Post by KNOWTHIS on Jun 3, 2007 20:44:22 GMT -5
I chose to re-visit this often asked question because the story has changed so many times. And I’m not talking about alternative theories either. I’m talking about the official version. I’ve read differing official explanations of the cause ranging from the nose cone of the plane, to the landing gear, to one of the engines. “Conspiracy theorists” are often accused of not getting their facts straight but who’s really the most guilty of that charge?
References….
www.rense.com/general63/pmm.htm
PM Claims Landing Gear Made Pentagon 12 Foot Hole
www.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123026583
Remembering September 11, 2001: 5 years later, Airmen reflect upon personal experiences
911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackLegend.shtml
PentagonAttackLegend
How can we trust any of these conclusions when they seem to change so much? If anyone has heard any other 'official version' explanations other than these I'd like to hear about it.
If any of these explanations were true, shouldn’t some debris have been found matching the description?
References….
www.rense.com/general63/pmm.htm
PM Claims Landing Gear Made Pentagon 12 Foot Hole
Flight 77's landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon's Ring C.
www.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123026583
Remembering September 11, 2001: 5 years later, Airmen reflect upon personal experiences
A JPED was established to recover, inventory, photograph, clean and service, and return the personal effects of all Pentagon fatalities, both military and civilian, said Ms. Giles.
"One of the things I remember the most was donning the personal protective equipment (which includes a full body suit, respirator and mask, two sets of gloves, rubber boots and hard hat) and walking into the large hole in the exterior of the Pentagon," she said. "(It was) eerie and dark with emergency lighting providing enough light to see an interior hole caused by the aircraft's starboard engine crashing through."
"One of the things I remember the most was donning the personal protective equipment (which includes a full body suit, respirator and mask, two sets of gloves, rubber boots and hard hat) and walking into the large hole in the exterior of the Pentagon," she said. "(It was) eerie and dark with emergency lighting providing enough light to see an interior hole caused by the aircraft's starboard engine crashing through."
911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackLegend.shtml
PentagonAttackLegend
Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, [WWW] said on Sept. 15:
The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. ... The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive.
The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. ... The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive.
How can we trust any of these conclusions when they seem to change so much? If anyone has heard any other 'official version' explanations other than these I'd like to hear about it.
If any of these explanations were true, shouldn’t some debris have been found matching the description?