Another 9/11 conspiracy
 

http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf

:confused:

Jee-zus Ke-rist! Not another cockamamie conspiracy theory!
 

If it's too simple to explain, there's gotta be some kinda conspiracy theory behind it. What a load of bullsh*t. :mad:

Morons
 

They randomly throw up quotes from people, without establishing the credibility of the various witnesses.

My favorite quotes refer to the plane dissapearing. "Buildings don't eat planes." Right. On the same day, two airplanes hit the World Trade Center. There is video tape of the second plane (and the one that hit harder) essentially disappearing into a tower. Airplane parts were found many blocks away.

To further kill off this FRENCH conspiracy, they insinuate that a 757 can't penetrate that much structure. They provide no evidence. It would be easy to get such evidence. Just get any physicist to calculate the ballistics of that airplane.

They also feed off of the eyewitness acounts that it was a smaller airplane. There were initial eyewitness accounts in New York that the 767 (larger than a 757) that hit the first tower was a commuter turboprop.

Conspiracy theories, like this one, are just a cynical way to sell books.

Is anyone here frightened as much by the thought of the cretins who WILL believe this as they are by the cretins who created it?:eek:

Those "cretins" are more commonly called "the French."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/06/26/france.book/

Just as some people will believe the worst about France :rolleyes: , and love to spout off their crackpot views too...

What? I don't understand.

-Rudey

Re: Jee-zus Ke-rist! Not another cockamamie conspiracy theory!
 

Someone else on GC sent me this video too. I don't believe it but, seriously, how come the hole was so small?

-Rudey

Re: Re: Jee-zus Ke-rist! Not another cockamamie conspiracy theory!
 

Anytime you have an airplane (built of mostly lightweight materials such as aluminum, composites, etc.) traveling at high speed into a masonry building, there's not gonna be much left of it. On top of that, the hot fire caused by burning Jet-A fuel probably melted much of what remained of the wreckage. Only a few parts made of high-temperature and strength materials (engine turbine blades, for example) will survive such a severe impact and fire.

A 757 is a narrow-bodied aircraft (6 abreast seating in coach); the two aircraft that struck the Twin Towers were 767s, which are wide-bodied aircraft (7-8 abreast seating in coach).

AA 11 and UA 171 were 767-200s, AA 77 and UA 93 were 757-200s.

Later investigation and analysis of the crash videos of the WTC1 and 2 impacts estimated the aircraft were traveling at nearly 500 miles an hour when they impacted. A substantial piece of one of the engines and landing gear of UA 171 (the one that struck WTC2) landed about two blocks north of the WTC site.

The section of the Pentagon that was struck by AA77 was the first section of a remodeled Pentagon building just days away from being formally dedicated; had it struck one of the older sections of the Pentagon, the damage would have been even more catastrophic.

AA - American Airlines. UA - United Airlines.

Unless you provide polling data to refute the article that I cited, you stand as this thread's crackpot for arbitrarily defending them. Congratulations!

Yay!!! Wooo wooo!

-Rudey
--Break out the Korbel!

This "study" was done by the frenchman without him ever coming to the US. He's basing his entire book on a few very poor photos. Other serious French authors have even gone on to say that this guy is a crackpot and has zero credibility.

200,000 copies sold in France is apparently a very successful book. I think the only thing that this statistic proves is that the French don't read much.