Flying into the Pentagon

[MishaK]

Actually, this one is the best:

http://www.videosift.com/video/911-Pentagon-Crash-Dear-tin-foil-hat-crowd-please-shut-th

[MishaK]

Another good one that shows some background on the failure to scramble fighters in time and the fact that Cheney was not being truthful (surprise!) when he claimed that there was an order to shoot in effect: http://www.videosift.com/video/Keith-Olberman-The-NORAD-911-audio-tapes

[Symphonien]

Actually, this one is the best:

http://www.videosift.com/video/911-Pentagon-Crash-Dear-tin-foil-hat-crowd-please-shut-th

Now that one surely silences the people who claim a lack of debris... The conspiracy sites show you barely any of those pictures. And I don't see how a missile could have knocked out all those lamp posts. 

Thanks for that O!

[Guido]

They didn't fold back, they disintegrated. In both cases actually. But glass and steel offers less resistance than solid masonry. Also, the 767s that went into the WTC are larger and heavier than the 757 that went into the Pentagon.

Yes, masonry is more resistant. Compare the WTC to the hit the Empire State Building took from a B-25 Mitchell bomber sometime after WWII. Also, compare the devastation of WTC7 and the Deutsche Bank building from debris from the main WTC towers vs. the very little damage suffered by the nearby Post Office which is a masonry structure.

Yes, and all of it is deeply authoritative... 

PS: I just watched one of the video claiming there were explosions. All you hear on it is the sound of a large chunk of facade crashing down. There were multiple such occurrences that day. But unless you were facing the facade from which that chunk had separated, you wouldn't have known what it was.

Cheers for the information. I guess the ultimate way of disproving it all would be if someone actually did try and rebuild a section of the pentagon in the middle of the desert somewhere and fly a real old plane into it via remote control... the solution might be overkill though!

Thanks for the link to the animation. The animation never really showed what the final result looked like though did it, it always moved inside the building after the impact so that you couldn't see what the entry hole looked like. Seemed a bit pointless... Also did the wings get chopped up by the vertical columns as they entered the building, in which case presumably they found all the debris inside? I guess I'm asking where the wings went when they disintegrated (is there an official account of exactly where they found all the debris available?)

[Lethevich]

Cheers for the information. I guess the ultimate way of disproving it all would be if someone actually did try and rebuild a section of the pentagon in the middle of the desert somewhere and fly a real old plane into it via remote control... the solution might be overkill though!

No way - the "theorists" would come up with more absurd claims based on a tiny difference between the simulation and the original event, while completely ignoring everything else (as usual).

[Guido]

Yeah I s'ppose.

[MishaK]

Thanks for the link to the animation. The animation never really showed what the final result looked like though did it, it always moved inside the building after the impact so that you couldn't see what the entry hole looked like. Seemed a bit pointless... Also did the wings get chopped up by the vertical columns as they entered the building, in which case presumably they found all the debris inside? I guess I'm asking where the wings went when they disintegrated (is there an official account of exactly where they found all the debris available?)

You are talking about the Purdue animation? In any case, the wings are some of the lightest structures involved. They will have disintegrated into a million little pieces. Check out the other animation at the top of this page.

[paulb]

I tend to agree with OP.
For some reasons not clearly understood, the pentagon was slow and cumbersome in response  in the 9/11 tragedies.

http://www.rense.com/general45/911.htm

particuilarly with response decisons on the flight 77 pentagon his.

Also i'd like to qwuestion why Schwaznegger waited 2 if not 3 days to fully respond to the s  cali fires?

"winds were too high to use the fire fighting planes"


I know why.

[MishaK]

I tend to agree with OP.
For some reasons not clearly understood, the pentagon was slow and cumbersome in response  in the 9/11 tragedies.

http://www.rense.com/general45/911.htm

particuilarly with response decisons on the flight 77 pentagon his.

Contrary to popular belief, most supersonic fighter jets cannot sustain supersonic flight for an extended period of time and they certainly can't do so at all altitudes. Top speed is only possible at very high altitude, not at lower altitudes where the air is much denser. There is nothing untoward about the speed at which the jets flew. The bigger problem was total miscommunication between ATC and NORAD and lack of clear information about which aircraft were hijacked and where they were. Watch the Olbermann video I linked above. It contains excerpts of the audio tapes of ATC and NORAD which show the utter confusion about the situation. You can't compare that to intercepts of airliners and corporate jets whose location and identity was known.

Also i'd like to qwuestion why Schwaznegger waited 2 if not 3 days to fully respond to the s  cali fires?

"winds were too high to use the fire fighting planes"

That is actually perfectly legit. If you drop water or fire retardant from above in high winds it will just disperse as an aerosol mist with little to no effect on the fires. Not to mention that the windy conditions would be way too dangerous to fly in that close to mountainous terrain and in bad visibility from the smoke.

I know why.

Please tell us.