hecter wrote:hecter wrote:Guiscard wrote:hecter wrote:Guiscard wrote:hecter wrote:The sent planes at the WTC because they wanted a good reason to have them suddenly destroyed. What it is, I don't know, but they had one! And the planes, let's say, did Y damage each. With the pentagon, there is a lot of classified stuff in there, important figures, expensive shit, ect. They just wanted the pentagon to look damaged. They wanted X damage dealt the the pentagon. X < Y. They didn't want a lot of the people and equipment in the pentagon seriously hurt, but they wanted the WTC gone. Hence why they didn't send in a plane into the pentagon, but they did for the WTC.
The above comments do not reflect my true feelings toward 9/11 and is just an attempt to get a free prem
Best effort yet, to be honest... but still obviously crap. If they had full control of a plane they could have crashed it any way they wanted, and used explosions to do exactly the amount of damage they required. In fact, they wouldn't even have needed explosives. They could have plowed the plane into the lawn and said 'hey guys, look how close they came...' for exactly the same dramatic effect.
Best attempt yet from someone who doesn't even believe...
Tee hee, thanks. Let's keep it up, shall we?
Have you ever flown a fucking plane? Those 757's are IMPOSSIBLE, and I do mean impossible, to fly without the on board computer. I'd like to see anybody crash a plane into a building with that much accuracy. The WTC would be much easier because it's a giant stick in the ground, really high, you can fly into it horizontally. With the pentagon, it's MUCH lower to the ground, one wrong calculation, you overshoot the pentagon and go into some completely wrong target. A missile is small and manuverable, can deal the exact amount of damage to exactly where they want it. It's much easier to sit in the control room, looking at the satalite image on the screen, and say "Send X yield here." rather than sitting in the cockpit of a plane with a bunch of freaked out passengers saying "SHIT!!! GO DOWN GO DOWN!! Don't overshoot or undershoot the target! Careful dude, BE FUCKING CAREFUL!!!" and deal a seemingly random damage to someplace that they might not want it.
Nope... Already explained in the post before. The 'missile' did a fairly small amount of damage to the Pentagon. Surely it was the vulnerability that counted in this case, as a missile could have done a fairly unlimited amount of damage. They could have plowed the 747 into the ground anywhere within a mile and still have claimed the 'fear factor' and the manipulation Xtra claims.
And you're still stuck with a missing plane full of passengers somewhere very close to the pentagon.
No point using a missile. Just use the plane you've already hijacked nearby.
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/pentagon_map1.jpg
There's a map of the area around the pentagon. You have army bases, a cemetery, roads, water... It would be way too hard to try and manuver a plane of that size to hit something near the pentagon (though not the pentagon it's self) and still not hit anything valuable or that would seriously disrupt the flow of the government. Remember, the pentagon is extremely valuable to the government, and completely open communications to it is of utmost importance. Also remember, a small amount of damage to that area is what they want. Best way to achieve that is a low yield missile.
Offer a rebuttal or buy me prem!
Oh, sorry... Well I can see a fairly large park, a big stretch of water, a huge cemtary... many areas where a 747 could convincingly crash without disrupting the pentagon too much, but whilst maintaining the effect of causing fear and showing vulnerability. Furthermore, there's a big stretch of road in front the the damned thing, right in the flight path, quite a lot bigger than a runway. I'm sure it would be pretty easy for a pilot to touchdown on that road and pretty much nudge into the pentagon.
