In news:e7is7n$to2$1@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somehost.somedomain.aus> typed:

In article <ymYmg.73689$rC1.4921@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>,
manic_mandy@hotmail.com says...

In news:e7h2550tho@news2.newsguy.com,
Cardinal Chunder <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> typed:

Complete and total bollocks. Hundreds of commercial and military
pilots from WWI, WWII, Korea onwards would disagree with you. Do you
think jet pilots in 1949 used sophisticated computer systems? Do you
think they used *any* computer systems?

Problem is you are talking obsolete vintage aircraft that were
limited by the technology of the time. But even in WWII rudimentary
pathfinder technology was used to allow the RAF Lancaster bombers to
perfom night raids on blacked-out German cities. basically this
consisted of beamed radio signals that crossed over the target area.

Of couse these days one could put a cruise missile through Bin
Liners's letter box.
--
Amanda

The argument is about how can someone do the crash, without proper
training for it. That for such precise strikes - they had to have
trained
for it, if they were piloted passenger jetliners.
There is the idea that they were remote unmanned aircraft, which will
then explain the accuracy achieved and the different markings
on the aircraft, and fuselage pod difference.

Well yes there are so many things that don't fit the official story,
admittedly these are relatively small details but seen together they paint
an entirely different picture.

In terms of the WTCs the mission was a resounding success, for whoever
planned and executed it. The mission bears all the hallmarks of a highly
professional well planned military operation which was carried out to
devastating effect.

Yet the perpetrators are portrayed as little more than blundering amateurs,
fools and idiots who just happened to get lucky. That doesn't make a lot of
sense.

There are so many aspects of the mission that suggest very high levels of
foreknowledge and indicate preplanning and intelligence well beyond the
scope of anything other than an extremely well organised spy network with
operatives at practically every level of the US government.

Which either mean Al Queda are far more professional and well organised than
they have been portrayed or the operation was carried out by someone else
for example Mossad.

Mind if that's the case. Maybe its a good thing there's covered up.
-- 
Amanda