reply to post by Chronogoblin
I'm no engineer, but in response to the question about the plane hitting the building, as explained by experts, it would not leave a cartoon type
outline in the wall. The hole you see is the expected result. The hole further in that is circular was caused by a jetstream of fire.
In one special I saw on this (they covered all claims people are making with experts explaining why they were mistaken), there was an engineer that
specializes in this sort of thing. He seemed like a normal guy.. had long hair, has been doing this for something like 20 or 30 years, and he was one
of the first responders at the Pentagon. He has spent hundreds of hours studying the impact, and resulting damage, and there was no doubt in his mind
a plane hit. He actually seemed disgusted and angry that people could come up with ludicrous theories, based on their total lack of actual knowledge.
In a nutshell saying, 'I've been doing this 30 years, I studied this crash, I know it was a plane, and you tools try to convince people something
else happened, based on your complete lack of knowledge, and it disgusts me."
No one has ever flown a 757 into a concrete structure like the Pentagon. There is no way to really know exactly what would happen. I trust
structural analysts and engineers, over random civilians who make wild guesses based on their preconceived notions about what they WANT to have
happened.
But of course, it goes like this it seems: If someone support a plane hitting the Pentagon, and they are not an expert, they don't know what they
are talking about, or they didn't really know what they saw. If an expert says it hit the building, they are clearly 'in on it.' If a witness
supporting the conspiracy folks says anything at all, they are not mistaken, not wrong, not lying, exaggerating, or anything else, even if they are
not an expert of any type. Of course, this goes hand in hand with conspiracy folks saying that the experts don't know what they are talking about in
their own field of expertise, but the conspiracy people DO.
For example, the twin towers: People claim there are blasts going down the building as it collapses. Experts say it's just air blowing out windows.
A building that large as it collapses, is full of a lot of air, and it has to go somewhere. At the speed of collapse, it was just blowing them out.
It's obvious to the experts, but non-experts, who have no degrees in that sort of thing, claim they are wrong. Same thing here. Experts say it was
a plane, there is plenty of proof, and non-experts insist that they know more than the experts do. It's all fairly amusing really... at least, I'm
getting more amused as this continues.
I do already understand that the example was a bit extreme, but the pentagon was designed to withstand
explosions and other threats, and considering a 757 rammed into it, I'd have to say that the designers were brilliant in building a tough structure.
Anyway, carry on with your unproven theory.
Perhaps someone can explain that to me. If it doesn't "work that way", then let me know. But I remember watching a wrecking ball hit the side of a
building and not only leaving a round hole, but also a cut-out of where the cable holding the ball had hit. Also, why wasn't there a deeper impact
into the structure itself? Seems very little damage for something that big going that fast? 
