Friday, September 11, 2009

I've answered your hypothetical, now you answer mine.

Here is how you answer a hypothetical. You state up front "for the sake of discussion" and "assuming this, that, and the other thing", and then you proceed to think outside your normal narrow-minded box, put yourself into an unfamiliar point-of-view, and simply answer the question to the best of your ability.

As part of his own non-answer to my question (which to him would have been a hypothetical), EncinoM throws out his own hypothetical regarding the difficulty of wiring buildings for demolition.

Here's how I'll answer EncinoM:

In going into the details of building occupancy, security, challenges of rigging the building for demolition, etc., your hypothetical seems to make many assumptions regarding the perpetrators and the demolition methods available. Everything you mentioned would indeed be a near insurmountable challenge for an outsider, not to mention a foreigner (from Afghani caves who then died in a jet crash).

Think outside the box.

  • IF the true perpetrators weren't outsiders but were insiders,
  • IF they were building tenants (like the CIA, not a hypothetical),
  • IF they had influential ties on the board of directors of the companies running security details,
  • IF they had been planning and working on this a long time,
  • IF they had deep pockets with respect paying for (outsourced) experts and non-conventional demolition methods,

THEN everything you bring up in your hypothetical is a, *ho-hum*, minor inconvenience: something to think about, plan for, and implement on the graveyard shift under the guise of housecleaning or maintenance when few would notice or care. Nothing more.

Case in point, nano-thermite explosives, as is being suggested now, was not something necessarily that bomb sniffing dogs would catch. Wireless technology may be more expensive, but solves a good portion not only of the rigging issue, but also of tell-tale wiring remnants in the debris pile. Some believe that certain floors were targeted, therefore rigging withstanding jet impacts did not have to be an issue.

Tons of explosive material? True with conventional demolition methods, but easily solved with extended preparation time or large crew sizes, or both. Is it true with non-conventional demolition methods? Doesn't matter except that if false, then prep times or crew sizes can be reduced.

There, I've addressed your hypothetical question. Now you answer my (not so hypothetical) question:

"What are the ramifications of free-fall in any stage of collapse in any of the buildings destroyed on 9/11 both in the context local to the event and in the greater context of geo-political concerns?"

No comments: