Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pierre
Well I think the motive has already been established.
|
OK, so Islamists wanted to attack the Pentagon. We agree thus far.
Quote:
|
and you obviously point out that three (counting 1,2,3 yes 3) other planes were hijacked on the same day etc.
|
Yep, still agreed.
Quote:
|
and because of these facts you accept what the US government tell you about what happened to the Pentagon when the evidence puts those turn of events into some doubt at the very least. You're a spin doctors dream.
|
And so it falls apart. The evidence supports the conclusion that the terrorists were intent on using planes to attack buildings; that they hijacked four planes to that end; that they succeeded on three counts and failed on the fourth. There is no credible evidence that positively asserts the Pentagon was hit by something other than Flight 77. There is only the usual conspiracy theorist's fare: questioning the evidence for a conclusion they don't like with a series of contradictory, badly researched statements. (Such as the classic, 'it was definitely a bomb, I could smell the cordite'.
)
Quote:
|
What happened at the pentagon is worth questioning, and if there is some doubt that what happened there is different to what was told it should be questioned.
|
If there is some doubt. Which there isn't.
Quote:
There is no doubt the Pentagon was targeted as part of a co-ordinated attack but targeted by what? I don't know.
But just becuase I don't know does not mean I have to accept what US officials are saying.
When the Pentagon was hit everybody immediately though it was by a plane. Two planes had hit the trade centre, one had crashed, what else could it be????
Once it was reported as a plane that's the story that they stuck with. What if what hit the Pentagon was something scary'er. A more sophisticated weapon. A weapon that could penetrate tens of metres of reinforced concrete. Wouldn't it be better to stick with the story of a plane, a credible story that every one would believe rather than admit the Pentagon was a victim of a sophisticated missile attack?
|
And here is the core of all good conspiracy theories. The unquestionable (not to mention entirely unproveable) assumption that the government
must have something to hide.
Quote:
|
In regards to flight 77. Flight no.s and passenger manifests could easily be created.
|
Now you're just floating about in cloud cookoo land. This whole event unfolded in the full glare of the international news media. Which quick-witted special agent do you suppose managed to cook up all that false information, and do it so fast that everyone (including United Airlines, or whoever it was) believed it too? And made the world believe that 70-odd non-existent people endured fake deaths in the name of covering up some super-missile hijacked by Bin Laden? And convinced 70 families to go through 70 staged funerals? Get real.
Quote:
|
When you look at the photographs I do not believe that a plane that has already hit the ground then into the building could make a hole like the one in photographs.
|
Spoke the expert in aircraft disasters. Another classic symptom of the conspiracy theory: armchair 'experts' who know what cordite sounds like, what kind of pattern aircraft make when they hit the ground and the way in which a fuselage will crumple when subjected to high-velocity impact.
Quote:
|
You believe what you want to believe.
|
No, I will believe what the evidence overwhelmingly suggests I should believe. Believing what you want to believe is a hobby enjoyed by conspiracy theorists.