editor said:
So are all the international experts, demolition experts, structural engineers, WTC architects, airlines, insurance agents, accident investigation teams, political pundits, governments etc who broadly agree with the jist of that analysis in on the conspiracy too, then?
Personally, I can't see how the expertise of a demolition expert, structural engineer, WTC architect, airline, insurance agent, accident investigation team, or a political pundit would help them in deciding who's Responsible for the bombings.(which was the jist of that analysis) (Though I can of course see how many of these have a perfectly good claim to expertise on the question of controlled demolitions.)
The thing is as far as assigning responsibility for the destruction is concerned, the only people with a claim to expertise that I can think of are the intelligence services, and they seem like the most likely alternative candidates for responsibility, so they're not necessarily to be trusted. Governments' knowledge only really comes from what the intelligence services tell them, similarly international experts. And it is after all well known that Osama Bin Laden once worked for the CIA. And it's admitted that the CIA have a history of "black ops" (I think) in countries other than the US, e.g. Nicaragua.
The thing is, you find near unanimity of opinion on the question of how the towers fell down much more impressive than small divergences of opinion.
I don't. The reason is: I don't find it unthinkable that if the operation was set up by elements within the US intelligence services, they'd also make sure that there was near unanimity in official opinion on the cause of the fall of the twin towers.
Imagine you're an accident investigator, and while you're doing your investigation, someone comes and says to you, -I want you to understand that no matter what anomalies you find the official explanation for this is as follows, ... And anyone who doesn't go along with that, is at the very least going to lose their job,..and possibly worse- Well in those circumstances, if you were an accident investigator, what would you do? I reckon most people wouldn't bother to go against unanimity of opinion if they could see that the people they were up against were clearly powerful enough to organise an operation of this magnitude and assign responsibility for it, what would they achieve,? be labelled a fruitloop and lose their job. Why would they be any more likely to question the verdict than an investigator of the Reichstag fire would be to question the verdict that the Jews did it?
I don't say this is what happened. I say that it could have happened, and that if it did, appearances to us on the outside would be no different.
