Yes, that is one theory that turned in my head before. Not related to flight 77 but wasn't there another fourth passenger airoplane involved in all of this? IIRC a few passengers managed to take control of the flight and crash it in the ground before it reached its supposed destination (don't remember where this was, somewhere that the President chills out or something)
Yes it was in the general area of Camp David - somewhere in virginia I think. I dunno what to think... and I'm the type of person who would believe stories like this that show how corrupted our government is. But it sure doesn't seem too likely that some huge plane could evaporate on impact. I did have some relative that worked like in an office that got sliced in half (I think he was on the phone with an aunt at the time, I'd imagine the reaction would have been something to the extent of "omfg what was that, **** i've gotta go!!!"... but anyways that would make it seem like a plane wing but not one of a 757 or whatever. Especially with that hole that got punched in C ring that's shown in that flash vid.
I saw the same one - the taxi from Brazil I believe it was. The car was blown over by the jet blast when it powered up for takeoff, not while in flight. There's a HUGE difference. When the jet powers up, it's stationary so the blast is moving at speed, but when the plane is in flight, the blast (exhaust) is moving in the opposite direction and at a speed relative to keeping the plane moving. So if the plane is flying at 500mph and the exhaust is moving at 550mph, relative to the plane speed, the exhaust is traveling 550mph, but relative to the ground, the exhaust is moving at 50mph. A plane in flight will not knock over a car by flying over it unless maybe it's at mach speeds.
The 4th plane crashed in a rural area 20 or so miles east of Pittsburgh, Pa. They speculate that the hijackers were going to fly the plane into either the White House or the Capital Building, not Camp David. There's no reason to strike Camp David when there are better targets.
wow, who brought this back up. No matter how large the plane, it is made up of as little material as possible to keep it light. The metal is made to keep the plane intact in the air. There are no "crumple zones" like a car, you smash a plane into an wall head on, it will crush like a peice of paper. Most of the plane is still empty space, it will compact down. Why so little damage to the building, when the other planes could take down tall towers? The pentagon is build to withstand bombs and rammings. The twin towers are meant to withstand birds and small planes. It is amazing that it did as much damage as it did. Why so little debris? The plane hit low on the building, there is also debris from 2 or 3 stories ontop of and mixed with the plane debris. What about the wings? Airplane wings are very strong, but only in a few directions. An airplanes wing is hollow, and holds the fuel for the plane. There is not that much metal, and it would also compact in a crash. There is some good info here: http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
I just had to bring this older comment back up. If he could fake an incident like this conspiracy theory suggests....don't ya think he could fake being "an absolute effing moron"? Regardless...I don't believe this particular conspiracy theory (landing on the moon is another subject ). I don't know what hit the Pentagon, but it's really not affecting my life one way or another.
Thats the thing there wasnt little damage it it punched through 3 rings. And yet they can find a plane engine under all the steel from the WTC. So wouldnt that mean that one the wings would of expolded due to the ammount of fuel in the wings and 2 the wings would of left fragments out on the lawn. In the pictures on the perdue test it shows the planes engine scraping the grass.
Zap, if I may? Of couse it did, the plane still has a ton of momentum. Besides, 3 rings isn't that much to begin with. Right. But the plane(s) didn't disintegrate the same way as the one that hit the Pentagon did. I imagine there was, but I haven't seen many good pics of the area in a while. Those wern't photos, they were CGI images. Come on people, you can't seriously sit there and tell me that this was all a government plot of some sort.
as soon as someone answers my question, i will be more satisfied that a plane actually hit the pentagon.... the main reason i believe this whole conspiracy thing gets played up so much is because statistically speaking an american will argue that there was a plane, and people from elsewhere argue there wasnt...surely if there was a plane there is nothing to hide? but i guess classified takes its place somewhere in the constitution aswell?!? maybe its just that people from elsewhere are more doubtfull/questioning....well thats at least the way it comes across...
I know they were CGI pictures but it was supposed to be an accurate test so therefore wouldnt the engines have to scrape the ground. Thoes 3 rings are 2 feet thick Rebar concrete brick and limestone. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/images/pentagon_092301.gif I also want to know how you can drop a plane down to 2 feet above the ground from the interstate. Ive been on that interstate and ive seen the pentagon right where the plane should of gone over
Hmm, I made a big post on another forum about this ages ago with some of my thoughts about various pictures of the Pentagon and the area after the incident, but it appears to have been deleted along with the whole thread Anyway, I think this is one that will run and run , it seems anything can be turned into a conspiracy theory or have someone on the internet call it into doubt. Lets take the 'where are the planes engines?' question, well if you search on the internet there are pictures out there showing bits that are clearly turbine engine components, compressor fans rather than the much larger front fan which is pretty weak in comparison (the turbine further inside the engine have to withstand high temperatures, whilst the large fan at the front has to withstand birdstrikes and foreign object ingestion but the air its sucking in is still cold). Such photos can be seen here . However if you read the rest of the article associated with that, whilst the images on their own should help dispel any of the 'where are the 757's engines?' questions related to the conspiracy, instead they just start some more theories based around the images themselves... http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1152 They go on to the extent of suggesting that the visible engine components are maybe from a Northrop Grumman RQ-1 Global Hawkunmanned air vehicle (used by the US military for aerial reconaissance), crashed into the Pentagon by the US's own military Now sure I could actually start to say things to give weight to this theory, by saying that the RQ-1 has very thin glider like wings that would easily sheer off on impact with anything solid, which would explain the lack of damage to the Pentagon, but then you have to look at other things - the RQ-1 was in development during summer 2001, and it was rushed into service for the Afghanistan war where IIRC 2 prototypes were lost to technical problems before they went back to developing it, so for this theory to stand up the US must have secretly had a fully functional RQ-1 drone flying before the rest of the fleet was ready, that they could load with enough explosive/fuel to blast the Pentagon.... Basically you can make almost any of the images or evidence seem dodgy if you're questioning enough, and with a little knowledge and scepticism you can make a theory that is hard to disprove because some fairly basic facts still support it, or you can infer things to support it that the average man in the street wouldn't be able to question/. Personally thoughaving seen a channel 5 program on aircraft crash testing, I can well believe that theres hardly anything of the aircraft left if it did indeed crash into the Pentagon as the 'official' version of events that day says - this program showed an F-4 Phantom jet fighter mounted on a rocket sled being launched at 500mph into a concrete wall (designed to replicate a fighter hitting a nuclear power stations reactor) and in slow motion the aircraft seemed to be 'eaten' by the wall, it just disintegrated into absolutely tiny parts with nothing recognisable as being from an aircraft left, and the wall hardly marked. As for no large wing parts being left, an aircraft wing is not that strong, only being designed to take stress in one direction, the direction necessary for it to generate lift without crumpling and the stresses in flight. However a wing of an aircraft is a lot less strong than you'd think - if any of you get close to a military jet, have a look at the control surfaces, and you'll note they're all marked with a 'no step' logo. They're designed to stand up to the stresses of high speed, high g flight, yet somebody stepping on the control surfaces in the wrong place can damage them. Equally next time you're in an airliner, grab a window seat and observe how much the wings flex on takeoff and landing and how they 'droop' when on the ground compared to flight. Certainly an airliner wing is not the absolute solid object you'd expect, it bends, it flexes, in parts employs a stressed skin construction to save weight but this means its not strong in every direction other than those which are load bearing in 'normal' flight.....
Wasnt there something about how the Pentagon was hit with a truck or car bomb and not a plane ? With the plane landing close but not hitting the building or something like that ? It's so long ago that its all hazy ....
Very interesting thread, though I am reading it from a totally neutral standpoint, regardless what I may think did/didn't happen. Yes, I too saw this and agree it looked amazing - the plane seemed to vanish into the block, despite the block reamining totally undamaged. Almost like an illusion. it's hardly surprising that there wasn't much left of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Now, without wanting to seem liek I'm leaning towards the "crazy" side of the argument here, I do find it puzzling that (amongst other things which obviously need confirming) a passenger jet with a glassfibre nose and relatively weak fuselage can punch through that many reinforced concrete layers, regardless of how fast it was travelling. To me is seems like claiming a hollow-point round or similar (i.e. not piercing) can penetrate through many seperate kevlar/reinforced glass (or whatever) layers. Considering to the way the F4 "vanished" when it hit that block in the test-crash (incidentally leaving the, albeit stronger, block totally undamaged), the way I see it that 757's cabin must've been packed with concrete to punch through that many layers! Of course, I am probably just misguided in the way of the physics.
I haven't seen many fighter-planes up close, but I would think a fully-fueled 757 with a full passenger manifest (with baggage to match) would weigh much more than an F4. Given the extra weight, it's not that hard to imagine an aircraft of that size punching through the concrete, regardless of the aircraft's composition. Until recently, my wife never knew that water could cut through steel. Then the guys over at OCC got themselves a water-cutting thingamajig. she was highly impressed that a concentrated stream of water could slice through steel so easily. She always thought of water as wet and squishy - something you swim in. The strangest thing for me that day was hearing about how the reinforced iron beams that held the Twin Towers together just disintegrated. But as I watched the towers burn, pieces of paper could be seen fluttering around the sky. I just thought it was eerie that steel could vanish and paper could fly away, realtively unharmed. Stranger things have happened. -monkey
I hear what you're saying, but 5 seperate layers? I also appreciate that extreemely high pressure water jeta can be used to cut steel, and to extend the princilple particle accelerators can fire extreemely small objects (atoms?) through many layers of material. Yes, but at least the iron beems stayed for the fight! edit: but quite a poetic observation never-the-less.
If it is some conspiracy, why would they fly a fake plane into the pentagon? I would have thought the government could manage a real plane to fly into it.
<OT> Thanks I watched everything unfold that day via the magic of television, and I have no idea why that image stands out to this day more than any other. Just seeing all the confused faces, with the burning in the background, and the paper snow contrasted against the thick, black smoke. It just didn't seem real. I remember leaning over to my co-workers and saying "a B-2 Bomber once flew into the Empire State Building...practically bounced off. The Twin Towers will hold up just fine. They're built to withstand things like that." Who'd have thought? </OT>
