Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (13863)	5/3/2002 1:27:04 PM
From: russet	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 81384

Searle,..some thoughts on the Pentagon incident. Of course, if it didn't crash into the Pentagon and then vaporize into thin air, it is a complete mystery as to what happened to Flight 77 and all its occupants. But then, perhaps, we should ask David Copperfield how he makes an aircraft "disappear" in front of the very eyes of onlookers! Two other aircraft disappeared into two towers on the same day. Have we seen much of their wreckage? Where are their tails and have we seen documented proof of where all their engines went? Witness accounts have verified that a large airliner smashed into the Pentagon. We got to listen to many of these on North American tv,...over and over again. The number of people in Washington who would have to be in on this conspiracy number in the thousands, yet none have come forward to debunk the official version. The aliens must have been very busy with their brainwashing machines (ggggggggggggg) The Pentagon is an asset of America's war machine and its interior and surroundings are off limits to the public. It is built like a bunker,...better than most bunkers, and has far more space in its basements than above ground. The plane penetrated four rings of the Pentagons five ring structure. That is testament to the incredible force absorbed by its walls as each outer wall is built like a bunker wall. Aluminum is not much of a match for bunker thick reinforced concrete. It's probably like throwing an aluminum foil plane at a piece of plywood at 400 mph. Vaporizing large amounts of the metal could have happened. The flames fed by the jet fuel and perhaps oxygen tanks or other chemicals on the plane or in the Pentagon could have caused the aluminum to reach combustion temperatures. Once aluminum starts burning, it is a self propagating reaction until all the aluminum is consumed. Even the size and shaped of the hole can be explained. The fuselage has the most solid mass in the plane, and it would make the initial penetration of the building being up front. The wings would be folded back as they hit the reinforced concrete outer walls but would likely remain partially attached to the fuselage as would the tail. The wing and tail connections are some of the most reinforced and structurally strong points of the plane for good reason,...you don't want them falling off (ggggggggg) So they would be bent and crushed back behind the fuselage and follow it into the hole the fuselage initially punched through bunker walls. The engines would be ripped from their attachment points to the wings as their momentum is too great to be changed by the folding wings and they would punch through the walls unless they hit the ground before the walls and buried themselves. I believe there is evidence from that french site of a round hole in the wall to the left of the main hole in the wall and probably a similar hole is on the right side. The intensity of the fire not being apparent is also easily explained. The Pentagon is built with numerous fire walls, fire resistant ceilings and floors, and an extensive underground development. The jet fuel would presumably leak to bottom structures and burn under the rubble, unseen by the public gaze. Similar things happened at the World Trade Center after the initial impacts. There was some discussion about the hole not being high enough initially to accommodate the jetliners height, but I noticed the measurements included the wheels and tail. The wheels were not down so you must subtract that height which is significant. Also the tail will react in the same folding fashion as the wings when they hit the reinforced concrete of the Pentagon Bunker which is built to withstand heavy bomb blasts. So now we need only think of a bit more than the height of the fuselage, which I think is no higher than 3 or so average human beings,...perhaps 6-8 meters. That's about the height of the initial hole is it not? Perhaps David Copperfield is not needed?,...we really need David Aluminumfield (ggggggggggggggg)