I dunno, but it seems to me, especially with the Holocaust imitation breakdown, that the argument seems to be in the details. Okay, perhaps a terrorist organization decided to fly a plane into a couple of buildings. But that doesn't explain why Building 7 collapsed. If it received damage, why didn't other surrounding buildings, aside from windows breaking?

What I'm trying to point out is that, perhaps, someone felt that with a single attack, it would be an isolated incident. With the 2 planes, it seems bizarre, but still believable. No, if you want to rally your countrymen, you need fear of imminent and organized attack, which came with the attack of the Pentagon, the 4th plane (United 93 or whatever) and WTC7. Now, all of a sudden, we need to act quickly and irrationally because we may not live to see another rational thought. Woe is us...

Which is why the details seem sketchy... as for a plane attack being common insurance terms, somebody should check the policies of other skyscrapers, pre-9/11, as well as how often planes have hit buildings. I would imagine single digits, if any in the history of aviation in America. The specials I have seen on planes state that a craft crashing is usually due to the pilot believing his guages are faulty and trying assume his own coordinates, or by the gauges actually being faulty. There are bizarre mishaps (Hudson river landing), and I'm sure those are exponentially more often than a plane hitting a building.


I think its funny how people believe the first thing they are told, and make everyone else have to find evidence to prove otherwise, when there wasn't very concise evidence to prove something in the first place...

R.I.P
Pontiac
Jan. 1926 - Dec. 2010 est.

Check the Gallery and Scrapbook often!
[deviantArt Account!]

Spy Hard
Agent WD-40: