posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 11:34 PM
I'd first like to mention that I don't buy the official conspiracy theory and although I'm absolutely convinced that there is much more to the story
than what we are being lead to believe through the OS, I'm certainly not convinced that a commercial airliner didn't hit the Pentagon.
In fact, I believe there is a very logical explanation for the evidence -or lack thereof- in regards to the Pentagon damage, debris field and secrecy
surrounding the incident in question. This explanation is based on the very foundation that many truthers put forward as to why the Pentagon shouldn't
have been hit and that is because it is alleged to be one of the most secure buildings in the western world, if not the whole world.
Please reference one of my very first threads on ATS, titled "Simple explanation for suppression
of Pentagon impact footage"
Because the Pentagon was one of the most secure buildings on the planet and certainly because the side of the building that was hit was newly
reinforced, it is more than safe to suggest that some kind of reactive armor technology was employed on that brand new wing. Reactive armor is very
effective thus it is only logical that the Pentagon would be reinforced with such technology.
This would explain why the damage appears to be caused by explosives, as opposed to an aircraft. It also explains eye-witness testimony, lack of
aircraft debris and secrecy on behalf of the government (after all, such technology would be highly classified for national security reasons).
Please refer to the referenced thread for a better, more detailed explanation.
edit on 6-4-2011 by airspoon because: (no reason given)