"If you're not part of the future, then get out of the way"
-- John Mellencamp
>Found this link on another NG:
Huh. That is, um, something. Dispite myself, I'm a little bothered.
I mean, where is the damn plane parts?
adjusting tinfoil, adjusting tinfoil
> Found this link on another NG:
The plane is in fact visible in the security camera photos, over on
the right hand side of the first picture. The plane hit the ground first
and slid into the building.
And really how many crash sites sport anything resembling a plane?
And what of all the eye witnesses? This thing looped around DC for a long
while before it struck the Pentagon.
Your title says it all. I have friends who were there. Trust me when I tell you
that the plane hit the Pentagon, or actually, hit the ground then hit the
Pentagon. It was seen by more than one or two witnesses. FWIU, the fireball
torched most of the plane and everything in that section of the first ring. I
know a man whose office was in that exact portion of the Pentagon until they
started remodeling not too terribly long before 9/11 time back. He's since
retired from the Navy, but it spooks him out to think about it.
"Dutch asks, 'Horay?' And the Purple Primate answers "A stretch limo based on the
Corvette Stingray. Carries mo bitchas."
AFCA, March 5, 2002
The satellite image is from the wrong angle to show whether there is damage
beyond the first ring (at least below the rooftop). The other photograph
shows that the uppermost floor of the second ring relatively unharmed. Below
that, the building appears blackened and it appears (to me at least) that
there could be a big hole involving some of the third floor windows and
"Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and
travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside
of the Pentagon?"
They haven't proven that to be the case. In fact, the photo seems to
indicate significant damage to the lower floors of the second ring.
"The two photographs in question 2 show the building just after the attack.
We may observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor."
Immediately to the right of the point where the two streams of foam (which
obscure the first floor) cross, there could very well be a 2 story high hole
that made a mess of 3 windows. That hole would fit the fuselage.
"The four upper floors collapsed towards 10.10 am. The building is 26 yards
Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a
wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just
the ground floor of this building?"
They haven't proven that to be the case. The photos are inconclusive and
seem to show what could be a fuselage size hole.
"The photograph in question 4 shows a truck pouring sand over the lawn of
the Pentagon. Behind it a bulldozer is seen spreading gravel over the turf.
Can you explain why the Defense [sic] Secretary deemed it necessary to sand
over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?"
Unexpected repair work, requiring heavy trucks and machinery, is often best
facilitated by temporary 'roads' that avoid forcing that machinery to take
the main entrance. This same ignorant question could be asked any time one
of the theme parks builds a new roller coaster.
"The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200
superimposed on the section of the building that was hit.
Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they
caused no damage?"
Actually, there does appear to be damage corresponding very well with the
wingspan. Also, notice how the heavy damage runs engine to engine, while the
more superficial damage extends out to the wingtips. Exactly as one would
"The two photographs in question 7 were taken just after the attack. They
show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck.
Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?"
Impossible to tell through the foam. Since the expected impact point is
obscured by foam (aside from what appears to be the cockpit's point of
impact to the right and above where the streams cross) the question is
The five frame video missed capturing the aircraft, but considering the
field of view and the speed involved, capturing it would have been pure
As for a lack of debris on the lawn, the ground slopes up to the first floor
and any debris would have been travelling into the building at 400 mph. If I
fire a bullet into someone's house, I'm not going to expect to find it on
These people are looking at an unusual event and trying to draw conclusions
from a biased viewpoint. It isn't surprising that they're wrong. This
reminds me of the "M00n H0ax" folks. Much ado about nothing.
Home Page: stephmon.com
Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com
I don't know. I never really understand all this "conspiracy" stuff, but if
they are trying to convince someone that a plane *didn't* hit the Pentagon,
then how do they account for the damage? An "oops" from a couple of UFO's
playing laser tag?
>| And really how many crash sites sport anything resembling a plane?
>|And what of all the eye witnesses? This thing looped around DC for a long
>|while before it struck the Pentagon.
I don't know, Matt. Seems to me that every crash site has lots and lots of
recognizable debris. I think the Goebbels quote is appropriate.
We now return you to the present, already in progress. [www.bongoboy.com]
He needs to have his tin foil hat tuned to a better frequency.
I have neighbors who were in the Pentagon when it was hit. We have
other friends who witnessed the plane crashing into the side.
Can I just go beat on the french for a while? They seem to add no
value to anything these days.
I noticed the lack of parts from the start. Not being conspiratorial
minded (except when I am in on them), I assume it was the plane, not
the hat, which was tinfoil.
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service
You believe what you want to believe, when it suits you, but the facts don't
bear you out.
Not 'every crash site' involves a jet, diving at full throttle, into a
structure like the Pentagon, but even so...
From accounts of the Concorde crash "The violence of the impact left a
tangled mess of mostly unrecognizable debris. It took three days to recover
the remains of all 114 victims."
An F-16 that crashed in NJ ""There's parts all over the place - tires,
circuits," said Capt. Thomas Dreher, of the New Jersey State Police, who saw
the wreckage and said it was unrecognizable as an airplane."
Here's a photo of Payne Stuart's crash site
Where's the plane!?!
I think you and Goebbels were meant for each other.
> Found this link on another NG:
Worldnetdaily is a neo-Nazi propaganda rag - well, it would be a
rag if it were printed. These are the same people who calculated
that not enough Jews were killed at the WTC and therefore Israel
had advanced notice of the attacks, if it didn't actually organize
What in the world is so remarkable that a big jet loaded with
fuel crashes into a low building and/or the adjacent ground
and doesn't leave pieces big enough to be recognized by lay people
viewing low-res TV images and photos taken from a distance?
If that isn't Flight 77, where the hell is Flight 77 - and
Barbara Olsen, not that I want her back? Is she not sucking off
billy goats in hell?
There was enough left of one of the flight attendants to make
a positive ID, so how did the flight attendant get there without
the airplane? To get this conspiracy off the ground you would
have to explain how the real Flight 77 could be disappeared and
something else substituted to make a hole in the Pentagon in a
matter of minutes.
These guys gave up on trying to discredit the heros of Flight 93
weeks ago - evidently they preferred no one get credit than admit the
possibility that a gay man was among the rebellious passengers. I
can't figure their angle on Flight 77; maybe they are just stirring
the shit to keep their hands in.
>The satellite image is from the wrong angle to show whether there is damage
>beyond the first ring (at least below the rooftop). The other photograph
>shows that the uppermost floor of the second ring relatively unharmed. Below
>that, the building appears blackened and it appears (to me at least) that
>there could be a big hole involving some of the third floor windows and
The big photo is
I don't know whether this is the one you're talking about. I only see
four rows of windows in a "5 story" building. It is hard to tell from
these photos whether the first floor is a double-height, or whether
the unwindowed space near the roof is the fifth floor.
If the wings were destroyed on impact with the ground, then we are
looking for three punctures into the building. The one just left of
the midline of the large picture above is a neat impact about two
stories high by two windows wide. If we take this to be the fuselage,
then the engine at the right did dramatically more damage. If the
plane bounced off the lawn first, then this makes sense. The water
stream makes it impossible to see if there is a left engine hole. Or
if the hole centered in the photo is the left engine, then the right
engine would hit behind the burning truck.
If the plane hit the ground first, then most of the strength in the
wings could be destroyed.
The weird thing is that when I watch the six frame sequence, it looks
like a 707 tail entering the building silhouetted against the flames.
There is an unbroken point of solidity above the fuselage and below
the where the tail would have been. If indeed the silhouette we see
in three frames is a shadow of the tail.
>"Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and
>travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside
>of the Pentagon?"
Concrete buildings are pretty solid. Aluminum isn't. Remember, there
was a steel shortage during WW II. Therefore the Pentagon probably
uses less rebar and even more concrete than usual since then.
>"The two photographs in question 2 show the building just after the attack.
>We may observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor."
>Immediately to the right of the point where the two streams of foam (which
>obscure the first floor) cross, there could very well be a 2 story high hole
>that made a mess of 3 windows. That hole would fit the fuselage.
>These people are looking at an unusual event and trying to draw conclusions
>from a biased viewpoint. It isn't surprising that they're wrong. This
>reminds me of the "M00n H0ax" folks. Much ado about nothing.
"If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates" (Jim Hightower)
I first saw this story in another NG. The cross-posting nutter who
broughtit to my attention theorized that the pilot of flight 77 regained
control of his aircraft over the ocean, so the government had the plane
shot down. Then either a truck bomb was rushed to the scene or the charges
that had been secretly placed in the Pentagon where set off, possibly both.
This was all done so that the passangers and crew wouldn't survive to
report that the plane was not hijacked and was in fact being operated by
> Found this link on another NG:
Oh, right. I forgot that "aluminum burns eagerly" once you light it.
> Tim Lambert <lam...@cse.unsw.EDU.AU> wrote:
> >"Al Yellon" <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> writes:
> >> Found this link on another NG:
> >> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777
> >> Opinions?
> Oh, right. I forgot that "aluminum burns eagerly" once you light it.
Um, I don't find that quote anywhere on the snopes website.
However, aluminum, while not easily ignited, when hot
enough, will react vigourously with oxygen. The thermite reaction
is basically aluminum (powdered) ripping the oxygen out of iron
oxide (rust). The resultant reaction is hot enough to melt the
iron. Note that this is oxygen which is already combined with a metal.
The reaction with oxygen gas is more energetic.
It's hard to get solid aluminum chunks to do this, but not impossible.
Keith Rickert | "You want the truth? You can't handle the
rick...@netaxs.com | truth! No truth-handler, you! Bah! I
keith_...@merck.com | deride your truth-handling abilities!"
(note change) | Sideshow Bob, The Simpsons
I don't intend to dipute that flight 77 did crash into the Pentagon,
but what security camera photos are you talking about?
mailto:hmou...@excite.com Just another guy
http://hmoulding.cjb.net/ with a weird name
It appears there was a camera on the east side of the building (the hit
was on the north side and the shot shows it on the left). In the
footage (that takes a split second), you can see the plane coming into
the ground, righ to left, with a fireball.
I don't recall seeing this until the last few days.
I've found a link to the pictures on the snopes page someone else
helpfully posted a pointer to. I was asking initially since the
tin-foil hat site didn't have these pictures, and yet Matt Miller
referred to them in his post.
I think we've remarked on the pervasiveness of security cameras
before, when the OKC attack happened, and security cameras were
used to figure out what happened. In the case of 9-11, there were
several video cameras in use around the towers which caught the
planes hitting the towers. Amazing, really.
Some SF author suggested that at some time in the future cheap
video and wireless would make us a much safer place to live, as
people would strap on video glasses and save everything they
recorded back home. If anyone did something naughty, they'd be
caught on video, so they'd couldn't escape conviction. He
described some punk walking along and giving some old fogeys a
*look*, but being careful that his behavior wouldn't be construed
as assault since the fogeys were quite pointedly aiming their
video glasses at him.
Even without vigorous burning, aluminum melts rather easily when heated.
Drop an aluminum can onto a hot bed of coals, and it will melt pretty
-- Mike --
I didn't believe this ridiculous stuff for a moment, but I did want to see
what everyone else said here.
You could also say, that since the Pentagon crash caused a similar explosion
to the one at the WTC, then because of the large amount of jet fuel and the
huge fireball that occurred, that most of the plane and its parts were
Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been recovered,
other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
> You could also say, that since the Pentagon crash caused a similar explosion
> to the one at the WTC, then because of the large amount of jet fuel and the
> huge fireball that occurred, that most of the plane and its parts were
> Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been recovered,
> other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
> street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
Very little of *anything* from the WTC has been *recovered*. It was
reduced to a six story pile of pulverized nuttin', almost powder (with
some twisted beams). The catastrophic collapse and weight of all those
stories upon one another left little recognizable.
Since the plane that hit the Pentagon hit the ground first, that
absorbed a great deal of the impact and the Pentagon is made of good old
Two different scenerios.
> "If you're not part of the future, then get out of the way"
> -- John Mellencamp
>|Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been recovered,
>|other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
>|street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
Engines and the black boxes.
Still, I am curious why the wings of a fully loaded airplane did not cause any
damage to the building. If they'd sheared off there would have been debris
outside and that wasn't there.
>Can I just go beat on the french for a while?
You know what they say Bill,
Nobody surrenders like the French.
(well, there was that funny"Mother of All Battles" bullshit a few years back)
The black boxes? Since when were the WTC planes' black boxes recovered? I
had not heard this anywhere.
> Still, I am curious why the wings of a fully loaded airplane did not cause
> damage to the building. If they'd sheared off there would have been debris
> outside and that wasn't there.
Perhaps they broke off on impact with the ground and were consumed in the
I recall the wing(s) entering the building(s). Probably consumed in the
early fire, along with the plane (They were full of fuel). If not, they
were pulverized when the buildings collapsed.
My guess is that the engine(s?), under it's/their own power just kept
going and went through the other side of the building.
I have no trouble imagining the _force_ of those buildings collapsing
upon themselves. I'm surprised we've recovered anything from the
rubble. The weight of those buildings falling upon themselves left not
much of anything. *Rubble* suggests that there is more there than there
really is. It's closer to grit and dust.
> "If you're not part of the future, then get out of the way"
> -- John Mellencamp
The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
(noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
I like the French, but there are times I admit I'm tired of their
as for why there are no wings in the pictures, remember that the wings
are the plane's gas tanks. if they were to catch fire as would happen
in a crash, they'd probably blow up, sending pieces of wing in every
if you've ever visited the pentagon, you know the walls are quite
thick. it only midly surprised me that only the first ring was damaged
by the crash.
as for why the upper floors did not collapse until later, is it perhaps
possible that the jet's fuselage in the building provided temporary
when it comes to what the ap says in the first moments of a crisis,
remember that the united jet that crashed in pennsylvania was first
reported to have taken off from chicago. not that i don't trust the ap,
but i can understand how they might say a truck bomb was set off near/in
the pentagon instead of a jet crashing.
i cannot answer how or why the jet managed to crash into the ground
floors instead of coming in through the roof. good question.
in all, i believe that the pictures that were assembled on the web site
were chosen for their conveiently lacking any pieces of a jet. if
someone took the time to hunt down photos of the attack, i am sure they
would find pictures including a jet.
Al Yellon wrote:
> Found this link on another NG:
}Found this link on another NG:
Looks like typical conspiracy-theory hype:
. 1. The first satellite image shows the section of the building that
. was hit by the Boeing. In the image, the second ring of the building
. is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first
. ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only
. fire-damaged after the initial explosion.
. How can a Boeing 757-200 weighing nearly 100 tons and traveling at a
. minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only have damaged the outside of
. the Pentagon?
a) It hit the ground first, which absorbed a good deal of the momentum, and
b) the Pentagon is rather well-built, as buildings go.
. 2. The next two photographs show the building just after the attack.
. The aircraft apparently only hit the ground floor. The four upper
. floors collapsed toward 10:10 am. The building is 78 feet high.
. How can a plane 44.7 feet high, over 155 feet long, with a wingspan of
. almost 125 feet and a cockpit almost 12 feet high, crash into just the
. ground floor of this building?
The plane hit the ground first, then slid into the building. It was
already collapsing and deforming by the time it impacted the building.
. 3. Look at the photograph of the lawn in front of the damaged
. Where is the debris? Any debris! Did it all disintegrate on contact?
Pretty much. Look at the photos of the plane that hit the field in
Pennsylvania. What plane? The debris was scattered over square miles,
and they didn't find too many pieces larger than a laptop computer.
. 4. There are photographs, which show representations of a Boeing
. 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit.
. What happened to the wings of the aircraft? Why isn't there any wing
a) Much of the wings were already breaking up from the impact with the
ground by the time the plane hit the building;
b) Most of the photographs don't show sufficient detail to see what
minor damage might have occured around the main impact site.
. 5. One journalist asked: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at
. all?" At a press conference the day after the tragedy, Arlington
. County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher said, "First of all, the question about
. the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the
. interior during this fire-fighting operation. I'm talking about, but
. not large sections."
. The follow-up question asked, "In other words, there's no fuselage
. sections and that sort of thing?"
. Plaugher replied, "You know, I'd
. rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can
. give you better information about what actually happened with the
. aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."
. Wait a minute! Time after time (Oklahoma City bombing, TWA Flight 800,
. Flight 93 et al.) we are told not to depend on eyewitnesses?
You don't /depend/ on any single source of information; that's no reason
not to seek corroboration from all available sources.
. When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?" The chief
. responded, "We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the
. what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft."
Don't see the problem with that. The fuel was what caused the fire that
the fire crew battled for days. Some of it was foamed by the firefighters
and didn't go up. I don't see any mystery here.
}The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
}(noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
That's not the way the prez pronounces it.
Look again. There is damage along the first floor that matches the wings'
dimensions rather neatly.
> If they'd sheared off there would have been debris
> outside and that wasn't there.
In the most paranoid scenario, sure. Aside from not comprehending the
dynamics of this crash (which isn't a big deal, considering the unusual
nature of it), you're discounting quite a number of eyewitnesses along the
highway, who saw the jet come in insanely low and crash into the Pentagon.
For what possible purpose, do you suppose?
> as for why there are no wings in the pictures, remember that the wings
> are the plane's gas tanks. if they were to catch fire as would happen
> in a crash, they'd probably blow up, sending pieces of wing in every
...or shredding them, as the weight of the fuel travelled forward into the
structure and then incinerating what was left.
> if you've ever visited the pentagon, you know the walls are quite
> thick. it only midly surprised me that only the first ring was damaged
> by the crash.
The damage went beyond the first ring.
> as for why the upper floors did not collapse until later, is it perhaps
> possible that the jet's fuselage in the building provided temporary
> structural support?
No, the building's structural supports provided structural support, until
the fuel burning through them, the physical damage and the weight from above
combined to bring them down.
> i cannot answer how or why the jet managed to crash into the ground
> floors instead of coming in through the roof. good question.
Umm, perhaps it came in low, like the eyewitnesses said, bounced off the
ground and went in through the ground floors?
> in all, i believe that the pictures that were assembled on the web site
> were chosen for their conveiently lacking any pieces of a jet. if
> someone took the time to hunt down photos of the attack, i am sure they
> would find pictures including a jet.
Heck, even some of the pictures they chose, revealed the opposite of what
they were claiming.
>|>Very little of the planes that crashed into the WTC has been recovered,
>|>other than a couple of engine parts that broke off and crashed into the
>|>street a few blocks away, which was recovered on September 11.
>|The Pentagon was designed and build to sustain a direct nuclear
>|(noo-CLE-ur) hit, as well.
Judging by that a 757 is equal to what, 1 kiloton? I think a small well aimed
nuclear missile would have blasted the entire building and everyone in it to
Philadelphia. Baltimore, at least.
>oh yeah, this theory makes <i>a lot</i> of sense.
><p>there are more holes than my old socks.
><p>Matt Miller wrote:
(the rest snipped - there's nothing new).
Please don't do that again, Kevin.
"I have been tempted to do it here, but was afraid some might consider
it rude" - Lesmond