HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
POSSIBLE THEORIES: Aircraft nose or warhead ? http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero14/missile/missile_en.htm The Pentagon states that the round hole visible on the third building was caused by the nose of a Boeing 757. This hypothesis is however not technically possible. The device entered the first floor of the building, producing a huge fireball, before penetrating two highly resistant buildings leaving an exit hole 2 1/2 yards wide. What kind of device is capable of doing this? According to the official version, the hole was produced by an airliner � a Boeing 757-200. Lee Evey, head of the Pentagon renovation project, explained how this happened at a press conference on September 15. ��The rings are E, D, C, B and A. Between B and C is a driveway that goes around the Pentagon. It's called A-E Drive. 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. So that's the extent of penetration of the aircraft.�� Contradictions The official version is complex and contradicts itself, so read on carefully. To justify the absence of Boeing debris, the authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted with such a highly reinforced building as the Pentagon. To explain the disappearance of the aircraft's more resistant components, like the engines or brakes, we were told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light and its black boxes). To justify the absence of 100 tons of melted metal, experts attempted to show that the fire exceeded 2500 �C, leading to the evaporation of parts of the aircraft (but not of the building itself or, clearly, of the landing light or black boxes). To justify the presence of the hole, officials now state that it was caused by the nose of the aircraft, which, despite the rigors of the crash, continued careering through the three buildings. The aircraft thus disintegrated on contact with the Pentagon, melted inside the building, evaporated at 2500� C and still penetrated two other buildings via a hole 2 1/2 yards in diameter. Questions need to be asked of Pentagon experts here. The official version has its own holes that need filling. � The nose of an aircraft ? Let us imagine for a moment that we had not been told that the aircraft had disintegrated, melted and evaporated. The question then is: Is it possible for the nose of an airliner to penetrate three buildings and, as it leaves the third, produce a perfectly circular hole, 2 1/2 yards wide ? The nose of an aircraft, the radome, contains its electronic navigation equipment. To enable the transmission of signals, the nose is not made of metal but carbon. Its shape has been designed to be aerodynamic but is not crash resistant. The inside casing, as well as its contents, are extremely fragile. The nose would crush on impact with an obstacle, not penetrate it. OThe fragility of aircraft noses can be seen in numerous photographs from much more violent crashes than the Pentagon one. Take for example, the Britannia Airways Boeing 757-204, in September 1999 [more images], the Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-3T5 in March 2000, the Philippine Airlines Airbus A320-211 in March 1998 or the American Airlines McDonnell Douglas MD-82 in June 1999. It is not actually possible to find the nose of an aircraft after such an impact. So it is not an aircraft nose that could have produced the hole visible in the third ring of the building. � Traversing three buildings Fire fighters state they saw what they believed to be the nose of an aircraft. The Boeing did indeed penetrate as far as the C ring, they explain. Captain Defina told the NFPA Journal "The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear." When asked about the aircraft's fuel, Fire Chief Ed Plaugher, replied: "We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the -- what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft." Some kind of craft did indeed penetrate the three buildings. The upper floors of the outer ring collapsed over a block of about 20 yards, half an hour after the attack. The two inner rings seemed to have been damaged by the fire which subsequently broke out. They did not cave in. The device, which landed on the Pentagon, did not demolish it but penetrated it. The trajectory of the craft through the three buildings. View photographs on the previous page An aircraft would have demolished the building rather than penetrate the walls. The question is: What type of device would have been capable of producing such damage? One possible answer is a missile. Missiles have heads that are much stronger than aircraft noses. They are made from depleted uranium and are designed for penetration. Depleted uranium is an extremely dense metal that friction heats up, increasing its penetrative capacities. Such missiles are particularly used to enter bunkers. An aircraft crashes and breaks apart whereas a missile of this type will penetrate its target. Fire fighters attest to having seen part of a plane that they identify, albeit with difficulty, as an aircraft nose. The nose of an aircraft, however, would not survive such an accident. The three buildings could not have been penetrated by the nose of a Boeing. However, a missile head made of depleted uranium could well have been capable of such damage. Rapha�l Meyssan Translation: Mr Sly --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
