Odd questions about 11/9/2001 and the Pentagon
None but a blockhead
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Odd questions about 11/9/2001 and the Pentagon
I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Although I thoroughly enjoy oddball ideas and would like many of them to be true, by and large I subscribe to the cock-up theory of history. . .. .However, I'm a bit pressed to find good answers to the questions raised by the following website. Reading it while thinking what happened to the WTC only amplifies those concerns. Would love to have reasons to dismiss this as just another online nutter.... .. .<a href="http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm" target="_blank">http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm</a>. .. .R
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was some other posts about this on another forum. See Military Aircrew - Pentagon Crash.. .. .Basically, we are talking about a mainly aluminium aircraft hitting a reasonably solid contrete and metal structure at high speed. Do you really expect to see a big tail with "American" sitting on the ground.. .. .The other thread also said consider the crash site in Penn state - how much of a recognisable aircraft was visible there.. . . . <small>[ 15 March 2002, 03:34: Message edited by: scran ]</small>
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: At home
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF. .My understanding of the situation is that the aircraft hit the ground outside the outer ring of the Pentagon building first, the aircraft structure was not therefore intact when the debris and fireball impacted with the building. The resulting inferno would readily have consumed a lot of the aluminium airframe, not to mention internal fittings, luggage and bodies. Although the effect on the building may not be as great as might have been expected - this is surely due to the very robust construction of the building (which I have seen for myself during a visit to Washington last December) and the fact that the initial impact was with the ground not the building. I think someone is just trying to create a myth around this awful incident where none exists. What do you intelligent people in ppruneland think?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sand on gravel I should think is to provide a temporary all weather road surface to get construction vehicles in and out. Grass would have become a quagmire PDQ . .. .Accounts state the site reeked of kerosene. I don't remember any parked truck on the recently released surveillance cam shots, and there are plenty of eyewitness accounts of a Boeing on a low fast circuit prior to the explosion.. .. .IMHO the website is a sign of someone with too much time on their hands, but the navigation is cute.. . . . <small>[ 17 March 2002, 00:15: Message edited by: rehkram ]</small>
