911 Meta Analysis

[Peter Lemkin]

Could anyone do me a favor and directly answer why, if there were few fires in the south Tower, would the plotters decide to blow it first and therefore create the question of why it fell without any hot fires if it was hit second? I haven't seen any direct answer to this.

Don't count on my addressing you posts much further. You are clearly a denier [to yourself and/or here to create denial for others]. You have NO concept of the global view and like most deniers find one tiny point and endlessly repeat it and if crushed on that move on to one more inconsequential point. I was not a plotter, do don't know their plan, but one can clearly see that things didn't go by their original plan and they had to use back-up plans or emergency changes [the same was true in Dallas]. Citing just a few obvious ones: WTC was IMHO obviously supposed to come down near the time of the towers [thus the false call on its demise by CNN, BBC and individuals on the scene]; the shoot down in Shanksville; the outer wall of the Pentagon was supposed to collapse sooner to hide the too-small-for-a-plane hole; one truck moving out gold from under WTC 6-7 was caught and found loaded, the drivers having fled; photos and evidence damning to the perps were found, despite their best efforts to hide them...etc. So, I don't know why they blew the first hit tower first - [it makes no sense if you believe the official version EITHER!]; it could be because it was most distant from WTC7 where the computer controls of the explosions is suspected to have been...or something that some fireman or responder had noticed and needed to be eliminated [the thing seen or the person seeing]....I don't know, but your question doesn't shake my faith in the Truth one little bit. Sorry you are lost in the bullshit of the official version. You're on the wrong side of science, the evidence and history.