THE PENTAGON ZAPPER - FACT OR FICTION

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by agoodgrouping, Oct 21, 2004.

?
  1. YES SURREE

    50.0%
  2. NO YOUR HONOR

    50.0%

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Thought provoking stuff.............
     
  2. Two Questions, 1st, what hit the Pentagon? 2nd what happened to the American Airline Jet?
     
  3. I've never believed a 747 hit the Pentagon, not enough damage. When I was watching the coverage live that day, at first they said it was a car bomb, then a missle, then the 747.
     
  4. msr

    msr LE

  5. I stand corrected. I'll now go to the corner and shut up.
     
  6. msr, stop editing, I can't keep up.

    I have to ask what did happen to the Jet? I have seen a few air crash sites up close and even a lightish aircraft can bury itself into the ground but, I would have thought an airliner would have done more damage to even a reinforced building. Also it would take some pretty good flying to hug the ground like that and hit the walin they way it did.

    If you remember the Concorde disaster even after that the aircraft burned for some time it was still visable with more fuel and more speed involved, though the Hotel was not reinforced.

    Not wishing to say one way or another, but why not release the CCTV?
     
  7. I'm a sucker for conspiracy theories. The thing that makes them believable is the dodgy arguments against the conspiracy that don't quite go far enough for the average guy to say "OK then, maybe it was a plane and not a missile."
     
  8. It just grips me when some tosser (either to make cash or because they're a nutter), decides to push daft conspiracy theories.

    For example, NASA thought that if they ignored the "moon landings were a hoax" nutters, they would go away; eventually, coverage by hard-up journos with no brain and the skills of the Sunday Sport front page team led to enough visibility that they put out official "don't be so daft - here's the proof" rebuttals for each of the claimed discrepancies.

    During the great "Bermuda Triangle" claims of a flight of US aircraft going missing, Horizon interviewed a bloke who'd been in ATC at the time, showed the ATC log, and offered an explanation for what happened; turned out that the authors had just made stuff up to suit their (best-selling) books. Eric Von Daniken being another case in point.

    The whole "TWA800 was shot down by a USN missile" was another - those conspiracy nuts managed to ignore large chunks of evidence to suit themselves.

    And our unit had a nutter that managed to persuade a newspaper to run a full-page story that a backroom club of old-school-ties had conspired to fire him from the TA on dubious grounds, rather than because he was a completely self-involved tw*t whose run-out date had at long last arrived.

    The average person mostly trusts something that looks plausible; and it's also very difficult to disprove something - especially when the conspiracy theorist keeps coming out with ever-weirder "discrepancies" rather than admit defeat.
     
  9. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    AL1

    DELETE 'the conspiracy theorist'

    INSERT 'Piers Moron'
     
  10. I'm not sure even Moore would propagate that.
    His work may have inspired some of it though....

    It's been around a while, but there's no surprise it has resurfaced pre-election.
    Goes along with all the "neo-con" faerie tale