Quote:
|
Quote by: RickSp I don't necessarily disagree with that. Indeed, I think there is pretty good evidence that the Israelis at least had foreknowledge. That being said, all the nonsense about thermite bombs and remote control airplanes does far more to obscure these issues than to shed light on them. |
The terrorists are just the scapegoats on which to pin the blame, the explosives were the insurance that the job would be done correctly. ( unlike that failed 1993 attempt
) Wouldn't want the investors to suffer the burden of having to pay to tear those buildings down the old fashined way. ( As we have seen, a typical demolition by explosives in such cramped quarters would have caused major collateral damage to the surrounding buildings, and would have required a whole seperate insurance policy, if not a completely different method of removal. ) Using the "enemy attck" scenario where the buildings "crash to the ground", the taxpayer foots the bill, ( both directly, and through increased insuance premiums ) and the poor investors go home to babysit their trust funds. The attack scenario also helps to forward their foreign policy agenda.
If it weren't for all of the other pieces of the conspiracy puzzle looking like a more plausible explanation, your theory might be easier to swallow.
While I won't attempt to speak for others, I would wager that none of the conspiracy camp would deny that those Muslim terrorists wanted to attack the US, in fact, I would tell you that many more wait in the wings to attack at any other opportunity that presents itself, but only because I know a bit about my countries foreign policy, and why those in Washington don't feel secure in their own country any more. They have cultivated these enemies for themselves.