WTC Dust: The...colorful and idiosyncratic way you chose to format your responses to my questions made it more difficult than it needed to be to respond to you. Instead of simply clicking "Quote" I had to take your post apart and put it back together in notepad before posting my response.
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.
And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon. The technology you refer to
does not exist. You might as well claim the WTC was demolished with lightsabers. When you have to resort to science fiction devices to patch the holes in a pet theory, you need to consider the probability that your theory is
wrong.
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.
It's not very "safe" if a glitch causes your CGI holo-planes to freeze in midair or dissolve in a burst of pixels before they reach their target. But then this is all a moot point because as I already mentioned, such advanced holo-technology DOES NOT EXIST.
If you want to frame a terrorist group for flying jets into buildings, the simplest, best way to do that is to probably, you know, FLY JETS INTO BUILDINGS.
CGI holo-planes??? Really, Truth Movement??? Why do all of your "theories" sound like James Bond fan fiction written by a not terribly bright 13 year old boy?
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.
Imaginary technology is more "feasible" to you than the possibility that you're wrong?
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.
If your aim is to commit the crime of the century and yet you have no desire to go down in history as a cross between Guy Fawkes and Lex Luthor, you don't carry out your crime in a way that makes it clear that you are the guilty party.
Nobody likes to be called a traitor/scumbag/etc.
Oh, I wouldn't say "nobody". Some people clearly get off on
any sort of attention, even if it's negative attention. I know, it's weird and sad and pathetic, but there you are.
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.
Annnnnd there's that textbook contempt CTists have for the "not we" (or in your case the "not me") that makes them such a bore on long car trips.
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?
It's a shame then that you don't accord the same respect to other experts in other fields, but that takes us back to the whole "contempt" thing, doesn't it?
