9/11 Moment of silence

[woodycook]

Re: 9/11 Moment of silence

simply to refer to the planes involved, as that's the purpose of the planes in their plan.

Good find.
I thought about that too, but how could hijackers ensure an optimum explosion? Either the plane hits the building, or not. Not much else could be done. Agree?

And yes, the Onion is always good for a laugh.

"planning something really special" made me lol.

 

[DoubleA]

Re: 9/11 Moment of silence

Well, the fliers were relatively well trained, as seen by other conspiracy arguments where people say they shouldn't have been skilled enough to pull off the stunts they did. They maced the cabins directly before the cockpit, so they didn't have any interference, and probably had all the time in the world to take it easy and get it right. Go too low and risk hitting other nearby building, too high and you wouldn't deal enough damage. Excepting the field plane, the other three were prime examples, and all the pilots had hundreds of flight hours under their belts.

 

[woodycook]

Re: 9/11 Moment of silence

Well, the fliers were relatively well trained...

Did you see this post?
http://www.uodemise.com/forum/showpost.php?p=785346&postcount=97

Whats your opinion of that?

 

[woodycook]

Re: 9/11 Moment of silence

cool. direct me to a few..

I totally forgot to do this. I'll PM you some.

 

[DoubleA]

Re: 9/11 Moment of silence

I hate things like this. =p My honest opinion, tens of thousands of video and audio clips exist of officials making statement on 9/11. Several of them are going to have something fucked up in them, especially when Bush's legendary speaking skills are involved. (Referring to the bush clip)

We've got a few options in a case like this:
1. Accidental and innocent slip.
2. Accidental slip, but no innocent. Freudian slip.
3. Referring to the airplane in a non-personal way as a "projectile" or "missile". This would reflect the object in question being referred to so often as to have lost meaning to him as an actual airplane. We put significance on it being a plane because it contained innocent passengers, but in the grand scheme of things it just happened to be the bomb/missile type they used and the death toll was only a small percentage of the total.

Perhaps some different ways, but I think those first three are the most important, in his case I would advocate for the third one. I'd bet since 9/11 his entire career up to that speech has revolved around 9/11, eventually even the peoples lives would lose their meaning to him and become a statistic.