Reply #58: It's like this...

[Kevin Fenton]

There are two explanations as to why the WTC was blown up. There is the false-flag operation to stimulate war and there is the "explosives were there anyway" argument, which I favour (and which Griffin ignores, the way he ignores all other explanations for government malfeasance). Basically, after the 1993 bombing (the bombers tried to collapse one tower onto the other, which would then fall onto Lower Manhattan itself - just try imagining that) it is argued that a decision was taken to plant explosives, so that a tower could be taken straight town, instead of faling sideways in the event of repeat. This seems a better explanation to me because the demolition is so obvious (i.e. it looks obvious to me) - I'm amazed they've got away with it. Actually, I'm not sure they will. There must have been a company in the WTC that was used as cover to get the explosives inside. I had a look at the elevator service company, as many of the core columns were accessible from the elevator shafts and nobody would notice explosives being placed in an elevator shaft. This is what I found:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
The funny stuff starts in 1994, which provides (OK, inconclusive) support for my argument.

Yes, would say the poor air defense responsive is suggestive (but not proof) of government complicity, but that does not necessarily imply foreknowledge. In fact, the worsening quality of the response implies the opposite.