Because this is about convincing the population that they don't spend enough on the military, and the price of their freedom is their safety. A security guard can't protect you from planes flying into you, so there's a larger fear factor.Assuming the government did want to destroy the towers with bombs, why bother with the planes? They could just claim the terrorists planted the bombs, like they did in 1993.
I don't think I'll become an expert in demolition, but I think there would be a huge difference in the methods between carefully bringing down a building without producing harmful materiels that people would breath in or the workers would get in contact with in the rubble, and bringing down a building no matter the cost. Yes, preparations are needed, but I don't assume this whole thing was improvised, I think some things might have been prepared. "You need to pull the plug? We have some options."
IIRC there were some floors that were made into one big floor, so if I understood it correctly, the WTC7 was weakened structurally way before the collapse. Also CIA had offices there. If this is an inside job, the CIA would be in it. They had their own floor. That's access. I think this is like social engineering. You would think that you can't get away doing suspicious things, but if you are confident enough, no one will question you and you'll get what you want.
This just sounds weird to me. Incongruent? Like is there a scientifically approved pattern in false-flag attacks? Is there a norm to them? Can we ask some magic questions that will tell us that "Nope, large amounts of money changed place, the poor people got poorer, rich people got richer, the politics fucked the poor a little more, we fucked other countries beyond repair without any acceptable reasons, we're under constant surveillance, we're not allowed to ask certain questions about it, etc... But no, this whole thing doesn't match our official false-flag pattern. Like definitely not."The series of events that day are just completely incongruent with any hypothetical false-flag attack.
Also are you sure that it takes 24 hours for an interceptor to get ready to take off? 2 hours I can understand, but 24? So all the possible amount of bad luck, incompetence, blind spots and the failure of the system was needed for 9/11 to happen, and some sandnigger on the other side of the world figured it out before anyone else could. I'm not mocking you, I'm just trying to point out your double standards here:
A) A group that wasn't perceived as competent enough to pull out this attack, was willing to pull out this attack, succeded, and it is absolutely unquestionable.
B) On the other hand, a group that is more than competent to do it, has access to everything needed to do it, and also can sway the public's opinion about it real time, and the consequences of the attack also bring more profits and power to that group is absolutely, unquestionably innocent.
And it didn't have to be a controlled demolition. If you have some control of groups (like ISIS or Al-Quaeda) then the whole scheme is pretty much undetectable. What happened that day, is suspicious. How politics/society changed after it, is suspicious in itself. Even if the attack itself was "genuine" (which I doubt), the reaction of the government was bad for democracy, bad for its own people.