NPB! Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 No mate I'm not, just offering an opinion, never said it wasn't half-assed lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angle20 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 It is no more difficult to fly a 330 degree turn at 500 knots than it is at 200. I'll respect your knowledge of aviation, Ken: just to make the comment that it was a masterly bit of flying to control the plane so low above the ground before bringing into the building. One question which struck me, however, was instead of doing the 330 degree turn why didn't Hanjour try for a more tempting target a few hundred metres away? It's true that the White House has secret service missile defences but given that most of the US military and air traffic surveillance people seemed to be taking a nap that morning he might have got away with it. If I was an Al-Qaeda operative I think it would be more heroic to be shot down in flames over the White House lawn than to crash into some boring corner of the Pentagon. The sceptic theory of course is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile. This would deal with the difficulty of what happened to the purported plane's tail and wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 ... but it wouldn't deal with the 200 independent eye witnesses, the flattened lamp posts, the damaged generator and all those bits of an airliner that were found at the scene. Oh and the missing airliner and souls aboard it (And just to get you up to speed the phenomenon of an aircraft fully or partially disintegrating when hitting a building is well known and understood, so no surprises there either.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Strange, though because on the skyscrspers you can clearly see the shape of where the aircraft went in, but at the Pentagon you cant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
princealbert Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 It was a sad day which even i cant take the p*ss out of.Dont think it was a cover up just a mindless act of terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 One question which struck me, however, was instead of doing the 330 degree turn why didn't Hanjour try for a more tempting target a few hundred metres away? The most likely reason is that he had a plan and was sticking to it. None of them simply flew to New York and then looked for a likely target, they all knew what they were doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 ... and who will ever know where the 4th airliner was due, but as it had doubled back directly towards Washington DC it's reasonable to assume that it's target was the Whitehouse. Like you said KenH, they all had targets and they stuck to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 I have to say that all these crackpot theories make great reading provided you aren't gullible enough to believe any of it. The worst part about all the crackpot theories is that any small conspiracies can be easily hidden because they get lumped together with the really daft ones. This really means that the conspiracy nutters are actualy helping the Bush administration. I found one site that goes through the usual "proof" that the pentagon was attacked by a missile but then goes even further. Apparently there is the image of a large all-seeing eye on the run in to that attack which can be seen from the air. This proves that the illuminati are behind the attack. It doesn't make it entirely clear why a missile needs a huge all-seeing eye to guide it rather than the usual GPS, but I am sure there will be a perfectly reasonable explanation. For an explanation of Illuminati symbology that site recomends reading David Ickes book on the subject. I need say no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Link please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Link please http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.