9/11 Not as it seems??
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of my colleagues was on AA11. Every time I think about 9/11, I think about her, on that airplane.
These conspiracy theorist fools really tick me off.
Fortunately I don't know any of these theorists. I'd be sorely tempted to do something I might enjoy, but would regret later.
These conspiracy theorist fools really tick me off.
Fortunately I don't know any of these theorists. I'd be sorely tempted to do something I might enjoy, but would regret later.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Colchester
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Friend of mine was looking out of his window opposite the Pentagon and watched the ac inpact. There is no doubt in my mind that he was telling the truth. I served with him on ops and would trust him with my life.
I haven't studied the walls of the Pentagon but I doubt that they are as solid as the one that the F-4 crashed into, and I doubt that they would 'eat' a B757 as effectively.
The Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers have, and the results of this and the WTC collapse will have an effect on the worldwide future of fire-engineering design.
The wonderfully 'old-fashioned' over-designed structure of the Pentagon behaved more or less exactly as expected structually IIRC, and did comprehensivly 'eat' the 757 and at the same time contain the conflagration in a relatively small area, with consequently higher temps than in an 'open' impact site. Possibly that's why there's not an awful lot left of the ally a/c structure?
The Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers have, and the results of this and the WTC collapse will have an effect on the worldwide future of fire-engineering design.
The wonderfully 'old-fashioned' over-designed structure of the Pentagon behaved more or less exactly as expected structually IIRC, and did comprehensivly 'eat' the 757 and at the same time contain the conflagration in a relatively small area, with consequently higher temps than in an 'open' impact site. Possibly that's why there's not an awful lot left of the ally a/c structure?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Crikey, with all this conspiracy stuff going on, I hope this thread gets moved to Jet Blast, " Stay out if you are faint hearted " where perhaps for a short while at least, some might like to verify the numbers from 60yrs ago.
Cat pigeons....GO!
SS
p.s. Small issue of the 9/11 black boxes???
Cat pigeons....GO!
SS
p.s. Small issue of the 9/11 black boxes???
Suspicion breeds confidence
Moon landings
I've met "Buzz" Aldrin and heard his personal account of what happened. I don't think anyone could talk with such passion about something which was made-up. Just my 2c.
To the conspiracy theory nutters. Was this C-130 crew part of the conspiracy theory? To TIGs, yes those are Boeing 757 parts.
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.or...irguardmuseum/
TJ
The undercarriage hub imaged at the Pentagon:
http://www.christian-patriots.us/images/Img51.gif
757 hub:
http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/im...ia/SAM9319.JPG
TJ
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.or...irguardmuseum/
TJ
The undercarriage hub imaged at the Pentagon:
http://www.christian-patriots.us/images/Img51.gif
757 hub:
http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/im...ia/SAM9319.JPG
TJ
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: An island
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Moon Landings
I've met "Buzz" Aldrin and heard his personal account of what happened. I don't think anyone could talk with such passion about something which was made-up. Just my 2c.
Just don't confront Buzz with this info...Left Click
A coward, a liar, and a cheat.....also a very poor right jab too! Should have gone for the Ghoolie Punt!
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
All this moon hoax malarky could be sorted out once and for all so easily with photos of the LM descent stage on the moon with associated footprints, flags, etc.
After all, its a big box covered with gold foil;
Here seen with the ascent stage attached.
"Its too small to see with a telescope or lunar orbiter lens", I hear you cry, echoing the excuses given in the past. Well, if that still is the argument, how come NASA think they have seen and photographed the 'Vicking 2' lander on Mars!
Source
reference pic
and also the 'Mars Polar Lander'
reference pic
Mind you, the other morning I'm sure that we could see Elvis on the moon in that red double decker bus, through the FLIR camera.
SS
After all, its a big box covered with gold foil;
Here seen with the ascent stage attached.
"Its too small to see with a telescope or lunar orbiter lens", I hear you cry, echoing the excuses given in the past. Well, if that still is the argument, how come NASA think they have seen and photographed the 'Vicking 2' lander on Mars!
Source
reference picand also the 'Mars Polar Lander'
reference picMind you, the other morning I'm sure that we could see Elvis on the moon in that red double decker bus, through the FLIR camera.
SS
SS,
You guys need to wash out that Teapot a bit more often.....Elvis ain't on the Moon....I seen him in Vegas last week....doing a wedding gig.
You guys need to wash out that Teapot a bit more often.....Elvis ain't on the Moon....I seen him in Vegas last week....doing a wedding gig.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TEEJ
I certainly wouldn't argue that the C-130 crew didn't see an aircraft crash into the pentagon.
At the same time the witness doesn't say it was a 757. More importantly he doesn't say it was flight 77 - merely a target he had been vectored onto.
The same radar target that appeared 36 minutes after all radar contact with 77 had been lost . His evidence is only a piece of evidence, not irrefutable proof that flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
I certainly wouldn't argue that the C-130 crew didn't see an aircraft crash into the pentagon.
At the same time the witness doesn't say it was a 757. More importantly he doesn't say it was flight 77 - merely a target he had been vectored onto.
The same radar target that appeared 36 minutes after all radar contact with 77 had been lost . His evidence is only a piece of evidence, not irrefutable proof that flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
Awright.....lets cut to the chase....just who/what crashed into the Pentagon? Lets quit saying what didn't....lets say what did? And prove your statement besides merely offering up an opinion. Or are we going to say nothing happened at the Pentagon or the WTC....it was all done with holographics and sound effects.....and alien spaceships carried away all of the alledged victims.
Maybe it was a Men in Black thing.....one big flash over the world....and God spoke from the heavens telling us to think we saw what we did.....
Maybe it was a Men in Black thing.....one big flash over the world....and God spoke from the heavens telling us to think we saw what we did.....
SiloeSid
The beauty of the "Moon Hoax" is that the conspiracy theorists are in a "win/win" situation....since NASA haven't produced an image the Landings must be a hoax, and when NASA do produce an image the theorists will claim that the image itself is a hoax.......
BTW I think you will find the reason there is no such image is that NASA has had nothing in Lunar Orbit for years with the equipment capable of "taking" such an picture - the Mars images you refer to were taken relatively recently.
The beauty of the "Moon Hoax" is that the conspiracy theorists are in a "win/win" situation....since NASA haven't produced an image the Landings must be a hoax, and when NASA do produce an image the theorists will claim that the image itself is a hoax.......
BTW I think you will find the reason there is no such image is that NASA has had nothing in Lunar Orbit for years with the equipment capable of "taking" such an picture - the Mars images you refer to were taken relatively recently.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
I guess all will be clear in 2008 when NASA launch the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
I agree that it is a win/win situation or the theorists, but if;
a. The launch 'fails'.
b. The equipment goes 'faulty'.
c. The program doesn't allow for the photography of the Apollo landing sites.
Perhaps they will have a few more arrows added to their quiver.
SS
Anything is possible. I have just, minutes ago, been with GEN11, (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang), in my local pubs car park. Who'd believe that?
I have pics, but as is said, who'd believe a digi photo, apart from the children when they get home!
I agree that it is a win/win situation or the theorists, but if;
a. The launch 'fails'.
b. The equipment goes 'faulty'.
c. The program doesn't allow for the photography of the Apollo landing sites.
Perhaps they will have a few more arrows added to their quiver.
SS
Anything is possible. I have just, minutes ago, been with GEN11, (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang), in my local pubs car park. Who'd believe that?
I have pics, but as is said, who'd believe a digi photo, apart from the children when they get home!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the Japanese were launching some sort of Lunar Recce/mapping device this year. Anybody know anything about that?
I'm not really into conspiracy theories but the science of the moon landings is a bit questionable. Take the radiation levels for example. The guys were in an aluminum can wearing suits made of special nylon stuff(im sure there is a correct name for the material!). During their trip to the moon they had to go through the Van Allen radiation belt TWICE, AND there were over 230 solar flares (enough gamma radiation to power KFC for 200 years) during the time of the journey. The clothing they were wearing would stop Alpha particles, the aluminum can would stop a percentage of Beta particles, but Gamma particles - No. Never did see the channel 5 documentary, did it address these issues.
And fellow pilots, imagine landing the lunar module, no window to look out of that would give any decent references. where/how do you reference any gyros to know you are exactly perpendicular to the moons surface? a few degrees out and its curtains. They had a 100% success rate with their landings, pretty amazing stuff. The photos can be doctored but the points above leave me with an uneasy feeling about the whole thing.
I'm not really into conspiracy theories but the science of the moon landings is a bit questionable. Take the radiation levels for example. The guys were in an aluminum can wearing suits made of special nylon stuff(im sure there is a correct name for the material!). During their trip to the moon they had to go through the Van Allen radiation belt TWICE, AND there were over 230 solar flares (enough gamma radiation to power KFC for 200 years) during the time of the journey. The clothing they were wearing would stop Alpha particles, the aluminum can would stop a percentage of Beta particles, but Gamma particles - No. Never did see the channel 5 documentary, did it address these issues.
And fellow pilots, imagine landing the lunar module, no window to look out of that would give any decent references. where/how do you reference any gyros to know you are exactly perpendicular to the moons surface? a few degrees out and its curtains. They had a 100% success rate with their landings, pretty amazing stuff. The photos can be doctored but the points above leave me with an uneasy feeling about the whole thing.