Quote Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
Did a little research on the Pentigon plane crash. The next link shows a US F4 Phantom Jet testing the strength of a concrete wall built to withstand a nuclear blast by crashing into it at 500 MPH. Remember now, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon travelling at approximately 530mph.

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/concreteplane.html

Ahhhhh, but what was the construction of the Pentagon? I'm sure it wasn't Nuclear Power Station durable like shown in the link. No it wasn't, but the plane did punch not one but several holes ....possible atomizing on the way as demonstrated by the jet? So what was the strength of the Pentagon walls?
Heeeeere ya go.

http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-1.html

And here's an article put out by the BBC....I'm sure their out of good graces with someone or other...but its just like all the others I found on the net. Funny though...under my search I couldn't find anything of proof that the calls made to loved ones were false. In the very first post on this thread it was implied that maybe these folk were like Jihad martyrs for Bush. Don't know about everyone else but my parents taught me to give proper respect to the dead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ame...613.stm#second

In conclusion....I guess this would be considered the "dreaded republican view" LOL

http://www.september11news.com/Flight93.htm

Have a nice day
Why do you provide links that anyone with a synapse could figure out? Your test is void. Let's not forget the plane supposedly FLEW into the pentagon, the jet they tested was rolling straight forward on WHEELS. Now you're trapped AGAIN because you're stuck between fundamentally flawed notion and the speculation that it could have skidded on the ground...which means it would have had to do so on the nice green lawn that was undamaged....this is frustrating. Also, you forget that fighter jets are aeronamically designed to withstand surface to air fire which means they are made a WHOLE lot more durably than a commercial airliner. Jesus Christ, how did it ever occur to you to use this as an arguement? If you can't figure out what's going on think like this...would you use an SUV crashing into a brick wall to determine whether or not a Beetle could punch holes into it at 90 mph?

You posted that article i had already read before talking about reinforced concrete. SO WHAT? if it was serious journalist reporting we would have gotten the figures for tensile strength and so forth. That was just a quick "there there it's okay". because we all know that the pentagon was built perfectly and didn't need remodifications like they were doing prior. I noticed that noone bothered to question how coincidental it was that they were doing work in a closed off section of the pentagon that noone was allowed to go into. The very same section that got hit. Owned.

I never said the calls made were false. I implied that we shouldnt be ignorant to the fact that they could easily have been falsified. You also forget that we didn't hear any of these tapes until well after it all happened. As for respecting the dead, i guess im wrong then for wanting to delve into every possible question to reassure every person that their deaths werent based on a lie. You seem keen to respect the dead but also mighty intent on forgetting them.