A sad and strange day... Questions.

[gmat]

There's one shady spot on what happened on 9/11/2001. Everyone has seen the planes crash into WTC. Everyone has seen the crash site littered with plane debris in Pennsylvania.
I have yet to see *any* picture of the boeing that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon.
Before you start flaming me, please consider that i'm NOT implying anything here. No political consideration please.
I just want a technical answer.

Here are some links:
First, from the US army itself....
http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/9-11/default.htm#
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Se...8006R-001.html
http://www.army.mil/attack4.htm

Next, a nice 3D analysis of those pictures:
http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/

*PLEASE* examine it thoroughly before answering...
Oh and if you've got any interesting piece of evidence I would be highly interested.

I'm perfectly aware that no one here may know anything precise about those events, i just wanted to hear other technical ppl ideas.

So, what are your ideas ?

[DarkEdge]

Personally I always though either a bomb or a suicide bomber made it inside and detonated. The pentagon wasn't on the news like WTC and I never saw any plane wreckage. Its been awhile since I thought about it, but the day it happened I do remember seeing a diagram of where the PLANE hit, but never saw the actual plane/wreckage on tv.

If what the above was what happened, they would never admit it.

[gmat]

But it *seems* that something (airborne..) actually crashed. The cut lamp poles and security cam tend to prove it.
This site has an extreme, though interesting point of view:
http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/pent.html

I'm still puzzled.

[bigben2k]

I saw a documentary on PBS about the rebuild of the Pentagon. There weren't any pics of plane parts either. Funnily, it had just been rebuilt...

I'm not entirely surprised though, since it is after all, the Pentagon, and also since it does sit fairly close to an area that was flight restricted for many months (Reagan airport).

The twin towers became the focus of attention on the first hit, so it wasn't surprising to be able to see the second hit.

As for the Pensilvania field, well, it's a field, and not of any interest otherwise. You can't even see any plane parts there either, but it looks like the plane went straight into the ground, and from reports, parts were no less than 10 feet deep.

As for the links, I looked at them, and it looks roughly like the plane slammed the ground before hitting the Pentagon. Again, I haven't seen many pics, but I'm sure that all flight traffic was kept far, far away (including specifically the TV news helos).

It's hard to tell what some of the pictures are trying to say. It seems that there's some kind of confusion about how a plane so large could make a hole so narrow, and short. The thing is, planes aren't as solid as people think: they're not solid metal, and on impact, a lot of the structure is bound to collapse (i.e. wings break off).

I have no doubt that there were no explosives on board. The fuel alone is what caused the fire, and it is consistent with the ball of flame that was seen at the WTC.

You know, the funny thing is that before all this, just about anyone was able to enter the Pentagon, and was free to walk around. Not any more!

[gmat]

Originally posted by bigben2k

The twin towers became the focus of attention on the first hit, so it wasn't surprising to be able to see the second hit.

IIRC both hits were recorded, and many witnesses saw the first plane...
Weirdly thats *not* the case with pentagon. No one saw anything coherent or even close to a AA 757 airliner...

You can't even see any plane parts there either, but it looks like the plane went straight into the ground, and from reports, parts were no less than 10 feet deep.

The pictures i saw (on TV) clearly showed a "classical" crash site, where one could identify the remains of a boeing.. Not all the parts were buried, and again everyone (medics, firefighters, press..) saw the remains.

As for the links, I looked at them, and it looks roughly like the plane slammed the ground before hitting the Pentagon.

So WHY the grass is *intact* ? Is it plane-repellent ? Look at these pictures.. No one tries to make them "say'" anything, they've been taken by the US Army ! If you look at the photos taken during the 30mn that followed the crash, you see firefighters trucks on a *perfect* lawn... Where did the 757 "slam" into the ground ? Please outline me the pictures so i can see...

I'm sure that all flight traffic was kept far, far away (including specifically the TV news helos).

Aint that weird. Again that was not the case for the 3 other planes...

on impact, a lot of the structure is bound to collapse (i.e. wings break off).

I agree. But where are they gone ? Why didnt they make even a scratch on the surface of the building ? Where is the tail, since it's way bigger than the hole ?

[PaperPlate]

EDIT!

Ok:

Plane going 600+ miles per hour
Loaded for a cross continental flight
Hits a building

The fuel itself would burn most if not all the wreckage. Did they ever find the black box?

I do understand how not seeing any wreckage can make it hard to see, I was confused at frist when I started reading this post (note the edit..) but after talking to some co workers, I formed a clearer picture (and looking at those links...damn 56k modem).

[gogo]

The pentagon is designed to take an extreame ammount of punishment.

I know someone who was near there in the tunnel at the time. She said you could hear the planes engines the whole way in.

[gmat]

It was a 757. A tad smaller than a 747, but still a huge plane.
The weight of the plane was about 100 tons. To stay airborne it had to fly at more than 250mph. It was heavily fueled. The kinetic energy and the ensuing damage are known, check the WTC case... One can see a gaping hole 1.5x the size of the aircraft on the side of the building (not to mention remains still sticking out, like the tail of one aircraft...).
In the pentagon case something's definitely fishy. Look at the attached picture...

So, any serious idea ? (with links, good pieces of evidence and so on plz..)

[gmat]

Originally posted by gogo
The pentagon is designed to take an extreame ammount of punishment.

I know someone who was near there in the tunnel at the time. She said you could hear the planes engines the whole way in.

So you say it went underground ?

[gogo]

No, no, there is an underground transportation tunnel just near the Pentagon, she was in in it when the plane came down.

There was another site somewhere that had pictures with the wreckage.

The Petagon was cleaned up really quickly. Probably so the damage didn't look to bad. Propaganda wise it works better to have the people suffer most of the attack then the government. (bad way to put that?) to try to explain (bear in mind I'm at work and doing this between customer, TIA)
The pentagon was cleaned up quickly, the damage doesn't look too bad, They can say, 'See we took a hit (for the people?) too. See how strong we are it just left a scratch, let big brother protect you' or something similar to that effect.

[DarkEdge]

Even if most of the debris was destroyed...where are the stray parts that would of gone flying 50 yards or more. I like situations like these. Even when they are or aren't clean cut. Its always fun to say what if. I realize its a touchy subject, but its fun to come up with diffrent ideas of what supposively happened. Odds are a plane did crash, and the y2k bug was almost a complete hoax, and that Jenna Jameson is indeed a pornstar.

[gogo]

Originally posted by DarkEdge
Even if most of the debris was destroyed...where are the stray parts that would of gone flying 50 yards or more.

What parts. It was an American built plane. They don't come apart. Just like the Space Shuttles tiles and the door handle to an '83 S10.

[DarkEdge]

Lol. Nice. made me laugh.

[bigben2k]

LOL!

Ok, well if there are no trails on the grass (and I'm sure there would be), I guess that throws the idea of it sliding a bit sideways into the building. On the other hand, no-trail might be a possibility: these planes today are fairly smooth, for aerodynamic purposes (I've seen many, close up, when I worked for an airline). There's usually a couple of probes that stick out, and those would leave a trail, but they're only 1/2 inch wide, and 1 foot long. With the landing gear doors closed, it's as slick as anything else.

I think some of the discrepancies might be best explained, if one takes into account the angle of entry, and the angle throughout the entire time frame that the plane entered the building, while remembering what the integrity of the structure was like. We're talking about yaw, pitch and roll angles.

BTW, stall speed is around 140 knots, but that doesn't mean that the plane was going at least that fast. I think it's clear though that at least one of the engines detached, as it did in tower 2.

The WTC was in just about the most public place on earth, so I don't see why the lack of witnesses of the Pentagon incident is relevant. Since the Pentagon is a military center of operation, it's not unreasonable to expect the authorities to keep everyone at a fair distance. Who knows what papers might be flying around.

As for the aircraft parts, depending on the speed of impact, they probably disintegrated. Whatever was left probably melted, just like the WTC structural steel did. A plane incidentally, is mostly made of tin and aluminium. Steel is extremely rarely used.

The pentagon was fixed in a record amount of time. Considering the work involved in clearing the debris alone, it's quite a formidable accomplishment. They did work 24hr per day though (don't see that too often nowadays!).

[gmat]

Originally posted by bigben2k
it's as slick as anything else.

Come on... when a boeing "slides" onto the ground you can see trails, and burnt grass due to the reactors hanging under the wings... This one didnt even touch the ground, or else the pentagon had "superlawn", which absorbs crash & fire damage... (oh and the boeing is super resistant, it didnt even lose a piece while "sliding")

if one takes into account the angle of entry, and the angle throughout the entire time frame that the plane entered the building, while remembering what the integrity of the structure was like. We're talking about yaw, pitch and roll angles.

Yes. It has all been said in the "official version". Now take a look at the "3D test" site... see how big a 757 is, thats 38m wingspan. The damage on the 1st floor is about 20m large.... No need to remember, look at military (hi-res !) pictures.

BTW, stall speed is around 140 knots, but that doesn't mean that the plane was going at least that fast.

Keep in mind a terrorist made this. They dont usually minimize damage by throttling down, like "Oh, i wont hurt those people too much, lets brake a bit"... Besides if it was slow, how come it "disintegrated" then ?

The WTC was in just about the most public place on earth, so I don't see why the lack of witnesses of the Pentagon incident is relevant.

Yeah, AFTER the crash. But why BEFORE and DURING the crash, absolutely NO ONE saw any 757 ? Thats weird, i thought Washington was quite a big town...
Instead we have witness who heard a "weird noise" and saw a "small plane"...

As for the aircraft parts, depending on the speed of impact, they probably disintegrated.

Thats the "official version" dude. Please explain me how about 80t of aluminium and steel "disintegrated", without laughing. And this, after passing through a 2.4m wide hole on the 1st floor, without touching the edges, or even blowing *out* the building it was inside of... (one can still see windows in place at 2nd floor)

Whatever was left probably melted, just like the WTC structural steel did. A plane incidentally, is mostly made of tin and aluminium. Steel is extremely rarely used.

Alu indeed. But please consider that were 757's in the WTC and Pennsylvania as well, and one could find parts littered all around... Especially the tail, which *always* survives crashes... Some parts are reinforced (wingtips, tail etc).

The pentagon was fixed in a record amount of time. Considering the work involved in clearing the debris alone, it's quite a formidable accomplishment. They did work 24hr per day though (don't see that too often nowadays!).

Of course. Considering the military nature of the place, no wonder they cleaned it up rather quickly. But in less than 30mn ? Putting back a golf-ready lawn in the mean time ?

However, the problem is: there's a 2.5m hole for a ~3.7m airframe (look at the first photos). The 1st floor shows damage extending about 20m around, for a 38m wingspan... And even more shocking, the tail is about 3 stories high, and one can see the 2nd floor is "intact" just after the explosion (before the building collapsed...). How did it enter ? If it didnt where is it.....

The missile theory doesnt hold since there are cut poles. This is indeed a winged aircraft, but it was quite smaller than a 757...

[bigben2k]

I don't know.

I think it's good to question the facts that have been presented though, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that.

The funny thing is this lack of a trail in the grass, and that would mean that the plane flew directly into the building, without ever touching the ground. From the video shots, it seems more likely that the plane was on the ground, or at the very least at a very, very low altitude. That's really hard to do! If the terrorists had sufficient training, it is possible that they could maintain that low altitude long enough to aim for the building.

If some poles got slices, that might have clipped part of the wing. In WW2, the brits had baloons with strings attached to them: a fighter plane running into these would loose part of a wing.

As for the width of the hole, it's possible that once the plane made contact with the building, it entered into a spin, going through the building sideways, making the entry hole much narrower.

Another point of interest is the structure of the Pentagon: it is unusually built, in that it was made to withstand an impact (bomb). Given that, it's not unreasonable to believe that the plane got squished into a smaller hole. Not likely though.

A better explanation would be that the plane never actually fully penetrated the building, but simply went up with the explosion. One of the engines however, might have gone right through the building: the engines have many titanium parts, which would easily withstand the heat from the explosion.

The plane would desintegrate, regardless of wether it hit the building at 200, 400 or 600 mph. I'm sure that they found some aircraft parts, but in all the attacks, I only remember seeing one landing gear from the WTC.

The tail might survive a normal crash, but this wasn't a normal crash: the plane was used as a missile. The tail is not particularly reinforced, in fact it's just as structurally strong as the rest of the fuselage. I've seen the tail structures of a DC-9 (smaller plane): it's all the same. The tail probably never penetrated the building, and melted in the fire.

A 747 is quite different: since the wings have to support 4 engines, not 2 as in the 757, the wing structure is beefier up to the external engines. Also, the landing gear is much larger on a 747, and again, extends deeper into the wing (someone check this?). So the 757 wing is much more prone to being completely disitegrated than with a 747.

As for the witness thing, the Pentagon personel was probably told to keep quiet, as one would expect when a military installation has been hit, especially in the light of the nature of the attack. Any witnesses would have to happen to be there, and since the Pentagon isn't of any touristic interest, again, I'm not surprised that there are only a few witnesses.

This is interesting. What else have you got?

[nexxo]

Err... and the point of all this is what?...

[gmat]

Originally posted by bigben2k
I think it's good to question the facts that have been presented though, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that.

I hope so It does not suit me to follow conspirationist schemes. I do not believe in aliens on earth (but i'm quite sure life exists on other planets), and i dont believe in the general media. During Gulf war i learned to take information with a grain of salt... Especially when said information comes from people with an agenda. In this very case i would have never noticed though, wouldnt have been all the noise (or the lack of) around it on Internet and in the media.

a fighter plane running into these would loose part of a wing.

I'm all for that. But where are the wings, then ???
Besides, recent "experiences" of modern aircraft cutting poles / steel cables / trees show that the wings / tail hold well.

As for the width of the hole, it's possible that once the plane made contact with the building, it entered into a spin, going through the building sideways, making the entry hole much narrower.

You didnt take a look at the 3D simulation site did you.. There is *really* a size problem with a 757 coming at a 50� angle. And what about the height of the hole....?

The plane would desintegrate, regardless of wether it hit the building at 200, 400 or 600 mph. I'm sure that they found some aircraft parts, but in all the attacks, I only remember seeing one landing gear from the WTC.

And lots of ppl pointed at plane parts littering the streets of NY, at a good distance from the crash.
For the pentagon the only officially endorsed parts were:
- the black box, for which one has to trust the FBI (it was "found" 3 days later...)
- a light (!! it didnt get smashed or disintegrated...)
and thats it. Not much eh ?
Of course, the light itself proves it was a AA 757... lets be serious.
And "disintegrate" is ok, but why so little damage at first hand ? Again the early photos show a mild fire on lower floors. Man, disintegrating a 757 should not go unnoticed like this...

The tail might survive a normal crash, but this wasn't a normal crash: the plane was used as a missile. (...) The tail probably never penetrated the building, and melted in the fire.

If you look closely at the first photos taken by marines, you should see the tail burning (i dont, please outline it...). And 80 tons of melted metal dont go unnoticed... If not, it should have entered the building. And i dont see how, the 2nd floor was intact. Besides, if the tail entered, where is the fuselage ? It should have damaged the 2nd ring.. on early aerial shots you see very small damage (a man-sized hole) on the 2nd ring.
On the other hand, look at WTC crashes. Planes were used as missiles as well, on sturdy concrete+steel walls. In both cases the tail was still sticking out, and wings smashed the wall quite hard (and they were coming at an angle as well...).
Look at any other crash (on solid ground...) in history. You always find a good part of the tail.
Why ? Not because it's sturdier. Because the rest of the plane (fuselage, wings, etc.) take most of the kinetic energy under the impact, by deforming.
Obviously this cant apply to smaller planes which get quickly squished into a pulp. But every boeing-sized plane that crashed showed common patterns. Wingtips and apexes are harder parts and usually survive. Some parts of the fuselage usually do as well, depends of the model. And the tail always does (unless it was the part which was hit in the first place...). Thats why they put the black box there, btw.
Titanium engine parts always take the worst part, but yes one can usually find em laying around...

As for the witness thing, the Pentagon personel was probably told to keep quiet, as one would expect when a military installation has been hit, especially in the light of the nature of the attack. Any witnesses would have to happen to be there, and since the Pentagon isn't of any touristic interest, again, I'm not surprised that there are only a few witnesses.

You said in your first post: "You know, the funny thing is that before all this, just about anyone was able to enter the Pentagon, and was free to walk around."
Indeed everytime i see pictures from there, lots of ppl walk around, theres a highway just in front of it with *heavy* traffic, and lots of other buildings around with probably thousands of ppl who work there. It's not Fort Knox... It's not in deep country either, it's Washington ! Not a small village...
For the pentagon personel to keep quiet, i would *perfectly* understand this. I would *perfectly* understand they would prevent any other witness from talking. The weird fact is, the US Army itself published information that doesnt support, or even contradict the official statement.

This is interesting. What else have you got?

Lots of things, but at home. i'll get back here in a few.
IIRC:
- a bad quality video footage (monitoring cam) showing something small, slim, low and fast slamming the wall
- series of photos (as always, from the military) showing objects (such as a SUV) that "move" away from the crash site between each shot. weird enough on the first shots they're in pretty good condition...
- what happened to the actual hijacked AA 757 after it disappeared from control towers screens, 35mn before the impact (no one knows...)
- theories of ppl from around the world, including citizens of the USA
- my personal guesses

Nexxo: knowing the truth ?

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by gmat


On the other hand, look at WTC crashes. Planes were used as missiles as well, on sturdy concrete+steel walls. In both cases the tail was still sticking out, and wings smashed the wall quite hard (and they were coming at an angle as well...).

Firstly, the WTC did not have "sturdy concrete+steel walls". The WTC was built with a strong "spine" in the center of each tower and a (relatively) thin exoskeleton covering the exterior. One of the towers collapsed as a result of the outer exoskeleton being too compromised to support the floors, and the other because of the intense heat from the burning jet fuel concentrated around the central core. Once the top floors stated coming down it was a domino effect. No chance for survival!

As to the Pentagon issue, I saw (on CNN or Fox News or something) video tape from the security cameras located in a guard shack that showed like 3 "frames" of the plane approaching the side of the Pentagon and burying itself within. It looked (as I recall) as if the plane hit the outer wall at its base (more-or-less). This, as well as the really sturdy construction of the Pentagon might account for the relatively small amount of damage to the inner rings

The real issue: who gains from the "hoax", and in what way? "We got hit too" PR talk would be totally irrelevant in the context of the WTC tragedy. And it would make no difference in the Grand Scheme of Things if it was a suicide bomber. There's just no "margin" in lying.

Bob

[bigben2k]

The wings might have come undone, but not completely seperated. They might hold well, but that doesn't mean that they were functional. They would have definitely been engulfed by the flames, as that's where the fuel is stowed, so I'm sure they were burned.

As for the height of the hole, it seems more plausible that the plane didn't penetrate the building, and that only one of the engines did, which would explain the pattern of internal damage to the structure.

Again, the structure of the Pentagon is not the same as the WTC. The WTC is a steel cage, surrounded by glass and a light metal, like zinc or Alu. It all collapsed very easily on impact. Frankly, I'm surprised that the plane didn't come out the other side. Finding parts strewn everywhere is very plausible, in this circumstance.

The Pentagon on the other hand, is made up of concrete, cement with reinforced steel, and was specifically designed to take a blow, so the plane probably didn't enter the building, but at least one of the engines surely did. It explains the size of the holes on entry, and exit on ring 2 (or is it 4? The second to last, from the outside).

I did look at the 3D graph, but it assumes that the plane keeps its integrity throughout the whole process. That theory assumes that the entire plane would have penetrated the building, when it clearly shows that it didn't. Whatever was left of the plane (wings, tail) probably bounced up against the wall, and ended up being burned. Specifically, the whole aircraft (except one engine) was probably crumpled up against the wall, as it burned. That's probably why there is next to nothing left of it, including the steel of the landing gear.

As for the mass, I don't know exactly what happens when tin/Alu is subjected to that amount of heat. Some may have turned liquid (which would leave a puddle around there), some may have turned to vapor, which would have been blown away. I don't know. Something to keep in mind is that not all the weight of the plane consists of metal, although it mostly is.

The damage was substantial, and can be accounted for, if you take a molten mass of metal feeding a fire over the 4 (or at least two) damaged ring sections. It was probably too hot there for a long time to search for a black box. The light is just a freak thing, as it happens with plane crashes. It's not uncommon.

The building was substantially damaged, but again, because of the structure, a lot of the flames were inside the building, and not necessarily visible from the outside.

If you look at the explosion itself on the video, you'll notice that the flames appear at the point of impact. This would be consistent with the plane coming apart (crumpling) outside of the structure, and not inside, as one would expect, with a normal building. If the Pentagon was as flimsy as the WTC, the plane would have completely penetrated the outer ring, and might even have made it into the 2nd, or third ring. Notice the 2nd hit on the WTC, where the plane very easily entered the building: the subsequent explosion spread out in a pattern around the entire floor that was hit. The only thing that probably prevented the plane from coming out the other side, was the flooring, as the fuselage wouldn't clear a floor.

[bigben2k]

What was the mass of the onboard fuel?

[gmat]

consider it was about 20 tons. I'd double-check that, though.

[gmat]

Originally posted by bigben2k

As for the height of the hole, it seems more plausible that the plane didn't penetrate the building, (...)

Thats not what the officials said...
But anyway. If it didnt penetrate, it had to disintegrate itself on the lawn. Look closely at early photos, those where you can see the grass just before the building. Nothing... One would expect quite an important fire taking on the lawn, accounting for the 757 kerosene pouring on the ground and so on...

The WTC is a steel cage, surrounded by glass and a light metal, like zinc or Alu. It all

Acutally, concrete pillars wrapped around steel beams, IIRC. That was not really a flimsy building. In this account the pentagon (a 50's building) was rather flimsy as well...

That's probably why there is next to nothing left of it, including the steel of the landing gear.

Which, along with the 80t of molten - oops gaseous metal, had disappeared in a cloud, and moved, unnoticed, to an unknown desert before condensing...
All this, without hurting the grass, or even starting a fire *outside* the building.

some may have turned to vapor, which would have been blown away.

Seriously. Do you think that gaseous metal would go very far ? Imagine the meteo guy: "tomorrow: after the crashes, an aluminium cloud is moving towards our city. Do not forget your umbrella..."

More troubling: the firefighters couldnt point to the remains of the jet. The officials interviewed the same day all moved away from the topic, more or less elegantly... One of them seemed obviously annoyed when the press asked him about the jet remains, and jumped *immediately* on another topic....
There are missing odd & ends, like this one:
http://nerdcities.com/guardian/Septe...eventh/Oddity/

The 3 frames taken by the video cam show "something" passing through. If you can identify a 757 there you're a genius.

another interesting page:
http://nerdcities.com/guardian/Septe...itThePentagon/

have a good read

[bigben2k]

I should clarify something: here in the US, many people will use an incorrect choice of words, to describe something. For example, if they said "the plane penetrated the building", they may have meant that part of a plane penetrated the building. Still logically correct, but innacurate.

IMO, the right engine penetrated the building, as the plane (a 757) hit the wall, at roughly 50 degrees, turning counter-clockwise to finish the impact. All remains burned. Fuel was splattered in the general heading of the plane, entering (in part) the building.

The NTSB will publicly release its report, in a couple of years, as NTSB records are public, once the investigation is complete and closed. It might not have those details, as NTSB reports are usually limited to improving flight safety, not reconstructing a terrorist attack.

The wtc isn't flimsy, of course, but relatively flimsy, if you compare it to the Pentagon. The structure of the WTC is of a civilian, lightweight design, for office use. It had to be lightweight because the underlying structure would otherwise have to be massive.

The last links you provided may have innacurate information, or even propaganda. That particular section of the Pentagon had in fact just been rebuilt, and reinforced. It is a fact that in past history, great secrecy surrounded the details of critical buildings. There was also a public report where a worker in that section reported suffering only minor injuries, due to the type of reinforcement applied specifically to limit injuries due to flying glass, from the windows (from a bomb).

Historically, the Pentagon was built after Cheyenne mountain, which was itself built at the end of WW2 (around 1945-1946), at the height of the nuclear fear. It is a granite mountain that was hollowed out, reinforced then fitted with a steel hull, mounted on springs. It was all built within about a year. It has four floors, and is X shaped. It constitutes NORAD command. (you don't want to know the price tag, trust me!)

[gmat]

Originally posted by bigben2k

IMO, the right engine penetrated the building, as the plane (a 757) hit the wall, at roughly 50 degrees, turning counter-clockwise to finish the impact.

That doesnt explain the lack of structural damage at 2nd and 3rd floors (just after impact). How did the plane get "flatter" ?

All remains burned.

How convenient... That would be an historical first. Boeing will be very interested when the archives fo public, indeed... And they burned in mid air, without slamming the wall or touching the grass... Instant disintegration ! Wow.

The last links you provided may have innacurate information, or even propaganda.

Prove it. I want facts, not "these people talk bullshit" or "they are commies, liars and terrorists"... Just facts.
The oddity is that, an oddity. The 'intact' SUV, the standing barrels.. Weird.

That particular section of the Pentagon had in fact just been rebuilt, and reinforced. (...) the type of reinforcement applied specifically to limit injuries due to flying glass, from the windows (from a bomb).

Exactly. That doesnt make the structure stronger... Blast absorbent materials are quite 'plastic', and very resilient... but not structurally superior to concrete + steel.

My ideas are:
- a small jet (like the Learjet), hijacked, stolen or rented by terrorists.
- a fighter plane (sounds fishy though)
- a drone (lots of ppl in the US stick to that idea)

I think the small jet is more likely...

Also there's this general silence from the media. Disturbing.
Ak, we'll know in 30y (or is it 40 ?) when archives go public... In the meatime Oliver Stone will make a movie out of it