Originally posted by CatHerder

Actually, it was one of 3 sides that had been upgraded, it just happened ot be the side that was just being completed internally (decor-wise). The pilot had a 3 in 5 chance of hitting a newly upgraded section, not a 1 in 5.

it is a shame that I read this post at this time because I don't want to appear to be on your case, but that is absolutely not correct.

Lee Evey pentagon reno head- Sept. 15, 2001- You've probably heard a lot of discussion about wedge one, wedge two, the renovation, what's renovated, what's not renovated, and I think it's probably quite confusing. So I'm going to qualify that for you a little bit...

What we're doing as our wedge one was the first wedge in the original construction of the Pentagon...

Now, where we are in the renovation is we're just completing wedge one. In fact, the construction was almost totally complete, within days of being totally complete. And we were moving people from wedge two into wedge one so that we would empty wedge two and could then begin construction in the wedge two area. So we were in the process of moving almost 5,000 people into wedge one.

It was the one and only of the 5 sides that was upgraded.



[edit on 9/24/04 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by slank

there are millions of people in the world who would like to kill you and your family members

Is that supposed to be somekind of threat Cat Herder?

No. It's reality. If you're that paranoid to think it's a threat I don't know what to say...

Just what do you think is on the minds of those fundamentalist muslim extremists who strap explosives on to their body, then walk into the middle of a public gathering of non-military people (such as a mall, or a coffee shop, or a book store) and detonate themselves?

Do you think they're thinking "now this will show that damn government, or that damn military!" No. They are thinking "I will get into paradise for smiting all these non-believers." They couldn't care less if you are a military person, or a government person, or a government supporter -- all they want to do is kill you regardless of what your political affiliations. If you are not a muslim, you are a target to this group of people. That is a fact.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

It was the one and only of the 5 sides that was upgraded.

Not quite accurate.
It was one of 5 WEDGES.
This was composed of 2 partial sides of the building.
Imagine a corner of the Pentagon, and take about half the length of the wall on either side of that corner....that's an approximation of the area being worked on in each phase.
For Phase 1, if you look at the building with the Metro station at the bottom, wedge 1 was the far left corner, between the heliport and the south terrace.

Originally posted by slank
Are you honestly that scared Cat Herder? I'm sure many people are, but it is not logical. The numbers do not bear it out.

I, on the other hand, grasp the reality of the situation. I looked at the Pentagon as objectively as I could. I was willing to accept either side of the story when I went into investigating it for myself. I concluded that it was indeed a 757 that hit the building - I did not give any opinion regarding who was to blame for it being allowed to happen.

Hosannah! the Oracle of truth has arrived. Everyone you can now turn off your minds because Cat Herder has determined the truth. And is perfectly willing to shove it down anyone's throat who doesn't agree with him.

If you have arrived at this view after examining so much evidence, why are you so afraid to allow others the freedom to experience their own exploration of the truth and form there opinons thusly?

Why are you so tense about it? Honestly it makes you seem a little weird. Im considered weird so don't take it as an insult.

Truth is Truth. It will find it's way through in the end. So truly you can relax about it.
.

Actually, I'm not afraid of terrorism much at all. You see, I am a Canadian - we haven't had a history of shoving our domestic policies down the throat of the rest of the world because we don't view ourselves as some sort of world saviour like so many in the US do. We are not a prime target for terrorism, we don't fund (very many) foreign policy positions that are aimed at controlling another nation or subverting it's religions or people. We're more about "leading by example" -- when we demand another nation abide by international law and human rights, we first off agree to be bound by those same international laws and human rights ourselves (ICC as an example).

At the same time we enjoy the same technology level as the US, the same quality of life (actually far higher according to world averages), more freedoms, universal medicare, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, basically the same way of life people in the US enjoy (except with more social systems in place for those who need it). We have the same opportunities for personal gain and wealth. We watch the same TV shows you do, the same movies, the same music, the same media, the same everything... but for some strange reason we aren't hated anywhere near along the lines of our neighbours to the south.

I suppose that's part of what allows me to view the 911 events objectively. While I was, and am, outraged at what happened, and I was shaken to the core as I watched it all unfold live, I am still able to remain above being emotional when I read and study the events on and up to that day.

Now I know you're going to jump up and say this is a bash the US, I hate America post, but it's not. I like the US, I really do. I just often wonder what it is that causes so many Americans to think and act the way they do.


And I welcome opinions and information from others on any subject. I don't respond to people just for the sake of arguing with them (like some posters on here who think it's all the rage to "own" somebody in a thread). I just prefer uncovering what is real and what is make believe when it comes to some topics.

I wonder how you'll spin this information into your previous post accusing me of working for the US state department.

.
Maybe it's your personality, buy you have a strong tendency to sound very belittling, condescending, and dismissive of anyone else's view, other than your own. [read smug]

Why do you seem so compelled to 'dispense' [So heavy handedly] the truth to others? It strikes me as odd. I am an American and I don't think I'm one tenth as concerned as you seem to be. Did you lose someone you know in the 911 tradgedy?

It sounds like you have made it your personal mission. Which is cool. If you could do it as though you were speaking to intellectual equals and not talk down to people they might appreciate it.

I'm sure Canada is a great place in many ways and best of all you dont have a president or prime minister that invades a stable nation and turns it into a hotbed for terrorism as we do. Ironically all on a pretext of preventing terrorism.
.

Originally posted by slank
.
Maybe it's your personality, buy you have a strong tendency to sound very belittling, condescending, and dismissive of anyone else's view, other than your own. [read smug]

Well I don't intend to come across that way. I suppose its my writing style? I learned in university, from an english prof I enjoyed, to write without the use of passive sentances and because of this my scores on essays went up remarkably in every subject... I suppose that could be why I might sound like a condesending jerk if you read more into a post than the information it contains (but it's certainly not my intention).

Why do you seem so compelled to 'dispense' [So heavy handedly] the truth to others? It strikes me as odd. I am an American and I don't think I'm one tenth as concerned as you seem to be. Did you lose someone you know in the 911 tradgedy?

Well, 911 did effect me financially, but nothing compared to my boss who lost about $1.5billion in 6 days, and his entire brokerage firm was wiped out (I think they were on the 87th floor or higher, I dont recall exactly) - excluding the owner who was actually taking his daughter to her first day of preschool. It also was a tremendous wakeup call on many levels for me. I did lose a couple people I knew from work (not "friend" friends, but still impacts you more than you'd assume).

I don't feel compelled to dispense anything, I just feel there is so much disinformation out there about the events of 911 that people get confused as to what is and what is not.

It sounds like you have made it your personal mission. Which is cool. If you could do it as though you were speaking to intellectual equals and not talk down to people they might appreciate it.

I'm sure Canada is a great place in many ways and best of all you dont have a president or prime minister that invades a stable nation and turns it into a hotbed for terrorism as we do. Ironically all on a pretext of preventing terrorism.

I didn't initially take any real position in my posts. Once I'd learned as much as I could about flight 77 and the Pentagon (I still learn new stuff almost every day) I tried to put it all into one comprehensive post (which wasn't completed when SO posted it). I suppose when I got attacked personally by a few different ATS members I may have changed my approach on the subject from educated information and opinion to something more direct.

Forums are a difficult medium to convey the exact emotion on a subject (hence emoticons)... if you feel that I've been rude or whatnot towards you, I apologise - it wasn't my intent.

Ah gotta go, the guys in the black van want me to go pull some beer for them (poor fellas, have no ID you know).

I'm not going to Clog up a truly CLEAR and practical post by tossing in B.S. BUT AS I am truly an Aviation "Nut" and READ and then RE-READ nearly every scrap Of aviation everything .. This post has what I call IDIOT PROOF UNDERSTANDING ..THAT EVEN THE BUTT IGNORANT RED STATES CANNOT BUSHit THERE WAY OUT OF... Aside from the Painfully clear FACT that I personally Did NOT SEE ONE PIECE OF BOEING ANYTHING ANYWHERE .. NOT EVEN THE HUGE 9ft tall by 15ft long Pratt & WHITNEY TURBOFANS that motivate Both the 757-200 and the 767 Nor did I see the 45ft tall tail section Or the HUGE MAIN GEAR Assem, Oh Hell FOLKS LISTEN OK.."YOU GOT ME"... NO FREAKING BOEING ANYTHING CRASHED ANYWHERE NEAR THE FREAKING PENTAGON.. OK Because If it had I promise you EVEN YOU BRAIN DEAD RED STATE PRO-BUSH IDIOTS..THE WINDOWS ON THE SECOND FLOOR {thats only inches above where the "Object" slammed"} Were still intact NOT ONLY were They intact People BUT the Cable spools that were all over that immeadiate area were still in the exact same position they were in when the Construction crew packed up ...NOW I PROMISE YOU .. Even though Bush is good for spinning tall tail's at the drop of a hat ... He was some what Stupifide when this was asked of him I believe his Answer went like this ... Ahh YES didn't i talk to you about that .. Ah Humina humina humina humina "End-QUOTE" Need I go on ?

All your Specs, Sound REAL GOOD.... Except for one small Fry thing Pal... YOU CANNOT FLY, BOUNCH OFF THE GROUND , Or Deflect off a lightpole, A Boeing Anything... As It Cannot Fit in a Nice neat round Hole between the First and secound floor without breaking the second floor window Nor Can "KEROSENE" Burn NEARLY HOT ENOUGH TO EVAPORATE Pratt & Whitney turbofans Or the Many wonderous Alloy's In the HUGE mainGear Assmeblies Of said Aircraft PAL..... And though it was a nice try you should go back and Whip out your Badge Of Honor and take another freaking look at the Wingspan and at what point those two TEENY WEENY turbofans hang to see if THEY MAY OR MAY NOT OF MADE ANY DAMAGE to the area where they would have struck .... BUT at last look PAL they came up BROKER ON EVEN ONE TURBOFAN BLADE ... BUD... Or even a single Wheel Now if you want to argue CRAPOLA ...BRING IT and you fact book.

Edit - I misquoted myself by accident when I meant to edit my original post, my bad.

Arbusto - I don't even know who "General Kunt" is referring to, but it sounds like a derogatory remark since I have yet to see a person with that username post on this message board, but hey, I am new here so maybe they are yet to appear on my screen.

Anyway, I am sorry if I misread your post and those photos/articles are not adequate or not what you wanted, perhaps next time you should use capital letters a little less, and grammatical rules a little more, it would just make your posts much easier to read and understand.

[edit on 27-5-2005 by CaptainJailew]

I am afraid that I still dont believe the Missile theory and agree that a boeing aircarft did infact hit the pantagon, but there is another aspect to this whole subject that has bugged me from the start. I was going to start a new thread asking the following question but figured why not just tag it on here to save space.

I have never understood why the pilot (whoever he was, whatever his motivations, I dont want to get into that discussion) made this quite apallingly tricky approach to the building !?

Now consider the Twin Towers impacts and think about it logically. These aircraft are not designed to be flown at low level, thus the approaches to the twin towers were, whilst difficult to achieve, relatively straight forward. The towers were visible from a great distance and quite easy to target. Fly staight and level towards them with a few minor course corrections all the way to impact.

Now consider the Pentagon, an altogether trickier target. I dont know the exact height of it, im guessing eight to ten storeys high ? so why lose all that altitude, make those turns and then an approach that is tricky to put it mildly, clipping telegraph poles, lamposts etc to slam into the front of the building ?

Surely the approach that would hold the most chance of success would be to keep the height, spot the building and then push the stick over to achieve a twenty to thirty degree dive (not outside the operational parameters of the aircraft). You would then be presented with the whole of the surface area of the Pentagon (ie the roof) to hit, a much easier target than the front ?!

I apologise if this question has been asked before, I just ahvent seen it thats all

Good question, but it seems like if you were traveling at the velocity needed to remain airborne, eyeballing a 30 degree descent to a relatively small target (given your rate of approach) would be harder than easing into it and assuring you hit it with a straight-on approach. If I were flying, I would probably overshoot it and crash in the parking lot or something instead of my intended target.

I am not pilot though, and I don't know if it really would be hard to guess when you should start descending on such a steep dive, but my guess is that it would be, and the best way to assure a direct hit would be a low trajectory.

I agree, but it was hardly a straight run in approach was it, looking at the turns that they made ?

My assertion that this angle of attack would be easier is not based on any military or aviation knowledge. I just figured that if I were to guarantee a hit on a target shaped like that one, I would aim for the angle which presents the most surface area, now we cant say that an airliner is capable of staying in one piece if the pilot goes into a terminal dive from 10k feet , but I am sure that a dive of 30 degrees is feasible. As I say, I have no great conviction as to this and am perfectly prepared to hear other views, its just always made me wonder, thats all.