911 CT Pentagon Strike Video on Google

[Mr. Scott]

Pentagon stike: Where is the plane? Where are the videos? (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1627846057895106958&q=pentagon+strike)

Has this five-minute video been discussed here on the JREF forum? Are all its claims disputed?

[Regnad Kcin]

1) Yes.

2) What "claims?"

What would you like to know?

[empeake]

Pentagon stike: Where is the plane? Where are the videos? (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1627846057895106958&q=pentagon+strike)

Has this five-minute video been discussed here on the JREF forum? Are all its claims disputed?
Not this particular video, as far as I know, but it doesn't offer anything that hasn't been discussed ad nauseum in the Loose Change threads:

Part I can be found here:http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53102
Part II can be found here:http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57424
Part III can be found here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58618

You may also want to look at the 9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide (http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/), particularly Section II: AA Flight 77 and the Pentagon (http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/lcg2.html). There you will find all the answers you are looking for.

[Mr. Scott]

1) Yes.

2) What "claims?"

What would you like to know?

I'm not a CT but I do debate them sometimes and need to know the prevailing refutations. Three come to mind:

1) Is the hole in the Pentagon really too small to have fit the plane's fuselage?
2) Why no apparent damage from the wings and tail?
3) The photos of the edge of Pentagon collapse seem to show unsinged furniture and paper. Why was there apparently so little fire damage to the Pentagon compared to the WTC?

[dubfan]

I'm not a CT but I do debate them sometimes and need to know the prevailing refutations. Three come to mind:

1) Is the hole in the Pentagon really too small to have fit the plane's fuselage?
2) Why no apparent damage from the wings and tail?
3) The photos of the edge of Pentagon collapse seem to show unsinged furniture and paper. Why was there apparently so little fire damage to the Pentagon compared to the WTC?

Oooh boy.

Welcome to our strange, strange little world.

[empeake]

1) Is the hole in the Pentagon really too small to have fit the plane's fuselage?
No. The hole is large enough (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/men-always-lie-about-size.html).

2) Why no apparent damage from the wings and tail?
See above.

I'm not a CT but I do debate them sometimes and need to know the prevailing refutations.
Most conspiracy theorists will base their arguments on the same grounds as the Loose Change movie. If you want to debate them, you'll find everything you need at the links I posted above and at 911myths.com (http://www.911myths.com/).

[Gravy]

I'm not a CT but I do debate them sometimes and need to know the prevailing refutations. Three come to mind:

1) Is the hole in the Pentagon really too small to have fit the plane's fuselage?
2) Why no apparent damage from the wings and tail?
3) The photos of the edge of Pentagon collapse seem to show unsinged furniture and paper. Why was there apparently so little fire damage to the Pentagon compared to the WTC?
Hi Mr. Scott. In brief:
1) No.
2) Huge damage from the wings. Less from the tail. Who says the tail was vertical by the time it hit the concrete?
3) The fires burned well into the next day. You're looking at the exterior of the building. In addition, the fires at the Pentagon were fought. Those at the WTC were not.

I recommend starting with the ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report (http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf), then moving on to the links above.

[Psi Baba]

I don't have figures (dimensions, weights, shear strengths, etc.) but airplanes are much flimsier things than a lot of people realize, and the Pentagon is not your typical office building--it's more like a concrete bunker. The plane was pulverized and/or shredded on impact. Do these nuts really expect to see a cartoon-like outline in the shape of an airplane neatly punched through the wall?

[Class]

I don't have figures (dimensions, weights, shear strengths, etc.) but airplanes are much flimsier things than a lot of people realize, and the Pentagon is not your typical office building--it's more like a concrete bunker. The plane was pulverized and/or shredded on impact. Do these nuts really expect to see a cartoon-like outline in the shape of an airplane neatly punched through the wall?
Sadly enough, yes.

These are also the same people who also question how a flimsy little airplane made of aluminum could cut through the WTC steel beams.

[Overman]

Oh no....here we go again!!!

I drop back in at post #438...

[Mr. Scott]

You guys are very kind to have shown me some useful links. I had no idea where to parachute into the 10,260 posts (literally) in the Loose Change thread series. Thanks!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You guys are very kind to have shown me some useful links. I had no idea where to parachute into the 10,260 posts (literally) in the Loose Change thread series. Thanks!

Gravy's been kind enough to help out with that too JREF 9-11 index download: http://tinyurl.com/p5ksb