The following overused-to-the-point-of-cliche, under-appreciated quote from the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius may be of some help to us:
"Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature?"
More suitable for our purposes may be this humbly offered suggestion:
"We cannot discover the 'who' and 'why' of a deep political event until we understand and reach meaningful consensus regarding the 'how' of its nature."
"How" was JFK killed? Based upon impartial investigations of legitimate evidence, we can answer thusly and to the degree of metaphysical certitude: By multiple gunmen exhibiting the skills of world-class marksmen and operating in a coordinated fashion suggestive of a military-style operation unrestricted by security measures commonly devoted to the target yet absent during the attack.
Only by knowing and then reverse-engineering the "how" can we hope to identify the "who" and the "why" of this event.
"How" were the WTC buildings destroyed and the Pentagon attacked?
Good point Charles. This is basically why I have been paying a fair amount of attention details of what actually happened at the trade center. If one sees this as Judy Wood does it leads to a very different set of players than if they see it as I do (these days) as a mostly a natural event (post plane strikes) which may have had some help (a bigger conspiracy).
Bldg 7 represents a unual problem contradiction for many truth advocates. On the one hand they dismiss the impacts of the plans and contributing the the collapse/destruction of the towers... and on the other hand the point out bldg 7 was not hit by a plane so what could have caused it to collapse except planted explosives.
Add to this that the OCT and subsequent cover up provided a hardly credible explanation for all three collapses and we are left wondering what DID happen?
I believe that the structure of 7 might have had fatal flaws in the design which included the transfer trusses over a huge Con Ed sub station with 12,00 gallons of diesel fuel above them. The stupidy of this design was (of course) down played by the official explanation because it would expose the PANYNJ, the architects, engineers and the DOB to lawsuits for liability.. regaredess of what might have caused the collapse... the design was insane! Same with the twin towers.
Lately I am thinking that the first plane might have cause voltage spikes with caused various sub stations in the twins (eight in each) and the huge one in Bldg 7 to explode leaking flammable oil and releasing explosive gas which cause the diesel to leak and burn for hours... unfought when the sprinkler system failed and no water could be pumped. It's a theory and it's also a sequence of conincidences which hijackers could likely not have planned for... Nor for that matter someone who was trying to take down the twin towers.
And this leads me to ask... Why did the conspirators, whomever they were, need to COMPLETELY destroy the entire WTC?
I would think that the damage caused to the towers even if they didn't collapse was so *fatal* that no one would want to work in them and the would stand as huge blemishes towering of NYC for years until they were taken down. The hijacker guys had no interest in taking down bldg 7. Who even heard of this building? Could all the destruction we witnessed represent a series of unforseen results which cascaded simply because of the magnitude of the forces and the fragility of the overall design... which was a series of cascading failures? It's a possibility to consider perhaps.
However, once one looks at the result and considers the ENTIRE destruction as planned one needs to come up with a purpose for destroying each and every building of the complex... and conspiracy buffs have come up with some very compelling reasons... stealing gold, destroying financial records, collecting insurance, making an abestos nightmare go away and make it all look like a war zone so a military response could be taken
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:However, once one looks at the result and considers the ENTIRE destruction as planned one needs to come up with a purpose for destroying each and every building of the complex... and conspiracy buffs have come up with some very compelling reasons... stealing gold, destroying financial records, collecting insurance, making an abestos nightmare go away and make it all look like a war zone so a military response could be taken
Bernard "Bud" Fensterwald taught us that every intelligence operation has at least two objectives.
Multiple motives suggest multiple Sponsors -- or False Sponsors.
Using means, motive(s), and opportunity may be the basis to suspect someone(s) to have commited the crimes/acts, but it is not proof that they parties did the deed. So again we have to return to the details and find not only what happened, but the fingerprints (literal and or figurative) of those who committed the crimes. We might not find the literal fingerprints but perhaps there are documents and witnesses who can connect the dots back to the perps. Maybe.
Charles Drago Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:However, once one looks at the result and considers the ENTIRE destruction as planned one needs to come up with a purpose for destroying each and every building of the complex... and conspiracy buffs have come up with some very compelling reasons... stealing gold, destroying financial records, collecting insurance, making an abestos nightmare go away and make it all look like a war zone so a military response could be taken
Bernard "Bud" Fensterwald taught us that every intelligence operation has at least two objectives.
Multiple motives suggest multiple Sponsors -- or False Sponsors.
Especially astute application of Fensterwald's theorem.
I repeat:
Why did the conspirators, whomever they were, need to COMPLETELY destroy the entire WTC?
Where has it been established that such a need was perceived and acted upon?
What do you mean by "the entire WTC"?
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I repeat:
Why did the conspirators, whomever they were, need to COMPLETELY destroy the entire WTC?
I always thought they were attempting to limit the damage to the precise floors that were struck by the planes. Are you suggesting that they weren't? Oh my...
(Screaming sarcasm implied)
I think most assume that the conspirators whomever they were intended to completely destroy the entire WTC... all seven buildings. And that's what happened on 9/11.
My question is about trying to get into the head of the terrorist mind who planned the attack...whether state actors or non state terrorists.
The perps had some objective in carrying out the attack. What were they?
If the main pupose was to create the appearance of humiliation and strike a blow inside the USA at the symbols of hegemony the twin towers... why would the entire complex need to be destroyed? Wouldn't the purpose be acheived if the jets hit the towers and the fires burned and the towers were rendered unihabitable and likely unrenetable after that.
My guess is that the public would be completely freaked out... much as they were when the whole thing came down... but having two skyscrapers hit by commerical jets. There would be the same TSA rubbish... increased security... loss of rights and so forth... and likely an attack of whomever they State wanted to blame for it.
I don't think that a non state terrorist group would care if the towers came down or were rendered as burnt out scars on the skyline. Mission accomplished.
If taken the whole campus down wasn't a reasonable objective for the non state terrorist... why was it for the state sponsored act (SCAD)? Why would they have to destroy everything? What ELSE was acheived that simply slamming jet liners in the towers would not? I mention this because the truth movement asserts that the both the the twins and 7 were CDs and the intent was to completely destroy them... even that the planes were only an excuse. Some claim bombs exploded 4, 5 and 6. as well. The claim re 7 is that all sorts of sensitive material was inside and had to be destroyed. Does this make sense?
Just askin'
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I think most assume that the conspirators whomever they were intended to completely destroy the entire WTC... all seven buildings. And that's what happened on 9/11.
My question is about trying to get into the head of the terrorist mind who planned the attack...whether state actors or non state terrorists.
The perps had some objective in carrying out the attack. What were they?
If the main purpose was to create the appearance of humiliation and strike a blow inside the USA at the symbols of hegemony the twin towers... why would the entire complex need to be destroyed? Wouldn't the purpose be achieved if the jets hit the towers and the fires burned and the towers were rendered uninhabitable and likely unrenetable after that.
I agree. I have thought the same thing for years.
Quote:I don't think that a non state terrorist group would care if the towers came down or were rendered as burnt out scars on the skyline. Mission accomplished.
If taken the whole campus down wasn't a reasonable objective for the non state terrorist... why was it for the state sponsored act (SCAD)? Why would they have to destroy everything? What ELSE was acheived that simply slamming jet liners in the towers would not? I mention this because the truth movement asserts that the both the the twins and 7 were CDs and the intent was to completely destroy them... even that the planes were only an excuse. Some claim bombs exploded 4, 5 and 6. as well. The claim re 7 is that all sorts of sensitive material was inside and had to be destroyed. Does this make sense?
Absolutely. It gets rid of whatever evidence needs to be destroyed. The inspectors can be kept away from the rubble piles as opposed to all kinds of inspectors pouring over the buildings to determine the forensics and the salvage issues. What a nightmare that could be. Just destroy it all, sweep it up, and rebuild. Was there a gold heist before the destruction? That would be impossible with partly destroyed buildings. What about the piles of burned bodies around elevators? Explosions coming out of the basements? What if the planes were altered to allow for control from the ground? What if there were homing devices in the buildings. Nothing here folks. Move along. It made for great TV with the mayor emerging from the dust unbowed giving orders. So much better. We needed heroes.
I have thought this way for quite some time and have seen it as the fingerprints for MIHOP.