Support NeoGAF

[jecclr2003]

I've read this whole thread the entire way through and have only one thing to say to the thread creator.

PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!

What more proof do you need that a plane filled with innocent people and hijacked and then susequently rammed into a government (and VERY fortified) military HQ. The place was meant to be able to withstand an attack. Everyone aboard died, the terrorists died, innocent people inside the Pentagon died. Why? A TERRORIST ATTACK!

Do you think the designers planned on someone ramming an airplane going in the range of 350-500mph? Doubtful. Hell no one really knew what jet fuel could do to a steel structered building. Long story short, it burns at over 3000F, therefore MELTING anything in its path. Be it metal, flesh, bone, stone, you name.... it's gone to ashes. And it burned for over an hour and a half before they could even get close enough to it. THAT'S WHERE MOST OF YOUR DEBRY WENT TO!

As for if it was a plane or not, there were COUNTLESS eye witness reports, light posts near the Pentagon were clipped, and despite popular belief, a low flying jet DOES NOT CAUSE ALOT OF TURBULANCE! Example: I live in Canton, OH. We have the Akron Canton airport here, the (JET) planes (commercial size air busses) CROSS THE HIGHWAY AT ABOUT 30-75 FT OFF THE GROUND. And guess what? Not a bit of turbulance, no heat either. Our cars drive up I-77 and past the runway EVERY DAY. Now I'm not an expert at any rate, but there goes the theory on that flas of the turbulance and the cars being knocked around. It just doesnt happen.....

 

[Seth C]

Okay, I don't have trouble beliving there COULD be a cover-up, the problem is that I just don't see a REASON for it in this case. For there to be a conspiracy, there needs to first be a reason to conspire. You typically don't conspire without having something to gain from it. So, what is there to gain?

If it wasn't the flight they said it was, then what was it? The video suggests a smaller plane or a missile.

If it were another plane, what happend to the families of THOSE people? Did they have no families? Were all the families members paid off by the government? Please be realistic. Also, if it were another plane, the government has NO reason not to admit it. If flight 77 crashed elsewhere, they could explain it the same way they did the Pennsylvania flight. IT was being flown by inexerpienced pilots, it went down, etc. We "bought" it for one flight, and even if we didn't, it's what they told us. They could explain away a second crash the SAME WAY. So, it was not a smaller plane.

Now you're left with a missile. Now you have a terrorist that has a missile within reach of the Pentagon. A missile capable of that kind of damage. A missile fired from within our borders, and likely no more than a mile from the Pentagon. Our government doesn't know about it. The terrorist only has ONE such missile. He has the ability to fire it with enough precision to hit the building he aimed for. Yet, despite all this planning, all this cunning, he chooses perhaps the second most well built, well armored building in the entire country. What a waste of a good missile. Sorry, I'm not buying it. It doesn't make SENSE to me. But, if you believe this, that's what you're left with as the possibility. Have fun with it.

 

[Ceros]

The amount of people that would be needed to pull off a stunt like this is ridiculous. Hundreds of underground government staffers, military staffers, and their families might accidently get told.

If it was something where 4-5 people were told and there was complete shutdown on the media taking pictures, that's one thing.

But you need hundreds. If it was true, somewhere along the grapevine, somebody would have leaked something.

True, but what if it was leaked and dismissed before it even got out in the mainstream?? What if the person on the secrecy chain was of no position of power or position of importance?? Also, I'm pretty sure that money could be used to shut pretty much anyone up. If someone did leak anything or even raise questions(like DC), it'd probably be like this thread, everyone would just dismiss him/her as just a conspiracy theorist or someone with an agenda against the us gov....


And to SethC: Just because YOU don't see a reason for something like to go down, doesn't mean somewhere someone doesn't have a reason for it to. I'm not saying that the event was planned or anything, but dismissing it because you don't see a reason for it to happen seems like blindly coming to a conclusion. Like I said earlier, I'm NOT saying that a plane didn't crash into the pentagon, I'm just stating that there IS a possibility that it didn't.

 

[dskillzhtown]

I will admit that this and the plane that went down in PA definitely have some mystery around them. I saw the special on Discovery and it definitely didn't squash those mysteries. I am not at the point to think that this government would not do anything to it's people in the name of the 'greater good'. It has been done before. There was smallpox released in a cloud over Oklahoma City (IIRC) to test the reaction of the citizens. There was syphillis being injected in Black men to watch them suffer and record the effects. Those are just 2 examples of this government doing dastardly things to it's own people.

So I don't think that this government is as squeeky clean as some do. In this situation, I just think that there is more to this atleast. I mean the reports are that the plane was aiming for the White House, then changed course. I would think I would hit the White House, not the Pentagon. Also, even looking at the Discovery special, there should have been more debris on either side of the crash spot. I mean, a plane that wide should leave debris in a huge wake. But maybe there is nothing more to it, I am open to the idea there is though.

 

[The Shadow]

Okay, I don't have trouble beliving there COULD be a cover-up, the problem is that I just don't see a REASON for it in this case. For there to be a conspiracy, there needs to first be a reason to conspire. You typically don't conspire without having something to gain from it. So, what is there to gain?

Exactly.

You can throw evidence back and forth but you really need a reason on top of evidence. The evidence alone is pretty flimsy, but more to the point, I don't think anyone has even thought of a reason why there'd be a cover up. Why fake a crash at the Pentagon?

That alone doesn't make any sense. There's no good reason at all to fake something like that. At the very least with the moon landing, you had a real propaganda race going on but here, no reason at all.

 

[MIMIC]

Okay, I don't have trouble beliving there COULD be a cover-up, the problem is that I just don't see a REASON for it in this case. For there to be a conspiracy, there needs to first be a reason to conspire. You typically don't conspire without having something to gain from it. So, what is there to gain?

Uhhhh...war in Afghanistan? War in Iraq? War on Terrorism? The Patriot Act? Homeland Security? The Bush Doctrine? "You're either with us or against us"?

HELLLOOOOO?????

 

[Phoenix]

Now you're left with a missile. Now you have a terrorist that has a missile within reach of the Pentagon. A missile capable of that kind of damage. A missile fired from within our borders, and likely no more than a mile from the Pentagon. Our government doesn't know about it. The terrorist only has ONE such missile. He has the ability to fire it with enough precision to hit the building he aimed for. Yet, despite all this planning, all this cunning, he chooses perhaps the second most well built, well armored building in the entire country. What a waste of a good missile. Sorry, I'm not buying it. It doesn't make SENSE to me. But, if you believe this, that's what you're left with as the possibility. Have fun with it.

Yes. Seems to me if you have that sort of firepower - the whitehouse, congress, CIA HQ, hell even the school where Bush is located make much more tempting targets than the broadside of a hardened command and control center.


Somehow you have to account for all of the pieces in any conspiracy theory and this conspiracy theory doesn't even attempt to do so. Every crime MUST have a motive - where is it?

 

[Phoenix]

Uhhhh...war in Afghanistan? War in Iraq? War on Terrorism? The Patriot Act? Homeland Security? The Bush Doctrine? "You're either with us or against us"?

HELLLOOOOO?????

And you don't think that we could have done ANY of that before 9/11? There were metric assloads of people in protest of the wars, and we still did them. Country after country came out in opposition and we STILL did them. Its costing us an arm a leg and left nutt and we DIDN'T BLINK AN EYE.

If the United States government wants to go to war against another country, it doesn't need to blow up several thousand of its citizens to do it.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

Well, I guess I owe someone an apology for locking the thread yesterday, since there is still a groundswell of interest in this topic...

You sir are relieved of your duties.

 

[MIMIC]

Another thing to note:

One would expect terrorists to cause as massive as a casualty list as they could imagine, right?

Question: why would the terrorists fly the plane into the LEAST occupied side of the Pentagon (the side under RENOVATION)?

Why would the terrorists fly the planes into the World Trade Center early in the morning when mid-afternoon would be IDEAL to inflict mass casualties that would reach into the tens of thousands? Also, why would they fly them into the TOPS of the buildings when flying them into the most feasible lower section would be ideal to prevent escape?

 

[Slurpy]

And you don't think that we could have done ANY of that before 9/11? There were metric assloads of people in protest of the wars, and we still did them. Country after country came out in opposition and we STILL did them. Its costing us an arm a leg and left nutt and we DIDN'T BLINK AN EYE.

If the United States government wants to go to war against another country, it doesn't need to blow up several thousand of its citizens to do it.

But it doesn't hurt, does it. Don't tell me what this administration has done during the last 3 years would have been possible without a 9/11 like event. Because it wouldn't have.

 

[MIMIC]

And you don't think that we could have done ANY of that before 9/11?

Uh, no. Congress would not have let Bush up and invade Iraq and Afghanistan without 9/11 and there is no reason to suggest that they would have.

 

[Lakitu]

I LIKE THE MUSIC

 

[Boogie]

Another thing to note:

One would expect terrorists to cause as massive as a casualty list as they could imagine, right?

Question: why would the terrorists fly the plane into the LEAST occupied side of the Pentagon (the side under RENOVATION)?

Why would the terrorists fly the planes into the World Trade Center early in the morning when mid-afternoon would be IDEAL to inflict mass casualties that would reach into the tens of thousands? Also, why would they fly them into the TOPS of the buildings when flying them into the most feasible lower section would be ideal to prevent escape?

1) I'm sure the terrorists were unaware of the precise population distribution of the Pentagon. Plus which side of the Pentagon they hit would most likely be determined by the flight plan of the plane before they took it over. They're not going to take the time to loop around the Pentagon just in order to hit a side of it with more people.

2) Well, you can't hit the bottom of the WTC, because there's these smaller buildings that are kinda in the way, you see. I'm sure they were simply concerned with being able to hit the buildings in the first place. To paraphrase Mr. Spock, "Even logic must give way to feasability".
And they hardly hit "the TOPS of the buildings", one of them at least hit closer towards the middle.

(Is that better, Matlock? )

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

ok, if i was a conspiracy theorist i would say that you dont need hundreds of people to pull off what happened on 9/11.
you only need 19 people to do the work for you. for all we know flight 77 was shot down by jet fighters or something. maybe there were people on the inside who planted bombs or something. i mean, that hole that was left in the building looks an awful lot like something that would be made from a bomb explosion. there's lots of possibilities. it's odd that transcripts from the other flights have been released but not from flight 77 (unless someone would kindly point me in the right direction?)
maybe flight 77 didnt dissapear but maybe all the debris landed inside?(im not explaining that right) or most of it burned up.
there are many possibilities but we do know that a plane hit.
whether it was piloted or something else.... well, that's why we have brain and we use critical thinking and deductive reasoning.
as for why the govt would something like that? remenber pearl harbor? in 1940 people where strongly opposed to going to war overseas even though the govt knew that they would eventually have to fight the germans because they would threaten their national security and way of life (socially and economically) they needed something to galvanize the people into a war footing. why not let the japanese go through with their threats and declarations of war? they woild have been beat eventually because they lacked the resources and the japanese knew it.

 

[Phoenix]

Uh, no. Congress would not have let Bush up and invade Iraq and Afghanistan without 9/11 and there is no reason to suggest that they would have.

Iraq, the country that we were bombing almost daily before 9/11? The country that was actively firing at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zone every day? The country that was indeed materially in violation of the cease fire at the end of the Gulf War?

We needed more of a reason to invade them that would require our administration to manufacture a plot to kill several thousand of its own citizens?

Somehow, that reasoning just escapes me.

 

[Bruce Vilanch]

A family friend of mine died in the plane that flew into the Pentagon. Shut the fuck up with this nonsense.

 

[Vlad]

Another thing to note:

One would expect terrorists to cause as massive as a casualty list as they could imagine, right?

Question: why would the terrorists fly the plane into the LEAST occupied side of the Pentagon (the side under RENOVATION)?

Was it well known that that section was the least occupied? Not to mention that turning around to hit a different area would have cost time, and maybe they didn't want to risk getting shot down before having the chance to hit something.

Why would the terrorists fly the planes into the World Trade Center early in the morning when mid-afternoon would be IDEAL to inflict mass casualties that would reach into the tens of thousands?

It's just a guess, but maybe it had to do with the flights they hijacked. Maybe an earlier flight is more likely to have less people on it. Sure that's less casualties, but also a smaller crowd to have to control once they're in the air.

Also, why would they fly them into the TOPS of the buildings when flying them into the most feasible lower section would be ideal to prevent escape?

How tall were the surrounding buildings? Sure, a lower section will cause more casualties, but if any nearby buildings are in the way, they could have wanted to guarantee that they'd hit their target and not clip another building instead.

 

[MIMIC]

Iraq, the country that we were bombing almost daily before 9/11? The country that was actively firing at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zone every day? The country that was indeed materially in violation of the cease fire at the end of the Gulf War?

We needed more of a reason to invade them that would require our administration to manufacture a plot to kill several thousand of its own citizens?

Somehow, that reasoning just escapes me.

Um, the cease fire-agreement wasn't used as justification to invade Iraq.

What was used was "pre-emptive action." 9/11 = "it could happen AGAIN, but this time by Iraq!!" That's how Bush pushed the attack on Iraq....with 9/11

A family friend of mine died in the plane that flew into the Pentagon. Shut the fuck up with this nonsense.

You need to have a word with Jeremy Glick's son.

 

[Kobun Heat]

A family friend of mine died in the plane that flew into the Pentagon. Shut the fuck up with this nonsense.

What did you do with your $800,000?

 

[Chrono]

Why would the terrorists fly the planes into the World Trade Center early in the morning when mid-afternoon would be IDEAL to inflict mass casualties that would reach into the tens of thousands?

Also, why would they fly them into the TOPS of the buildings when flying them into the most feasible lower section would be ideal to prevent escape?

...


Ever thought of the possibilty that those terrorist are not exactly james bonds? Those points you mentioned could be applied to almost EVERY FREAKING' terrorist attack-- wait they hijacked a school!? OMG!! why not hijack the bigger school down the street? OMG CONSPIRACY!!

 

[MIMIC]

Was it well known that that section was the least occupied? Not to mention that turning around to hit a different area would have cost time, and maybe they didn't want to risk getting shot down before having the chance to hit something.

Well, if I knew it, I would expect someone to orchestrate an elaborate, five plus-years in the making terrorist attack on the building would at LEAST have an inkling about the population of the Pentagon.

It's just a guess, but maybe it had to do with the flights they hijacked. Maybe an earlier flight is more likely to have less people on it. Sure that's less casualties, but also a smaller crowd to have to control once they're in the air.

They were in first class, right?

How tall were the surrounding buildings? Sure, a lower section will cause more casualties, but if any nearby buildings are in the way, they could have wanted to guarantee that they'd hit their target and not clip another building instead.

From the way each plane maneuvered, it's crazy to think that they couldn't have flown it into a lower section at a particular angle

Ever thought of the possibilty that those terrorist are not exactly james bonds?

You have to be James Bond to do what I described? Pick a time later in the day? Pick a lower section? Find the population of the Pentagon?

Wow...you have some very low expectations

 

[RaymondCarver]

Did any of you conspiracy nuts stop to think that we (as a country) might not want to publicly release video footage of the events because our enemies could study the footage. You conspiracy nuts are exactly that: nuts.

or, may I offer this suggestion:
Maybe the reality of what happened is so horrible that you choose to believe that something else happened, i.e. that there is more to the story than what we, the public, know. It is probably easier for you to ignore the reality of this tragedy than to accept it.




What happened was very simple to understand. The hard thing to emotionally comprehend is how horrible the events are. My premise is that people who think that some American-born conspiracy is at foot are in denial accepting the simple, yet completely horrible, thing that happened.

 

[Seth C]

Uhhhh...war in Afghanistan? War in Iraq? War on Terrorism? The Patriot Act? Homeland Security? The Bush Doctrine? "You're either with us or against us"?

HELLLOOOOO?????

Two planes already hit the WTC, in an act of terrorism, and destroyed them? HELLOOOOO???

Unless, of course, you're claiming the entire thing was a hoax, conceived by our own government? If so, well, more power to you. Either way, the WTC would be enough to get all that done. The Pentagon hit, if that's your reason for the conspiracy, was completely pointless.

 

[MIMIC]

Did any of you conspiracy nuts stop to think that we (as a country) might not want to publicly release video footage of the events because our enemies could study the footage.

So instead, we let them study the attacks on two of the largest buildings in the world, as well as release the information gleaned about how they went about doing the attack?

I don't think so.

 

[HAOHMARU]

I think this is the first time I actually am pissed off over something posted on the internet. To think that people are actually entertaining the idea that this was a government cover up and that flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon and is somewhere else... To think that people are actually entertaining the idea that some other means was used to blow up that side of the Pentagon really takes the heart out of me.

If this thread taught me one thing, it was to re-enforce the fact that some people on the internet are idiots.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

They somehow managed to hit the pentagon low enough not to disturb the roof, but high enough to leave the grass unscathed(AFTER manuevering over a hill, then a downward decent at the estimated 500+mph), but they couldn't hit the tallest buildings in new york at their lowest point possible? Hmmm.....

 

[Slurpy]

Iraq, the country that we were bombing almost daily before 9/11? The country that was actively firing at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zone every day? The country that was indeed materially in violation of the cease fire at the end of the Gulf War?

We needed more of a reason to invade them that would require our administration to manufacture a plot to kill several thousand of its own citizens?

Somehow, that reasoning just escapes me.

Sorry, you're wrong. Even with the relentless fear mongering of WMD, nuclear weapons, and constant ties and exploitations of Iraq and 911, look at the amount of opposition. You think they would have been able to realistically invade the country at that scale because they're firing and fucking aircrafts, that doesn't make the news anyway? Noone really cared of gave a shit about Iraq before the WMD nonsense. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

 

[Boogie]

Well, if I knew it, I would expect someone to orchestrate an elaborate, five plus-years in the making terrorist attack on the building would at LEAST have an inkling about the population of the Pentagon.




They were in first class, right?



From the way each plane maneuvered, it's crazy to think that they couldn't have flown it into a lower section at a particular angle



You have to be James Bond to do what I described? Pick a time later in the day? Pick a lower section? Find the population of the Pentagon?

Wow...you have some very low expectations

How about this then: Considering the complexity and timing required for their plan, the most important thing for the terrorists was likely just making sure that they could pull it off, and any other considerations (ie. hitting a specific side of the building) was immaterial, considering how they were flying airliners into buildings. They likely surmised that crashing the planes into the WTC would be enough to bring the buildings down. And guess what? They were right. Shock and awe.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

No one really cared of gave a shit about Iraq before the WMD nonsense. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

Agreed. I didn't care about Iraq or it's people then and I don't now. Their plight is and was totally irrelvant to me.

 

[MIMIC]

I think this is the first time I actually am pissed off over something posted on the internet. To think that people are actually entertaining the idea that this was a government cover up and that flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon and is somewhere else...

Are you freaking serious? THEY'VE REFUSED TO RELEASE VIDEO FOOTAGE OF THE ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON.

There unwillingness to disclose such information is a paragon of a government cover-up.

How about this then: Considering the complexity and timing required for their plan, the most important thing for the terrorists was likely just making sure that they could pull it off, and any other considerations (ie. hitting a specific side of the building) was immaterial, considering how they were flying airliners into buildings. They likely surmised that crashing the planes into the WTC would be enough to bring the buildings down. And guess what? They were right. Shock and awe.

What I described wasn't all that far from "hijacking a plane and flying it into a building."

 

[SteveMeister]

What did you do with your $800,000?

That was in extremely poor taste, KH.

 

[Phoenix]

Sorry, you're wrong. Even with the relentless fear mongering of WMD, nuclear weapons, and constant ties and exploitations of Iraq and 911, look at the amount of opposition. You think they would have been able to realistically invade the country at that scale because they're firing and fucking aircrafts, that doesn't make the news anyway? Noone really cared of gave a shit about Iraq before the WMD nonsense. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

Right so the CIA couldn't have said - 'hey look they have teh WMD right there' (which they did), its on trucks and they are going to shoot at is and pass it to terrorists who plant to attack us (which they said) and use that as a prelude to invade Iraq? Shit we've invaded countries for less (Panama)! Hell I bet most people don't even know why we invaded Panama.

Please, spare me the 'need' speech. The country is more than capable of generating enough spin through its Press office and 'leaks' to the media to get people ready for war.

 

[KingV]

All I took away from that clip was that there was no way a 7 seried aircraft hit the Pentagon, judging by the destruction/debris or lack thereof.


A plane would leave more than just a hole, and it wouldn't penatrate layers A - E either.

That's also some percision flying to leave the ground (grass at that!) unscathed...



To you, because you obviously witnessed it all... :rolleyes.

And you're obviously an expert in flying 757's and the physics of airline crashes, and the structure of the Pentagon. This is the most absurd allegation I've ever read.

 

[Boogie]

They somehow managed to hit the pentagon low enough not to disturb the roof, but high enough to leave the grass unscathed(AFTER manuevering over a hill, then a downward decent at the estimated 500+mph), but they couldn't hit the tallest buildings in new york at their lowest point possible? Hmmm.....

Umm, the pilots flying the planes into the WTC were different people than the ones flying the plane into the pentagon.

.....

Unless you're saying that the planes were all remote controlled by the same person in some government bunker! OMG WTF TEH CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!

 

[Boogie]

That was in extremely poor taste, KH.

No, DCB's original comment regarding the money was in poor taste. Chastise him first.

 

[MIMIC]

Right so the CIA couldn't have said - 'hey look they have teh WMD right there' (which they did), its on trucks and they are going to shoot at is and pass it to terrorists who plant to attack us (which they said) and use that as a prelude to invade Iraq?

No. Because right before 9/11, Powell said that Iraq was contained and that the U.S. was successful in preventing Iraq from stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

After 9/11, it was all lost in the exploitation of the event.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

Yes the bots.


If they had that great a pilot, wouldn't he be put on one of the teams hitting the towers? That would seem like more of a "priority". The public spectacle of downing the towers. In hindsight they went down either way, but it'd be more a gurantee to hit them lower.

 

[MIMIC]

Umm, the pilots flying the planes into the WTC were different people than the ones flying the plane into the pentagon.

.....

Unless you're saying that the planes were all remote controlled by the same person in some government bunker! OMG WTF TEH CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!

Well explain the Pentagon maneuver, then.

(and if you've seen as much WTC attack footage as I have, it is CLEARLY conceivable that their aim could have been a LOT lower and just as successful.)

 

[Boogie]

Yes the bots.


If they had that great a pilot, wouldn't he be put on one of the teams hitting the towers? That would seem like more of a "priority". The public spectacle of downing the towers. In hindsight then went down either way, but it'd be more a gurantee to hit them lower.

Or maybe the better pilot should be put in the plane that's heading for the more difficult target, leaving the worse pilots to hit the easier WTC.

 

[Phoenix]

No. a)Because right before 9/11, Powell said that Iraq was contained and that theb) U.S. was successful in preventing Iraq from stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

After 9/11, it was all lost in the exploitation of the event.

And here is where we come to the fun part - please provide a link to a and b and show how a government interested in invading Iraq (since the claim is that the government would have done this because invading Iraq was the goal) could not have used the same evidence gatherd/fabricated/etc during b to invade Iraq. It the goal is to invade Iraq and you're willing to kill several thousand of your own citizens you mean you won't manufacture a little evidence?

Anyways - I await your response.

 

[Willco]

Uhhhh...war in Afghanistan? War in Iraq? War on Terrorism? The Patriot Act? Homeland Security? The Bush Doctrine? "You're either with us or against us"?

HELLLOOOOO?????

Mr. MIMIC, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[MIMIC]

Or maybe the better pilot should be put in the plane that's heading for the more difficult target, leaving the worse pilots to hit the easier WTC.

Apparently, that pilot is a lot more skillful than anyone in the U.S. Air Force.

 

[Boogie]

Well explain the Pentagon maneuver, then.

(and if you've seen as much WTC attack footage as I have, it is CLEARLY conceivable that their aim could have been a LOT lower and just as successful.)

explain what about the Penatagon maneuver?

Let me get this straight. Your latest argument is that there is something fishy about the WTC attacks because the terrorists hit the buildings too high up? GOOD GOD, MAN.

 

[LakeEarth]

Or maybe the better pilot should be put in the plane that's heading for the more difficult target, leaving the worse pilots to hit the easier WTC.

Are you a pilot? Just want to know what you are basing your claims on.

 

[MIMIC]

explain what about the Penatagon maneuver?

Let me get this straight. Your latest argument is that there is something fishy about the WTC attacks because the terrorists hit the buildings too high up? GOOD GOD, MAN.

Explain this: They somehow managed to hit the pentagon low enough not to disturb the roof, but high enough to leave the grass unscathed(AFTER manuevering over a hill, then a downward decent at the estimated 500+mph),

I don't know WHERE you got your LAST idea from. I merely stated that that was something to think about in relation to how terrorists operate (inflicting mass casualty)

 

[Boogie]

Apparently, that pilot is a lot more skillful than anyone in the U.S. Air Force.

I will now await legitimate quotes from accomplished U.S. air force pilots stating that hitting the Pentagon in such a way is beyond their ability and skills. But I have a feeling I should check the temperature in hell first.

 

[Yossarian]

This has to be the dumbest thread we've ever had on GAF. Fucking nuts.

 

[MIMIC]

And here is where we come to the fun part - please provide a link to a and b and show how a government interested in invading Iraq (since the claim is that the government would have done this because invading Iraq was the goal) could not have used the same evidence gatherd/fabricated/etc during b to invade Iraq. It the goal is to invade Iraq and you're willing to kill several thousand of your own citizens you mean you won't manufacture a little evidence?

Anyways - I await your response.

Are you a) seeing whether I am lying or not, or b) going to try to justify Powell's comments after I post them?

Let me know before I post the link and the transcript, because you might as well try to justify his comments now.

 

[Boogie]

Are you a pilot? Just want to know what you are basing your claims on.

Which claim? That the WTC is easier to fly into? I'm just assuming that is the case because of the size of the target.

Explain this: They somehow managed to hit the pentagon low enough not to disturb the roof, but high enough to leave the grass unscathed(AFTER manuevering over a hill, then a downward decent at the estimated 500+mph),

I'm not explaining that. I'm not a pilot, and neither are you.

I don't know WHERE you got your LAST idea from. I merely stated that that was something to think about in relation to how terrorists operate (inflicting mass casualty)

"Just something to think about". Right.