PDA

View Full Version : "Big Plane, Small Holes" myth.



MEGR
03-04-2005, 09:35 PM
Claim: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in the Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan whose baseless asertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missle-part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack, " he writes, "could only be committed by the United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

Fact: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurement of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground: the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide-not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage."


This is from the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics. You can pick it up at your local bookstore. I typed it up because I don't have a scanner or website.

Sir Zach of R.
03-04-2005, 09:44 PM
Dang, I can't find my tin foil hat.

sucker4gurls
03-05-2005, 12:18 AM
i really hate people who assume things like that...or they make assertions without the correct facts...

ReconCominAtYa
03-05-2005, 12:45 AM
Or playing on the common person's habit of not checking facts.

Frogg
03-05-2005, 01:23 PM
.

Yeah, that Popular Mechanics article was one of the most in-depth I have seen in connection with debunking all those conspiracy theory myths. You can read it on-line.....good photos, also:

Popular Mechanics On-line Article in Full:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

.

cut
03-05-2005, 02:35 PM
I've heard a lot of good things about popular mechanics but this kind of conspiracy theory is not "fodder for mainstream European media".

Scagel
03-05-2005, 03:35 PM
Printing this now
Can't wait to put some hippies in their place on monday.

MEGR
03-05-2005, 05:13 PM
.

Yeah, that Popular Mechanics article was one of the most in-depth I have seen in connection with debunking all those conspiracy theory myths. You can read it on-line.....good photos, also:

Popular Mechanics On-line Article in Full:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

.

Thanks for the link! Sure beats typing them all up.