Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Lauren Johnson]

If I might intrude on this thread... I certainly do not pretend to be versed in the Twin Towers / Pentagon attack of 2001 as I am in the assassinations of the 60s, but I was wondering if I might ask a question. If someone prefers to answer this question by pointing me to another discussion, that would be OK. I just haven't the time right now to go digging through past DPF posts. But it is something that has made me wonder.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the towers were rigged to come down after the planes hit. Why would this have to be done? To hide something concerning the planes or the hijackers? To create even greater terror/spectacle? Or were there other targets of opportunity in the Twin Towers?

I know my questions demonstrate that I'm not quite up to speed in this area, but a quick summary here for my benefit would be great. Thank you,

Al

I have posted on this on another thread but can't find it. First, I think 9/11 was a made-for-television spectacle to prepare the world for the writing of history a la Hegel. Think of the first days after 9/11, we saw a mediocre President rise to the occasion and become a Great Leader. We saw the beginning of the USA going to a war of revenge and prevention. And so on.

Next imagine that the towers were left as smoldering husks. The narrative would have been driven by the buildings? Are they safe? Will they need to be torn down? There would be investigators pouring all over them. In my view, it would have sucked the air out of the war narrative. Sure, we would have gone to war, but the transformative energies would have been quite different. The creators of history would have had a lot harder time. The blood sacrifice had to be complete to create the new enemy for the new world order.