It is at this point that I question whether or not said individual actually read the article, for I directly addressed that claim. The idea that there was no lawn damage is basically an optical illusion from photos like this:
That chain-link fence looks much closer to the area of impact than it really is. It is, in fact, about 100 feet away from the building. What happens when we zoom in past the fence?
That is some very explicit lawn damage. Case Closed.
4 comments:
Can you point out where the lawn damage is in the above picture?
I honestly don't see it...
Just to clarify, it appears to me that you mistook debris covering the ground for "lawn damage". I don't see any gashes or depressions from the engine and fuselage scraping the ground. This is usually what is meant by the lack of "lawn damage".
Really? You don't see the 100 or so feet of barren land where grass would normally be?
And no, you wouldn't see gashes or depressions in the ground. That wouldn't be consistent with the flight path. "Lawn Damage", no matter how you try to spin it, is DAMAGE to the LAWN. Saying there's no lawn damage is BLATANTLY INACCURATE and therefore MIS or DISINFORMATIVE
Relax Arcterus, we're on the same side here.
Where is the "100 or so feet of barren land where the grass should be"?
It seems to me that the area by the burnt out car in front of the fireman is grass covered with fire suppressant foam and debris, the area where the fireman is standing is uncovered (and hence green), and the area directly behind the fireman is the helipad. See these photos:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/bluehi.html
The ASCE report said the plane "slipped into the first floor" which means that the engines and fuslage would impact the ground immediately in front of the Pentagon. See:
http://thepentacon.com/Topic10.htm
The lack of foundation damage completely contradicts the official version of events and is what people are referring to when they say there is "no lawn damage".
Post a Comment