From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 01:18:49 +0000, Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:
> In article ,
david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says...
>>No, as I said before, they were /symbolic/ targets, and, guess what, /it
>>worked/.
>
> I don't think that attacking symbolic targets would have been the best
> use of such precision terrorism. It is non-sensible - illogical.
Two things: they managed to kill thousands of people. Attacking a
different target, such a a nuclear power station, _might_ have killed
more; but is much more likely to only have killed the hijackes and crew
(those things are _tough_, they're designed to contain an out of control
nuclear reaction)
Secondly, you will insist on applying a western mindset to non-westerners.
Middle easterners (such as Saudi's) are much more aware of the symbolic
content of actions (remember "The mother of all battles", or the way in
which beating a statue with a shoe was considered to be a terrible insult)
They have a different take on things that we do, and destroying two of the
most prominent buildings in NY, which, as an added bonus, are effectively
monuments to capitalism is an irresistably symbolic act.
>
> Nor the story of them, going to Flight training schools in Florida,
> whereby you go from flying Cessnas to knowing how a commercial jetliner
> works. To go from one to the other, and using the later to such precision,
> is too much to believe. Like someone getting their license to driving a
> standard car, and then able to drive a 10 or whatever ton truck and able
> to drive it like an old pro.
It's not that hard, they didn't need to land it, or do anything tricky
with it - just point it in the direction they wanted.
Besides, they'd spent a _lot_ of time practising using flight simulator
software on computers, which isn't a substitute for the real thing, but
surely helps.
> And when you hear comments from the actual instructor, commenting on his
> former student - how the guy still couldn't fly, afterwards...
But I bet he could hold the control stick, and point the plane in the
general direction he wanted.
I think even you could do _that_.
>
> Will you stop and just think about the impact of the crashes? for just
> one moment?
> You have 'hard' targets - Twin Towers and Pentagon buildings - particularly
> note that the Pentagon had that precise area strengthened, and picture huge
> Boeing 757s flying into them - how could they penetrate the Twin Towers
> buildings? How can a building swallow a plane? How can it precisely
> miss the floor/ceiling - the main structural strength in the building?
It didn't miss it: as I've already explained, both building and plane had
a lot of empty space.
> To swallow up the plane...
> The plane would have disintegrated upon impact with the building, and
> make such a big mess --- that is why that site, makes more sense than
> the images screened by the mass media. Also why the point made by
> "In Plane Site" has some relevance - pointing out, that a light briefly
> appeared before impact with the building, saying that a missle could have
> been used such that the plane could then go into the building, instead of
> breaking up on the outside of the building.
Or, it could have been a reflection of something: it's a bright spot - it
could be anythng.
If you're suggesting that they needed a missile to shatter the windows, I
think I'll have to disagree: a couple of hundred tonnes of metal
travelling at 200mph would do it.
> The building was designed to withstand an impact from a plane. It did have
> structural integrity.
It was designed to withstand a strike from a much smaller plane, of the
type that was prevalent when it was built.
Planes have gotten a lot bigger since then.
> And the Pentagon strike is even harder to believe - if you looked at the
> earliest stills that were taken at the scene, you will note that the
> impact is clean and sharply defined. Such that there were windows nearby
> still intact. The sheer mass of a large object would have caused those
> windows to be damaged by the shock wave - therefore a much smaller object
> must have hit the Pentagon.
You _do_ know that the windows are blast resistant, don't you?
Much stronger than normal glass, designed to withstand blasts of the type
which destroyed the Federal Building in Oklahoma.
>>Do you have any good reason to believe that the tape is fake, or is
>>paranoia and distrust of your government enough for you?
>>
>
> There has been critical comments that the man shown, was a bad stand in
> for Bin Laden, and the guy was wearing a watch, which Bin Laden wouldn't do.
What, "real muslims don't wear watches" ?
That's a _really_ weak piece of "evidence" to base such an important
theory on.
> Perhaps the whole 9-11 thing would only be cleared up, when actual terrorists
> do crash a large jetliner into a building, and it will be nothing like that
> of 9-11. ie. There will be a huge fireball outside of the building, where
> the impact happened, and the mass of the plane would remain outside and
> fall down where the impact happened.
Depends on whether the building is made the same way as the WTC ones.
--
=======================================================================
= David --- No, not that one.
= Mitchell ---
=======================================================================
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
