Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Earl who wrote (10355)	3/13/2005 7:58:52 AM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Don > My question is what useful purpose would be served by making a substitute? If I were to have set up the operation my prime considerations would have been control of every stage of the event and especially predictability of outcome for the strikes on the WTC and the Pentagon. In other words, I would have had nothing to do with passenger aircraft. Thus (a) I would have used highly manoeuvrable remote controlled drones or similar. As I see it, to remote control an aircraft is not as simple as it sounds, especially when complex manoeuvres are involved -- such as flying literally inches from the ground, as at the Pentagon, or performing a difficult, banked turn at high speed, as at WTC2. Further, such manoeuvres would have required a feedback method for the controller to know exactly what the aircraft was doing and, more than likely, also a homing device in the buildings so that the planes would hit exactly where they had to -- the Pentagon at the part which was under construction and where there were few people and the WTC at the floor levels which had to collapse first during the subsequent controlled demolition. Clearly, it would have been absurd for WTC1 and 2 to collapse either from the bottom or the top, as in standard demolitions. They had to be seen to "collapse" exactly at the levels where the planes hit. That they did cannot be denied and thus one has to ask how it was set up so precisely? (b) Besides the the control of the planes and the accuracy in their hitting the buildings, the damage caused after they hit also had to be controlled. Thus it would not have been acceptable if the planes did not "penetrate" or be seen to penetrate the strong outer wall of the Pentagon and the steel outer cladding of WTC and then cause major explosions and fireballs etc. Clearly, the worst eventuality would have been if they went splat against the outer walls of the buildings and did no apparent internal damage. In this regard, I cannot say whether the explosions and fireballs which were seen were as result of explosives/rockets/what-have-you carried in the planes or else were as result of explosives in the buildings which were timed/controlled in some way to go off at precisely the correct number of milliseconds before and after impact. But what ever it was there had to be a perfect relationship between what the planes were doing and the events in the buildings. (c) I'm not prepared to speculate whether passengers were involved or they weren't because I simply don't know and I definitely don't believe the official story about hijackers, boxcutters, cellphones, Arabic flying manuals, passports, the lot. But if passengers were in fact involved, I would have considered it far simpler to dispose of them in another way and not in the planes which were intended to hit the various buildings in the way discussed above. > What would be so hard about having a half dozen guys from Mossad in coveralls rig the flights to do what they did just before take off? That strikes me as being considerably less conspicuous, less complicated, much more fool proof, and with far fewer witnesses Yes, but could they have been 100% certain it would have done the job? If you accept that controlled demolition happened to WTC 1,2 and 7, as I know you do, then you must accept that considerable thought and preparation went into what took place. Nothing was left to chance. This wasn't just a bunch of guys doing a gig on the spur of the moment to see if they could get away with it -- it was a most complex operation, involving many people, which, as we can now understand it, was carried out perfectly, or nearly so. (Perhaps there was a problem with Flight 93?) > Just drop off a few pounds of C4, make some software changes, and your stock passenger jet is now a guided missile in the hands of the terrorists at the Pentagon Maybe, maybe not -- I can't say but I wouldn't have done it that way. As I said above, I would have wanted far more control especially over the outcome. A botched job, as at OKC or WTC, the first time, was out of the question. There was too much riding on this one.