I don't believe in the holographic plane stuff; I also think that stuff is "multiverse brain". I realize that one of my links mentioned holograms, but if you are aware of the concept of modified limited hangouts, then you realize that all pieces of evidence and claims must be analyzed critically and independently of its source, because sometimes disinformation or loony stuff is mixed in with the truth to throw you off.
Is it possible, conceivable for you at all, to think that maybe you might be wrong?
Yes, of course.
but was much more difficult to do?
I think it's debatable which destruction conspiracy is more difficult. Rigging a skyscraper for demolition in secret is difficult but there is precedent for it, and most theorists believe the WTC owner was in on it.
On the other hand, to successfully bring down a building with a plane requires:
A successful hijacking
Bullseye accuracy hitting a slim tower at 500 mph
The hit causing damage sufficient to cause collapse
Yes, each of these things is possible, but they are each, at the very least, a gamble. And doing all of them in succession successfully, twice, is slightly more difficult. Comparable to the difficulty of rigging a building using spooky contractors, IMHO.
Why is the first conspiracy too boring for you?
No, it's a matter of the physical evidence. And the uncanny video of the collision. And the fact that the planes were not physically capable of the speeds the exhibited in the video. Those pieces of evidence make me lean towards the no planes theory.
I don't believe in the holographic plane stuff; I also think that stuff is "multiverse brain". I realize that one of my links mentioned holograms, but if you are aware of the concept of modified limited hangouts, then you realize that all pieces of evidence and claims must be analyzed critically and independently of its source, because sometimes disinformation or loony stuff is mixed in with the truth to throw you off.
Yes, of course.
I think it's debatable which destruction conspiracy is more difficult. Rigging a skyscraper for demolition in secret is difficult but there is precedent for it, and most theorists believe the WTC owner was in on it.
On the other hand, to successfully bring down a building with a plane requires:
Yes, each of these things is possible, but they are each, at the very least, a gamble. And doing all of them in succession successfully, twice, is slightly more difficult. Comparable to the difficulty of rigging a building using spooky contractors, IMHO.
No, it's a matter of the physical evidence. And the uncanny video of the collision. And the fact that the planes were not physically capable of the speeds the exhibited in the video. Those pieces of evidence make me lean towards the no planes theory.