posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 02:09 PM
Something I dont understand...
When an 'expert' offers an opinion that the impact and fire would cuase a structure to collapse, based on experience (as he is paid to do by the
studio, as the words "I dont know" would be rather career limiting), the response is "how does he know that, before the analysis was conducted? He
couldnt, therefore he must have known in advance.. conspiracy!"
When non-experts, such as a newsman, state they heard something that "... sounded like a controlled explosion" or people state "it sounded like a
bomb", its is immediately pronounced as fact!
can you see the contradiction here?
Here's two counter thoughts about this fellow.
1. He is just a guy on the street, offering his opinion. He didn't claim to be an expert, nor is he presented as an expert by the news channel.
Newsies tend to select interviewees, based on how interesting they are, and/or photogenic. He would appear to be a natural choice.
2. It actually is this Riggle guy. He doesnt state who he is, or claim expert status to the journos (at least not on camera, maybe he did approach the
newsies and state something along the lines of "hey, I'm a US Marine officer, and I saw it all." - gives him a bit more credibillity than joe
bloggs in the street , and is the kinda thing officers say to impress... I've heard much worse!) Why not.. because he knows he shouldnt be talking to
journos without prior authotisation... which would also be an incentive not to come foewards at a later date.
No, I am not a 9/11 sceptic (pro or anti... whichever is which!) so please do not automatically brand me a govt apologist. I DO beleive the US Govt is
hiding something, but they didnt blow up the towers. My tuppence? Tow theories:
1. They knew in advance of the attack, but it suited a political agenda to allow it. This is kinda thin, it would be too easy for this to leak.
2. They "knew" in the sense that there was intelligence suggesting of an imminent attack, or even warning of the attack itself. This int was
ignored, or dismissed. Subsequently, there is a lot of ass-covering.. at what level of responsibillty would such a cover-up be deemed necessary,
obviously Presidential level, but how much lower down, I dont know. Maybe at any level, the shock on the nation being just too great to comprehend,
the feeling that the nation would think "our govt has failed us", and by the time anyone stopped and said "hey, no would really hold the Govt
respobnsible for a low-level failure", its just too late to stop. The crime would not be doing the deed, but being caught lying.
Or a mixure of both, certainly some large US organisations with close ties to Bush benefited. As did the US and UK adminstrations in terms of
legislative policy that would never have been passed had it not been for 9/11 (and 7/7)
A conspiracy would be just too huge to contain, and the degree of risk of exposure too great.
For starters, such an operation is so large it requires detailed planning. The stress involved, the workload, would preclude people from trying to
plan this "in their heads", so would require written planning. Who in their right mind would commit such an operation to paper... For me, that would
be sufficient dissuasion, like trying to rob a bank without a fask mask or gloves, and leaving dns samples left right and centre. Please dont say
"write it in code", that has the same drawbacks as trying to plan it in one's head.
But, because I try to keep an open mind...
Try this as an exercise: plan out how you would bring the towers down, in the way it [publicy] appeared, and how it is suggested it really happened.
Detailed planning (hint, you are looking at reams of paper, all told). Now look at the logistics and people involved. Now how would you guarantee
their silence. Really guarantee it.... start looking at death records.
[edit on 16-4-2009 by 24694244]