Find the airplane

[LordZach 0]

those are disturbing however probably accurate. makes you wonder if they picked up a copy.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Mar. 11 2002,01:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

I think we pretty much agree there. I just wanted to put emphasis on the fact that such a plane can have a enormous impact (I mean they dived through the whole WTC).

It is not worth to discuss the cinetic issue here because there are thousands of little details that matter. E.g. the motors (turbines? or how do you call them?) are the only ones to go through because they have the smallest independant surface of the plane (no doubt about the weight issue here), and they fly through a building without having to push through the concrete floors, only through the side walls (unlike the corpus of the plane)

[Frizbee 0]

The WTC only collapsed because the burning jet fuel was hot enough to melt the steel support columns of the building. The actual impact alone would not have brought them down.

Hence, a plane flying into the side of the Pentagon (a building BUILT to withstand bombing and explosions etc.) would have caused only the damage it did.

This whole truck bomb theory was just invented by conspiracy theorists looking for something that will create a story.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Mar. 11 2002,01:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">oh as for why the pentagon is concrete.. it was build during WW2 during the massive naval buildum.. and using concrete insted of steel saved an estimated 5 ballteships worth of the steel..<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, we have all heard about those steel buildings that are so common around the world

..but in general, you are right: the Pentagon is big and hard while the plane is retlativly soft and smalll.

I think a much more interesting incident for a conspiracy theory is the "accident" that happend in New York (Bronx, was it?) some two weeks after WTC. The FBI first said that there was an explosion aboard. Then the White House said, like 15 minutes later, that  there was no explosion aboard and that it was an accedent.

I'm not saying that it wasn't an accident, but _if_ it was no accident then it would still be an accident, if you know what I mean. The US would never admit that *another* terrorist act had happened on a plane on US soil two weeks after the WTC.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 11 2002,08:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think a much more interesting incident for a conspiracy theory is the "accident" that happend in New York (Bronx, was it?) some two weeks after WTC. The FBI first said that there was an explosion aboard. Then the White House said, like 15 minutes later, that  there was no explosion aboard and that it was an accedent.<span id='postcolor'>

Here we go again!

I never heard the news like that, i.e., that the FBI said there was an explosion on board.

Unless, of course, they simply acknowleged that explosions are also caused by malfunctioning plane engines and fuel leaks.

[christophercles 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 11 2002,01:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another question I ask myself is: why didnt the plane dive through the whole building?". Okay, some of you say the pentagon is build very bomb sequre, whatever. But what you think a WTT is constructed like? I am sure a plane of that size (if diving in vertically) would have cut the pentagon into seperate buildings!<span id='postcolor'>

You cant really say about the strength of the buildings, for one, the pentagon is super strong as secured against the ground very closely.

in 1945, a fully laiden Army Air Corps B-25 bomber crashed into the empire state building, and it only took out a few office's on one or two floors. Its not an exact science.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (christophercles @ Mar. 11 2002,08:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in 1945, a fully laiden Army Air Corps B-25 bomber crashed into the empire state building<span id='postcolor'>

http://history1900s.about.com/library/misc/blempirecrash.htm

Fully laiden? Says who? With what? Fuel? Maybe. Munitions? Doubtful.

[theavonlady 2]

Here's the famous pic:

[ralphwiggum 6]

that crash was presumed to be caused by air pocket or whatever it's called. It happens when a plane fly too close to another plane in same path. the air gets pushed away like water pushed away by boat, making plane harder to fly

[christophercles 0]

fuel, i somehow doubt that there would have been such a small hole if it was filled with ammo.

[kegetys 2]

I was too lazy to read through the whole topic, but anyway, just recently I saw a document about plane crashes from the TV, and it showed footage of a passenger jet (737 or something) that had stalled, and crashed right into the ground going almost straight down, and there were pretty much nothing left of the plane, just small pieces, nothing bigger that would have made me know that is an airplane crashed there. If the plane that crashed to pentagon hit the building straight, im sure it had blown up the same way without leaving big pieces of it for us to see.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 11 2002,07:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I never heard the news like that, i.e., that the FBI said there was an explosion on board.<span id='postcolor'>

That's exactly my point! I was at home at the time and found out something like five minutes after the Queens crash had occured. After about one hour there was breaking news on CNN (website) that a source in the FBI said that there was an explosion on board. When the White House and later FBI denied, CNN removed the original article, and all references to it. I know this, since I saw it with my own eyes.

Now, of course, there could be several normal explanations to this - perhaps the FBI person who said the first ting, didn't know anything about it and guessed. Perhaps CNN had misinterpreted the FBIs first statement.. or something.

I still find it strange.

When looking for a conspiracy, you should ask yourself the basic "What can be gained from this?". In the Pentagon situation, I really can't say what the US government could gain by saying that a 737 crashed into their military hq.

In the queens-crash situation there was a lot to be gained from not admitting that it was a terrorist act.

Well, I'm not saying one way or another.. just if you want to find a conspiracy.. find a plausible one

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LordZach @ Mar. 11 2002,01:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">those are disturbing however probably accurate.  makes you wonder if they picked up a copy.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, they found copies of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000 in the apartments of the hijackers

[stealth squirrel 0]

Albert WSchweitzer just lsiten to what wobble is saying HE IS RIGHT,

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (stealth squirrel @ Mar. 11 2002,13:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Albert WSchweitzer just lsiten to what wobble is saying HE IS RIGHT,<span id='postcolor'>

I do listen.

Now if you think in terms of right and wrong when speaking about physics then you have probably just reached the age of 12, cause there is only a greyscale-answer. So what was I saying? Was I neglecting what he said?

My point was: you may consider a plane to be a soft object, but construction-wise and in combination with speed it isnt. Proof me wrong buddy!