Thread: 9/11

I think you have a bias against anything that suggests 'conspiracy.'

As I said earlier in the thread, I have a bias against unnecessarily complicated conspiracies -- and it seems to me that the "explosives in the buildings" falls in the category of "unnecessarily complicated."

I mean, without making ANY assumptions about the identities of the hijackers, it's a given that four planes were hijacked with the intention of crashing them into buildings, and three of them hit their intended targets.

So, assuming that the US government planned the hijackings of the planes, why would they bother to also put explosives in the WTC buildings? Wiring such large buildings for a "controlled demolition" is a huge undertaking that would either take a large team of workers, or a small team working over a long period.

Either way, the risk is increased that the conspiracy will be discovered. (More co-conspirators mean more potential "leaks"; a longer preparation time means a greater likelihood that a building security guard or a fire official doing a routine inspection will notice the big package of wires attached to the support columns.)

So, placing explosives increases the risk that the conspiracy will fail, but for what benefit? I can't see any obvious gain from putting explosives in the buildings if you're already planning to fly passenger jets into both WTC Towers (plus the Pentagon and some other unknown target in Washington).

Of course, 14Russian may object that if there were no explosives in the WTC, the buildings would not and could not have completely collapsed, because burning jet fuel doesn't get hot enough to weaken steel, and WTC7 was not hit directly by a plane, etc.

To which I answer: Even assuming that's scientifically correct, so what if the buildings hadn't totally collapsed? If 9/11 was indeed a US government conspiracy to create an excuse for wars abroad or to declare martial law, I'm fairly confident that even a partial collapse of the towers would have been more than sufficient "excuse." If both towers had remained standing below the crash zones, we would have still had a casus belli. Heck, even if both of the NYC planes had gone down in rural fields like Flt. 93, and only the Pentagon had actually been hit, the successful attack on the Pentagon plus the three unsuccessful attempts would have been a reasonable justification for war all by itself.

In short, putting bombs in the buildings strikes me as quite superfluous, adding too much risk without producing enough gains to outweigh the extra risk.

P.S. This "debunking the 9/11 debunkers" page notes that the tallest "skyscraper" that was (beyond doubt) brought down by a "controlled demolition" team was the J.L. Hudson building in Detroit -- which was only 26 stories tall, and it took a team of twelve workers about 24 days of labor just to place the explosives. And among them, WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 had more than 260 stories, meaning the prepartion for a controlled demolition would require far more time and/or far larger teams of explosives experts.

Either way, the risk is increased that the conspiracy will be discovered.

There is no such risk because(Deleted.L.)

Тема на время закрывается.