Reply #84: Afaik, Van Romero never said it wasn't "too complicated". [View All]

[greyl]

He can't retract statements he never made. He said, on 9/11, that it could have been a relatively small amount of explosives planted in more than 2 points in each of the towers. He never addressed the difficulty of planting them, detonating them, and coordinating the whole covert operation.

Hours after the attack, Van Romero, an explosives expert and former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at New Mexico Tech, stated, “My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse.” Although he would recant days later – with some prodding, perhaps, from representatives of the Enterprise – Romero said on 9-11 that the collapses were “too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures.”
www.911forthetruth.com/pages/RodriguezComplaint6.htm and
www.s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/main/timelinecomplete2.html

Furthermore, your motive attribution to his retraction is missing an obvious point and is clearly colored by your bias. On 9/11 Van Romero did not imply that our government planted explosives. Why should anyone jump to that conclusion? Confirmation bias mayhaps?

So, since he never implicated "the powers that be", why the hell would he feel the need to retract his statement?
In fact, his original statement implicated the terrorists!:

The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent
with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said. "One of the
things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack
and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate
an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency
personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion,
he said. Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the
diversionary attack would have been the collision of the
planes into the towers.
www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html and
www.la.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/66278_comment.php