Reply #25: obviously the bulge [View All]

[JackRiddler]

where the wings meet the fuselage. Why anyone would think otherwise escapes me.

Why do so many people who see government complicity (as I do) go out of their way to make things far more complex than they need to be?

The simplest way to do 9/11 as an inside job is by letting a hijacking originally planned by genuinely anti-American terrorists (most of whom we know were under surveillance years in advance!) take place...

by obstructing investigations that might catch these terrorists, standing down air defenses on the day, and constructing a set of wargames as an alibi and excuse...

by infiltrating or steering the terrorists from a higher-up level...

perhaps also by constructing the identities of "the 19" to hide a different set of terrorists, but this comes at the risk associated with greater complexity...

perhaps by assisting with the remote control option, by hardwiring the actual flights the terrorists planned to take...

perhaps even assisting with a controlled demolition...

but I draw the line at bumbleplanes, holograms, extra-pod fuel tanks, and cruise missiles/small commercial planes dressed as Boeings. All of these seem like excellent blueprints for how NOT to succeed at MIHOP.

Why wouldn't master planners go with a simple, effective, low-risk plan that actually disposes of the evidence, i.e. by seeing to it that the real Boeings crash into real buildings, and by making sure that the patsies/unwitting accomplices are actually ON these planes?