Results 1 to 10 of 29
Hybrid View
-
06-15-2007, 12:35 AM #1
Senior Member
loose change
Heh, well I guess you're right about the cost of illegal immigration, although to be fair, the cost is generally associated with their US-born children, and not the immigrants themselves. To be fair though, I was spouting conservative (libertarian) propaganda, not liberal propaganda. :thumbsup:
Originally Posted by PharmaCan
Anyway, saying those groups you mentioned represent all illegal immigrants is like saying groups like NAMBLA represent all gays. Most immigrants, both illegal and legal, are just concerned with providing for their families.
How many pilots and Boeing engineers need to say that a 737 (or whatever it was) cannot be flown in the manner it would have had to be flown to impact the pentagon before you believe that the aircraft cannot be flown that way?Russ Wittenburg did not fly two of the planes used on 9/11, he flew Boeing 757s and 767s -- two of the types of planes used on 9/11. Wittenburg may be correct that flying a 757 at 532 mph at low altitude -- the approach speed given in FEMA's Pentagon Building Performance Report -- would precipitate a high-speed stall. However, that doesn't support Loose Change's conclusion that the attack plane was not a 757. Perhaps it was flying at only 400 mph. At that speed, it would only have been pulling about 0.57 Gs -- well under the performance ratings of a 757.
Originally Posted by Loose Change
This is misleading because it omits context. In the ABCNews article, O'Brien goes on to say "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe," making it clear that the air traffic controllers' opinion was based on the way the plane was being flown. The implication that the maneuvers were beyond the capabilities of a 757 is false.
Originally Posted by Loose Change
I was going to post some more quotes from this debunking site, but maybe it'd be easier to read it yourself.
The wings were pulled with the plane, and folded back some, kind of like what would happen if you tried to push an open umbrella tip first into a hole. The wings are connected very strongly to the body, after all they have to hold it up, so they wouldn't just shear off like you said. I worked as an engineer for Honeywell, which makes a lot of aviation subsystems, so just so you know I'm not pulling this out of my ass.Provide photoevidence that it was a boeing aircraft that strck the pentagon. Not hyperbole, EVIDENCE! Even one or two photos showing pieces of the aircraft outside the pentagon will do. (The wings would have sheared off and remained outside the building if the official story were true.)khronik Reviewed by khronik on . loose change anyone ever seen this movie or heard of it? i think u can only watch it online...its about how they think 9/11 was a conspiracy run by the government.... my friend and i were havin a long arguement about it last night even though we both don't know shit about politics or care.... but this is the first time i've heard about this and i think its all bullshit...so what do u guys think Rating: 5
Advertisements
Similar Threads
-
Loose Change-911 was an inside job.
By jamessr in forum ConspiracyReplies: 133Last Post: 03-09-2012, 12:24 AM -
Loose Change
By missrizzla in forum PoliticsReplies: 9Last Post: 08-28-2006, 10:56 PM










Register To Reply
Staff Online