Pentagon "747" 113 replies

Please wait...

Blank Stare

AE

50 XP

24th July 2004

0 Uploads

4,323 Posts

0 Threads

#101 16 years ago
Snake_Shitwell its nice to eliminate possibilites sometimes isnt it professor....? and by the way my other post was more stupid, who would paint a missile or plane to look like something from american airlines, that what they would do in a home alone movie not reality. anyone see that 9/11 conspiracies thing on channel 4 last night (thats u brits ofcourse)?

wow you are ignorant.




!moof

Note to self: Find pants.

50 XP

19th October 2002

0 Uploads

2,321 Posts

0 Threads

#102 16 years ago

Also, missiles fly at a speed of 2 to 5 Mach. At the height discussed, that is an uncontrollable velocity in a metropolitan area.




Top Gunn

what he said

50 XP

10th July 2004

0 Uploads

386 Posts

0 Threads

#103 16 years ago

No its definatly nto a missile, it would have taken out that section of the pentagon... Like I said it wasent a missile.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#104 16 years ago
Snake_Shitive just watched that video and im convinced that its wasnt a 757!!! im thinking it was a missile. and im not sure that its even terrorism. theres one thing for sure, its definitely was not a 757!!!!

How stupid are you?

IT DEFINATLY WAS A 757!

Why dont you ask the families of the people killed on 9/11? Ask them if their relatives on that plane were actually made up.

U are the kinda person that cant think for themself




DnC

GF's Cognitive Psychologist

50 XP

13th April 2004

0 Uploads

2,668 Posts

0 Threads

#105 16 years ago

bye everyone:wave:




!moof

Note to self: Find pants.

50 XP

19th October 2002

0 Uploads

2,321 Posts

0 Threads

#106 16 years ago

Ah, here's a good example of how the 757 was able to disappear, due to its fragility: http://www.airdisaster.com/download/md80.shtml

This is an MD-80 landing with a high rate of descent. Compare the violence of a rough landing to that of a plane crashing into a bulding.




colonel_bob

Here & There

50 XP

4th June 2004

0 Uploads

6,685 Posts

0 Threads

#107 16 years ago
moofAh, here's a good example of how the 757 was able to disappear, due to its fragility: http://www.airdisaster.com/download/md80.shtml This is an MD-80 landing with a high rate of descent. Compare the violence of a rough landing to that of a plane crashing into a bulding.

Oh man, that must haves sucked. The main points the conspiracy theorists bring up, from what I can see, are these: 1) Where did the wings go? We now know that they probably dinintigrated on impact. 2) If the plane is so fragile, how did it punch neat holes through reinforced concrete walls? This one, I don't know the answer to, but I bet someone else does. A little help? :lookaround:




Aeroflot

I would die without GF

169,400 XP

2nd May 2003

0 Uploads

15,205 Posts

0 Threads

#108 16 years ago

Well the first question and answer makes sense until the second comes along.

But I think I have an answer.

The plane came in straight, it didn't just plummit to the ground. So then the plane comes in, it hits the building, and is so fast that before the explosion, the plane goes through the building creating 'neat' holes. Then the explosion and fire destroys the debris.




DnC

GF's Cognitive Psychologist

50 XP

13th April 2004

0 Uploads

2,668 Posts

0 Threads

#109 16 years ago
moofAlso, missiles fly at a speed of 2 to 5 Mach. At the height discussed, that is an uncontrollable velocity in a metropolitan area.

if i were a leader of an army i would make sure missiles COULD be agile in a urban area :D




Biggus Dickus Advanced Member

I would die without my life.

195,640 XP

19th January 2004

0 Uploads

18,764 Posts

0 Threads

#110 16 years ago

If you were leader of an army, you could do absolutly nothing about this. Does the current leaders can? (or want?)