I actually think the terrorist would've rather hit a little higher. Also interesting is the side of the building hit is where the least amount of damage would be done, but I don't think that necessarily means anything. OBL wouldn't have necessarily known that.
The heart of the issue - you think. Unless you're a pilot, or airplane disaster investigator, or expert witness, just having a contrary opinion doesn't invalidate the official story. Idle speculation from non-experts fuels these conspiracies.
The big question no conspiracy theorist has ever answered for me is this: Just for fun, lets say it was a staged, false flag attack. Why not just claim it was a missile if it was a missile? OR, why go through the trouble to fake an airplane crash, instead of just...crashing an airplane? The damage, especially at the Pentagon, was not irreparable or last, so even if the plane didn't hit the message would still be sent - whether by terrorists or gov'ment agents. So why fake a complicated plane crash....instead of just, oh I don't know, crashing an airplane? If it was a missile, why not spin a story that terrorists had stolen/commandeered a missile instead? The most complicated explanations are most likely wrong.
Upvote
0