posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 05:46 AM
So...for a start...let's briefly summarize the official narrative.
19 "arabic" terrorists hijacked 4 planes, of which they slammed 2 in to the towers, 1 in to the Pentagon, and 1 crashed (pilots apparently crashed
the plane) in Shanksville.
Ok. So let's backtrack a bit and ask some questions...why 9/11 ? Why the towers ? why the Pentagon? What was the purpose of the event ?
Well obviously, the purpose of the attacks would have been symbolic. Even though the number of victims is high, which goes up to 3000, it is rather
obvious from the entire event that killing "as many as possible" wasn't the prime target for the terrorists.
It is highly likely that number of casualties wasn't part of the overall plan. The casualties were simply collateral damage from the main purpose of
the attacks...and that was to take down the towers and to attack the American military symbol...the Pentagon.
As for purpose of the fourth plane...let's not engage in speculation.
Now, since we established some parameters...let's get back to the hijackers/terrorists.
So...your plan is to take down the towers. We have to assume that it was the main plan of the entire event. It had to be. Think about it. What
if...the towers never came down?
What if the planes simply struck at given floors, caused mayor damage on those floors and a couple of floors above and below. Remember...the fires had
almost died out due to lack of oxygen...prior to collapse.
Let's even assume that some of the jet fuel really made it to the basement and caused some additional damage. But...with towers standing...how much
damage would there be ? Victims? A hundred per tower at best/worst ? And the news headlines would state "America still standing !!!!".
Would the hijackers have accomplished anything with towers standing ? Remember. Towers were a symbol of American economic power. It was for that
purpose they were taken down. To humiliate America. Not to kill as many Americans as possible.
Now, having the motive in mind, and the fact that no high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire or due to airplane crashing into it, at least
none of the records show it. Would the plot planners (whoever they are, let's say Bin Laden) calmly just planned the entire event without making sure
the towers would go down?
Remember...without towers crashing...they have nothing. No victory...only an attempted attack...which would make them look to be unable to seriously
hurt the US.
No. The towers had to go. It is the only logical conclusion. The only way they could possible claim any victory in this.
So is it logical, taking into account all this, to plan your attack simply with planes crashing into buildings ? Because years of planing could all be
for nothing if they don't take down the towers.
They had to be sure. And since crashing planes into them is not a sure thing to bring the towers down. They had to make sure manually. The only
logical explanation is that the buildings were mostly likely wired for demolition...and that is the only way to make sure you will bring them down for
Hitting them with planes, on different floors, different sides, at the top of the buildings...could not and will not ever guarantee a tower collapse.
Before the 9/11, there isn't a single building that collapsed due to fires or airplanes...I'm sure the planners knew this.
They could never count on this to be enough to bring them down. No models of data would favor them in such a way. The only way to make sure they fall,
is a control demolition. The only way it would work for sure.
You may not agree, because you think there is lack of evidence for the demolition, but I will not debate that. I'm simply saying...it is the only
logical explanation when taken into account the motive of the terrorists. Remember, they had to make sure...otherwise...you have another WTC '93.
My conclusion is that planes were simply a show for the TV cameras. If indeed some planes crashed at the towers, they did so simply for the benefit of
It is now well established from many whitnesses that there were multiple explosions at the WTC area before any of the towers were hit. Planes were
simply a diversion of attention from the real attack.
The other possibility:
There is a possibility, that the hijackers never meant to take down the towers...only to hijack planes and crash into them. But than, the entire
aftermath of what happened is one huge unbelievable set of circumstances that hijackers never counted on, but which played right in to their
hands...or...someone in the know...decided to take advantage of the event to come and just used the hijacking...sort of a piggy back ride on the
One must ask himself...was taking down the towers a part of the plan...or was it a lucky coincidence for the terrorists ?
If it was a part of plan...than they had to plan additionally...not just with planes...because it wouldn't guarantee a success.
If it wasn't...than it's either an unbelievable set of lucky lucky super lucky shots...or a 3rd party involvement...not known to the public.
So...where is the hole in my logic guys and girls. Let me have it.