What do people like Robert M. Bowman have to gain from there hypothesis about 9/11?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Bowman

What about the 192 architectural and engineering that have joined http://www.ae911truth.org/ Most of them don't even assert hypothesis they simple did a peer review of the NIST report and found that it failed to give a sound explanation into the collapses of the twin towers and building #7 which was not hit by plan.

Point is these people as well as Charlie sheen and others have very little to gain speaking truth to power. Perhaps those of you who have seen the history channel hit piece and read popular mechanics could do a little research into the questions that have not been answered or answered psychologically rather then scientifically.

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
James Quintiere, Ph.D. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

Answer 1

Who knows what complexities lie in the minds of men or why they do anything? Most of our drive comes from unconscious programming. Science says, so it must be so? Some people who are always involved in conspiracy theories always ask why, as if everything we do makes sense. Sometimes it does. Mini motives aren't usually pointing to a larger conspiracy. The more people involved the less secure a secret is. I can't think of a conspiracy in history that seemed that gross, although I'm not a historian. And I've never seen a committee that came up with any answers. They usually sit around wondering what to talk about next and send staff out on errands as diverse and confused as the all at sea committee. The're very busy people. If we want something done, we'd best do it ourselves, a sort of anti-conspirator conspiracy. Isn't truth in government an oxymoron? Why not start your own movement? As for me, no, I'm busy. Besides I don't know anybody in government or the media. I think we're going to have to do a lot of things ourselves. Do you have a list that needs doing? Maybe I could find something I'm good at on there or shall we form a committee and just talk about it? To be read to the tune of Yankee Diidle or Doodle. Oh well, same thing.

Answer 2

I have only one small comment.

It is true that rules of engagement are written and it is mandated that the rules be followed when a threat has been clearly established.

However, when it came time for someone, anyone, to sit up in his chair and command someone to destroy a civilian airplane flying toward New York, we found no takers for that job.

The ones in the proper position to make such a decision could not make themselves issue the command.

Rules are rules. Regulations are regulations. But, when an innocent person's life is in our hands, we tend to mentally freeze for a period of time.

We tend to go into a conditional loop. "If I issue the order, innocents will die. The protagonists may not go through with their mission. They may be bluffing. I cannot make that decision at my level of command. I need confirmation and/or agreement at higher levels. I need..."

Put yourself in those shoes. What decision would you have made?

Mistakes were made. However, I attribute those mistakes to human frailties, rather than any well planned conspiracy on our government's part.