Talk:The Pentagon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 United States military history task force
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Pentagon article.
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.

Contents

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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.

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)


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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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." Ran J. 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] bias?

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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Pentagon_8da1.html"