9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon, page 13

privacy

Pages: << 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 70 times

reply posted on 16-9-2004 @ 12:14 PM by SpittinCobra

Maybe if the goverment wasnt so shady in the ways they clean up. We could believe the truths that are presented. Then we have people that would rather believe what is told to them, and have the case closed. What ever......................

reply posted on 16-9-2004 @ 12:31 PM by Bangin

Originally posted by SpittinCobra The most serious error in the ASCE report can be found in section 3, "Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame from the unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera footage, incorrectly labels the white smoke trail in the still "Approaching Aircraft".

Wow. This clip has been circulating for some time now, and up until recently I thought the white 'trail' was the aircraft. It wasn't until the 'other' thread, which this wonderful post originated, that I noticed the difference! I'm still in shock that the white smoke isn't the aircraft! This thread makes me sick. Not because I'm a kook that "embraces ignorance" but because it's sad to see that those who question the Pentagon attack are quickly labeled idiots that will believe "Santa Claus" is somewhat responsible for 9/11. Face it, folks. People have questions. People have suspicions. It will take more than a huge, well-publicized post to lay their suspicions to rest. Don't take it personal. You're never going to convince everyone that a 757 hit the Pentagon that day, and quite frankly it isn't your responsibility to do that. Government officials claimed a 757 hit the Pentagon, so it's their responsibility to provide evidence to back that claim. CatHerder went well out of his/her way to convince people that a 757 hit the Pentagon. Bravo! Now we just need to get an official source, which has access to all information pertaining to this incident, to put as much effort in this topic as CatHerder and other ATS members. (I really enjoyed reading this article by John bull 1. It's called The Rise And Rise Of Conspiracy On the Internet. www.abovetopsecret.com... ) It is my belief that acceptance is the key to civility within this community. We must accept that each member thinks differently. Whether they're right or wrong, dull or bright, we must accept them as members. Belittling certain members because they subscribe to a different belief, even after overwhelming evidence has been brought to their attention, will only make things worse. I think this thread demonstrates that. I was hesitant to make this post because I didn't want to face an attack from other members/board staff. This is supposed to be a community. A community that discusses conspiracy related topics. Let's not shove opinions down people's throats. It's not very welcoming nor is it inviting. Have a great day.

[edit on 9/16/2004 by Bangin]

reply posted on 16-9-2004 @ 02:37 PM by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by johnlear Just tell me, on either side of the hole that the fuselage supposedly went through, where is the imprint or damage or any indication that the wings (both left and right) and tail (both horizontal and vertical) made?
This is not the Saturday Morning cartoons, objects do not create holes that represent their exact profile. As compared to the rigid fuselage hitting head-on, the relatively soft wings and stabilizer struck side-on, and as a result likely disintegrated from the high kinetic energy of impact. If you were to dive into the water with arms out straight, they would immediately fall to your side.
OK. Please know this. I have been a pilot for almost 50 years. No airman has more FAA certificates than I do. I had over 19,000 hours when I retired in 2001, 16,000 in large jets. I have participated in many crash investigations. I have built airplanes, I have flown them, I have instructed in them, I have raced them and I have crashed them. The hypothesis that the wings and tail and fuel from a Boeing 757 disintegrated from the high kinectic energy of impact is pure, unadulterated, unmitigated B.S.

Was the Twin Towers in cartoon world? The wings made wholes. An exact shape of the plane was made, when it went in.

reply posted on 16-9-2004 @ 03:15 PM by HowardRoark

Originally posted by SpittinCobra Was the Twin Towers in cartoon world? The wings made wholes. An exact shape of the plane was made, when it went in.

You bring up an interesting point. However you are comparing apples to oranges. First, you have to understand a few fundamental things. One is that the construction of the pentagon is as similar to the construction of the WTC as an elephant is to a giraffe. The Pentagon and the WTC are both buildings, an elephant and a giraffe are both animals. That is about as far as you can take it. Two, different types of building materials have different responses to different types of stress. Steel is better at resisting tension forces the compression forces, while concrete and masonry are better at resisting compression forces then tension forces. This is why the floors of the WTC were steel truss on the bottom and concrete slabs on top. As the floor flexes downward, the concrete on top resists the compression exerted on it, while the steel trusses underneath resist the tension. The WTC was a high-rise office building. Obvious, huh. But think of what this means. The strength of the building structure is due mostly in how the structural elements are put together, not due to the inherent strength of the materials themselves. These forces and loads were calculated very carefully. In addition, the floor slabs themselves were thin and lightweight. The less mass the better. Unfortunately, this also meant that when the planes struck the building, there was little mass behind the exterior columns to resist the impact. The steel exterior columns, which were nothing more then hollow steel boxes, were sheared off by the impact. The Pentagon was built in another era with altogether different materials and criteria. Furthermore, as it has been pointed out, the exterior was hardened against just such an event. This is the key as to why the impact of the wings didn�t cut into the exterior walls. The heavier mass of the exterior cladding, the extra concrete walls that were added, the Kevlar, the solid concrete columns etc, meant that there was much more inertia to resist the forces of the impact. On the other hand, with the inner exterior walls, in particular that last wall, there was no mass behind the walls. No big wide slabs of limestone, no concrete spandrels, no Kevlar cloth, nothing, so it didn�t take much to knock a hole in the wall.

reply posted on 16-9-2004 @ 03:17 PM by Damned

Originally posted by SpittinCobra Maybe if the goverment wasnt so shady in the ways they clean up. We could believe the truths that are presented. Then we have people that would rather believe what is told to them, and have the case closed. What ever......................

Exactly! You wonder why I think there's a conspiracy? Ask our shady, secretive government. If everything wasn't kept from us, as if there's really some big reason for it, maybe I'd accept what they tell us.

It's truly sad that so many people can't trust the government. They have very good reason not to, though. [edit on 16-9-2004 by Damned]

reply posted on 16-9-2004 @ 06:08 PM by Jason Gortician

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in news:2qtjs0FqcdhrU1@uni-berlin.de: > > "God in a Box" wrote in message > news:Xns9565CB6EC5E29spamspamsnuhspam33@207.14.113.17... > >> Well, sure. But I'm not sure why you'd want to hear what I think, of >> all people. > > Sure I do. I wouldn't engage the thread if I didn't find your beliefs > intriging. And as a disclaimer, I have done minimal snipping below, and > I have only responded to the statements in which I think I can make an > argumnet. This is not to say I agree where I have not argued, just that > I chose not to argue. OK? Of course. I hope you do see that serious questions remain. I'm tempted to register and post something like this to that board, but that's such a pain, isn't it? >> > I forgot the link, here it >> > is...www.abovetopsecret.com... >> >> Thanks. Well, from what I can tell it's the most well-written pro-757 > piece >> I have read. In fact, the arguments from it were showing up here, >> unattributed. > > I agree. I don't think I hold much credence in the 'fluid dynamics' talk, personally. But the people who brought it here seem to have misapplied it. >> Having said that, I do see a number of problems with it. I hope this >> isn't too hard to follow, I'm working my way down the pictures. > >> First of all, a lot of the pictures claimed to be plane debris are very >> nondescript. The rim does look like a good match. Most all the other > debris >> doesn't really look like anything in particular. Like the "large chunk >> of the bulkhead", for instance. The same goes for the pile of garbage >> in > front >> of the "punch out" (and the punch-out's creation is not addressed at >> all). > > The rim analysis is very well done. How about the nose gear component? > The piece of bulkhead he is refereing to, I believe, is the yellowish > lattice, just down and to the left from the fireman's respirator. The rim is the single most identifiable piece of evidence I have seen. The rest of those things are very nondescript, to me. I really don't think anything from the nose would survive intact, personally. > As for > the punch out, I am still not clear what "either side" says about the > punchout. How would this hole we created a by plane or a missile? That is what I have been asking, to no avail. I surmise it was man-made, due to a number of pieces of evidence. >> The "tire with the same pattern as the ones on a 757" is pretty >> questionable, too. > > Yeah, I must admit I had trouble seeing it, but it makes some sense. I suspect the tread pattern is the same, but it's not really visible in the photo. >> The "apparent engine parts" have yet to be established as 757 parts, as > far >> as I can tell. And where was this photo taken? If it's in the AE drive, > how >> did the engine parts take the path of the fuselage? Are there >> trees/shrubs in the AR drive section? Why don't the parts show up near >> the "punch out"? > > It's definately a jet engine, and there is definately some yellow > primer'ed metal next to it. Yes, but we're looking for two 757 engines. The official story regarding one engine seems to be that it flew over the Pentagon. That would sort of preclude it striking the front face of the Pentagon. > Proof of a 757, maybe not, but it certainly > lends some evidence towards that belief. To know for sure about the > engines, we'd need to know the specs on that particular aircraft. As I > understand it the 757's used different engines. I don't think yellow or green primer proves much. A reconstruction of the plane from available parts would have gone a long way toward resolving this issue, if they truly had 757 parts. >> If they are outside the front of the Pentagon, where are they in the >> many other shots? >> >> A blue passenger seat to the left of the turbine? >> >> "Another engine part, bottom right". What? Maybe the brightness on my >> monitor is going out, all I see is random unidentifiable junk. What >> engine part is this supposed to be? > > There is a large round ring of some sort. I believe that is what he is > refering to. Ok, I don't see it here, probably due to my dying monitor, as I've said. But a ring is hardly a definitive 757 part. >> If the starboard engine hit the wall, where did it go after that? >> >> The single piece of 757 part, the painted section, is the most >> suspicious of all. >> >> Why doesn't it appear in any wide shots, pre-collapse? See the >> Pentalawn site, for example. >> >> Why isn't it burned? >> >> How did it fly so far from the Pentagon, being that light, and shaped >> the way it is? >> >> Why aren't the rivet holes torn? >> >> I'm afraid that photo is the most suspicious of the lot. Come to think >> of it, the position it is in is the least likely position for it to >> land in. Things usually land heavy side down... this looks like it was >> carefully placed there. That is a large number of unresolved issues. >> The black box data isn't released because it would emotionally harm the >> families? > > This has always been troubling for me in many disasters. I don't > understand why the tapes do not become part of the public record in all > disasters. Right. With so many bad laws, I think one along these lines would be a good one. >> Is it me, or is the pole in the fence photo bent away from the >> Pentagon? > > I think it is bent in, but in a 2D photo 3D details can be hard to > follow. > >> The starboard engine should have detached if it hit the generator. > > Potentially, yeah. > >> His 757 superimposed on the gate camera still is ludicrous. > > Maybe, but no more ludicrous then any other superimposition I have seen. The other superimpositions are suppsed to be silly, however. They show the improbability of a 757 in the photos. Observe how well lit the smoke trail is, and then consider that a 757 would be even more reflective. His "757" is way to dark. This part seems deliberately deceptive. >> "Engineers, computer scientists and graphics technology experts at >> Purdue University have created the first publicly available simulation >> that uses scientific principles to study in detail what theoretically >> happened when the Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon last Sept. 11" >> >> Oooh, scientific principals, eh? The animation pretends there were no >> engines. >> >> He shows the ASCE diagram, but ignored the undamaged column in front of > the >> punch out. >> >> This is the origin of all the claims of a fluid-type avalanche of >> debris. This doesn't explain the undestroyed columns, the totally >> undamaged ones, or the round exit hole, by a long shot. >> >> What the hell is that line on the grass, pointing the way the 757 flew > days >> later, on the Pentagon lawn in the pre-9/11 photo? Another of the many > 9/11 >> coincidences? > > Actually that line is in many photos and is only approxiamately where > the plane flew. I did some quick searchs on Google for "pentagon > pictures satellite", and found many to contain what appears to be the > same line. I believe it is a swail of some sort. It's a heck of a coincidence, if that's what it is. I don't see the video still as being the same angle as is claimed by the Pentagon, by the way. The video stills look a lot closer to a 90 degree angle, rather than the 54 degree angle that is claimed. >> The eyewitness testimony is pretty useless. They saw a piece of the >> nose, of all things? Most unlikely. > > I agree. In any event the eye witness testimony is suspect. An > interesting side note, did you see the special on Siegfried and Roy last > night? When the audience members were interviewed, they said there were > no two stories that were identical. Imagine, they were all watching one > man, and one tiger, and yet they can't fully agree on what they saw. > Very interesting. No, I really don't get to see much TV, honestly, but that sounds interesting. >> His conclusions: >> >> Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - >> somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high) >> >> >> This assumes the plane would retain its exact shape at impact, and not >> behave like a stubbed out cigar. Silly, really. >> >> >> Rims found in building match those of a 757 >> >> >> Possibly. Do they match anything else? >> >> >> >> Small turbine engine outside is an APU >> >> Unsubstantiated assertion. >> >> An APU for what? >> >> >> Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine >> >> >> Global Hawk is not the most likely candidate, I feel. >> >> >> >> Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos >> >> Unsubstantiated assertion. >> >> >> "Obvious chunks of airplane"? >> >> >> >> Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo >> >> >> I've already pointed out how damning this evidence might be. >> >> >> >> >> Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211 >> >> >> Unsubstantiated assertion. >> >> >> Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint >> primer schemes >> >> Meaningless. >> >> >> Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object >> >> >> Why can't he spell diesel? Is that pole bent away from the Pentagon? >> How > is >> the position of the generator determined from before the impact? >> >> >> Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be >> result of bomb blast or missile explosion >> >> >> >> >> >> Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner >> >> Ok. >> >> >> Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon >> >> >> Lots of eyewitnesses say lots of things. Not all of them support a 757 >> at all. >> >> >> >> 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster >> identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage >> >> >> >> That is what is claimed, he provides no evidence of this, and I don't > think >> anyone ever will. Even though crime scene photos of bodies are taken in > all >> other investigations. >> >> >> >> >> >> You cannot dispute the facts, a 757 hit the Pentagon killing everyone >> onboard and many inside the building. It was a terrorist attack and the >> only fault with the government here is with their failure to preve >> >> >> >> ------------------- >> >> I think I just did dispute the "facts". I like how he ends on a note of >> apologism. At first glance, his account seems fairly convincing. But >> the more you look at it, the weaker it becomes. >> >> >> Any questions I have raised that can be answered, I would appreciate >> it. >> >> >> ASCE Report Proves No 757 Hit The Pentagon >> www.bedoper.com... >> >> No 757 Hit The Pentagon >> www.bedoper.com... >> >> New Online Video Proves No 757 Hit The Pentagon >> www.freedomunderground.org... There are a lot of unanswered questions, obviously. Peace, Jason

reply posted on 16-9-2004 @ 06:24 PM by Jamuhn

So, what exactly is the evidence that it was Flight 77? I couldn't find that part in the article.

reply posted on 16-9-2004 @ 08:27 PM by CatHerder

What amazes me the most, is if you are responding to this post with "what is this, and what is that, and why can't we get the data recorder, etc" and you are an American citizen, but you haven't excercised your right under the Freedom of Information Act with a request for copies of any information you'd like regarding the Pentagon area involved in the crash... you're not serious about finding the truth. You just want a conspiracy.

reply posted on 16-9-2004 @ 09:55 PM by Jamuhn

Originally posted by CatHerder What amazes me the most, is if you are responding to this post with "what is this, and what is that, and why can't we get the data recorder, etc" and you are an American citizen, but you haven't excercised your right under the Freedom of Information Act with a request for copies of any information you'd like regarding the Pentagon area involved in the crash... you're not serious about finding the truth. You just want a conspiracy.

That's true. But on the other hand, if you can't answer these questions than you haven't found the entire truth.

reply posted on 16-9-2004 @ 10:14 PM by sniper068

Absolutely, A 757 did in fact hit the Pentagon, Excellent post !!! Bravo Zulu!!! Still there are people wanting to argue a point such as " the size of the impact hole" or "were is the damage from the wing impact? " Do any of you non believers stop to consider the structure of the building? 24" of reinforced concrete with a web of steel columns and girders. Within the walls is a ballistic cloth material similar to that used in bulletproof vests that would lessen the amount of fragmentation of the masonary and concrete. New blast-resistant windows were installed to prevent the glass in shattered windows from becoming flying shrapnel. They weigh 1,600 pounds each, and are secured by steel bracing. Each pane of glass weighs about 500 pounds. Now compare the structure of the pentagon with the structure of a 757 wing. Compound that with thousands of gallons of fuel and POOF the wing is consumed by the intense blast, however the structure of the building is still in tack. It shouldnt be that difficult to comprehend. ATS, CatHerder, whoever else was involved in compiling the facts, has done an excellent job in laying out all . If the facts still eludes your ability to reason maybe reality isnt for you. Perhaps fairy tales would suite you best. I have yet to see any credible evidence from those who dispute the facts as they have been explained. All I ever see are links to the same ridiculious Anti American, Bush Bashing, Liberal funded wanna be web sites that spend way to much time sustaining each other's delusions. [edit on 16-9-2004 by sniper068] [edit on 16-9-2004 by sniper068]

reply posted on 17-9-2004 @ 06:50 AM by Kidfinger

Originally posted by Jamuhn That's true. But on the other hand, if you can't answer these questions than you haven't found the entire truth.

CH didnt set out to uncover a "Great American Conspericy." He was just trying to figure out WHAT hit the Pentagon, not WHY. There are a lot a people here that need to realize this. CH was not trying to find out WHO or WHY, only WHAT hit the Pentagon. Take his post for what it is. Another piece of the puzzle that is 911. Abeit one d@mn big piece! So the before anyone else post saying,"Why would America do that to themselves", realize this is not what CH is getting at.

reply posted on 17-9-2004 @ 11:35 AM by CatHerder

And I have updates to the original post, with some points clarified, some larger, clearer, photos, and other parts of the evidence which I either didn't have when I formed the original outline, or I forgot to include while I was editing and structuring the flow of the article. I should have an updated version of the original post later today.

reply posted on 17-9-2004 @ 04:51 PM by stoneskull

Interesting comments in this thread. The mod comments have been quite illuminating. This one from the author was quite interesting:

And people wonder how all these conspiracy sites keep tucking along blindly leading the blind...

You have voted piboy for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have voted SMR for the Way Above Top Secret award. I have two questions. 1> Is it true the video released was dated September 12?

2> The 757 wheel seems to have 10 holes. The wreckage wheel seems to have 8 holes. Am I counting wrong?

reply posted on 17-9-2004 @ 05:09 PM by Skibum

1> Is it true the video released was dated September 12?

Only after someone from a conspiracy site photoshopped it onto his copy.

2> The 757 wheel seems to have 10 holes. The wreckage wheel seems to have 8 holes.

No you are counting correctly. I believe there was someone in this thread earlier that worked the tarmac at an airport that verified that the wheels were still consistant with the 757 even with fewer holes. I would imagine that not all 757's have the exact same wheels, but would be of similar dimensions.

reply posted on 17-9-2004 @ 05:15 PM by Skibum

from boeings site. The 757-300 shares the 200's cockpit, wing, tail and powerplant options, although the 300 will feature strengthened structure and landing gear to cope with the increased weights, new wheels, tyres and brakes and a tailskid. Perhaps the photo of the plane on the tarmac is a 757-300, may explain the different hole patterns, but i will keep looking.

reply posted on 17-9-2004 @ 05:18 PM by Jamuhn

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Originally posted by Jamuhn That's true. But on the other hand, if you can't answer these questions than you haven't found the entire truth.
CH didnt set out to uncover a "Great American Conspericy." He was just trying to figure out WHAT hit the Pentagon, not WHY. There are a lot a people here that need to realize this. CH was not trying to find out WHO or WHY, only WHAT hit the Pentagon. Take his post for what it is. Another piece of the puzzle that is 911. Abeit one d@mn big piece! So the before anyone else post saying,"Why would America do that to themselves", realize this is not what CH is getting at.

Yea, and a lot of these questions deal with catherder's original premise. I didn't say anything about conspiracy. As you said, it's to clarify what hit the pentagon. Thank You....

reply posted on 17-9-2004 @ 05:31 PM by stoneskull

1> Is it true the video released was dated September 12?

Only after someone from a conspiracy site photoshopped it onto his copy.

Who? Which site? 2> The 757 wheel seems to have 10 holes. The wreckage wheel seems to have 8 holes. Am I counting wrong?

No you are counting correctly. I believe there was someone in this thread earlier that worked the tarmac at an airport that verified that the wheels were still consistant with the 757 even with fewer holes. I would imagine that not all 757's have the exact same wheels, but would be of similar dimensions. from boeings site. The 757-300 shares the 200's cockpit, wing, tail and powerplant options, although the 300 will feature strengthened structure and landing gear to cope with the increased weights, new wheels, tyres and brakes and a tailskid. Perhaps the photo of the plane on the tarmac is a 757-300, may explain the different hole patterns, but i will keep looking.

Perhaps. Cheers.

reply posted on 17-9-2004 @ 05:37 PM by cargo

Originally posted by Bangin This thread makes me sick. Not because I'm a kook that "embraces ignorance" but because it's sad to see that those who question the Pentagon attack are quickly labeled idiots that will believe "Santa Claus" is somewhat responsible for 9/11. Face it, folks. People have questions. People have suspicions. It will take more than a huge, well-publicized post to lay their suspicions to rest.

I agree with you. Back when I first started reading ATS, it sorta felt like an underground community of conspiracy theorists where I would come to get my daily dose of intrigue and wonder. To get away from the mainstream "ho ho thats ridiculous". It was fun, so I joined. I feel this place has changed a lot. It's no longer the modest forum I remember. It's become this over ambitious "News Network" that's become flooded with naysayers. To me, this site seems to be trying to become something "Corporate" and "Mainstream". Personally I think the ATSNN component is a waste of time, it's just a Cut'n'Paste news service. I think politics and the news attempt has probably killed the ambience here. Stick to your roots ATS. [edit on 17-9-2004 by cargo]

reply posted on 17-9-2004 @ 05:51 PM by Skibum

Who? Which site?

Not sure, as widely disseminated as the video is it would probably be har to tell. I think the film was originally shown by CNN and it did not have the "date-stamp" on it.

reply posted on 17-9-2004 @ 06:59 PM by SomewhereinBetween

I don't think the crux of the conspiracy debate is whether or not it was an aircraft of any sort that struck the pentagon, it is really about whether or not it was an administration conspiracy. While I lean to the object as being an aircraft there are some oddities that don't add up for me. CatHerder has done a very good job of compiling the data, yet one of those oddities that I cannot reconcile with is the video of the object in that an aircraft the size of a 757 cannot be so obscured by that 4 or 5 foot high obstruction behind which it flies. That aircraft would have to have been quite a distance beyond the obstruction to appear so small, and especially considering that the depth perception relative to the obstruction itself is not significantly reduced. The picture below is obviously superimposed but it gives an idea why I would expect to see much more of the aircraft.

Another oddity is the distance the nose cone traversed and the density through which it passed before exiting the building when compared to plane debris ejected from the WTC at impact. (If I recall correctly, an engine was found on a sidewalk somewhere. ) The WTC buildings were 208ft wide, the plane length 159 feet. Fl11 supposedly cruised into the building at just under 500mph, and 175 just under 600mph, a building which apparently had a flimsy interior structure with the hardest materials on the inside being the elevators themselves. I would expect that given how far the nose cone from Fl77 travelled and through what, that much more of flights 11 and 175 would have exited the buildings. Prior to the collapse of the floors, I see one big hole which we are told is where the body of the aircraft entered the building, I don't see any other holes that would explain how the engine parts found inside the building got there. Perhaps I missed them. From all accounts on the flight training of the pilot, and from statements made by numerous pilots, I do not believe that the aircraft was piloted just mere feet above the ground by an amateur. Which then makes me wonder if it was remotely controlled. Several people have advanced this theory including Stanley Hilton a senior advisor to Bob Dole, who takes the claim even further. If you have not read what he proffers you may find it interesting. He is also representing families of 9/11 victims suing the government under RICO. There is some talk by others that holographic images were used, but that I discount. Other than the Rebuilding America's Defenses document which I happened to come across in 2001 but dismissed as implausible, then later revisited same before any mention of a conspiracy surfaced, I now see 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" of today and can understand why governmental conspirators would want to attack the pentagon. After the attack, Pentagon staff and contractors bent over backwards to drive the point home that the particular wing that was struck was recently rebuilt/reinforced in the event of attack. It was unoccupied, and so what better way to test the mettle of the reinforcement, than to attack it? The opportunity to kill two birds with one stone is realized then, create a Pearl Harbor type attack and test the new structural strength of the Pentagon.