Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Well, Gazrok, it was a gamble. No, blowing up Mount Rushmore wouldnt have had the same effect. The desired effect was to do something so horrid it
would be scorched in the nations mind forever. Thus, a massive loss of life (since when has the US gov shirked from killing or maiming its own
people?) plus a massive huge, bloody, horrifying display of pure destruction would dig deeper than wasting a few landmarks. No, the horrifying nature
and gore of 9/11 certainly isnt hurting the power that be. They dont care one bit. It didnt hurt them, only made them more popular.
Yes, 9/11 has the stink of govornment involvement all over. Of course, the Russians spin on it is a little silly. As was the French claim that no
planes were used, just missiles.
It's more than just scaring the public into submission, demo-ing the WTC towers made either A LOT of people rich, or a couple pf already rich people
even wealthier. I honestly believe there were illegal money transfers done right before the first building came down. Then you have the insurance
money aspect of it, I seriously doubt Silverstein is keeping all $FIVE BILLION$ from his claims. I admit it would be risky with bombs in the biggest
city in America with everybody watching while the towers fall, but I still think it's feasible.
