posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 07:36 PM
hi Gouryella, - You say "As you may know, there are explosives that do not simply detonate in the event of a jet fuel fire or a violent impact." I
have to confess my ignorance & say I was unaware of that.
You also say "Delayed and controlled detonation is perfectly plausible even more so if the hijacked planes were also remotely controlled". Maybe so,
but to put it mildly that's a pretty big "if" as regards the planes being remote controlled. If your theory of controlled demolition depends on the
inclusion of remote controlled aircraft, we all end up running around in circles, - I know for sure that you're more well read in these matters than
myself, but where is the evidence for remote controlled planes? A company was developing them? Surely you can't take the leap from that point A
towards point B, namely, - because they were being developed they must have been used in the 9/11 attacks.
And regarding the demolition of 7, since I presume you believe it was brought down, I would genuinely like to know your view on the following point,
which I may have made in a previous post, - why used controlled demolition, when it's so obvious? If these conspirators are so technologically
advanced that they're employing remote controlled planes, it's surely incomprehensible that after no doubt years & years of planning the best they
could come up with is, - Let's bring it down in a controlled demolition.
Why not have some of these cold-blooded assassins & operatives set fires throughout the whole of building 7? This is perfectly consistent given what
has just happened to the Twin Towers. Let the fires burn all day. The building may collapse on its own. If it doesn't, so what? It will be so wrecked
& gutted it can be brought down "officially". Any kind of official secrets/incriminating material it contains will be destroyed, and crucially,
millions of people won't be wondering for generations to come - what the hell happened with building 7?
I really would like to understand the necessity for collapsing this building. It seems so absurd, and unnecessary. Obviously the conspirators would
have covered every single minute aspect of the whole plot, and although you may disagree with me, I find it very difficult to comprehend how
individuals with the intelligence to carry out attacks of such complexity, - remote controlled planes, voice morphing, electronic demolitions of a
couple of the tallest buildings in the world - when it came to 7, simply said, - let's just collapse the thing.
If you were one of the conspirators, would you be happy with this? To my mind, it's actually the weakest element in any 9/11 conspiracy theory. I
simply cannot understand why they would have included an element this bizarre in a plot that some believe was 10/15 years in the making. Every
possible scenario re Building 7 would have been discussed for hour after hour after hour. They could have spent months, maybe a year, or more, simply
discussing & experimenting on the best, and surely most realistic & less likely to be exposed, method of collapsing 7.
Experiments could have been done in some secret hangar on a building similar to 7, especially constructed for the purpose (though probably smaller,
one would imagine!). They know everything there is to know about 7. They know how it will fall, they know how long the collapse will take, they know
it will look like it's been deliberately brought down, - yet they still go ahead.
Why do this? In my view there is something deeply incongruous about a cabal of mass murdering highly intelligent conspirators who devote years & years
to a fantastic & ghastly plot that on the one hand uses technology we might not even be aware exists, yet on the other is stumped when it comes to
something as basic as bringing a building down without people knowing that it actually has been brought down.
And if this isn't puzzling, or rather infuriating, enough, there's no need to bring the building down at all!!!