I wonder why no one with a lot of money has not recreated the Pentagon attacks on 9/11 by flying a plane into a 9 foot thick steel reenforced concrete wall to see it it doesn't scratch the concrete where the wings and 12000 pound engines hit it and then only makes one hole?
Plus, I think it would be neat to video tape it and see if you could see the airplane.
2007-03-06 05:19:15 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
PLUS, PLUS, it would be neat to see if there were any plane parts laying around afterwards.
2007-03-06 05:20:08 · update #1
cause its not possible.
2007-03-06 05:22:05 · answer #1 · answered by Frank 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I worked for a passenger airline (confident it replaced right into a great one) loading planes for about 6 years. i replaced into at artwork there on 9/11/01. a million. The engines of a 757 at the instant are not sixteen feet in diameter. No airplane in existence has engines that good sized. 2. sixteen feet is approximately perfect for the diameter of the physique of a 757, minus the wings of direction. The a hundred twenty five feet width includes the excellent wingspan from wingtip to wingtip. The wings in all probability did not penetrate the development.
2016-10-17 10:05:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've seen video of an F-18E Tomcat fighter for experimental purposes, fly into a reinforced concrete wall at flight speed, and it disintegrated entirely. Nothing but small debris left every where and only a small section of the wall taken out!
2007-03-06 05:30:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
People with "a lot of money" didn't get it by pissing money away on nonsensical demonstrations.
Anyone who uses their head for something besides a hat rack knows that there is no conspiracy.
The rest of you nuts are keeping the price of Kool Aid stock up in spite of recent market turmoil... keep up the good work.
2007-03-06 05:27:43 · answer #4 · answered by C B 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The problem is you'd have to re-create the exact same conditions of that day (temperature, visibility, wind speed and direction, velocity/direction/angle of the airplane, etc.) to get an accurate analysis, and it's impossible to do. Here's something you may not have known: The wing of the Pentagon where the main fuselage of the plane struck had just been remodeled and reinforced, but the adjacent wall that collapsed had not.
2007-03-06 05:24:42 · answer #5 · answered by sarge927 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It would just be a waste of time and money...not mention a good plane. We already know what happens
2007-03-06 05:25:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why should we crash an $80 million dollar airplane just to disprove a lame conspiracy theory?
2007-03-06 06:46:51 · answer #7 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It was part of an aluminati (secret societie's) plan to subvert the
world into their control.
2007-03-06 05:27:29 · answer #8 · answered by gv farmer 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
why waste the money recreating a plane crash. just accept the fact that it happened and people die and the terrorist were responsible. you conspiracy nuts need to get a life.
2007-03-06 05:26:33 · answer #9 · answered by runingjoe 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
because it wasnt a 757, numbskull.
2007-03-06 05:34:39 · answer #10 · answered by bigbro3006 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll supply the plane if you promise to fly it.
2007-03-06 05:22:32 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋