Double bird strike a little lower down leads to 9/11 #2 and conspiracy

You've all heard about the pilot whose aircraft's engines suffered a double bird strike and was forced to land the plane in the Hudson.

Consider the following POD: not only does the bird strike cripple the engines, but it occurs lower down and as a result the aircraft loses the engines at a lower altitude. Furthermore, the damage is such that the pilot (capable as he is) cannot control the vehicle well.

The plane suddenly makes a beeline into a New York skyscraper and collides with it. The building suffers a 9/11-style collapse and many people inside are killed (as well as all the people on the plane). The cockpit voice recorder is severely damaged. It takes four months for scientists to extract the data from it.

Another, more likely, alternative would involve the plane crashing into the George Washington Bridge trying to get into the Hudson. The bridge is destroyed or at least severely damaged. Any vehicles on the bridge at the time are lost and their occupants presumed dead.

Eventually, four months after the incident, the government (recall Bush was still in office at the time of the incident but Obama is now in office) reports that it wasn't a terrorist attack: it was just an accident, a double bird strike. However, scientists claim that a double bird strike is ridiculously unlikely and don't buy it. It's obviously a terrorist attack and the government is trying to cover it up. Buildings in New York have been target before, after all, and it seems just like 9/11.

How will people react to this after 9/11, especially given the means of "attack"?

ACG
 

norm4064

Banned
The what if?

Remember just after 9/11 there was an American 757
that was also taking off and crashed into Queens. At first that was thought to be another attack. I think most would think that it was an attack to try to intimidate
Obama but would listen to the crash reports and not think it was a cover up.


You've all heard about the pilot whose aircraft's engines suffered a double bird strike and was forced to land the plane in the Hudson.

Consider the following POD: not only does the bird strike cripple the engines, but it occurs lower down and as a result the aircraft loses the engines at a lower altitude. Furthermore, the damage is such that the pilot (capable as he is) cannot control the vehicle well.

The plane suddenly makes a beeline into a New York skyscraper and collides with it. The building suffers a 9/11-style collapse and many people inside are killed (as well as all the people on the plane). The cockpit voice recorder is severely damaged. It takes four months for scientists to extract the data from it.

Another, more likely, alternative would involve the plane crashing into the George Washington Bridge trying to get into the Hudson. The bridge is destroyed or at least severely damaged. Any vehicles on the bridge at the time are lost and their occupants presumed dead.

Eventually, four months after the incident, the government (recall Bush was still in office at the time of the incident but Obama is now in office) reports that it wasn't a terrorist attack: it was just an accident, a double bird strike. However, scientists claim that a double bird strike is ridiculously unlikely and don't buy it. It's obviously a terrorist attack and the government is trying to cover it up. Buildings in New York have been target before, after all, and it seems just like 9/11.

How will people react to this after 9/11, especially given the means of "attack"?

ACG
 
Top