Another 9-11 topic
Out of context: Reply #28
- Started
- Last post
- 93 Responses
- ukit0
The thing that gets me about all these theories is that even if they were right they don't really add up to anything. It seems like people in their infinite wisdom are obsessed with pointing out inconsistencies from the event itself, i.e., there is not enough wreckage around the crash site in this picture you found, Building 7 blah blah, etc etc... Another one I've heard is that the WTC itself couldn't have been taken down by the planes and there had to have been explosions detonated at the exact same moment.
What exactly are you trying to prove Sherlock? That there weren't planes that were hijacked and crashed? I think the ship has sailed on that one, considering we all watched two planes crash into the WTC live on TV.
Why bother taking the building down with explosives if you're going to crash two planes into it? Why not save yourself some trouble and use explosives to begin with? After all, Al Queda, Timothy McVeigh and other terrorists have found that a perfectly suitable method of destroying buildings in the past, no?
Since we know planes did indeed crash into the WTC, what's the significance of a plane NOT crashing into a field somewhere? And hey, isn't ultimately the execution of the attack somewhat irrelevant? If you are going to posit that Osama Bin Laden is just a figurehead and that the actual terrorists were in fact directed by some other group (U.S. gov, evil Zionists or what have you), why would faking any of this even be necessary? Wouldn't the simplest thing just be to carry out the attack like it actually happened?
I would never rule out anything, but none of the goofy theories I've heard seem like they are going to change my view one way or the other.