28-10-2015, 03:23 PM
Drew Phipps Wrote:Quote:Drew Phipps Wrote:Ken Garretson Wrote:I don't assume that the perpetrators intended to conceal the demolition.
Why then would they bother with the 19 hijacker story?
Forgive me, I don't understand your question. Are you saying the hijackings are a story (that they didn't happen)? Are you assuming the perpetrators are the same as the story tellers?
Maybe I'm missing something obvious in your question.
I'm asking, if the perpetrators of these "explosions" didn't intend to conceal their involvement, why would they bother with planes and hijackers, etc. Why not just openly use a military issue bomb of some sort?
The hijackers/planes were necessary to present a definable enemy to the general public and pretexts for both war in the middle east and increased security/loss of civil liberties at home. Footage of the planes crashing into the towers and them burning pre-collapse also had a far greater propaganda value than if the buildings simply exploded; it meant that the government were immediately able to point the finger while the general population were still in a state of shock. Whereas if it had just been a bombing, there'd have to have been a full forensic investigation at the site which not only would have stymied the various financial irregularity cover-ups going on that day but would have allowed OKC type rumors time to spread. The planes were also needed to explain the 'attack' on the pentagon - as nobody would believe that it could have been bombed from the inside.
As for the bombers not bothering the conceal their involvement - they didn't need to, as the MSM and Government did it for them. Fourteen years on and despite the fact that a significant % of the general public supposedly don't buy the official story, how often are these discrepancies discussed in public unless it's to disparage 'Conspiracy Theorists'?