>Source?
I believe it's something called a television channel. In case you missed it:
<Fox News Live
That particular attack never sat right with me.
The story is that allegedly the terrorists missed their primary target (White House? Capitol?) and then decided to attack the Pentagon. Looking at that video and all of the damage photos, the airliner would had to have flown at basically treetop level, skimming over an untold number of buildings, and then hit the heavily reinforced outer wall of a building that would have been relatively difficult to spot from that low of an altitude.
Why didn't they just turn the aircraft around and made another attempt at their primary target? It would have been relatively simple to turn the aircraft, come in high, and then make a nose-dive kamakazi attack into any target of their choosing.
But they didn't. Instead they chose to pull off a much more difficult low-level attack when it was significantly riskier to the hijackers and their mission. And to top if off, it turns out the building wasn't that heavily damaged compared to carrying out a different angle of attack, or going after other targets.
That's my guess.
In warfare, snipers are some of the most hated enemy on the battlefield. It's very easy to see his murder as "payback" for his impressive kill tally in Iraq. Same thing with all of those Navy SEALs killed after the raid against Osama bin Laden.
It's all payback. The only question is who authorized the murders.