Creative Speculation

Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2013, 10:38 PM - Edit history (1)

(Sorry about the snide title. You didn't deserve that. The prevailing manners in this group make me forget mine.)

I try to avoid having conclusive opinions and instead stick to established facts (and speculations clearly identified as such).

I am not advocating the "toxic tenant" theory. I simply pointed out that it exists, and commented on some of the implications if it were true.

Seems to me the part of the plot that is attributed to al Qaeda went about perfectly. They evaded detection even though the presence of two of their number was known to both the FBI and the CIA and even though their alleged ringleader and another alleged pilot had been named in a warning from the Mossad. They evaded interception by NORAD even while going off course hundreds of miles from their targets and bumbling around for a total of over 100 minutes. (The only plot I would expect to succeed would be one where the planes were hijacked immediately after takeoff and immediately flown into the targets.) They managed to hit their targets dead on in the three shots they got. And with just two airplanes they brought down three buildings! That's pretty damn flawless.

No, plane crashes are not enough terror. People are used to plane crashes. A few hundred people die. It happens. To turn a bunch of little guys with boxcutters into existential threats to western civilization, the towers had to fall.

You may be right that rigging the towers was too much of a job for Osama et. al. But don't forget, we're expected to think that fires did the job. If fires can do it, why not the best talent Osama could hire? And how do we know Osama did it? Seems to me the Russians would be pretty highly motivated, anxious to lure us into a bankrupting 10-year-war in Afghanistan.