boeing missing, and something explosive hit the Pentagon, but it wasn't that missing Boeing! That's for sure!

[TCO]

Zealot, you're an idiot.

[Velociryx]

In my mind, an idiot is one who accepts what he is told without question, and even if there are a number of factors that don't make sense in light of the popular explanation, refuse to believe anything other than the "official" story.

That we are questioning, and doing so without subscribing to hair-brained conspiracy theories makes me think that those of us bothering to question the official word on it are not idiots.

But....perhaps you're right. We shouldn't question.

And when the Department of Homeland Defense opens up those government tattoo parlors all over the country and some law is passed that decrees that "for purposes of national security, and to keep track of the bad guys, we should all get neat little barcodes tattooed onto our arms" we shouldn't question that either.

Just be good little sheep.

Baaaa.

-=Vel=-

[TCO]

Velo, I've done and seen a lot more **** than you have. Save the drama for the computer games.

[Velociryx]

GP: I wouldn't be the ranch on that, but hey...'s your party, you can believe what you want.

I do note though, that you decided NOT to debate the questions at hand any further. Perhaps that's because there was a bit of truth to my post? Or, perhaps not.

My main point (re-iterated yet again) is that it's okay to question the official story when the facts seem not to add up.

My deepest apologies if you're opposed to that.

-=Vel=-

[Salvor]

God it's easy to get people going these days. I looked at those pictures, and there sure is a lot of debris in every one of them. No, none of it looks like a plane. But how many of you guys have ever visited the site of a plane crash? Does the debris look like a plane? No, it does not. Just a bunch of twisted metal that often resembles a caved-in building.

Sure, when it skids into an open field or over water, you can find some pieces that are recognizable as engine parts, fueslage sections, arms, legs, whatever. But this wasn't a skid into an open field. This was much different. As has been stated several times before, the Pentagon is built of concrete and granite. Let's see, a solid wall of concrete and granite vs. a hollow shell of very thin aluminum. Which will prevail. End result: Pentagon 1, plane 0.

Damage to only one floor? Did you look at the same pictures I did? I see deep cracks in the walls, lots of charring, and flames leaping from almost every window all the way up to the roof. This is considered "no damage"? Oh, you mean the fact that it took an hour or so for the building to completely cave in. Allow me to refer you to the previous paragraph. The primary impact point, where the nose probably hit and the rest of the fuselage followed (like a missile -- I think somebody already compared it to a sabot round) probably knocked a hole in the wall, and the fireball weakened the structure to the point where it eventually collapsed. Why is this so hard to believe? Let's see. Do we have any basis for comparison? Was there ever any other tall building that was struck by a jet airplane but didn't collapse entirely until about an hour later? Hmm, good question there.

Really, how can anyone really expect a jet plane, which is basically a very very thin aluminum can filled halfway with kerosene, crash into a concrete wall at 250 mph and remain recognizable as an airplane? If there WAS any debris that was recognizable as an aircraft, I'd start believing it was planted there as a coverup for something else.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Trouble with that is this:
The plane is 15 yards high....45 feet. That's at least three, verging on four stories high.

Now EVEN IF the plane impacted the building at its base, there's NO WAY the photo COULD look like it does in photos three and six on the site mentioned at the start of the thread.

Actually, the tail height is 44.5 feet high measured from the ground with landing gear down according to specs from Boeing website:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/ext.html

If you look at the drawing. The fuselage is probably only 20 feet high, tops. maybe only 15.

Therefore, the a/c would likely only take out a couple of floors of a building. The tail would be destroyed by the reinforced walls of the Pentagon.

Of course, the conspriracy website provides misleading info about the plane's height by not mentioning that it is referring to the total height of the aircraft when measured from wheels to tail.

[ravagon]

Thankyou Tinkai. Something factual.

It seems to me that the large majority of the "conspiracy" theorists (no offence intended to anybody ) evidence is based on what is probably mistated/misunderstood info.

When spokesmen indicate a destroyed floor of the Pentagon it doesn't mean that one floor was utterly annihilated and no others touched. "Destroyed" or whatever word(s) was/were used is a relative term - especially in light of a number of airliners crashing into buildings. It doesn't mean that there wasn't extensive damage to adjacent floors rendering them "nearly" destroyed in the opinion of whoever made the call.
When photos taken in a sensitive area (ie: the Pentagon) do not show certain evidence it doesn't mean that there wasn't any to see.
(a) People had to interfere with it in order to extinguish the collateral fires.

(b) Its the Pentagon. Its a classified area. Photos etc, particularly in this case almost certainly weren't allowed to be taken freely. Classified material and all. The firefighters were even restricted in putting the fires out due to restrictions relating to this. I have no idea when exactly these photos were supposed to be taken (after some of the debris had been moved perhaps?) but they almost certainly weren't taken right on impact. Furthermore on the floor thing I'd be interested to know the height of those in the Pentagon - 20 odd feet (You yanks and your imperial measurements, sigh ) doesn't seem that untoward to me...

(c) Were ther no witnesses able to corroborate aircraft crashing into the place?


[Vel I think you've been playing with that signet ring of yours too much ]

[TCO]

Hey!!! I haven't seen any plane pieces in the pictures of then World Trade Center. Maybe there wasn't a plane impact there either!!

[Bereta_Eder]

I hate being late in a thread


So what is it? that a plane did not hit the pentagon (=greek word meaning "5 angles - this was a friendly linguistic contribution from paiktis)

so what hit it a truck?

so where did the plane go?????

[Dis]

the plane is in area 51 in the nevada desert. I drove by it last week (I have access to that area).

[Zealot]

Originally posted by GP
Zealot, you're an idiot.

Gee, let me remind who usually insults me... Oh yeah, hum, tramps, gipsies, some sons of whores. They usually ask me for change before. Seems that you past that part... You weren't getting any anyway, so you don't need to tell me in wich class do you belong.

Baaaa!


Now back to grown up talk, for those who want to see the impact of the plane, here are the pictures of it!

http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp?cp1=1

See? See? It's right there!!! Now do you believe it?