We were over the Capital within minutes, sp.

I don’t generally post in these anymore, because I don’t consider myself much of a conspiracy freak -- but...

So the brass (and probably everyone else who worked there) recognized that the Pentagon was an obvious target, for nukes certainly, but also for hijacked passenger liners.

Dunno. The article certainly didn't mention what everyone at the Pentagon recognized. then again, I don't read between the lines and try to "guess" what reports mean. Such as:

October 24-26, 2000: Pentagon officials carry out a "detailed" emergency drill based upon the crashing of a hijacked airliner into the Pentagon. [Mirror, 5/24/02]

What does the word "detailed" mean? I can see that your post includes the quotation marks, so this word must be extremely important -- but I see no "details" listed.

There is also no mention regarding the countless other "emergency drills" the Pentagon goes through. Nor is there any mention about how the stated hijack-impact drills were officially assessed.

I also see that this "emergency drill" was carried out by "Pentagon officials", but there is no mention of the participation that might/might not have been carried out by general staff personnel. You immediately jump to the conclusion that the term "Pentagon officials" implies "probably everyone else who worked there".

Well, this implies that Tom's comment regarding terminology is accurate. Words are important, and should be read correctly, in context, not merely pasted haphazardly from some conspiracy site as final proof of willful wrongdoing, and “obvious” government/military cover-up. Nothing is ever obvious, but if you find enough dots to connect (including dots that don’t even exist), you can form any picture you want.

Dan