18-04-2009, 04:40 AM
Peter Presland Wrote:Mark Stapleton Wrote:My money's on it being palleted in, as Harrit suggested, during the two weeks of heightened security, which ended a few days before the planes hit.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/preparation.html
There was a good reason for the phone threats. It's a bit like Dealey Plaza in its clever planning. Nobody's going to question a few pallets while the Towers were swarming with security.
Maybe so. But I still think that speculation plays into the hands of the de-bunkers. Fair enough if, as was the case with the article linked by Peter L a week or so ago (The ceiling tiles etc one), you are addressing the specific de-bunker question of 'how could explosives possibly have been placed' and you frame your hypothesis accordingly, making it clear that it is subordinate to a proper investigation into the ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACTS and the multiple glaring discrepancies in the offical narrative.
It is just too easy to be drawn into labyrinthine speculative constructions that at best dissipate precious energy and at worst invite ridicule. Both seem counter-productive to me.
I don't know. I don't necessarily agree that speculation is a dirty word. Millions of people already know the official story of 9/11 is false.
Who cares about ridicule? Early doubters of the Warren Commission were ridiculed but today its the people who defended it who are looking stupid, or worse.
