Did a plane crash into the pentagon?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by quagmire, Sep 2, 2004.

  1. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #1
    I think it was a plane but, no 757. Missiles can't penetrate 3 rings of the pentagon except for a cruise missile.( please correct if wrong) If it was a cruise missile it had to be from a U.S fighter jet. There is great evidence though. Where are the pieces of the plane? But, if I remember there was a plane engine found near the collasped E ring. But, that was the only piece that was there. If it was flying so low why didn't it flip cars? Why did it make such a small hole? What do you people think?

    http://pages.infinit.net/noc/pentagon.swf
     
  2. sorryiwasdreami macrumors 6502a

    sorryiwasdreami

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Location:
    way out in the sticks
  3. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #3
    Get real, guys. What happened to the plane? I mean, if it didn't crash into the Pentagon, where did it go?
     
  4. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #4
    There have been many passenger jet crashes that didn't scatter themselves over a wide area, usually they went straight into the ground -- but going into a reinforced section of the Pentagon should be enough to destroy a plane.

    Remember they fired an F4 Phantom into a section of nuclear containment wall and there was nothing left of the plane.
     
  5. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #5
    My brother (in the 3d Inf.'s Honor Guard) picked body and plane parts out of the Pentagon. There was jet fuel everywhere. There were witnesses who saw the plane strike the building.

    Stories to the contrary are absolute nonsense.
     
  6. ~kilroy~ macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Location:
    Deep South
    #6
    Get real... I was there.

    I saw the plane hit the pentagon myself.
    I worked in Rosslyn at the time and my office faced the Pentagon. I saw the Plane hit.
    I can't believe there are people who actually believe its a conspiracy.

    Jeeze.
     
  7. musicpyrite macrumors 68000

    musicpyrite

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Cape Cod
    #7
    I think it was a missile with a nuke attached. Intact, I also think that the White House was blown up too. I also think we life in a world like the Matrix.... :rolleyes:


    Come on guys, a plane hit the Pentagon, plane and simple. Next thing you know your going to say we didn't go to the moon and were enslaved by aliens.
     
  8. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #8
    Psst...

    Don't tell these people that, they be wearing tinfoil hats seconds after reading that statement. ;)
     
  9. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #9
    Why is that every time someone puts out another *piece* of evidence on this that people are so willing to believe it.

    I knew people who were on that plane - and a neighbor of mine was supposed to be on it - a flight attendant - but she switched that morning with a co-worker. Imagine what she went through when she heard the plane went down. I didn't see her for 2 weeks after that, she was so freaked.

    Come on, it happened. I watched the Pentagon burn from the top of my building in DC. The initial reports were that a truck bomb had exploded there, but looking at the large black cloud of smoke hanging over the Potomac there was no question it was a truck bomb, missile or anything else but a plane with a lot of fuel to burn.

    D
     
  10. Phat_Pat macrumors 68000

    Phat_Pat

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Location:
    I Live Where I Live
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    This ranks up there with 'we never went to the moon' and 'the holocaust was a lie'. It's such a load of bunk it's almost unbelievable that anyone would trot it out.
     
  12. musicpyrite macrumors 68000

    musicpyrite

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Cape Cod
    #12
    First off, I'll admit I didn't watch the clip when I made my first post, but now I have watched and I'd like to clear somethings up.

    There are other missiles that can *penetrate* 3 rings or more rings of the pentagon, and those missiles are called 'bunker busters'.

    They are designed to be dropped from a bomber (like a B52) straight down towards the target. They are designed to attack hardened bunkers that are underground cover by dirt, rocks, cements, asphalt, etc. I don't know the actual depth they can go to (that might be classified, but I don't know about that I'm not the right person to ask) but I can tell you they can go through at-least 10 feet (~3 meters) of solid concrete.

    No. Wrong. U.S. fighter jets are much too small to launch a 20+ foot missile. Cruse missiles, if launched from the air are dropped by heave bombers, like the B52. They can also be launched form submarines, large tucks, and large boats. (I think you are confusing cruse missiles with Sidewinder type missiles, they are much smaller)

    Do you know what a plane is primarily made out of? Aluminum. Aluminum has a melting point of ~660 F. How hot do you think it would be after you 5,300 gallons of avation fuel? Keep in mind, that aviation fuel has an extremely high octane number, and therefore, burns extremely hot. I'm no expert about burning fuel and heat but I would say the temperatures in and around the Pentagon reached well over 2,500 F. (and for you reference, aluminum boils at ~2,400 F)

    It also makes sense that an engine would patricianly survive because a jet turbine engine is made out of extremely strong metals, that have a very high melting point because, jet engines, tend to be very hot. ;)

    It's true that jet turbine engines can flip cars/trucks and it has happened before, but the car has to be right behind the exhaust of the turbine to flip it. 20 feet above a car is wayyyy to far away. And by right behind the exhaust I mean with in 5 feet, and you are able to see inside the back of the engine.


    God, the reason whey people believe this kind of crap is because you don't understand how any of it works (aka jet engines, missiles, heat, the infrastructure of buildings, etc.). Please try to learn something about anything.

    And how do I know all this? Easy. I used to watch (and still sorta do) watch the History Channel. They have a wealth of information. Another place I like is www.howstuffworks.com go there and look up cruse missile, and tell me what you find....

    EDIT:I would also like to show you something else, if you look at the attached image, they obviously censored out a word. I'd be willing to be that that word is 'airplane'. Why did they censor it out? Because this whole clip is total BS and it's propaganda. These people want you to think what they think, and the people who made this video obviously hate the government and are probably anarchists.

    EDIT again: Now that I think about it, missiles are never never never silver. The whole point of a missile is to be stealthy and hard to see. (in addition to blowing stuff up)

    Think how easy it would be to see a silver missile flying across the sky, with the sun reflection off of it? Making a missile silver defeats the whole purpose of it.

    And they quote all these people, who say 'it sounded like a missile'. Do these people know what a missile is? How it works? What it sounds like? I'd be willing to be none of those people the clip quoted have never seen a tomahawk missile launch, or cruise missile.

    Anybody how believes this stuff, imho, has some serous issues.
     

    Attached Files:

  13. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    The force that causes most of the air movement behind a large airplane is isn't the engines so much as its the wing tip vortices (AKA wake turbulence). The vortices roll over the wing tips and spread outwards as they fall towards the ground. It might be counterintuitive but it is true nonetheless that the most severe wake turbulence is caused by large airplanes fly slowly, particularly on takeoff and landing.
     
  14. jackieonasses macrumors 6502a

    jackieonasses

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Location:
    the great OKLAHOMA....
    #14
    a suggestion on why the FBI took the tape was....

    they needed more evidence to solve why the heck the plane crashed into the pentagon? not some scheme to hit THERE OWN BUILDING!

    edit.... didnt people die in this? so where are the familys? if no one died. then what would they tell the media?
     
  15. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #15
    Pentagon Explosion Pics

    Yes looks about the size of an explosion from a F16's missile :rolleyes:

    and nothing like a diesel fireball. ;)

    We've been seen a lot of the MSNBC reports from the war zones, and this looks more like a movie explosion (which are many times diesel fireballs.)
     
  16. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #16
    Living in the DC area, I can understand the concerns.

    For your brother it was all too real. Whether a plane or a missile. Being a student of air crashes, I questioned the lack of wreckage. Yet as an American I can only accept what I saw was reality.
     
  17. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #17
    I too am "a student of air crashes". It is important to note that in most airline crashes debris is spread over the area in which the pilot had attempted to ditch.

    It is quite rare for a large, fully fuelled aircraft to be powering up to ram a building at the point of impact. I would tend to think that since commercial jet fuel is actually a bit heavier than diesel oil there would be little or no explosive force as compared to the momentum of the plane and the force of impact. There was quite a bit of flying debris in the WTC explosion that was caught on film.... I'd be willing to put money on it having been glass and building materials from the Towers themselves. My guess is that, being an aluminum bodied aircraft impacting a reinforced office building at a relatively high speed the debris would have been a: very small and b: carried into the building by it's own kinetic energy/vector.

    There's plenty of space inside a building for debris to scatter... space being the point of a building. With rare exceptions most large buildings are sructurally reinforced only along the outside walls with the interior being made with less robust materials as it bears almost no structural weight. I would think that because of these common engineering and construction techniques there would be five main overlapping cones of debris inside the structure, each coinciding with a load bearing wall of a ring. Additionally there would be almos no dammage from the wings and tail as they hadn't the mass or structural integrity to do much but reduce to playing-card size scraps. Being that the engines were at the rear of the aircraft they would have been subject to the least of the impact's destructive force and at the least velocity at the point they would have impacted the building.
     
  18. musicpyrite macrumors 68000

    musicpyrite

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Cape Cod
    #18
    There have been test by jet engine makes to show that 12 pound frozen chicken hitting the blades of a jet engine at 150 MPH is the equivalent dropping a 1,000 pound weight from a height of 10 feet.

    Imagine what kind of damage a 80 ton aircraft going ~500 MPH would make going into a building. Even if the aircraft is mostly aluminum and the building is steel reinforced concrete.
     
  19. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #19
    as I recall, in the original tests the chicken wasn't thawed.

    Keep in mind: an aircraft is mostly empty space.... a chicken isn't.

    Being that I actually have quite a bit of construction and architecture in my background: It would punch a fairly neat hole about the diameter of the aircraft's main body.
     
  20. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    And bear in mind also that the wings would have been full of jet fuel.
     
  21. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    Subject: Fowl Science. Scientists at NASA have developed a gun whose purpose is to launch dead chickens. It is used to shoot a dead chicken at the windshields of airline jets, military jets, and the space shuttle, at the vehicle's maximum traveling velocity.
    As such it simulates the frequent incident of collisions with airborne fowl, thereby determining if the windshields are strong enough.

    British engineers, upon hearing of the gun, were eager to test it out on the windshield of their new high-speed trains. Upon firing it, the engineers watched in shock, as the chicken shattered the windshield, smashed through the control console, snapped the train engineer's backrest in two, and imbedded itself in the back wall of the cabin.

    Horrified, the engineers sent NASA the results of the test, along with the design of the windshield, and asked the NASA engineers for suggestions.

    The NASA scientists sent back a three-word response.... "Thaw the chicken."
    :D
     
  22. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #22
    Urban legend, of course. But a funny one.

    On topic: it seems unbelievable to me that anyone would think the missing plane - including cell phone calls form on-board passengers - was make-believe.

    Airplanes crashing into the ground are one thing. Airplanes crashing into reinforced buildings while full of fuel are another. Only the uneducated would expect anything large to survive outside the building. It would have all been thrust into the inside, and most of it would have disintegrated or melted.
     
  23. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #23
    While the story may or may not be true, chicken guns certainly do exist.

    I wonder whether my 2nd amendment rights include chicken guns... :D
     
  24. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #24
    Fight for your right to keep and bear chickens!
     
  25. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #25
    You've confused avgas with jet fuel. Avgas is gasoline with an octane rating typically above 100.

    Jet fuel is fuel oil ("dry" diesel). Fuel oils have cetane ratings, not octane.
     

Share This Page