9/11 Attacks

Brown Bomber

drkpower wrote: »

Yet the Coalition of Evil you describe above, despite all of ther evil ways & means, forgot to tie in a link between Iraq and 9/11....... D'oh.:pac: .

Well that's demonstratably false for a start.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well that's demonstratably false for a start.

They made alot of claims, that everyone saw through straight away.

If it was to start a war with Iraq, why have the bulk of the Hijackers from Saudi and not Iraq?

Or any tangible evidence linking Saddam to the hijackers.

Di0genes

EarlERizer wrote: »

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

So the steel framed part of the structure collapsed due to the fire. The Steel reinforced with concrete did not collapse

The WTC was entirely a steel framed building. Not a Steel reinforced by concrete building.

Thanks,this one worked,I'll have a read through its contents.

You're welcome enjoy

Anything specific?

Anything you want to share.

I'm of the opinion and therefore I theorise that a corrupt American Administration funded by members & associates of the Billdeburgh group,the Carlyle group & foreign influences with links to/involvment in/investment in Oil,Military Arms,Insurance,Banking etc fuelled by greed & power put a long awaited plan into place in order to go to war with strategic locations in the Middle East in a bid to gain control of the majority of it's Oil/Gas resources by removing the ruling body in said countries and replacing them with administrations of their choosing.

And ten years later how's that plan working out for them?

In order for the above to happen without condemnation from around the globe it had to be seen to have been the resulting action against an antagonist.

There was condemnation around the world. Marches protests non violent direct action. A bloody civil war.

This is nothing new & has happened elsewhere in history before,The end goal might be different but the tactics remains the same.

Yes terrorists striking a bloody blow against what they perceive to be a imperialist enemy.

I've no intention of typing up every one of my veiwpoints in detail in one fell swoop but if others want me to be more specific on certain area's,please feel free to ask,i'd be happy to give my opinions
.......and thats all they are,opinions!

I imagine this will be a very boring discussion.

p.s.
On a sidenote,I believe recent revealations about the alleged raid & successful assasination of OBL is a ruse to stoke up the fires of fear around the world that there's still an organised terrorist agenda against us all before the next strategic advancement by 'coalition forces' ....... there will be a big terrorist event in the near weeks/months just to elevate the fear and thus renew the support for the "war on terrorism" .

And if no big terrorist event happens in the next weeks and months (say by the end of the year) will you admit you were wrong?

drkpower

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well that's demonstratably false for a start.

A little pedantic, to say the least, but I'll amend it just for you.....:pac:

drkpower wrote:

Yet the Coalition of Evil you describe above, despite all of ther evil ways & means,forgot to tie in a reasonably persuasive link between Iraq and 9/11....... D'oh. ..

Brown Bomber

drkpower wrote: »

A little pedantic, to say the least, but I'll amend it just for you.....:pac:

I disagree. For example,

Posted 9/6/2003 8:10 AM

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Now that's about the same percentage who believe the rest of the lies of 9-11 is it not? I'd hazard a guess that's about the same percentage of fools of believe that some old man watching Al-Jazeera filmed from behind is proof that OBL was killed.

Think how ludicrous the lies were - suitcase nukes, illicit Prague meetings, Yellow Cake from Niger, mobile WMD factories etc all total deception and bold face lies courtest of Bush-Cheney-Tenet.

drkpower

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I disagree. For example,

The gullibility of the typical American (or CTer for that matter) is irrelevent to the point I am making.

If the ultra-powerful coalition of doom that many claim concocted 9 11 did so to legitimise future wars, chief amongst them being the Iraq war, it beggars belief that they would fail so miserably in actually linking Iraq to 9 11?

EarlERizer

drkpower wrote: »

Yet the Coalition of Evil you describe above, despite all of ther evil ways & means, forgot to tie in a link between Iraq and 9/11....... D'oh.:pac:

They never needed to link Iraq directly to the events of Sept 11th, they always had the "war on terrorism" & the whole weapons of mass destruction lines to throw out there to cover their planned invasion of oil rich Iraq.

drkpower wrote: »

Seriously, did you ever sit down and think about any of this logically before hitting YouTube? I'm not saying that there arent things about 9-11 that dont leave me uneasy, but the rapidity with which some of you people go from questioning inconsistencies to absurd non-sensical conclusions is alarming.

Eh, no, not once,it was straight to you tube for me,I cant think for myself and rely heavily on the you tube uploaders of the world, for informative inconsistant absurd non-sensical information I watch 'the news'.

The whole '911' subject leaves me very uneasy,nothing the Bush administration did or said from the time of Sept 11th 2001 up to and including today has given me reason to think otherwise, there is more inconclusiveness in their spin than in any of the multitudes of conspiracy theories (relating to Sept 11th 2001) out there.

Could you please clarify 'some of you people' ? as i dont consider myself to be part of any movement,organisation,group etc, as I've said already, i'm just giving my opinion,aren't we all entitled to do that? or is this just another thread where people get rounded on when they're not in support of the sheeple's beliefs but rather give their own opinion?

I've not made any conclusions regarding '911' , I've expressed my opinion and as yet nothing has been put before me to change my opinion,until such time I reserve the right to my opinion been right for me whilst continuing to respect the opinions of everyone else!

drkpower

EarlERizer wrote: »

They never needed to link Iraq directly to the events of Sept 11th, they always had the "war on terrorism" & the whole weapons of mass destruction lines to throw out there to cover their planned invasion of oil rich Iraq.!

They 'never needed to'....?
Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that that assertion is correct (which, lets be honest, it isnt, given the trouble that the lack of a link caused Bush & especially Blair).

Do you not think it would have made their job easier if they concocted a link to Iraq. Yes?

If you do agree with that contention, you need to consider why they wouldnt have bothered. The only reasons I can see for that are:
1. they are incompetent ( which cant be true given their success in pulling the entire thing off (while leaving very few clues to their involvement)
2. it would have been difficult/impossible to do so? (which isnt reallly credible)
3. there is an alternative reason not to concoct an 'Iraq link'.

The thing is that when you claimed what you did, you actually lost all credibility in my eyes. Not because of the suggestion that a coalition of evil was behind 9 11. I could at least take you seriously if you accepted the reality that it would have been preferable for the coalition of doom to concoct an Iraq link, but then developed an argument as to why they chose not to. But because you have failed to follow simple logic, your credibility is non-existent.

Disappointing.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

To be fair, this is more a reflection of the stupidity of the American populace than some cunning set-up by the all-powerful NWO types to create an apparent concrete link between Iraq and 9/11. Using Iraqi terrorists would have been an obvious move (or at least giving the guys involved Iraqi identities).

EarlERizer

drkpower wrote: »

They 'never needed to'....?
Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that that assertion is correct (which, lets be honest, it isnt, given the trouble that the lack of a link caused Bush & especially Blair).

Ok, for the sake of argument, do you have conclusive evidence to the contrary?I think most of the trouble they faced was because of the lack of progress in finding WMD's and in Blair's case the mounting cost's of a sustained campaign more so than the legality of the invasion,then there was the whole treatment of detainee's and the 'soldiers on the frontline been ill equiped'.

drkpower wrote: »

Do you not think it would have made their job easier if they concocted a link to Iraq. Yes?

Please,if your going to ask me a question,give me an opportunity to answer it without you offering an answer.

Surprise surprise, YES , of course it would have,why didn't they? ok,you have me there! maybe because they always intended on going back to the Iraq 'problem' based on the WMD's threat,after all, the reasoning for the 1st gulf war worked back in 1990.

drkpower wrote: »

If you do agree with that contention, you need to consider why they wouldnt have bothered. The only reasons I can see for that are:
1. they are incompetent ( which cant be true given their success in pulling the entire thing off (while leaving very few clues to their involvement)
2. it would have been difficult/impossible to do so? (which isnt reallly credible)
3. there is an alternative reason not to concoct an 'Iraq link'.

Exactly,that's what I suggested re: the WMD spin of Saddam been "still a threat to democracy".

drkpower wrote: »

The thing is that when you claimed what you did, you actually lost all credibility in my eyes. Not because of the suggestion that a coalition of evil was behind 9 11. I could at least take you seriously if you accepted the reality that it would have been preferable for the coalition of doom to concoct an Iraq link, but then developed an argument as to why they chose not to. But because you have failed to follow simple logic, your credibility is non-existent..

I gave my opinion, i didn't claim anything as fact,I didn't post in this thread seeking the approval of any or all readers/contributors,I've lost credibility in your eyes so the credibility of my opinion is non-existent ....well thats the end of me so,I'll just sit back and observe now and hopefully learn from superior minds such as your good self

drkpower wrote: »

Disappointing.

Chalk it off as experience, I've dissappointed bigger and better in the past

Monty Burnz

EarlERizer wrote: »

Chalk it off as experience, I've dissappointed bigger and better in the past

:pac:

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

To be fair, this is more a reflection of the stupidity of the American populace than some cunning set-up by the all-powerful NWO types to create an apparent concrete link between Iraq and 9/11. Using Iraqi terrorists would have been an obvious move (or at least giving the guys involved Iraqi identities).

yeah but you forget about Afghanistan and her and opium fields which the Taliban had all but shut down. Afghanistan was first. 9-11 was for Afghanistan and for the War on Terror which included Iraq. The WMD bull**** was to fix the crosshairs on Iraq's oilfields, all Cheney's linking 9-11 and Saddam Hussein was to keep was to keep alive the myth of Muslim=Terrorist=Be afraid. None of this is possible without 9-11, regardless of whodunnit

drkpower

EarlERizer wrote: »

Exactly,that's what I suggested re: the WMD spin of Saddam been "still a threat to democracy".

But that is not a reason not to concoct an Iraq link to 9 11.

Would it have been easier to justify an attack on Iraq using a solid Iraq link and the WMD spin, particularly when the WMD was such a bad argument?

If so, why not concoct an Iraq/9-11 link? That is the question which you havent addressed.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

They made alot of claims, that everyone saw through straight away.

If it was to start a war with Iraq, why have the bulk of the Hijackers from Saudi and not Iraq?

Or any tangible evidence linking Saddam to the hijackers.

Or why the White House /CIA forged documents to "prove" The Bin Laden-Saddam connection?

Rob: Let me tell you what I know, just so before you color any of it. Is that when you first asked me about it I remember just really telling you that it was a non-event, and if you were to ask me today I would tell you it was a non-event. It came down from the seventh floor. It was part of--as I remember it, it wasn't so much to influence America--that's illegal--but it was kinda like a covert, a way to influence Iraqis [...]

Rob: To characterize it right, I would say, right: it came to us, George had a raised eyebrow, and basically we passed it on--it was to--and passed this on into the organization. You know, it was: 'Okay, we gotta do this, but make it go away.' To be honest with you, I don't want to make it sound--I for sure don't want to portray this as George jumping: 'Okay, this has gotta happen.' As I remember it--and, again, it's still vague, so I'll be very straight with you on this--is it wasn't that important. It was: 'This is unbelievable. This is just like all the other garbage we get about . . . I mean Mohammad Atta and links to al Qaeda. 'Rob,' you know, 'do something with this.' I think it was more like that than: 'Get this done.'

Ron: Do something with this, right. Get this, this is like--

Rob: It died a natural death as you know.

Ron: 'This thing stinks, take it.'

Rob: Yeah, kinda like that, yeah. But, you know, we got so much garbage that first couple-that year [...]

Ron: Now this is from the Vice President's Office is how you remembered it--not from the president?

Rob: No, no, no. What I remember is George saying, 'we got this from'--basically, from what George said was 'downtown.'

Ron: Which is the White House?

Rob: Yes. But he did not--in my memory--never said president, vice president, or NSC. Okay? But now--he may have hinted--just by the way he said it, it would have--cause almost all that stuff came from one place only: Scooter Libby and the shop around the vice president.

Ron: Yeah, right.

Rob: But he didn't say that specifically. I would naturally--I would probably stand on my, basically, my reputation and say it came from the vice president.

Ron: Right, I'm with you, I'm with you. But there wasn't anything in the writing that you remember saying the vice president.

Rob: Nope.

Ron: It just had the White House stationery.

Rob: Exactly right.

http://www.ronsuskind.com/thewayoftheworld/transcripts/

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

yeah but you forget about Afghanistan and her and opium fields which the Taliban had all but shut down. Afghanistan was first. 9-11 was for Afghanistan and for the War on Terror which included Iraq. The WMD bull**** was to fix the crosshairs on Iraq's oilfields, all Cheney's linking 9-11 and Saddam Hussein was to keep was to keep alive the myth of Muslim=Terrorist=Be afraid. None of this is possible without 9-11, regardless of whodunnit

I broadly agree - but the history of the Taleban and opium seems to be quite complex. They seem to have encouraged and repressed it at different times.

But the point is that the supposed plotters didn't bother to make any link between 9/11 that a 12-year old wouldn't see through, and they easily could have if they wanted to. Same as they could have planted the mythical WMDs in Iraq, rather than see that excuse blow up in their faces too. There a few big holes in their master plan!

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

yeah but you forget about Afghanistan and her and opium fields which the Taliban had all but shut down.

And happily let bloom and then "taxed" after the invasion.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I broadly agree - but the history of the Taleban and opium seems to be quite complex. They seem to have encouraged and repressed it at different times.

Yeah it is a little confusing but that is because the media seems to create confusion. Briefly this is my understanding - Fast forward to the defeat and retreat of the Communists by the Saudi/US/ISI backed forces in Afghanistan. The Taleban forces disbanded and Afghanistan fell into the hands of criminal factions (The CIA backed Hekamatyr being the most well known). It was then, under the control of foriegn paymasters these warlords turned Afghanistan into a giant Heroin farm. The Taliban came about as a response to this Mad Max scenario. Mullah Omar and the Taliban came to prominence when a warlord had raped and kidnapped young girls and Mullah Omar rescued the hostages with members of his Madrassa in Kandahar. That was in the mid 90's, The revolution spread .

This was from 2001 (pre-911)

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

And happily let bloom and then "taxed" after the invasion.

Wouldn't you given their situation?

Monty Burnz

I was just reading about Ahmad Shah Massoud on Wikipedia. I remember starting to read about his resistance to the Taleban about a year before his murder. If he'd managed to take control of the country, so many needless deaths would have been spared.

Di0genes

windowgobo wrote: »

There are so many single things that on their own would raise a few eye-brows. the physics just don't add up in general, im not getting into it all.
has NORAD been disused yet?
or what about the petagon



"The "plane" was supposedly circled around in a maneuver described by pilots to be very very difficult, executed by a man who was described by his flight teachers as barely able to maintain control of an aircraft, flown into the only section of the Pentagon specifically reinforced for aircraft impact, which was also not fully staffed that day. Then the footage of the crash is all confiscated and the frames that are released show no clear pictures of a 757."

Yes the CT is full of holes but its nothing compared to the official report.

Oh and to add

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

The following agencies worked in or the pentagon in the hours/days/weeks after it. Are they in on it?

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police

uprising2

Di0genes wrote: »

That flight path has been disputed, have a look here at a youtube video;).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

Monty Burnz

uprising2 wrote: »

That flight path has been disputed, have a look here at a youtube video;).

So you agree that it must have been a plane, based on the eyewitness testimony, and the felled light poles?

uprising2

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So you agree that it must have been a plane, based on the eyewitness testimony, and the felled light poles?

Watch the video, I didn't expect a reply for another 1:21:48secs.

Eyewitnesses have said the plane swooped in and then thrust back up and over the pentagon, if you have any evidence to disprove this I'd welcome a look at it.

Monty Burnz

uprising2 wrote: »

Watch the video, I didn't expect a reply for another 1:21:48secs.

I'm at work at the moment, so can't. I'm not sure whether your answer is a yes or a no.

uprising2

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm at work at the moment, so can't. I'm not sure whether your answer is a yes or a no.

You must be the best worker there!, remind me when I'm a millionaire with a multinational company under my wings to give you a job;).

It's neither yes nor no, the poles were down but multiple eyewittnesses say the plane was north of the TEPCO petrol station, meaning it couldn't have hit the poles, Llyod English doesn't know what to say and his taxi was by one of the downed poles, if we had the answers would we still be at this almost 10 years later?

careca11

uprising2 wrote: »

You must be the best worker there!, remind me when I'm a millionaire with a multinational company under my wings to give you a job;).

It's neither yes nor no, the poles were down but multiple eyewittnesses say the plane was north of the TEPCO petrol station, meaning it couldn't have hit the poles, Llyod English doesn't know what to say and his taxi was by one of the downed poles, if we had the answers would we still be at this almost 10 years later?

a couple of days/weeks after 9/11 I was sceptical about the whole thing , with regards to who was actually involved on the planning ,
I'm not a fan of USA/CIA dirty politics etc.....................it stinks to the high heavens of Bull%hit,
The way the buildings collapsed,
1600 deaths without a single shred f evidence of their bodies recovered , not even a finger-nail.
what plane hit the pentagon? if it hit so low down , then it would have hit the lawn first ........................... why was there only very , very low level admin, clerical and cleaning staff killed .......................125 people out of 26,000 people that work in the building ,

the single biggest terrorist attack in the history of the world ....................and the USA did not know a single thing about in the days/weeks/months running up to it ,

Iraq...all about the oil ......................all the contracts have now been takin up by buy multinational corporations
Afghanistan , in my opinion is all about the drugs
(find the stats regarding the increas in Heroin use (in just ireland) never mind anywhere else since 2001/02
it use to be in small pockets of dublin/cork/limerick,
now its absolutely everywhere

imo Al-queada = CIA PET PROJECT
Osama = CIA puppet (who died in 2001) , death only released now (well isn't obama up for re-election soon?? )

CiaranMT

careca11 wrote: »

a couple of days/weeks after 9/11 I was sceptical about the whole thing , with regards to who was actually involved on the planning ,
I'm not a fan of USA/CIA dirty politics etc.....................it stinks to the high heavens of Bull%hit,
The way the buildings collapsed,
1600 deaths without a single shred f evidence of their bodies recovered , not even a finger-nail.
what plane hit the pentagon? if it hit so low down , then it would have hit the lawn first ........................... why was there only very , very low level admin, clerical and cleaning staff killed .......................125 people out of 26,000 people that work in the building ,

the single biggest terrorist attack in the history of the world ....................and the USA did not know a single thing about in the days/weeks/months running up to it ,

Iraq...all about the oil ......................all the contracts have now been takin up by buy multinational corporations
Afghanistan , in my opinion is all about the drugs
(find the stats regarding the increas in Heroin use (in just ireland) never mind anywhere else since 2001/02
it use to be in small pockets of dublin/cork/limerick,
now its absolutely everywhere

imo Al-queada = CIA PET PROJECT
Osama = CIA puppet (who died in 2001) , death only released now (well isn't obama up for re-election soon?? )

Poe's law in action^^

No bodies found? BBC begs to differ

Monty Burnz

careca11 wrote: »

1600 deaths without a single shred f evidence of their bodies recovered , not even a finger-nail.

Wut??

careca11 wrote: »

what plane hit the pentagon? if it hit so low down , then it would have hit the lawn first ........................... why was there only very , very low level admin, clerical and cleaning staff killed .......................125 people out of 26,000 people that work in the building ,

How many would expect to be killed?

careca11 wrote: »

the single biggest terrorist attack in the history of the world ....................and the USA did not know a single thing about in the days/weeks/months running up to it ,

Actually, they did, but the different agencies didn't talk to each other.

careca11 wrote: »

Osama = CIA puppet (who died in 2001) , death only released now (well isn't obama up for re-election soon?? )

Why didn't Bush use it to get re-elected in 2004 then? Or why not release it in 2008 to make the Republicans look 'strong on terror' and help McCain?

humanji

uprising2 wrote: »

Watch the video, I didn't expect a reply for another 1:21:48secs.

Eyewitnesses have said the plane swooped in and then thrust back up and over the pentagon, if you have any evidence to disprove this I'd welcome a look at it.

I only have a few minutes, so I'll have to watch the video later, but is ther theory actually:

1) A plane is hijacked by some sort of US agent(s)
2) They fly the plane at the Pentagon, near enought to the ground to knock over lampposts
3) Then manages to pull up at the last minute
4) Then disappears from view and secretly lands somewhere else, where the passengers are killed
5) Then a missile is fired from somewhere and hits the Pentagon
6) Then work crews who are in on the conspiracy, move fake wreckage and bodies into position
7) Then either the bodies of the passengers are moved to the crash site or to where the remains are kept, to fool any DNA comparison?

And all this to hit a specific part of an office building that was specifically reinforced for this particular event? Why were they so intent on keeping the Pentagon intact? They let skyscrapers fall in New York, but wanted to protect an office building in Washington?

I honestly can't see how this is even considered as an explanation. Does it not make more sense that a group took control of a plane and flew it into the building? Regardless of whether the group were Al Quaida, CIA or US military. It would be a hell of a lot easier to organise because only a handful of people would need to know as opposed to the hundreds, if not thousands, who would have to know the above plan.

CiaranMT

humanji wrote: »

And all this to hit a specific part of an office building that was specifically reinforced for this particular event? Why were they so intent on keeping the Pentagon intact? They let skyscrapers fall in New York, but wanted to protect an office building in Washington?

The last line sums up this whole thing very well. Inductive reasoning on the part of CT proponents RE the Pentagon leads to very strange, implausible conclusions, when looked at in the broad scheme of things.