Quote:
Originally posted by gmat
That doesnt explain the lack of structural damage at 2nd and 3rd floors (just after impact). How did the plane get "flatter" ?
[/b]
How convenient... That would be an historical first. Boeing will be very interested when the archives fo public, indeed... And they burned in mid air, without slamming the wall or touching the grass... Instant disintegration ! Wow.
[/b]
Prove it. I want facts, not "these people talk bullshit" or "they are commies, liars and terrorists"... Just facts.
The oddity is that, an oddity. The 'intact' SUV, the standing barrels.. Weird.
[/b]
Exactly. That doesnt make the structure stronger... Blast absorbent materials are quite 'plastic', and very resilient... but not structurally superior to concrete + steel.
My ideas are:
- a small jet (like the Learjet), hijacked, stolen or rented by terrorists.
- a fighter plane (sounds fishy though)
- a drone (lots of ppl in the US stick to that idea)
I think the small jet is more likely...
Also there's this general silence from the media. Disturbing.
Ak, we'll know in 30y (or is it 40 ?) when archives go public... In the meatime Oliver Stone will make a movie out of it  [/b]
|
If the foundation is heavily damaged, there would be a collapse of the above floors. It's perfectly reasonable to me. I pointed out one of the safety feature about the flying glass so that you could see how far the effort went, into making this building "bomb resistant".
The NTSB report should become public in a couple of years, that's all. The details of the FBI investigation, which may or may not contain crash specifics, and probably will never be public. If the Army has a report, you can bet that it'll never be public. It's not a historical first, by any means. Look back at JFK, where the records have been sealed for 75 years in the government archives.
Considering the heat involved with burning 20 tons of kerosene, I'm not surprised that there would be nothing left. There may have been some molten metal left, but who really wants a picture of that?
By "propaganda", I meant that the building may have been built stronger than what the released details state. Call it propaganda, or counter-intelligence, your choice. Either way, it's a smart move, don't you think?
The intact SUV thing is really fuzzy, and I don't see how anyone can draw conclusions from it. The pictures may or may not be out of sequence, and aren't detailed enough to confirm that it's the same vehicle. In fact, the pictures aren't detailed enough to establish a sequence of events.
I don't get the barrel thing at all.
All in all, I think that it's clear that there isn't enough information to reconstruct the accident, but to come to the conclusion that there's a conspiracy behind it all, is really a stretch. One would need to associate this alleged conspiracy with some kind of motive, and I just don't see it. Who's interest would it be in, to make it all look like the plane wasn't swapped for a smaller one, and crash it into a newly rebuilt section of the Pentagon?
There are also many, many more details that haven't been analyzed at all, that could easily prove that the plane was in fact a Boeing 757. The size of the ball of flame should give us a fair idea of how much fuel ignited, and if you look at the cam shots, that's a pretty large ball of flame. I doubt that any smaller aircraft would carry enough fuel to produce a ball of fire that large.
The few witnesses that saw the plane should have been able to recognize the model, as the Boeing 757 has a much different engine configuration than smaller planes.
If you look at the video, you can see some kind of smoke trailing the plane, which would correspond to the jet blast of the engines blowing off something from the ground. A small plane wouldn't do this.
There's also a color/paint scheme to the airliner that is unique to the airline, and easily recognizable. It's hard to tell from the photos though.