They told us that the plane incinerated, engine and all, at both the pentagon and the field.
Who told you that? Sounds like you are reading Conspiracy Theories.
Wreckage was found, and bodies were identified, at both sites.
There was a 16' hole in the field with nothing of a plane or any other wreckage, bodies, luggage.
Where did you read that? Not the 9-11 commission report, for certain, and not from a reputable news source.
You gave me a link to a piece of a plane that has no scorch marks or anything.
That was one of the VERY FEW pieces of the airplane that flew backward, and did not travel INTO the Pentagon. Why should there be scorch marks on that piece, which flew clear from where the fire started? That makes no sense.
They showed small pieces of metal that could be carried away by hand.
I am not being mean, but you need to take some physics courses to understand what such a large change in momentum can do to an airplane.
This did not trigger your logical thinking mind?
No, because it was perfectly logical. I have been on accident investigation teams. The pieces of Swissair 111 that were pulled out of the water near Halifax, Nova Scotia were small. Every single one of them. And that airplane hit the water, not land.
A plane wreck would have a plane engine, wings, bodies, luggage, seats, black box, WREAKAGE, there was none.
They found the black boxes from the Pennsylvania flight. Your reasoning is flawed in that you think ALL airplane crashes should still result in reasonable large pieces. That is not technically accurate. You may be thinking about airplanes that INADVERTENTLY crashed, and the pilot was still trying to save it. For example, the landing of the DC-10 in Sioux City, Iowa. Even though that airplane did a cartwheel on the runway, there were still large pieces. The total momentum when the airplane hit the ground in that situation was MUCH MUCH less than an airplane that is PURPOSEFULLY driven into the ground. Again, you are thinking what "should be" by your understanding of physics, and again I am not being mean, but your understanding of physics is incomplete and incorrect in this case.
I am not even going to ask what damage a plane does to the ground when it slams into it at 400 plus MPH, but I bet that there is more that just a 16' hole.
Why would you "bet" that? You do realize that the ground is MUCH more stiff, heavy, and immovable than an airplane, right? You realize that airplanes are purposefully built to be as light as possible, right? They are not tanks, they are more like butterflys.
I hope you overlooked this by mistake.
I overlooked nothing. I must again point out that how YOU think an airplane should look after a violent crash is incorrect, and likely based on what Hollywood has trained you to think. Here is a similar issue to illustrate this very fact: Have you ever encountered a rattle snake? I have....many times here in the SoCal mountains. Do you know what a real rattlesnake sounds like? It is NOTHING like the "rattle" sound you hear in Hollywood movies. It is a fast buzzing sound.
I am not trying to insult you, Tikmovado, only let you know that what you think a wreck site should look like and what physics tells us it should look like depending upon the speed and angle of impact are two different things.
RMT
