Le crash au Pentagone (243ème épisode)

[MOSSAD]

D'autre part, si on pense que ce sont les reste des engins d'un boeing, ces images du Pentagone indiqueraient que la coque métallique extrêment solide des moteurs du boeing se seraient volatilisés ne laissant que leur pièce centrale (turbine?)...

mmm.... ça me laisse songeur. Je ne suis pas satisfait...

[ti-pol]

Ce lien que tu suggères Ti-pol est intéressant et cela dit je ne suis plus sûr à 100% que j'avais raison à propos des engins, mais je persiste:

les engins d'un boeing sont bien plus gros (beaucoup plus grand qu'un humain) que ce qui a été retrouvé dans les décombres du Pentagone. Les comparaisons avec les petits engins d'un Global Hawk sont vraiment plus convainquantes... Faudrait ue je retrouve ces images comparant les engins d'un Global Hawk à ce qui a été retrouvé dans le Pentagone...

À+

Oui cela serait mieux si tu retrouvais ces images pour fin de comparaison.

Essaye aussi de retrouver celle-ci qui s'apparente assez bien avec une pièce de combustion d'un moteur installé sur un 757.

[MOSSAD]

Le gros problème avec ces deux photos qui semblent montrer une turbine d'un engin d'un boeing 757, c'est qu'ils sont séparés! Les deux pièces sont supposées être l'une dans l'autre non?


Je pense que c'est un Global Hawk qui avait un système de téléguidage (comme un missile) et lui a fait faire des spirales en descendant avant d'aller percuter le Pentagone par le côté comme s'il effectuait un atterrisage parfait (digne d'un des meilleurs piloets!... non: c'était clairement téléguidé).

C'est du moins l'avis de Laura Knight:

The very first descriptions - before the mind control machine had time to go into action - repeated that something smaller than a 757 was seen to strike the Pentagon.

This certainly creates some confusion. What can we make of it? Can the early witnesses be trusted more than the ones who came forward later, after having watched the shocking impact of commercial jetliners on the World Trade Center, over and over and over again on television and after hearing the repeated assurances that a Boeing hit the Pentagon as well? We must certainly consider that it is altogether possible that such repeated exposure to the WTC event by the media could create certain synaptic maps of the event that were then overlaid on the Pentagon event by simple suggestion. One of our researchers looked into this problem and wrote:

"Some witnesses said they saw a commuter plane, and others like Army Captain Lincoln Liebner, (who may have had an agenda) said he saw a large American Airlines passenger jet. Now such confusion at any accident scene is understandable. What is more, with the craft going 460 mph, added to the shock of it all, it was probably hard to tell what they really saw.

One of the things that didn't make sense to me were the many reports that the object hit the ground, when we know from the photos, it didn't. Something that was supposed to be as big as a 757 was certainly flying low enough to clip light poles and didn't scrape the ground? Something is wrong with that picture.

Some even claimed they saw people on the plane - faces in windows.

The many confused descriptions - confused even while declaring it to be a commercial jet - leads me to believe that as long as they could see it with their eyes, it registered as being a passenger plane of some sort. And, even though the propaganda machine tells us that it was supposed to be a huge plane, it was obvious from the descriptive terms used by the witnesses - and by the evidence on the ground - that this was not the case - even if the "impression" was. What I did notice was those who did NOT SEE the plane, had a most peculiar "impression" related to the sound."

"At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound ( http://www.space.com/news/rains_september11-1.html ) that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball."

"I was right underneath the plane," http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/ ... ttack.html said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon.

"I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."

Here he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. And because he saw it he also said "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."

What he said next, however, not in keeping with a 757: "I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."

Notice that the witness says: "I guess it was hitting the light poles." One suspects that he couldn't see it if he was guessing. What is most interesting is that he said: "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."

Two witnesses have described a sound of a "whoosh!" The second one, when he couldn't see it, said it was like a "WHOOSH whoosh," just like the other man who couldn't see it. But then he has also told us that he saw a plane and heard a plane. But what he described was most definitely NOT a 757 flying low over his head.

A 757, under NO circumstances makes a sound of "whoosh!" And if the "whoosh" sound was being made by the hitting of light poles, it is a certainty that if a 757 was doing it, you would not hear the "whoosh" of hitting light poles over the roar of the jet engines. If there's a 757 right overhead that's hitting light poles, and it's going 460 mph, I doubt it would be "whooshing"!

If a 757 was low enough to hit light poles, it should have blown the witnesses' eardrums out along with everything else in the engine's way.

Another problem with this part of the story is the following comments from a resident of the DC area:

"I live in the DC area, and the street lights are not very tall. In fact DC is a very "treed" city. Many of the trees are taller than the lamp posts. [...] If the wings of a 757 were hitting the lamp posts, the engines would be driven into the ground, provided that the plane was in a straight and level position."

The exhaust of those huge engines - that would necessarily be scraping the ground if they are hitting light poles - is like a supersonic cannon! The vortex and power of the exhaust would have produced an experience that is unmistakable - impressive beyond words - and hard to forget.

You might want to take a look at the engine of this plane... http://members.tripod.com/%7Earavm98/re ... nindex.htm there's 2 of them and they hang lower than the plane itself. Go HERE http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/air ... 53sec6.pdf to learn about the jet engine specs, exhaust velocity contours, and so forth.

Nevertheless, the most they can say is that it went "whoosh." Other witnesses described a "whistling" that it "whined" like a missile.

"Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives."

Now, here's some pictures taken inside the Pentagon and of the workers.h ttp://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/911Pho01.html

The authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted a highly reinforced building. We were next told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light - how convenient - and its black boxes). In short, we are being told that 100 tons of metal melted because a fire exceeded 2500 °C, leading to the literal evaporation of the aircraft. And yet, there were supposed to be indentifiable body parts all over the place?

And why are they claiming the obvious limited damage to the Pentagon was a result of the plane hitting the ground and being slowed down while, at the same time claiming that it was the force of impact that vaporized the aircraft? It just doesn't add up. [LAM]

All of this is interesting, but it only adds to the confusion. We can't make too much of the various witness accounts. But let's look at still another report: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1075

Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. [...]

He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building. "It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional."

In the above report, we not only have a witness who says the plane looked like a "silver commuter jet," he also said that the plane SOUNDED like the "high-pitched squeal" of a fighter jet.

A series of photographs taken by an official federal photographer at the Pentagon crash site show what appears to be an easily identifiable piece of a small-diameter turbofan engine. If the government wants to prove that a Boeing 757-200 crashed into the Pentagon, why is no one willing or able to identify which part from which engine this is? The photographs show a part of a turbofan jet engine and were taken by Jocelyn Augustino, a photographer for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), at the Pentagon crash site on September 13, 2001. The round piece appears to be less than 3 feet in diameter and is propped up against what appears to be part of the engine housing and thick pieces of insulating material.

A Boeing 757 has two large engines, which are about 9 feet in diameter and 12 feet in length. A Pratt & Whitney PW2043 engine, used on some 757 aircraft, has a fan tip diameter of 78.5 inches. Nothing this large is to be seen in the FEMA photographs. The photo ID numbers are 4414 and 4415 and can be seen on-line. http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/index.jsp

For those who say a smaller plane or unmanned drone, such as a Global Hawk, was involved in the Pentagon attack, identifying the piece in the photo http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1075 could prove what kind of aircraft hit the building.

The Global Hawk is a singe-engine drone that uses a Rolls Royce Allison engine hand-built in Indianapolis, Indiana. The AE3007H engine has a diameter of 43.5 inches. The unmanned Global Hawk, using a satellite guidance system, is capable of landing within 12 inches of its programmed destination.

Because the Global Hawk is a surveillance drone, the engine is contained in a heavily insulated housing to be extremely quiet. This corresponds with eyewitness reports. American Free Press asked eyewitness Steve Riskus, who said he was within 100 feet of the aircraft, what he heard. He said he “did not recall hearing anything.” If a 757 or jet fighter flew at high speed 100 feet from an eyewitness the sound would be deafening.

The important thing is, if you have ever seen a 757 up close, the main words you will use - even if it passes you at 460 mph - are HUMONGOUS, or HUGE, or GIGANTIC - words along that line. You will also - even at a distance - be overwhelmed by the noise of the jet engines. But over and over again, even those who later NAMED the object that hit the pentagon as a "commercial airliner," used descriptive terms that are quite different from those that would have been used if a real 757 had been the impacting object. This could easily be a consequence of the "memory making" process I have described above. The fact is, until the spin machine had done its work, except for a few government officials, most of the witness' descriptive terms are more in keeping with descriptions of something other than a Boeing 757.

Many heard a jet. Others heard a missile. (All military men.) Those near Flight 77 as it came over the cemetery, saw it and heard it pass silently (no engine); whereas those near the killer jet which came by the freeway and knocked down the lamp posts heard its loud scream as it put on speed to reach the wall as the airliner flew over it. Witnesses who saw only one plane fall into two distinct groups, each seeing a different plane, on a different path, at different altitude, with different sound, at different speeds. A third set of witnesses saw two planes approach the Pentagon and one of these veer away. [

Nevertheless, we are certain that it was a plane - it had wings - it knocked over poles on the incoming trajectory that it maneuvered "like a smart missile." And we know that there is a "guidance system" that has the capability of doing exactly what this object was described to have done.

As it happens, a correspondent had an interesting encounter on a train that goes along with the story about the military transport plane that so "luckily" spotted the "Boeing." In his own words:

I met a gentleman that was of Jamaican descent who said he was an artist by trade. He was heading back home to Washington. I have no reason to doubt the man's story as he seemed very sincere and told it "as a matter of fact".

He said that when he heard on the radio of his car about the WTC event that the tension around the capital was rising, he was on his cell phone talking to other people while he drove. He was in viewing distance of the Pentagon at the time of the attack and he saw TWO planes in the air, one of them being a "small commuter type jet" but he didn't ID the other plane. He said it was this smaller plane that hit the Pentagon, so it could have been laced with explosives and remote controlled in by that other plane (reports were of a C-130 in the area as I recall).

The claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is extremely suspect for another reason: there is NO PROOF that the plane that disappeared from rader over Southern Ohio actually "turned around" and headed back for Washington. See the Washington Post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... 7-2001Nov2 that discusses the thrity minutes of complete Radar Invisibility. This report says, in part:

The aircraft, traveling from Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles, was hijacked sometime between 8:50 a.m. -- when air traffic controllers made their last routine contact with the pilot -- and 8:56, when hijackers turned off the transponder, which reports the plane's identity, altitude and speed to controllers' radar screens. The airliner crashed into the Pentagon at 9:41 a.m., about 12 minutes after controllers at Dulles sounded an alert that an unidentified aircraft was headed toward Washington at high speed. [...]

With no signal on their radar screens, controllers did not realize that Flight 77 had reversed direction.

At 9:09 a.m., unable to reach the plane by radio, the Indianapolis controller reported a possible crash, sources said.

The first time that anyone became aware an aircraft was headed at high speed toward Washington was when the hijacked flight began descending and entered airspace controlled by the Dulles International Airport TRACON facility, an aviation source said.

The first Dulles controller noticed the fast-moving plane at 9:25 a.m. Moments later, controllers sounded an alert that an aircraft appeared to be headed directly toward the White House. It later turned and hit the Pentagon.

The report from the Washington Post also contradicts other reports which said that the radios transmitted sounds of voices with Arabic accents making threatening sounds:

Unlike at least two of the other aircraft, whose pilots apparently held radios open so controllers could hear the hijackers, there was only silence from Flight 77.

There are just too many problems of the Pentagon strike that indicate that it was not a Boeing 757 that plowed into the building. And this leads us to the most interesting questions.

If it was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon, why is the Administration rabidly declaring that it was and attacking anyone who questions that story with the slur of "conspiracy theory" rather than providing the evidence that it was for the public to examine themselves?

Why would George Bush and his gang be so resistant to an impartial investigation? (The official investigation cannot be considered impartial.)

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm[/u]

[MOSSAD]

Où est le reste du boeing?

The Boeing 757 is not simply a 13ft wide cylinder; if it were, then the damage to the Pentagon might be more plausible. The reality, however, is that a Boeing 757 is a 13ft wide, 155 ft long cylinder with a tail fin that extends 45 ft into the air. Add to that the fact that there are two 6 ton steel engines slung under each wing about 6 feet to each side of the cylinder body. The wings extend out on each side for 50ft + making for a total aircraft width of 125 feet, a total length of 155 ft and a maximum height of 45 ft. It comes as no surprise then that this large commercial aircraft weighs in at over 90 tons fully loaded. On take off from Washington Dulles airport, Flight 77 weighed approximately 82 tons.

The above nonsensical argument would have you believe that the only thing to consider is a "13 ft wide cylinder" that just magically lost everything else, or that everything else just "folded up" and flew inside the building plastered to the side of that 13 ft cylinder. Even if the wings could do that, we are still left with the two 6 ton engines that were NOT dropped off on the lawn, and which, together, are as wide as the cylinder body!
(..)
While it is reasonable to state that the tail of a 757 may not necessarily have punched a hole through the facade of the Pentagon, can we expect to at least see some evidence of the tail having hit the facade? More than that, we must consider the forward momentum of those two, inescapable, 6 TON steel engines that were neither dropped on the lawn, nor were they smashed like pancakes against the side of the "13 ft cylinder." If I struck the facade of the Pentagon with a sledge hammer, is it reasonable that I would be able to cause some observable damage? The outer 6 inches of the facade of the Pentagon is made of soft limestone, yet our author sees no problem with claiming that such a soft surface, when struck by a piece of aircraft weighing SIX TONS and traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, would in no way leave any significant and observable damage.

While the "cylinder body" that our author keeps referring to is indeed 13ft 6in high, he omits the fact that the engines extend 5 feet below the body and over six feet to either side, meaning that, if the aircraft were actually able to successfully fly at just 1 inch above the ground (highly unlikely), the height of the "cylinder body" above the ground would be at least 18 ft 6 inches! Let us repeat that: if a Boeing 757 were actually able to fly at just 1 inch above the ground, the height of the "13 ft cylinder body" would be at least 18 feet 6 inches! Now, add to that the fact that the plane also includes those two bothersome 6 TON engines, AND a tail fin that protrudes 25 feet above the top of the cylinder body making for a total aircraft height of just less than 40 feet with wheels up. Obviously then, we can reasonably expect that the damage to the facade of the Pentagon would have extended up to this height IF it was a 757 that hit the building.



The top of the hole in the middle of the white box is at the same level as the top of the windows of the second floor, or about 23-25 feet from ground. The three windows above this are the windows of the third floor. The foam covered window to the top right is the fourth floor. As noted by the Pentagon report, this area (above the center hole) is where the tail should have struck, but there is no evidence of any damage that we would expect from such an impact. What's more, the tail fin was definitely not dropped on the lawn along with the two 6 TON engines.

Conclusion? The tail fin of a Boeing 757 did not strike this area.

What does that suggest? That a Boeing 757 was not involved in the attack.

Is that logical enough?

****


Another 9/11 researcher, who is naturally skeptical about the claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, produced the above graphic and posed some obvious and logical questions about the feasibility of the official story quoted above. Given the height of just the fuselage (leaving out the 25 feet of tail fin), how is it possible that the immediate damage and the debris of the plane were "largely confined to the first floor"? And remember, we are talking here about a scenario where the plane is flying at just one inch above the ground!

What is more, evidence from photos of the site show cable spools that were clearly untouched by any incoming aircraft, suggesting that the aircraft would have to have been flying above the maximum height of the spools (some 6 feet) when it hit the Pentagon. In this case, the damage should have been almost entirely to the second floor!

According to official story enthusiasts, the complete lack of any debris from the wings that we are told somehow sheared off, is not a problem: they simply disintegrated on impact and were rendered little more than confetti that blew away in the breeze (I kid you not; this was actually suggested by several "researchers"). But in this unlikely case, how do we explain that the 125 feet long wings of a 757 disintegrated, yet a fairly slender tree standing just a few feet from the front of the Pentagon - and in the direct path of the alleged 757 - was still standing, albeit severely charred? (Charred tree branches visible in center of image) What's more, this explanation completely omits mention of the two six TON engines attached to said wings.



This landing gear strut is inadmissible as evidence given the fact that the CatHerder does not claim to be an expert on landing gear and cannot verify from which aircraft this landing gear comes. As such, it could be the landing gear strut from any number of aircraft.


No official explanation for the above hole in ring C has ever been put forward


Bollyn undertook the task of trying to find out what exactly the disk in the above photo was. He called Honeywell’s Aerospace division in Phoenix, Ariz., where the GTCP331-200 APU used on the 757 aircraft is made: “There’s no way that’s an APU wheel”, an expert at Honeywell told AFP. The expert, who cannot be named, added: “That turbine disc—there’s no way in the world that came out of an APU”

The first point then is that an expert form Honeywell that makes the APU for the 757 has stated categorically that the APU wheel in the photo is not from a 757.

As mentioned by CatHerder, Bollyn then contacted John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), asking if the disk was from a Rolls Royce manufactured engine, perhaps the AE3007H used in the Global Hawk. Brown’s response was:

“It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.”

Next Bollyn called Pratt & Whitney who manufactures parts of the 757’s turbofan jet engines:

“If the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned by American Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engine”, Mark Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP.

So we have another spokesman for Pratt and Whitney, who, along with Rolls Royce, manufacture parts of the 757s main engines (not the APU), who has contradicted John Brown of Rolls Royce by saying that the part MUST be from a Rolls Royce engine, which includes the possibility that it was the AE 3007H which is the engine in a Global Hawk, yet it is NOT the GTCP331-200 which is the APU used on the Boeing 757 as stated by the Honeywell expert.

Bollyn then contacted John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce once more, to inform him that the Pratt & Whitney spokesperson had stated that it must be a piece of a Rolls Royce engine. At this point Brown balked and asked who at Pratt & Whitney had provided the information.

Asked again if the disc in the photo was a piece of a Rolls Royce RB211-535, or from the AE 3007 series, Brown said he could not answer.

Bollyn then asked Brown if he was actually familiar with the parts of an AE 3007H, which is made at the Indiana plant: “No”, Brown said. “I don’t build the engines. I am a spokesman for the company. I speak for the company.”

So the Rolls Royce spokesman that CatHerder quotes as an expert on the evidence that the disk in the photo cannot be from a Global Hawk has stated that he is not familiar with the parts of the Global Hawk engine and is therefore not qualified to make any statement about the origins of the the wheel in the photo.

We are left then with the likelihood that the disk in the photo IS from a Rolls Royce engine, but NOT from the APU of the 757 as stated by the Honeywell expert. Could it then be a part of one of the main engines of a 757? By all accounts it is far too small to be the disk from one of the 757's main engines, given that they are between 6 and 7 ft in diameter. The disk on the AE 3007H however is a little over 3 ft in diameter, and despite what CatHerder says, the disk in the photo is a very good match for that of a AE 3007H, the engine used on a Global Hawk but never on a Boeing 757.

Bollyn states:

Rolls Royce produces the RB211-535 (main) engines for American Airlines 757-200 aircraft at a plant in Derby, England. Martin Johnson, head of communications at Rolls Royce in Derby, said he had followed the story closely in American Free Press and had also been notified in advance by Rolls Royce offices in Seattle and Indianapolis. However, rather than address the question of the unidentified disc, Johnson launched a verbal attack on this reporter for questioning the government version of events at the Pentagon on 9-11. ‘You are the only person in the world who does not believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon’, Johnson said. ‘The idea that we can have a reasonable conversation is beyond your wildest dreams’, Johnson said and hung up the phone.

While there can be no definitive statements made on the matter, the available evidence would seem to suggest that the engine disk in the FEMA photos is probably too small to be part of a 757 engine and, contrary to what CatHerder states, according to the Honeywell expert that makes the APU for the 757, it is definitely not a part of a 757’s APU. So what is it? It could very well be part of a Global Hawk AE3007H engine.


Yet again our non-expert author presents photographs of mangled pieces of debris and asserts categorically that they are parts from a 757 engine.

In this case, we are provided with a link to a picture of a 757 engine without its casing from which our author can apparently quite easily identify things like the "diffusor section of the compressor" and "one of the pumps" and "some hoses and the familiar webbed wire wraps".

Ah yes! Those familiar webbed wire wraps, known and loved in every household across the country! The photo below is the reference that our author has used to positively match the mangled and burnt debris above. Well? Can't you see it?! It's right there!! Clearly the debris above is the very same 757 engine in the photo below!

SOURCE: http://www.kasjo.net/ats/ats.htm

[Denis]

Salut Mossad,

Tu dis :

je ne suis plus sûr à 100% que j'avais raison à propos des engins

À propos des roues, il y a quelques heures, tu as écrit :

J'aadmets que ça peufort bien être une roue de boeing

Bravo pour ces deux mini-détorsions locales.

Pour t'encourager, dis toi que se décoincer un gros noeud d'idées folles, c'est comme faire un voyage autour du monde : Ça commence modestement par un premier pas.

Après les deux que tu viens de faire, je te souhaite cordialement de garder le momentum et la direction.

Si tu as besoin d'aide, tu peux compter sur moi. Aussi sur Laurent, Gédehem et quelques autres, s'ils ne sont pas encore trop écoeurés.

Denis

P.S. Bravo encore. Les premiers pas sont toujours touchants.

[Laurent_Outang]

La pièce apparaissant sur cette photo est un étage de turbine de dimension parfaitement compatible avec un Rolls Royce RB211-535E4.

Nous disposons de points de repères pour évaluer approximativement la dimension de cette pièce. et nous savons que la soufflante d'un RB211-535E4 mesure 74.1 pouces de diamètre.

Voir le lien:
http://forum.sceptiques.qc.ca/viewtopic ... 0240#80240

Fin de la démonstration.

[Petrov]

Et toi Denis, es-tu pret a détordre ton 100% que c'est un Boeing qui a percuté le pentagone? Serait-ce possible que ce ne soit pas un avion de ligne?

Y'a que les fous qui changent pas d'idée, es-tu un fou?

[Laurent_Outang]

Y'a que les fous qui changent pas d'idée, es-tu un fou?

Oui Denis...Suis l'exemple de Petrov.

Petrov, lors d'une argumentation, change quelquefois certaines choses...

[Denis]

Salut Petrov,

Tu dis :

Et toi Denis, es-tu pret a détordre ton 100% que c'est un Boeing qui a percuté le pentagone?

Bien sûr.

Je suis prêt à tout détordre. Y compris mon ~0% pour "Elvis est vivant". Sérieusement.

Concernant le vol77 au Pentagone, la situation actuelle (en tenant compte de tout ce que tu as déjà dit sur le sujet) ressemble à ça, en faveur du OUI.

Je t'invite encore à le vérifier par toi-même.

Denis

[ti-pol]

La pièce apparaissant sur cette photo est un étage de turbine de dimension parfaitement compatible avec un Rolls Royce RB211-535E4.

Nous disposons de points de repères pour évaluer approximativement la dimension de cette pièce. et nous savons que la soufflante d'un RB211-535E4 mesure 74.1 pouces de diamètre.

Voir le lien:
http://forum.sceptiques.qc.ca/viewtopic ... 0240#80240

Fin de la démonstration.

Début d'une nouvelle démonstration : 8)

Moteur d'un global hawk

[Laurent_Outang]

Si j'ai bien saisi ta pensée, tu t'intéresses à la possibilité que ces pièces puissent provenir du moteur d'un Global Hawk ?

C'est bien ça ? Corrige moi si je me trompe.

Ma foi, je ne suis pas fermé à l'idée d'examiner cette possibilité. Après tout pourquoi pas.

La pièce située à l'arrière plan ne nous livre pas beaucoup d'information. Elle semble occultée par d'autres débris.

Enfin, je vais tenter de trouver de meilleures photos d'un Rolls Royce AE 3007 (moteur du Global Hawk RQ-4). On verra ce qu'on peut en tirer.

Fais des recherches de ton côté et d'ici une journée ou deux, on devrait y voir un peu plus clair.

PS: Ma "démonstration" visait surtout à refroidir l'ardeur de MOSSAD (ou Petrov - je ne me souviens plus) qui pensait avoir vidé le sujet et clairement établi que la pièce était "beaucoup trop petite" pour provenir d'un turbofan de B-757.

J'ai simplement démontré que la dimension de la pièce était parfaitement compatible avec le Rolls Royce RB211.

[Christian]

Si j'ai bien saisi ta pensée, tu t'intéresses à la possibilité que ces pièces puissent provenir du moteur d'un Global Hawk ?

C'est bien ça ? Corrige moi si je me trompe.

Ma foi, je ne suis pas fermé à l'idée d'examiner cette possibilité. Après tout pourquoi pas.

La pièce située à l'arrière plan ne nous livre pas beaucoup d'information. Elle semble occultée par d'autres débris.

Enfin, je vais tenter de trouver de meilleures photos d'un Rolls Royce AE 3007 (moteur du Global Hawk RQ-4). On verra ce qu'on peut en tirer.

Fais des recherches de ton côté et d'ici une journée ou deux, on devrait y voir un peu plus clair.

PS: Ma "démonstration" visait surtout à refroidir l'ardeur de MOSSAD (ou Petrov - je ne me souviens plus) qui pensait avoir vidé le sujet et clairement établi que la pièce était "beaucoup trop petite" pour provenir d'un turbofan de B-757.

J'ai simplement démontré que la dimension de la pièce était parfaitement compatible avec le Rolls Royce RB211.

Il faut fouiller dans les archives du forum: on avait fait la démonstration que les pièces provenaient du boeing. Les pièces du GlobalHawk sont trop petites.

[ti-pol]

La pièce située à l'arrière plan ne nous livre pas beaucoup d'information. Elle semble occultée par d'autres débris.

Sauf qu'elle a une ressemblance forte a une enveloppe de moteur.

J'ai simplement démontré que la dimension de la pièce était parfaitement compatible avec le Rolls Royce RB211.

En effet cela semble compatible.

---------------------------------------------

Une grande partie d'aile fine retrouvé dans les débris du Pentagone.



Cela est compatible avec un aile d'un global hawk.
Est-ce compatible avec une pièce de 757?

[Christian]

Enfin, j'ai retrouvé un des liens de la discussion de l'année dernière...

Évaluation de la dimension des débris et comparaison avec les spéc d'un boeing 757-200.

Christian

[MOSSAD]

Ce lien opsté par Christian n'est bon qu'à jeter aux poubelles:
c'est fait par des agents du gouvernement pour des fins de désinfo!!!

"At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound ( http://www.space.com/news/rains_september11-1.html ) that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball."

"I was right underneath the plane," http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/ ... ttack.html said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon.

"I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."

Here he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. And because he saw it he also said "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."

What he said next, however, not in keeping with a 757: "I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."

Notice that the witness says: "I guess it was hitting the light poles." One suspects that he couldn't see it if he was guessing. What is most interesting is that he said: "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."

Two witnesses have described a sound of a "whoosh!" The second one, when he couldn't see it, said it was like a "WHOOSH whoosh," just like the other man who couldn't see it. But then he has also told us that he saw a plane and heard a plane. But what he described was most definitely NOT a 757 flying low over his head.

A 757, under NO circumstances makes a sound of "whoosh!" And if the "whoosh" sound was being made by the hitting of light poles, it is a certainty that if a 757 was doing it, you would not hear the "whoosh" of hitting light poles over the roar of the jet engines. If there's a 757 right overhead that's hitting light poles, and it's going 460 mph, I doubt it would be "whooshing"!

If a 757 was low enough to hit light poles, it should have blown the witnesses' eardrums out along with everything else in the engine's way.

(...)
Nevertheless, the most they can say is that it went "whoosh." Other witnesses described a "whistling" that it "whined" like a missile.
(..)
"Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives."

Now, here's some pictures taken inside the Pentagon and of the workers.h ttp://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/911Pho01.html

The authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted a highly reinforced building. We were next told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light - how convenient - and its black boxes). In short, we are being told that 100 tons of metal melted because a fire exceeded 2500 °C, leading to the literal evaporation of the aircraft. And yet, there were supposed to be indentifiable body parts all over the place?

And why are they claiming the obvious limited damage to the Pentagon was a result of the plane hitting the ground and being slowed down while, at the same time claiming that it was the force of impact that vaporized the aircraft? It just doesn't add up. [LAM]
(...)
A series of photographs taken by an official federal photographer at the Pentagon crash site show what appears to be an easily identifiable piece of a small-diameter turbofan engine. If the government wants to prove that a Boeing 757-200 crashed into the Pentagon, why is no one willing or able to identify which part from which engine this is? The photographs show a part of a turbofan jet engine and were taken by Jocelyn Augustino, a photographer for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), at the Pentagon crash site on September 13, 2001. The round piece appears to be less than 3 feet in diameter and is propped up against what appears to be part of the engine housing and thick pieces of insulating material.

A Boeing 757 has two large engines, which are about 9 feet in diameter and 12 feet in length. A Pratt & Whitney PW2043 engine, used on some 757 aircraft, has a fan tip diameter of 78.5 inches. Nothing this large is to be seen in the FEMA photographs. The photo ID numbers are 4414 and 4415 and can be seen on-line. http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrary/index.jsp

For those who say a smaller plane or unmanned drone, such as a Global Hawk, was involved in the Pentagon attack, identifying the piece in the photo http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1075 could prove what kind of aircraft hit the building.

The Global Hawk is a singe-engine drone that uses a Rolls Royce Allison engine hand-built in Indianapolis, Indiana. The AE3007H engine has a diameter of 43.5 inches. The unmanned Global Hawk, using a satellite guidance system, is capable of landing within 12 inches of its programmed destination.

Because the Global Hawk is a surveillance drone, the engine is contained in a heavily insulated housing to be extremely quiet. This corresponds with eyewitness reports. American Free Press asked eyewitness Steve Riskus, who said he was within 100 feet of the aircraft, what he heard. He said he “did not recall hearing anything.” If a 757 or jet fighter flew at high speed 100 feet from an eyewitness the sound would be deafening.

The important thing is, if you have ever seen a 757 up close, the main words you will use - even if it passes you at 460 mph - are HUMONGOUS, or HUGE, or GIGANTIC - words along that line. You will also - even at a distance - be overwhelmed by the noise of the jet engines. But over and over again, even those who later NAMED the object that hit the pentagon as a "commercial airliner," used descriptive terms that are quite different from those that would have been used if a real 757 had been the impacting object. This could easily be a consequence of the "memory making" process I have described above. The fact is, until the spin machine had done its work, except for a few government officials, most of the witness' descriptive terms are more in keeping with descriptions of something other than a Boeing 757.

Many heard a jet. Others heard a missile. (All military men.) Those near Flight 77 as it came over the cemetery, saw it and heard it pass silently (no engine); whereas those near the killer jet which came by the freeway and knocked down the lamp posts heard its loud scream as it put on speed to reach the wall as the airliner flew over it. Witnesses who saw only one plane fall into two distinct groups, each seeing a different plane, on a different path, at different altitude, with different sound, at different speeds. A third set of witnesses saw two planes approach the Pentagon and one of these veer away. [

Nevertheless, we are certain that it was a plane - it had wings - it knocked over poles on the incoming trajectory that it maneuvered "like a smart missile." And we know that there is a "guidance system" that has the capability of doing exactly what this object was described to have done.

The Boeing 757 is not simply a 13ft wide cylinder; if it were, then the damage to the Pentagon might be more plausible. The reality, however, is that a Boeing 757 is a 13ft wide, 155 ft long cylinder with a tail fin that extends 45 ft into the air. Add to that the fact that there are two 6 ton steel engines slung under each wing about 6 feet to each side of the cylinder body. The wings extend out on each side for 50ft + making for a total aircraft width of 125 feet, a total length of 155 ft and a maximum height of 45 ft. It comes as no surprise then that this large commercial aircraft weighs in at over 90 tons fully loaded. On take off from Washington Dulles airport, Flight 77 weighed approximately 82 tons.

The above nonsensical argument would have you believe that the only thing to consider is a "13 ft wide cylinder" that just magically lost everything else, or that everything else just "folded up" and flew inside the building plastered to the side of that 13 ft cylinder. Even if the wings could do that, we are still left with the two 6 ton engines that were NOT dropped off on the lawn, and which, together, are as wide as the cylinder body!
(..)
While it is reasonable to state that the tail of a 757 may not necessarily have punched a hole through the facade of the Pentagon, can we expect to at least see some evidence of the tail having hit the facade? More than that, we must consider the forward momentum of those two, inescapable, 6 TON steel engines that were neither dropped on the lawn, nor were they smashed like pancakes against the side of the "13 ft cylinder." If I struck the facade of the Pentagon with a sledge hammer, is it reasonable that I would be able to cause some observable damage? The outer 6 inches of the facade of the Pentagon is made of soft limestone, yet our author sees no problem with claiming that such a soft surface, when struck by a piece of aircraft weighing SIX TONS and traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, would in no way leave any significant and observable damage.

While the "cylinder body" that our author keeps referring to is indeed 13ft 6in high, he omits the fact that the engines extend 5 feet below the body and over six feet to either side, meaning that, if the aircraft were actually able to successfully fly at just 1 inch above the ground (highly unlikely), the height of the "cylinder body" above the ground would be at least 18 ft 6 inches! Let us repeat that: if a Boeing 757 were actually able to fly at just 1 inch above the ground, the height of the "13 ft cylinder body" would be at least 18 feet 6 inches! Now, add to that the fact that the plane also includes those two bothersome 6 TON engines, AND a tail fin that protrudes 25 feet above the top of the cylinder body making for a total aircraft height of just less than 40 feet with wheels up. Obviously then, we can reasonably expect that the damage to the facade of the Pentagon would have extended up to this height IF it was a 757 that hit the building.


The top of the hole in the middle of the white box is at the same level as the top of the windows of the second floor, or about 23-25 feet from ground. The three windows above this are the windows of the third floor. The foam covered window to the top right is the fourth floor. As noted by the Pentagon report, this area (above the center hole) is where the tail should have struck, but there is no evidence of any damage that we would expect from such an impact. What's more, the tail fin was definitely not dropped on the lawn along with the two 6 TON engines.

Conclusion? The tail fin of a Boeing 757 did not strike this area.

What does that suggest? That a Boeing 757 was not involved in the attack.

Is that logical enough?


Another 9/11 researcher, who is naturally skeptical about the claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, produced the above graphic and posed some obvious and logical questions about the feasibility of the official story quoted above. Given the height of just the fuselage (leaving out the 25 feet of tail fin), how is it possible that the immediate damage and the debris of the plane were "largely confined to the first floor"? And remember, we are talking here about a scenario where the plane is flying at just one inch above the ground!

What is more, evidence from photos of the site show cable spools that were clearly untouched by any incoming aircraft, suggesting that the aircraft would have to have been flying above the maximum height of the spools (some 6 feet) when it hit the Pentagon. In this case, the damage should have been almost entirely to the second floor!

According to official story enthusiasts, the complete lack of any debris from the wings that we are told somehow sheared off, is not a problem: they simply disintegrated on impact and were rendered little more than confetti that blew away in the breeze (I kid you not; this was actually suggested by several "researchers"). But in this unlikely case, how do we explain that the 125 feet long wings of a 757 disintegrated, yet a fairly slender tree standing just a few feet from the front of the Pentagon - and in the direct path of the alleged 757 - was still standing, albeit severely charred? (Charred tree branches visible in center of image) What's more, this explanation completely omits mention of the two six TON engines attached to said wings.



This landing gear strut is inadmissible as evidence given the fact that the CatHerder does not claim to be an expert on landing gear and cannot verify from which aircraft this landing gear comes. As such, it could be the landing gear strut from any number of aircraft.


No official explanation for the above hole in ring C has ever been put forward



Bollyn undertook the task of trying to find out what exactly the disk in the above photo was. He called Honeywell’s Aerospace division in Phoenix, Ariz., where the GTCP331-200 APU used on the 757 aircraft is made: “There’s no way that’s an APU wheel”, an expert at Honeywell told AFP. The expert, who cannot be named, added: “That turbine disc—there’s no way in the world that came out of an APU”

The first point then is that an expert form Honeywell that makes the APU for the 757 has stated categorically that the APU wheel in the photo is not from a 757.

As mentioned by CatHerder, Bollyn then contacted John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), asking if the disk was from a Rolls Royce manufactured engine, perhaps the AE3007H used in the Global Hawk. Brown’s response was:

“It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.”

Next Bollyn called Pratt & Whitney who manufactures parts of the 757’s turbofan jet engines:

“If the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned by American Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engine”, Mark Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP.

So we have another spokesman for Pratt and Whitney, who, along with Rolls Royce, manufacture parts of the 757s main engines (not the APU), who has contradicted John Brown of Rolls Royce by saying that the part MUST be from a Rolls Royce engine, which includes the possibility that it was the AE 3007H which is the engine in a Global Hawk, yet it is NOT the GTCP331-200 which is the APU used on the Boeing 757 as stated by the Honeywell expert.

Bollyn then contacted John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce once more, to inform him that the Pratt & Whitney spokesperson had stated that it must be a piece of a Rolls Royce engine. At this point Brown balked and asked who at Pratt & Whitney had provided the information.

Asked again if the disc in the photo was a piece of a Rolls Royce RB211-535, or from the AE 3007 series, Brown said he could not answer.

Bollyn then asked Brown if he was actually familiar with the parts of an AE 3007H, which is made at the Indiana plant: “No”, Brown said. “I don’t build the engines. I am a spokesman for the company. I speak for the company.”

So the Rolls Royce spokesman that CatHerder quotes as an expert on the evidence that the disk in the photo cannot be from a Global Hawk has stated that he is not familiar with the parts of the Global Hawk engine and is therefore not qualified to make any statement about the origins of the the wheel in the photo.

We are left then with the likelihood that the disk in the photo IS from a Rolls Royce engine, but NOT from the APU of the 757 as stated by the Honeywell expert. Could it then be a part of one of the main engines of a 757? By all accounts it is far too small to be the disk from one of the 757's main engines, given that they are between 6 and 7 ft in diameter. The disk on the AE 3007H however is a little over 3 ft in diameter, and despite what CatHerder says, the disk in the photo is a very good match for that of a AE 3007H, the engine used on a Global Hawk but never on a Boeing 757.

Bollyn states:

Rolls Royce produces the RB211-535 (main) engines for American Airlines 757-200 aircraft at a plant in Derby, England. Martin Johnson, head of communications at Rolls Royce in Derby, said he had followed the story closely in American Free Press and had also been notified in advance by Rolls Royce offices in Seattle and Indianapolis. However, rather than address the question of the unidentified disc, Johnson launched a verbal attack on this reporter for questioning the government version of events at the Pentagon on 9-11. ‘You are the only person in the world who does not believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon’, Johnson said. ‘The idea that we can have a reasonable conversation is beyond your wildest dreams’, Johnson said and hung up the phone.

While there can be no definitive statements made on the matter, the available evidence would seem to suggest that the engine disk in the FEMA photos is probably too small to be part of a 757 engine and, contrary to what CatHerder states, according to the Honeywell expert that makes the APU for the 757, it is definitely not a part of a 757’s APU. So what is it? It could very well be part of a Global Hawk AE3007H engine.



Yet again our non-expert author presents photographs of mangled pieces of debris and asserts categorically that they are parts from a 757 engine.

In this case, we are provided with a link to a picture of a 757 engine without its casing from which our author can apparently quite easily identify things like the "diffusor section of the compressor" and "one of the pumps" and "some hoses and the familiar webbed wire wraps".

Ah yes! Those familiar webbed wire wraps, known and loved in every household across the country! The photo below is the reference that our author has used to positively match the mangled and burnt debris above. Well? Can't you see it?! It's right there!! Clearly the debris above is the very same 757 engine in the photo below!

[/quote]

[Denis]

Salut Mossad,

Si un jour il te vient l'envie de discuter~dialoguer, bienvenue.

Denis

[Gédehem]

Saddam, à part des copiés-collés stupides tu sais réfléchir autrement qu'un miroir ?
Relis un peu sérieusement les nombreux sujets sur le pentagone...

[Petrov]

Denis: comme si tu savais le faire toi meme...

GDM: Commence par savoir ce qu'est réfléchir. Peut-être que si tu le faisais un peu plus tu démitionnerais

[MOSSAD]

Sert à rien de spéculer si on ignore tout d'abord les faits.

[Laurent_Outang]

...Peut-être que si tu le faisais un peu plus tu démitionnerais...

Et pourkoi qu'il démitionnerait hein ? Pourquoies qu'il contunierait pas ?

Se-n'ai-kun-des-but-CON-TU-NIONS-LE-CON-BAS !

Le ptitanick étaient téléguidée !

[Laurent_Outang]

Tout d'abord, merci à toi Christian de t'être donné la peine d'effectuer cette recherche. Que dire de plus après la lecture de cet article ? L'auteur vide le sujet.

Malheureusement, ce lien a fortement déplu à MOSSAD qui a rapidement déterminé que le lien "opsté" par Christian n'est pas bon.

Donc Christian, vas-y mollo avec les liens...MOSSAD est mécontent. À mon avis, tu l'as froissé !

Ce lien opsté par Christian n'est bon qu'à jeter aux poubelles:
c'est fait par des agents du gouvernement pour des fins de désinfo!!!

Ça s'explique facilement par le fait que, comme il nous l'a si bien expliqué:
(Je me permets ici de opster un extrait de son <s>torchon</s> texte.)

...Les méthodes quantitiatives prises comme système de référence aliénent le rapport de la pensée à la réalité...

Sans parler de l'aliénation de l'ortograf, ce qui nous entrainerait hors du cadre de ce modeste exposé, notons quand même au passage que MOSSAD est en prise directe sur le réel. D'ailleurs...

...alors que la réalité est autrement plus complexe et la vérité est souvent NI L'UN NI L'AUTRE ou même ET L'UN\ET L'AUTRE (logique binaire est limitée comme l'a démontré Gödel)...

En attendant Godot, saluons cette référence à Gödel.

Astrologiquement parlant, MOSSAD est né sous le signe du Petrov ascendant Petrov, alors évidemment il est un peu sujet aux sautes d'humeur quand il est contrarié.

On aurait du se renseigner dés le début et lui demander: "C'est quoa ton sign ?".

__________________________________________________________________

...Cela est compatible avec un aile d'un global hawk. Est-ce compatible avec une pièce de 757?...

Oui c'est compatible. Probablement une section de volet. J'ai inclus quelques photos. Malheureusement, je n'ai que des exemples de B-737 et B-747. Ça donne quand même une bonne idée. Mais là n'est pas le plus important.

Cliquez sur les thumbnails pour voir les photos.

Photo des volets d'un B-737


La photo suivante présente un détail du système hypersustentateur (volets et vue en coupe illustrant le profil) d'un B-747 en phase finale d'approche avant l'atterrissage à l'aéroport du carrefour international de la connerie situé sur le moniteur de Petrov.

Il s'agit bien sûr d'un dos cul ment foto grafique Ô Dieu zement truké par les globaliss


Photo d'un RQ-4 (Glob.Hawk)


Agrandissement d'une section de l'aile d'un Global Hawk


Maintenant, passons aux choses sérieuses.

Ta photo, je la trouve remarquable. Voici pourquoi:

Les éléments aérodynamiques (ailes/volets/gouv.profondeur/gouv.direction) respectifs de deux aéronefs de modèles différents ne sont pas interchangeables et ce à cause des différences de profil (airfoil).

Autrement dit, on ne saurait sectionner une portion de l'aile d'un Global Hawk pour en faire un volet de B-757 (et vice versa). C'est le casse-gueule assuré.

Cet élément aérodynamique - car c'en est un - semble sur ta photo relativement en bon état et doit présenter des caractéristiques essentielles qui en facilitent l'identification.

Lesquelles ?

A) Profil d'aile (airfoil), longueur de la corde.
B) Type/composition (Duralumin/résine époxy/Fibre de carbone/autre) et épaisseur du revêtement.

Le revêtement de l'élément aérodynamique apparait intact ou du moins suffisamment en bon état pour qu'on puisse en tirer des conclusions absolument formelles. J'insiste !

Une fois ôté le revêtement, on arrive à la structure (au squelette) de l'aile (un gouvernail de profondeur/direction ou un volet est aussi un élément aérodynamique) et on peut examiner le(s) profil(s) - le constructeur peut en utiliser plusieurs dans le même élément - et en tirer des conclusions.

Ceux qui ont inspecté les débris n'ont pas manqué de les tirer ces conclusions. B-757 . Vol 77.

Moi, je vote pour le B-757 du vol 77 car il faut également tenir compte de...

Quelques considérations supplémentaires:

Le poids maximum au décollage (Gross take-off weight) d'un RQ-4 est de 14,628 kg (données Grumman-Northrop)
Vitesse de croisière (Loiter speed): 575 kmH (310 knots TAS - True air speed) - doit tenir l'air longtemps (24-36 H) !
Sa vitesse maximale tourne autour de 643 kmH (400 mph)

Le Global Hawk n'a pas l'énergie cinétique nécessaire pour infliger de tels dommages au Pentagone sans recourir à une charge explosive.

Donc pour le Global Hawk, on parle d'explosifs (1000-2000-3000 lbs ? Your guess is as good as mine !)

Charge utile max: 3000 Lbs (données Grumman-Northrop)

1000-2000-3000 lbs ? d'explosifs, ça laisse des traces. A t-on retrouvé des traces d'explosifs au Pentagone ?

Et voici la goutte d'eau qui met le feu aux poudres...Si le vol 77 n'a pas percuté le Pentagone, que sont devenus les passagers et le personnel navigant ? On les aurait occis ? Et rien n'a filtré ?

Un tel secret serait très difficile à garder. Et tout ça dans un pays où l'histoire de Valérie Plame est encore sur toutes les lèvres, dans un pays où Clinton ne pouvait pas se faire tailler une pipe, bouffer de la pizza ou gentiment "utiliser un cigare" sans faire la une des feuilles de choux ? Dans un pays où on a réussi à avoir la peau de certains dirigeants d'Enron et autres poids lourds de la finance ?

Quiconque refuse l'impact du vol 77 au Pentagone est contraint d'assembler un véritable échafaudage d'hypothèses invérifiables. Or une chaîne n'est pas plus solide que le plus faible de ses maillons.

Mais peut-être as-tu des objections valables...Je t'invite à nous en faire part.

[Pat]

Denis : 96% | Mossad : Question tendancieuse: un BOEING 757 est TRÈS DIFFICILE À FAIRE ATTERIR. IMPOSSIBLE QU'UN PILOTE AUSSI MINABLE (DE L'AVIS DE SONT PROPRE INSTRUCTEUR!!) AIT PU EFFECTUER UN ATTERRISSAGE PARFAIT SANS MÊME ÉGRATIGNER LA PELOUSE!!! | Quivoudra : ?

Les mots que j'ai soulignés sont indignes d'une personne qui cherche à enquêter sérieusement : s'écraser sur un bâtiment n'est pas atterrir, et parler de perfection est dénué de sens quand on ne connaît pas avec précision les intentions de l'auteur. (Si c'est ainsi que tu veux chercher à convaincre tes interlocuteurs, c'est bien triste ; ces procédés douteux portent un nom : manipulation)

Puisque la fonction recherche a l'air de marcher de nouveau, cela m'évitera de me répéter une énième fois:
http://forum.sceptiques.qc.ca/viewtopic ... teur#57422

[MOSSAD]

Quelqu'un nie-t-il que l'ovni qui percuté le Pentagone arrivait horizontalement EXACTEMENT COMME UN ATTERRISSAGE PARFAIT??

Impossible à nier.

[MOSSAD]

Denis, je serais extrêmemnt heureux que tu me considères comme un ennemi:

ça ne ferait que confirmer que je suis considéré comme un ennemi pour les partisans de la thése officielle du gouvernement.

Ça montre pour qui tu travailles...

Ça serait plutôt louche que les agents de désinformation m'appuient dans mes démarches...

[Denis]

Salut Mossad,

Tu dis :

Ça montre pour qui tu travailles...

Pas du tout.

Ça montre plutôt que ta mauvaise foi et ta malhonnêteté intellectuelle sont aussi évidentes que détestables.

Rarement vu un parano aussi heavy que toi. Objectivement.

Denis