In Reply to: Re: Wondering whether to see United 93 tomorrrow. I hate movies that are set up for sequels... posted by rico on April 30, 2006 at 09:00:36:
I don't have enough information to agree or disagree with Clark, but it seems to me that an air-to-air missile strike is plausible. If that was the case, it is also plausible that the information could be successfully withheld from the general public.I have absolutely no expertise in this area so I'm just speculating, but... given the location and size of the aircraft's engines (the target to which a missile would steer itself), damage to the fuselage and wing might not be severe enough to cause the plane to break apart in the air. Air-to-air missiles are not giant bombs, and have only as much explosive potential as necessary to cripple a plane.
OTOH, the hypothesis that the WTC buildings were purposefully demolished with explosives is ludicrous. It is hardly plausible, but certainly an idea embraced by many conspiracy "theorists." It would have been impossible to have kept such activity secret from the buildings' tenants... you are not going to the the number of people required for the job actually WILLING to do it... and... a thousand other reasons.
-Anthony
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Those two scenarios are apples and oranges - Bersani 10:12:14 04/30/06 (2)
- That's more-or-less the hypothesis on UA 93, thank you. BUT... - clarkjohnsen 11:40:41 04/30/06 (1)
- Re: That's more-or-less the hypothesis on UA 93, thank you. BUT... - Wendell Narrod 18:04:33 05/20/06 (0)