It could have been. Only an idiot would believe everything they hear and not have any doubts despite the claims against it.
English
-
My question was: What would be the advantage of faking a collapse over causing a real collapse? Why not just cause real collapses if you are going to go that far to begin with? Makes no sense.
-
Well that would just be a waste of planes and more people dead. Not to mention ramming planes into a building doesn't seem like an intuitive approach to make a building collapse vertically.
-
They could've just as easily planted large bombs and said "the terrorists used explosives to take down the WTC". The government has smart people in it. They would know that, if they went with this approach, there would be some discrepancies about whether or not the planes were actually able to take down the towers. Why not just say "they used bombs"?
-
Edited by Lincoln Osiris: 3/27/2013 1:17:12 AMWhy would you worry about how many planes wasted or people dead? What difference would the way it collapses make?
-
Because they had to minimize the death tole. That's why they caused a vertical collapse because it causes the least amount of damage in the city and least amount of deaths as opposed to it toppling over.
-
What would be the motive in minimizing the death toll? You would cause less deaths by not faking a terrorist attack. Where is the logic?
-
It had to be done. That being the case, you might as well try to at least limit the death toll. Frankly minimizing the damage to one the most prosperous cities in the world was probably the biggest factor.
-
LOL. Perfect6 logic. DERP.