Hurricane Angel said:
Why do you keep asking questions expecting everyone to grovel to your whims? You could just as easily think of the answers yourself, right? You could prove me wrong on this one by playing the idiot game, though you're not an idiot from what I can tell.
Yes, grovel before me! Kneel in the might of my awesome intellect!
All shall look on my power and despair!
1 - Because how are they to prove who set the bombs were a bunch of muslims? Not as concretely as a plane hijacking, right?
What, because radical muslims never plant
bombs?
It'd be as easy as "a bomb knocked down our building and lookie we intercepted a wiretap". Done and done. Long weekend for the Lizardoid/Massad/CIA/Illuminati crowd.
2 - Apparently some bigwigs in the engineering community did say it was impossible, but then changed their minds a couple weeks later, and refusing to add further comments. Suspicious? Another engineer (working for the company that certified the steel used in the WTC) wrote it was strange that his colleagues changed their minds. He was fired after that.
Declining comment through sheer embarrassment is possible. Given the structural damage possible (50% at 500C according to that report), the collapse is exceedingly likely and if I'd given an opinion like that without having seen that fact, I'd be a little embarrassed too. I don't think people should lose their jobs over it, but there's a lot of patriots in high places.
3 - Drama. Imagine the scenario where the buildings just "blew up". The whole city would be like "WTF?!?!?! ZERGLING RUSH?", and it would be just like 1993 except the building was gone. But with the planes the entire world was watching and waiting after the impacts, and then the collapse added that much needed "sway" to really hating whoever did this. Agree?
Yes and no. If you f-ed up the conspiracy, you'd enable a lot of conspiracy theorists and get people pissed off at the government rather than the intended target. I'd be considerably more pissed at a bombing that killed all the people in the WTC. Hell, why not just blow up a church or something? Or Lincoln's monument? An orphanage? If that's the point, there are better targets.
4 - Actually they had a pretty good idea of what they were doing regarding the impossibility of a building collapse. See, a large plane like a 757 had never hit a building before, and the B-25 Mitchell was tiny. So the story was that the plane had damaged the fireproofing on the steel which weakened it, although the plane disintegrated and couldn't do that much damage. The general American public doesn't usually scrutinize what they're told on the news or by the government, and if they do theres a stigma associated with it (the reason you're not really listening to our explanations), which results in any alternative ideas being brushed off as crazy.
No, I
am listening to your
positions and I just don't agree. A 757 clearly does a
lot of damage to a building - witness the impact at the Pentagon. The thing has a huge mass and incredible kinetic energy. Combined with the combustibles in the building itself, what do you expect?
Let's assume this is true. None of them were Afghani, and most were Saudis, so why would we go to war with Afghanistan? And don't forget the list of hijackers compiled by the FBI, where half of the supposed hijackers were actually alive and well in the middle east.
That I'm having a little trouble believing.
On the other hand, what exactly would that disprove? That the FBI hadn't identified the right people? That other radical muslims used someone else's IDs? Here's a good conspiracy theory - 19 lunatics DID crash the jets into the building, but some of them used IDs from other people who just looked like them in order to discredit the follow-up investigation. After all, they might think that biological evidence wouldn't survive the fire - and voila! no one can be too sure who took over the planes. They're forced to go by the passenger roster and it's
then that you produce the real people whom the passports belonged to. 'Aha! Gotcha, American media!' you might say at that point, stirring up anti-American sentiment via al-Jazeera or whatever other source you use and cementing the stranglehold of your reign on people you've deliberately impoverished. Now, I didn't explicitly say "Saudi Arabia"...well, actually I just did. Or maybe you simply look around for guys that look like those guys or who have the same last names or maybe you just have the hijackers assume the names of other, innocent people in the home countries.
Easy enough to do, and if I can think of it, even radical islam can.
Again, if their list is wrong, what justification has the government in going to war?
Here you and I quite agree - the war was pointless. If terrorism is to be avoided, simply cut off such countries from all future immigration or visitation and leave well enough alone. End oil dependence and you can give them the economic chop as well. If indeed the despoilers and idolaters give them so much grief, let them alone to their endless navel-gazing so that we can get back to prostration before the golden calf, or whatever it is that we're thought to be doing here.
A personal question to you Geoff, what do you think of the investigation by the commission and FEMA?
I haven't investigated it in great detail, really - not enough time.
In the end it's not a matter of what exactly happened to the Twin Towers, but why America decided to go to war with Afghanistan if it really had nothing to do with it.
Well, administrations in every single country in the world have been merely stupid before, or made errors. They do happen, you know.
Geoff