Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor [View all]nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)20. Gee, it's 2014 and people keep asking questions
The debris from the destroyed airframe didn't just vanish or vaporize; the debris still had mass and velocity, i.e. kinetic energy. The generally accepted answer to your question, provided by the ASCE study, is that the hole was caused mainly by the large and heavy landing gear strut shown in this photo, but there was a lot of other debris that might have caused or contributed to it:
So where are the photos of the landing gear strut that supposedly punched the hole?
Even one would help.
Why didn't the other landing gear struts punch other holes?

the first known photo of the exit hole. The photo was taken before hose lines were even laid...
The landing gear strut is one of a few theories. But there's no proof for any of these kooky made up "thought" experiments.
Pentagon Renovation Program spokesman Lee Evey explains on September 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. (US Department of Defense, 9/15/2001)
Eleven days later, another military source claims that an engine of the plane was responsible for creating the hole. (MDW News Service, 9/26/2001)
Another theory put forth in a 2004 National Geographic program is that reverberating shockwaves from the planes impact were responsible for the hole. (National Geographic Channel, 2004)
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=lee_evey_1
the real answer to your question of why they didn't shoot down either plane is because your assertion that they had the means to shoot it down is false.
Are you saying that the Pentagon did not have the capability to shoot down aircraft that posed a threat? The centre of the "Worlds Only Superpower"? After 5 decades of a "cold war" where students were told to hide under desks in case of a nuclear attack?
Because truly that is an astounding, hilarious claim. You've heard of AA batteries?

http://cryptome.org/eyeball/wny-mb/wny-mb.htm
Yes, I can: Cheney's order was to shoot it down,
Anyone that believes anything uttered from Dick Cheney's mouth should be embarrassed and ashamed
Cheney Admits that He Lied about 9/11
Posted on March 8, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog
What Else Did He Lie About?
When they testified together before the 9/11 Commission, W. and Mr. Cheney kept up a pretense that in a previous call, the president had authorized the vice president to give a shoot-down order if needed. But the commission found no documentary evidence for this call.
In other words, Cheney pretended that Bush had authorized a shoot-down order, but Cheney now admits that he never did. In fact, Cheney acted as if he was the president on 9/11. *
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/cheney-admits-that-he-lied-about-911.html
At this stage, I don't think anyone expects "truthers" to accept reasonable answers, but pretending that the answers don't exist just makes you look like you're very poorly informed.
That's funny

We will keep asking questions and doing things like phoning C-SPAN and there isn't anything at all anyone can do to stop us.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
27 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
