Why did 9/11 need to be so elaborate?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Personally I applaud the truthers. They could end up being correct about a lot of things.

It's just that, for all intents and purposes, none of those things will have anything to do with 9/11...

 

[KreeL]

I also wonder why the elaborateness of four planes, when as you allude to, simply one would have done the job?

 

[jaydeehess]

Well, heck, I'll take a shot at answering the OP's question.

Whether this is all that elaborate or not, we'll see. But to get the most shock and awe possible, you would collapse the towers before everyone went to work (maximum viewage), and save 7 for the final exclamation point when they got off after work (maximum viewage). Hope that helps.

Maximum exposure and maximum carnage are not mutually exclusive, but thanks for playing.

There is no "instead" here. Al-Qeada went for both maximum exposure and maximum fatalities on 9/11 and they unfortunately succeeded.

In fact Kreels' own assertion that 'they' wanted maximum shock and awe is debunked by the very fact that the crashes occured early in the morning BEFORE most got to work in the towers AND that WTC 7 came down with NO loss of life.

Actual "maximum" shock would have occured if the towers had been hit after the towers were fully occupied, perhaps even including tourists on the top floors. Maximum shock and awe concerning bldg 7 would have occured if it had succumbed quickly after the fall of tower 2 and at the Pentagon maximum shock and awe would have meant that the aircraft hit a corner of the structure thus affecting more office space.

In fact hitting at 9 am MINIMIZED shock and awe, having tower 7 fall late in the day well MINIMIZED shock and awe, Flt 77 hitiing a minimally occupied section MINIMIZED shock and awe.

The ONLY maximizing effect here was the total collapse of two largely evacuated structures and one fully evacuated structure.

One should also look at history. The 1980's destruction of a Marine bunkhouse in Lebanon resulted in the USA pulling out of that country. The downing of Blackhawk helicopters in Somolia and the loss of life that ensued resulted in the USA pulling out of Somalia.
The blasts at African USA embassies resulted in few American deaths and a limited military response.
It could be expected then that Al Qada would in fact want to absolutely require large loss of life, in the neighbourhood of at least hundreds, in order to drive the USA out of the Middle East, AND it would be beneficial to supposed insider conspiracists to limit deaths to just a few (under 100) in order to garner a war cry while still causing great damage rather than a demand for the USA to pull forces away from overseas deployments.

 

[Disbelief]

I also wonder why the elaborateness of four planes, when as you allude to, simply one would have done the job?

One plane could have hit four different targets? Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[KreeL]

Then, when you have 20 hijackers, why not hijack 6 planes, or 8 planes, or even 10 planes and hit even MORE targets?

 

[Brass]

Wouldn't this mark the first time they went for maximum exposure instead of maximum fatalities?

You're right. They should have done it at night when nobody was in the building.

 

[LSSBB]

Then, when you have 20 hijackers, why not hijack 6 planes, or 8 planes, or even 10 planes and hit even MORE targets?

They worked in teams, to pilot the plane and control the passengers.

 

[KreeL]

They worked in teams, to pilot the plane and control the passengers.

So you are saying, honestly, that elaborateness is subjective. That's what I thought all along. Your theory, other theories, all theories concerning 9/11 are elaborate.

So this becomes a moot thread.

 

[uke2se]

So you are saying, honestly, that elaborateness is subjective. That's what I thought all along. Your theory, other theories, all theories concerning 9/11 are elaborate.

So this becomes a moot thread.

 

[beachnut]

Then, when you have 20 hijackers, why not hijack 6 planes, or 8 planes, or even 10 planes and hit even MORE targets?

They only had 4 pilots. They thought they had to know how to fly to crash a plane. The best pilots for crashing a plane are those who have no training. Learning to fly, if you do it well, is something to live for, not crash and kill people. The 911 terrorists pilots were not good pilots, so their experience flying was not pleasant, the goal to kill is not a solid foundation to learn how to fly, there is no incentive to be a good pilot, since your goal is indicative of failure, crashing for pilots is a failure, albeit for many a temporary setback.

How many idiots can UBL find to kill themselves? Too bad UBL failed to use the Demonstration-Performance Method of teaching his dolts how to be suicide killers.

A kid could fly a 767/757 better than the terrorist pilots, a kid with no training.

The suicide method of terrorism usually hits every 10 to 20 years. How do you recruit people to kill themselves, there are not that many idiots out there! Like 911 truth, there is a limited population of fools who repeat the lies and take no action, same with UBL's travel to hell club to meet 72 virgins, there is a limited pool of nuts. UBL found 19 idiots, and they took action. 911 truth has found many fools, and they take no action.
What is the difference between the 911 terrorists, and 911 truthers. The terrorists took action, they were not all talk.

 

[jaydeehess]

Then, when you have 20 hijackers, why not hijack 6 planes, or 8 planes, or even 10 planes and hit even MORE targets?

They had 4 (four) who could sit in the pilot's seat and have some idea of how to fly the thing.

Why 4 rather than only one (thus limiting exposure)? Because having multiples increases the chances of having at least one make it through to target. In fact though there were 4 planes only 3 made it to target. (unless you assume a field in Penn. was a 'target'.

An increase in number of people involved in an operation increases the probability of discovery. An increase in duplicate operations increases the probability of at least one successful operation. Its a trade off of course. Had Al Qada chose to try for 25 aircraft hijacked there would have been a greater chance of enormous damage to the USA but also a highly increased chance of discovery of the entire operation, but limiting to one operation, while decreasing the chances of discovery to a minimum would also increase the chances that the opeartion fail due to other causes (such as weather problems, or mechanical problems delaying the aircraft and causing enough consternation among the hijackers that they are re-checked before take off, or even of course a passenger revolt, air marshall interference, pilot managing to set the transponder to squawk hijack, or even radio a mayday-hijack before being taken out)

 

[jaydeehess]

So you are saying, honestly, that elaborateness is subjective. That's what I thought all along. Your theory, other theories, all theories concerning 9/11 are elaborate.

So this becomes a moot thread.

Yes I suppose elaborateness is subjective, to a point. However, it is certainly not subjective to discern which of two senarios is less elaborate,
1) sending 20 people to hijack 4 aircraft and attempt to fly themn into 4 targets representing American wealth and power;
2) arranging for 4 (or 3 plus a missile)(or 2 plus a missile plus a faked impact of another) aircraft to hit symbols of American wealth and power AND arrange for massive amounts of explosives and/or incindiary devices to be loaded into 3 large structures (one of which really was not a great symbol of American wealth and power) in order to bring them all down (one of them 8 hours after the first two) and arrange for the only military structure being targeted to have only a less occupied section get hit.

 

[Edx]

2) arranging for 4 (or 3 plus a missile)(or 2 plus a missile plus a faked impact of another) aircraft to hit symbols of American wealth and power AND arrange for massive amounts of explosives and/or incindiary devices to be loaded into 3 large structures (one of which really was not a great symbol of American wealth and power) in order to bring them all down (one of them 8 hours after the first two) and arrange for the only military structure being targeted to have only a less occupied section get hit.

And of course its much worse than that of course.

For example... Kree believes Silverstein admitted to casually blowing up his own building on TV and that its totally possible that they had already rigged WTC7 to blow when it was built in the late 80s.

 

[jaydeehess]

And of course its much worse than that of course.

For example... Kree believes Silverstein admitted to casually blowing up his own building on TV and that its totally possible that they had already rigged WTC7 to blow when it was built in the late 80s.

Oh, the building that was essentially completely unknown outside of NYC and in really no way shape or form indicative of American wealth and power as were the two towers and the Pentagon. The one that fell half a day after the towers did, and with ZERO loss of life. (so much for contributing to shock and awe ) Is that the structure you speak of?

 

[jaydeehess]

As for Kreel's assertion of maximum shock and awe. Just how would WTC 7 fit into this?
It fell half a day later, it fell with zero loss of life, it was a building with essentially no name recognition outside of NYC.
If one wished to bring down another structure that would cause additional 'shocj and awe' then one would be more on point to totally destroy the Marriot, or the Post Office (right next to WTC 7) or the Verizon (also right next to WTC 7) as they all have definate name recognition. Even the Deucthe(SP?) Bank would be more recognizable to more Americans (they would at least understand that it was a European bank) than a relatively unknown WTC 7.
Must have brought that one down only as a 'favour' to Larry Silverstein.

 

[Edx]

Oh, the building that was essentially completely unknown outside of NYC and in really no way shape or form indicative of American wealth and power as were the two towers and the Pentagon. The one that fell half a day after the towers did, and with ZERO loss of life. (so much for contributing to shock and awe ) Is that the structure you speak of?

hehe, yup, thats what he thinks. They had that baby rigged to blow as soon as they cut the ribbons.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8015242&postcount=721

 

[alienentity]

Why did the proposed 9/11 conspiracies need to be so elaborate? Simple, so the perpetrators could escape the attentions of the public, dumbfounding them.

This concept was not fully developed until the late 1990's and was spelled out for all to see in the Austin Powers movie series. FYI it is known that Mike Meyers is both a Bilderberger and a member of the NWO, so connect the dots people, connect the dots!

I offer these two examples of these overly elaborate and easily escapable plots which were adapted for the 9/11 'False flag' attacks:

Example 1:

Example 2:

 

[alienentity]

As for Kreel's assertion of maximum shock and awe. Just how would WTC 7 fit into this?
It fell half a day later, it fell with zero loss of life, it was a building with essentially no name recognition outside of NYC.
If one wished to bring down another structure that would cause additional 'shocj and awe' then one would be more on point to totally destroy the Marriot, or the Post Office (right next to WTC 7) or the Verizon (also right next to WTC 7) as they all have definate name recognition. Even the Deucthe(SP?) Bank would be more recognizable to more Americans (they would at least understand that it was a European bank) than a relatively unknown WTC 7.
Must have brought that one down only as a 'favour' to Larry Silverstein.

And don't forget, as a rabid truther admonished a couple days ago on my channel 'Elie Wiesel was never in a concentration camp'.
That is the final nail in the coffin for the so-called 'official story'. So there..

 

[Lenbrazil]

Originally Posted by atavisms
Re flt. 93 Anyone can go to Wikipedia and read how the plane plowed intact into the ground yet left an 8 mile debris field. If you dont find these two 'facts' contradictory then that is fine. I think most people will.

Remember that line? Good! What was the debris that was 8 miles away? (You sure it was 8 miles btw?... anywho) was it engine parts? Wing tips? Windows?

1) I think most of us here don't depend on Wikipedia for our info
2) The answer to Redtail's question is....PAPER! that was down wind of the crash site beyond the plane's flight path

Im sure such operations are done in a very stratified manner so that each team or person doing a job does only that small part and knows only what they need to know to do that job. If they later put together that they were part of these attacks, as Im sure many did.. they are not about to come forward and implicate themselves as having been paid a lot of money to commit whatever acts that were part of this horrendous crime.

Of course! As long as you forget that since they could easily prove they were part of the cell & they couldn't see the big picture until after the fact, bravely coming forward to blow the whistle becoming heroes in the process.

This is the standard truther rationalization. Even if true it wouldn't change the fact that a large number of people would have know what they'd done and thus the odds of one coming forward would be a huge risk to the plotters

It is interesting that the company in charge of security at the wtc (securacom, later stratasec, -if im not mistaken) was also in charge of security at the airport where the planes flew out of. (I may be wrong on this point) I think Ryan goes into this stuff in his great essays on Demolition Access to the WTC. Worth reading: http://911review.com/articles/ryan/d...access_p1.html

... its interesting that a security company that works with large buildings has more than on customer in the same region? etc... interesting you think so.

Actually Securacom was only responsible for part of the electronic security at the WTC and it seems they were only completing a contract at the time

 

[Oz1976]

I'm always amused by the "9/11 was an excuse to invade Iraq argument". Read Woodward's series of books about 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq. It's pretty clear that 9/11 disrupted the Administration's plans for Iraq and probably pushed back the start of the war for about a year. If anything 9/11 was an impediment to Iraq.

This this this! People forget that we were in constant conflict with Iraq. Clinton had launched a bombing campaign in 1998. There was no official end to the first Gulf War, with no peace treaty being signed, but G.H.W. Bush just ceasing the military advance and declaring a cease fire. Saddam had constantly been pulling our strings, he so much as admitted it when he was finally captured. We were going after him with or without 9/11.