View Full Version : Airway Terror Plot
How about a nice topical discussion about this, then?
Here's a news post (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4778575.stm) on the beeb for those not in the know. Some (English?) terrorists tried to take some explosives aboard up to 10 flights from the UK to the US at Heathrow. Would have been devastating had they managed it, but fortunately they were disrupted and the MI5 alert level has been raised to "critical", meaning "an attack is expected imminently and indicates an extremely high level of threat to the UK".
Anyone else affected by this? My parents were meant to be returning from Spain today, at Heathrow. Typical, eh? Wrong place, wrong time.
Still, I wouldn't fancy being at Heathrow now; looks terribly busy, cramped and confusing, not to mention the huge limitations now placed on handluggage (you can't take anything on except tiny things like glasses and passports - even bottled water is disallowed!)
BAA are advising people heading to Heathrow to stay home unless their flight is essential, and even then anticipate severe delays. Incidently, their website couldn't take the strain and has been taken offline (http://www.baa.co.uk/) (as time of writing).
Update:
The US has (for the first time), raised their threat level for incoming flights from the UK to red.
movinginthedark
10-08-2006, 11:51
even bottled water is disallowed!
Wha............ :eek: Thats insane!! But I wasn't aware of that until now. Wow - things are still really tense then. I hate to say it though, but it is only a matter of time before Al queida (forgive the spelling) manage another successfull attack on either America of Britain.....
The bottled water may have something to do with the nature of the planned explosives. According to the beeb, they may have been disgusing liquid explosive in cans of drink!
Big Adam
10-08-2006, 12:07
The only currently permissible liquids (apart from prescription medication) are baby bottles of milk/formula.
All accompanying parents/guardians are being asked to taste the contents of each bottle to prove the contents are genuine.
This is heavy.
Worst offenders in this situation will be women. Asking them to let go of their handbags is akin to removing a limb.
Some Hydrogen Peroxide (hidden in fizzy drink) and another householed chemiical (not telling) makes an explosive favoured by terrorists, the trigger can be a car alarm keyfob.
Make sense now?
Personally I think hand lugguage in general should be toned down, besides water and food possibly, and disallowed on flights under say 2-3 hours, would make me feel a lot safer for sure. It's only a matter of time before something gets missed and *BOOM*
I also think laptops should be banned off hand lugguage with all the recent exploding battery stories coming out.
Oh the whole though, good job Scotland yard , well done!
Cosmo_1847
10-08-2006, 13:05
This backed up my belief that the world is going to to the dogs.
I think the only thing you are allowed to take other than the stuff Big Adam said are wallets and purese.
I feel sorry for the people that are at heathrow as some of them don't have a clue what is going on and there as also been a crash on the motorway causing 11 miles Ques. I reckon that this will take ages to clear all of the back logs cause by this, but it's still better than being bloom to pieces in mid air.
My mum is spose to fly out on Sat and my ex gf to fly in tomoz. What are the rules on flying in?
Well if no plane leaves there will be no space for incoming flights, tell your gf to keep checking her departing flight.
Well I'm supposed to be flying to Edinburgh tomorrow. I think we are going to drive as I'm sure that the airports are still going to be carnage. Seeing as we have the option, we may as well not add to the pressure at the airports. We did check train tickets but they cost nearly £200!!! Thieving gypsies!!
Scary stuff.
Good to hear about the arrests though. Let's just hope they've managed to keep everything under control. I'm feeling fairly confident in the Police/other forces right now. And their ability to deal with such a threat.
Sky news are sayoing they havn't got all the people!. And theres a rumor of turning Filton Airport (Bristol) into a Miliatary post for Typhoons to be based for the next few days to protect Bristol and london and surrounding places.
We saw low and FAST F15s flying past a few minutes ago headed down the valley and out over the channel.
Very impressive!
Must admit this is pretty scary though - Threat Level (http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/Page269.html)
an attack is expected imminently and indicates an extremely high level of threat to the UK.
BoyWonder
10-08-2006, 15:28
I say if these people are guilty of planning such attacks then tie them all up and blow them! They want to make a point dont they ... so lets give them a chance.
these people are nothing but cowards and should have the same thing doen to them that they plan to do to others! If they want to make a point why dont they blow their own famillies up???
I hope they rot in hell forever!
P.S. I am a muslim and this is the same i've heard from all the muslms that i know! we dont want anything to do with these people and their greed!!!
We saw low and FAST F15s flying past a few minutes ago headed down the valley and out over the channel.
Very impressive!
Nice, but F-15's won't be defending UK soil - I hope.
And as for Typhoons!!! Sky news make me laugh - what are Typhoon going to do - force the airliner to land using rude gestures!!! Really credible defence that - NOT. :mad:
I think the tyhphoons are there to DEFEND the UK and US incase a replay of 911 happens, a airliner gets tookover by 'terroists' then the Typhoons can obviously shoot down and defend are country and US if that was the target. And im sure that the US have F117's on stand by somewere aswell.
Big Adam
10-08-2006, 15:58
Easy to suggest as a simple solution but less easy to give the actual order to take down a 767 full of holidaymakers and probably even harder to actually pull the trigger.
Unlike the US, the land around our major cities is hardly undeveloped wilderness is it? Not sure what you achieve by shooting down an airliner heading for central london and it crashing on a suburban town.
Thats what the jets on route to catch the plane on its way to the pentagon were instructed to do. As one of BBC documnetrys said.
And the F15 are nothing to do with whats happend today. http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17230
movinginthedark
10-08-2006, 16:41
Whoa - makes sence why I saw and heard 2 F15's fly past here this morning. As for the water thing - makes sence now I have heard more about it.
I think the checks are a bit indecent though, I can appreciate the fact that they don't want any explosives on board, but even womens sanitary towels are being checked. I sure hope they manage to detain all the people who were planning on destroying the aircrafts....
I think the tyhphoons are there to DEFEND the UK and US incase a replay of 911 happens, a airliner gets tookover by 'terroists' then the Typhoons can obviously shoot down and defend are country and US if that was the target. And im sure that the US have F117's on stand by somewere aswell.
Not going to happen. Typhoon is currently UNARMED in the UK inventory, sure the've TEST fired stuff, but not cleared for Ops.
And the F-117, despite the Fighter tag is purely a bomber (stealthy, but still a bomber).
Do you think His Tonyness is going to authorise US pilots to shoot down airliners in UK Airspace - i doubt it.
Royal Air Force Tornados have the ability to carry this out and would be no doubt patrolling our skies as we speak. They will also not be roaring past anybodies windows, they'll be up where the airliners are, high.
Sky news are sayoing they havn't got all the people
Last I heard, it was, "We're raising the alert and carrying out extra checks because we *[b]may/b]* not have got them all. Sky News is generally speaking, "Hyped up hysteria news" IMHO.
Last I heard, it was, "We're raising the alert and carrying out extra checks because we *[b]may/b]* not have got them all. Sky News is generally speaking, "Hyped up hysteria news" IMHO.
Yeh well there changing there mind on things left right and center.
Not going to happen. Typhoon is currently UNARMED in the UK inventory, sure the've TEST fired stuff, but not cleared for Ops.
And the F-117, despite the Fighter tag is purely a bomber (stealthy, but still a bomber).
Hmm are you sure i always thought it was a fighter and a bomber.. not because of the F tag.
and: http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/news_0603_27.html
Well hopefully my ex gf flight aint delayed tomoz been waiting long enough to see her. But as long as shes safe.
Hmm are you sure i always thought it was a fighter and a bomber.. not because of the F tag.
and: http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/news_0603_27.html
OK - OT, but you've got confused here, so I'll try and straighten things out.
Typhoon F2 - Originally designed as a Fighter, being developed into a swing role Fighter AND Bomber. So agreed it is a Fighter, however it is not declared Operational yet and will not be guarding UK or US airspace, at least not for another few years.
F-117A Nighthawk - Technically a Fighter Bomber, but it is actually a small Bomber - Stealthy, but not the aircraft known as the 'Stelath Bomber', certainly NOT a Fighter by anyones values. Probably labelled as a Fighter Bomber by the USAF to confuse Agents of a Foreign Nation during its development during the Cold War.
Sorry to get geeky about aircraft on a tech geeky forum, but thought it might help stop some of the confusing caused by inaccurate journo reporting.
MODs delete if you feel the need. :)
DarkEntity
10-08-2006, 23:38
You are correct though,
The Euro fighter isnt available yet and wont be for a few years, and yes the F117 Stealth is a small figher bomber
here
http://www.egyptdailynews.com/My%20Webs/edailypics/F117.jpg
seemingly getting all confused with the B2 Spirit which is the huge tactical stealth bomber...here
http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Appendix/Aircraft/Graphics/b2.gif
I love all this terror threat stuff, its all good PR for the government...you would think its never happend before! :rolleyes:
You should have been living overseas during the height of the coldwar...threat ratings on the base going up and down like cheap tart!
I love all this terror threat stuff, its all good PR for the government...you would think its never happend before! :rolleyes:
You should have been living overseas during the height of the coldwar...threat ratings on the base going up and down like cheap tart!
Im esactly the same. I spent half of my time up at RAF Fairford during the IRAQ war. I know alot about the B2 Spirt because i know alot about Area 51 even though the F117 was also desined and built at Area51. Iv asumed it was both a Fighter and a Bomber. Iv only seen the F-117 once in real life and to be honest was paying more atttion to the protection of the thing. So yeh agreed it isnt a fighter jet.
Bit confused about the Typhoon are we both talking about the Eurofiter Typhoon T1??
There are (essentially) 2 variants of the Typhoon (ignoring differing build/tranches):
The 2 seater trainer - Designation T Mk 1
Single seat 'Fighter' - Designation F Mk 2
Typhoon started out as the EFA (European Fighter Aircraft) then became EF2000, or Eurofighter 2000. When they realised it was never going to be built by the year 2000 they dropped that moniker and called it Eurofighter. The aircraft was then christened Typhoon...
/History
There will, without doubt be other variants later F Mk3 etc
/Prediction :D
I know alot about Area 51 even though the F117 was also desined and built at Area51.
So that would be the area 51 that "does'nt" exist. ;) Much (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=area+51+&ie=UTF8&ll=37.244559,-115.814695&spn=0.008165,0.027122&t=k&om=1) and im still trying to find E.T :D
The F15s were real and "His Tonyness", I am sure would rather have 3 US fighters shoot an american airliner down than have the british boys do it, especialy over the atlantic while bound for an american airport.
I live next to a river valley where it meets the channel, fighter jets fly low for practice here, some so low in the valley we dont see them till they come UP and bank out over the channel, the british planes I am not too familiar with but I do know the rare US ones that go by. The sight of an A10 "Warthog" flying at your EYE level is very exciting but when the two Brit chase planes came after it at blinding speed my wife and I could only watch in awe as the cats run for cover and every bird along the south downs flies up in panic, the noise is simply amazing.
The F117 is called the "Wobbly Goblin" by its pilots, it is impossible to fly without computer assistance. And it IS a bomber not a fighter.
movinginthedark
11-08-2006, 09:19
Oh god - ok, flame me for this in a bit but this is a real tribute and a fantastic example as to how appauling and right wing the daily mail can be sometimes.
Open it this morning and what am I confronted with - Page 3 hosts an "artists" illustration of two suicide bombers on a plane. Why - might I ask, do they always appear to be black? Or more correctly Arabic...? There are white caurcassian terrorists too I am sure, or black afro caribbean terrorists - why must the daily mail inspire racial hatered further.
The next thing that ****s me off is the fact that the daily mail openly detail HOW THE BOMBS ARE MADE - AND how one, i.e. Joe Bloggs would go about making one!! Ok, it doesn't give the exact ratios of ingredience, but it lists everything you need to know!!
**Disclaimer**
If you are reading this and have every intension of going out to buy the dailymail just to work out how to make this explosive, nicknamed "The Mother of Satan" - Just to see how "cool" it might be, don't.... you stupid ****. This disclaimer absolves the author and KustomPC's as well as it's affiliate partners from any responcibility should you choose to break the law in anyway.
I think that about covers it - fourthy?
Anywho - that is my mini rant on this subject over. I am aware it is the Daily Mail and usually a load of made up bull**** but has anyone else seen this? Opinions?
If you think its bad for the paper to print that, Google "Mother of Satan" and see what you get!
Big Adam
11-08-2006, 10:01
Don't get me started on the Daily Mail.
Published by the brainless, read by the gormless.
shifty.ricky
11-08-2006, 10:27
Page 3 hosts an "artists" illustration of two suicide bombers on a plane. Why - might I ask, do they always appear to be black? Or more correctly Arabic...? There are white caurcassian terrorists too I am sure, or black afro caribbean terrorists - why must the daily mail inspire racial hatered further.
Two words. Offender Profile.
When you can start showing me 62 year old Betty from the WI is a terrorist then I will start asking for them to have a broader view of terrorists.
Have you read the list of names of people arrested. Hardly Mr Smith and Mrs Jones are they.
movinginthedark
11-08-2006, 12:20
True - but I just hate the way the Daily Mail seem to use blatent stereotypes and ideologies - it infuriates me the way they can publish some of the things they do... for all it's worth - it might as well be run by a group of neo nazi's - oh wait... it's owned by a trust.... surprise surprise.....
Don't forget the Daily Mail backed the Nazi's during WW2 if I remember right.
(remembering from a book, not personal memory!)
movinginthedark
11-08-2006, 13:46
Indeed they did. It seems almost every day these is an apology in there for an "incorrect" source....
It is getting ridiculous now....
But back on topic - where do you think the terrorists stand now? I know they were going to use smaller airports like Manchester and Bristol so they could avoid heavier security checks. How long do you think the security level will remain at critical for? Because surely the air line is losing a lot of money over this?
Big Adam
11-08-2006, 13:57
The Mail published many articles in the 1930's complaining about the number of foreign immigrants entering the country who just happened to be German Jews fleeing the nazi uprising.
The Mail were vocal supporters of the German Socialist Party up until the Nazi invasion of Poland. Once war was declared, they changed sides quicker than you can say "Italians" and remarkably we (Britain) were now the shining light protecting the world (including the jews) and fighting against the tyranny of evil.
Good to see we've progressed in the intervening 60 years.
EDIT: These new security measures are here to stay for a while. Yes the airlines are losing cash at the moment but after a week or two, once everybody understands the new requirements, there shouldn't be any undue delays.
When I fly, I always seem to be sat next to the stuck up slag with 27 louis vuitton bags who boards first and fills up the overhead lockers causing chaos as normal people try and find some room. Zero hand-luggage means easy peasy seating and rapid boarding.
How long do you think the security level will remain at critical for? Because surely the air line is losing a lot of money over this?
Untill the police know they've got all of them as theres most likely a few in hiding, I think the estimate was somewhere in the region of £10 million they lost yesturday probaly alot more. And boy I'd hate to be flying this week to America, no laptops no mp3 playes no electronic devices full stop :(
Big Adam
11-08-2006, 14:05
It's the Duty Free shops that are losing BIG cash at the moment. People buy on impulse to drink, wear and use whilst abroad.
Very few will bother buying on the way out and collecting when they come home.
The F15s were real and "His Tonyness", I am sure would rather have 3 US fighters shoot an american airliner down than have the british boys do it, especialy over the atlantic while bound for an american airport.
I live next to a river valley where it meets the channel, fighter jets fly low for practice here, some so low in the valley we dont see them till they come UP and bank out over the channel, the british planes I am not too familiar with but I do know the rare US ones that go by. The sight of an A10 "Warthog" flying at your EYE level is very exciting but when the two Brit chase planes came after it at blinding speed my wife and I could only watch in awe as the cats run for cover and every bird along the south downs flies up in panic, the noise is simply amazing.
The F117 is called the "Wobbly Goblin" by its pilots, it is impossible to fly without computer assistance. And it IS a bomber not a fighter.
There is no way GWB or any ruling politician is going to authorise the shoot down of an airliner on the way to Continental USA using a UK based fighter - They will use fighters on a CAP from Iceland or the USA, after they are 200% certain it is their only option - Chasing one down from this side of the pond is not going to be viable.
Neither is a fighter going to chase an airliner going to the USA along your valley - EVER. Groundspeed is half what it could be at high level, and you burn twice as much fuel. So you take twice as long and burn FOUR times as much fuel. But yes, snorting around at 250' at 500mph is EXCELLENT fun, even better when you are down at 100' :D
And the F117 is the 'Woblin' Goblin', (see what they did there!) it is indeed fly-by-wire (FBW), but then so are the majority of recent/advanced aircraft - Even the venerable Tornado uses computers to make flying it easier. Should the computers fail in the Typhoon (again FBW) the aircraft breaks apart in the region of 0.5 sec later :eek: And they are not the most advanced computers, in fact you wouldn't believe how low they are spec'd!!
Not trying to cause any arguments - just trying to give people here the facts so that they can argue from a position of strength.
hylian_231
11-08-2006, 14:29
Wha............ :eek: Thats insane!! But I wasn't aware of that until now. Wow - things are still really tense then. I hate to say it though, but it is only a matter of time before Al queida (forgive the spelling) manage another successfull attack on either America of Britain.....
Or Australia. Didn't they say in one of their broadcasts warning Johnny Eyebrows to withdraw troops or an attack will be placed. Or something
I only heard about it till this morning on the news.
Gee I never said they were after anything, I was just suprised at the timing and the rarity of US planes (now 5 in 10 years).
I was only saying what you just said, that the UK wouldnt want to fire on a US based and bound aircraft.
I could see the underside well enough to see the USAF logo and there were no missiles underneath.
I would guestimate my height over the valley to be 160 feet or so
DarkEntity
11-08-2006, 18:46
The bottled water may have something to do with the nature of the planned explosives. According to the beeb, they may have been disgusing liquid explosive in cans of drink!
I think they are concerned about Binary Liquid explosives, which remail inert until 2 liquids are mixed together at which point they become explosive. Rather cool stuff tbh, managed to see some a few years back...
All these threats make me glad im north of the English border.
Yeh iv seen that on Google Earth :) Excellent isnt it.
Yeh, just been confurmed apprently 2 Typhoon's were at filton. Dont as me who but somone asked for a arms licence for Filton and they sent 2 typhoons and somthing else. Its tottally blanked my mind. Apprently both the Typhoons were armed. I know that it hasnt been put into service but apprently it happend. I havn't seen it for myself yet and im not to sure if there all still there but may take a trip that way tommorow.
shifty.ricky
13-08-2006, 21:05
Can't see why they would use Bristol when there are RAF bases a lot closer by. Don't forget that at normal speed they are covering something daft like 15 miles a minute. Max speed is closer to 30 miles a minute.
hardly surprising that there were Typhoons at Filton, since you have Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace both located there. I think you'll find this is complete coincidence, given that I've seen Typhoons there long before this latest plot kicked off.
Cheers,
Stephen
Iv never seen anything thing there its normally dead but to be honest i never pass there. And did you know that there was a tanker that performed a 'emergency stop' at hethrow the other day.. id put money on it that it was Marshalls and a lot of gear.
shifty.ricky
14-08-2006, 01:05
Its a major airport. Probably the tanker was diverted there as its the first major airport you get to when you come in over the pond from America. So it had an "emergency" I bet they get 2 or 3 a week usually.
Have you become the worlds largest conspiracy nut or something.
haha yeh i have, But they were talking about sending Marshalls to Heathrow and whats the safest and most secret way of getting Marshalls into heathrow? (with a lot of gear??) And were ever the plane is and was coming from there is a RAF Base close to land at?
"Conspiracy Nut"
I am since i found out they 'Faked' the pentagon attack well not as much fake but didnt tell the WHOLE truth about it :) and still to this day 5years on still wont say the truth!.
"Conspiracy Nut"
I am since i found out they 'Faked' the pentagon attack well not as much fake but didnt tell the WHOLE truth about it :) and still to this day 5years on still wont say the truth!.
Oh dear, I do hope you're joking with that line.
DarkEntity
14-08-2006, 13:29
The pentagon so called attack wasnt entirely legit, have a search for the video of the item (not plane) hitting the Pentagon, listen to the petrol station owners reports etc....you will probably come to the same conclusion.....the Pentagon attack was faked.
Edit
Here is the video.
Click Me (http://www.darkentity.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/junk/pentagon.swf)
The pentagon so called attack wasnt entirely legit, have a search for the video of the item (not plane) hitting the Pentagon, listen to the petrol station owners reports etc....you will probably come to the same conclusion.....the Pentagon attack was faked.
I've seen all the so called "evidence" and certainly didn't come to the same conclussion.
Yeh, its not every day that you get CIA or FBI or who ever they were come and convascate security camera videos that were pointing at the pentagon of you is it. And you will find loads of information on it on the internet but there is no way a 757 hit the pentagon... People are saying it was a UAV 'a global hawk' that hit the pentagon. And thats somthing terroist ain't going to have got there hands on.
DarkEntity
14-08-2006, 13:37
I've seen all the so called "evidence" and certainly didn't come to the same conclussion.
watch the attached vid
Theres nothing attached?? but anyway when someone can tell me how a 757 can pierce 9foot of still and how it fits in this.. http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/911/images/pentagon.jpg
with no wreckidge of the plane attal...?
Yeh, its not every day that you get CIA or FBI or who ever they were come and convascate security camera videos that were pointing at the pentagon of you is it.
Hello? This was an attack on Federal property, which makes it a Federal crime, so of course the FBI will be involved. And since the first rule at any crime scene is to gather all available evidence, of course they are going to take away the video tapes.
Think about it for 5 minutes?
Stephen
Theres nothing attached?? but anyway when someone can tell me how a 757 can pierce 9foot of still and how it fits in this.. http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/911/images/pentagon.jpg
with no wreckidge of the plane attal...?
If you look at the other video tapes and images, you'll see plenty of wreckage if you bother to look. Basic physics would explain to you how an aircraft can cause that much damage and why the wreckage would be in small (relatively speaking) pieces. Also it isn't going to make a nice aircraft shaped hole in it, like in cartoons, that just doesn't happen.
Damn conspiracy theories, I'll say that theres no way on earth a 747 going at near 200+mph and about 5 foot off the floor can just disappear like it did at the pentagon although something hit it most likely a surface to air missle, but imho that whole day was susspect including the world trade centres but we won't go into that for obvious reasons. Oh and the uk terror threat has been downgraded (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4789169.stm) at last.
DarkEntity
14-08-2006, 14:49
I got the video attached to post 54
If you look at the other video tapes and images, you'll see plenty of wreckage if you bother to look. Basic physics would explain to you how an aircraft can cause that much damage and why the wreckage would be in small (relatively speaking) pieces. Also it isn't going to make a nice aircraft shaped hole in it, like in cartoons, that just doesn't happen.
A Boing 757 is 155 ft long and 124 ft wing to wing.. and those wings are full up with avitation fuel. Now the only reason that the WTC's collapsed was due to the fires. Im sure there would me more damage than that... there is no engines lieing about?? no wings... no cotpit? and even if half of the plane did go into the pentagon... were is the other 77foot of it?
DarkEntity
14-08-2006, 17:54
Imo a plane didnt hit the Pentagon.
The shots minutes after the explosion show windows intact, the lawn perfect, no debris from an aricraft....and the biggest thing that makes me think it was a good PR exercse for the US was, for it to have flown at 5metres from the deck it would have been seen by the hundreds if not thousands of people on the freeway right infront of the Pentagon...and low and behold no one saw an aircraft, they did state however the saw a flying object that looked like a missle and after the explosion they smelt cordite (explosives)...Imo the Pentagon was a huge hoax..
Tbh i always thought that the twin towers was done or at least aided by the government in the US, lets face it, they have killed presidents and their family, what would stop them killing a few hundred people for the cause!
Imo a plane didnt hit the Pentagon.
I wouldnt agree with that:
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/images/pentagon-9-11.gif
Footage from the only camera that was watching that bit apprently.
Now people are saying that thats a Global Hawk UAV. And to be honest i could agree with them its deffently not a boing 757. Its a small aircraft.
Its a bit obvious that your not familiar with the pentagon building, it is HUGE and the pictures on the news directly after the event plainly (no pun) showed the wreckage, I have no doubt that even a large missle would not do that much damage.
A Boing 757 is 155 ft long and 124 ft wing to wing.. and those wings are full up with avitation fuel. Now the only reason that the WTC's collapsed was due to the fires. Im sure there would me more damage than that... there is no engines lieing about?? no wings... no cotpit? and even if half of the plane did go into the pentagon... were is the other 77foot of it?
Can't find the URL right now, but there is a series of pictures that show parts of the engine debris and other assorted identifiable pieces of the aircraft. Yes it is 124ft tip to tip - But wings shear off quite easily when faced with reinforced concrete pillars, as I said, they don't make a cartoon shape hole in it. You forget that the Pentagon is made from reinforced conrete and was designed to withstand attacks to a large extent. Unless the fuel gets atomised inside the building then ignited, or a significant amount gets inside the building and starts a large fire, then there isn't going to be major damage on a building with that type of construction just from impact.
Its a bit obvious that your not familiar with the pentagon building, it is HUGE and the pictures on the news directly after the event plainly (no pun) showed the wreckage, I have no doubt that even a large missle would not do that much damage.
Did you not see that .gif above? there is no way thats a 757.
And to be honest i could agree with them its deffently not a boing 757. Its a small aircraft.
You can only see part of it from that "footage" and it's recorded at such a very low framerate, which is quite important when you're talking about something moving very fast through the frame.
The funniest thing is, if any government wanted to carry out a plot like people here are claiming they did, then why would they use different aircraft to what they claim hit the buildings? They wouldn't have to, they could use the exact aircraft quite easily - They buy lots of the very same aircraft for military use, lick of paint, bit of tinkering, and Bob's Your Mothers Brother, job done.
You can defend what im saying as much as you like.. but this conspiracy is everyware!. Months of research! and there is no way to explain how a 757 could hit that and cause so little damage. And if so that did happen... why havnt they relised footage of it... to prove us all wrong!?? like fat jez said they have the evidence they convascated it all! Why cant they relise the evidence and prove us all wrong!. I would get into the argument about the WTC's aswell but i have no evidence to prove what i will say.
There are pictures of of aircraft debris, but they don't belong to that of a boeing.
And well, I actually agree with Dark Entity for once :x
DarkEntity
14-08-2006, 18:14
You could argue this for ever, just like JFK being shot by L H Oswald (he was the biggest patsy ever)
From all the info ive seen, read, heard and watched there was NO way in this gods earth a Boing 757 hit the Pentagon, im sure if you ask 90% of the yanks they will believe it did, in which case the PR machine worked perfectly. The president gets his war, gets the country behind him and voila.
Lets face it the so called terrorists (im thinking US government) managed to crash into the ONLY part of the Pentagon with no people in it, that had been under reconstrucion for about 5 years? You think they would have researched the target a bit first wouldnt you?
Amazing that aint it!
There there is the 2 towers, not wanting to **** all over that piece of PR marketing masterpiece but it was also just what the doctor ordered.
DarkEntity
14-08-2006, 18:15
There are pictures of of aircraft debris, but they don't belong to that of a boeing.
And well, I actually agree with Dark Entity for once :x
Oi
stop that, im getting teary eyed ;P
Did you not see that .gif above? there is no way thats a 757.
Let's take a look at that gif, the height of the object travelling through it, is about 9.5 pixels, the height of the Pentagon, is about 43 pixels at the impact point. The height of the cabin on a 757-200 is about 16.5 feet, the height of the Pentagon is about 77 feet.
43 / 9.5 = 4.526
75 / 16.5 = 4.545
Now that seems a pretty good fit to me.
The shots minutes after the explosion show windows intact
Not all of them. Funny how blast-proof windows, designed to survive an explosion did just that isn't it?
and the biggest thing that makes me think it was a good PR exercse for the US was, for it to have flown at 5metres from the deck it would have been seen by the hundreds if not thousands of people on the freeway right infront of the Pentagon
And plenty of people did come forward and say that they saw an aircraft, that was out of control, pitching from side to side.
Of course could argue this all day either way. Surfice to say, there have been a lot more independant experts analyse this and come to the non-conspiracy conclussion than there have come to the conspiracy conclussion - The conspiracy side tends to be made up of people quoting experts out of context or tweaking the evidence to suit - Good example is the graph showing seismic readings, where the conspiracy side analysed it to show their point, unfortunately to do so, they chopped quite a bit of it off that disproved their point.
If any govt. wanted to carry out something like this, they wouldn't need to cut corners and give people room to talk.
This is stupidity and highly upsetting, you might as well deny WW2 and the holocaust, I leave you with this pic, see if you would do this for a PR stunt!
http://home.btclick.com/tamid/Stuff/1484.jpg
like fat jez said they have the evidence they convascated it all!
Don't think for a minute that I was supporting your argument. I don't believe for a single minute there was any form of conspiracy, other than the one that Bin Laden hatched to destroy the twin towers and the pentagon with hijacked aircraft. Not even the American government would be so stupid as to do this to their own people.
Stephen
DarkEntity
14-08-2006, 18:32
Im not saying people didnt die in the twin towers, im just saying its not beyond the US government to orchestrate it. They have killed there own presidents so i doubt it would matter if it got the required outcome, which is did, they got their war.
shifty.ricky
14-08-2006, 18:33
Hmm its a dark day when the FBI get out smarted by NapsterUK
1) Ever see the video of a F-4 Skyhawk flying into the brick wall used on nuclear power stations as a test. It vaporised. There was nothing left but dust.
2) If it was a missle then why did the building collapse not explode.
3) Do you really think that the president needed to blow up the pentagon to get the war he wanted? I think the world trade would have got him the votes he needed
I am sorry to hear all this, as a Viet Nam vet I am using every bit of restraint I have not to say nasty things to you conspiracy supporters. To actually think so many civilians died along with SO many brave police and fire professionals for poliitical gain makes me want to puke.
It would'nt surprise me the US is a giant and wont stop at anything, for all of you who think the pentagon was hit by a 747 this article (http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies3.htm) and the other 112 pages make quite interresting reading, well for me it did. And yes some of the theories on that link are completly wrong but not all of them.
shifty.ricky
14-08-2006, 19:36
If i wasnt going out down the pub I would actually sit there and pull each of those pages apart. Maybe when I get bored at work tommorrow I will.
The guy is stretching at the very least to make some of his "theories" fit.
Hmm its a dark day when the FBI get out smarted by NapsterUK
I love it :) that put a smile on my face. But im not saying that america delibratly did it... but why would america lie about whats happend? All i know is its not a 757 that hit a pentagon. There covering somthing up.
Can i verify if it was a 747 or a 757?
It would'nt surprise me the US is a giant and wont stop at anything, for all of you who think the pentagon was hit by a 747 this article (http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies3.htm) and the other 112 pages make quite interresting reading, well for me it did. And yes some of the theories on that link are completly wrong but not all of them.
lol, those photos are funny, especially this one: http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies8.htm
Those two photos are quite clearly not taken from the same location, they just both happen to have a similar sign in them - nevermind the missing armco, they've also removed a roadway and raised the path up to the level of the grass (taking out the curbs), they are so obviously not from the same location that it is laughable that someone would even think they were. Nutters, the lot of them.
lol, those photos are funny, especially this one: http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies8.htm
Those two photos are quite clearly not taken from the same location, they just both happen to have a similar sign in them - nevermind the missing armco, they've also removed a roadway and raised the path up to the level of the grass (taking out the curbs), they are so obviously not from the same location that it is laughable that someone would even think they were. Nutters, the lot of them.
haha i actully agree with you.. how stupid are they? one picture half of the pentagon is on the floor and the other one the pentagon is fine... lol. And the police car is a diffrent location and one sign is fine and the other one is damaged.
Like I said not all of those pages are as true as some, but the one that got me is if an airliner hit the building so low how come the grass is untouched when you've just had a couple of airliner engines go over it at 250+mph and just a few feet above it that just does'nt add up :confused:
and also my point of the Avation Fuel.. the wings would of snapped and fuel would of went all over that grass... how come there was no massive grass fire?
and also my point of the Avation Fuel.. the wings would of snapped and fuel would of went all over that grass... how come there was no massive grass fire?
The fuel would actually most likely have been atomised/vapourised on impact as the building is so solid.
hylian_231
15-08-2006, 11:15
All this because of one idea:
" My religion is better than yours"
shifty.ricky
15-08-2006, 14:10
All this because of one idea:
" My religion is better than yours"
Well, mine is. Whats your point?
the_leander
15-08-2006, 14:44
I know alot about the B2 Spirt because i know alot about Area 51 even though the F117 was also desined and built at Area51.
Ok, stop right there.
The F117 was designed and built at Lockheeds Skunkworks facilities, at the groom lake facility, also known as area 51.. Later aircraft were constructed at Palmdale, California when skunkworks relocated.
The B2 however was not a skunkworks project. It was built and tested at Palmdale.
Both of these aircraft are not particularly stealthy either - the B2 for instance was tracked by a British Rapier missile system during a flypast at Fairford back in 94 or 96. The Americans denied it right up until BAE released the footage to the local media, along with an interview with the corporal who was there, with the firing button. Had he pressed the button, he would have reduced that billion dollar aircraft to scrap.
What's less well known is that the Americans tried to sneak one in on an excersise prior to the airshow (pre arranged with us, obviously). The B2 pilots were somewhat surprised when a couple of Tornado F3's showed up to escort it over british territory...
As for your idea about a UAV doing the damage to the pentagon... No, sorry, even their largest (which does have a nasty habit of falling out of the air) would not have done much, in fact, unless the thing went through a window, it would have crumpled (not disintigrated) on the outside wall. A missile would have made a man sized hole on entry and taken a naffing great chunk of the building on exit if it made it through.
The Pentagon was struck by an airliner, pure and simple. As to why the fuel didn't burn all the grass... I would imagine that any fuel that did go up would have been in the building, in truth I can't see that there would have been much that could have escaped the internal fire anyway...
the_leander
15-08-2006, 14:55
and also my point of the Avation Fuel.. the wings would of snapped and fuel would of went all over that grass... how come there was no massive grass fire?
The wings are not that strong, they would not have snapped off, they would have disintrated on impact, just like the rest of the airliner.
Have a look for that video of a MD Skyhawk smacking a bunker, its wings don't just stop and lay on the ground as the rest of the aircraft becomes one with the concrete. Same goes for the airliner.
Have a look for that video of a MD Skyhawk smacking a bunker, its wings don't just stop and lay on the ground as the rest of the aircraft becomes one with the concrete. Same goes for the airliner.
I've seen that vid but were talking about a 747 which is just a bit bigger loaded with people and that the only bodyparts that have been recoverd have never been released to the supposeded familys?? and the serial numbers of the parts of the plane have also never been released to the public why??
I've seen that vid but were talking about a 747 which is just a bit bigger loaded with people and that the only bodyparts that have been recoverd have never been released to the supposeded familys??
Actually it was a 757-200, which is considerably smaller than a 747. The point that it is bigger makes no difference - It weighs more, it carrier more fuel, if the fuel atomised then very little is going to be left over, the US most powerful non-nuclear device I believe is the "Daisy Cutter" which uses fuel atomisation.
Ok, stop right there.
The F117 was designed and built at Lockheeds Skunkworks facilities, at the groom lake facility, also known as area 51.. Later aircraft were constructed at Palmdale, California when skunkworks relocated.
The B2 however was not a skunkworks project. It was built and tested at Palmdale.
Once again it comes down to are the americans telling the truth? Can you trust them. They lied about 'Groom lake' 'Area51' 'The Nivada Desert' what ever you want to call it and the only reason the decided it did exsist was when the russians (i think ill check) took sattalite pictures of it!.
Heres a link about Area 51 and what was made/tested/designed there.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/3543/area51.htm
And to be honest we could argue about this for months. Some of us belive it was a 757 some of us belive it wasn't we can chuck evidence at each other all day but none of us know the truth what hit it and what didnt.
And to be honest we could argue about this for months. Some of us belive it was a 757 some of us belive it wasn't we can chuck evidence at each other all day but none of us know the truth what hit it and what didnt.
Agreed,
Damn 10 letter limit
shifty.ricky
15-08-2006, 16:45
Once again it comes down to are the americans telling the truth? Can you trust them. They lied about 'Groom lake' 'Area51' 'The Nivada Desert' what ever you want to call it and the only reason the decided it did exsist was when the russians (i think ill check) took sattalite pictures of it!.
Heres a link about Area 51 and what was made/tested/designed there.
Right. So someone with a geocites account just happened to work at a top secret research facility? Also, why are you so suprised the Americans denied the existance of thier R&D base. The UK govt dont admit much to what is located at Gibraltar, but its there as I have seen it with my own 2 eyes.
If you really think that area 51 is special check out the UK govt that used to ban OS of publishing maps of certain facilities and they were airbrushed to make them look like fields.
the_leander
15-08-2006, 16:47
And to be honest we could argue about this for months. Some of us belive it was a 757 some of us belive it wasn't we can chuck evidence at each other all day but none of us know the truth what hit it and what didnt.
Well, unless you can find the missing 757, a couple hundred passengers that strangely went missing about the same time that something big, fast and shaped like a 757 smacked the Pentagon, I'm going to have to stick with it having been a 757.
And we can know the truth, its called reading the reports. Contrary to what conspiraloons will repeatedly tell you, they are largely* accurate.
*The only real complaints about the Pentagon reports are down to the whereabouts of various people key to the government.
--edit--
Missile wreckage? I think not (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=468257&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EAFTER MATH%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Wreckage+from+Flight+77+on+th e+Pentagon%E2%80%99s+lawn--proof+that+a+passenger+plane%2C+not+a+missile%2C+h it+the+building.+PHOTOGRAPH+BY+AP%2FWIDE+WORLD+PHO TOS)
Yeh iv seen that pic before and people say the colours a miss match or somthing ill find the website. Another thing not mentioned did the planes black box get recoverd??
If you really think that area 51 is special check out the UK govt that used to ban OS of publishing maps of certain facilities and they were airbrushed to make them look like fields.
Please don't encourage him!
Whilst I admit that much of 9/11 is suspicious, I think the suspicions are more with the ties that Bush has with the Saudis than with any conspiracy towards deliberately killing their own people and destroying the twin towers.
Cheers,
Stephen
Another thing not mentioned did the planes black box get recoverd??
Yes, it was mentioned, in an interview with the bloke that recovered it, because he was most upset that people kept telling him it wasn't an aircraft and thus inferring that it wasn't human body parts he'd picked up.
DarkEntity
15-08-2006, 22:16
--edit--
Missile wreckage? I think not (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=468257&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EAFTER MATH%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Wreckage+from+Flight+77+on+th e+Pentagon%E2%80%99s+lawn--proof+that+a+passenger+plane%2C+not+a+missile%2C+h it+the+building.+PHOTOGRAPH+BY+AP%2FWIDE+WORLD+PHO TOS)
Love the PR placing of that piece of tin!
also its not hard to loose aircraft/people if you really want to. Lets face it all the nazi scientists managed to get lost in the US after the 2nd world war didnt they
shifty.ricky
15-08-2006, 23:27
Love the PR placing of that piece of tin!
Photographers do what they need to get a good shot. Its not un heard of for photographers at chernobyl to place gas masks in childrens abandoned cots to get a "better" photo.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/13.jpg
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=468257&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EAFTER MATH%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Wreckage+from+Flight+77+on+th e+Pentagon%E2%80%99s+lawn--proof+that+a+passenger+plane%2C+not+a+missile%2C+h it+the+building.+PHOTOGRAPH+BY+AP%2FWIDE+WORLD+PHO TOS
Same thing in 2 diffrent places?
No, it's just a different depth of field, so that more is in focus on the first one and it's also zoomed in a bit.
Give it up - there is no conspiracy.
Cheers,
Stephen
hylian_231
16-08-2006, 01:16
Well, mine is. Whats your point?
My point is, that all these wars are started because of religion, I mean, look at world war 2, that was started by a bunch of christians thinking that jews were evil, and look where that got us.
Religion is what all these wars and acts of terrorism are about.
good thing im athiest.
No, it's just a different depth of field, so that more is in focus on the first one and it's also zoomed in a bit.
Yeh, now you say it and i look your actully correct :(
Ahh i found a site that says about it could be a gloabl hawk that hit the Pentagon. This may convince you.
http://www.worldterrorism.nl/wordpress/?page_id=25
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/13.jpg
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=468257&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EAFTER MATH%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Wreckage+from+Flight+77+on+th e+Pentagon%E2%80%99s+lawn--proof+that+a+passenger+plane%2C+not+a+missile%2C+h it+the+building.+PHOTOGRAPH+BY+AP%2FWIDE+WORLD+PHO TOS
Same thing in 2 diffrent places?
lol, it's the same angle, slightly different time of day, with a longer focal length lens used (compresses the depth of field). If you zoom in on the one on Popular Mechanics, you'll actually see the same tree in the middle left. Clutching at straws I'm afraid.
shifty.ricky
16-08-2006, 10:51
Ahh i found a site that says about it could be a gloabl hawk that hit the Pentagon. This may convince you.
http://www.worldterrorism.nl/wordpress/?page_id=25
Sigh. Some people may think were just arguing the toss, but I am infact trying to save you from a life of your own stupidity.
Have you seen a "global hawk" they are tiny.I doubt one would make much mess of your house let alone the steel reinforced pentagon.
So what you are saying is that:
a) an airliner vanished?
b) along with a couple of hunred people
c) that all the emercency services at the pentagon are actors
d) that they did this knowing 10,000,000 media would be prowling the location
e) and just so happened that not one of the people that would have had to be involved in this huge plan in terms of planning ran off to Time, CNN etc to make a monsterous amount of cash?
More unanswered questions in the conspiracy plot than the real explanation.
Big Adam
16-08-2006, 11:08
Hold it fellas.
I'm just building a brick wall for Jez and Ricky.
shifty.ricky
16-08-2006, 11:15
Is that so I can crash a global hawk into it to prove a point.....
*ok i'll stop now*
So, handlugguage, crazy guys on planes with liquid bombs?
Does anyone have a problem not being allowed to take this kind of hand lugguage on board? I know I don't, I hope they make this new security measure permanent.
Hell I'd even feel safer if everyone had to take stuff on in see through plastic bags.
Have you seen a "global hawk" they are tiny.I doubt one would make much mess of your house let alone the steel reinforced pentagon.
So what you are saying is that:
a) an airliner vanished?
b) along with a couple of hunred people
c) that all the emercency services at the pentagon are actors
d) that they did this knowing 10,000,000 media would be prowling the location
e) and just so happened that not one of the people that would have had to be involved in this huge plan in terms of planning ran off to Time, CNN etc to make a monsterous amount of cash?
Hmm no i havn't i have seen a UAV and yes it was tiny but it was a little more advanced than the global hawk.
Size of the global hawk:
Length: 44.4 feet
Wingspan: 116.2 feet
Height: 15.2 feet
A) Well yeh if it didnt hit the pentagon it must of went somewere... or did that flight exsist?
B) If there were people in it then yes.
And im not saying anyone is being put up to doing it. Im saying it wasnt a 757 that hit the pentagon. The emergancy services just went there and did there job.
Well with all your years of experience on this planet I guess you would know, after all 15 year olds know everything!
What a crock of poo!
Well with all your years of experience on this planet I guess you would know, after all 15 year olds know everything!
What a crock of poo!
QFT
:cool:
shifty.ricky
16-08-2006, 19:12
A) Well yeh if it didnt hit the pentagon it must of went somewere... or did that flight exsist?
Well if it did go somewhere you'd have all the people from it walking round and people wondering why they are not dead.
If the flight never existed what do you think happened to the plane. Its not easy to get a place disposed of...again takes a lot of people. People who would be willing to sell stories to papers.
Well if it did go somewhere you'd have all the people from it walking round and people wondering why they are not dead.
Yeh true, well i don't know. I belive what i belive it dosent matter what way you look at it, the plane hit the pentagon or not theres questions that are hard to answer on both sides. Im offically out of this argument :).
[Edited]: Edited now im calm about a comment :)
hylian_231
16-08-2006, 23:31
Well with all your years of experience on this planet I guess you would know, after all 15 year olds know everything!
What a crock of poo!
ahem... 16 years old.
Ja, and I do know alot on WW2, etc because I do modern history, and I read alot.
And it appears that my intelligence level is far higher than yours.
ahem... 16 years old.
Ja, and I do know alot on WW2, etc because I do modern history, and I read alot.
And it appears that my intelligence level is far higher than yours.
1) He was aiming that comment at Napster
2) Unless your reading includes all those secret reports that the conspiracy believers think exists, then that doesn't really count for much in this context. Come back when we are debating WW2 and I'll run rings around you - but then, I've been studying it for about 20 years.
3) Comments like that make you look like an arrogant ****. Please prove me wrong. Better still, apologise.
Cheers,
Stephen
Yep, i think he was aiming it at me and i really cant be botherd to argue with him and i think your best of just not bothering aswell :)
...it appears that my intelligence level is far higher than yours.
Clearly not, as you are unable to detect whom a posts content is aimed at :rolleyes:
You can always tell a teenager.
You just cant tell them much!
shifty.ricky
17-08-2006, 09:57
Or the ol simpsons classic.
Let this be a lesson to you. Kids never learn.
You can always tell a teenager.
You just cant tell them much!
haha, i love it.
Anyone know who Americas planning to bomb next? There loading USAF fairford up with U2's..
DarkEntity
24-08-2006, 18:40
Itll be some bunch of little brown/black people who the US sold weapons to last year that have now been superseeded, so need to test to make sure the new ones work better than the last lot.
Well i dont know what there up 2 but theres five of them and there going out in the morning and coming back afternoon time. So there flying out to somewere. So there spying on someone.
Well i dont know what there up 2 but theres five of them and there going out in the morning and coming back afternoon time. So there flying out to somewere. So there spying on someone.
Ever wonder if they are on training missions? The U2 can stay aloft for about 6-7 hours, with a range of over 3000nm, so if they were spying, I think they would be away a bit longer, with tanker support.
Cheers,
Stephen
jesush++
25-08-2006, 00:12
Haha, b2 for spying. What is the point of a UAV then. I dont think they would use billion dollar bombers for spying. Hell, even George W aint that stupid
We are on about U2's not B2's.
jacobzcoool
25-08-2006, 10:42
Haha, b2 for spying. What is the point of a UAV then. I dont think they would use billion dollar bombers for spying. Hell, even George W aint that stupid
Haha, I could just imagine that!
Maybe they could use it to drop cameras and microphones :rolleyes:
Ever wonder if they are on training missions? The U2 can stay aloft for about 6-7 hours, with a range of over 3000nm, so if they were spying, I think they would be away a bit longer, with tanker support.
Cheers,
Stephen
The Americans dont send 6 of them all the way to USAF Fairford for training missions.
Iv just been informed there using Fairford as a rotation point. Planes coming back from a hot country near med and then there stopping at fairford and then flying back to the US. And vice versa.
shifty.ricky
25-08-2006, 21:13
The Americans dont send 6 U2's all the way to USAF Fairford for training missions.
Iv now discoverd there using Fairford as a rotation point. Planes coming back from a hot country near med and then there stopping at fairford and then flying back to the US. And vice versa.
I think the work "discovered" is a bit strong....I may just start having to call you louis lane.
Cor, this has all gone a bit off topic hasn't it? I just flicked back one page and everyone's moaning about conspiracy theories and different types of aircraft. Crikey!
Yeah, I thought that might happen and tried to sway it back (post 113) but to no avail :(
[GPO]Solitaire
27-08-2006, 04:25
GUYS!!!!!!
BACK on TOPIC!!!
the attack on the UK flights are not new!!!
they tried it over TEN years ago!!!
It did not get past a dry run then.
but what you should be worried about , the WORLD knew about this type of attack but didn't do anything about it till it was directed agenst America!!
why!?!?
American government is STUPID! it's a Knee Jerk ( emphisis on Jerk) reaction to things they knew about but hoped the public didn't!!
it's all to do with the up coming elections in the US in a few weeks time!!!
Check out "Operation Bojinka" it's the origional plan that was designed 11 years ago and foiled!!.
p.s.
to make the explosives mentioned in this attack you'd need a Cool box full of ice to keep the chemicals stable while the reactent was put into the mix... other wise you'd get a hot quick boiling reaction that would only kill the person making it! even if it was in a presurised container like an aircraft!!
It would need "ideal lab" conditions to make a liquid device capable of breaking the skin of a plane when it exploded!
:D:D happy flying!
I'm not worried! :D:D
Just recieved this by e-mai, thought it might eb of relevance to this thread:
How Soon We Forget . Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take
the following multiple choice test. (The events are actual cuts from past
history. They actually happened! Do you remember?)
1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and
massacred by:
a. Olga Corbitt
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwartzeneger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon
by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Kylie Minoque
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year
old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his
wheelchair
by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones & The Monkees
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy
diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kid
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Meatloaf
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Tarzan
b. Hillary Clinton (to distract attention from Wild Bill' s women problems)
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. On 11 September 2001 four airliners were hijacked; two were used
as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining
two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted to
a crash by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Lawrence of Arabia
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonny and Clyde
b. Ned Kelly
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
13. In 2002 the Sari Nightclub in Kuta Beach, Bali, was blown up
killing 189 young mainly Australian tourists by:
a . The "Bundy" Polar Bear
b. Ho Chi Minh
c. Paul Keating
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
14. In July 2004, three London Underground trains and one London Bus
were suicide bombed by:
a. The Spice girls
b. The Beatles
c. The Four Tops
d. 4 'British' Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
Nope, .........I really don't see a pattern here to justify
profiling, do you? So, to ensure democratic western Christian civilisation never
offends anyone - particularly fanatics intent on killing us -
airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile (or
target)certain people. They must only conduct random searches of
80-year-oldwomen, people in wheelchairs, little kids, airline pilots
with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members of the
U.S.President's security detail, 85-year old World War II veterans
with metal hips, and Boy Scout groups. They must never "target" a
turbanwearing 17 to 40 year old male who appears to have a suspicious
package tied around his body. This would be unjustified
discrimination!
Send this to as many people as you can so that the "do
gooders," Greenies and other misguided fools, including some High
Court Judges, who want to thwart common sense feel doubly ashamed of
themselves. As Forest Gump (a product of decadent democratic western
Christian civilisation) so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does!"
Quote
"They must never "target" a
turbanwearing 17 to 40 year old male who appears to have a suspicious
package tied around his body. This would be unjustified
discrimination!"
Get your paranoia correct at least.
Muslims dont wear turbans, Sikhs do.
Some Muslims do wear turbans - look at many of the Shi'ite scholars in particular.
OH
MY
GOD!
Just been watching the BBC news at 10, and there's some religious rubbish going on about the pope quoting a 14th century emporer saying something like "all the new ideas that muslims bring are evil and violent, and try to enforce their religion on others with the sword".
So the Muslims have reacted with an uproar. And how do they proove that they're not violent people who believe that they are above other religions?
They burn ephogies of the pope in the street!
Frickin idiots. Ban religion, it's just plain offensive to the rest of us...
i know alot about Area 51
So are there aliens or what?
I would chime in with my own view of how utterly stupid the whole conspiracy theory is, but Maddox (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons) does a pretty good job of that.
Also, I skipped an entire page because it was a bit dull, we might not be on this topic anymore (we certainly weren't on the original topic, anyway!)
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_news2.gif
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_news3.gif
No there arn't any of such thing at Area 51, Its simply americas secret little place for testing there black aicraft. (well it used to be)
jacobzcoool
18-09-2006, 19:27
No aliens, but lots of weapons and aircraft testing.
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/3562/area51zy9.th.png (http://img396.imageshack.us/my.php?image=area51zy9.png)
http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/3430/area51brangegu6.th.png (http://img113.imageshack.us/my.php?image=area51brangegu6.png)
Interesting fact: Area 51 has a runway longer then is needed to land a space shuttle.
So are there aliens or what?
I would chime in with my own view of how utterly stupid the whole conspiracy theory is, but Maddox (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons) does a pretty good job of that.
Also, I skipped an entire page because it was a bit dull, we might not be on this topic anymore (we certainly weren't on the original topic, anyway!)
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_news2.gif
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_news3.gif
Loose change... can't say ive seen that one... but the one i have seen is 'In Plane Sight' and the one on You Tube... which i think is excellent dont have a link or a name sorry :)
DarkEntity
24-09-2006, 18:41
No there arn't any of such thing at Area 51, Its simply americas secret little place for testing there black aicraft. (well it used to be)
Its just the code name for the Nevada Desert base in the States where they test new aircraft and other stuff. SR71 (years ago), Stealth Fighter, Stealth Bomber etc.
Its just the code name for the Nevada Desert base in the States where they test new aircraft and other stuff. SR71 (years ago), Stealth Fighter, Stealth Bomber etc.
Yeh theres loads of names for it theres Groom Lake and Paradise Ranch thats all i can think of off the top of my head. Other aircraft made there was the U2 and apprently the "Aurora" and so was the Global Hawk UAV.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.