Comment: Did an invisible plane hit WTC7?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Now I know (see in situ)

Did an invisible plane hit WTC7?

"They spend way too much time focusing on why the physics of the building could not collapse at that speed..."

Huh? Too much time on logistics? What would you suggest they talk about?

"There were 2 PLANES THAT HIT THE BUILDINGS, DUH!!!!!"

Did an invisible plane hit WTC7? Do you think ADDING CAPITAL LETTERS cancels out 1700 scientist's explanations? "TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FIVE!!!" See. Is that effective in convincing you?

You do ask an interesting question on why they would need planes in the first place though. Why not just blow up the buildings? Two obvious reasons would be diversion and believability.

Remember, the goal is to convince all the couch potato, Monday-Night-football robots that brown, middle east, Islamist terrorists attacked us so that we are just justified in attacking (occupying) them over there. If they just blew up the building, they'd have a lot harder time linking it back to the ME. But, thanks to a few decades of (Israel-conrolled) Hollywood, fanatical ME terrorists and hijackings go together like baseball and hotdogs for Americans.

A diversion works by getting people to look at your left hand when all the action is in the right hand. If everyone is convinced it's the planes, then no one is scrutinizing how it *actually* happened. A pretty convenient position to be in if you've committed a crime, yes? To fully appreciate the effectiveness of diversion you really only need to look no further than yourself. You're so focused on the way it did *not* happen that even 1700 scientists (with nothing to gain and everything to lose) can't even pursuade you to even consider an alternative perspective.