reply to post by connorromanow
I think it can be looked at both ways.
"If" it were a real attack, why not choose other venues that would likely strike more fear into average Americans? If I were the mastermind of 9/11,
and had the resources in place to conduct the attack that took place, the WTC and the Pentagon would not have been my choices.
While on the particular day they may not have been viable, but from an attack and "shock and awe" standpoint, places like arenas or stadiums would
have been a choice for me and would be something I think would be more symbolic than the Pentagon or WTC.
4 planes crashing into packed football stadiums would likely cause more deaths, as well as create a much different aspect of fear. I could imagine the
repercussions from that echoing still today.
"If" 9/11 were a false flag, and you take into account conspiracy angles involving missing money, and wargames, then the Pentagon makes perfect
sense. You (the perpetrators) are able to wipe out evidence of missing money, as well as take out people involved with running wargames used as cover
to perpetrate the attacks.
In either instance, a manner of shock and awe was needed to be achieved. Striking small wouldn't necessarily achieve that goal.
As they say, go big or go home.