Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ch'i
I didn't say it did. I said the administration possibly used the attack to promote its own agendas.
|
I to do not say you did, however, I was making sure you did not imply it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I'm suggesting that the lack of any evidence of wing, engine, or tail damage in brick does raise, in my mind, the question of why and/or how. If you can prove to me that an aluminum plane traveling at over 500 miles per hour will not scratch brick, then we can move on.
|
Well, the movie of the f4 was pretty conclusive, I’m sure it was scratched up, just like the pentagon was, the pictures of the pentagon just are not close enough to the wall to see scratches. Further more, the pentagon is not brick, it is reinforced concrete.
http://renovation.pentagon.mil/history-features.htm
This part of the site is regarding the original construction, it was upgraded shortly before the attacks too.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
The generator was a small part of the explosion. A lot of it - I dare say most of it - was the expanding, igniting fuel.
|
yes and no, I was not as clear as I should have been, most of the visible explosion was the generator, the planes fuel would have exploded at the site of impact and inside of the building, they were both were visible, I just don’t want you thinking that the huge explosion was only the plane.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I don't know what material that wall was made from, but it clearly wasn't brick, and they also did not show what the wall looked like after the collision. I dare say that video is quite inconclusive when applied to the case of the Pentagon crash.
|
the wall was reinforced concrete, just like the pentagon. Why do you think the pentagon is made from brick? Everything I have read states reinforced concrete, there was a shortage on steel during the war so the pentagon was made from reinforced concrete. Brick is a weak construction medium, and not suitable for a military installation.