>>154179>>154180I think it might be a mistake to think it's
either hijackers
or controlled demolitions/an inside job. Tower 7, to me, seems incredibly odd - it sustained damage, but had never been directly hit by either of the planes, and it collapsed about as hard as the two main towers did. There are some buildings in Gaza which look better after direct missile attacks and burning than tower 7 did after fire and debris. I don't
know if any of the WTC buildings were demolished in controlled explosions, but tower 7 certainly makes the idea that they simply collapsed from heat and sheer impact seem a bit odd.
More definitively, both US and Israeli (!!!) intelligence were keeping tabs on most or all of the hijackers prior to 9/11, and specifically warned the president that an attack was coming. It's an interesting detail because, and of course the neocons who signed onto the Project for a New American Century had, a few years prior, stated that they wanted a "new Pearl Harbor" to justify toppling Saddam. It's also funny to think that this entire scenario played out almost 20 years earlier in the 1982 film
Wrong Is Right, complete with media complicity. My thought, and it's honestly a sort of basic bitch thought at this point, is that it's likely that the hijackers were more-or-less dupes of US and Israeli intelligence, in the sense that they were
allowed to carry out the attack by parties who intended to use it to their advantage… and it's not unlikely that these same parties used it as cover for demolitions, too.