Viewing Thread:
"Pentagon Conspiracy Theory"

I highly recommend you watch this if you haven't seen it before.

[URL]http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm[/URL]

or

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm



Seems pretty feasible to me.

Very_Metal wrote:
> Light wrote:
> ShortyUK wrote:
>
>
> As for idiot opinions on fuel, wreckage...Its called "common
> sense", any joe bloggs with two brain cells can figure out what
> happens when a plane crashes, and even if there/im wrong, i would
> like to see you give a correct answer, because i doubt your no
> chemical analysis expert yourself either. So just calm down and be
> quiet, and lets leave it at that, ok?
>
> Is that the same common sense that led you to declare that airplanes
> fly because they're hollow?
>
> owned.

What? I never said they fly because there hollow you retard. I said that there is less wreckage than you would think because planes have alot of hollow space in them.

Pandaemonium wrote:
> ShortyUK wrote:
> im naturally rubbish at
> English, im more of a logic/maths kinda person.
>
> Huh? So to be good at one automatically stops you from being
> proficient in the other? What absolute rubbish.

No it doesnt stop you from being proficient in the other, you just assumed that. I did not say what you just stated. Jeez. Im just better at those sorts of things to do with patterns, memory, logic etc than doing essays and writing stuff. I never said i can do one because i cant do the other.

ShortyUK wrote:
> Planes are majorly hollow. If they werent, theyd be too heavy to fly,
> duh.

Don't want to urinate on your Cornflakes...but....

Well if they were completely solid they wouldnt be able to fly would they? You know what i ment. They have to have hollow space, because if that space were solid material, theyd have a hard time taking off due to the weight, fuel consumption would be too high etc...

And where would the driver sit?!?

Whats with some people in here. You take everything people say too literally.

Oh don't get your panties in a twist. I'm just joshing ya.

[edit] Nah, whatever I write doesn't do justice to the hole shortyuk is digging himself into. I'm just going to watch and enjoy.

ShortyUK wrote:
> No it doesnt stop you from being proficient in the other, you just
> assumed that. I did not say what you just stated. Jeez. Im just
> better at those sorts of things to do with patterns, memory, logic
> etc than doing essays and writing stuff. I never said i can do one
> because i cant do the other.

ShortyUK wrote:
> im naturally rubbish at
> English, im more of a logic/maths kinda person.

Make your mind up. "im naturally rubbish" implies to me that you're saying that you're crap at English specifically because you are more of a logic / maths kinda person.

We're not talking about essays and "writing stuff" either, but rather simple spelling and grammar. I'm a full time programmer and games physics hobbyist for example which I'm sure you'll agree is pretty maths and logic heavy. I can still manage.

Pandaemonium wrote:
I can still mannage.


Well, most of the time...

:-)