It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


3 Most Supported 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:22 PM
This title might be a little deceiving. I actually was wondering which 3 "aspects" of the 9/11 conspiracy theory do each of you think is the best evidence or best supported by evidence, and are the most believable over the government's version of the story (even if all of them are more believable than the government's). I'm aware that most of this is what you've heard before, but I'm curious of what 3 points you believe are the most supported and believable.


My first would be the existence of the Northwood Documents. This is one of my favorites because it proves to all those people out there who say it's impossible that the government would do such a thing, proof that it has AT LEAST crossed the minds of some members in our government in the past.

For example, when Cinnamon Stillwell wrote this in her editorial:

Whatever one's criticisms of the administration and its approach to the war on terrorism, one would have to be awfully cynical to believe that it would kill or allow thousands (at the least) of Americans to die, simply to accumulate additional powers.

(You can read her complete article here:

I wondered if she had at least read, or knew the general ideas in the Northwood Documents. I believe this is necessary knowledge when trying to convince anyone of the conspiracy, since most disregard it completely, believing that the government could receive no possible gains from such a "cynical" act.

Second, I find certain aspects of the Pentagon case more questionable than that of the World Trade Center. For the World Trade Center attacks, many people provide understandable arguments, but even some of the most "enlightened" people can't seem to answer certain questions about the Pentagon. Mechanics have said that the "small hole" in the Pentagon wall was due to the wings "folding backward due to the hardness of the walls", but few have even tried to explain why they managed to obtain DNA evidence of the victims of the crash, yet the black boxes were "incinerated". I find this hard to believe. During the Katrina incident, police and government officials were worried that they wouldn't be able to obtain DNA remains because they were damaged by the heat and water in the area.

People who work in such fields know that in heat and water the identification window is very narrow.

So if they had a hard time or were even worried about having a hard time finding any DNA evidence in just moderate heat and water, how is it that the DNA at the crash site survived while the black box, built to withstand these types of things, was destroyed.

Basic info on Black Boxes and their 3 layers:

This device is engineered to withstand extreme heat, violent crashes and tons of pressure

* Aluminum housing - There is a thin layer of aluminum around the stack of memory cards.
* High-temperature insulation - This dry-silica material is 1 inch (2.54 cm) thick and provides high-temperature thermal protection. This is what keeps the memory boards safe during post-accident fires.
* Stainless-steel shell- The high-temperature insulation material is contained within a stainless-steel cast shell that is about 0.25 inches (0.64 cm) thick. Titanium can be used to create this outer armor as well.

Kind of weird to me; but then again, that won't convince the average American of anything.

The third "aspect" I like the most is the fact that the only films that allegedly captured the video of the "airplane" hitting the Pentagon were filmed by cameras at a nearby gas station and hotel. Immediately following the crash, the videos were allegedly confiscated, I believe by either the FBI or CIA; and the people who were 'in control' of them were told to never speak of them. Furthermore, these videos were never released; aside from a measly 5 frames that the government showed us. To further support the fact that a plane might not have struck the Pentagon, or at least not the same one we were told, is the fact that NO large pieces of debris were found at the crash site. Unusual, since just about every other airplane crash in history has lleft a distinguishable, fairly large piece of the engine, parts of the wings and turbines, and an array of other parts. Even in the investigation of TWA 800, which mysteriously and instantly exploded; and was spread across the ocean floor for weeks or even months before being found; all large parts of the plane were found. In fact, they managed to put the entire plane back together from the parts found across the ocean floor. Since the plane exploded, it was also subject to extreme heats, and other natural conditions. I find it harder to believe that an airplane actually crashed into the Pentagon every day.

Anyways, which aspects about the 9/11 attacks do you guys believe are the most believable? Is it certain witness reports about events, contradictions within official reports, video footage, common sense, etc.?

I know this is kind of repetitive of information that has been posted in the past on various articles, but I find it interesting what each different person believes to be some of the most crucial aspects to proving that the government version of what happened is a complete lie.

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 12:33 AM
Here's something I've been thinking about. The wall that the plane hit was the section that just got renovated. I believe that they redid the interior to bring it to 21st century standards, but did they claim to have done any reinforcing of the shell under the original facade? Because the official story claims that there was barely any shell of the plane left due to the fact that soft aluminum literally vaporizes at extreme temperature. Now I'm wondering, if a plane made of soft metal can punch through a fortress like it supposedly did...Imagine what a reinforced missle packed with explosives, travelling 2 to 4 times faster than a plane could(if not more). That makes the pentagon look like a sand castle.
Frankly, I don't know what to beleive at this point. I think that if the Gov't DOES have video proof of the plane going in, they would have been wise to release it immediatly to the public's satisfaction. What harm could it have done to show it? Even if they release it now, we'll all just say that they used the time to fake it with state of the art CG effects. Either way, they screwed their own credibility.

[edit on 13-5-2006 by PrototypeGamma]

[edit on 13-5-2006 by PrototypeGamma]

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 01:28 PM
Yeah, I agree. Every minute that passes clouds the credibility of all theories. The further away we get from that day, the less chance we have of seeing any definate answers. That is, unless, they unclassify some secret information about 9/11 in decades to come.

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 10:12 PM
Three best points that convinced me that 9/11 offical version is as much fiction as

1. Flight 77 was hijack confirmed for one hour, and for 40 minutes after two planes had struck the world trade center, and not a single precaution taken, despite the fact it had left from a Washington D.C. airport and was lost within the relative vicinity of the capital. Not a single fighter scrambled until five minutes before it hit the Pentagon, and then only from Langley, which was 170 miles south, despite the fact Andrews AFB was 15 minutes from D.C. and had traditionally been the main defense Air Base for the city since the cold war.

2. Hundreds of ground witnesses near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, reported seeing another craft flying dangerously low near the area where flight 93 went down. other reported seeing fighter jets. A seismic station in West Virginia picked up a sonic boom. The distribution of the wreckage from the crash, plus the mysterious 911 call confiscated by the FBI and the gag order placed on the operator, all point to evidence flight 93 was shot down. Thats also what the initial reports said before the spin doctors came along and fixed it up.

3. A vast assortment of very suspicous pre-9/11 activity that suggest that people that shouldnt know knew. The trading of put options and selling of stocks for United and American airlines a couple days before the attacks. Silverstein gets a few billion bucks worth of insurance on the WTC 7 weeks before the attacks. Various employees of an Israeli company getting a warning before hand. The curious disaster drill on the Pentagon simulating a plane crashing into year before it happens. Condi warning her buddies not to fly that week. Ashcroft switching to chartered flights as opposed to his normal public ones shortly before the attacks.

Those are the top three, though I could add onto this list with many indisputable facts that dont add up. But those are my top three.

new topics

top topics

log in