SKYSCRAPER CRASH IN MILAN ITALY

Fownews

[Bommer]

Just reported that a small engine plane crashed into a Skyscraper in Milan Italy

[aristeides]

Odd choice of cities: Venice, Milan, Florence, and Verona. What do they share? The thing that occurs to me is: famous cathedrals.

[phasma proeliator]

I tried to tell them that already in 1126...
but there's some definite hostility on this thread - so to hell with trying to keep 'em informed.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Don't get to excited, as I don't believe half of what is being reported, for the sake of the economies, and the almighty buck, people will spin this thing many ways.

I personally find it hard to believe this was an accident, and I base that on the *fact* the the point of impact was just about perfect, top dead center.

[Delbert]

Could that in itself not be a terrorist tactic, to get you to not trust your government?

[Joe Hadenuf]

Could that in itself not be a terrorist tactic, to get you to not trust your government?

You mean someone does? And if this is true, they wasted their time, as most no longer trust government, period. No one I know does anyway.

[Delbert]

You think Bush had heads up on 9/11?

[aristeides]

Corriere della Sera is also reporting the second plane, but says its presence was authorized -- it was supposed to land after the plane that crashed into the building.

[rwfromkansas]

I am not saying it is not an accident. It looks like it..the only thing I see which goes against that theory is witnesses say the plane did not attempt to move away from teh building. But, everything else points to an accident, at least right now.

All I am saying is that I know if I was a govt. official I would be tempted to call everything an accident to try to keep my citizens calm.

[Joe Hadenuf]

You think Bush had heads up on 9/11?

Huh? LOL! I have no idea. But I would seriously doubt it. LOL!

[Thud]

That was it for me too. Photos show that the point of impact was exactly in the center (in terms of left/right orientation) of the impacted face of the building.

[Tymesup]

It's kind of sad that such a good pilot wasted his ability, assuming this was intentional.

[Joe Hadenuf]

That was it for me too. Photos show that the point of impact was exactly in the center (in terms of left/right orientation) of the impacted face of the building.

Given that's the only fact that we can see with our own eyes, a good pilot could not have intentionally steered that aircraft any more dead center on that building. I mean almost perfectly dead center.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

I tend to share the scepticism of those who cannot accept the idea of a plane flying straight and level without deviation head on and smack into the center of this building as being an "accident." But the question of who would have done such a thing, and why, is very much open, and one that cannot really be answered without more information.

We cannot yet know with any certainty that the person who was supposed to be flying this plane was actually the person in control when it hit. We could probably spin any number of scenarios that place other people in that plane, either in addition to or instead of the pilot indicated on the flight plan. We do not yet know if such person(s) do in fact exist, who they are, or how they got on board.

We also cannot yet know what motives might have caused the person flying this plane (whether the "official" pilot or someone else) to fly it into the building. "Terrorism" is just one of many possible motives. Without more evidence, our speculation right now is just that -- speculation.

What is clear to me, however, is that it is equally speculative to rush to judgment and declare this to be nothing more than an "accident". The truth is that, without even having yet determined how many bodies were in the wreckage, and without having recovered and identified them, there really is no evidence to support that conclusion yet, either.

[texlok]

The plane was old, so definitely possible. I don't recall ever hearing of anything like this before, so to me unlikely. Planes hit buildings very, very, very rarely, so again, I don't see this as necessarily as more "simple" an explanation than terrorism.

Perhaps I should rephrase it. I don't see the skyscraper being important. I see it's location as being important.

We've heard there was a large road/street/highway/whatever very nearby that somebody might try and land on in an emergency. We've heard that the skyscraper was between him and the airport.

We've also heard there was smoke coming from the plane, and then we heard there was no smoke (gotta love witnesses).

If in fact there was smoke (which is much more credible than as-of-yet reported sightings of hijackers), and his cockpit was full of it, he's going to try and level the aircraft and put it down where he thinks either the road or airport is. If the skyscraper is in the way...