|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
I am sorry, but... | by scheuri | 2001-09-13 00:44:58 |
|
US response | by Kayel0 | 2001-09-13 01:00:13 |
|
scepticism | by abards | 2001-09-13 01:44:52 |
|
This was most assuredly NOT a simplistic attack! | by SouthpawPL | 2001-09-13 12:23:27 |
| hehe |
by soldier |
2001-09-13 13:43:29 |
sorry, but all yer points are kinda off. cellphones make the hijackings simplistic. you get a couple people at a few seperate airports, they buy tickets for flights leaving at the same time. if problems come up, they call eachother and reschedule. otherwise, plan say half an hour after you're in the air to hijack the planes, and there ya go. "4, count them, 4", or 8 or 16 simultaneous hijackings could be pulled off that way. the training of pilots....well, it doesn't take much training to fly an airliner. hardest part would have been navigation, and you can't really miss new york even if you suck at that. just head towards the ocean and look for a bigass statue.
as for "The planning ... optimum place to crash the plane to ensure the collapse of the building", look at the footage. they didn't do that at all. the first plane hit near the top. that's the worst place to hit if you want to take down the building. second one was done better, but we don't know that that was planned. I seriously doubt they spent months going through advanced physics equations, more likely they just picked a spot and flew at it.
so yeah. pulling something like this off would be quite simple. be easier for someone allready living in the country simply because people from the middle-east tend to look more suspicious, but it wouldn't have taken massive funding. I'd be quite surprised if any more than half a million dollars was spent on this entire attack. and it could be done for much less than that. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Rebuttal: (lengthy) | by SouthpawPL | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
try again | by soldier | 2001-09-13 16:10:53 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
