roosterboost Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) If they were planning on killing as many as they could then why did they fly round all the sections of the pentagon that were busy,and hit the only section that wasnt being used? "The fact that the one sparsely occupied section of the Pentagon was struck is made even more remarkable by the maneuver required by the jetliner that approached and supposedly crashed into the building. It approached Washington from the west, and executed a 330-degree descending spiral, losing 7000 feet in under three minutes, and leveled out to an approach so shallow that it clipped lamp poles hundreds of feet away from the crash site. Air traffic controller Danielle O' Brien thought it was a military plane, based on this maneuver." http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/location.html There is a major difference between manouvers that are normal for an airliner that is hoping to land and one that is intending to crash. ---------- Post added 22-01-2015 at 12:41 ---------- Well the 1.7 million who took part in the survey also have their personal prejudices. Now tell us, what is it about Michael Crawford and Princess Di, that made people vote for them? That's the thing about asking for someone's opinion. The answer can never be wrong. Although some stupid folk don't realise that. You ask 1.7 million people to give their opinions and that is the result. It may not be your idea but it is the opinion of the masses. Just like a general election. It is unlikely that 1.7 million random people all have the same personal prejudice. So why do you think your opinion is more valid than that of those 1.7 million? Are you a trade union leader or a Sadam Hussein? Edited January 22, 2015 by roosterboost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 That's the thing about asking for someone's opinion. The answer can never be wrong. Although some stupid folk don't realise that. You ask 1.7 million people to give their opinions and that is the result. It may not be your idea but it is the opinion of the masses. Just like a general election. It is unlikely that 1.7 million random people all have the same personal prejudice. There is a difference between saying that you do not like something and saying that something is rubbish though. I too do not like the Beatles music one little bit, but I wouldn't claim that they're rubbish, they're just not to my taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossdog Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The sort of loathing that led to her winning three consecutive elections with huge majorities. The sort of loathing that led to more trade union members voting for her than voted for Labour. The sort of loathing that led to the UK coming from "the sick man of Europe" to leading the free world economically. She restored pride in our country by standing up to an Argentinian fascist junta. She saved our country from revolutionary socialists such as Scargill and the union barons of the time. Her example and challenge to socialism led to the Labour party aping her policies and maintaining a capitalist economy to the benefit of the vast majority of the country. She was, without doubt the greatest PM we ever had in peacetime. Totally agree!..........but you must remember it's no good telling those facts to most on here.............they will only stick their fingers in their ears like children! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosterboost Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 There is a difference between saying that you do not like something and saying that something is rubbish though. I too do not like the Beatles music one little bit, but I wouldn't claim that they're rubbish, they're just not to my taste. I didn't say they were rubbish. The opinion of those who went to the concerts and bought the records would suggest they had their merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Totally agree!..........but you must remember it's no good telling those facts to most on here.............they will only stick their fingers in their ears like children! That's precisely what you do isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 That's precisely what you do isn't it? You wouldn't know a fact if you tripped over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosterboost Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 You wouldn't know a fact if you tripped over it. The way to stop mecky voting in an election is to give him directions to the polling station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 What is this. So you're saying the nice Islamist terrorists let them off by not waiting for a couple of hours until the buildings were even more filled with people at 11am? No, I didn't say that at all..and you know quite well what I said..there is nothing "nice" about nutters in vests. Because I state their intent differs from you believing their intent was to kill as many isn't an apology for how many less they murdered. That was your bizarre interpretation, not mine. Has it occurred to you they could have staged it at night and done it at not 11am but 11pm and only killed about 200 janitors and cleaners? They were trying to kill as many as they could. They don't have to kill large numbers of Americans you imbecile..that's the point..you just have to behead one and you'll still get the same response as beheading 50 from the Americans..they don't differentiate. One American has the same value as 10 or 50. On American soil also plays a substantial part of American psyche. They were trying to kill as many as they could. No they weren't, they were trying and succeeded in taking out the towers for a specific reason, otherwise they could have just waited for a ball game. As i pointed out, If they wanted numbers they only had to delay for a short while and totted up to genocidal proportions...so effectively if the numbers game is your game then it's you that apologizes for those poor Islamic nutters for not getting it right. See what I did there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 How were the terrorists meant to know what part of the Pentagon was busy and what part wasn't being used? so wouldn't they not hit the first section they came to then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) so wouldn't they not hit the first section they came to then? Maybe they had to lose height, so they had to circle around? Even though they wanted to crash the plane they wanted to make sure they hit the Pentagon, so they had to retain control until the end. Edited January 22, 2015 by JFKvsNixon Spelling as usual! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now