What Exactly is a "Truther?" Is Truth Bad Now?

[Supreme]

Searching for the truth is a great thing. It's just that 9/11 Truthers claim to know the truth TM about an event that every piece of evidence goes against, so they are mocked and ridiculed.

 

[Senator Cheese]

First, thanks for the response. I appreciate you approaching this with an open mind. While one of my goals is certainly to persuade people who read my posts to my perspective (if i am, in fact, correct), engaging in reasonable discussion and learning from others are both reasons i post in these types of forums.

No problem, that's what most of us are here for.

I'm not going to get involved in a discussion about how much power different monied interests have in US politics. It's an extremely layered topic - one in which i have much more learning to do.

Ok.

Just read posts 29 & 51 in this thread. Essentially, i show examples of how some administration claims don't align with the facts, as well as showing evidence that, at the very least, some in the government had more knowledge about the threat on 9/11 than the government claimed afterwards.

I've also highlighted motive for the administration to lie, with the possibilities ranging from the innocuous (covering up gross incompetence) to the treasonable (allowing the attacks to happen).

I will again say - I don't know all of the facts. I'm not in a position to obtain the information or get answers. However, those who were in that position shirked their duty, and clear questions were largely ignored by the media (just like the billions of dollars flown into Iraq on palates was unaccounted for and the only news we got was a little blip of a blurb on the subject. One would think these types of things would demand more scrutiny, but scrutiny is not something the government welcomes.

Okay, so first I want to have a look at post 51: ((EDIT: I will look at theother post later; dont got time now)


#1) Yeah, I don't know whether or not the Bush administration was incompetent or intentionally misleading in the whole WMD thing. I remember that I had supported the intervention because Saddam did everything to have us believe that he really owned these weapons. After all, he refused weapons inspections and rather went to war than to give in to the ultimatum set by Bush.
On the other hand, Saddam had really lousy advisors, too. I remember articles from the time in which they were quoted to have advised Saddam that the US military was "no real threat" and that a US invasion would be "highly unlikely".
Then again, you wouldn't expect this problem from the US government. It seems fishy how quickly the entire WMD issue was dropped for "look, we created democracy" - but that might just as well have been a pathetic attempt to spin the entire story into a better light.
I also don't know what the overall US mideast strategy was, and whether or not they falsely assumed that they'd be celebrated as liberators like they were in Nazi Germany.. Questions over questions. :/

#2) I can't comment the tape thing. Why was the tape destroyed? If it contained interesting material, then surely one of the members on the tape would have said something about it. If this was Air Traffic control, then there would have been more witnesses to any purported claims than you could keep silent.

#3) That air traffic exercise seems kind of irrelevant - from what I gather, it wasn't about an attack but an exercise on technical malfunction. It's a weird coincidence - but then again one would need to know how often such exercises are done altogether. It seems as though quite a lot of different drills were being conducted on that day - but then again, I know that drills and exercises are commonplace in US rescue services.
United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

#4) I can imagine that the President/Administration gets briefed on a whole bunch of security threats. The United States is the most hated country in the world, simply because it is the most powerful. Some hat the US for intervening, others hate the US for failing to intervene, depending on the conflict. Either way, I don't believe that the administration only received threats about 9/11-style attacks, but a whole bunch of other attacks, too.
Did they fail in taking a 9/11-warning seriously? Maybe. Probably, even.
Then again, I don't think anyone saw an attack of such magnitude coming. :/

#5) Definetely agree on the WMD/Bin-Laden thing. Then again, like I said before, I think we might both be overestimating the competence/knowledge of our respective governments. The US lost a lot in Iraq - there were few who actually profited (almost all oil contracts went to China, so it certainly wasn't big oil). The venture into Iraq may have been stupid, but I don't know if it was deliberately misleading.

#6) I can't fathom to imagine that air traffic controllers were "silenced" in light of 9/11 and that someone actively kept the US Air Force from intervening. Like I said, there would be many, many witnesses - and it would require administration officials to know of the precise attack and when it would start. Not to mention that it'd make for a strange op to see politicians in an air traffic control center, exerting pressure.

I think that if the US had needed a reason to intervene in Iraq, then there could have been cheaper, easier and less dangerous (in the sense of exposure) means. Think of how many people would have to be involved in foreknowledge of such an attack - it's not very probable.
If they wanted political power to (for whatever reason - I still don't understand the "why") invade the Middle East, then there would have been plenty of arbitrary reasons to do so. The Iraq war made that clear enough.

Like i've said, i'm still on the fence between "they let it happen" and "it was gross incompetence that was subsequently covered up". Regardless, there was NO negative consequence for the administration under either of these scenarios, and, moreover, the attack enabled them to execute their pre-planned Middle East policies.

What was the point of those Middle East policies anyway?

I understand that compartmentalization of knowledge and predispositions can definitely play a role in contrasting "what the Pentagon knew" and "what the administration officials knew", but when i watched administration officials lie time and again in from post-9/11 through the run-up to the Iraq war, and throughout the Iraq war, it caused me to take a deeper look into what the truth actually was.

Occum's razor usually holds true: the most simple explanation is often the correct one.

I don't think any President would risk his life and legacy (sooner or later, all conspiracies find their way to the public eye) for a military operation into the Middle East. Imagine Bush had really let it happen and just one of the individuals involved slipped up and had concise evidence! He and his entire administration would have been summarily executed!

One last note. As much as i condemn the Bush administration for their actions, i'm not a Democrat. I tend to align with liberals on many issues (equal rights, women's rights, etc), but find Democrats and Republicans on the whole to be different shades of politicians, both beholden to big money, and neither acting in the best interests of the citizenry on a consistent basis. Like any generalization, there are exceptions to the rule, but politicians who have found success on the national stage have generally sold out - largely due to the fact that it is INCREDIBLY difficult to succeed on the national stage UNLESS you sell out. "Radical" (aka non establishment) voices are routinely ignored by the mainstream media. The mainstream media - left and right wing - are largely voices for the establishment at this point.

I think Bush was a fairly good president when it came to foreign policy.
The Iraq war as a disaster, but (assuming that the Bush administration really thought Saddam had WMDs) Saddam did his best to force an invasion into his country.

 

[RDKirk]

#1) Yeah, I don't know whether or not the Bush administration was incompetent or intentionally misleading in the whole WMD thing. I remember that I had supported the intervention because Saddam did everything to have us believe that he really owned these weapons. After all, he refused weapons inspections and rather went to war than to give in to the ultimatum set by Bush.
On the other hand, Saddam had really lousy advisors, too. I remember articles from the time in which they were quoted to have advised Saddam that the US military was "no real threat" and that a US invasion would be "highly unlikely"..

A major strategic disadvantage of being a ruthless dictator is that your staff won't tell you the real truth.

Saddam did, indeed, want to maintain a WMD program structure if/when the UN stopped watching him. What he was shell-gaming from UN inspecters were the basic rudiments to restart his program if he ever got the chance.

I suspect that there was actually less left of the program in existence than his advisors let him realize.

There was also a very real misunderstanding of psychology in both directions. American politicians don't really understand the kind of psychology they're facing when dealing with a man who literally assassinated his way into the level of government control that they merely gladhanded their way into.

An American president does not begin to understand how to negotiate with a counterpart who has the power merely to pull a gun out of his desk and shoot a political annoyance.

And what does that man think of a US president who doesn't have that kind of control over his own government? "What a weakling Bush is! He can't even kill a man if he wants to! And he thinks to make a demand of me? Preposterous!"

When Saddam offered to meet Bush in hand-to-hand combat to settle their national differences, Saddam was not kidding.

 

[ManFromUncle]

Except there were pictures of the plane parts both inside and out, and even at least one picture of a passenger's body from inside the pentagon. The hole was so small because that was roughly the size of the plane's main body.

There were literally over a hundred witnesses that saw a plane heading at the pentagon.

People are trying to make these huge elaborate conspiracies, which in reality always fall apart which is why people generally don't try to do them. It is much easier to do simpler ones with less moving parts, say like, knowing the attacks are going to happen and letting them. Or even carrying out the attacks yourself. But to try carry out the attack and fake the nature of it in ways that would involve thousands of witness and accomplices is so mind bogglingly unfeasible.

People have to deal with the fact that a plane hit the Pentagon, and 2 planes took down the twin towers. This happened. Cope with it. Who was behind it, knew about it before hand, etc., much of that can be more easily debated. While difficult, you could contain an operation to crash those planes and blame AQ, but you also depend on them taking credit. You could definitely contain knowledge that an attack was imminent. But to make all these unnecessary moves for absolutely no gain? No. Not even the most incompetent of governments would do this.

Believing 2 planes could take down the the Twin Towers, not to mention WTC7 which wasn't even hit by a plane, betrays an ignorance of basic physics. But you don't need to understand physics you just need to believe what your own eyes are telling you. The official story defenders here have been strenuously ignoring the plain evidence of the aerial photo ten days after the attacks showing the tower frames in thousands of cleanly-cut, straight pieces flung out for hundreds of feet in all directions.

It is a fact that steel cannot fly out for two football fields laterally, at 80MPH, without help from explosives. This is not conspiracy it's just scientific fact. The many straight, spinning objects in the video below are 3-5 foot wide pieces of steel beam. Gravity doesn't do that.

[youtube]cBTGMhRT_p0[/youtube]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/101031312/wtc.html

 

[Senator Cheese]

Believing 2 planes could take down the the Twin Towers, not to mention WTC7 which wasn't even hit by a plane, betrays an ignorance of basic physics. But you don't need to understand physics you just need to believe what your own eyes are telling you. The official story defenders here have been strenuously ignoring the plain evidence of the aerial photo ten days after the attacks showing the tower frames in thousands of cleanly-cut, straight pieces flung out for hundreds of feet in all directions.

It is a fact that steel cannot fly out for two football fields laterally, at 80MPH, without help from explosives. This is not conspiracy it's just scientific fact. The many straight, spinning objects in the video below are 3-5 foot wide pieces of steel beam. Gravity doesn't do that.

1.) For someone who makes posts about a Jewish world conspiracy and who claims the US spends billions of dollars because it thinks it's fun to "bomb Muslims", you should really not call someone else ignorant. It's hilarious to an extent.

2.) If matters really were so simple, why do more than 99% of engineering and physics professors (who actually study the subject instead of reiterating some amateur blog sites) remain silent on the issue? Could it be that their calculations and estimations seem to go hand-in-hand with the official reports?

Unfastened Coins: Titanic Conspiracy - YouTube

Are you a Christian, by the way?

 

[keith99]

Just curious...
Do you have an explanation why the third building that went down on 9/11 was already wired for demolition, waiting for the order to "pull it"?

...Not why the decision to pull it down was made, but why it was already wired for that decision...

No. And the only evidence for that is one garbled audio feed.

Do you have any explanation of how explosives could be set and a building where daily business was going on could be wired for demolition without any one noticing?

One other trait of a Truther is they choke on gnats in the official explanation while easily swallowing camels in the Truther version.

 

[Btodd]

In the wake of 9/11, administration officials - Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney (in the rare event that he actually addressed the public) consistently lied, regardless of whether they were lying about WMD intelligence (the lack of WMDs in Iraq relative to the administrations claims weren't the result of bad intelligence, they were the result of intentionally misrepresented intelligence). Somehow, lying to cover up incompetence is dismissed by you as a non-item.

I never, ever said, nor implied, that lying about incompetence was a ‘non-item’. In fact, I stated that the Iraq War was unjustified, and increased the threat of terrorism. The issue we are discussing is whether or not there was a government conspiracy surrounding the events of 9/11. You apparently think there was foreknowledge of THE attack. I capitalized ‘THE’ because you you used that very specific language, and using that language means they knew that planes were going to be hijacked inside the U.S. and flown into specific targets on or around September 11th, 2001, and they let it happen anyway. There is no credible evidence to support this.

As for your ‘in the wake of 9/11’ argument, as Noam Chomsky has even pointed out, multiple governments around the world used the 9/11 attacks as justification for ramping up aggression toward other countries (or enemies of other sorts) in the name of fighting ‘terrorism’…which doesn’t have a thing to do with whether or not it had been planned by the government, or even ‘allowed to happen’.

Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.

9-11: Institutional Analysis vs. Conspiracy Theory | 911Blogger.com

Now, you can write him off along with me if you wish, because I have the same opinion. Talk of the Iraq War in the wake of 9/11 is a non-sequitur. The Iraq War was a non-sequitur in regard to 9/11, and so are arguments that try to connect it with a supposed government conspiracy on 9/11.

Regarding 9/11, they consistently made non-believable claims about what they knew beforehand, for example claiming no knowledge of the "Bin Laden determined to strike" memo. We'll get more into what they might have known in a bit. Suffice to say, it looks like your giving them a pass for lying, as you believe it was lying to cover up incompetence. If being warned by intelligence reports about an impending attack and doing nothing to stop it is incompetence, then i'll agree with you, except for the part that it's not a big deal.

I already addressed the accusation that I think it’s ‘no big deal’. That also wasn’t what we were debating…we were debating whether or not there was a government conspiracy at work here. You particularly took issue with my appeal to Occam’s Razor in my prior summation.

My "alternate explanation" is that they were aware of the threat of planes being used as weapons, and that Condoleeza Rice flagrantly lied about it.

We’re pretty close to agreement here, that she made it sound like there was no prior suspicion of such a tactic, but I don’t consider that more than proof of trying to cover up incompetence. Without evidence of something worse, I don’t make that leap to belief in a conspiracy at work here.

It's hard to say. There were several reports that indicated that the simulation caused some confusion with air traffic control on 9/11. Those that think it's more sinister (i.e. that it was more than gross incompetence rather some involvement of the administration) say that the exercises on that day helped create the environment which allowed the attack to succeed.

Hard to see how that would affect Air Traffic Control, since the proposed exercise did not involve a real plane, and didn’t even occur…it was cancelled.

"And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed. Operatives connected to Bin Laden, one reported on June 29, expected the planned near-term attacks to have “dramatic consequences,” including major casualties. On July 1, the brief stated that the operation had been delayed, but “will occur soon.” Some of the briefs again reminded Mr. Bush that the attack timing was flexible, and that, despite any perceived delay, the planned assault was on track.

I suspect that there are constant warnings about coming terror attacks, and this doesn’t state that there were any specific warnings about planes being hijacked inside the U.S. and flown into targets. That’s not to say that they couldn’t have done more (although hindsight is 20/20), but it doesn’t even come close to establishing foreknowledge of the attack that occurred on 9/11...I personally think that the reaction of almost everyone was the same as mine...personal incredulity that this was actually pulled off. But it was.

My attempt to make this into a smoking gun? No, it's another suspicious coincidence. You seem to be the one to disregard the all the other evidence and make me being able to explain motives or specifics into the end-all-be-all for this.

This was your quote:

“It's obviously a non-suspicious coincidence that the plane which slammed into the Pentagon, happened to hit the ONLY side which had just been reinforced to withstand a blast.”

Now, if you are saying that you agree that the planes were flown by the hijackers, then what on Earth are you implying is suspicious about this? Are you suggesting that the hijackers wanted to cause loss of life at the Pentagon, but ‘not too much’, so they intentionally crashed into the recently reinforced side?

Please explain, because this seems to only make sense if you think there was more going on than just ‘letting it happen’. What else would be ‘suspicious’ about it?

No, the most important one will be the overall news and context, and trying to highlight any one item as the make-or-break item is a red herring. You've dismissed the vast evidence of foreknowledge and the lies about that knowledge afterwards as simple incompetence, and don't even seem concerned about it. If their incompetence and failure to respond to warnings had been publicly acknowledged, rather than dismissed by 9/11 falsers such as yourself, perhaps we would have been spared a 2nd term of George W. Bush (not that Kerry would have been much of an improvement).

I’ve listened to all of your points, not just one of them. I don’t see anything signifying specific information about an attack like this being known about, and once again, you’ve tried to accuse me of ‘not caring’ about people trying to cover up incompetence. I’m the one who acknowledged that in the first place, while you are busy jumping to more sinister conclusions. That’s your right to do so, but your arguments don’t warrant such a conclusion, IMO. I will grant you that they are WAY more plausible than the typical Truther fare, though.

"Bowman’s experience as a fighter pilot made him extremely skeptical of the government’s 9/11 narrative. Based on his experience, Bowman “knew that every time a commercial plane goes significantly off-course, a military fighter plane shows up next to it within about ten minutes. The fighter pilot rocks its wings as a signal to ‘follow me’ and get back.”

You already know about the protocol of NORAD prior to 9/11, and it did not include them intercepting hijackings originating inside the country. You should also know about the issues with the transponders being turned off prior to planes changing directions (which throw a real kink into the idea that a fighter jet would show up ‘within about ten minutes’ of a flight that people are trying to figure out the location of) , as well as the timeline of each flight and what was known about them at specific times during their flights. If you want to pursue that more, we can…but it’s much more complicated than appealing to Robert Bowman’s belief that it involved a government conspiracy.

He wondered how four allegedly hijacked planes flew through America’s skies for nearly two hours without being harassed by US air defenses.

This is again being very loose with the language, because it makes it sound like all 4 flights were flying around for 2 hours. That’s not how it happened at all, and we can get into the details of each flight if you really want to try to make a case that they should have been easily intercepted.


Btodd

 

[Btodd]

There were parts on the ground, but they didn't seem to go to a 757.

Really? Name one.


Btodd

 

[RDKirk]

It is a fact that steel cannot fly out for two football fields laterally, at 80MPH, without help from explosives. This is not conspiracy it's just scientific fact. The many straight, spinning objects in the video below are 3-5 foot wide pieces of steel beam. Gravity doesn't do that.

Yes, gravity does, given tons of pressure.

Explosives can't be hidden--they leave indelible traces of synthetic compounds. If that much explosive had been used, any number of experts would have been able to determine with absolute certainty not only that explosives were used, but even what country produced it.

 

[Rick Otto]

No. And the only evidence for that is one garbled audio feed.

I would assert that the building falling into it's footprint pretty much like the towers did, except without a plane strike, is evidence that it was wired for demolition. Can you suggest anything more plausible?
Btw, I heard the audio clip and I didn't hear any garbled, just ordinary low quality radio voices. Nothing was difficult to understand in the clip I heard.

Do you have any explanation of how explosives could be set and a building where daily business was going on could be wired for demolition without any one noticing?

Why would it have to be done during regular business hours?

One other trait of a Truther is they choke on gnats in the official explanation while easily swallowing camels in the Truther version.

Couldn't it as well be true that a "falser" chokes on a nat from an unofficial but professional investigator while swallowing camels in the official report?
I'm recalling the The Warren Report.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yes, gravity does, given tons of pressure.

Explosives can't be hidden--they leave indelible traces of synthetic compounds. If that much explosive had been used, any number of experts would have been able to determine with absolute certainty not only that explosives were used, but even what country produced it.

Evidence can be classified.

 

[ManFromUncle]

Yes, gravity does, given tons of pressure.

Explosives can't be hidden--they leave indelible traces of synthetic compounds. If that much explosive had been used, any number of experts would have been able to determine with absolute certainty not only that explosives were used, but even what country produced it.

No, gravity does not neatly cut 3 ft. to 5 ft. wide steel beams into thousands of short pieces and hurl them laterally at 80MPH for hundreds of feet, what you are seeing here:

[youtube]cBTGMhRT_p0[/youtube]

Here is the aftermath:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/101031312/wtc.html




You are right about explosive residue, but you have to test for them before you find them, and NIST never tested for them. However other people did test many dust samples and found evidence of thermite, You'll still find it today if you go to Fesh Kills landfill and scoop up the dirt.

9-11 Research: Thermite

 

[morningstar2651]

You seem wholly unable to distinguish between a skeptic (such as myself) and a conspiracy theorist who believes any and all conspiracies.

Moreover, your links seem to unwittingly acknowledge that not all things labeled "conspiracy theories" are false.

"Suspicions of President Nixon’s involvement in a burglary at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee began as a seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, but turned out to be true"

Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. | Robbie Sutton - Academia.edu

Watergate isn't the only former "conspiracy theory" to have been later proven true.

True Government Conspiracies - Business Insider

Does this mean that all conspiracy theories are true? Absolutely not. Believing that the government doesn't keep secrets, many of which relate to ethically questionable or worse actions, is truly the epitome of magical thinking.

If 90% of conspiracy theories are false (and over half of them ridiculous), then I am correct 90% of the time if I assume all conspiracy theories are false until proven true.

A skeptic isn't someone who assumes they are being lied to by the authorities unless evidence is provided to show that they are not being lied to. A skeptic is someone who hears a ridiculous story about the faked moon landing and responds with the standard questions.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Why would it have to be done during regular business hours?

So how did a group of people enter, night after night, a highly populated buildings in a densely populated city and yet no-one ever saw them and they were never spotted on CCTV?

And why the need to do it at all - flying the planes into the WTC would be excuse enough if the government wanted an excuse for war, and there would be no possibility of being found out?

And if the building was pre-wired, then how do you convince people to suicide themselves in planes as part of your conspiracy when all you need to do is blow up the building?

And it still doesn't explain the Pentagon

 

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE=Trogdor the Burninator;66379302]So how did a group of people enter, night after night, a highly populated buildings in a densely populated city and yet no-one ever saw them and they were never spotted on CCTV?

They were seen with their black vans night after night, but you won't find out if you don't want to know. Just like you won't believe that if you believe office buildings are "highly populated" at night, and that people aren't generally busy with their personal agendas to give attention to what looks like a maintenance crew.

And why the need to do it at all - flying the planes into the WTC would be excuse enough if the government wanted an excuse for war, and there would be no possibility of being found out?

Not really. They needed terror to start an unending war on terror. Drama is fuel.

And if the building was pre-wired, then how do you convince people to suicide themselves in planes as part of your conspiracy when all you need to do is blow up the building?

No plane hit the third building.
How do you know the planes weren't empty and remote controlled?
How different is a suicide bomber on a plane any harder to convince than all the walking suicide bombers?


Btw,... I gotta give you props on your forum handle. I chuckle every time I see it. Good one. Lol

 

[Senator Cheese]

Not really. They needed terror to start an unending war on terror. Drama is fuel.

Aren't four hijacked planes being crashed into three icons of world power terror enough?

 

[RDKirk]

Evidence can be classified.

Any explosives expert can determine that explosives were or were not used. The government can only classify information the government creates.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

They were seen with their black vans night after night, but you won't find out if you don't want to know.

Then there'd be pictures of the vans and the people from them

How do you know the planes weren't empty and remote controlled?
How different is a suicide bomber on a plane any harder to convince than all the walking suicide bombers?

Because if the planes were empty, then someone has to provide evidence as to where the "real" planes went. And so far there's been none

Btw,... I gotta give you props on your forum handle. I chuckle every time I see it. Good one. Lol

i'm glad you like it. I actually only chose it because I couldn't think of anything else, and Homestar was around at the time

 

[morningstar2651]

So how did a group of people enter, night after night, a highly populated buildings in a densely populated city and yet no-one ever saw them and they were never spotted on CCTV?

And why the need to do it at all - flying the planes into the WTC would be excuse enough if the government wanted an excuse for war, and there would be no possibility of being found out?

And if the building was pre-wired, then how do you convince people to suicide themselves in planes as part of your conspiracy when all you need to do is blow up the building?

And it still doesn't explain the Pentagon

Why fly multiple planes into multiple buildings when 1 plane would suffice for the purpose of inciting a war? Why spend the time and resources to rig other buildings for detonation? Here is the real 9/11 conspiracy - a group of middle-eastern terrorists conspired to fly planes into buildings, and they did it. The end.

No Jewish bankers, no illuminati, no templars, no bilderbergs, no CIA, no FEMA...just middle-eastern terrorists.

 

[keith99]

So how did a group of people enter, night after night, a highly populated buildings in a densely populated city and yet no-one ever saw them and they were never spotted on CCTV?

And why the need to do it at all - flying the planes into the WTC would be excuse enough if the government wanted an excuse for war, and there would be no possibility of being found out?

And if the building was pre-wired, then how do you convince people to suicide themselves in planes as part of your conspiracy when all you need to do is blow up the building?

And it still doesn't explain the Pentagon

Lets not forget there are cleaning crews at night. And people are known to work late.

And it would be a huge job to plant the explosives as described by Truthers. So I'm wondering did they have hundreds of demolition experts doing it in one night or were some of the explosives there for months without anyone noticing?