|
Cyrnel, I assume that you are suggesting that the physics surrounding the Pentagon crash are counter-intuitive, or a proposition that does not seem likely to be true using intuition or gut feelings, however is true none the less. One example of something being counter-intuitive is the Earth from our perspective. For thousands of years, man believed the Earth to be flat because of our perspective. Eventually science was able to explain that the Earth was not flat, but was spherical. It's just a really, really big spheroid.
Usually counter-intuitive conclusions are discovered by simply developing a scientific explaination on a subject. Fortunately for us, plane crashes are fairly simple. A Boeing 757-200 is essentially a big aluminum tube with aluminum frame wings covered in a thin aluminum alloy skin. Aluminum is a very light metal, that is very fragile. The Pratt & Whitney PW2037 engines, however, are 141 inch tall, about 7100 pounds, and is the most dense part of the plane by far. 1) There is no evidence that wings of planes fold in upon impact with anything - there is no prescedent in the history of planes crashing -, 2) even if, by some mericle, the wings folded into the plane as it crashed into that tiny hole, there is no reason to believe that the connection between the wing and the engine would be strong enough to pull the engines into the plane with the wings, and 3) Occam's razor. In our system of hypothesis, it's more often the simplest answer that is the corrrect one. What is more likely: the wings of a plane going 300-400 mph (depending on who you ask) has it's wings fold in to the plane so fast they they pull in the engines and do not leave a mark on brick walls, or the building was hit by something other than a Boeing 757-200.
I've seen no evidence to show that my conclusions based on facts are counter intuitive.
|