Quote:
Originally posted by gmat
On the other hand, look at WTC crashes. Planes were used as missiles as well, on sturdy concrete+steel walls. In both cases the tail was still sticking out, and wings smashed the wall quite hard (and they were coming at an angle as well...).
|
Firstly, the WTC did not have "sturdy concrete+steel walls". The WTC was built with a strong "spine" in the center of each tower and a (relatively) thin exoskeleton covering the exterior. One of the towers collapsed as a result of the outer exoskeleton being too compromised to support the floors, and the other because of the intense heat from the burning jet fuel concentrated around the central core. Once the top floors stated coming down it was a domino effect. No chance for survival!
As to the Pentagon issue, I saw (on CNN or Fox News or something) video tape from the security cameras located in a guard shack that showed like 3 "frames" of the plane approaching the side of the Pentagon and burying itself within. It looked (as I recall) as if the plane hit the outer wall at its base (more-or-less). This, as well as the really sturdy construction of the Pentagon might account for the relatively small amount of damage to the inner rings
The real issue: who gains from the "hoax", and in what way? "We got hit too" PR talk would be totally irrelevant in the context of the WTC tragedy. And it would make no difference in the Grand Scheme of Things if it was a suicide bomber. There's just no "margin" in lying.
Bob