HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
Well, this raises the next question, what happened to the third aircraft and its passengers? Or was there not one at all? --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more http://games.yahoo.com/ --------------------------- 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 ==^================================================================
