The strategy I follow is simple. If asked "What hit the Pentagon?" I avoid answering and turn the discussion to the far more fundamental question "Why was the Pentagon hit?".1 It should not have been. It should have been well defended. American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757, was the third plane hijacked that day, so there was ample time to confirm that information received was about real hijackings, not parts of war games, and not accidents. There was ample time to send up fighters to intercept, as is the normal procedure. One presumes that there were also anti-aircraft defenses round the Pentagon, as it is the hub of the military machine.
да как то непонятно, что такое "It should have been well defended", он конечно хорошо охраняем, его наверное не возьмут штурмом несколько боевых бригад на грузовиках, и наверное не всякая ракетза запущенная где нибудь из-за америки долетит до него. все таки тут надо думать программистки, мне кажется.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
aleatorius) wrote2009-08-31 04:58 pm
no subject
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf
The strategy I follow is simple. If asked "What hit the Pentagon?" I avoid answering and turn
the discussion to the far more fundamental question "Why was the Pentagon hit?".1 It should
not have been. It should have been well defended. American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757,
was the third plane hijacked that day, so there was ample time to confirm that information
received was about real hijackings, not parts of war games, and not accidents. There was ample
time to send up fighters to intercept, as is the normal procedure. One presumes that there were
also anti-aircraft defenses round the Pentagon, as it is the hub of the military machine.
no subject
он конечно хорошо охраняем, его наверное не возьмут штурмом несколько боевых бригад на грузовиках, и наверное не всякая ракетза запущенная где нибудь из-за америки долетит до него. все таки тут надо думать программистки, мне кажется.