Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Stiney
I hope everyone will agree that it's completely irrational to believe that something like this would happen without a very good reason.
It's also irrational to believe that we would know all of the reasons leading to its demolition, seeing as how this information wasn't
exactly released in a convenient little memo for all of us to read.
Who posts here that would definitively know the answer to your question?
That's true - but I never asked if you "knew", let alone "definitively" knew, the reason. I'm saying you need to at least have a reasonable
of what the motive could be... otherwise, believing the government is behind it is not rational - my point stands...
I'm aiming this thread at people who believe that this is evidence
. I don't know how many people are on this forum who believe that, but I
know that there are a lot out there. It's not really strong evidence without a motive...
I've also thought of the same point Essedarius mentioned: If it was meant to be a secret, why did they wait 7 hours to set it off? Earlier, the
building itself was completely obscured by the dust cloud. Assuming the two towers collapsing was also planned (after all it wouldn't make much sense
to say that the towers weren't planned whereas building 7 was), it would follow that every detail of the demolition was predetermined or "part of
the plan" (hence controlled
demolition), including the huge dust cloud. Why create the dust cloud and not take advantage of it?
Anyway, I was hoping to focus on just the one question first and then move from there... I think my question is the best starting point for an honest
debate on this.
There have really only been two real answers to the question so far:
1. "The reason behind this is they wanted the attacks to look like they attacked NYC and not just the financial power of the twin towers. It was
already pre-rigged but since flight 93 never hit it's target they decided to bring it down anyways."
Now, this isn't exactly a motive for why they would want it to come down in the first place. It's just a "Plan B" since "Plan A" somehow failed.
What's the motive for Plan A? To make it look like a broad attack? Still, it doesn't address why they would choose WTC7 as the third building. I
think there would have been better candidates - WTC7 wasn't really a widely recognizable landmark was it? Besides, it still looks like a centralized
attack, since it was also part of the WTC complex. If they wanted it to look like an attack on the city itself, why not go for another skyscraper
the whole trade center area?
2. "Destroy the evidence of a govenment planned OP, and remove the Enron scandal evidence."
Okay, I think this one is very ignorant, but it also seems to be the most common. The reason I find it so ignorant is because of the fact that we are
living in the digital age; all of our important information is in digital form, and we have something called "disaster recovery" which basically
means that even if any large organization's "base of operations" is completely destroyed, they can be back in business in a relatively short period
of time because all their data is backed up on fileservers in another building, or perhaps even another city.
I know the government is pretty ignorant when it comes to technology, but I find it hard to believe that they could plan something this huge and
totally miss the fact that their "victims" would have off-site backups. Destroying a building is an utter waste of resources.
And if this is truly an "inside" job then this information could be destroyed in much more subtle ways, from the inside
, could it not?
So... are these really the best hypotheses out there?
[edit on 23-4-2007 by Stiney]