• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why complexity?

JonnyFive

Illuminator
J
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
4,459
I know this has probably been addressed before, but I'd love to see a straight answer to it.

A simple question for any CTs out there: Why the need for such a complex plot, if 9/11 is all an inside job?

Why not just set off some big bombs? Why not use nerve gas? Why not simply crash planes into a building and not use controlled demolition? Why use fake phone calls and missiles and holographic planes?

Operational planning favors simplicity. Ever element of complexity that is introduced adds another possible screw up to the plan. The level of complexity of the 9/11 conspiracy theories isn't just high, it's immense on scale never before seen. You are talking about thousands upon thousands of people all keeping their mouths shut. You are talking about a thousand little elements that could have gone wrong.

Even one person who got a tinge of guilt would break the whole thing wide open. Even one single government agent who decided they'd had enough and had actual evidence.

How is all this plausible? Can you name any other complex operations which went exactly according to plan with no slip ups? Can you name any other massive secret plots where no one came out and explained the truth?

Seriously, why not just go with a simpler plan?
 
Last edited:
JonnyFive said:
Seriously, why not just go with a simpler plan?
Click to expand...

Where's the fun in that?

But seriously seriously, of course the NWO/Illuminati/Bilderbergers/Reptoids want us to think it's too complex to be a conspiracy.

At least, that's what they told me at our last "World Domination and chease and wine" evening.
 
uk_dave said:
At least, that's what they told me at our last "World Domination and chease and wine" evening.
Click to expand...

I like cheese, but I'm not a big wine drinker. Any chance I could join?

I mean there is no conspiracy you are all getting sleeeepy!
 
This is one of the reasons I never believed any of it.

This thing is waaaaay too complex and expensive, one minor screw-up and the whole thing is exposed... The conspirators must have had either the biggest balls, or the smallest brains in history.
 
Psychological effect @ WTC. After first impact, all eyes and cameras were pointing toward the towers.
 
geggy said:
Psychological effect @ WTC. After first impact, all eyes and cameras were pointing toward the towers.
Click to expand...
That's true!

All you need for this is a first plane to crash into the first tower, and a second one to crash in the other tower some 20 minutes later. Nothing complex about that.
 
Firestone said:
That's true!

All you need for this is a first plane to crash into the first tower, and a second one to crash in the other tower some 20 minutes later. Nothing complex about that.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so why is the CT line not "the government convinced some terrorists to fly planes into buildings" but "the government lined the building with C4 and used controlled demolition and faked the flight 93 calls..." ad nauseum.

I agree that it was very dramatic. I think that the terrorists knew exactly what kind of impact it would have. That wasn't the point of the OP.

But why not just stop there? Why go into all the additional bells and whistles and cruise missiles and holograms, as many CTs claim?
 
Whereas a simpler plot to hijack planes with weapons the lax security at US domestic airports allowed on board, take advantage of the accepted hijack scenario of compliance hopefully leading to landing and then negotiation, fly the hijacked planes using autopilot for the boring parts, and then hitting the three main symbols of US power: Economic, Military and Political is much more believable than CD, space beams, remote controlled aircraft, shoot down/stand down, get down/get up, boogie wit me baby.....
 
Well, the only "simple" conspiracy is the one which says the US govt were/are in secret agreement with al Qaeda. I'm sure there are plenty of conspiracy theorists who believe this.

Since they are obviously in some sort of symbiosis anyway (both needing the other part to rally supporters) it is not so far-fetched, except in reality such relations quite often appear spontanesously without the need of any secret negotiations.
 
Bingo. Observe weaknesses in your enemy, exploit those weaknesses. It's especially easy when you don't have to worry about coming back.

I hate those people and what they did that day, but I will never make the mistake of calling them incompetent. They knew what they were doing, and they planned it out carefully.

Even that plan didn't go 100% right, thankfully. Imagine if flight 93 had managed to hit something in DC.

But, say many CTs, the whole thing with flight 93 went perfectly according to plan. Not sure what the point of crashing a plane into a field was, but okay.
 
Merko said:
Well, the only "simple" conspiracy is the one which says the US govt were/are in secret agreement with al Qaeda. I'm sure there are plenty of conspiracy theorists who believe this.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. This is a remarkably simple, much more plausible conspiracy. It doesn't even require a large number of participants in the government, just a couple ones with the right connections.

Of course, I haven't seen any proof of this conspiracy, but it's a great deal more likely than the other theories I've seen. It seems that it would require much fewer logical leaps than some of the other theories, although some good documentation would have to be found.
 
JonnyFive said:
Exactly, so why is the CT line not "the government convinced some terrorists to fly planes into buildings" but "the government lined the building with C4 and used controlled demolition and faked the flight 93 calls..." ad nauseum.

I agree that it was very dramatic. I think that the terrorists knew exactly what kind of impact it would have. That wasn't the point of the OP.

But why not just stop there? Why go into all the additional bells and whistles and cruise missiles and holograms, as many CTs claim?
Click to expand...
Indeed why. It doesn't make any sense.

I guess the answer was given many years ago by Richard Hofstadter in his interesting paper "The Paranoid Style in American Politics". His conclusion:
A distinguished historian has said that one of the most valuable things about history is that it teaches us how things do not happen. It is precisely this kind of awareness that the paranoid fails to develop. He has a special resistance of his own, of course, to developing such awareness, but circumstances often deprive him of exposure to events that might enlighten him—and in any case he resists enlightenment.
We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well.
Click to expand...
In more than 40 years not much has changed.
 
Remember, the theory is reverse-engineered. That is to say, the Deniers start with the conclusion (Bush/Cheney/NWO/Jews did it), and then sift through the evidence looking for support. However, there is a requirement that the CT must result in virtually the same outcome. That is, a CT that doesn't end with the twin towers collapsing and something causing an explosion at the Pentagon, and a hole in the ground in Shanksville, is not going to gain very many adherents.
 
One thing that is really interesting...

If you look at the victims at WTC, aside from the first responders, virtually everyone who died was killed either by impact, or because they were trapped above the impact zone.

Just about everyone that *could* evacuate did.

Given the nature of the situation, it is almost a certainty that, had the buildings not collapsed, those trapped above the impact would would have all died anyway from the fires.

There was simply no way the FDNY could reach them in time to save them.

So if we take the CD theory, all the additional effort of laying explosives, all the additional risk of being caught out, was purely for the sake of killing 300+ first responders who (according to WTC7 theories) were in on it anyway!

The CD theory is totally illogical, as well as impossible.

-Gumboot
 
After his 1996 conviction Ramzi Yousef (the mastermind behind the 1993 WTC bombing) said he realized he had not used enough explosives to bring the building down but, given another chance, he'd correct that "error".

So yeah, if you told me terrorists had planted explosives in the WTC and that's what caused it destruction I would have believed it. No plane crashes necessary.

If UN weapons inspectors said they found WMD in Iraq I would have supported the invasion of Iraq. Why not bother to plant a few WMD?

Why use Saudis for your "patsies" when you want to go to war with Iraq?
 
Alt+F4 said:
Why use Saudis for your "patsies" when you want to go to war with Iraq?
Click to expand...


I think it's an emotional thing.

The CTers try to associate their cause with a moral high ground, thus implying those that disagree are immoral. Being anti the government isn't enough - previous elections indicate a good chunk of the population support the current government.

Afghanistan is too ambiguous a war to really gain major support - it was internationally supported, and justified by the 9/11 Attacks.

However Iraq is another story. A very large chunk of people are strongly opposed to the Iraq War. Many that DID support it no longer do. It's very visible and in-your-face in the media, unlike Afghanistan.

Associating their 9/11 Conspiracy Theories with Iraq is nothing more than an appeal to moral values. It implies "if you don't believe our conspiracies that means you support the war in Iraq".

Obviously it all falls apart on closer inspection, but the average person, confronted with an emotive argument, doesn't look closer.

-Gumboot
 
geggy said:
Psychological effect @ WTC. After first impact, all eyes and cameras were pointing toward the towers.
Click to expand...
Newcomers, thank you for riding the Woo Woo Choo Choo. We'll be arriving at geggy's "closed frontal lobe theory" shortly.

When the frontal lobes of their brains are shut down that's caused by the feeling of fear and distress, their judgement becomes clouded and they will believe in anything that is said to them, especially by those who they expect to make them feel safe.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1607672&postcount=2061
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom