whats that debris?

[dannyday5821]

im not a conspiricy theorist or anything, but i was randomly wondering round the net when i saw a picture of the pentagon. where fire fighters are putting out flames after the 9/11 attack. Its been years since ive seen it, but i noticed one picture shows a nice chunk of debris on the grass, quite a way off from the actual building.

heres the pic...
http://www.rustylime.com/content_images/pentag on_wreckage_large.jpg

im only trying to look for a realistic explanation, im not out to look for a conspiricy! but i saw a programme saying that the plane disintigrated on impact - okay...so how can a big chunk of metal be left laid out on the grass? i dont have a degree in physics but i cant even understand how the plane goes one direction, explodes in that direction, then suddenley a peice of debris bounces about abit and ends up in front of the building? what?

so whatcha think?

[dundurn]

Phrases like 'disintegrated on impact' are useful in that they give you the (accurate) impression that not much was left of the original structure of the plane. That's not to say it disappeared completely or that nothing recognisable was left behind. When the fuselage and wings hit the building much of the fuel would have exploded and there would have been bits of (particularly) the rear fuselage blown in every direction. To find a piece of debris on the other side of the Pentagon therefore, would not be improbable. To find pieces 'behind' the impact would be very likely.

[Eve]

It could have been moved there before the photograph was taken.

[vehelpfulguy]

The photographer may have put it there to make the picture look better.

Rather like the guy in Drop the dead Donkey who always took a kids doll with him when he went to visit a war zone.

He would lay the doll down on the floor of a blown up building to make it look more dramatic.

Trouble is he used the same doll in every war zone he visited.

[Mattk]

everyone loves a conspiracy theory and that guy who made 'Loose Change' is riding along nicely on it. He makes some very valid points at the beginning of his documentary but soon digresses more and more feeling the need to drum his point home. i saw him interviewed recently on a prog about the other building that collapsed on 9/11 and he came across as a total idiot who will not listen to anyone elses point of view.

for a plane to entirely disappear is peculiar but i have seen documentaries from the 50's showing that very thing.

[Panic Button]

So what's your thory then?

It never happened, and a man came along and put bits around to look as if it had?

[david1702198]

my theory is the whole 911 thing is B O L L O C K S too many coincidences for it to be "terrorism". Too many experts have come out with facts about certain aspects of it all