5 ms·
We have created this myth that Flight 93 was heading for the Capitol Building based on media reports of what some bloke in Guantanamo Bay said after being tortu
by Theodores 13y ago
We have created this myth that Flight 93 was heading for the Capitol Building based on media reports of what some bloke in Guantanamo Bay said after being tortured. It is single source evidence, 'speculative fictional history'.
The media have also speculated that Flight 93 was also heading for Three Mile Island (a nuclear power station designed to survive a plane crash) and Camp David (the President's holiday home where some Middle East peace deal had been agreed on with the participants having gone home decades ago).
It is tempting to believe that Flight 93 was heading for the Capitol given that there is some confession and it would have made more sense than Three Mile Island or Camp David. However this is flawed reasoning.
Had Flight 93 not been delayed at the airport and made it to its target on time then that target just might have been The Pentagon. Here it would have made a far greater impact. We know one 757 had hit The Pentagon to cause significant damage. Had another plane - Flight 93 - crashed into another 'wedge' opposite to the fire that did happen then there would have been a high likelihood that the entire Pentagon would have burned to the ground. The first fire would have served as an attack on the fire prevention systems allowing the fire from the second attack to burn unimpeded.
If we look at what happened at the World Trade Center two planes were used against one target. The Twin Towers might have appeared as two buildings, however, there was only one set of pumps for the sprinklers. The towers had been designed to survive impact by a plane but not the scenario of 9/11 when both towers were attacked. Also note that the second tower to be hit was the first to fall - in paart due to the lack of water pressure for the sprinklers.
Given that two planes were used for the one target in New York it is not unreasonable to consider that two planes were also intended for the Pentagon, with one fire able to knock out the sprinklers and another fire to burn the building down. This would have removed The Pentagon from the map rather than create damage that could be (and was) repaired.
Although there is a certain amount of logic to support The Pentagon being the target for Flight 93, this idea does not support the agenda of 'The War Against Terror'. Let's stick with the nursery stories and believe what the media say the interrogators water-boarded out of the guy in Guantanamo - Flight 93 was heading for The Capitol.
- GnwbZHiU 13y agoI don't see why Capitol or Pentagon make any difference in the context of the support of 'The War Against Terror' agenda.
- waps 13y agoWell, for one thing, if congress itself or it's members are attacked, they are very likely to declare war with an unspecified enemy. Such a declaration would immediately transfer full authority of the armed forces to the president (to be used freely outside of and inside U.S. territory), and this until a peace treaty is signed. Furthermore, if an attack is in progress, this declaration does not require a majority vote, the president merely needs to find (what he reasonably believes to be) the highest ranking member. So one (probable) difference would have been that president Bush would not have asked Congress what to do if Congress was directly attacked. He would have simply decided what to do and done it, after having received the declaration from Nancy Pelosi. This would have lead to the combination of having a single deciding vote of what to do with the armed forces at the command of a single politician, making for easy and quick decisions and the entire country clamoring for revenge. I'm not saying it would necessarily have lead to immediate counterattack, but it certainly wouldn't have lowered the odds of that happening.
- Theodores 13y agoAfter 9/11 - on 12 September 2001 - NATO invoked 'Article 5', the mutual self defence clause. This was on a provisional basis subject to evidence being provided that the bloke in a cave on a dialysis machine (or whatever) was guilty. However, the use of 'Article 5' meant that every member of the NATO alliance had the go-ahead for war without a single member of congress or member of the UK parliament having to vote on matters. Congress and the British parliament were asked to vote for the war, this was not because their support was needed for the war to go ahead, had they all voted 'no' then that would not have trumped the 'let's kill' NATO card. The Secretary General of NATO had a role in starting The War Against Terror, at the time the person in this role was one of Tony Blair's mates (his former Defence Secretary) and he was not American or voted into office by 'the peoples of NATO'.