SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Orcastraiter who wrote (175192)11/17/2005 5:53:04 PM
From: neolib  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
Ok, I'm not sure where you are coming from, but one does, at some point have to accept news sources. What I was trying to point out wrt to the BYU Prof's argument, is that his argument is in fact a more complex one, not the simplest as he claims. He is arguing for two simultaneous methods of attack, the planes + prerigged explosives, when in fact, the outcome of the plane attack could not be easily known. Why both methods? If the explosives were just a backup in case the planes failed to topple the building, then why the relatively long delay before detonating them. This delay allowed most of the buildings occupants to escape. Was that also part of the plan?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News