Psychology of Attack

A poster in another thread made a reasonably good point that I wanted to address separately. If you were intending to demolish the towers with explosives, why not simply have a 'terrorist' bomb the towers?

Let's see what I can do to approach this from a few different angles, tell me what you think guys..

First of all, the quantity of explosive used would have to be very large to achieve demolition - perhaps in the order of a truck full of explosives being driven straight into the center support columns. A smaller bomb such as those used by suicide bombers would be unlikely to do more than superficial damage, ie, blowing windows out, destroying furnishings, maybe causing fire, but a fire which could be fought, and yes, killing people, but ultimately not demolishing the building.

This "terrorist" would have to make it through security with their bomb of whatever size - remember, the terrorists in the official version of the story used only box cutters, no guns or other "red flag" security items (at least at that time, we all know that's vastly different now).

I can't find any details on what the security system of the building was like, but I assume at minimum there were identity checks, metal detectors, guards, etc, especially after the 93 bombing of the same building. So let's assume that for a terrorist to sneak into the building and plant explosives would require collusion of some sort by security. Preplanning for a progressive collapse sort of event would require even more collusion, essentially an inside job of some kind.

Secondly.

A major part of 9/11 was use of the planes - according to this 1980 study by Boeing, 1 in 3 americans were either anxious or afraid to fly, with almost 50% of those citing fear as the primary reason.

That's an awful lot of fear or anxiety. I'm not sure why planes cause such fear - they're far safer than cars, but yet even viewing a car crash generally does not make people afraid to enter cars or to drive. Indeed, I don't know of many people who are afraid of cars even AFTER accidents.. Yet planes, which are statistically proven to be far safer are still a major source of anxiety, many people simply avoiding flying because they want to avoid the emotions they suffer from.

Obviously yes, bombs are something people fear, but not on the same primal level as they fear planes - since most people are aware subconsciously that the odds of them getting blown up are probably pretty low.

A big part, I think, of the plane -building equation, too, is that (a) it can be filmed to start with, since tourists are often filming buildings in NY.. (b) the second impact was also filmed, and once the impacts had happened, the cameras remained trained upon the buildings, while people watched them collapse live.. Would this necessarily have been the case with bomb blasts? The psychological effect on the average American, I believe, was far greater than it would have been..

I think this is a major part of the reasoning behind using planes, and not simply bombs.. Plausible deniability + maximum psychological and emotional impact.

[edit on 3-5-2007 by Inannamute]

You make very good points.

In the words of the neo-cons themselves "shock and awe".

First we were all at work... we hear on the radio of planes hitting the WTC (shock) so EVERYONE ON THE PLANET tunes in aTV and MAXIMUM psychological impact is achieved when the collapses happen (AWE) because EVERYONE is watching in real time.

No planes... no ratings.

FEAR... the easiest and "best" form of control... the irony... they 180 the fear onto "terrorists"... hilarious.

Originally posted by Inannamute
I can't find any details on what the security system of the building was like, but I assume at minimum there were identity checks, metal detectors, guards, etc, especially after the 93 bombing of the same building. So let's assume that for a terrorist to sneak into the building and plant explosives would require collusion of some sort by security. Preplanning for a progressive collapse sort of event would require even more collusion, essentially an inside job of some kind.

It's interesting you should bring up the question of security.
The security of the entire WTC complex had been redone by a company called Securacom (one of the Bush brothers was a board member of it) and so it happens that this same company was also overseeing the security of the two airports involved .... pure coincidence maybe?

Well, in order to install a controlled demolition in the towers, a crew would have to access wiring to the whole building, the Securacom crews had such an access when they redid the entire security system. But merely installing the wiring would not be sufficient, you would also have to install charges throughout the whole place and that can't be done several weeks ahead because the complex was patrolled by bomb sniffing dogs.
But hey, again by pure coincidence, bomb sniffing dogs had been abruptly pulled out of the complex and restrained to their kennels in the basement only 4-5 days before the attack.
And even more coincidences still, at least one of the towers was under a power-down for the whole week-end before 9/11. they pulled the electric plug on the entire building and they did this supposedly to upgrade the bandwidth of the building. But during that time, many workers would be able to come and go as they pleased without fears of getting caught on security cameras and all security systems would be turned off .... coincidence again?

But wait, that's not all: John O'Neill, a terrorism expert at the FBI resigned because he felt his investigations were being thwarted from up top. Well, after he resigned from the FBI he found a job at the WTC as head of security there. Hired by Securacom, he would start he new job on 9/10 and he died in the attack the next day .... sheesh! That's a lot of coincidences, don't you think?

[edit on 3-5-2007 by PepeLapew]

Bare with me,

911 is nothing more then a collective consciousness ritual designed to alter reality to suite the agenda of the corporate elites.

They have been implementing the idea that the world trade center would get hit by planes years before it even happened.

So, most people were subconsciously aware that this was going to happen years before it happened for real. Mind control is not a one step program, it's done through years and years of exposure to a person's consciousness.

The goal is to make people react in a way that suites their goals.

This is a dictatorship hidden behind a mask of fake democracy, brain wash the population to make them support your actions so that the people don't turn against the government.

Assimilation.

Of course I am not forcing this concept on anyone, take it or leave it :0






[edit on 3-5-2007 by selfless]

Yeah, I've seen and heard the stuff about the security company and the power outage the week before, my point was basically that without some kind of collusion, a bomber wouldn't have much success in actually demolishing the towers - eg, for those people that don't accept the controlled demolition thing, this is why planes, regardless of who was behind the attack.. and *either* scenario would still probably need controlled demolition of some sort to bring down the buildings..

I'm curious to learn how people feel about the effects of the psychological affects of the attack today. It is almost six years after the attack. Do you still think people are as psyschologically damaged by the attacks present day. Granted the most significant part of the attack is the Psy-Op. Due to the truth movement and the mass of people that have started to ask questions about that day, does it still have the same affect on people and are we as fearful as we were the first year after the attack?

What do you think would be needed to instill that kind of fear and panic again back into the American People? Do you think another large scale attack would be as affective. Or a few hundred small attacks scattered throughout the country?

Calgary Truth just released an article about psychiatrists and psychologists believe that people who still believe the offical story are in serious denial? What are your thoughts on that?
LINK

Originally posted by Vinadetta
What do you think would be needed to instill that kind of fear and panic again back into the American People? Do you think another large scale attack would be as affective. Or a few hundred small attacks scattered throughout the country?

Try to imagine a dog's mind for a second. Most think that a dog can think but they can't. Dogs are driven by emotions alone: hunger, thirst, fear, anger, joy, sexual desires and so on. Take emotions out of the dog and you are left with a vegetable like plush toy.

Humans aren't that different from dogs, yes we do think a bit more and we do have a logical mind, however we are still mainly driven by our emotions. And the most important of all our emotions, the easiest to manipulate is fear.
Fear of terrorism, fear of death, fear of danger to our children and so one. But a fear which is present with almost every American is the fear of a mushroom cloud along with fear of bio or chem warfare.

Drop a nuclear cloud on N.Y.C. and L.A. and you have instant total fear. the police state can be installed and dissent (that''s you and I) can be completely controlled via the Patriot Acts I and II ..... or can we expect a trilogy on that?

Ultimately, I think that would cause the most fear, would be if the national media found out about and aired the "real truth" as in a plausible and 100% factual story about who really was behind 9.11.

If it's bad when you think crazy islamic lunatics did it, imagine how much worse the fear would be if the public came to believe the government did it in such a way that they could not question themselves or others.

Originally posted by Inannamute
I think this is a major part of the reasoning behind using planes, and not simply bombs.. Plausible deniability + maximum psychological and emotional impact.

[edit on 3-5-2007 by Inannamute]

I think your really close to it here, then throw in the Pentagon and you got everyone on board for going and kicking some asses. But whose ass?? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? No it's Iraq!!

Here is an article from Cornell University that deals with how the brain reacts after witnessing major trauma such as the attacks of 9-11. Granted that if you believe that the government was in fact behind 9-11, the most important part of the attack was the Psy-Op and how it has radically changed people's opinions of Muslims and the Middle East not to mention the how people have turned to worshiping the government instead of questioning it.

ARTICLE