Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TexanAvenger
Some of these theories are well-founded, backed by evidence (whether you buy it or not), and stem from a healthy wish to question the government's motives in our everyday lives... some of them seem like nothing more than paranoid ravings. But through my own research and looking at the "evidence" posted here I am absolutely NOT convinced that a 757 hit the Pentagon. The main things that convince me are the issues of the nose-cone, lack of damage to lawn and rest of building, lack of wreckage, the circular punchout, and the fact that a 757 cannot fly that fast, that low. As for the atomization believers here, that jet "atomized" against that wall at a higher speed, and with a considerably stronger and sharper nosecone, than a 757, without punching a hole in the wall. How then did the 757 punch through MULTIPLE walls?
|
The lack of damage to the lawn is explained by momentum, the plane hit the side of the building at a downward angle, momentum would have carried all of the plane and damage from the crash foward from the impact site. If a metorite strikes the ground at an oblique approach angle all the damage will be infront of the impact and you can verify this by tossing a stone into a sand pile at an angle. Why was the plane on a downward angle? At best the plane couldn't have flown less than a couple hundered feet off the ground on approach, after seeing the pentagon the terrorists would have gunned the engines and dived.
Second, the age of the pentagon, the construction materials and knowledge of the engineering used at the time easily explains the damage to the pentagon. It's fairly complicated but the pentagon is three seperate buildings, built quickly with either precast concrete panels or masonry. Given the location (east coast) and the time of construction (pre-wwi) it's easy to say the structural walls are a concrete without any form of reinforcing. Concrete has little to no tensile strength and as a result impacts on the side of the building would have quickly punched a hole in the side and carried the plane into the building.
From my understanding of the crash most of what was left of the plane ended up in one of the sub-basements. As far as the atomization counter-arguement, the plane you have seen in those tests is crashing into a nuclear reactor containment vessel. The concrete is around 6' thick and reinforced by #18 steel reinforcing that is so close together you can't put your arm into the gaps. There is a significant difference in the construction strength of the containment vessel and 1920's construction of what was supposed to be a temporary building.