The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Some stupid French bloke is upsetting loads of Americans by getting a book published (that has become a bestseller in France btw) about how the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane! Check it here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english
/world/europe/newsid_1907000/1907955.stm
I'm pretty sure it's not an April Fool joke by the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english
/world/europe/newsid_1907000/1907955.stm
I'm pretty sure it's not an April Fool joke by the BBC.
I really can't see who the Yanks have any reason to want to cover up an explosion at the Pentagon as a Plane Crash, because if this is true, they're both still terrorist related, and saying that it's a triggered explosion doesn't make the situation any better. I don't believe this conspiracy theory, but I think that critics who compared it to the Roswell theories are idiots - they're hardly comparable.
Here's the arguments that the 'Hunt The Boeing' site presents. It's a good argument, I must say, but I still percieve it as propaganda.
a) The aircraft only hit the ground floor, yet the four upper floors collapsed at 10:10am. The building is 26 yards high. Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?
I think that it's quite explainable. Planes are pretty big, and when looking at how high the Pentagon is (not very), it's quite possible that depending on the angle it went in, that it hit all the floors (or at least scraped them). I mean, if I wanted to cause as much damage as possible to a building, I'd hit it at the steepest angle possible, so that you cause more damage, hence hitting more floors. Kapish? Forgive me if I'm wrong though, my science stinks.
b) The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image below, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion.
Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?
The first satellite images were terrible really, but there is another picture which shows this quite well. Only the first 'ring' is damaged (only a small part of it at that), which does seem suspect, but if you look along the side of this ring, you will notice a scratch mark, one which I think a bomb is not capable of. Also, it's quite possible that the plane crashed before it hit the pentagon, so the full weight of the plane didn't go into it, causing less damage.
c) No pictures show wreckage of a Boeing 757-200.
All I can is that it's highly suspect, but then we're only saying this because someone else has brought it up. If no-one had mentioned it, we wouldn't even think twice about it being a government cover-up. As I said earlier, I still believe that a Boeing hit the Pentagon that day, until there is some sort of concrete evidence to prove otherwise.
There are a few other theories, but I find them utterly ridiculous, such as why the defence secretary found it neccesary to gravel up the pathway to the Pentagon.
Here's the arguments that the 'Hunt The Boeing' site presents. It's a good argument, I must say, but I still percieve it as propaganda.
a) The aircraft only hit the ground floor, yet the four upper floors collapsed at 10:10am. The building is 26 yards high. Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?
I think that it's quite explainable. Planes are pretty big, and when looking at how high the Pentagon is (not very), it's quite possible that depending on the angle it went in, that it hit all the floors (or at least scraped them). I mean, if I wanted to cause as much damage as possible to a building, I'd hit it at the steepest angle possible, so that you cause more damage, hence hitting more floors. Kapish? Forgive me if I'm wrong though, my science stinks.
b) The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image below, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion.
Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?
The first satellite images were terrible really, but there is another picture which shows this quite well. Only the first 'ring' is damaged (only a small part of it at that), which does seem suspect, but if you look along the side of this ring, you will notice a scratch mark, one which I think a bomb is not capable of. Also, it's quite possible that the plane crashed before it hit the pentagon, so the full weight of the plane didn't go into it, causing less damage.
c) No pictures show wreckage of a Boeing 757-200.
All I can is that it's highly suspect, but then we're only saying this because someone else has brought it up. If no-one had mentioned it, we wouldn't even think twice about it being a government cover-up. As I said earlier, I still believe that a Boeing hit the Pentagon that day, until there is some sort of concrete evidence to prove otherwise.
There are a few other theories, but I find them utterly ridiculous, such as why the defence secretary found it neccesary to gravel up the pathway to the Pentagon.
Mr. Happy wrote:
The
> only reason I can think of is as a cover-up for having shot down the plane
> themselves. However, if they shot the plane down then where's the wreckage? Why
> did no-one see the plane being shot down?
Its not actually possible for them to have shot the plane down themselves for several reasons.
a) The only kind of defence the Pentagon could possibly have had is Stinger-type missiles fired from the roof. Even these would not be enough to take out the plane at the speed it was doing and its unlikely they would have had enough time to be authorised by anyone. Even if an unauthorised launch did occur it wouldn't have made any difference.
b) No fighter aircraft scrambled until after the Pentagon attack, the only plane in the air as fighter jets scrambled was the one which went down in the field (Pennysylvania?).
c) With no radar beacon active, and being off course, and low altititude on its approach, radar confirmation would have been very difficult - no one at the Pentagon knew anything until it actually hit them.
There's a time and a place for conspiracies, and this isn't one of them - the guy publishing the book saying otherwise has to be a very soul-less human being....
The
> only reason I can think of is as a cover-up for having shot down the plane
> themselves. However, if they shot the plane down then where's the wreckage? Why
> did no-one see the plane being shot down?
Its not actually possible for them to have shot the plane down themselves for several reasons.
a) The only kind of defence the Pentagon could possibly have had is Stinger-type missiles fired from the roof. Even these would not be enough to take out the plane at the speed it was doing and its unlikely they would have had enough time to be authorised by anyone. Even if an unauthorised launch did occur it wouldn't have made any difference.
b) No fighter aircraft scrambled until after the Pentagon attack, the only plane in the air as fighter jets scrambled was the one which went down in the field (Pennysylvania?).
c) With no radar beacon active, and being off course, and low altititude on its approach, radar confirmation would have been very difficult - no one at the Pentagon knew anything until it actually hit them.
There's a time and a place for conspiracies, and this isn't one of them - the guy publishing the book saying otherwise has to be a very soul-less human being....
Here's a link I found to a site which explores the web-site which is making these accusations. I spent all day looking for a site like this to show people on the ps1/2 forum who actually believe these bogus claims, that a plane did hit the pentagon.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm
monkey_man wrote:
> And his evidence was that there wasn't any wreckage - the
> plane won't stay intact after hitting the ground.
Anyone remember seeing the wreckage from the WTC?
Why on earth would the American government fake a plane crash into the pentagon? Why not admit that a bomb went off?
The only reason I can think of is as a cover-up for having shot down the plane themselves. However, if they shot the plane down then where's the wreckage? Why did no-one see the plane being shot down?
It's not really a very watertight conspiracy theory.. There's absolutely no motive for a cover-up. I saw the Pentagon two weeks after the attack, and I find it really hard to believe that a plane did not in fact hit the building. Maybe I've been brainwashed by the media, but I just can't buy into this one.
> And his evidence was that there wasn't any wreckage - the
> plane won't stay intact after hitting the ground.
Anyone remember seeing the wreckage from the WTC?
Why on earth would the American government fake a plane crash into the pentagon? Why not admit that a bomb went off?
The only reason I can think of is as a cover-up for having shot down the plane themselves. However, if they shot the plane down then where's the wreckage? Why did no-one see the plane being shot down?
It's not really a very watertight conspiracy theory.. There's absolutely no motive for a cover-up. I saw the Pentagon two weeks after the attack, and I find it really hard to believe that a plane did not in fact hit the building. Maybe I've been brainwashed by the media, but I just can't buy into this one.
Oh without a doubt.
Like I said, "Open Minded" as in not believing,just seeing what opinions are.
Whatever happened, however the Pentagon was destroyed, it happened through something and especially with the Pentagon, I find any suggestion it was "staged" offensive in the extreme as well.
Just made interesting reading is all.
Like I said, "Open Minded" as in not believing,just seeing what opinions are.
Whatever happened, however the Pentagon was destroyed, it happened through something and especially with the Pentagon, I find any suggestion it was "staged" offensive in the extreme as well.
Just made interesting reading is all.
I dunno. It's a bit of a sore point. What happened to the missing plane and all the people on it? And his evidence was that there wasn't any wreckage - the plane won't stay intact after hitting the ground. It's gonna explode and crumble away. They were probably putting sand down to make a path for the recovery of bits and bobs. It's a bit bad taste to doubt what happened to all those people.
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
no the plonker in question was iraqistan man methinks
Yeah I've read the site he published his pictures and notes on.
It does make a strong argument if you can approach it open-mindedly enough.
It does make a strong argument if you can approach it open-mindedly enough.
Some stupid French bloke is upsetting loads of Americans by getting a book published (that has become a bestseller in France btw) about how the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane! Check it here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english
/world/europe/newsid_1907000/1907955.stm
I'm pretty sure it's not an April Fool joke by the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english
/world/europe/newsid_1907000/1907955.stm
I'm pretty sure it's not an April Fool joke by the BBC.