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: russet who wrote (13866)	5/3/2002 3:56:13 PM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 81394

Thanks russett. Despite your effort in trying to prove to me that I am incorrect in my assumptions, I am still satisfied that no airliner crashed into the Pentagon. At the same time I accept that you are perfectly satisfied with your understanding of what took place. There's an expression to the effect, "For he that is convinced, no explanation is necessary --- for he that is not, there is no explanation that will suffice". I guess we'll have to leave it there and live with our differences.

To: russet who wrote (13866)	5/3/2002 7:22:00 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81394

russett, I have been doing some internet searches to try and find some info which might corroborate my opinion. I have come upon this site which has the very interesting views of a Boeing 747 pilot. In fact, Geoff Metcalf whose column it is, set out to debunk the theory. worldnetdaily.com Here are the pilot's views : "The wingtip alone would have sheared off and bounced back into the street, the two engines would have penetrated deeper into the wall and framing structure further than any other part making a definite hole. "The belly of the aircraft contains, fuel tanks, baggage, mailbags, and cargo; none of this type debris can be seen. "Assuming 8,600 gallons of kerosene fuel at a specific gravity of approx 6.9 lbs/gal (temperature considered) weight of the fuel would be close to 60,000 lbs and would splatter everywhere. "Where are the seats, those with passengers buckled in would be ripped out of the floor, for that matter, where are the passengers? "I have never seen an aircraft accident where the aircraft evaporated upon impact with water, land or buildings. "If these pictures were taken within 3 days after 9-11, there would have been definite remains of parts. I don't see any." There is also this URL which is about the most comprehensive on the subject. humanunderground.com Interestingly, the author also set out to debunk the French site and it is clear, even though he doesn't actually say so, that he ended up agreeing with it! Unfortunately, and presumably for obvious reasons, many of the links no longer exist. If the pictures don't appear you can right-click "Show Picture" on the little red X.

To: russet who wrote (13866)	5/3/2002 8:52:58 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81394

russett, here's an excellent aerial photo of the Pentagon which shows that, although the fire was widespread, the impact/explosion itself did not involve more than the outer ring of the building. As evidenced from the intactness of its windows, it is quite clear from the picture that the second ring of the building is unscathed. I estimate the distance involved in the impact to be less than the length of a fire-engine! It is certainly not the length of an airliner. defenselink.mil PS. The pic is 2.2meg so it takes quite some time to download.