Originally posted by colonelcrisp
it is quite possible to fly a plane that size that low.
now comparing aircraft is like comparing failure modes of different buildings but,
CF - 100 herculese transport aircraft can perform high speed manoevers at a flight deck of 100 feet, and i have seen a DC-10 do a fly by at 50 feet off the runway at my local airport....
That was in response to Swampy. What about the unusual Pentagon empty section?
Posted by colonelcrisp on Sep-18-2006 07:48:
maybe the terrorists were stupid. but just beacuse it was empty doesnt mean that a plane didnt hit it. thats what pisses me off about these conspiracy nuts. "well the section was uninhabited at teh time so therefore it wasnt a plane it was a freakin missile"
logic = out to lunch
Posted by occrider on Sep-18-2006 07:49:
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
Not to mention it was incredibly convenient that they hit the part of the pentagon that had no one in it because it was under construction.
Like the convenience of hitting the world trade center towers where few new yorkers were in?
Posted by colonelcrisp on Sep-18-2006 07:49:
quote:
Originally posted by colonelcrisp
maybe the terrorists were stupid. but just beacuse it was empty doesnt mean that a plane didnt hit it. thats what pisses me off about these conspiracy nuts. "well the section was uninhabited at teh time so therefore it wasnt a plane it was a freakin missile"
logic = out to lunch
o an occ thanks for that.... i was far to lazy at this hour to go back through my fluids book and look up vortex shredding again
Posted by colonelcrisp on Sep-18-2006 07:51:
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Like the convenience of hitting the world trade center towers where few new yorkers were in?
a whole pile of people still died in taht crash tho. i find it quite hard to compare coincidence for conspiracy purposes to good fortune that 20 000 people didnt die
Posted by RandomGirl on Sep-18-2006 07:52:
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Like the convenience of hitting the world trade center towers where few new yorkers were in?
Errr, I think the WTC wiped out a significant amount of people. However, the ONLY gov't building to be attacked, it is conveniently empty. That just seems weird to me.
Posted by occrider on Sep-18-2006 07:59:
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
Errr, I think the WTC wiped out a significant amount of people. However, the ONLY gov't building to be attacked, it is conveniently empty. That just seems weird to me.
Yes there were many people in the WTC towers ... I was being facetious. But the terrorists hit a wing under construction that had few people in it due to construction and that's suspcicious? Have you ever looked up Washington DC on a map? Do you know where the Pentagon is in relation to regean international airport? If any other wing were to be attacked it would be legitimately suspect.
Posted by RandomGirl on Sep-18-2006 08:01:
quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Yes there were many people in the WTC towers ... I was being facetious. But the terrorists hit a wing under construction that had few people in it due to construction and that's suspcicious? Have you ever looked up Washington DC on a map? Do you know where the Pentagon is in relation to regean international airport? If any other wing were to be attacked it would be legitimately suspect.
Meh, I still find it strange.
Posted by Renegade on Sep-18-2006 08:04:
quote:
Originally posted by colonelcrisp
a whole pile of people still died in taht crash tho. i find it quite hard to compare coincidence for conspiracy purposes to good fortune that 20 000 people didnt die
It was 8.45 in the morning and many of the people on the lower floors had time to evacuate. How many deaths would you have reasonably expected?
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
Errr, I think the WTC wiped out a significant amount of people. However, the ONLY gov't building to be attacked, it is conveniently empty. That just seems weird to me.
Empty apart from the 184 people who died there, you mean?
Posted by occrider on Sep-18-2006 08:26:
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
Meh, I still find it strange.
Why though? Renovations were probably planned in the Clinton years and the attacks lined up perfectly with what one would expect from a straight line attack from Regean. What's strange really? Fortune (Pentagon) and misfortune (WTC) can be subject to chance too you know.
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Sep-18-2006 08:31:
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
Not to mention it was incredibly convenient that they hit the part of the pentagon that had no one in it because it was under construction.
just coz youve got a good bum (source) doesnt mean you can go around saying stuff like this without any further analysis
as renegade notes, 180 odd people died in the building, does that sound empty?
and why were there "no" people in it? they were warned not to go to that wing? by whom? they didnt think it weird? why would there be a warning at all? someone was clearly happy enough to let 3000 die in NYC, why would a few desk jockeys be that important? what would be the point of flying a plane into a building and deliberately hitting the "empty" section? why would you fly a plane into your own building at all, when there are targets in america all over the place, much easier to hit, and cause far more destruction?
i mean come on. even the slightest bit of effort on your part should be able to come up with those questions. you cant possibly answer them in any rational way. so your insinuation is rendered a bit ludicrous Posted by Shakka on Sep-18-2006 14:46:
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
Not to mention it was incredibly convenient that they hit the part of the pentagon that had no one in it because it was under construction.
The plane flew directly into Gen. Maude's window, killing him instantly.
Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-10-2007 23:35:
quote:
Originally posted by Swamper
The only question I still have to this day is how the Pentagon plane was kept so low off of the ground. To impact such a low building at such a high speed means it must have started a gradual descent a long ways off aka some pretty slick flying.
That's the very same question which many veteran pilots (as well as Aeronautical Engineers) are still asking to this day.
Auronautical Engineers claim that it would be simply impossible for a large aircraft to get any closer than sixty feet from the ground while travelling at 500+ MPH, which is the speed that the alleged plane was reportedly travelling. This would be in part due to the high pressure vortices which would become trapped between the plane and the ground as well as the tremendous amount of wake turbulence which would be created by the engine's thrust as well as by all of the trailing edges of the plane, especially at it's wing tips. (more)
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Oct-10-2007 23:39:
and the rest of us are still just asking where the plane went and where the american airlines debris came from.
until then, any bullshit no-plane theories are just that, bullshit.
