Flight 77 apparently flew at 525 miles per hour at appoximately 20 feet off the ground, should there not have been burnt out cars tossed al over the hightway along with fatalities?
2006-09-13 10:31:13 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Message to Brian L, level 6 as he doesn't have the courtesy to have a contact email. it is popular mechanics and they talk complete bullshit and the money behind their theories are supported by the US administration and are miniscule compared to the budjet that the realists have.
2006-09-13 14:02:25 · update #1
My friend, there was no plane crashing against the pentagon... it was all invented... the real impact came from a missile... search it in google video... you'll be impressed...
I Repeat, no PLANE crashed against the Pentagon
2006-09-13 10:34:02 · answer #1 · answered by juanmrq 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
BBC Top Gear showed many motorcars being blown over by a jet engine and that was from an aeroplane that was standing still on the ground. A 2CV went airborne, it was all done in the name of motoring journalism, but bloody funny !
Er..not like flight 77 of course, which was not funny.
Thinking of the physics, aeroplane wings, aerodynamics, do ground effects take place at such a low altitude ? I do not understand these things of course, but, the rudiments of such knowledge are slightly embedded in my mind, father was in aviation, both civil and military for most of his life.
Hot jet exhaust blasting out at some incredible velocity and huge thrust, yes, something would have been rather more than slightly disturbed by a 525mph airliner passing low overhead. It is a miracle of our modern times that no person on the road below was injured or that no motorcars were damaged.
If indeed that were the case.
As an aside, many houses around Heathrow airport have roof damage from low flying aircraft, wing tip vortices cause some strange effects and also remember that the aerodynamic wake of an aeroplane disturbs the air behind it for some considerable distance. That is why other aircraft have to keep a safe distance behind the aeroplane that they are following, several accidents have been caused by, in particular, small aircraft following larger aircraft.
2006-09-13 18:15:15 · answer #2 · answered by Robert Abuse 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If it was 2 feet off the ground you would have a point. As it happens, 20 feet is quite a long way up off the ground and it is quite feasible that the facts are true. Even the lamp posts aren't 20 foot tall. Maybe you're thinking too much along the lines of The Matrix where Neo is flying through the air at mach 30+ and all the cars and buildings are shattering around him?!? Get back into reality!
2006-09-13 17:57:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The amount of time that Flight 77 passed over the freeway en route to the Pentagon would not have made that much of an impact on vehicles. At 525 mph, the wake of the plane would only be felt for a second or two, and the force for that brief of a time would not have blown even the highest of profile vehicle over.
What is it with these conspiracy theorists?
2006-09-13 17:41:42 · answer #4 · answered by VanMan6 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
i have heard rumors that the plane didnt crash into the pentagon that it was a missile about the size of a human went into the building. i also heard that the 9/11 tradgidy (soz cant spell) was all planned because george bush wanted to join in the war that was already happing in iraq. also how come the buildings fell straight down they shouldve spread, only explose's if they were planted on the bottom floor and blew up then that would be the reason that it fell straight down also only the top of the building shouldve been damaged.there was no parts of a plane have ever been found near the pentagon it was all a fix!!! I hope george bush has nightmares about what he has caused this whole world to live with.
2006-09-13 19:05:02 · answer #5 · answered by cookeymonsteruk 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Which side did the impact occur, some of that area is quite coastal? Besides which planes take off and land near to commuter areas every day, and they won't be doing it at a slow pace especially if they have another 747 only 30 seconds behind.
2006-09-13 17:47:14 · answer #6 · answered by bambam 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it wasn't a plane.
No plane parts or black boxes were found, the hole is far to small for a plane to have disappeared inside.
Why did the FBI confiscate the videos which could have shown what it was?
Why did NORAD not intercept the flight, when it had almost one hour's notice?
2006-09-14 02:50:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Check out this site: http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11timeline60pg
Its a time line of events surrounding 9/11 from the 70's to the present and each entry has references from the main stream media to back it up. No theories, just facts. Excellent reading.
2006-09-13 17:57:29 · answer #8 · answered by Jagatkarta 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
More to the point is why aren"t there lots of people queueing up to tell newspapers / television crews the tale of this aircraft almost hitting their cars and then crashing into the Pentagon? Simple, because there was no plane.
2006-09-13 18:17:57 · answer #9 · answered by researcher 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, there wouldn't have been. It takes a LOT of energy to cause a car to burst into flames, far more than could be generated by sitting under a low-flying airplane for half a second.
And for those who say that the terrorist attacks were fake, google "popular science" and "debunks 9/11"
2006-09-13 17:39:44 · answer #10 · answered by Brian L 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋