I don't know.
I think it's good to question the facts that have been presented though, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that.
The funny thing is this lack of a trail in the grass, and that would mean that the plane flew directly into the building, without ever touching the ground. From the video shots, it seems more likely that the plane was on the ground, or at the very least at a very, very low altitude. That's really hard to do! If the terrorists had sufficient training, it is possible that they could maintain that low altitude long enough to aim for the building.
If some poles got slices, that might have clipped part of the wing. In WW2, the brits had baloons with strings attached to them: a fighter plane running into these would loose part of a wing.
As for the width of the hole, it's possible that once the plane made contact with the building, it entered into a spin, going through the building sideways, making the entry hole much narrower.
Another point of interest is the structure of the Pentagon: it is unusually built, in that it was made to withstand an impact (bomb). Given that, it's not unreasonable to believe that the plane got squished into a smaller hole. Not likely though.
A better explanation would be that the plane never actually fully penetrated the building, but simply went up with the explosion. One of the engines however, might have gone right through the building: the engines have many titanium parts, which would easily withstand the heat from the explosion.
The plane would desintegrate, regardless of wether it hit the building at 200, 400 or 600 mph. I'm sure that they found some aircraft parts, but in all the attacks, I only remember seeing one landing gear from the WTC.
The tail might survive a normal crash, but this wasn't a normal crash: the plane was used as a missile. The tail is not particularly reinforced, in fact it's just as structurally strong as the rest of the fuselage. I've seen the tail structures of a DC-9 (smaller plane): it's all the same. The tail probably never penetrated the building, and melted in the fire.
A 747 is quite different: since the wings have to support 4 engines, not 2 as in the 757, the wing structure is beefier up to the external engines. Also, the landing gear is much larger on a 747, and again, extends deeper into the wing (someone check this?). So the 757 wing is much more prone to being completely disitegrated than with a 747.
As for the witness thing, the Pentagon personel was probably told to keep quiet, as one would expect when a military installation has been hit, especially in the light of the nature of the attack. Any witnesses would have to happen to be there, and since the Pentagon isn't of any touristic interest, again, I'm not surprised that there are only a few witnesses.
This is interesting. What else have you got?
|