On a side note, did anyone see that dateline interview with a guy who worked in that section of the pentagon, and whose 13 year old son was on the plane that hit it?
Ugh...
Ugh...
Evadman
Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 30,990
- 5
- 81
Lets assume that that website is corrent, and it was not a plane that hit the Pentagon. That begs 3 more questions.
#1. Where is the other plane?
If it was shot down somewhere, there would be a debris field somwhere in the US unless it was shot down over water. Even being shot down over water, SOMEONE would have seen it. And if a plane WAS shot down, did the US just plant a bomb outside the Pentagon to cover for shooting down a civilian plane? They could have just said a plane crashed in the ocean, and that efforts to find the wreck were unsuccessful.
#2. What did that to the Pentagon?
It was not a bomb planted inside, look at the damage type. It was not a bomb planted outside, because where is the crater?
#3. Why would they bother to cover it up and say it was a plane if it indeed was not?
If it was a bomb, say it was a bomb. the public is still outraged, and Bin Laden goes bye bye. The WTC is what did it, not the pentagon. I don't know about you, but whenever someone says "Remember 9/11" they are talking about WTC, not the pentagon. (or about the day in general)
I rest my case. French people suck, and you suck for posting this AGAIN.
#1. Where is the other plane?
If it was shot down somewhere, there would be a debris field somwhere in the US unless it was shot down over water. Even being shot down over water, SOMEONE would have seen it. And if a plane WAS shot down, did the US just plant a bomb outside the Pentagon to cover for shooting down a civilian plane? They could have just said a plane crashed in the ocean, and that efforts to find the wreck were unsuccessful.
#2. What did that to the Pentagon?
It was not a bomb planted inside, look at the damage type. It was not a bomb planted outside, because where is the crater?
#3. Why would they bother to cover it up and say it was a plane if it indeed was not?
If it was a bomb, say it was a bomb. the public is still outraged, and Bin Laden goes bye bye. The WTC is what did it, not the pentagon. I don't know about you, but whenever someone says "Remember 9/11" they are talking about WTC, not the pentagon. (or about the day in general)
I rest my case. French people suck, and you suck for posting this AGAIN.
- Oct 10, 1999
- 31,295
- 12,817
- 136
Check the crash site in Pennsylvania. See lots of large debris? I didn't think so.
The plane was pulverised.
There are a lot of idiots out there with all kinds of conspiracy theories about Sept 11. They would be better off searching for UFO's and aliens.
I will trust the eye witnesses before any conspiracy nuts.
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
I never saw video of plane hitting Pentagon... which is that site is talking bout here, not the towers. It does raise some interesting questions about the size of plane and minimal damage to pentagon... look at how much dmg they did to the towers, one plane caused a hole straight through tower 2. shrug
- Oct 10, 1999
- 31,295
- 12,817
- 136
The WTC were not designed to withstand a jet plane assault. The pentagon was designed to withstand attacks. That is why the damage wasn't as bad.
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
I heard the towers were in fact designed to take a jet impact- but thats coming from memory of a discovery channel show shortly after the event. I think that catch was that it was designed to take hits from a jet flying at runway approach speeds- not cruising speed. But judging from the video those planes were not going cruising speed.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,355
- 19,536
- 146
Check this out
How do people become so warped as to believe this crap? It's got the goverment flying remote control airplanes into buildings then killing innocent people to shut them up.
How do people become so warped as to believe this crap? It's got the goverment flying remote control airplanes into buildings then killing innocent people to shut them up.
Evadman
Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 30,990
- 5
- 81
They were designed to take a plane hit from planes of the day. Not the planes of today. Look at how long they stayed up even WITH a plane hit. They were very well designed. A plane hit the Handcock building in Chicago a few years after being built, and it just needed renovation on a few florrs.
There is only 1 structure designed to take a 777 hit, and that is the shell around a nuclear reactor.
- Oct 10, 1999
- 31,295
- 12,817
- 136
The Empire State Building was hit once and suffered serious damage, but that was near the top.
No modern commercial building is designed for that. If anything they are designed for earthquake issues and fire issues.
Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps the Pentagon is made of the same concrete material used to create Nuclear power plants?
I've seen a video once of a Jet plane and an 18-wheeler rocketing straight at a lone wall made of that same material. What i saw next was one heck of an eye-opener. Both the Jet and the big rig just got pulverized. The only thing you could see is the wall, still standing, and what looks like a black ring on it.
The only evidence of anything was what looked like tiny pieces of debris laying all round the wall.
I've seen a video once of a Jet plane and an 18-wheeler rocketing straight at a lone wall made of that same material. What i saw next was one heck of an eye-opener. Both the Jet and the big rig just got pulverized. The only thing you could see is the wall, still standing, and what looks like a black ring on it.
The only evidence of anything was what looked like tiny pieces of debris laying all round the wall.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,355
- 19,536
- 146
They were designed to take the IMPACT of a 707, but the engineers did NOT plan for, or even consider the effect of full tanks of jet fuel. As you can find out if you study what happened on 9/11, it wasn't the impact that brought the towers down, it was the intense heat from the jet fuel fires that followed.
Demon-Xanth
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2000
- 20,551
- 2
- 81
Answer #1: that wedge had just undergone a major refurbishment that included alot of reinforcement. And the building weighed in at much more than 100 tons.
Answer #2: It didn't hit only the first floor, it hit the bottom of the 2nd floor and the basement as well
Answer #3: No, I can't spot the debris, there's a building on top of it.
Answer #4: The lawn would've been ruined by construction crews. It's not uncommon to have sand and gravel to help with drainage before placing new turf
Answer #5: You think that an aluminum cylinder wouldn't collapse when hitting a rock wall? Other than that, the size looks spot on.
Answer #6: The parts were buried, he didn't know exactly where it was.
Answer #7: Nope, the water jets are obscuring the massive gaping hole
Now to read Snopes' answers
Answer #2: It didn't hit only the first floor, it hit the bottom of the 2nd floor and the basement as well
Answer #3: No, I can't spot the debris, there's a building on top of it.
Answer #4: The lawn would've been ruined by construction crews. It's not uncommon to have sand and gravel to help with drainage before placing new turf
Answer #5: You think that an aluminum cylinder wouldn't collapse when hitting a rock wall? Other than that, the size looks spot on.
Answer #6: The parts were buried, he didn't know exactly where it was.
Answer #7: Nope, the water jets are obscuring the massive gaping hole
Now to read Snopes' answers
Actually the towers took the impact of the planes just fine, they did their job. The engineers of the WTC did not have computers at the time and could not do analysis of the fuel and materials, which ultimately led to the collapse.
Incidentally the towers collapsed in different ways and for two different reasons, one at its core the other at its exoskeleton. The mitigating factor was the fire caused by the aircraft fuel. (The fuel itself burned out within minutes of impact, as does most jet fuel. It was the secondary fire from the carpet, walls, etc that was the culprit.)
Evadman
Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 30,990
- 5
- 81
I never said it was not the fuel. from everything I have read from all over, the fuel and intense heat is what downed the towers. I can see how it would come acrsss as that since I did not mention the fuel at all.
The point is, that website is a crock of crap
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
Yeah the towers handled exceptionally well for the hit they took, as one site claims they were the first towers "explicitly designed to withstand being hit by a jet plane". http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecenter.shtml
I dont know about Pentagon though- I just read the Snopes info about the refit and that does a pretty good job of debunking the theory, I wonder though is there a photo of the interior looking out through a window to see how thick those walls are?
I dont know about Pentagon though- I just read the Snopes info about the refit and that does a pretty good job of debunking the theory, I wonder though is there a photo of the interior looking out through a window to see how thick those walls are?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 404
-
Facebook
Twitter