combined?
2007-03-09 04:37:55 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
well flight 77 is understandble because that plane got f-u-c-k-ed up when it hit the WTC.
but flight 93 is a different story. the lack of ANY wreckage is bizarre. similar crashes always leave a fuselage, tail section, SOMETHING. there is something weird there that is not being disclosed.
2007-03-09 04:44:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
This is a joke, right? Last time I checked a Cessna does not carry the same amount of fuel that flights 77, 93 or any other commercial airliner does. This question is like comparing lighter fluid to gasoline....both get the job done but one is much stronger and more powerful than the other.
2007-03-09 12:45:25 · answer #2 · answered by MaHaa 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know all of the supposed "molten metal" at Ground Zero that the so called 9/11 conspiracy sites talk about endlessly and try to suggest it was molten steel?
There is very good evidence that it was aluminum, which melts at a much lower temperature than steel and comprised the bulk of the planes' fuselages.
Also, do you realize the huge forces involved when those buildings collapsed? The recovery effort involved segregating out "recognizable" pieces of the planes, but be assured there were plenty of twisted mangled pulverized pieces of plane in the pile that couldn't be identified as anything more particular than charred scrap metal.
2007-03-09 13:01:23 · answer #3 · answered by celticexpress 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nancy, I see you changed your name again.
According to eyewitnesses, Flight 93 went over Somerset, PA very low to the ground and at a VERY high rate of speed. One man who had been a pilot for years estimated it at 600 mph.
The person at the farm about 1/2 mile from the wreckage site just outside of Somerset also said the plane was going at a very high rate of speed.
That plane slammed nose-first INTO THE GROUND. So how much wreckage do you think you'd actually be able to see when it hit at that speed?
2007-03-09 13:21:53 · answer #4 · answered by retired military wife 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because little green martians landed and ate the wreckage from 9/11.
2007-03-09 12:47:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A Cessna would have broken some windows and not done much more.
2007-03-09 12:43:42 · answer #6 · answered by Crabboy4 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sigh.....Cessna smaller plane and going much slower and hitting a building that was built with a different structure than the WTC. Do they not teach science any more in school?
2007-03-09 12:41:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
well, halliburton had a team of bigfoots waiting
they quickly cleaned up the scene and then went and killed some polar bears for even more oil ,,,,'
2007-03-09 12:57:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Is that a model 3000 or 3000A tin foil hat you are using.
2007-03-09 12:41:31 · answer #9 · answered by Jedi 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
What is your degree in? Physics? Aeronautics? Impressive.
2007-03-09 12:57:12 · answer #10 · answered by Jadis 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋