Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
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. |
Oh. Well my argument still stands. If the landing gear and fuseloge of the plane were able to punch through so much, how is it that the engines did not even make a mark striking enough to notice from the hundreds of pictures available online?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
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.
|
I understand.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
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.
|
The last time I was there I remember brick. Sorry, I've seen the pictures of it after it burned so many times that my memories got the better of me.