And now: The Pentagon, 9-11, and some conspiracy theory

[Alareth]

Did a Boeing 757 really hit the Pentagon?

[Reika]

That's interesting, and I did get chills from what was being suggested. But before I try to make any further comments, I'd like to think it over some more.

[MooCow]

I've seen that before. Or something similar. I have two questions for the people putting for that conspiracy....

1. Why would the Bush administration fire a missile into the Pentagon? I can't see how they would benefit from it, because they already had the towers coming down as plenty of excuse to go to war.

2. What about the people who were on the supposedly non-existent plane? Are those names completely made up? Are the grieving families actors?

I will also note that the American Society of Civil Engineers has supported the offical claim of a 747 being the cause of the explosion. As ASCE is a professional lobby, not a political lobby, I can't see why they would violate their oath by coming out with a false report. (And if anyone is interested in the report, I can get you a copy of it for a fairly nominal fee)

[mrmooky]

I'm sure we've had this discussion on this forum before.

[lorg]

Nice flash presentation, interesting questions. The big question is naturally WHY would they do such a thing. But sure it does raise several interesting points and all those videos and recordings confiscated by the FBI would be interesting to view.

Isn't this whole thing based on a french book that came out a few years ago? I seem to recall something like that was suggested then.

Why is there a german voice in the background in the beginning sounding very similar to that of Hitler? I think that it is infact a speech by Hitler. Did he launch a missile from hell for loosing WW2 or what? Blah!

[DV8]

1. Why would the Bush administration fire a missile into the Pentagon? I can't see how they would benefit from it, because they already had the towers coming down as plenty of excuse to go to war.

Is that what's being suggested? (Sorry, but I watched it without sound.) I don't believe the administration would do that, as you said, they had plenty of reason to go to war. But my imagination is rich enough to come up with alternative scenarios in which the administration would want to cover up what happened.

2. What about the people who were on the supposedly non-existent plane? Are those names completely made up? Are the grieving families actors?

Again; is that what's being suggested in the Flash animation? I think that's a bit far fetched. But, again, I can think of alternatives; perhaps the hijacking of the plane was foiled like the one in PA and crashed in a ditch somewhere.

I will also note that the American Society of Civil Engineers has supported the offical claim of a 747 being the cause of the explosion. As ASCE is a professional lobby, not a political lobby, I can't see why they would violate their oath by coming out with a false report. (And if anyone is interested in the report, I can get you a copy of it for a fairly nominal fee)

While it might be a professional instead of political lobby, there will still be political ties to the lobby, and it's not unthinkable that they got pressured into making a statement or issuing a report. Could you inquire about the cost of the report, Moo? I'm curious to see how they support the theory of a 757 crashing into the pentagon since it seems, and has always seemed, really unlikely to me.

[MooCow]

While it might be a professional instead of political lobby, there will still be political ties to the lobby, and it's not unthinkable that they got pressured into making a statement or issuing a report.

Possible yes, but would require them to violate their Oath. Engineers, like doctors, take an oath to serve the public interest. While it's possible that they might be pressured into violating it, I would require extensive evidence to support that claim (just as I would if you claimed the AMA had been pressured into telling us a supremly big lie, like say "cigarettes are good for you").

Could you inquire about the cost of the report, Moo? I'm curious to see how they support the theory of a 757 crashing into the pentagon since it seems, and has always seemed, really unlikely to me.

Looks like it would be $30 + shipping. The intro blurb seems to indicate that the Pentagon was in fact designed to withstand severe trauma of this sort. The beam and girder system was specifically designed to cause energy to be distributed throughout the structure so as to minimize critical failure.

[Gunny]

Interesting. I recall something I said to Daki when I was on the phone with him during this time. I couldn't see any plane parts or any kind of vehicle parts at all.

I'm not trying to add to the conspiracy (whatever it is that's being suggested, I'm missing it completely). Just putting in my two bits.

...what /is/ the creator of this flash suggesting anyway?? Besides that it wasn't a 747 that hit the Pentagon, but more like a missle. Where's the conspiracy in that? Don't conspiracy theories normally point the finger at someone or an agency as the reason behind it? All it suggested so far is that the FBI confinscated the footage and hasn't released it yet. So? Investigations of all types don't release film footage of a case for various reasons. I just fail to see what the big deal is about the unreleased tapes.

[Caine Hazen]

It keeps the conspericy nutz up nights. As much as I'd like to see a release of these tapes, it really is no surprise to see them supressed. I suppose you could try and file a freedom of Info act set of paper work to see if you could get a look at em now. With the 9/11 commish being done and published, it would be the right time to check their work. What I find funny is how many of these conspericy pages happen to be foriegn. I thought we'd have enough of our own nutz to push stuff around herre

On the theatrical presentation though, A+. Nice bit o flash

[Maelwys]

1. Why would the Bush administration fire a missile into the Pentagon? I can't see how they would benefit from it, because they already had the towers coming down as plenty of excuse to go to war.

Is that what's being suggested? (Sorry, but I watched it without sound.) I don't believe the administration would do that, as you said, they had plenty of reason to go to war. But my imagination is rich enough to come up with alternative scenarios in which the administration would want to cover up what happened.

Actually, attacking the Pentagon wouldn't make any sense in this manner. Attacking what could be legitimately construed military target could definitely take away some of the outrage that one would feel if only civilian targets were hit instead. What kind of alternative scenarios did you come up with? I for one can't think of any reason for a strike against the Pentagon by someone other then Terrorists.

2. What about the people who were on the supposedly non-existent plane? Are those names completely made up? Are the grieving families actors?

Again; is that what's being suggested in the Flash animation? I think that's a bit far fetched. But, again, I can think of alternatives; perhaps the hijacking of the plane was foiled like the one in PA and crashed in a ditch somewhere.

Of course, this would mean that the other plane out there managed to crash someplace where no one had heard or seen it, or that the fact has been so massively covered up that I doubt that it happened.

I may have to watch the Flash again when I get home, but all I really saw was minor bits of conjecture. Unless there's some twisted mastermind out there, there really isn't a reason for this to have happened any other way. Unless you believe that big government hates the airlines, but wants to put all the blame on them because they support small private aircraft like the kind Lockheed makes

[TheScamp]

I for one can't think of any reason for a strike against the Pentagon by someone other then Terrorists.

Alternative scenarios don't have to rule out terrorists. It could still be the Bin Ladin Brigade, but just not a 747.

[Maelwys]

I for one can't think of any reason for a strike against the Pentagon by someone other then Terrorists.

Alternative scenarios don't have to rule out terrorists. It could still be the Bin Ladin Brigade, but just not a 747.

Then why lie and cover up the fact? What is the reason for saying it's a 747 or 757 when it wasn't?

[Rev]

Bin ladin's secret stealth cruise missile. The hijackers were cia agents trying to keep the lid on Osama's alien alliance. They had discovered the exact time of his strike and were unable to prevent it, so arranged for some planes to crash into the same spots at the same time, except for the pentagon one where they could only get a commuter jet there on time so had to crash another airliner in the ocean.

Or the new wing of the pentagon was the one containing Bush's full military records. He actually did go to vietnam, but was discharged after selling numerous vietnamese children to wealthy texas oilmen. Karl Rove ordered the strike minutes after the first plane ran into the world trade center because of computer navigation problems, then ordered another into the second tower to cover it up.

Or when a plane rams into a reinforced building at hundereds of miles an hour then burns the peices left are indistinguishible to the average dumbass looking at a flash movie from the building wreckage they are mixed with/buried under.

[FlakJacket]

Then why lie and cover up the fact? What is the reason for saying it's a 747 or 757 when it wasn't?

Which is more scary- that they hijacked a 747 or that they've got the capability to build a crude to moderately technical missile or the ability to buy a coule that fell off the back of a truck? Personally I think it was a 747 but that's just me.

[3278]

...what /is/ the creator of this flash suggesting anyway?? Besides that it wasn't a 747 that hit the Pentagon, but more like a missle. Where's the conspiracy in that? Don't conspiracy theories normally point the finger at someone or an agency as the reason behind it?

I think that's actually the best thing about this flash versus other, more conspiracy-laden works: the author doesn't present conclusions, or theories, or wild notions about how, since there's no plane wreckage, Rumsfeld ordered a pizza delivery truck to ram into the side of the building. He just presents the facts as he knows them, some of the evidence behind those facts, and allows the viewer to draw their own conclusions, since the information currently possessed does not allow a firm conclusion to be drawn in either direction. Instead of making up wild theories to fit the facts, he presents the facts, and little else.

I don't necessarily agree with the facts as presented, and I know there are facts being omitted. Nevertheless, it's good to see a more agenda-free piece of anti-propaganda, instead of the wild, Mulderesque fiction that passes for liberal counter-information these days.

[Alareth]

I watched this with no sound, but it does raise some interesting questions just looking at the pictures.

A 757 would have done more damage and left much more wreckage.

I'm not forming any other opinions than, "Yes, based on the evidence presented it is feasable that something other than a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon"

I'm not jumping to conclusions as to what it may be or why it would be covered up.

[MooCow]

A 757 would have done more damage

Out of curiosity Alareth, in what state are you a registered structural engineer?

[Anguirel]

A 757 would have done more damage and left much more wreckage.

Before they fell, the towers didn't look particularly more damaged. You have, on the outside, a hole in the wall and internally a stright-line puncture from the main body through to, what, the C-Ring?

I'm not forming any other opinions than, "Yes, based on the evidence presented it is feasable that something other than a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon"

Sire, something else could've one it. But not a missle, in my estimation. A missle would have done blast damage, I'd expect, not puncture/straight-line damage. You don't get a perfect line of holes from a missle. It detonates. A solid object, however, can do that pretty easily by mass and impact. Which doesn't say this was a 757 - just that it was likely a plane or other solid-mass like that.

To refute a few points from the flash video... the Pentagon has blast-resistant windows. They're designed to be hit by an external explosion and not shatter. Some windows in Block 2 which are older did shatter from the force. Some on Block 1 (where the plane impacted and which had been replaced already) did not. The builindg is designed to not become shrapnel when detonated. Therefore, the impact will not cause larger or more extensive damage. Consider a normal building as, perhaps, a standard plate glass window. Smack that with a rock and the whole thing is shattered. Now throw a rock at a windshield on a car. You're lucky to even chip the sucker. Even if it shatters, it doesn't move. It's still there. Consider an entire building built like that. Yeah.

Here, have some official photos and descriptions. Start here and go forward or look at individual photos.

Wedge 1 had just finished renovations which evidently significantly improved the structural stability and damage resistance of the building - from one of the photo captions: "The office was in the section of the Pentagon slated to be renovated next. Offices in the newly renovated section survived the blast and the fire much better."

Here's some more images and commentary. In french in some spots, I think...

A 757 is less than 24 feet wide. The listed value is wheel separation - I'd expect real width of the main body to be 18 feet or less.

Why weren't cars blown over? Well maybe because planes are, you know, aerodynamic and designed not to cause a huge amount of aerial disturbance. Duh.

[TLM]

Then why lie and cover up the fact? What is the reason for saying it's a 747 or 757 when it wasn't?

Well... How about if the flight was hijacked and then lost? I mean, how would you explain to the relatives and voting public that you managed to "lose*" a 747, anyway? How about a partial crash, with a few survivors? Wouldn't want Osama to know they're putting the squeeze on them, would you?

Or maybe, y'know, the gov't actually know what they're doing on this one, and there's no conspiracy at all.

*lost in this case meaning "We have no idea what the fuck happened to it."?

[MooCow]

Before they fell, the towers didn't look particularly more damaged. You have, on the outside, a hole in the wall and internally a stright-line puncture from the main body through to, what, the C-Ring?

I had been meaning to make that point. The Towers were designed to withstand a 727 hit. They survived the 747 hit as well, but some factors played in that no one expected. When the planes hit, the fuel tanks ruptured and coated the strutural steel of the buildings with flaming jet fuel. The steel became heated, which weakened it. That's why the towers didn't fall immediatly, but several minutes later.

The Towers were 110 stories, so damage to the structural steel is a serious problem. The Pentagon is five stories with a very wide base relatively, so damage to the structural steel isn't quite as dangerous. Also, the Pentagon is a military instalation, it's designed to take massive damage and not fall down.

[Crazy Elf]

I think what really needs to be done is to have someone crash a plane into the pentagon, so we can see how much damage would be done.

[FlameBlade]

Want the truth? It was a horde of angry monkeys. Damn, when monkeys are angry enough, it's unimaginable how quickly they can destroy things.

(pssst...amongst them are some monkey samurais.)

[BlackJack]

Here are a bunch of replies:

If you are wondering where the plane went, look at pictures of the Greenlawn Indiana crash and the ValueJet Florida crash. In both cases there wasn't much big left. The tail of the first weas found intact, in the case of the ValueJet they had to fly a MAD (magnetic anomaly detector) around to find the crash site.

The reason the towers fell is heat. If you start heating up steel, doesn't have to be close to the melting point, it will start to weaken. Its called thermal creep.

Anybody can build a cruise missle the plans are on the internet. Or you can buy them cheap from the former Soviet military.

Why weren't cars blown over? Well maybe because planes are, you know, aerodynamic and designed not to cause a huge amount of aerial disturbance. Duh.

The best reply I can give is "757 on short final, caution wake turbulance." Anything from a 757 on up generates massive wake vortices. While not as dramatics as seen in movies if you were under one at low altitude, you'd be knocked over. That having been said, its been pretty well established that a most cars would do little more than shake alot.

Engineers, like doctors, take an oath to serve the public interest.

Yep, and you are inducted into the Order of the Engineer. I can type the whole thing out if you'd like.


All replies based on my BSME, and OJT as an aircraft structural engineer.

[Crazy Elf]

So what you're telling me is that we have to send more planes. I can dig it.

[Anguirel]

The best reply I can give is "757 on short final, caution wake turbulance." Anything from a 757 on up generates massive wake vortices. While not as dramatics as seen in movies if you were under one at low altitude, you'd be knocked over. That having been said, its been pretty well established that a most cars would do little more than shake alot.

On a real final approach, the plane would also have the flaps up and all that and be purposely less aerodynamic in order to assist in braking. When trying to go as fast as possible, you have a lot less of that. Ther'ed be some - depends on the distance at that point. How high did it clip the street lamps should be the next question, I suppose. In any case, I wouldn't expect any vehicles to be rolling from it, which was my main point (I believe that was one of the questions raised by the flash movie).

[lorg]

On a real final approach, the plane would also have the flaps up and all that and be purposely less aerodynamic in order to assist in braking. When trying to go as fast as possible, you have a lot less of that. Ther'ed be some - depends on the distance at that point. How high did it clip the street lamps should be the next question, I suppose. In any case, I wouldn't expect any vehicles to be rolling from it, which was my main point (I believe that was one of the questions raised by the flash movie).

If they want to smash it into a building why bother breaking? Raming speed is usually full speed ahead if I am not misstaken.

[Anguirel]

On a real final approach, the plane would also have the flaps up and all that and be purposely less aerodynamic in order to assist in braking. When trying to go as fast as possible, you have a lot less of that. Ther'ed be some - depends on the distance at that point. How high did it clip the street lamps should be the next question, I suppose. In any case, I wouldn't expect any vehicles to be rolling from it, which was my main point (I believe that was one of the questions raised by the flash movie).

If they want to smash it into a building why bother breaking? Raming speed is usually full speed ahead if I am not misstaken.

That was my point - some of the vortices BlackJack described are an artifact of a final approach including braking by using wing flaps. Some are, of course, because you have a big ass solid object sliding through the air, and some are from the engines, but the ones for final apporach are (and I'm guessing about this) goig to be much worse than at any other time during normal flight. And somehow I don't think coming in to hit the Pentagon they were doing anything other than what amounts to normal flight, except possibly gunning the throttle up higher than usual...

[BlackJack]

On a real final approach, the plane would also have the flaps up and all that and be purposely less aerodynamic in order to assist in braking. When trying to go as fast as possible, you have a lot less of that. Ther'ed be some - depends on the distance at that point. How high did it clip the street lamps should be the next question, I suppose. In any case, I wouldn't expect any vehicles to be rolling from it, which was my main point (I believe that was one of the questions raised by the flash movie).

If they want to smash it into a building why bother breaking? Raming speed is usually full speed ahead if I am not misstaken.

That was my point - some of the vortices BlackJack described are an artifact of a final approach including braking by using wing flaps. Some are, of course, because you have a big ass solid object sliding through the air, and some are from the engines, but the ones for final apporach are (and I'm guessing about this) goig to be much worse than at any other time during normal flight. And somehow I don't think coming in to hit the Pentagon they were doing anything other than what amounts to normal flight, except possibly gunning the throttle up higher than usual...

Yes and no. The big ones are the wingtip votices that are always there. These are amplified when landing due to the deployment of flaps and slats. Also as you get closer to the ground they have less space to expand in and tend to intensify. If you have ever been in a small aircraft (lets say a Cessna 172) and a large aircraft (lets say a UPS 757) cuts across your path at a slightly higher altitude you will feel it. You could then call ATC and report a near collision and airspace violation, not that would actually happen.

The current CFRs call for 5 miles horizontal or 1,000 feet vertical seperation. Partly for collision advoidence and to keep the small guys from getting thumped around too much.