| |
|
quote:Originally posted by Jack The Bodiless:
Ordinarily, I'd agree... except I can't find the plane and I can't answer the (reasonable) questions. Can you? If you can, please thrill us... otherwise I'm changing your name to TOADYINGRUNNINGDOG. Only joking.
First, my memory on everything is fuzzy, so theories are being put forward instead of researched facts.
Question 1: Lack of Damage to inner rings.
I'm sure we've all heard the reports that this section of the Pentagon had recently been fitted with bomb resistent glass, and other safety features. I can personally verify that news reports of this upgrade predate the attack by a considerable time period.
This arguement, along with almost all of the arguements, assume an almost horizantal decent into the building. As if the plane was trying to land. As I recall the plane came in at a very steep angle of decent. The force of the plane was directed down into the ground, not straight ahead into the inner rings.
Also, as I recall it didn't hit the Pentagon as much as it hit the ground right in front of the Pentagon. If you look close at the sattelite photo, you can see something between the helipad and the building that looks like the hole.
Question 2: Only the groundfloor being hit.
with a steep angle of decent, this isn't a big leap. Even less of a leap if in fact the ground in front of the building was hit.
Question 3: Lack of debris
Official reason for the lack of debris given was that the plane disentergrated on landing. At a high speed, and with a steep angle of decent, this is not a major leap of faith. (imagen a car hitting a tree at 120 mph) Also remember that the majority of the Pentagon is underground. With a steep angle of decent you could hide a good bit of a crumpled airplane in the basement.
Question 4: The sanding of the lawn.
Same reason the local gas station puts sand on the pavement when someone spills gas. It's to soak up jet fuel, before it catches fire, or leaks into the local water table (the Pentagon is with in a stones through of the Potomac which already has enough chemicals in it, thank you very much)
Question 5: Wing damage
The question attached to this is why didn't the wings cause damage. Project the wings onto the building. I can see the damage they caused.
Also, if you look at the damage, this seems to lend credance to the steep angle theory, to me at least.
Quesiton 6: The Fire chief's lack of knowledge.
Probably because he was being kept as much in the dark as possible. In acctuallity, he had no authority over the matter, his men were under the military's jurisdiction. Using the above theory that what didn't disintergrate on impact, ended up inside the building, it's not a big surprise that he wouldn't know the situation.
Question 7: Lack of debris in photos.
Work with the steep angle of decent theory and check the ground in front of the building. You can see, what appears to me, to be the edge of the crater. There is also some kind of debris in the water of the first photo, but I cant' make out if it's the building or parts of the plane.
I also keep coming back to 395. If you look at the picture here you will see 395 on the left. ALL those different roads there are the various veins that lead into 395. What the picture doesn't show is that you're about two minutes from the Mall and downtown DC. This section of 395 was full of cars, because it's always full of cars during the workday. 5 mile backups are normal for this area of DC. This is not the boondocks.
How was this done, if all these people DIDN'T see the plane? I answered your question Jack, feel like answering that one? 
Edited to fix grammar mistakes.
[ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: tSuibhne ] |
|
|
