Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
This is among the best "non-conspiracy" posts in this discussion so far. Excelent work, rahvin. The problem is the hole on the other side. The object clearly did not leave any kind of burn marks or damage to the lawn, making the only poissible decent angle pretty steep. This would have sent the nose of the plane through the first and second stories going into the basement and sub basement. Makes perfect sense. But what about the photo of the 16' hole in the inner most wall?
This hole is located on the inner most wall and is on the exact path of the projectile, HOWEVER, it is parallel to the crash on the front of the building.
If the plane hit at a downward angle, which would have lead it to a very much downward angle crash, why is there is there a 16' hole there? Odd, indeed.
Also, the 747 that hit the Pentagon ahd roughly the same amount of fuel as the planes that struck the WTC, and you can see in videos taken that there were prettty serious explosions upon impact for both. The fire at the WTC was able to destroy
(what I've been told by engineers) one of the best reinforced structures in the world. It was actually built to take a plane strike. So those buildings obviously collapsed after a while. In this picture taken on September 15th, 2001, you get an excelent
overview of the damage. So a steel reinforced building was gone in a matter of hours, but the Pentagon just saw some fires and one collapse due to the initial impact.
|
First 16' seems inflated, looking at those pictures I would say 10' diameter, which looks to be about the size of one of the engines. The engine is the only truely solid piece on the plane. As far as why it went out the side of the building I have no idea, although I seem to remember from the video's they showed that the plane hit with one wing elevated which would have changed the trajectory of the engine on that wing as opposed to the rest of the plane. I'm not going to really speculate on it because afterall the behavior after impact is going to be very unpredictable depending on each individual impact in the buildings the engines would have made but at 600mph or so and the massiveness of the engines would have made for a very solid projectile.
Now the fire issue when trying to compare against the WTC is a VERY bad comparison. The WTC had NO active fire suppression system, the building survived the impact it was the fire that softened the steel and collapsed the building(s). The pentagon on the other had very likely had an active and aggressive fire suppression system and as a result the fuel on board was not able to do the damage it was able to do in the WTC. Even still the fire damage to the building is rather extensive but it was left standing because it didn't have a steel frame that was holding the building up.
I really can't see how this is even an issue.