Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wilfrid on March 07, 2002, 03:23:05 AM
-
Wheres the Boeing? (http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm)
Interesting link, personally I believe the Pentagon was hit by a plane.
-
Hmmm the stupid French again??
Is this like when they asked: Where is the German Army now......
:(
-
GRUNHERZ why are you doing French bashing ?
The "Réseau Voltaire" is perhaps french speaking but that's all.
They express their opinion not A (*) French opinion.
(*) the only one.
Next time if I read any message I don't agree with I'll do some American bashing ...
-
Wtf...
Shouldnt there be parts of that plane there somewhere?
Either the ac hit with enough energy to cause a total desintegration of the plane. But what about the damage of the building? I'm thinking "more damage than ground floor only".
OR the aircraft hit with less engery (in order to match the damage to the building), but then there should be a large aircraft sticking out from the building...you know what I mean.
I still believe the terrorists are behind it all, and that they are responsible for every single death that day.
These pictures are seriously weird.
Can any of you engineer types explain this to me?
-
What Straffette said.
-
This just in......
"French Intellectuals to be Deployed in Afghanistan To Convince Taliban of Non-Existence of God
[Paris]
The ground war in Afghanistan heated up yesterday when the Allies revealed plans to airdrop a platoon of crack French existentialist philosophers into the country to destroy the morale of Taliban zealots by proving the non-existence of God.
Elements from the feared Jean-Paul Sartre Brigade, or 'Black Berets', will be parachuted into the combat zones to spread doubt, despondency and existential anomie among the enemy. Hardened by numerous intellectual battles fought during their long occupation of Paris's Left Bank, their first action will be to establish a number of pavement cafes at strategic points near the front lines. There they will drink coffee and talk animatedly about the absurd nature of life and man's lonely isolation in the universe. They will be accompanied by a number of heartbreakingly beautiful girlfriends who will further spread dismay by sticking their tongues in the philosophers' ears every five minutes and looking remote and unattainable to everyone else.
Their leader, Colonel Marc-Ange Belmondo, spoke yesterday of his
confidence in the success of their mission. Sorbonne graduate Belmondo, a very intense and unshaven young man in a black pullover, gesticulated wildly and said, "The Taliban are caught in a logical fallacy of the most ridiculous. There is no God and I can prove it. Take your tongue out of my ear, Juliet, I am talking."
Marc-Ange plans to deliver an impassioned thesis on man's nauseating freedom of action with special reference to the work of Foucault and the films of Alfred Hitchcock.
However, humanitarian agencies have been quick to condemn the operation as inhumane, pointing out that the effects of passive smoking from the Frenchmens' endless Gitanes could wreak a terrible toll on civilians in the area."
-
I suppose the Boeing full of people that didn't hit the Pentagon was abducted by aliens?
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
I suppose the Boeing full of people that didn't hit the Pentagon was abducted by aliens?
You tell me, do you see any sign of an ac in those pictures? Take a look at the last two pictures. Does that look like the scene of a 757 diving into a building?
[edit] Notice how the windows on the 2nd floor arent even broken? And that's at the point of impact.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
I suppose the Boeing full of people that didn't hit the Pentagon was abducted by aliens?
Dunno ... but if the plane is not here where is it ? that's the real question (for me anyway)
-
I think maybe the idea they're trying to get at is that the Air Force actually DID shoot down an Boeing that day. I'm thinking maybe the pictures and their conjecture amound to about dick in my book.
SOB
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You tell me, do you see any sign of an ac in those pictures? Take a look at the last two pictures. Does that look like the scene of a 757 diving into a building?
[edit] Notice how the windows on the 2nd floor arent even broken? And that's at the point of impact.
Just one observation:
We don't know that those pictures are from the point of impact. I would argue that they are not, but rather, they are to the left or right of the point of impact, where the fire had spread, but not where the plane hit. I don't find the other photos much more convincing. I'm not an experct at photo analysis (and I'd wager that neither are the operators of that sight) but I don't see how these photographs steer people to the conclusion that the Aircraft DIDN'T hit the building, considering the fact that, as far as I know, there hasn't been much experimentation on the effects of Airliners smashing into buildings. I think many expected the WTCs to collapse with the Impact. I didn't realise that they were going to collapse from the fire until I watched the first one come down.
Personally, my biggest question would be "What does the government have to gain by making this an Airliner instead of a truck bomb?" Perhaps they would be trying to cover up the way they shot down an Airliner (the same way they used the "Lets Roll story to cover up shooting down the airliner in PA? :rolleyes: I just don't see it.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Dunno ... but if the plane is not here where is it ? that's the real question (for me anyway)
It's called disintegration. The reports I remember seeing on the 11th said that the plane hit the ground outside the pentegon before crashing into the building, that would have started the disintegration. The building would have finished it. Ever seen the test footage of them shooting an f4 phantom into a big block of concrete? They did it at like 500 mph or something and the plane disapeared. The block of concrete was still there afterwords.
I doubt the plane would have flown into the building wings level (the 2 that hit the WTC didn't) I think the pilot would have had to roll the plane to see where he was going so low, probobly causing one of the wings to hit the ground before the plane hit the building. He's in a descent so the plane was probobly going about as fast as it could (500 mph?)
Then there are all the first hand reports from military and civilian employees at the pentegon of all the burning jet fuel. These people are shreckin nuts in the head and I wonder what their true motivation is.....
-
The superimposed aircraft is off by 2 fold. In regards to the sand, gravel, have any of you ever tried to move heavy equipment on a lawn before?
I'll have to raise the flag on this one.
(http://forums.off-topic.net/images/smilies/bsflag.gif)
-
In Spain, the first news after the Pentagon impact was that it has been a chopper. After one or two hours, the chopper was transformed into a Boeing.
-
If there weren't actual videos of the two planes hitting the tower I'm sure these idiots would say the same thing; where are the planes? The tails should at least be be sticking out of the burning tower and in plain view. The fact is when rammed into glass and steel girder building they both vaporized. Same thing with the Pentagon plane you muh roons and the Pentagon was older and far more solid (think "rock" facade ) than the towers were by far.
All I see are long external shots taken a LONG time after the actual crash. Any pieces possibly left of the FULLY FUELED aircraft would have been under and beyond the begining of where the building debri is seen.
And just for the record, I'd be the first to suspect a cover up by the US gov't in saying a plane, that they may shot down, was the culprit behind the damage instead of a truck bomb in order to pull a cover up.
In this case I think some paranoidal delusion is at work.
Westy
-
Originally posted by Udie at Work
It's called disintegration. The reports I remember seeing on the 11th said that the plane hit the ground outside the pentegon before crashing into the building, that would have started the disintegration. The building would have finished it. Ever seen the test footage of them shooting an f4 phantom into a big block of concrete? They did it at like 500 mph or something and the plane disapeared. The block of concrete was still there afterwords.
I doubt the plane would have flown into the building wings level (the 2 that hit the WTC didn't) I think the pilot would have had to roll the plane to see where he was going so low, probobly causing one of the wings to hit the ground before the plane hit the building. He's in a descent so the plane was probobly going about as fast as it could (500 mph?)
Then there are all the first hand reports from military and civilian employees at the pentegon of all the burning jet fuel. These people are shreckin nuts in the head and I wonder what their true motivation is.....
But why is there no visible damage to the lawn? If the plane impacted there before "bouncing" into the Pentagon? And in that first impact, shouldnt you get pieces of aircraft flying all over the place? Look at pic #5, now that has to be the impact area, but there is no visible damage to the ground infront of it?
I guess that's what Im shooting at here. I dont understand why you cant see pieces of aircraft on those pictures. I dont understand why you cant see a crater on the lawn. I cant explain why there is so little damage to the buildings.
I dont understand. And I cant answer those questions.
I have read much about various air crashes. And I can explain the physics behind all those crashes. I have seen many pictures of crash sites, many computer simulations etc.
But I cannot explain this one. You should either have a high energy crash (F4 drives into concrete wall) with lots of damage to the building or at least a crater on the ground. OR a low energy crash with limited damage to the building, but more pieces of aircraft left. Here you have very limited damage to the building, you have no visible damage to the ground, but not one piece of aircraft. I just dont understand that.
I have been doing some research on aircrashes (a firend of mine is looking for a Swedish DC3 shot down by a Soviet MIG in 1952), and I think I know pretty much about the physics involved in a crash. But this I cannot explain.
-
Oh, and all the moon landings we've done were fake too. :rolleyes:
-
Nah, I'm just a moron here for asking these questions.
And the french are all gay, the website proves that.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Oh, and all the moon landings we've done were fake too. :rolleyes:
ho ?
You're sure ?
I always found it strange ;) ...
btw my post was a tongue in geek as you say it was just missing the :D at the end :)
But a plane fully loaded of fuel just blow to lot bits as we have seen on the WTC tower :(
Nothing strange that there's not a lot of part visibles.
-
There were many eye witness accounts of that crash including pilots in the area, I'm sure the FBI had to get those folks into a little dark room with a single light bulb and change their minds as well...;)
-
It's not a red light like in MiB ?
Before this film I was not sure the USA were knowing a lot about ET now I'm sure !
The information from MiB are as true as what the réseau voltaire say ...
-
If you go to this site (http://www.september11news.com/Mysteries1.htm) you can surely see that it was space aliens who caused the WTC collapse. I see no reason why they couldn't have hit the Pentagon with a space torpedo or something.
PS:You have to scroll down to the bottom of the page for the UFO part
-Sikboy
-
Heres just one of many eyewitness accounts of that dreary day:
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Pentagon_crash_eyewitness_comforted_victims.html
-
It's also very interesting that the article states that the 757-200 flies at 250mph when landing. Very interesting, considering that the Flaps 1 limit speed is 240 knots and most touchdown speeds are in the 120-140 knot range depending on weight.
Perhaps everyone lands them "no flap"? Which, of course, would make everyone's FAA approved Before Landing Checklist incorrect. I sense a conspiracy here.........
....... and the conspirators cleverly smuggled both the Flight Data Recorder and the Cockpit Voice Recorder into the Pentagon wreckage, arranging to have them found by workmen on the 14th!
... and then there's that engine, one of the pieces of an airplane that tends to stay together in a crash....
From Aviation Week:
"One of the aircraft's engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and arched into the Pentagon's mall parking area between the main building and the new loading dock facility"
... hmmm maybe they just trucked in a crashed engine to the loading dock and dumped it?
But how can we explain the clipped trees and light poles?
From Aviation Week:
"American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 loaded with enough fuel for a transcontinental journey, cleared the crest of a small ridge in Arlington, Va., by a few hundred feet with its engines wailing. It slightly lowered its nose, clipped trees and parking lot light poles,
And then there's this from a Washinton Post article:
FBI agents had not located the jet's black box, the data collection device that will help them piece together the plane's final moments, but they did begin to recover bits and pieces of the fuselage and engines, including what appeared to be the nose cone and throttle. Agents were putting evidence in boxes and paper bags, as well as marking with small flags what appeared to be human remains.
... so they must have smuggled pieces of a fuselage, engines and radome into the actual Pentagon ring itself.
Those conspirators are SOOOOOOOOOO sneaky!
-
Can someone please explain to me why I'm wrong when I say that you should either have a high energy crash with lots of damage to the building or at least a crater on the ground. OR a low energy crash with limited damage to the building, but more pieces of aircraft left.
What is wrong with that assumption?
IF the ac hit the ground in front of the building, why is there no visible damage (aka a crater)? IF the ac hit the building, why is there not more damage?
Please oh please answer this one because I really want to know that.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Can someone please explain to me why I'm wrong when I say that you should either have a high energy crash with lots of damage to the building or at least a crater on the ground. OR a low energy crash with limited damage to the building, but more pieces of aircraft left.
No, I can't. I can't do this however, not because it is true, but rather because I don't have the knowledge required. I can't tell you how a synapse works either. Nor can I explain solor fission. There are lots of things that I don't know, that happen to exist. When it comes to something like this, the only thing I can do is apply Occum's Razor, and hope for the best. Essentially, whatever hypothesis that makes the fewest assumtions based on the data available is the most likely hypothesis. I can't answer your question, but I can say with a degree of certainty that there IS an answer to your question.
-Sikboy
-
My personal Favorite (http://www.elvis-conspiracy.com/)
-Sikboy
-
Concerning the relative lack of damage to the Pentagon, IIRC the entire building is undergoing retrofit and strengthening. The area hit was already completed. Reports I heard said the damage would have been much more catastrophic if the plane had hit elsewhere.
These conspiracy guys must be charter members of the flat earth society.
-
keep in mind, in the videos of the planes hitting the two towers, the planes disappeared into the structure, not causing much damage than a hole in the shape of a plane.... then the fire made the building collapse, just like it did here. you wanna find the boeing, it's underneath that heap of rubble.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Can someone please explain to me why I'm wrong when I say that you should either have a high energy crash with lots of damage to the building or at least a crater on the ground. OR a low energy crash with limited damage to the building, but more pieces of aircraft left.
What is wrong with that assumption?
IF the ac hit the ground in front of the building, why is there no visible damage (aka a crater)? IF the ac hit the building, why is there not more damage?
Please oh please answer this one because I really want to know that.
I'm sure hat Toad know better than me how many fuel there is in a commercial plane at take-off
IMO the explosion of a plane in such condition should be like the explosion a full tank of fuel.
-
I thought is was a small comuter plane that went into the Pentigon, with less then 30 people on board?
and didnt they have pics of its tail sticking out of the Pentigon?
-
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-1.html
"That casualties were not much higher is attributed primarily to the fact that the portion of the building hit, the so-called "Wedge One," had been recently renovated. Contrary to initial reports, the reason for the low casualty rates was not that the offices were still vacant."
..."What saved so many lives, indisputably, is the structural stiffening Wedge One had undergone as part of a much needed, nearly completed, upgrade. "
"The exterior walls had been reinforced with steel beams and columns, bolted where they met at each floor. Some of these reinforced walls very near the point of impact remained in place for a half hour before collapsing, allowing uncounted hundreds to escape. "Had we not undertaken this effort," said Evey at a press briefing on September 15, "this could have been much, much worse."
-
a high speed object does not cause "the" damage until it slows down by transmitting its own KE to the object. Until then it just penetrates.
In the case of a plane hitting, say, a building, it would penetrate and blow up *just* on the inside, past the penetration point. Just like you see happening in the towers. The pentagon would be no different. After all, those walls were designed to resist far more weight than the plane.. they held up a whole building!.
-
All it takes is a look at other crashes planes turn into very small pieces on impact.
And having worked on that perticular airplane myself and knowing that we are missing a 757. That whole web site is a bunch of bull toejam. Fuel will burn not nessecarily explode. Wings are very thin thats why they dont show up they disintigrated. I also agree having flown the 757 simulater, 250 is nowhere near landing speed way to high. Do a search for the United 737 that crashed in Colorado, Or the US Airways 737 that crashed in PA not much left of them but a big hole in the ground.
-
Rough outline for 757 fuel domestic US off the top of my head:
About 7000 pounds per scheduled hour of flight, add about 5-10,000 more for your reserve (5k clear/no alternate, 10k alternate for weather, arrival traffic, etc.)
Won't be exact, but it'll be close enough for "what-ifs" like this discussion.
-
CNN is showing still photos of the plane going into the pentagon right now, taken from a parking lot security camera.
But,
But,
Surely Pierre Sallinger can explain all this. Possibly the navy missile that got TWA flight 800 was responsible for this. I'm sure Area 51 is involved, or Aliens. Or Elvis. Or Jack Ruby, gotta be one of them...
-
Obvious to me that the Elders of Zion (In league with the Illuminati) must have been reading this thread, and make some CG video to placate the masses. We have to be carefull what we say out here, the walls have ears, the phones are tapped... what? Who are you? Hey, that's my keyboar........
-
I believe there is a lesson to be learned here.
When someone steals your keyboard, finish your sentence instead of typing lots of dots like this ....
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I believe there is a lesson to be learned here.
When someone steals your keyboard, finish your sentence instead of typing lots of dots like this ....
Hey, who am I to question the ways of the vast government conspiracy? :rolleyes:
-Sikboy
-
They've gotten sikboy!!!
-
Why don't You like to pass the time with a game of solitair?
-Sikboy
-
"Would You like to pass the time with a little solitair? "
My time, is your time....
-Thx 1138
-
Entertaining site... stupid, but entertaining.
FWIW, at work we had a tactical aircraft crash a few years ago. It impacted an embankment and then went over the top of the building. There weren't many pieces larger than a bread box. It's perfectly reasonable to expect the pentagon crash aircraft to break up into nothing but little pieces.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
FWIW, at work we had a tactical aircraft crash a few years ago. It impacted an embankment and then went over the top of the building. There weren't many pieces larger than a bread box. It's perfectly reasonable to expect the pentagon crash aircraft to break up into nothing but little pieces.
Was it a German Tornado?
-Sikboy
-
As a matter of fact, it was (http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRNews98/FR981025.htm#Holloman).
-
I was working at the Library on China lake at the time. My wife (then Girlfriend) Denise, was out on ECO when it happened.
Freaked me out. You hear the boom, and figure it's another bomb. But then someone comes in and says "Hey, there was a plane crash out on ECO!" and you think "Well, there is lots of space out there. I hope no-one was hurt" Then they say, someone got hurt!" and you think "Well, there are lots of people on the range, I hope to god its not Denise" Then they say "Some WOMAN got hurt out on the range!" and you think "Oh toejam there are probably less than 5 women out there" Turn out it was Renee and not Denise, and while I meant no I'll will towards Renee, I was so relieved when I heard that Denise was ok, and that Renee would be all right as well. Pretty crazy day for sure.
-Sikboy
-
video stills from the plane crashing into the pentagon are supposed to be released soon
-
Check out this (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47171) link
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
My personal Favorite (http://www.elvis-conspiracy.com/)
-Sikboy
JOY! Bless you for that link Sikboy! :D
-
Originally posted by -dead-
JOY! Bless you for that link Sikboy! :D
for anyone who missed it, you gotta read the "Manifesto" It's great. I should buy the book :eek:
-Sikboy
-
The security camera has funny date...
-
Originally posted by Fishu
The security camera has funny date...
And it has some kind of IFF feature, which correctly identified the incoming object as a "Plane":rolleyes:
I would guess that is the time of impact in Sweden
-Sikboy
-
Ooops, my bad. Time is in Sweden, Date is in Twilight Zone lol
-Sikboy
-
Hmmm... why would a Pentagon security camera have Swedish time?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hmmm... why would a Pentagon security camera have Swedish time?
Ah Haaaaa! That PROVES it!!! Its a conspiracy by Sweden to slowly make the entire world Blond and Neutral!!!
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hmmm... why would a Pentagon security camera have Swedish time?
Ummmm, the same reason it would have the word "Plane" there, it was added by the Swedish Newspaper.
I have this wierd pulling sensation on my leg :confused:
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Ummmm, the same reason it would have the word "Plane" there, it was added by the Swedish Newspaper.
I have this wierd pulling sensation on my leg :confused:
-Sikboy
put the porn away and get back to the aircraft pics.
-
I heard a suggestion that the date was the day it was entered as evidence? Dont know never heard a official report.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Ah Haaaaa! That PROVES it!!! Its a conspiracy by Sweden to slowly make the entire world Blond and Neutral!!!
Curses!! Our vile plot to overtake the earth is foiled. And I thought I told those newspaper editors to change the date on the pictures.
-
There was a big briefing on the crash & the status of the repairs to the Pentagon on CNN last nite.
Part of the problem with the French site is that they're pretty clueless. I suppose that's just a natural byproduct of being Frnech, but what'reya gonna do?
The plane did NOT go straight into the building from front to back as the superimposed silhouette would have you beleive. In fact, it went in at about a 40 degree angle. In the smaller of the 2 pics used for question 5, it should be shown with the nose pointing nearly 40 degrees to the left.
It did NOT go straight in only up to the point where the silhouettes show. In fact, almost the entire body of the plane entered the building. There is destruction running on a 40 degree line through the third corridor of the building and just into the fouth. This didn't cause a collapse and isn't readily visible from the pictures we get to see. You can see evidence in the top picture of Question 1 of the damage to the back wall of corridor 3 where the nose of the plane destroyed some of the wall and punched through.
It came in pretty much wings level and impacted right at the ground/building juncture at about a 40 degree angle to the side of the building. Just as with the shots of the 2nd plane impacting the WTC, it plowed into the building, leaving little of itself outside.
D
-
Part of the problem with the French site is that they're pretty clueless. I suppose that's just a natural byproduct of being Frnech, but what'reya gonna do?
I'm pretty tired by this French bashing ....
The fact that this site is writen in french doesn't mean that it's content is THE opinion of French people... it just mean it's writen in french
HAVE YOU UNDERSTOOD OR SHOULD I WRITE IN CAPS ?
Just in case I repeat :
HAVE YOU UNDERSTOOD OR SHOULD I WRITE IN CAPS ?
-
(http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/taunters.jpg)
You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottoms, son of a silly person! Ah blow my nose at you, so-called "Arthur Keeeng"! You and all your silly English Knnnnnnnn-ighuts!!!
-
i find that funny, cuz it wasnt a boeing that hit the pentagon, it was a small aircraft, cessna size or so, hit the building fast enough from a dive to cause a hole big enough to collapse the thing, and have enough of a fire to burn the plane up into plane ashes.....
-
Originally posted by scooby
i find that funny, cuz it wasnt a boeing that hit the pentagon, it was a small aircraft, cessna size or so, hit the building fast enough from a dive to cause a hole big enough to collapse the thing, and have enough of a fire to burn the plane up into plane ashes.....
What?
You don't seriously believe this do you?
You have proof? Proof which refutes the eyewitness & photographic evidence? Other than some ill-informed French website, of course.
If it was a Cessna that hit the Pentagon what exactly happened to American Airlines Flight 77, a Beoing 757 with 64 people on board? Aliens abducted it?
D
-
Originally posted by straffo
I'm pretty tired by this French bashing ....
The fact that this site is writen in french doesn't mean that it's content is THE opinion of French people... it just mean it's writen in french
HAVE YOU UNDERSTOOD OR SHOULD I WRITE IN CAPS ?
Just in case I repeat :
HAVE YOU UNDERSTOOD OR SHOULD I WRITE IN CAPS ?
Pardon your French.
Dude, I know living with your heritage must be hell, but don't get testy with me.
I don't hold it against you. We've all got our faults. I'm so devestatingly handsome & witty that occasionally people are intimidated. You're French. It's all OK.
Well, 'cept for the being French part.
D
-
Originally posted by scooby
i find that funny, cuz it wasnt a boeing that hit the pentagon, it was a small aircraft, cessna size or so, hit the building fast enough from a dive to cause a hole big enough to collapse the thing, and have enough of a fire to burn the plane up into plane ashes.....
Right... ever been to the Pentagon? No way in hell a cessna could have penetrated past the E ring, let alone get to the C ring.
Of course, as Doberman pointed out, you still have issue with the lost AA flt 77.
But hey... that's all part of the U.S. govt plan... you know... landing on the moon was staged; we have little green men from Roswell, etc.
If it's a troll, you need to at least make it somewhat believable.
-
@sandman : rotfl ;) one of my favorite of this film (with the Holy grenade ;))
@Doberman :
With smilies I can take this post as ironic and humorous and have a good laught.
Without it's just another Harsh Rude and Impolite post.
Either use smilies or "va te faire enculer" (ask Grunherz for translation as it's part of my 1st lesson : "cursing in french" :D)
Originally posted by Doberman
Pardon your French.
Dude, I know living with your heritage must be hell, but don't get testy with me.
I don't hold it against you. We've all got our faults. I'm so devestatingly handsome & witty that occasionally people are intimidated. You're French. It's all OK.
Well, 'cept for the being French part.
D
-
lol @ Sandman :)
-
Yah Sandman, wtg! :) Unreal, immossible great laugh's!WOW, S! Incredible! Sappy Duper Rific~! Hehehehe, S!:p
-
Originally posted by straffo
@sandman : rotfl ;) one of my favorite of this film (with the Holy grenade ;))
@Doberman :
With smilies I can take this post as ironic and humorous and have a good laught.
Without it's just another Harsh Rude and Impolite post.
Either use smilies or "va te faire enculer" (ask Grunherz for translation as it's part of my 1st lesson : "cursing in french" :D)
Sorry bub. I was around BBS's & newsgroups long before they became populated with the humor impared who require smilies. I use them sparingly, if at all.
And honestly, I'm unconcerned whether you think I'm serious or not. Staying on your good side isn't imperative to me. I mean, you're French right? What're you gonna do? Surrender at me?
D
-
seems to me if u look close enough where the black stuff is from the so called fire... looks like it has been in paint or something close to that. i only see it on the first picture tho.
-
(http://benoit.delestrade.free.fr/img/WW2OL/screens/superdupont.jpg)