Jim Corr is talking about the New World Order right now!

toiletduck

@ the CTers, how many people do ye think were "in on it" i.e. how many individuals were involved in the planning and execution of the attacks?

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

I agree that opportunism is a valid reason for their to be a money trail, however, *your* logic is flawed.

I don't believe it is, but lets go through it.

There was wrongdoing in the 911 event itself. An act was committed which resulted in the deaths of many innocent people. Agreed? Good.

Agreed.

Now let's say a fraud was committed,

Wre you saying "lets take a completely different scenario - that of hypothetical fraud", or are you saying "lets assume that there was fraud involved in the wrongdoing of September 11, 2001?

If its the forner, sure. If its the latter, then I fall back on my point that any conclusion based on this is entirely dependant on establishing whether or not fraud did occur. You can't assume fraud, and then use those conclusions to conclude that the assumption was correct.

The evidence of who has gained from the event is overwhelmingly the US administration and US corporate interests.

On a financial level, US corporate interests have been served. The US government has almost bankrupted itself.

On an ideological level, Islamic fundamentalism has benefited beyond recognition, as has pretty-much anyone wishing the US to be held in lower esteem.

Indirectly, due to the increased focus of the US on Iraq, many other nations have benefited from a lower degree of attention.

The list goes on...but I think you get the point. Unless we're going to say that everyone in any identifiable beneficiary groups was behind it, then we're still left with the problem that benefiting from something does not imply culpability.

Benefiting the most does not imply culpability, even if we can meaningfully compare entirely different goals. If it does, then Bush & co cannot be responsible, because they personally have not benefited anywhere near the most.

As well you know Bonkey, it is impossible to prove that they staged the event, however, evidence of the money trail greatly increases suspicion and would be used as evidence in a criminal trial.

It would be used as evidence in a criminal trial if evidence showing culpability had been found. This is exactly my point. The notion of a money-trail will support any evidence of wrongdoing, but it is not in and of itself said evidence.

Get that evidence, and your money-trail becomes interesting. Without that evidence, or with evidence to the contrary, the money-trail matters not one whit. Its useful in building "what if" scenarios, but thats all.

When we look at what underlies the various conspiracy theories, people all too often tend to go into great detail on this stuff, and then sort of handwave at "all the other evidence which supports it"....when the reality is that it should be the other way around. We should establish the wrong-doing, and then handwave at the moneytrail and say "and that might help find who else was in on it".

suspectdevice

toiletduck wrote: »

@ the CTers, how many people do ye think were "in on it" i.e. how many individuals were involved in the planning and execution of the attacks?

That, for me anyway, is detail that is not requried. Whether it was 12 or 1200, makes no difference. In reality, we will never know. I would bring it back to the original nine, the nine Supreme Court Judges that denied the people of Florida their democratic rights and allowed that slime bag Georgie Bush to acquire the office of President. Thats where it all began, thats where he began to conclude the work carried out by Bush Senior. After all is said and done Bush's comment about Saddam sums it up, "he tried to kill my pappy in 1993" on foot of Israel disclosing information about a fictitious plot by Saddam to assasinate Bush Snr. Thats the level of dope we are dealing with, puppet for the Corporations.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

The masses are ignorant and cant be bothered reading. Thus they get their information fed to them by the mass media. This is a greater evil in my opinion, since it influences far more people than Youtube ever could. You cannot disregard the *research* of those who make Youtube or other documentaries simply because you don't agree with them.

My point was that youTube is no great boon to doing research. If the person who was singing its praises wants to class him- or herself as one of hte ignorant masses you refer to, then thats fine by me...you're more-or-less agreeing with the very comment that I made that he/she took such offence to.

As for "the greater evil", all you're arguing over there is market penetration. youTube is not a great gift to the ignorant masses because it can feed fewer of them different propaganda.

Are you 100% certain of the current official explanation of the 911 event?

The answer to that is the same as it has been every time I've been asked it in different flavours on the Conspiracy Theories forum. Of course I'm not. I'd be a fool if I was 100% certain. I'd certainly be disregarding scientific principles.

Do you feel that there are questions which us ... so called conspiracy theorists... ask which have been answered unsatisfactorally?

Certainly....but I question the significance of the questions, and generally find the alternative answers offered even less satisfactory.

As you know of me, the conclusion I have reached is based on my own research into the subject, as well as research into many aspects of world politics, history and 'conspiracy'. I believe that my opinion should be disproved. It has never been.

You can try and reword your way around it, but the level of "disproof" that you demand should never be set higher than the level of proof that you have reached.

If memory serves, you've claimed in the past that you reached your conclusion "on balance of probability", at which point I questioned that assertion on the grounds that I didn't believe you could meaningfully quantify the probabilities you were claiming to base your conclusion on.

Here, you've said that you want definitive proof that you are wrong, but you don't have definitive proof that you are right.

Those are differing standards.

If it is a bias, it's a bias that you also share on the flip side of the coin.

I don't believe so. If someone can give a solid reason to doubt a conclusion, I'll doubt it. I don't demand proof that its wrong...just evidence and logic that combine to show that there is a good reason to believe that it may be.

If anything, thats a lower standard than that which I've set for the things that I accept, so if I have bias, my bias favours being shown that the conclusions I believe are reasonably solid and solidly resaonable are, in fact, not.

mike65

A quickie for the Conspiracy Theorists, when the plan was hatched do you think the Men in Black would have given much consideration to the nature of the plot to fake a terrorist action and on its extent vis-a vis the likely mortality?

Mike.

suspectdevice

I don't think the Men in Black came up with the scheme, they found out about it, reported it and were told to let it happen. At the same time, if they had been asked to conspire to carry out an attack on American soil then I don't think they would consider number of casualties an issue.

There's a pretty cloud outside.

humanji

It's a chem trail!!!!!

curiousn

bonkey wrote: »

Tell you what...lets put this to the test.

Pick one thing in the official findings that doesn't make sense.

Seriously...just one thing. It can't be that hard.

You've asked for findings that don't "make sense" but I think you mean findings which aren't easily refuted by official NIST data.

This "just one thing" of irrefutable evidence you're looking for may not exist in the offical NIST data which seems to be acting as the benchmark against which all evidence has to be compared (according to defenders of the offical view).

bonkey wrote: »

"My rules", as you call them, are based on the scientific method.

If you understand how that works, then you know how to play by - and win with - my rules. If you don't how that works, then this has significant implications on any assessment of scientific work that you engage in....which would be the bulk of the "official findings" that I have defended on this forum over the duration that we've been discussing the topic.

Do you think that if NIST came across damning evidence during their research that the Bush administration would allow them to publish it? Please don't try and claim that nobody from the CIA would have been able to influence it in any way. It's not all that difficult to ignore something in a report or misrepresent something else to report the finding you want. How many times have pharmacteuticals been proven safe in "scientific double blind studies" only for them to be withdrawn from the market after a couple of years.
I'm not saying that the NIST investigation was influenced, but I've no doubt that they could have been. For this reason I don't necessarily trust their findings.

We may never have the irrefutable, scientific evidence you claim you need and for this reason I don't think you'll ever change your point of view. That's fine. I respect that you've taken the time to actually look into the matter instead of just dismissing the whole notion. (Although you share a different viewpoint, I'm not going to call you a looney or hurl insults)

However an agrument doesn't always need to have a supposed solid irrefutable scientific fact to back it up for it to be true. If a legal case doesn't have DNA evidence to prove someone was guilty it doesn't mean that they didn't do it, but if there's enough other evidence the court can find the guilty beyond reasonable doubt. With anything to do with NWO or 911 this is the territory we operate in. You're never going to find a signed document from Dick Cheney confessing to letting the attack happen. This evidence may never exist and we've got to rely on people without access to the best data (ground zero) trying to put pieces of the puzzle together (and invariably getting it wrong sometimes). This is why we have the top ten lists etc.. you dislike.

Personally I'm not convinced that the towers were destroyed with explosives and I don't want the bigger picture argument to be only focused on exactly how the towers fell (although I do think the attack was allowed to happen, whether they were destroyed by explosives or allowed to be destroyed by someone else achieves the same end)

I agree that some videos (which happen to be posted on youtube) can contain some misleading information with weak arguments.
There is a lot of misinformation out there (missile into Pentagon etc) which means that as soon as someone can show it's not true it means to them that there is no NWO and that the administration didn't let the attacks happen.

However, there is a lot of serious circumstantial evidence, when taken as a whole, and ignoring theories proven to be untrue, create what many people (although not you) consider to be a substantial argument worthy of further investigation:

=> The failure to follow standard operating procedures
=> Suppressed warnings,
=> Blocked investigations
=> Bush reading "the Pet Goat" instead of being Commander-in-Chief
the Air Force failure to intercept hijacked jets
=> Flight 77 (not a missile) hit - the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector. (nice coincidence it hit the almost empty area)
=> Why the air defenses did not protect the Pentagon (which should be one of the most well defended buildings in the world), even after the towers had been hit
=> Efforts by FBI management to interfere with FBI investigations into the flight schools.
=> Put Options that bet on the stock values of American and United airlines in the days before the attacks (betting the prices would drop).

I don't expect to ever have the irrefutable scientific facts you demand, but this accumulation of circumstantial evidence shows that there needs to be investigation as to why this attack was allowed to happen.

suspectdevice

There is a piece written by Gore Vidal called "The Enemy Within". Iits a nice piece of Conspiracy Theory, really nice and I can't stand over it but it really does set out the concerns that anyone should have about the events and the aftermath of 911. If you haven't read it then I'd suggest you take time, when you get a chance. Here is the link.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnemyWithin.html

JJ6000

suspectdevice wrote: »

The American Administration, Executive and its Agencies all knew that 9/11 was coming. It was mentioned in numerous reports. The fact that they did nothing to prevent it is where the conspiracy theorists have their opening. If the American Administration, Executive and its Agencies had made a single effort to prevent the incidents on 9/11 then the CTs arguments go belly up. But the American Administration, Executive and its Agencies did nothing, they just let it happen.

Donald Rumsfeld said, within 4 to 5 hours of the attack on 9/11, to his military team, make preparations to attack Iraq, even though there were no links between Iraq and 9/11. Heres the CBS coverage, note its not youtube or google. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

The clue to why they did this lies in a very simple point. The American Administration, Executive and its Agencies said that bin laden was held up in a couple of caves in Afghanistan. This was convenient since the American Oil companies were having great difficulty completing their oil pipeline required to take oil from the fields of Azerbijan to the Gulf of Bengal or to Pakistan. The Taliban were not being co-operative. They were more interested in the destruction of scared shrines and supplying the world with poppies. The company trying to get this work done was none other than Unocal, or Union Oil Company of California, later bought out by Chevron. At one stage this oil companies shipping operation had a tanker named after none other than that bitch of bitches Condi Rice, I need not explain the significance of the ships name being changed as recently as the start of this century. At this stage Condi was National Security Advisor to that slime bag Georgie Bush.

With the opportunity to go into Afghanistan and make sure the oil pipeline was completed on foot of the attack on the WTC secured then the opportunity to further gain was not missed. Theres Oil contracts in Iraq, Iraq has lots of them but the Russians are courting them very well. Best get stuck in there before Putin gets there first.

Now ask yourselves a little question. Do you believe corruption is rife in Irish society? Brown envelopes, planning, toll roads etc. We just lost Bertie to it, we lost many more for a lot worse than a few bob sterling. Do you believe corruption is possible on a global scale? Sure it is, the Banking System is corrupt, so too the motor industry, corruption is everywhere, its a human thing, a money thing, a greed thing. Don't forget about the NWO, illuminati, the Zionists etc. Take the Zionists, how did they ever manage to get a state where another state already existed and why does america spend so much money to keep israel in place? Corruption, nothing more, nothing less.

In summary, surely, to stand down, and allow your country to be attacked to further the gains of your corrupt lobbying corporations at the expense of your people is corruption at the highest level and falls only a little short of actually organising the attacks yourself. It is not too far a stretch to say that some agencies may have been involved in allowing 9/11 to happen.

The details of how a building in Manhatten falls is totally trivial compared to what this has done to freedom of speech and peoples faith in what claims to be the largest democracy on the planet. It has no relevence to the level of corruption we are dealing with. For as long as they keep people focussed on discussing the detail then no one will look at the big picture and for as long as that distraction goes on then no one will stand up and say STOP

^^^^^
one great big enormous "THEORY"

curiousn

JJ6000 wrote: »

^^^^^
one great big enormous "THEORY"

Yes, that's how knowledge usually starts out. It begins as a theory until enough evidence can bring it to what most people consider fact.

Despite a lot of evidence that Bertie took some money improperly, it has never been scientifically proven and he has not admitted to it. So whether you call it theory or fact it doesn't change the fact that the evidence was enough to help take power away from him.

There is nothing wrong with theory supported by solid evidence (I acknowledge that questionable "facts" and evidence can be bandied about), especially in a situation where we'll probably never have the scientific fact some people demand.

suspectdevice

JJ6000 wrote: »

^^^^^
one great big enormous "THEORY"

OK, I can accept that. I can't prove that all of the events that are mentioned are actually linked. But they did all happen. I have put forward a theory in support of the conspiracy. It does not involve the use of any technical data such as how the towers fell, it doesn't discuss why the American Airforce, who knew an attack was imminent, stood down for an hour more than they had to. It doesn't mention the lack of WMDs in Iraq. It doesn't show any support for a connection between Bin laden and the Iraqi leadership. It doesn't recall President Bush saying that Saddam killed the Kurds whilst, at the time of the genocide, America and Iraq were alllies. It does not mention any of these. Check any of the points I have made and you will find either journalistic or official documents to support them. Its not as if I have made the elements of the theory up. I have just assembled them in a logical fashion, a plausible fashion, a theory.

Ciaran500

JJ6000 wrote: »

^^^^^
one great big enormous "THEORY"

Well actually its a hypothesis

A theory has evidence to back it up.

People are always forgetting the people hit hardest in this aftermath.

Miguel_Sanchez

Can't be arsed reading this whole thread to be honest.

But I have a question (well a few) with regards to all this 9/11 conspiracy stuff:

Why would the US government bother with crashing planes into the buildings and then secretly demolish them and bring them down? Why not just blow them up and blame terrorists? Or just crash the planes and blame terrorists?

suspectdevice

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

Can't be arsed reading this whole thread to be honest.

Why would the US government bother with crashing planes into the buildings and then secretly demolish them and bring them down? Why not just blow them up and blame terrorists? Or just crash the planes and blame terrorists?

If you had read the thread then you might realise that the issue is not who brought the twin towers crashing down or how it was done, but why was it allowed to happen. And who benefitted most from it i.e. the owners of the buildings, the shareholders in the Airline Companies, Lockheed Martin!, Halliburton, members of the World Wide Oil Cartel, the Corporations, the people with their hand up that slime bag Georgie Bush's arse.

Toto Wolfcastle

suspectdevice wrote: »

If you had read the thread then you might realise that the issue is not who brought the twin towers crashing down or how it was done, but why was it allowed to happen. And who benefitted most from it i.e. the owners of the buildings, the shareholders in the Airline Companies, Lockheed Martin!, Halliburton, members of the World Wide Oil Cartel, the Corporations, the people with their hand up that slime bag Georgie Bush's arse.

Actually, I would think that who did it and how it was done are vital questions if one is to believe the theory.

How was it organised and coordinated within the US without anyone blowing the whistle?

JJ6000

curiousn wrote: »

Yes, that's how knowledge usually starts out. It begins as a theory until enough evidence can bring it to what most people consider fact.

Despite a lot of evidence that Bertie took some money improperly, it has never been scientifically proven and he has not admitted to it. So whether you call it theory or fact it doesn't change the fact that the evidence was enough to help take power away from him.

There is nothing wrong with theory supported by solid evidence (I acknowledge that questionable "facts" and evidence can be bandied about), especially in a situation where we'll probably never have the scientific fact some people demand.

True, nothing wrong with a theory supported by plausibel facts/evidence

BUt I dont see the plausible facts/evidence.

Mahatma coat

from an organisational point of view very few people had to actually be in on all the details.

Caseys main argument is that people knew about it prior to the event, these people not only sat back and let it happen but profited imensley from their complicity.

Annatar

Still cant see what Jim Corr has against the New World Order...

One country, One world. no one to go to war with.

World peace etc etc..... no armies...


Ill say again. Jim Corr is part of the Military Industrial Complex!!!!!!

Miguel_Sanchez

suspectdevice wrote: »

If you had read the thread then you might realise that the issue is not who brought the twin towers crashing down or how it was done, but why was it allowed to happen. And who benefitted most from it i.e. the owners of the buildings, the shareholders in the Airline Companies, Lockheed Martin!, Halliburton, members of the World Wide Oil Cartel, the Corporations, the people with their hand up that slime bag Georgie Bush's arse.

But why spend so much time debating about whether the planes caused the towers to collapse or not then? And there are people on the thread debating that so hence my question.

Mahatma coat

Annatar wrote: »

Still cant see what Jim Corr has against the New World Order...

One country, One world. no one to go to war with.

World peace etc etc..... no armies...


Ill say again. Jim Corr is part of the Military Industrial Complex!!!!!!

If that was how the NWO was gonna be then I'd be in favour of it, I've a sneaky suspicion that it'll work more like feudalisim, just far fewer lords

humanji

Annatar wrote: »

Still cant see what Jim Corr has against the New World Order...

One country, One world. no one to go to war with.

World peace etc etc..... no armies...


Ill say again. Jim Corr is part of the Military Industrial Complex!!!!!!

Well I would of thought it'd be obvious. One country = one album chart, and that would mean too much competition for the Corrs next album.

gixerfixer

I've got to say it's great to see people like jim coor lose his mind.Makes you feel all warm and nice instead

suspectdevice

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

But why spend so much time debating about whether the planes caused the towers to collapse or not then? And there are people on the thread debating that so hence my question.

It was just that you said you couldn't be arsed reading the thread so I just tried to get you up to speed. With regard to the WTC incidents, it doesn't matter who done it, it matters who took advantage of it happening. The War on Terror was not started because a plane crashed in to the Twin Towers, nor was it started because someone planted explosives in the Twin Towers, or WTC 7 for that matter, it was started because people wanted to gain a foothhold in the Middle East in order to further their business ventures.

Kernel

JJ6000 wrote: »

I'll explain it for you again....please read what I say this time.
They ARE admissable. Didnt I just say that??(read what I wrote, please) But they are ONLY admissable insofar as they prove there was a big loud bang(s).(which could have been caused by many things)
They ARE NOT ADMISSABLE as EXPERT TESTIMONY. ie. the fact that they heard a big loud bang(s) does NOT PROVE THAT THE BIG BANG(s) WAS CAUSED BY EXPLOSIVES because they do not have the expertise to make that assertion.

Good, you admit that the testimonies are evidence. They suggest posible controlled explosions, couple this with the freefall speed of the towers collapsing into the path of most resistance, and the concrete disintegrating, and we have evidence that the towers were pulled.

I have read your firemen testimonies btw, just because I didn't comment on them doesn't mean I didn't read them. To me they are very clear, flashes were seen along several floors, and explosions descending down the tower. Look at the video of the towers falling, and the fact that there are visible external explosions from floors below the collapse (which in turn, obviously lead to the collapse).

JJ6000 wrote: »

I can post pics. I will try later today.
But the main point is....it is very plausible that any thermite/ate used was used in the cleanup operation.

Still waiting for the pics, or evidence of thermite being used in the cleanup. By your own logic, you said that thermite is an unpredictable and dangerous type of demolition method, so why would they use it in the cleanup, instead of using torches?

JJ6000 wrote: »

Oh well, looks like there is zero plausible evidence of thermate.
So, tell me, even without pics......how is the thermate theory evidence of ANYTHING??

There's lots of evidence of thermite/thermate being used. Here, read this:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html And I'm unsure of your question?

JJ6000 wrote: »

I've addressed this already.
SOUNDS OF EXPLOSIONS do not equal explosives.
If I say a car crash sounded like a bomb went off, does that mean a bomb actually went off??

Sounds add evidence to the other evidence of a controlled demolition.

JJ6000 wrote: »

Yes, governments lie.
But you need evidence before you start throwing around accusations of lies.
This is evidence that you do not have.
you seem to be basing your argument around the fact that it is possibgle.
Well, anything is "possible".
It is "possible" that Marshans orchestrated 911.
THe point is, what matters is what there is evidence for.

Of course they lie, and they conduct false flag operations in order to drum up war support. It's very hard to sell a war to the American people in order to bolster economic concerns through control of finite resources (oil and gas), so what they suggest is: ".... the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor". From Project for a New American Century paper. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

Wre you saying "lets take a completely different scenario - that of hypothetical fraud", or are you saying "lets assume that there was fraud involved in the wrongdoing of September 11, 2001?

If its the forner, sure. If its the latter, then I fall back on my point that any conclusion based on this is entirely dependant on establishing whether or not fraud did occur. You can't assume fraud, and then use those conclusions to conclude that the assumption was correct.

Hypothetical fraud I was suggesting. As the 9/11 event was a crime, if one looks at the agendas of the Rockefellers, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Bush neocon administration, PNAC etc. through history, and looks at many of those objectives being met through the 9/11 event, as well as the ensuing wars to chase down a shadow boogeyman called Bin Laden and his 'terrorists' (ak-47 toting paupers roaming around third world countries), it all adds up to a likelihood that the people who benefitted from the event are those who are central to creating the new world order. Indeed, one would argue that the event was a necessity for these people.

bonkey wrote: »

On a financial level, US corporate interests have been served. The US government has almost bankrupted itself.

The US government was already bankrupted tbh. Their debt levels and defecits have meant that it will be impossible (and was impossible before 9/11) for them to provide for their ageing population. The corporations have benefitted tremendously, and the US has control of oil and gas (which is going through the roof in terms of costs) which the emerging economies of China and India were in danger of taking from the US. I believe control of these resources was an absolute necessity for the US economy long term. Not to mention political control of the region.

bonkey wrote: »

On an ideological level, Islamic fundamentalism has benefited beyond recognition, as has pretty-much anyone wishing the US to be held in lower esteem.

I think Islam has been demonised as a result of the event. I wouldn't consider that a success. Look at how Islamic fundamentalists are being targetted throughout the world, booted out of Britain etc.

bonkey wrote: »

Indirectly, due to the increased focus of the US on Iraq, many other nations have benefited from a lower degree of attention.

Well, if I was Syria or Iran, I'd be pretty worried. Bush's axis of evil outlines clearly US intentions for these countries. I think Mossad have been active in Syria for quite some time. The assassination of Hariri almost caused a civil war to topple the regime.

bonkey wrote: »

Benefiting the most does not imply culpability, even if we can meaningfully compare entirely different goals. If it does, then Bush & co cannot be responsible, because they personally have not benefited anywhere near the most.

You don't think Bush and the administration have benefitted most from these phony invasions? Look at the death toll of Iraqi civilians, it's certainly not those people who have benefitted, so who has?

bonkey wrote: »

It would be used as evidence in a criminal trial if evidence showing culpability had been found. This is exactly my point. The notion of a money-trail will support any evidence of wrongdoing, but it is not in and of itself said evidence.

Get that evidence, and your money-trail becomes interesting. Without that evidence, or with evidence to the contrary, the money-trail matters not one whit. Its useful in building "what if" scenarios, but thats all.

When we look at what underlies the various conspiracy theories, people all too often tend to go into great detail on this stuff, and then sort of handwave at "all the other evidence which supports it"....when the reality is that it should be the other way around. We should establish the wrong-doing, and then handwave at the moneytrail and say "and that might help find who else was in on it".

Eventually, a true whistleblower may emerge, but it is possible to carry out these events with the complete absence of any solid evidence. That, as has been mentioned, is a successful covert-operation. Compartmentalisation within the three letter agencies can mean that one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing. The evidence is sufficient in my mind to form my opinion on what happened.

Miguel_Sanchez

Kernel - perhaps you could answer my question from above since suspectdevice doesn't seem to think it's important.

Why bother take down the WTC towers with explosives when they'd already crashed a plane into them? Why not just crash the planes? Surely that would be spectacular enough. Or why not just take them down with explosives and blame the terrorists?

Kernel

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

Kernel - perhaps you could answer my question from above since suspectdevice doesn't seem to think it's important.

Why bother take down the WTC towers with explosives when they'd already crashed a plane into them? Why not just crash the planes? Surely that would be spectacular enough. Or why not just take them down with explosives and blame the terrorists?

OK, I will try to answer the question, from my own viewpoint. The footage of jet planes crashing into the towers was needed to show an event to people. If the towers just collapsed from explosions, it wouldn't have the same public impact (pardon the pun). As well as this, serious questions would be asked by the American people and the security agencies, as to how the hell a group of arabs managed to get large amounts of explosives in the US, get them inside the buildings (which would have good security), wire them up and detonate them. It would be politically damaging to the organisations (CIA, NSA, FBI etc.) and the Bush administration (remember that public opinion polls of Bush were at an all time low when the event took place).

As for just crashing the planes and leaving the towers standing, again, shock and awe tactics work best on the public. If you believe the intention of the 911 event was to further the NWO agenda, reducing personal freedoms on peoples everday lives, increasing governmental power and control, bolstering support for two wars for resources in which America would send troops to invade foreign sovereign nations and occupy them - you needed something more spectacular than a couple of planes hitting and causing fires. You need those buildings tumbling down, pulverising american citizens inside them. Then the people will be whipped up into a level of anger and a state whereby they surrender their freedoms to the government and thirst for retribution. A couple of Hitler quotes:

I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

Goebbels:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”