If you look at the crash sight of the Pentagon, it is incosistent than that of the official story. The official story states that the plane was hijacked at around 9:00 AM and crashed in some hour and a half later leaving a 16 foot diameter hole in the recently upgraded wall of the Pentagon.
Lets take a look at a Boeing 757: The wingspan of this plane is 124' 10" and the tail height is 44.5'. Look it up its true.
Supposedly this plane left only a 16 foot hole. According to the official story the reason it is this way is because the wings snapped off upon impact. There is no remains of any wings or plane debris for that matter. The only debris was lightweight material that was being carried off by workers. How are pieces of plane being carried like that.
The official story also claims that this now very lightweight plane was able to go through 16 feet of solid concrete.
2006-12-01 08:57:07 · 6 answers · asked by Absolution 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
if you'd attend some actual engineering classes, you'd know that the damage is VERY consistent with a jet going thru at that level
2006-12-01 09:00:46 · answer #1 · answered by kapute2 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I would agree with kapute...
Planes are rather fragile vehicles for the most part. The amount of energy that plane had could easily have cause the plane to disintegrate at that speed and striking a reinforced wall. 16 feet is easily larger than the fuselage of a 757.
Look at other crashes and you'll see-- Valuejet which crashed in the everglades had hardly anything left of it and it hit the water.
There were large, engine parts, which were removed from the pentagon along with some seats.
2006-12-01 17:04:39 · answer #2 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If Bush & Rumsfeld planned the attack on the Pentagon with a missile, why was Rumsfeld there that morning?
2006-12-01 17:06:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with it. It makes loads more sense than the official story. And so what your telling me pixel is that because it is lightweight its able to go through 16 feet of pure concrete. Nice arguement
2006-12-01 17:15:35 · answer #4 · answered by FEIT 1 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Because you can't get your head in the whole.
smile not rile
2006-12-01 21:57:33 · answer #5 · answered by smiling is cute 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1) it didn't leave a 16 foot hole Even your fello Kook conspiracist have dropped that claim. Teh 16' hole is from the EXIT hole, not the entrance hole which was over 80 foot wide
Debunking Sites:
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4199607.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/158816635X/sr=8-1/qid=1155609077/ref=sr_1_1/104-6098036-7150331?ie=UTF8
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/19/032851.php
http://www.slate.com/id/1008297/
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.jod911.com/
http://southerncrossreview.org/41/9-11.htm
http://www.lists.opn.org/pipermail/org.opn.lists.skeptix/Week-of-Mon-20060911/003261.html
http://www.politicalhobbyist.com/debunked/alexjones.html
http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm
http://gradeonegadfly.blogspot.com/2006/10/loose-change-on-upper-east-side-part-i.html
http://www.911cultwatch.org.uk/
http://www.infoshop.org/texts/debunking911.html
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5782277
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
http://antitruther.blogspot.com/
http://thedoc911.blogspot.com/
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/09/01/news/conspiracy.php
Reports:
http://wtc.nist.gov/
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtcreport.htm
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight77.htm
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=10-07-01&storyID=7299
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110285.PDF
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml
http://www.asce.org/responds/
http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1057
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Services/Astaneh-Testimony%20Congress-March%206%20Final.pdf
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/defense/aviationnow_jumpstart.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3919613.stm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/25/attack/main501989.shtml
http://www.designnews.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6363426&industryid=43653
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc08.pdf
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/embryriddle092101.html
http://www.epa.gov/WTC/demolish_deconstruct/30wbroadway.htm
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925scene0925p2.asp
http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/7/7_P911.html
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/11_APdc.html
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norman.html
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28318-2005Apr5.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011220shanksville1220p2.asp
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010925sledzik0925p3.asp
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212800,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34211,00.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm
http://cryptome.sabotage.org/wtc-house.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A13766-2001Sep11
http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/030127.asp
http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-467181.php
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1a012802.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20040225213523/http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story
http://www.metallurgy.nist.gov/techactv2005/ar2005_safety.html#fire
http://www.911myths.com/html/ntsb_release_august_22_2006.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june02/towers_5-1.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/11/02/wtc.remains.reut/index.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20031026101720/http://www.arabianews.org/english/article.cfm?qid=12&sid=6
http://www.september11news.com/OsamaEvidence.htm
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/skyscrapers.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A19549-2001Sep24
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/M.A.Sweeney.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0%2C1300%2C550486%2C00.html
http://criticalthrash.com/terror.html
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/28/60II/main319383.shtml
2006-12-01 17:20:08 · answer #6 · answered by arus.geo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋