simonshack 4 Oct 19 2010, 11:37 PM wrote:And I'll say one more thing: If you don't get this, you are not going to be a credible member of this forum.
I know you probably have discussed this a hundred times Simon, but some of us haven't yet (I haven't) and because one person cannot figure out everything by himself, and the material on this forum or elsewhere is quite vast to be taken all in (it must
happen over time, over years of research), maybe there is no need to question the "credibility" of people for this (well, it's your call, of course).
Anyway, your arguments make perfect sense. I wanna expose my line of thought only because possibly it can be useful to others:
As we all have seen and discussed many times, a big part of the perpetrators' plan was to include elements to divert attention towards pre-cooked "conspiracy" interpretations, including some unspecified and unprovable form of controlled demolition as evidence for the "inside job". So, because the WTC crime scene is
, among other things, the scene of a controlled demolition, one could think that this is where the two levels (reality and the conspiratorial diversion) could, at least in part, collimate. That's the misunderstanding.
I guess what's not considered enough is that you cannot use *just some* real imagery that might work to feed either the official or the conspiratorial stories. You cannot because you have to create a whole set and it has to be coherent in all its parts: the planners could not be sure that the result of the demolition would fit harmlessly in its entirety, not even for the purpose to feed the conspiratorial crowd. This, in my understanding, is why reality had to be avoided completely also in presenting "the rubble".
For example, pictures like this one:
have a hazy nature that is perfect to be fed to the "conspiracy" crowd (rather than to the "official story" crowd). Those craters in the buildings look weird and yet they don't provide any answer or give out any useful clue.
Conversely, the perpetrators of the plan couldn't be 100% sure that the real imagery of a high-grade explosive demolition rubble would maintain those two qualities (drive the "people with questions" nuts, without providing any useful clue). Being reality, it probably would have provided some clue.
By the way, here is a larger crop of those buffoons in pose:
What a photoshop disaster... other than looking cut-out and pasted: The neck of the guy to the left; the "smoke" he seems to have in front of his face, while he is obviously not smoking; the lines on half of the face of the guy to the right... etc.