Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Hey friend,
Okay, here are some easy questions for you. #4 is most pertinent to our conversation right now.
1) If planes did not bring down the WTC, what did? How did it get there? A controlled demolition on the scale required by the WTC would have required thousands of pounds of explosives, miles (miles!) of detonation cord, and months of preparation. Have you ever seen videos of buildings when they're wired to come down? There is wire and explosives everywhere. In the WTC there was nothing. I hate to break it to you, but it would be nearly impossible for all of that stuff to be hidden.
2) What exactly blew up the building? Thermite? Thermite doesn't explode and, if this was a controlled demolition, why didn't the terrorists or whoever use real explosives rather than relying on something that has never been used to demolish a building before?
3) Who exactly was involved? At first glance, any sort of conspiracy greater than the planes implicates at least hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Knowledge of demolition, especially on the scale required to bring down the WTC is a rare commodity and would have been done by an expert. Again, that doesn't make it an impossibility, but if the "government" is involved are you accusing the NIST, FEMA, the military, the president, FDNY, the thousands of experts (both government and employed and not) who have independently concluded that the government is right, the NYPD, the hijackers, etc? Really? 21 guys versus thousands?
4) If the government is going to blow up a building, why do they concoct a complicated plan that involves hijacking a plane and slamming it into the building? There is WAAAY too much that could go wrong. What if the hijackers fail to take control of the plane? What if the plane misses the building? Why would they not make the cover story easier -- terrorists snuck truckloads of explosives into the building and blew it up? I mean, we already had an attack on the WTC which was exactly that, why not replicate it? PLUS, if you're going to go to the trouble of hijacking planes and slamming them into the building, why bother planting explosives? Why not load the planes with explosives? Why are there two high-risk operations being conducted simultaneously? This makes zero sense.
In the case of WTC7, why not hijack a 4th plane and hit it with that? If the government's intention was to make everyone believe that the planes brought down the WTC buildings, why leave #7 out? As you point out, it IS the most mysterious because, outside of falling rubble, it was not actually hit by anything. So... if you're planning this thing, why would you not simply hit the motherfucker with a plane, removing any doubt about why it came down? Why even make this a question? After planning such a massive operation, I don't see how the government could overlook something so simple as "oh, yeah we forgot to hit WTC 7 with anything, but we'll take it down with explosives... nobody will ask questions!"
5) Finally, I would ask you to simply outline a coherent theory about what happened on 9/11. The beauty of the true story is that it is a complete story. We know who was where and when. We know what they did, why they did it, and when they did it. Conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are laughable because they aren't theories at all, they simply try to insert shadowy agents and figures into the gaps in our knowledge, they attack what they can and ignore the mountain of evidence that they cannot disprove. When one element of their charade is disproved, they simply flash to the next. We've seen this over and over again, so all I ask is that you explain to us who did it and why. Please. Once you attempt to do this, you'll realize that there is no coherence to your theory and that it's not a theory at all.