George Bush mentions explosives in buildings - 'A VERY Curious Remark'

[Laura]

Doesn't matter if the ideas are stupid; the public believes what the mass media repeats over and over again no matter what.

 

[Pierre]

If, as a terrorist, you're going to go thru all the trouble of planting explosives in the WTC ... why then *also* fly planes into it?

Because it is far more impressive, far more shocking, far more spectacular.

Thus the one in control hold very efficient records to condition/brainwash masses.

 

[Ruth]

I think I'm missing something obvious here. If, as a terrorist, you're going to go thru all the trouble of planting explosives in the WTC ... why then *also* fly planes into it? Why not just drive a U-Haul into the parking structure (like they tried the first time), set the fuse and escape to fight another day?

The real terrorists are not the ones who are being blamed for the act. They were probably agents using stollen identities. We don't even know if they are still alive or not - perhaps not, at least not with those stolen identities. They may have acquired new ones now.

And if the real terrorists intentions were to illegally bring down three buildings by means of a controlled demolition, killing many people as a result, then you'd better believe that they need something to distract the public with and its got to be pretty visually impressive!

Casualties would be higher too because there would be no reason to flee right up to the detonation. Save the hijack piece for a building that you couldnt possibly put explosives into... like CIA headquarters or something. Maybe this was added as a jihadist tribute to Tom Clancy! Spin if they want to, the whole idea is just stupid.

Actually it was brillant. They got away with it, didn't they? And they DID do the hijack piece with a building that they couldn't possibly get explosives into, called the Pentagon. Only there was no evidence of flight 77 at the scene. Goodness only knows what they planed to do with flight 93. Probably crash it into a public building like the Capitol Building in Washington.

I'm not really sure if it was an act of war involving another foreign power or an act of treason involving US citizens. I sure would like to know.

The only thing that protects the conspirators is the misbelief by American citizens that their own countrymen would do this or be involved in something like this against their own citizens. Sure they would. They can, they have and they've gotten away with it too.

 

[1/2Hawk]

Doesn't matter if the ideas are stupid; the public believes what the mass media repeats over and over again no matter what.

The primary thing Bush has a problem with is his credibility. You would therefore think they'd be more careful in spinning things that actually made some sort of sense going forward. Otherwise, people might start to catch on... hopefully. If 82% of the public believes the gov't is either responsible or covering up some important details about 9/11, the president's approval rating is in the mid-30s - and people *still* swallow any horsesh*t shovelled at them from the media ... then there truely *is* no hope for any of us. :(

Because it is far more impressive, far more shocking, far more spectacular.

These terrorists aren't out to impress anybody .. they're out to inflict psychological and economic damage to an otherwise unstoppable military superpower. The act of hijacking several airliners and ramming them into buildings is already impressive enough to cause wide spread panic, and to cause the government to spend billions in new security procedures and equipment. You dont need to go and rig the building with explosives too. Let the thing stand there in the skyline with two mostrous 767 shaped smokin' holes in it for all to remember this could happen any day of the week... period. Evidence showing it was also pulled, for me, points the blame on someone else.

Yep - blowing that building on top of a spectacular hijacking / ramming makes far more sense if you believe that there was some serious money to be made on the inside (gold stores below the WTC, insurance collections, scrap metal used to line oil tankers, SEC coverups, etc), plus engraining a spectacular moment in the American psyche, much like Pearl Harbor did, in order to spark an endless conflict against any undefined enemy of the state going forward. It just seems like an unnecessary step if Al Qaeda was truely to blame, as well as handing the war hawks in DC a lovely Christmas present.

Here's what really makes me upset:

Does the government *have* to rely on fear and lies to get its way? Who did that assessment? You know, if they came into office and said "Guys listen, we need to establish a serious military presence in South America, the Middle East and in East Asia in order to influence local elections - ensuring that the people we like come to power, enabling our companies the best access to foreign markets and their raw materials - for the purposes of retaining our position on top of the food chain on this planet so you all can continue to enjoy your weekend BBQs and big SUVs and whatnot. We hate to play dirty like this, but for God's sake, if we dont get in there you'd better bet the Chinese or the Russians are going to be down there meddling instead - and one day soon those guys will be kicking our tails around. Long live America!" I'd be all for it. I'd much rather live under an honest and self-serving govt than a dishonest and self-serving govt. Geez, take all the effort/money spent on spin and manipulation and go help the fight against AIDS in Africa or get a man to Mars like you promised. And for pete's sake, dont go killing 3,000 innocent people in the process.