These are good questions that indicate a lot of thought and most, if not all of them are discussed and debated at length in various threads. You
finish up wondering why, if such powerful and historic conspirators were behind the events of 9/11, wasn't it more dramatic instead of so random. It
was pretty dramatic for my taste, but anyway, here's a stab at your nine questions.
Answers to questions:
1) I have yet to find a video of controlled demolition that resembles anything like WTC towers falling.
1. Answered with another question, "What other building of that size has ever been demolished?" Very few buildings of that size and vintage have
been built. Undoubtedly all but two are still standing.
2) How many videos of buildings do we have where a building collapsed on it's own,
2. There are a few of them out there. Sorry, no link. Buildings that collapse on their own usually fall over sideways or pancake, and I mean truly
pancake so that the floors are stacked like pancakes at the end.
why would thermite be placed at such a high floor and on the outside wall?
3. Good question. I think it was to accentuate the failure at the point of the plane's impact to reinforce the illusion that the plane inflicted the
intitial impetus for the collapse. Think of it as a special effect designed to further an illusion rather than a necessary mechanical element of the
final result. As far as "shows" for the Pentagon and Flt.93 are concerned, there were shows for both of those events as well, I think. The
overflight of an airliner at the Pentagon, (See the video Pentacon) and the roped off "crash site" with virtually no wreckage in it for Flt93.
why on earth would the conspirators of this event go to the effort of organizing and planning flying buildings into this structure?
4. This is a question that is more complex. I don't have the time to go into it in detail but let me suggest directions that lead to answers. The
North Tower had been heavily re-inforced in the garage level. The technical challenges of blowing that one as a repeat performance by a group of
sabateurs are high enough to raise serious questions in the public's mind. Keep in mind that in certain circles it had come out that the original
1993 bombing had been carried out with FBI assistance.
So you say, go for just the South Tower. That's what a real sabotage group would do and it would more than satisfy their agenda. Other agendas
however, an asbestos related refit of the towers that Silverstein was looking at plus other stuff (research it in detail) demanded that the whole
complex be razed. It had to be a Pearl Harbour like event. Your question number four is a good one because it underlines that this was not done by a
group of sabateurs. This was done by people with an unlimited budget in money and expertise.
Why not take the 2.3 trillion that is missing and keep it for themselves?
5. On overall aims read The Grand Chessboard by Brzhezinski or the terms of Larry Silverstein's insurance agreement. Not sure which $2.3 trillion
your referring to here, but to just cut to the chase, when was the last time you ever heard someone say "Ya know, I've just got too much money. I
don't want any more."
Many different and conflicting stories . . . unknowingly providing grounds for a mass conspiracy of Biblical proportions?
6. Another good question. I'm with you on this to a point. I think a lot of wheat has to be winnowed from the chaff in the 9/11 story. The
government, strangely, is not interested in doing that, and only had the flawed 911 commision report "over their bureaucratically frozen bodies."
Has anyone investigated to find out if NYC fire department or emergency planners have, in their arsenal, prior to 9/11, a contingency plan to
bring down a building in short order?
7. Don't know the answer to this one. But on the subject of the demolition expert quoted, in the video I saw his remarks were translated as, "They
were busy that day."
why on earth would the President put himself, for all of history to record, sitting in a chair in front of kids, reading a book
8. The president said he wanted to give an impression of calm, I believe. Unfortunately it didn't really work out that way and the Secret Service
gave an impression of incompetence. The president's behavior that morning has been the subject of intensive analysis that you should look into if it
If, . . . a patriot missile was to be shot into the pentagon, WHY on earth go to such lengths as to attempt to fly a plane into it,
9. Hijacked airplanes were the theme of the day. Sabateurs would probably not have access to a missile capable of inflicting the sort of damage we
saw that day and if you take the view that the government did it then they were "staying in character" if you will, by going with the hijack
[edit on 27-7-2007 by ipsedixit]
[edit on 27-7-2007 by ipsedixit]