Excuses for any lousy grammar but I ain't american. Any way, my dislike for Bush doesn't make me blind for fact. And that is that there isn't a single scrap of evidence to suggest that those towers collapsed by anything else then planes & fire, or that there wasn anything else 'faked' or 'rigged' for that matter.

Let's examine the so called evidence I have read so far:


----------------------------------------------------
Claim 1) Osama was not behind it because he wears a ring in one of the videos. Islamics aren't SUPPOSED to wear jewellery so it couldnt have been Bin Laden so it must have been American agents in disguise.

Counterclaim) Islamics aren't allowed to wear jewellery, but they aren't allowed to have their picture taken or put on film either. Osama doesn't have a problem with that does he?! There have been terrorist attacks on friday too, even though friday is an islamic restday. Guess Islamic terrorists don't care about religious rules afterall when it suits them.


Claim 2) A Koran that was found in the trunk of a car belonging to one of the hijackers was planted by government agents. Why wouldn't the terrorist take it with him on the plane?

Counterclaim) It is against the Islamic religion to destroy a Koran. This is actually quite an important rule too. (even worse than to carry rings) Guess the terrorists where smart enough to understand that a Koran might get damaged by taking it onbard a suicide-run.


Claim 3) There are eye-witnesses that claim that there where other planes in the vacinity when a plane 'supposedly' crashed into the pentagon. Obviously these must be part of the conspiracy, for instance firing a missile into that building.

Counterclaim) The eye-witnesses that claim to see other planes don't quite agree with eachother what kind of planes these would have been, or even HOW MANY other planes there where. Besides, there are planes in the sky all the time, so what?

And with soooo many aquite eyewitnesses around you can't fire a rocket at the pentagon. They tend to make for a lot of noise, smoke and sight, even before they detonate. How can people spot every plane in the sky but miss a huge air-to-ground missile screeching through the air?

Further more, there are also eye-witnesses that claim that they clearly saw a giant passenger airliner move close over the ground heading towards the Pentagon.


Claim 4) There was thermite found in the remains of the WTC rubble! This means that it was all a set-up.

Counterclaim) Thermite is a big word. Thermite is a mixture of powdered aluminium and iron oxide (rust). So what did people find that got all the tin-hatties excited? Microscopic bits of aluminium and rusty iron.

Considering that two mostly aluminium planes just crashed into two steel and iron filled towers: is it TRULY surprising?

I guess researchers published findings on analysis of the rubble, and some conspiracy theorists took the wrong conclusions.


Claim 5) No building ever collapsed because of a fire!

Counterclaim) Did those buildings had planes fly into them?
(On a side not I doubt that no building ever collapsed after a fire, some buildings rely heavily on wood reinforcements, so at most no STONE building ever collapsed because of fire. Although I doubt that as well.)


Claim 6) The two towers where engineered to withstand impacts of planes. This proves that planes could not have brought it down!

Counterclaim) Was it tested? Where there planes flown against the towers which then bounced back or something?

A part of a French airport terminal collapsed once because of lousy architecture.
If it is so difficult designing something based on a known concept, I can imagine
how difficult it must be to design something that you can't even test.


[edit on 28-6-2006 by reallynobody]

Claim 7) The planes that 'supposedly' crashed in the Pentagon and on route of the White house didn't leave enough debris. Since all scientists are lyers when they say that aluminium would vaporize or blown to tiny little bits all over a huge area, those wheren't the planes!


Counterclaim) This has got to be one of the most used claims. For argument's let's forget for a moment that eyewitnesses reported seeing a passengerplane heading into the pentagon.

Let's also forget that it makes no sense for american agents to hijack the planes themselves and then crash something else. Why not just crash those passenger planes?! You are going to kill people anyway! You have to kill the passengers because they will talk and you have to get rid of the plane because of it's was being radar-tracked. Why on earth would you crash a substitute and then go do something difficult to get rid of the real planes it it is easier to crash the passengerliners? But ok let's forget about common sense.

It is true that most other plane-crashes leave more rubble behind. But keep in mind that most plane-crashes are failed attempts to LAND. Not succesful attempts to CRASH. The didn't slide over the ground till they came to a violent stop which is what most crashed are, they nose-dived into the ground.... That makes about as much difference as accidentally crashing into a car when you are backing up to park a car and and heading at full speed into one to commit suicide.

Most importantly, pilots that make a crash-landing tend to eject fuel while the terrorists wanted to make the maximum amount of damage possible and kept the fuel. That fuel makes an immense difference, and if you don't believe me, try to set a barrel on fire. Better yet, drive into one at full speed! We'll how much is left of you OR your car.

Claim 8) There was a passport found! As a mere passports couldn't possibly survive such violently crashing planes, it's got to be planted!

Counterclaim) It ain't the first time item survived plane wrecks, and aslong as planes keep crashing it ain't gonna be the last time. It depends mostly on luck which items survive and which do not, besides I doubt that passport was the ONLY
object to survive, it was just the only one that got covered in news.


Claim 9) America really wanted to invade Iraq and Afganistan and basically every other place. They needed an excuse, so orchestrated 9/11.

Counterclaim) Although I don't doubt megalomaniac characters of many people behind the american show curtains, I wasn't aware that America ever needed an excuse THAT good in order to justify a war.

But what amazes me the most, is that america apparently could arrange for something that vile, complex and time consuming as the 9/11 attack, something that must be the ultimate in conspiracy accomplishments, but can't get the Iraq war to go in it's favor. With so much preparation put into faking a terrorist attack, I would have at least expected something equally professional in Iraq, but it is shamefull. They can't even hide torture? It seems like the put little if no effort in preparing it, used old out-of-date invasion plans, or used morons to make to plans.

Claim 1) If you actually look at the man in the video, rather than pull the old “they all look alike” bit, you’ll see that it’s not osama bin ladin

Claim 2) I never heard of this being a reason not to believe the story

Claim 3) The eyewitness claims were not that there were other planes in the sky, but that they couldn’t agree on what type of plane hit the building, if it was a plane at all.

Claim 4) there was molten steel and thermite at the base of the buildings. The combination of the two usually means that the thermite created the molten steel. I haven’t read the specifics of the thermite finding however, so I’m not the one to comment. Have you read it?

Claim 5) the sway caused by high winds were greater than that caused by the plane impact, and the WTC survived those.

Claim 6) look above

Claim 7) Then why did they confiscate and refuse to release any video that would ‘prove them right’

Claim 8) The passport was found, but he black box was destroyed???? Sorry, that ain’t happenin’

Claim 9) The WOT is enough of an excuse to get anything done in the name of freedom, including removing individual rights, giving no bid contracts to buddies of the administration.

Also, you should google the project for a new American century.

I read that Cuba thing. OK that was interesting. But they they where talking about blowing up some crates, a parked fighter, a ship. And pretend that casualties had fallen.

That is not exactly comparible to killing thousands in one massive uber-attack, was it?

considering the last time that something like this happened to the WTC that didn't result in casualties no one cared, this seems like the next logical step.

reallynobody, trust me dude, imagine how long it took me, a former republican (independent now) and Bush supporter, to open my eyes to these outrageous number of coincidences. It's taken me months just to realize I was wrong in what I was led to believe. Not only did they know about it, and let it happen, but most likely helped facilitate it.

I would review the links Rasobasi420 posted, and just go through the other 9-11 related threads, and use that information to form a better understanding of what really went down that day.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Claim 1) If you actually look at the man in the video, rather than pull the old “they all look alike” bit, you’ll see that it’s not osama bin ladin

Claim 2) I never heard of this being a reason not to believe the story

Claim 3) The eyewitness claims were not that there were other planes in the sky, but that they couldn’t agree on what type of plane hit the building, if it was a plane at all.

Claim 4) there was molten steel and thermite at the base of the buildings. The combination of the two usually means that the thermite created the molten steel. I haven’t read the specifics of the thermite finding however, so I’m not the one to comment. Have you read it?

Claim 5) the sway caused by high winds were greater than that caused by the plane impact, and the WTC survived those.

Claim 6) look above

Claim 7) Then why did they confiscate and refuse to release any video that would ‘prove them right’

Claim 8) The passport was found, but he black box was destroyed???? Sorry, that ain’t happenin’

Claim 9) The WOT is enough of an excuse to get anything done in the name of freedom, including removing individual rights, giving no bid contracts to buddies of the administration.

Also, you should google the project for a new American century.

1) Well why don't you prove it with facial-recognition software? You really think that the coveruppies would allow anyone to be able to tell them apart? Many non-governmental institutes possess such software, and you could probably buy it commercially yourself. It seems weird that you can see with your naked eye what even a computer can't see. If you prove it then I am listnening.

2) A muslim doesn't destroy a koran, so that is why he didn't took it with him.

3) How could anyone mistake a missile for a plane? If they thought it was a plane then it ain't a missile. There is a HUGE difference between them, the sound alone is deafening if it was a missile. Go watch some footage of both.

4) Don't you get it? There is no such thing as left-over thermite. Once it combusts
it leaves nothing but iron and aluminium oxide. And it was found with molten iron you say?! You can't tell it apart from any other iron or aluminium. How could anyone recognize it as thermite?

5) The planes didn't just 'sway' the towers, the CRASHED into them. That did a lot greater structural damage then any wind ever did I bet. And fire can't be good be steel either, so the impact combined with heat would have done it, not just 'swaying'...

6) Same

7) I don't know, because they are uptight jackasses trained to be jackasses?
why don't the people that shot the footage tell us what secrets they filmed?

8) Im not an explosion expert so can't be certain, I still think random chance can do a lot. But was the black box atomized or largely intact? That matters too.
A passport is flexible so won't break, it can survive being bent. A shockwave that bents a metal box is doing irrepearable damage.

9) Yes that is true, but I am still amazed at the idea that the American secret agents couldn't find something less epic. Where they getting paid per body or something?



[edit on 28-6-2006 by reallynobody]

Originally posted by aecreate
reallynobody, trust me dude, imagine how long it took me, a former republican (independent now) and Bush supporter, to open my eyes to these outrageous number of coincidences. It's taken me months just to realize I was wrong in what I was led to believe. Not only did they know about it, and let it happen, but most likely helped facilitate it.

I would review the links Rasobasi420 posted, and just go through the other 9-11 related threads, and use that information to form a better understanding of what really went down that day.

I believe in many conspiracies, but never just because it sounds good. There are indeed a lot of coincidences, but why not simply claim that American secret agents let terrorists slide while they knew what they where up to?

That at least I might have bought. It sounds do-able, maybe the agents wheren't even aware of the magnitude of the attacks. But if you want to convince me that the entire thing was set-up, plz give me EVIDENCE.

I believe in things that almost nobody believes in but don't try to convince anyone without evidence. By my book, coincidence aint proof.

Originally posted by reallynobody
1) Well why don't you prove it with facial-recognition software? You really think that the coveruppies would allow anyone to be able to tell them apart? Many non-governmental institutes possess such software, and you could probably buy it commercially yourself. It seems weird that you can see with your naked eye what even a computer can't see. If you prove it then I am listnening.

The best facial recognition software is the human brain. I'm not sure what you mean by the coveruppies comment BTW. And have you looked at Osama, then at the man in the video?

2) A muslim doesn't destroy a koran, so that is why he didn't took it with him.

Again, this has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory.

3) How could anyone mistake a missile for a plane? If they thought it was a plane then it ain't a missile. There is a HUGE difference between them, the sound alone is deafening if it was a missile. Go watch some footage of both.

What I'm saying is, if there can't be a consensus of eyewitness accounts, then we can't rely on those acounts. We have to look at the evidence, and so far I've seen none.

4) Don't you get it? There is no such thing as left-over thermite. Once it combusts
it leaves nothing but iron and aluminium oxide. And it was found with molten iron you say?! You can't tell it apart from any other iron or aluminium. How could anyone recognize it as thermite?

Yes there is, I've seen it and collected it after burning it myself. I said it was found with molten steel. Steel can't melt at the temperatures that supposedly brought dwn the building, so the thermite is the only reasonable explaination. give me a better one and maybe I'll change my mind.

5) The planes didn't just 'sway' the towers, the CRASHED into them. That did a lot greater structural damage then any wind ever did I bet. And fire can't be good be steel either, so the impact combined with heat would have done it, not just 'swaying'...

So, you're saying that after they crashed into the towers, there was no swaying? well there was, and it was a lot less than the swaying that high winds can do.

7) I don't know, because they are uptight jackasses trained to be jackasses?
why don't the people that shot the footage tell us what secrets they filmed?

they were security cameras. I doubt anyone reviewed them before they were confiscated, what with all the explosions and sirens and all.

8) Im not an explosion expert so can't be certain, I still think random chance can do a lot. But was the black box atomized or largely intact? That matters too.
A passport is flexible so won't break, it can survive being bent. A shockwave that bents a metal box is doing irrepearable damage.

Black boxes have survived much greater impacts. Tat's wht they were designed to do.

9) Yes that is true, but I am still amazed at the idea that the American secret agents couldn't find something less epic. Where they getting paid per body or something?

Yep. Would war be waged over 10 deaths? Would Haliburton have such a contract if it were only a few casualties?



Edit: BTW, what evidence has been shown for the official story?

Also, take a look at building 7 and tell me what you think.

[edit on 28-6-2006 by Rasobasi420]

by reallynobody
There are indeed a lot of coincidences,

do you think God throws dice?

but why not simply claim that American secret agents let terrorists slide while they knew what they where up to?

Some of these operators reported repeatedly to there superiors about the information they had, and they where threatened in various ways, you will find a lot of the information/links is here on ATS

Welcome to ATS reallynobody, I'm willing to bet that if you have an open mind, you'll see how deep the rabbit hole really goes

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Welcome to ATS reallynobody, I'm willing to bet that if you have an open mind, you'll see how deep the rabbit hole really goes

Hehe. Perhaps I should have introduced myself. I do belief in a a type of artifical matrix in which people are trapped, I believe in good and evil forces at work, in which both humans and other forms of life play a role. I even belief that there is something going to happen soon what the shadies, my name for what you call 'them', are trying to prevent. So I can see where the rabbit hole goes to.

But awarding governmental people with so much expertise? I simply don't believe
they could have pulled it off. It would be easier to plant an undercover agent and pose him as a terrorist, then make it so that Osama "get's" the idea to go attack america while thinking he thought of it.

But thanks for your concern. I thought I might get banned right away, like I got banned from a chatroom. Apparently even some conspiracy theorists have formed
a fascist regime.

[edit on 28-6-2006 by reallynobody]

[edit on 28-6-2006 by reallynobody]

Originally posted by Sauron
Some of these operators reported repeatedly to there superiors about the information they had, and they where threatened in various ways, you will find a lot of the information/links is here on ATS

So which one is it? Terrorists or the government?

Originally posted by reallynobody
So which one is it? Terrorists or the government?

To make a long story short, they are one in the same ( the Base )?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
The best facial recognition software is the human brain.

No it's not. The best facial recognition hardware is the computer. They can tell differences between nearly identical faces where humans can not.

I'm not sure what you mean by the coveruppies comment BTW.

Coveruppies="them"

And have you looked at Osama, then at the man in the video?

I once did, he does look a bit different but the quality of all those clips are lousy.
With so many flaws, different perspectives and colorings I don't know what to make of it. I would rather have had that al-queda invested in some good cameras than that second hand ebay crap they apparently are using now.

What I'm saying is, if there can't be a consensus of eyewitness accounts, then we can't rely on those acounts. We have to look at the evidence, and so far I've seen none..

That's is rather peculiar reasoning, 9/11 conspiracy theorists used eyewitness accounts to their advantage whenever it suits them, even if there are opposing witnesses. There isn't a single piece of evidence that you can't find another expert for with a different opinion but that doesn't mean all those statements and opinions should be ignored.

Yes there is, I've seen it and collected it after burning it myself. I said it was found with molten steel. Steel can't melt at the temperatures that supposedly brought dwn the building, so the thermite is the only reasonable explaination. give me a better one and maybe I'll change my mind.

I don't think we are on one line here. Burned thermite is aluminiumoxide and iron. Since there was melten aluminium and iron in any case because of the hot temperatures, how do you know what you collected?

So, you're saying that after they crashed into the towers, there was no swaying? well there was, and it was a lot less than the swaying that high winds can do.

Ehm no im not saying that there was no swaying. Im saying that it was not the swaying that took the towers down but an unholy combination of infernal temperatures, the shock of impact, and the weight of the collapsed regions on the already weakened lower structures.

they were security cameras. I doubt anyone reviewed them before they were confiscated, what with all the explosions and sirens and all.

My appologies! I had not realized that they where security cameras. I can see why it makes you suspicious, and I find it odd too, but if they prepared for such an attack, and are so good at faking evidence, why didn't they give fake footage to the public?

Black boxes have survived much greater impacts. Tat's wht they were designed to do.

But this NOT the first time a black box does NOT survive.

Yep. Would war be waged over 10 deaths? Would Haliburton have such a contract if it were only a few casualties?

If there was a terrorist attack that failed at the last moment, it would have been enough. Even one plane could have done. I mean, it's not like the american government asked anyone for permission? They ignored pretty much everyones opinion. They could even have faked polls, why would it be necessary to make such a dramatically overstatement?