Comments on: US Airways flight 1549

By: Formerastronaut

Formerastronaut — Fri, 22 May 2009 18:07:51 +0000

Are you for real? I mean, really? Is this whole blog just your lame joke? If it is, you’ve put way too much time and energy (obviously not thought though) in it for it to not be at all funny.

By: Jim

Jim — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:26:31 +0000

Not taking a conspiratorial tact here, just asking two simple questions.

How could flight 1549 spin counter-clockwise at the end of water-landing, when there was an engine still attached to the right wing, and no engine on the left wing? The drag from the right engine would force a clockwise spin throughout the landing once the plane hit water.

How did the nose avoid any damage, when landing in water at 170mph?

By: John H

John H — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:26:43 +0000

I think that the new advanced “micro cruise missile” (the Boeing CCM-120) was probably the real explanation. Author rightly alludes to Airbus Industrie overtaking Boeing and this was clearly designed to discredit AI.
They had to use this tiny missile as even your average dim New Yorker might notice a full sized cruise missile hitting an aeroplane over New York.

I heard from a friend whose relatives uncles pal works in the PA that the real reason it took so long to find the engine was because it blew off and actually landed in the Harlem River. Of course they claimed it was because of mud, murk etc.

Suzana – the author is serious. Parodies of conspiracy theories by CT buffoons are nothing like this writing.

By: Suzana

Suzana — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:59:08 +0000

Ummm, I don’t think this is what you would call “satire”, people. The author is serious.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:51:54 +0000

Ok, Matt, “Isn’t “cruise missile” a much simpler and more likely explanation? The government has everything to lose and nothing to gain by revealing the real explanation.” This makes 9/11 conspiracy theories look like fantastic logic.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:58:41 +0000

Matt, don’t get too upset. I’m pretty sure that this guy is onto something.

By: Lisa Chabot

Lisa Chabot — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:11:37 +0000

Is “bird residue” like “bird droppings”, or are we talking about the careless massacre of our avian brethren in the names of merely not having to walk our flabby asses to cross country destinations? Isn’t it true that most commercial air line pilots have either been in the military or know someone who has or who has enjoyed the carnivorous meals in other, perhaps “holiday”, contexts? Is “retarted” anything like “retarded”?

By: Matt Snyder

Matt Snyder — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:54:52 +0000

You are retarted. My Uncle works for the NTSB. He showed me pictures of bird residue from the left engine. I know, the birds were in on it too. -Get a life.