Soft aluminium body and two hard engines yet one hole??
2006-09-11 08:03:07 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
I've seen all the conspiracy theories and tried to see things from the official version point of view but this one I can't buy no matter how hard I try and if I can't buy this should I buy into the rest?
2006-09-12 01:54:11 · update #1
Ok Just interested to see how quick the brain washed would appear??
Any fool knows the Pentagon was a missile and most people have seen a controlled demolition before and imagine the third building that wasn't even hit came down - Wait for the biggie - Ever used your cell phone on a plane in the air?? WAKE UP AMERICA - A guy with an IQ of 91 duped you???
One thing I really can't work out is why no-one talked yet? Wait for the leak then watch all hell break loose
2006-09-12 07:18:50 · update #2
Flames were from Kerosine which burns at (c) 740 Deg C - Steel doesnt melt until (c) 1600 Deg C. Kersine flash burn didn't last longer than 10 mimutes. Then you have standard combustible material burn at (c) 450 - 490 Deg C you need to add O2 and pressure to melt the steel which was fire proofed anyway - So hey presto we need a little C4!!!!!!
2006-09-15 05:46:10 · update #3
Yup.
2006-09-11 08:04:21 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Been watching those youtube videos again, have you?
Okay, you may have a point. I just don't buy into it.
For every example you give, I can come up with a counter example which, even if not true, could explain how it might have occurred. Since you are the plaintiff in this argument, you need to offer up some proof. All I need to do is to provide a plausible explanation. the official version of what happened has been documented. It is your burden to prove that the government lied.
Your premise seems to be that a Boeing 737 did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
May I submit a plausible explanation.
The plane hit the ground several yards before it rammed into the side of the building. That action diffused much of the forward momentum of the plane. Additionally, because of this ground impact, the plane was already in the process of blowing itself to oblivion before it even reached the outside wall of the Pentagon.
So, the forward momentum was significantly reduced at the time of impact,. So much so, that the plane was unable to penetrate all of the walls of the building.
Additionally, the engines and fuselage were probably separated from each other at the moment of impact. So, much of the force was not directed in the forward direction.
Another point: Think of a two ton car losing control and hitting a six inch diameter tree at sixty miles an hour. In many cases, that little tree will stop the car dead in its tracks. I think that the same principle could be appied to the Pentagon crash. The walls of that particular section of the Pentagon had just recently been reinforced to withstand an attack. The reinforced walls just worked well.
Tell me where I'm wrong.
Footnote: I'm an idiot for trying to convince you that there was no conspiracy. You've bought into that idea and I certainly can't change that mindset.
2006-09-11 15:33:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Traveling at around 450mph and hitting a solid structure does some amazing stuff to thin and I mean very thin aluminum 450 mph is the key just look what happened to flight 93 hitting soft ground compared to steel and concrete nothing but small pieces were did the engines and the big stuff got disintegrated Mass + Speed = total destruction
2006-09-11 15:11:59 · answer #3 · answered by Kenny 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a Boeing 737 could not have made that hole for a whole myriad of reasons. the whole idea that a poor pilot who could hardly hold a plane steady made a huge swooping turn for no obvious reason other than to get to the unoccupied side of the pentagon, flew over an interstate causing practically no damage, then held steady 3-5 feet above the ground, finally making a hole shaped like a cruise missile, that showed signs more like a cruise missile (punched out very deep in a circular shape)... its just ridiculous. the hardest parts of those planes are the engines. the body would just shatter on impact. it is impossible for the jet engines to disappear from the face of the earth like that...
2006-09-11 15:39:22 · answer #4 · answered by mcslain 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Aircraft fuselages are NOT soft. They are very strong. Did you ever see footage of the DC10 crash in Sioux City, where the plane tumbled on the runway? Fully over 62% of the passengers survived the crash. It is NOT a weak structure.
The wings will shear off more easily than the fuselage will shatter.
2006-09-11 15:35:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where did you get your infrmation from? It wasn't from any thing assocaited with 9/11.
And if you look at any of the videos and KNEW anything about explosives you'd KNOW explosives didn't take out the twin towers. You don't get much flame from REAL explosives, only from the Hollywood ones.
2006-09-15 12:30:19 · answer #6 · answered by namsaev 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that that was the total damage just one hole I do believe that there was more do it than that. Of course being that everything is destroyrd now it would be hard to tell but there are some Physic's folks who have that all figured out.
2006-09-11 15:07:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Steel frame of a building that didn't collapse when struck with soft aluminum.
2006-09-11 15:05:18 · answer #8 · answered by Blunt Honesty 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a tornado how does a haystraw go thru a telephone pole? Speed. Thats how.
2006-09-11 15:18:23 · answer #9 · answered by olampyone 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
THe hole was actually bigger than what you see in the picture. If you look closely you will see that the building was collapsing. The windows are the hint.
2006-09-11 15:05:14 · answer #10 · answered by darkemoregan 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
by junk science, suspension of reality and a healthy dose of hide the tapes.
2006-09-11 15:30:24 · answer #11 · answered by zonumb 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋