Quote Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero View Post
called for
-_-

No O, that's your interpretation given that you already believe in a conspiracy. It isn't evidence. The document doesn't "call for it", it's widely available for goodness sakes; it's just an observation. A correct observation; the US government obviously did capitalise on the attacks in the way it suggests. And no it doesn't give me "cause to pause", that would be to suggest that A being a motive for B is evidence that A was the motive for B, which is a logical fallacy.

Unfortunately, downing a couple of passenger planes wouldn't have quite filled that requirement, would it?
-_-

Why do you keep spinning stuff like this? They weren't going to 'down them', they were going to fly them into the Twin Towers, something that would almost certainly destroy them, and in any case give rise to massive anger. Why are you acting like flying two huge passenger planes into one of America's most famous landmarks and killing thousands of people is a long way from 'filling the requirement' of gaining public support for a war??

And so what, if people heard some banging and clunking going around in the service hallways of the building? Who in their right mind would come to the conclusion that someone was planting bombs in the building...even if they did happen to stumble upon a bunch of workers doing 'something or other'?
-_-

I don't know why you think I was referring to rigging the building with explosives. That doesn't tend to be the most ostensible part of a controlled demolition. The bit where you explode several floor's worth of dynamite is. Can you provide a single example of a controlled demolition which wasn't blatantly obvious?