Quote: "the second way would have been that it hit the building straight on and the fuel reserves (by some mirical) didn't ignite..."
I have no figures on exploding planes, and the area of effect/force of a fuel explosion, but I don't find it unreasonable to assume the fuel may have exploded. The Pentagon is
big, remember, and it did take a significant amount of damage. And who knows how much was left on the plane?
Quote: "
then explain to me what the first thing you learn in physics?
For every action there is an equal and opposite REACTION, although the aircraft is capable of minimising this with its design - there would still have been ALOT more damage on the pentagon lawn."
So, what, are you saying there should have been more wreckage on the pentagon lawn because the equally opposite reaction for the crash is wreckage flying in the opposite direction? No, just because the force has to travel somewhere, it doesn't mean the majority of it would be backwards.
I also don't know much about plane crashes, but I do understand the properties of materials. The plane strikes the pentagon, pieces of debris are thrown
into the pentagon, because that's the direction the plane was travelling in. They would plough through the building or become embedded in the structure. The equal and opposite reaction reaction here is seen in the structure itself. It absorbs the impact of debris and bends into a different shape, and breaks.
An equal and opposite reaction does not automatically mean an elastic reaction. It just refers to materials reacting to impacts.
I'm not saying either of us is right or wrong, but this here is a plausible reason for there not being much debris on the lawn: most of it's in the Pentagon. This isn't enough to shout "conspiracy", it's perfectly feasible that the incident at the Pentagon unfolded exactly "as advertised".
I agree there's lots on unanswered questions, but that doesn't add up to a conspiracy. Right now, I could give reasons of negligence as to why fighters weren't scrambled: confirmation was too slow in coming through the chain of command, for example. The pilots wanted to launch, their CO told them to wait for the official word.
Why was the flight shot down if the passengers had taken over?
1) We don't know for sure it was shot down.
2) Assuming it was, and that the passengers had indeed taken over (rather than just initiated a struggle) the plane's course had presumeably not altered for one reason or another, and was percieved to still be a threat. Why else shoot it down?
Lots of questions indeed, but there's as many plausbile explanations as there are implausbile ones, and yet some stupid people create their own fantasies about what happened, and call the list of questions "facts".
Even when he states that steel does not melt at the temperature of burning fuel, he's missing the point. Factually, that's probably quite correct, but I wonder what temperature steel begins to get softer at? The weight of the buildings would make them collapse long before the steel got as far as actually becoming liquid. A slight softness would probably be all that's needed.
Like I said, full of bull. There's nothing wrong with presenting a list of unanswered questions, but there's plenty wrong with calling for the arrest of the president on the grounds of "evidence" that's merely a list of unanswered questions, assumptions, and misunderstood facts.
