Can somebody answer me this please?

The "Truth" Movement is currently hanging around United 93 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475276/board/threads), try re-posting there.

firstly-its kind of hard to answer your question as you have pretty much made up your mind so it doesnt come up as much of a question but more of just an opinion pretty much based on what you believe to be logical but nonetheless i will answer.

now i myself am undecided on the whole "is it an inside job" thing but i will answer anyway.


"Why risk being discovered rigging the buildings? Or of witnesses hearing/seeing the charges detonating as they collapsed?" firstly-if this is the government-given the amount of stuff they have been able to keep secret, it wouldnt surprise me if they were arrogant enough to believe they would not be caught. secondly-if we do take into account the idea of bombs etc-its not far fetched to assume anyone who would be in the proximity of a bomb going off would be killed. most people are still surprised that people survived the twin towers event-especially as they collapsed.

"Or having to explain away how they fell? Why use a missle instead of a plane, knowing that everyone near the Pentagon that day would've seen it and would then need to be paid off/silenced? Why NOT use a plane?"

because they dont expect people to be building experts and have tried to tell people that the reason the buildings collapsed were due to heat and many people believed this-myself included. which is why theorists go to lengths to explain this. again this is the government we are talking about-they are arrogant ****. given the idea of patriotism and the idea if you question your government you are a traitor, they were probably relying on this to keep naysayers quiet. in regards to the pentagon-there was no one in that part of the building and the pentagon is not as public as the twin towers, so again they would probably think not many people would have seen whats gone on so would not consider what you have. again some people dont buy the missile theory-some are saying explosions.

"Do people really think if the buildings had not collapsed we would have not taken the exact same course of action that we have? Their collapse was not necessary to get the rationale for what the conspiracy theorists claim the attacks were meant for. You can bet your ass people would've been just as united behind any action the U.S. would've taken if the towers still stood today."
um-no. thats because the twin towers HAVE been attacked before but the US didnt go to war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing
and that is just one example.
so again your rationale is based on what you believe would happen rather than perhaps what would actually happen.

"People go to all the extensive lengths to explain away how the buildings fell, how (and with what) the Pentagon was hit, how phone calls from the flight that crashed were computer generated or whatever, but why? Why go to all that trouble, having to worry about all these different factors when all they had to do was recruit some nuts and let the cards land as they may? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to do otherwise. A small handful of people could accomplish what thousands supposedly did (if the conspiracy theorists are correct), all with much less effort and much more secrecy, and it would immediately make a conspiracy much more plausible."

you seem to be going to extensive lengths to try to justify your idea based on "rationale"- and i would be inclined to agree with you but its all just conjecture and you are thinking as a civilian-NOT a member of government who has power. the government wouldnt worry about such things as i said previously because a)they wouldnt think anyone would survive such an event, b) leaving a thing to "nuts" doesnt always give the desired effect, if you want a specific outcome you need to have control. there are risks for taking chances on wild cards, so that argument can be made for that too. i dont see where your logic is for getting a "couple of nuts" to do all this?

"it makes absolutly no sense to do otherwise"-again this is because it doesnt make sense to you-this is conjecture. again i dont see where your basis is for what you say after that.

"So what is the advantage? I only see cons." because said previously you are looking as a civilian after the events as i do.

" The more complex something is, the much harder it is to keep secret and the higer risk for discovery."-i dont see how this event was complex-2 planes flew into the twin towers destroying them, the US government would say terrorists did this.

IF we are going by what the theorists say-the government planned to fly planes into buildings-and to make sure the buildings collapsed they would plant some bombs. i dont see how that is exactly complex-given the sorts of war games and stratergies governments play when at war thats practically simple.

"Don't you think if people wanted to accomplish such a conspiracy that they would want to keep it as simple as humanly possible? "-yes, this is pretty much what theorists argue though. fly two planes into buildings, blame terrorists-we must invade. doesnt get much simpler than that.

"What is this morbid need to believe in some massive master plan that was set-up over many years and would require a massive amount of money, thousands of people who would then need to be paid off/silenced, not to mention having to keep it quiet from that point on?"-answered this point previously

"Please don't bother bringing up or arguing specifics of the attack, because I'm not interested and have heard it all before. I'm trying to look at the larger picture here as if I were wanting to commit a conspiracy myself, and would simply like an answer as to why make it some huge operation when it didn't need to be."-again answered previously, again based on conjecture.


"My issue is not so much whether it's a conspiracy or not. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Let's all assume it is a conspiracy for a moment. As such, tell me what is the benefit of making it such an enormous logistical effort to pull off when simply recruiting and helping some extremists to hi-jack and fly commercial airliners into buildings would accomplish just as well what conspiracy theorists claim the attacks were for?"

and you basis fir that idea is...? when twin towers have been attacked before and no one went to war over it?
ok lets leave the conspiracy bit aside-your argument(as its not really a question because you have already made up your mind) is based on what you personally see as being too much.


i dont completely buy into what theorists say and i do see, as a civilian, the premise of what you say but your argument doesnt really challenge theorists with facts, only conjecture.

"Thanks for any input."

you're welcome. and apologies if i have neglected anything.