It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

9/11 had me thinking...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
9/11 had me thinking, and a lot of other theories on the net had me thinking even more. So I came up with my 'own' theory. Please let me know what you think of it! And please not I wrote it for people who like my friends, who have never read conspiracytheories before.

First, I want you to know I am not just crazy. On the contrary. I am raised in a culture that just asks questions when things are not clear. And the official declarations of events in history are clear and answer our questions, mostly. But it must be obvious that the official declaration about 9/11 is shaky and unclear. I quote DeepJournal: 'The official report on 9/11 is just another bad conspiracytheory. It is shaky, neglects some laws of physics and depends on the shock-effect on the audience and so the media. Journalists are like people sometimes. They too are shocked and they too just take the official report for what it is. This, about what's the truth of 9/11, fits a common pattern. According to the pattern, the first hours of a mayor event have complete free press. What follows is a story that seems to fit everyone of them. Now, we are [...] five years further and the Old Media (=tv, newspapers, etc.) just copy the facts the New Media (=internet etc.) present.

Looking back, the Old Media followed this pattern on 9/11; on the day itself there is this journalistic spirit and everything is reported. The big tv-channels report explosions in the WTC and Trouw (Dutch newspaper) writes in a report of the day: '09:58 big explosion in the bottom of the WTC'; anchorman of WMV Peter Jennings tells live on tv that with controlled demolitions explosions have to be made in the bottom of a building; another anchorman, MPG's Dan Rather compares the collapsing of the WTC7 with controlled demolition; CNN just reports that there's no evidence of a plane crash in the Pentagon and FOX tells there is nothing more than a hole in the ground in Pennsylvania. The thought that Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks was not this easy.

Even though the attacks seemed to be one big surpris, president Bush was the first to reveal the answer on the mystery, with foto's: Osama Bin Laden and his 19 assistants had surprised the USA and now it was time for revenge. But the man who could turn it to the biggest CSI ever and who could give peace never showed. There was no Crime Scene Investigation (not meant as tv-show), because all remnants were sold to China as old iron and while everyone needed peace, he talked about revenge. After Bush's revealing, the facts were adjusted to fiction: the explosions that had been heard were never mentioned, the evaporation of the planes in the Pentagon and Pennsylvania, and the inconsistencies, like the pools of molten steel in the bottom of the Towers, the free fall of WTC7 and well, all the other facts that fill the internet.'

It may be clear that there are just too many unanswered questions. I don't want to bring up all the horror of that black day in history, and neither will I try to answer all questions, but I will try by collecting facts that can be found on the net to get some things clear. Or, at least, as clear as possible.

First, I will draw a timeline.
07:58 United Airlines 175 takes off from Logan International Airport Boston.
07:59 American Airlins 11 takes off from Logan International Airport Boston.
08:01 United Airlines 93 takes off from John. F. Kennedy International Airport New York City.
08:10 American Airlines 77 takes off from Dulles International Airport Washington DC
08:46 The hijacked passengerplane AA 11 crashes into the North Tower. Because the tanks are still mostly filled with jet-fuel, this Boeing 767 explodes on impact. 92 passengers.
09:03 The hijacked passengerplane UA 175 crashes into the South Tower. These tanks are also mostly filled and the plane explodes. 65 passengers.
TBC...

[edit on 13-10-2006 by Scorpii]




posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   
09:37 The hijacked passengerplane AA 77 crashes into the Pentagon in Washington DC. And also these tanks are mostly filled and the plane explodes. 64 passengers.
10:00 The South Tower of the WTC collapses.
10:10 The hijacked passengerplane UA 93 crashes, because of the effort of passengers, in Pennsylvania. All 45 passengers die.
10:30 The North Tower of the WTC collapses.
17:20 WTC7 collapses.

The time between take-off and crashing:
UA 175: 65 minutes
AA 11: 47 minutes
UA 93: 69 minutes
AA 77: 87 minutes

Now, my question is, if the average time between take-off and crashing is 67 minutes, there will have been about 30 minutes between hijacking and crashing. Where is the defence of the USA?
On the same day as the attacks there were practices, which involved the reconstruction of hijackings, some planes flying, others on the ground to fill the radarscreen. In Virginia, they practice what to do when a plane flies into a building. Even NORAD practises that day. The first exercise is "an exercise that poses a hypothetical threath for the whole air-defense of North America". The second exercise needed jets to get to Canada and Alaska. Also, three F-16s of Andrews Air Force Base in Washington DC flew to North Carolina for a training. This way, only fourteen fighterjets remained to protect the USA. But even those 14 could have done something, right? Coincidence? Maybe I would believe that if I believed in coincidence.

This gets us to the commonly known theory that the US government was involved in these horrifying attacks. We already know that the CIA knew things even before 9/11. The arguments on the involvement of the US government:
1. A think-tank of neo-conservatives have publicated 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' in which they declare: "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary changes, will take a long time, unless a disastrous and catalyzing event happens, like a new Pearl Harbor."
Was 9/11 disastrous and catalyzing enough for them?
2. Early 2001, NORAD wants to practise what to do when a plane crashes the Pentagon. This is being rejected as being 'too unrealistic'. Didn't they want that people in the Pentagon were prepared for something like this?
3. In June 2001, the aircraft-law has been changed in a way that the minister of Defence has to give permission for any non-direct reaction.
4. Important people from the Pentagon decide to cancel their flight for the morning of 9/11. Pacifica Radio declares that the then National Securityadvisor Condoleezza Rica, made the phonecalls to these people. And since then, Condoleezza got higher up in the White House. Question mark?
5. George W. Bush says "I was waiting to get in" [in a elementary school class in Florida] "And I saw a plane hit the tower - the tv was apparently turned on. I have flown myself, and said: 'that is a damn bad pilot'".
At that moment, it was AA 11 that crashed into the North Tower. Fact is that Bush could never have seen that - the tapes of it surfaced later. Maybe he saw secret CIA tapes? It could not have been anything different than the AA 11 footage, since he heard about the second crash when he was already in the classroom and someone whispered in his ear that UA 175 had flown into the South Tower.

Ofcourse there are counter-arguments for this theory, but I will not feature them here, since they have no relevance for what I am trying to say, and they have been told after these arguments surfaced and are not part of the official, original report in any way. Plus, the arguments featured above are more numerous than the counter-arguments.

Still, Osama Bin Laden has claimed the attacks. We can say that the tape on which he claims them, is of a bad quality and it's not clear whether it really is Osama. And the family Bush has good connections with the Saoudi-Arabic family Bin Laden, of which a lot of children went to western universities. Osama might be the black sheep of the family...
TBC...

[edit on 13-10-2006 by Scorpii]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   
but wouldn't he take the chance if his family would ask him to attack the by him so much hated USA? Remains the question why the US government would sacrifice this much lives, and how they can live with it. If we take that George W. Bush used 9/11 as an excuse for his 'war on terror' (on which the UN veto-ed), then we understand the connection. Bush attacked Iraq without approval of the UN, without any lead except the ridiculous accusation of murderous weapons being built or bought by Iraq. Kuweit was already friendly with the US, Iraq wasn't because of dictator Saddam Hussein. But with Saddam gone, the US can create a government there that will be friendly. With it, the power of the US is enlarged, and so is their control over the local oil wells too. How the government can live with it? Very easy. Think of the lives sacrificed for the crusades, trade, all journeys to enlarge world power. And the people responsible for the loss of those lives could live with it. And, with this so-called war on terror, weapontrade/building enlarges and it's been easier to start a war now.

But was it a plane that hit the Pentagon?
Some believe it wasn't a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon, but a rocket. Fact is that a rocket, when exploding, creates a bigger hole than what was created now. Facts also are:
1. One of the hijackers, Hani Hanjour, couldn't fly.
2. First, they thought it was a military plane, that's why no one responded. Hmm, would a rocket appear as a military object on a radar? Maybe...
3. The turn the hijackers have made is physically impossible. Plus, the plane that is supposed to have hit the Pentagon disappeared from the radar even before the turn.
4. On November 22, 2004 a private jet crashed after having hit a light post. The remnants lay everywhere and the light post was broken. The 757 is supposed to have hit FIVE light posts, pulling them totally out of the earth, but nowhere lay remnants and none of the light posts were broken.
5. The lawn is hardly burned. If the plane would have hit the ground, like the official report says, then a broad, brown track must be visible. In any case, the grass had to be burned, even if the plane had hoovered over it instead of 'gliding'. This is visible on security tapes that have been released by the FBI, but which have been tampered with so no one can see WHAT exactly hit the Pentagon.
6. Pentagon-employees heard a rocketengine coming closer.
7. There are no plane remnants visible on official photos. Statements that these have been totally evaporated by the kerosine have been proven wrong; burning jet-fuel cannot reach the point on which titanium, of which the engines are built, melts. Even if it was that way, it doesn't explain why still remains of people have been found. If the remnants have been evaporated by burning jet-fuel, wouldn't the same happen to human remains?
8. The damage on the Pentagon is visibly less than on the Towers, while in both cases a plane of comparable size had been used. Unless it really was a specially designed rocket...
9. As said before, no one intercepted the plane, while it was possible.
10. Only tampered parts of the footage have been released, and there's pavement on where the grass is supposed to be burned. What are they trying to hide?

And in Pennsylvania?
In any case, it is clear that the remnants were too far apart to be just from a crash. Some say that the plane must have been hit. Maybe it was. Maybe this last plane, at least, the last plane that did damage on 9/11, hit by the airforce because they eventually withdrew from the plan to hit the White House. No one will ever know, because the FBI and CIA seem to do everything in their powers to keep things for themselves.

Then I want to talk about the Towers.
Lately, people start to believe the collapsing of the Towers and the WTC7 is the result of controlled imploding. Because it is sure there is not enough time to install the explosives for controlled imploding between the moment of crash and collapse, the explosives must have been installed before. How horrifying it sounds, maybe it's true.
1. The US government has for the investigation, or, as DeepJournal calls it, the biggest CSI ever, just 600.000 US dollars. Wouldn't you expect more of something this size?
2. The remnants have been removed before decent investigation could be performed.
3. The collapsing of the WTC7 hasn't been investigated at all.
4. Many experts on implosions state that they have found clear clues on photos that the Towers were the result of controlled imploding. For example, the little white clouds underneath the big 'dustcloud' when the Towers collapse. Maybe it's a broken gaspipe, I don't know, I'm no expert, but even I wonder whether a gaspipe can create a chain of white clouds.
5. Many footage that support this theory has not been broadcasted or just once. Luckily, there is also written Media, like a recent article in Kijk! (Dutch scientific magazine)
6. The WTC7 is clearly the result of controlled imploding, since it implodes at the bottom and first the center drops, then the outer part, so it all falls inwards.
7. No fire before 9/11 was ever able to destruct the steel frame like in the Twin Towers.
8. The Towers fell down vertically, what points to control - or gravity.

Last, I want to point out the black boxes.
The black boxes (a plane has two of them) of the 'plane' that has hit the Pentage are, according to FBI executive Robert Mueller, found but it seems nothing of great value can be found. The 'crashed plane' in Pennsylvania; of this 'plane' the black boxes have also been found, but no information can be found on it. These are also in possession of the FBI. Last, the black boxes of the World Trade Center. These have been found by a few rescueworkers, but later the FBI told them to shut up. Luckily they didn't. So in fact, all black boxes are in possession of the FBI. Wouldn't it be interesting to read the transcripts? And then not something that the imagination of the FBI (do they have that?) came up with, but the real deal. Oh, and if those black boxes have indeed not been found (which I sincerely doubt), doesn't the FBI know you cannot destroy a black box? Hmm. They should try watching Brainiac some day.

The reason theories about such - controversial, you can't call it that, because everybody has ideas on it - subjects are being called conspiracy theories in a negative tone is the because arguments are not present or not clear, and because the shock it can be when a theory turns out to be true - which it can be - is so big we can't even start processing it. The world would be turned up-side-down if it turns out to be correct that the US government is the director of their own disaster movie. It may be clear that not enough people ask theirselves questions about theories that is this shaky on every level. And that the Old Media should be more like the New Media, and maybe even melt into the Actual Media (wow. Imagine...). And that the FBI and CIA should release all footage and information, because we have the right for that information. We have the right for a clear and true statement of the US government. Just like the civilians in Iraq had the right for freedom and a safe existence. Because that is the only thing good about the war on terror - more freedom for the Iraqi civilians.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 03:59 AM
link   
This isn't your 'own' theory. It's the same crap that's being recycled that's already been debunked.

Follow the links in my signature. Everything you've posted above is debunked in that website and video.

EDIT: Apologies for my blatantly rude post. Please see my post below. Not a very nice welcome I know, but sorry.


[edit on 14/10/2006 by doctorfungi]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
This isn't your 'own' theory. It's the same crap that's being recycled that's already been debunked.

Follow the links in my signature. Everything you've posted above is debunked in that website and video.




BLA BLA, Why don't you start stating things to back yourself up, You are starting to get as old as a 10 yr old FRUITCAKE.(not a "flame" Mods)

I am sick of you coming onto this forum and flaming people cause of their views, start backing your statements up instead of saying go to this or that site. Its getting old fast.

And the crap on your sites can be easily debunked as it was put up there. so stfu and get a clue on how to debate.

Photographic Analysis of the WTC7 Hole - NIST Debunked

I am surprised you are still on here actually.. Where TF is a mod at to end this, he is getting away with so much crap that i seen other people get banned for...

What happened to the Zero Tolerance in this forum?

This is why people are not coming to ATS much anymore, cause of freaking idiots like this..........

I haven't been posting much because of people like this. If you want to promote your site to have new people flamed like this its cool with me, But it sure the hell don't look good.

I am done here, BTW Thanks for the warning I have surely earned here.

And to Scorpii Sorry for this moron on this site, most of the people who back up the official story aren't like this, they are really decent people. Don't let this one idiot sway your ideas on how this site runs... But then again 1 bad apple spoils the bunch I guess. But take it from one who debates with some of the people on here. They are mostly good people, excluding this crackpot.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   
So ThichHeaded,

How is calling me a 10 year old fruitcake not a flame? What gives you the right to call someone that and then run into the corner telling the mods it wasn't a flame? Someone who runs away like a coward would probably be a little closer to a "10 year old". Frankly I am quite offended and if it were up to me you'd be getting a warning.



I am sick of you coming onto this forum and flaming people cause of their views, start backing your statements up instead of saying go to this or that site. Its getting old fast.


But only if they don't believe the conspiracy theory right? What about those like Slap Nuts who insult the intelligence of official story believers? I never hear you talking about that now do I.

How many people provide links to st911.org and Loose Change? Heck even Fetzer does it without proving a point. All I am doing is linking to alternate sources to offer the other view of these theories. If they are the true truth seeker they claim to be they would take the time to go through the site and then re-think their thory.

Telling someone to 'stfu' is hardly a debating skill either mate. So you may want to quit that before you lecture me on debating.

And abbreviating the four letter word starting with F is pretty much just as bad as saying it. So please - settle down before you go slandering the word at me because I don't believe the conspiracy theory.

As for people not coming to ATS anymore, I highly doubt it's because of people 'like me'. If it was mabey they are starting to realise the truth behind 9/11. And no, I am not talking about the government. And if YOU haven't been posting because of people 'like me' but you still have the nerve to slander offensive terms at me, you might want to take a long hard look at yourself.

So at the end of the day you have one hypocritical post saying how I am 'offending people' with my views when all you have managed to do is call me:

a) A 10 year old fruitcake
b) A Crackpot
c) An Idiot
d) A freaking idiot

And I need to learn to debate?

And Scorpii, friend

I am sorry to have called your theory 'crap'. I appreciate the time you have taken to post your theory to the viewers of ATS. Without people posting theories we wouldn't have the community that we value here. With the exception of people calling other people fruitcakes, crackpots etc.

So I am sorry to have been bluntly rude.

But I do believe majority of your theory has already been addressed. If you take the time to read the links in my signature they provide answers to all of the theories in question. Some questions remain unanswered so we should push for these answers and seek the truth.

Which undoubtably involves looking at BOTH sides of the story


[edit on 14/10/2006 by doctorfungi]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   
It was never explained how 47 steel beams that make up the core of both north and south towers could have come down.they would not have failed due to fire.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   
They failed due to the collapse of the rest of the building.

If you watch this clip:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see the core of the towers takes significantly longer to fall compared to the rest of both structures.

The beams of the core were dragged down by the rest of the tower.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   
i'm not calling anyone names, but people like doctorfungi are the reason that i don't post on 911 forums anymone. Simply answering with a oneliner calling it all crap isn't a discussion.

mr.J



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 06:20 AM
link   
You mean to tell me thousands of steel bolts failed all at the same time,and 110 stories came down in under 15 seconds?I hardly call that being "dragged " down.Sorry sir ,but I don't buy it.that does'nt explain the many eyewitness accounts of explosions just prior to the towers collapsing at near freefall speed.Many of these eyewitnesses include firefighters and policemen.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mister Jones
i'm not calling anyone names, but people like doctorfungi are the reason that i don't post on 911 forums anymone. Simply answering with a oneliner calling it all crap isn't a discussion.

mr.J


Thank you for sustaining maturity without resorting to name calling.

I usually take time to address each point backing myself up - but with this theory being the same as most others I really don't have the time.

And I think if you read over these threads again - I think you'll find that alot of Conspiract Theory supporters do the exact same thing.

Just for you guys, I'll be alot more specific in my responses.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt
You mean to tell me thousands of steel bolts failed all at the same time,and 110 stories came down in under 15 seconds?I hardly call that being "dragged " down.Sorry sir ,but I don't buy it.that does'nt explain the many eyewitness accounts of explosions just prior to the towers collapsing at near freefall speed.Many of these eyewitnesses include firefighters and policemen.


You are going to have to watch the video before you can start debating my post. You are doing exactly what people are saying I am doing
"Stating oneliners and calling it crap"

In the video you can clearly see the cores come down at far less than free fall speed and remain standing far longer than the rest of the towers.

First the claim was the towers collapsed in 10 seconds and now it's 15? Sounds a bit strange that 10 seconds and 15 seconds are both free fall speed.

Explosions are alot different to explosives. Two totally different things. Debris falling in the area of collision could cause sounds just as loud and with similar sounding properties to an explosion.

Regardless of that I see no point in your addressing claims of explosions by Firefighters and Policemen (a lot of whom have come out and said they don't believe the demolition theory) when we are talking about the core.



[edit on 14/10/2006 by doctorfungi]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   
I've seen this video,i do not see a core standing.It all came down at once.I also said it came down in UNDER 15 seconds,not it came down IN 15 seconds.check out this link,www.whatreallyhappened.com... this explains what I am trying to say.

[edit on 14-10-2006 by crowpruitt]

[edit on 14-10-2006 by crowpruitt]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Sections of both buildings' cores did stand, but then failed straight down from their bases, upon themselves, just like controlled demolitions within themselves.

For WTC1, you can even see pieces breaking off and falling off like timber, but then the whole rest of the mass just straight drops out of nowhere, sinking down into WTC1's footprint.



Here's a much larger version, easier to see the core structure, part of it falling to the side as per laws of thermodynamics.

[edit on 14-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 06:24 AM
link   


The beams of the core were dragged down by the rest of the tower.


You care to back that up at all?

After the cores were left standing there wasn't any part of the building to pull it down.

The core collapsed straight down in on itself, could you please provide at least a theory of how this happened.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Dr. Fungi wrote:
"And Scorpii, friend

I am sorry to have called your theory 'crap'. I appreciate the time you have taken to post your theory to the viewers of ATS. Without people posting theories we wouldn't have the community that we value here. With the exception of people calling other people fruitcakes, crackpots etc.

So I am sorry to have been bluntly rude.

But I do believe majority of your theory has already been addressed. If you take the time to read the links in my signature they provide answers to all of the theories in question. Some questions remain unanswered so we should push for these answers and seek the truth. "

For the record: I have visited many message boards before (not only conspiracy boards) so it take something to get me to feel like something is 'rude'. I like the fact you're being honest with me. I mean, I also know the majority of 'my' theory has been addressed before. Actually, I got most of 'my' facts from other theories AND researches. So I don't take that as being rude, I take that as being honest. 'My' theory therefore is not 'mine' (that's why I put 'own', 'my' and 'mine' between ' ') but it's just a few theories melt together into one to make it more... I don't know. Maybe easier to read.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Follow the links in my signature. Everything you've posted above is debunked in that website and video.

Please direct me to where the collapse of Tower 7 is explained without using the phrase 'controlled demolition'. Is it somewhere in the screwloosechange vid?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join