The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Now when i was in school my history teacher showed us something amazing. If you type Q33NY (the number of the plane) in wingdings1 you get a special code. i cant show you this code because it wont let me paste it but just try typing Q33NY in wingdlins1 on microsoft word and see the code. Now you might say why is there a Q? this is because it was a Quantos plane or something, its the australien company. then theres the 33, this is the plane number and the NY is for Ney York, the destination. now the code is firstly a plane.then two blocks that look like buildings and then theres a skull&crossbones and then the star of david. my only queries is did osama have anything against the jews. there must have been loads in the towers. Please just try the code out and then post back (you must put the letters in capitals overwise it doesnt work.
Page:
just like i dont think we went to the moon in 69
Here are some facts I've already put down an a thread which also had a group of idiots who believed this pathetic conspiracy theory.
Just to try and put this topic to rest and shut up those who actually beleive this rubbish and unbeliveable conspiracy theory, I have thought of some points which show this is not a huge conspiracy by the US government but a terrorist attack.
BUILDING DAMAGE
I'm sure the Pentagon is made more of just bricks and mortar, I would think the actual building itself is made of extremely thick concrete and steele which is why the plane only destroyed a small section of the building on impact rather than flying straight through.
747 WINGS
How much do damage do you expect the wings would do? You conspiracy nuts don't actually explain. put this together with the above point and the one below and you may get an idea on what happened to the planes wings.
WRECKAGE
A plane the size of a 747 would be carrying alot of fuel and when the terrorists flew it directly at the pentagon it would have been travelling at a great speed. When the plane did impact at that speed, with its size, and that much fuel onboard, hitting the pentegon would have disintagrated it. This is why there is not alot of wreckage or bodies from the plane.
WHITNESSES
Just look at the link Bellandy put down. Do you suggest these people never actually died? If so were are they? There are also whitnesses in air traffic control as well as hundreds of people on the ground in DC. Did these people imagine a 747 crashing into the pentagon.
FIRE
As we all know the pentagon was on fire days after the terrorist attack. Why? well because of fuel from the plane of corse why else.
ROCKET ATTACK
A rocket would never cause the amount of damage that we saw in the pentagon, it would have to be something alot bigger like a cruise missile or something similar. And then you've got to look at how could terrorists smuggles such a weapon into America with out detection and how would they get their hands on such a powerful weapon. It doesn't add up.
TIMING
The government would have had to be pritty damn fast to cover up a attack on the pentagon if it were something other than a hijacked plane that was used. There would have been hundreds in not thousands of people to keep quiet aswell as the people on the plane itself, they would have had to bribe everyone who saw the attack. Then there is the plane itself. Where did it go?
Put these points with the fact the government has no reason to lie about the attack (A missile attack would make the country look vunerable is not a strong enough point) and your conspiracy theory looks pretty flat. Next time you want to think up a conspiracy plot at least 'think' about all the facts first.
Just to try and put this topic to rest and shut up those who actually beleive this rubbish and unbeliveable conspiracy theory, I have thought of some points which show this is not a huge conspiracy by the US government but a terrorist attack.
BUILDING DAMAGE
I'm sure the Pentagon is made more of just bricks and mortar, I would think the actual building itself is made of extremely thick concrete and steele which is why the plane only destroyed a small section of the building on impact rather than flying straight through.
747 WINGS
How much do damage do you expect the wings would do? You conspiracy nuts don't actually explain. put this together with the above point and the one below and you may get an idea on what happened to the planes wings.
WRECKAGE
A plane the size of a 747 would be carrying alot of fuel and when the terrorists flew it directly at the pentagon it would have been travelling at a great speed. When the plane did impact at that speed, with its size, and that much fuel onboard, hitting the pentegon would have disintagrated it. This is why there is not alot of wreckage or bodies from the plane.
WHITNESSES
Just look at the link Bellandy put down. Do you suggest these people never actually died? If so were are they? There are also whitnesses in air traffic control as well as hundreds of people on the ground in DC. Did these people imagine a 747 crashing into the pentagon.
FIRE
As we all know the pentagon was on fire days after the terrorist attack. Why? well because of fuel from the plane of corse why else.
ROCKET ATTACK
A rocket would never cause the amount of damage that we saw in the pentagon, it would have to be something alot bigger like a cruise missile or something similar. And then you've got to look at how could terrorists smuggles such a weapon into America with out detection and how would they get their hands on such a powerful weapon. It doesn't add up.
TIMING
The government would have had to be pritty damn fast to cover up a attack on the pentagon if it were something other than a hijacked plane that was used. There would have been hundreds in not thousands of people to keep quiet aswell as the people on the plane itself, they would have had to bribe everyone who saw the attack. Then there is the plane itself. Where did it go?
Put these points with the fact the government has no reason to lie about the attack (A missile attack would make the country look vunerable is not a strong enough point) and your conspiracy theory looks pretty flat. Next time you want to think up a conspiracy plot at least 'think' about all the facts first.
Why don't you actually *think* about what people are saying, rather than instantly dismissing them as idiots? Regardless of whether or not YOU believe it's a conspiracy, just look ast the photos and think about it completely objectively.
> BUILDING DAMAGE
I'm sure the Pentagon is made more of just bricks and mortar, I would
> think the actual building itself is made of extremely thick concrete and steele
> which is why the plane only destroyed a small section of the building on impact
> rather than flying straight through.
Agreed, and the Pentagon will obviously be a fortified building. Bbut look at the photos. A large aircraft, loaded full of aviation fuel, hits the building and it explodes. It ONLY takes out the ground floor originally (it's documented that the top floors fell in later), and there's also no damage to the ground up to the building - so the aircraft didn't slide along the ground into the building. Doesn't that seem just a *little* precise for a pilot under duress in a plane travelling at 160+ mph?
> 747 WINGS
> How much do damage do you
> expect the wings would do? You conspiracy nuts don't actually explain. put this
> together with the above point and the one below and you may get an idea on what
> happened to the planes wings.
You can see in the photos the approximate size of the plane in comparison to the building. There is no damage where the wings would have impacted. Even if you assume they just broke off and did little or no damage, where are they?
WRECKAGE
A plane the size of a 747 would be
> carrying alot of fuel and when the terrorists flew it directly at the pentagon
> it would have been travelling at a great speed. When the plane did impact at
> that speed, with its size, and that much fuel onboard, hitting the pentegon
> would have disintagrated it. This is why there is not alot of wreckage or bodies
> from the plane.
Plenty of planes crash and explode, into buildings and even into mountains, but there's always wreckage to be found. I could understand no wreckage from the towers because of the amount of metal which fell on top of them, but into the side of a building? Seems unlikely.
> WHITNESSES
> Just look at the link Bellandy put down. Do you
> suggest these people never actually died?
No-one has claimed they didn't die, you idiot. Two hundred people from the Pentagon alone died, let along those "in the plane". It's the cause of death which people question.
As for witnesses - I don't recall any interviews with witnesses to the Pentagon crash - all of the eyewitness accounts were of the towers.
> FIRE
> As we all know the pentagon was on fire days after the
> terrorist attack. Why? well
> because of fuel from the plane of corse why else.
It doesn't have to be aviation fuel, does it? Many fires from explosions burn for days, without aviation fuel present.
> TIMING
The government would have had to be
> pritty damn fast to cover up a attack on the pentagon if it were something other
> than a hijacked plane that was used. There would have been hundreds in not
> thousands of people to keep quiet aswell as the people on the plane itself, they
> would have had to bribe everyone who saw the attack. Then there is the plane
> itself. Where did it go?
Initial reports stated that a bomb exploded outside the Pentagon. Don't you find it unusual that people didn't notice a plane hitting the building, and thought it was a bomb?
> at least 'think' about all the facts first.
Take your own advice, and don't take at face value everything your fed by the media. I'm not saying it *is* a conspiracy, but something there just doesn't seem right.
It may well have been a terrorist attack, but it may not necessarily have been in the form we were presented with. It wouldn't be the first time the US government had given a twisted account of what actually happened.
If you want a *really* stupid conspiracy theory, how about the notion that the US Government planned the whole of September 11th simply to get national and international backing to attack Osama bin Laden and start the war on terrorism?
Daft though it may sound - and I am not for one second suggesting that is what happened - it wouldn't be the first time the US have turned on their own people in order to suit their own needs. For example, Operation Echo, run by the US Miltary from 1945 to 1963. They subjected 235,000 of their own personnel to the effects of radiation from A-bomb testing in the Nevada Nuclear Test Site, without many of them being fully aware of what they were getting into.
> BUILDING DAMAGE
I'm sure the Pentagon is made more of just bricks and mortar, I would
> think the actual building itself is made of extremely thick concrete and steele
> which is why the plane only destroyed a small section of the building on impact
> rather than flying straight through.
Agreed, and the Pentagon will obviously be a fortified building. Bbut look at the photos. A large aircraft, loaded full of aviation fuel, hits the building and it explodes. It ONLY takes out the ground floor originally (it's documented that the top floors fell in later), and there's also no damage to the ground up to the building - so the aircraft didn't slide along the ground into the building. Doesn't that seem just a *little* precise for a pilot under duress in a plane travelling at 160+ mph?
> 747 WINGS
> How much do damage do you
> expect the wings would do? You conspiracy nuts don't actually explain. put this
> together with the above point and the one below and you may get an idea on what
> happened to the planes wings.
You can see in the photos the approximate size of the plane in comparison to the building. There is no damage where the wings would have impacted. Even if you assume they just broke off and did little or no damage, where are they?
WRECKAGE
A plane the size of a 747 would be
> carrying alot of fuel and when the terrorists flew it directly at the pentagon
> it would have been travelling at a great speed. When the plane did impact at
> that speed, with its size, and that much fuel onboard, hitting the pentegon
> would have disintagrated it. This is why there is not alot of wreckage or bodies
> from the plane.
Plenty of planes crash and explode, into buildings and even into mountains, but there's always wreckage to be found. I could understand no wreckage from the towers because of the amount of metal which fell on top of them, but into the side of a building? Seems unlikely.
> WHITNESSES
> Just look at the link Bellandy put down. Do you
> suggest these people never actually died?
No-one has claimed they didn't die, you idiot. Two hundred people from the Pentagon alone died, let along those "in the plane". It's the cause of death which people question.
As for witnesses - I don't recall any interviews with witnesses to the Pentagon crash - all of the eyewitness accounts were of the towers.
> FIRE
> As we all know the pentagon was on fire days after the
> terrorist attack. Why? well
> because of fuel from the plane of corse why else.
It doesn't have to be aviation fuel, does it? Many fires from explosions burn for days, without aviation fuel present.
> TIMING
The government would have had to be
> pritty damn fast to cover up a attack on the pentagon if it were something other
> than a hijacked plane that was used. There would have been hundreds in not
> thousands of people to keep quiet aswell as the people on the plane itself, they
> would have had to bribe everyone who saw the attack. Then there is the plane
> itself. Where did it go?
Initial reports stated that a bomb exploded outside the Pentagon. Don't you find it unusual that people didn't notice a plane hitting the building, and thought it was a bomb?
> at least 'think' about all the facts first.
Take your own advice, and don't take at face value everything your fed by the media. I'm not saying it *is* a conspiracy, but something there just doesn't seem right.
It may well have been a terrorist attack, but it may not necessarily have been in the form we were presented with. It wouldn't be the first time the US government had given a twisted account of what actually happened.
If you want a *really* stupid conspiracy theory, how about the notion that the US Government planned the whole of September 11th simply to get national and international backing to attack Osama bin Laden and start the war on terrorism?
Daft though it may sound - and I am not for one second suggesting that is what happened - it wouldn't be the first time the US have turned on their own people in order to suit their own needs. For example, Operation Echo, run by the US Miltary from 1945 to 1963. They subjected 235,000 of their own personnel to the effects of radiation from A-bomb testing in the Nevada Nuclear Test Site, without many of them being fully aware of what they were getting into.
Use this link below to see photos taken from a security camera overlooking the side of the Pentagon which was hit. It quite clearly shows a very strong impact from American Airlines flight 77.
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa77/photo.shtml
And here is a report taken from the same web-site about the terrorist attack.
American Airlines Flight 77
Pentagon (DOD Building), Washington, D.C.
The damage at the Pentagon Building. American Airlines Flight 77, operated by a Boeing 757-223 (N644AA) on the morning of September 11, departed Runway 30 at Washington Dulles International Airport for the 4+ hour flight to Los Angeles, California at 8:10am local time.
On board the aircraft were 58 passengers (including five hijackers), four flight attendants, and the two pilots.
Shortly after departure, the aircraft disappeared from FAA radar screens and ceased responding to air traffic control radio transmissions.
The aircraft was turned around and flown back toward Washington, D.C. from the north. The aircraft then reportedly proceeded to descend over the White House, enter a tight 270° turn, and fly toward the U.S. Department of Defense Building (Pentagon) in northern Virginia.
Witnesses reported that the aircraft clipped trees and lightposts as it descended at a high rate of speed, before impacting the the south-west face of the Pentagon Building
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa77/photo.shtml
And here is a report taken from the same web-site about the terrorist attack.
American Airlines Flight 77
Pentagon (DOD Building), Washington, D.C.
The damage at the Pentagon Building. American Airlines Flight 77, operated by a Boeing 757-223 (N644AA) on the morning of September 11, departed Runway 30 at Washington Dulles International Airport for the 4+ hour flight to Los Angeles, California at 8:10am local time.
On board the aircraft were 58 passengers (including five hijackers), four flight attendants, and the two pilots.
Shortly after departure, the aircraft disappeared from FAA radar screens and ceased responding to air traffic control radio transmissions.
The aircraft was turned around and flown back toward Washington, D.C. from the north. The aircraft then reportedly proceeded to descend over the White House, enter a tight 270° turn, and fly toward the U.S. Department of Defense Building (Pentagon) in northern Virginia.
Witnesses reported that the aircraft clipped trees and lightposts as it descended at a high rate of speed, before impacting the the south-west face of the Pentagon Building
All this conspiracy theory is such a complete waste of time.
Thanks for the confirmation there Cipro - maybe these other's (took out derogatory word !) will just leave it now.
Thanks for the confirmation there Cipro - maybe these other's (took out derogatory word !) will just leave it now.
Well, I have to be honest and say that it's the first "eyewitness" reports I've heard of.
However, the photos simply show a massive explosion - I can't see a plane in any of them. There's something to the right of the first photo, but it could be anything - the photos are too bad to say.
However, the photos simply show a massive explosion - I can't see a plane in any of them. There's something to the right of the first photo, but it could be anything - the photos are too bad to say.
nh wrote:
> All this conspiracy theory is such a complete waste of time.
Why is it a waste of time to question things and not take everything spoon-fed to us by the authorities as gospel truth? Governments lie all the time. I'm not saying they lied about this in particular, but they certainly have in the past. Is it because we're 'the good guys' and we don't like to believe it because "they'd never do it to us"?
> All this conspiracy theory is such a complete waste of time.
Why is it a waste of time to question things and not take everything spoon-fed to us by the authorities as gospel truth? Governments lie all the time. I'm not saying they lied about this in particular, but they certainly have in the past. Is it because we're 'the good guys' and we don't like to believe it because "they'd never do it to us"?
tictac wrote:
> nh wrote:
> All this conspiracy theory is such a complete waste of time.
>
Why is it a waste of time to question things and not take everything
> spoon-fed to us by the authorities as gospel truth? Governments lie all the
> time. I'm not saying they lied about this in particular, but they certainly
> have in the past. Is it because we're 'the good guys' and we don't like to
> believe it because "they'd never do it to us"?
No - not at all - I know things happen that we know nothing about and things get hushed up by governments but this particular event and everything else that happened on September 11th did happen.
Thousands of people lost their lives and you want to waste your time discussing what happened to the wings of the aircraft that hit the pentagon. Look at the pictures - look at the fireball caused by the exploding aviation fuel - the same kind of fireball that appeared when the planes hit the World Trade Centre. The plane was moving forward and would have gone into the building where it exploded - simple really isnt it.
Just accept that this event did actually happen and think more about the poor people who lost their lives and the people that have been affected by this tragedy.
> nh wrote:
> All this conspiracy theory is such a complete waste of time.
>
Why is it a waste of time to question things and not take everything
> spoon-fed to us by the authorities as gospel truth? Governments lie all the
> time. I'm not saying they lied about this in particular, but they certainly
> have in the past. Is it because we're 'the good guys' and we don't like to
> believe it because "they'd never do it to us"?
No - not at all - I know things happen that we know nothing about and things get hushed up by governments but this particular event and everything else that happened on September 11th did happen.
Thousands of people lost their lives and you want to waste your time discussing what happened to the wings of the aircraft that hit the pentagon. Look at the pictures - look at the fireball caused by the exploding aviation fuel - the same kind of fireball that appeared when the planes hit the World Trade Centre. The plane was moving forward and would have gone into the building where it exploded - simple really isnt it.
Just accept that this event did actually happen and think more about the poor people who lost their lives and the people that have been affected by this tragedy.
tictac wrote:
>However, the photos simply show a massive explosion - I can't see a plane in any of them. There's something to the right of the first photo, but it could be anything - the photos are too bad to say.
I've gotta agree with you on this!
That first photo is total cr@p, where the heck is the plane because I can't see anything (JUMBO REMEMBER) that resembles a plane in the picture.
Complete and utter waste of time, all I can see is a very large fireball that could be done with lots of petrol.
As for the memorial site that was posted, yeah ok I agree that a lot of people lost their lives in that attack but as someone else put it, it doesn't prove that a plane hit the building, just no enough damage!
>However, the photos simply show a massive explosion - I can't see a plane in any of them. There's something to the right of the first photo, but it could be anything - the photos are too bad to say.
I've gotta agree with you on this!
That first photo is total cr@p, where the heck is the plane because I can't see anything (JUMBO REMEMBER) that resembles a plane in the picture.
Complete and utter waste of time, all I can see is a very large fireball that could be done with lots of petrol.
As for the memorial site that was posted, yeah ok I agree that a lot of people lost their lives in that attack but as someone else put it, it doesn't prove that a plane hit the building, just no enough damage!
nh wrote:
> Just accept that this event did actually happen
I do accept that it did happen. I know personally of two people who lost relatives on that day, and I myself sat in tears at the footage of people throwing themselves from the towers.
It just seemed a little odd to me that so little was shown about the Pentagon, and yes I admit I really expected to see far more damage to the Pentagon than there was.
I know there are structural differences, and that the Pentagon is a fortified building. But even so, with two equivalent aircraft completely demolishing the towers, I really expected that there should be far more damage to the Pentagon if an aircraft fully loaded with fuel had hit it.
My initial thoughts when I saw the website given in the first post was not "oh, the government lied", it was "well maybe it wasn't a plane, just a huge bomb".
Regardless of any Conspiracy Theories, I still believe that there should have been wreckage of an aircraft visible. Most planes that crash explode, and there's always, always wreckage. This isn't that different to the Concorde crash, or the large airliner that crashed into a mountain a few years ago.
> Just accept that this event did actually happen
I do accept that it did happen. I know personally of two people who lost relatives on that day, and I myself sat in tears at the footage of people throwing themselves from the towers.
It just seemed a little odd to me that so little was shown about the Pentagon, and yes I admit I really expected to see far more damage to the Pentagon than there was.
I know there are structural differences, and that the Pentagon is a fortified building. But even so, with two equivalent aircraft completely demolishing the towers, I really expected that there should be far more damage to the Pentagon if an aircraft fully loaded with fuel had hit it.
My initial thoughts when I saw the website given in the first post was not "oh, the government lied", it was "well maybe it wasn't a plane, just a huge bomb".
Regardless of any Conspiracy Theories, I still believe that there should have been wreckage of an aircraft visible. Most planes that crash explode, and there's always, always wreckage. This isn't that different to the Concorde crash, or the large airliner that crashed into a mountain a few years ago.
Page: