September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor

[William Seger]

13. Gee, it's like 2006 all over again

> QUESTION: Given that, according to the Pentagon Building Performance Report, (PDF)"the aircraft frame most certainly was destroyed before it had traveled a distance that approximately equaled the length of the aircraft (p. 40-p. 26 in PDF)", and that "it is highly unlikely that any significant portion of the fuselage could have retained structural integrity at this point in its travel (p. 40)", can you explain what caused the most perfectly round exit hole in the outer wall of the C-Ring?

Yes, I can explain that: 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:



> QUESTION: The Secret Service knew about the incoming plane for the last 30 minutes, was following on radar, had the means to shoot it down, and should have done so in order to protect the Capital, but they didn't. Why?

You seem to be confusing the following of UA193 with AA77 (and the Secret Service for the military and FAA), but 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. We were not prepared for hijacked commercial airliners being used as missiles. Why that was so is a legitimate question, but your loaded question is based on invalid premises. (It's also "interesting" that your first question implies that you don't believe it was AA77 that hit the Pentagon, but in your second question you claim that it was tracked.)

> QUESTION: In regards to the exchange between Cheney and the "young man", can you suggest anything different from an order not to shoot down the plane as it was approaching Washington's protected airspace?

Yes, I can: Cheney's order was to shoot it down, which is what Norman Mineta himself believed when he described Cheney's response to the "young man" and what others who were actually there reported. The speculation that Cheney had instead issued a stand-down order is purely a figment of "truther" imagination, completely unsupported by either evidence or plausible reasoning.

You seem to getting your "information" directly or indirectly from David Ray Griffin's books. You can't do that and then claim to be honestly looking for answers to your questions. 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.