> Can someone with French better than mine (which isn't hard) makes
> sense of this? <http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/actu/conflit3.htm>.
They seem to be troubled by two things. One, they think the plane that hit the pentagon should have done more damage than it did. They wonder why, weighing in at 100 tons and going a minimum of 400k/h, it didn't manage to get through more than the outer ring of the building. Secondly they say that, if it didn't get through more than the outer ring, that means (from comparing the size of the plane with the size of the building) that only the nose of the plane got in. In which case most of the plane, including the wings and the body, should have remained stuck outside, and should be visible in photos. But there is no trace of plane wreck in any available photo. And this, they say, "raises grave questions," implying that something's been faked or covered up. Especially since (they also claim) all photos of the incident published in public news sources came exclusively from military sources.
(They also argue from the photographs that the plane seems to have struck at ground floor level, with the upper floors collapsing only afterwards. I think this is supposed to support their contention that the plane should only have only burned rather than exploded. They say the gas tanks are on the wings, and thus would also have remained outside, and if the plane entered at ground level, they also didn't collide with the ground. I think this is meant as a pre-empt the attempt to explain the lack of visible wreck by saying the plane exploded.)
But you know me, I'm not big on French conspiracies, so I may be missing the deep connection.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com