Occam's Razor: do not multiply entities unnecessarily.
We have two possible explanations for the WTC sprinkler system failing: the first is that the impact of each plane ruptured the pipes in the impact regions. This is a simple explanation. It is supported by reports of water flowing down the fire escapes--i.e., the sprinklers came on, but the water did not reach the fires because of the ruptured pipes.
The second possibility is that the Hammad cousins, who were apparently unlicensed plumbers, were able to perform an act of sabotage that, if detected prior to aircraft impact, would warn one and all that the building was targeted for some sort of attack. This violates the most basic OPSEC considerations, increases operational complexity (and thus risks failure of the enterprise), and is probably unnecessary (a fully loaded 767 is much more than the buildings were designed to withstand).
The first problem is that such an operation violates Al-Qaeda doctrine. Al-Qaeda has a well-deserved reputation for excellent operational security. Your theory disregards that fact.
Really. Remember how Project Bojinka was stopped? Yousef and his buddies set their Manilla hotel room on fire building the bombs for the airplanes. All the plans including a plan to assasinate the Pope were found on a laptop.
Still you have no interest in why the Hammad cousins were in the WTC?Occam's Razor: do not multiply entities unnecessarily.
We have two possible explanations for the WTC sprinkler system failing: the first is that the impact of each plane ruptured the pipes in the impact regions. This is a simple explanation. It is supported by reports of water flowing down the fire escapes--i.e., the sprinklers came on, but the water did not reach the fires because of the ruptured pipes.
The second possibility is that the Hammad cousins, who were apparently unlicensed plumbers, were able to perform an act of sabotage that, if detected prior to aircraft impact, would warn one and all that the building was targeted for some sort of attack. This violates the most basic OPSEC considerations, increases operational complexity (and thus risks failure of the enterprise), and is probably unnecessary (a fully loaded 767 is much more than the buildings were designed to withstand).
Interesting conjecture, but you still haven't addressed his point. Why were the Hammad cousins in the WTC under demonstrably bogus cover prior to 9/11?
I, too, prefer shaving with Occam's brand products.
We used to have a Battalion Commander that was really fond of asking a troop "What's the first thing you know?"
The troop would usually stare at him dumbfounded. The Colonel would then go on to say "The first thing you know, ole Jedd's a millionaire--- in other words don't make it any more complicated than it needs to be".
I was never sure about the analogy, but the lesson stuck 10 times out of 10- keep it simple- that's the ticket.