17-09-2012, 04:49 PM
Lauren Johnson Wrote:From a deep political point of view, the sponsors intended for the towers to come down on 9/11. Had they just stood there smoldering that day, would have sent the aftermath into an entirely different direction. Assuming there was no plane switching that day, body identification and recovery would have been the first task. The buildings would have been crawling with structural engineers analysing the buildings for safety, repair, and whatever demolition needed. Instead we were informed we had been attacked by 19 Arab fanatics who represent people who hate our freedom. The story still goes from there. I argue we would not be living that story if the buildings had been smoldering broken stubs.
Since the buildings had to fall, the sponsors would have had to be assured that just the act of crashing planes into the buildings would have guaranteed that result. No explosives needed? Fine. Let's roll.
I disagree. The Towers were enough of a prominent symbol of New York that simply having them as a perverse neo-con Statue Of Liberty torch belching black terrorist smoke for all to see was enough to elicit the response. Don't forget that these arab terrorists also successfully blasted through the main symbol and bastion of military power in America - the Pentagon. And if Flight 93 wasn't shot down by the fighter jet witnessed appearing right after the crash, that was denied by the authorities, then another Washington icon probably would have served as a gaping reminder of arab terror.
There's simply no way the US, under Bush and the neo-cons, would not have gone to war in the Middle East even with the Towers remaining standing.