Do you find it odd that your perpetrators thought it was a good idea to fake airplane crashes when it would have been easier and "safer" (from their POV) to actually crash planes into the buildings?
If you had 3D projection technology, projecting an image of an airplane moving through the sky would be much easier than all that. Plus, in terms of the "safety" of the plot, actually hijacking a bunch of planes is extremely risky and could easily be foiled at a number of points along the way in the plan. So I think you're wrong about both ease and safety of the two different plans. Of course, you DO need the technology to fake an airplane in the daytime sky, but it remains to be seen if that's what actually was done. What I'm saying is that it was done and much easier and safer than actually hijacking airplanes.
What is more is that the attacks as I describe them are feasible, unlike the airplane crash conspiracy, which could not have resulted in a years-long stinking dust pile where huge steel buildings once stood.
Do you find it odd that their scheme somehow managed to fool virtually all acknowledged experts in the relevant fields (architecture, demolition, aeronautics, etc.) but didn't fool people with little to no expertise in said fields?
My understanding of psychology is that when people are exposed to trauma, they are vulnerable to suggestion. Also, in the years since 9/11, it has not been socially acceptable among scientists or anyone else to question the commonly understood version of events. Nobody likes to be called a traitor/scumbag/etc. Finally, the US government is not currently offering grant funding towards the investigation of the events of 9/11, and that's how most science gets done these days. Scientists do work that is funded by the government and very little else.
You set great store by your own training and expertise. Do you find that the general public tends to know more about biochemistry than those (like you) who have actual training and experience in that field?
