13-02-2012, 09:50 PM
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Magda,
I find the destruction of evidence of the destroying the towers a bit of a tautology. Frankly I can see no reason that the total destruction of the towers served the perps and more than just slamming jets into the towers.
Since unexploded explosives and their residue was found in the dust, one is required to say explosives were involved.
At that point, the destruction of the towers is no longer a tautology. One must say, They had their reasons. And one would be justified in making speculations.
My speculation is that at the very least, since explosives were used to help bring the buildings down, the planning of this operation would find taking them all the way down would be preferable.
Consider: the fires burn themselves out or were put out as one courageous fire fighter was calling for: two hose teams to put out the two small fires. So the WTC 1 & 2 are sitting there as useless husks. There would have been no way to keep to keep forensic inspectors, FBI agents, salvage engineers, the press, etc. from giving the buildings infinite attention.
Secondly, from a psy-op point of view, to control of the flow of information needs to be assured and subject to careful planning. As a planner, why would I submit a plan that has as a key part, I sure hope nobody looks to close at those buildings.
If you are a domestic perp, would you want this to happen? No fuckin' way. In terms of planning the operation, I cannot imagine why I would want that set of unknowns to remain in the open. Bring the buildings down; ship the steel off for salvage; keep inspectors away; shut the firemen up; silence the whistleblowers, etc.
Remember that saying they could have had as much impact without using explosives becomes unnecessary. Maybe so. The fact is, they chose to use them. And I think it was the correct decision from a black-op point of view.