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.


Win 250,000 Points: What Are The Top-5 9/11 Conspiracies?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 10:13 AM
I don't know if these count as conspiracies, but they raise Serious questions in my mind:

1. 4 Airliners hijacked with moments of each other and deverted to new courses. Where were the Red Flags in the Pentagon, Intel, FBI and else where?

2. Osama Bin Laden was once a buddy of the President's Father, George H.W. Bush, when he was Director of the CIA. Why is Bush's old family friend so hell-bent on killing Americans? And, why Can't we find someone Our government know so well and trained?

3. The Attack on the Pentagon- The Pentagon is a military command center, with it's own defenses. It's also very close to 3 US Air Force bases (Bolling AFB, DC; Langley AFB, VA; and Andrews AFB, MD). with their Own Defenses, Resticted Air Space, and 3 Air Force baces with in minutes flying time, they couldn't intercet a 757? (can you say, setup?)

4.The Intelligence Blunders- They couldn't find any clues of the impending attacks, Yet within a week or two, they not only knew who did it, but had the proof to justify two wars. And yet, noone was immedatly fired for the biggiest intelligence blunder in history.

5. Al Quada- The Central Intelligence Agency built this group from the ground up to fight the Soviets an Afganastn. They were formed, recruited, trained, equiped, and (at one time) funded by the CIA's Covert Action Staff in the Directorate of Operations under the code Name: OPERATION CYCLONE. For proof, see here: Al Quada

Anyone wondering why we're getting attacked by something that OUR OWN Government Created?

Chew on those 9/11 facts for a while.


posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 10:17 AM
1.) That 9/11 was an "inside job," perpetrated by the U.S. government against its own citizens.

Not a terribly original conspiracy theory. We see similar conspiracy theories going back to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln (and the "cover-up" thereafter). The attack on Pearl Harbor has been blamed on FDR's administration, which supposedly had information of the attack in advance and did nothing to prevent it. The assassination of JFK, of course, has its own kingdom of conspiracy theory, most of which implicates the U.S. government. The fiery raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco and the later bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City generated a world of conspiracy theory in the 1990s, also. The point is, Americans have always, fairly or unfairly, shared a cynical view of their government and are more than ready to blame it for any disaster that may befall us. This is more a comment on the psychology and gullibility of the American people than anything else.

2.) That 9/11 was an excuse for government action to limit and/or remove our American liberties.

Curiously, there were more acts of terror (both foreign and domestic) on American soil during the ten years PRIOR to 9/11, as well as more danger to our liberties. In 1992, government agents swarmed a homestead in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, killing and wounding members of the family that lived there (the U.S. government later paid the survivors a settlement of some $5 million). Al Qaeda, obsessed even back then with bringing down the Twin Towers, financed the first bombing of the WTC in 1993, killing 6 people and injuring over a thousand. That same year, government agents swarmed the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, resulting in a deadly fire that killed 76 people. In retaliation, the Federal Building in Oklahoma City was bombed in 1995 by anti-government terrorists, killing 168 and injuring over 800 people. To all appearances, there was a very real war of terrorism happening right under our noses, with terrorists on BOTH sides of the battlefield.

During that time, legislation was proposed (and defeated) to suspend and/or heavily regulate the sale of many common consumer goods — from kitchen matches and plastic bottles to gasoline and garden fertilizers — for fear of their potential as bomb-making components. New and more stringent gun laws were proposed and enacted (notably the Federal Assault Weapons Ban), and domestic spying on American citizens (particularly militia groups) was in full swing. America was only a step away from severe loss of liberty at that point, yet it didn't happen. Most interesting is that 9/11 seems to have marked the END of terrorism on American soil, and it's been fairly quiet for the last 6 years, compared to the 1990s.

3.) That 9/11 was engineered as a justification for large-scale American military occupation of the Middle East (presumably to exploit local oil reserves).

This one is a no-brainer. We (the United States) import less than 20% of our crude oil from the Middle East. We import nearly that much (18%) from Canada. It would have been far easier for us to blame Canada for the attacks of 9/11 and invade them instead, if it was only oil we were after. Or even Mexico, which is sitting on one of the largest oil reservoirs on the planet (ever wonder why we're so accommodating to their illegal immigrants?).

There is something to be said, however, for our establishing a major Western military presence in the Middle East. Granted, we already HAVE an extremely Western-friendly military presence in the area, and that is our little nuclear-tipped friend, Israel. With the growth of Middle Eastern weapons technology and the hostility of countries in that region toward Israel, I can believe that 9/11 provided the impetus we needed to go in there and level the playing field. Remember, it's NOT about oil. It's ALL about Israel.

...more to come.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/13/2007 by Doc Velocity]

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 10:50 AM
1: Who was behind the attack.

- All the 'Powers that Be' knew it was OBL... except for OBL.

2: Why was Nothing done to prevent this.

- Forewarning was given, no precautions taken. Many Intelligence reports stated this was going to happen.
- After the first WTC bombing back in the 90's, defenses were still minimal.

3. With all the evidence given, why does all the destruction that day appear to have had HELP by unknown conspirators.

- Buildings falling when they shouldn't, defenses not where they should be, etc.

4. Why such a risky avenue taken, when the same results could have been aquired by other means with less chance of failure.

- Individual bombings at key centers, Ocean liners, malls, etc.
- Not having 'all your eggs in one basket'.

5. And the most important question with many answers.... Who gained the most from these attacks.

- ALQ has been run into the ground, OBL has been on the run - hiding in caves.
- Mega contracts awarded for military purposes
- New rules & regs erupted from the attacks, much more monetary support for all the 'three letter agencies'.
- People debate the utter chaos the economy is going through because of this, but read between the lines and see the big picture. Who's really losing money off this.

May not be what your looking for, but makes me feel good for contributing.

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 12:06 PM
4.) That 9/11 complicity was used as an EXCUSE for the United States to "illegally" invade Iraq and destroy Saddam Hussein's regime.

There is probably more than a grain of truth to this — you might remember that Saddam Hussein once offered a million-dollar bounty for the assassination of George H.W. Bush, the father of George W. Bush. This, frankly, would piss me off, too (and we Texans don't take kindly to folks threatenin' our daddies. 'Specially a got damned foreigner).

However, there were more than enough legitimate and legal reasons to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. Hussein's words, actions, and inactions over the previous 10 years had been repeatedly condemned by the international community, causing the United Nations Security Counsel to issue some 16 resolutions (and at least 30 official U.N. statements) calling for Iraq's compliance in destroying its WMD capability, returning Gulf War prisoners, and allowing U.N. weapons inspectors free access within Iraq, among other things. Hussein was not only ejecting U.N. weapons inspectors, he was BOASTING about his weaponry, taking pot-shots at U.S. reconnaissance planes in no-fly zones, and warning us that we would face WMD if we chose to invade again. This was public knowledge.

So, Saddam was ASKING for what he got, and we finally gave it to him, in spades, after 10 years of the international community failing to enforce the U.N. resolutions. In the long 17 months PRIOR to the Iraq invasion of 2003, the U.S. Congress expressed overwhelming bipartisan support for the action, with principal congressmen (and women) arguing long and hard in favor of taking Saddam down, because he posed a threat to the international community and because of Iraq's links to known terrorist groups. These claims were not based solely on the word of the White House, but based upon intelligence gathered at the request of congressional members, who spoke with authority on the subject.

As for the "missing WMD" that conspiracy theorists love to cite, Coalition forces have, in fact, recovered over 700 weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, although the great bulk of Hussein's WMD were destroyed after the first Gulf War, and more of them spirited away to Syria, most likely. Still, 700 WMD can cause a lot of MD.

In any event, there is no evidence that the United States and Coalition forces perpetrated an "illegal" invasion of Iraq, based on hysterical rumors that sprang out of 9/11. Rather, we were right there in Afghanistan, we had the military presence, and we chose to shut down another known threat to the international community (Saddam Hussein) while we were in the neighborhood — albeit 17 months after the invasion of Afghanistan, and 10 years later than we should have.

5.) That 9/11 was engineered to incite American outrage, thus securing a right-wing conservative war-mongering stranglehold on American government for years to come.

Yeah? How's that working out? If 9/11 was designed by a public relations agency for the GOP, then it failed miserably within a few weeks after the event. I've seen toilet paper marketing campaigns that lasted YEARS longer. Thus far, the present administration and Congress have demonstrated NO right-wing conservative tendencies, which is a major disappointment for a great many of the people who placed them in power. If anything, our stuttering, stumbling, oh-so-moderate policy regarding the so-called War on Terror has prolonged conflicts in all the wrong places and worn thin our conviction, morale, and patience. Which would lead me to believe that it's not a conservative conspiracy at all — just the opposite.

— Doc Velocity

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:16 PM
1.) There is evidence the U.S. Government and/or their associates were complicit in and/or negligently ignorant of several aspects of this event. To wit, the federal government and “the media” had details of the hijackers and their plans at least 18 months prior to 9/11. Just a few links supporting this:
Hijacker Details

CIA trails Hijackers

New York Times Pulls Punches

U.S. Gets Ample Warning

Egypt Prez says He Told US

Ru$$ia Knows It All

Clinton Just as Guilty

Warnings Abound – video

2.) The WTC twin tower collapse exhibited many characteristics inconsistent with an impact by commercial aircraft. Many experts in architecture, engineering, demolition, physical sciences, etc., have testified that the skyscraper collapse and aftermath of 9/11 is wholly inconsistent with the cause/effects of the events as they have been presented. WTC7/Pentagon have their own related anomalous issues. Among many other links on this topic:
Why WTC Fell

WTC Collapse Investigation?

BYU Physics Prof Finds Thermite in Samples at WTC

WTC7 Hits the Deck in 7 seconds – How?

2 Planes; Myriad Explosions Heard

Vid – What is the Real truth?

Vid- WTC7 Drops Unexpectedly

WTC Collapse: Scientific Analysis

WTC Destruction – Why the Official Version Can’t be True

3.) Where’s Usama? Bin Laden has been a sheltered, cajoled, obsequious devil from the beginning – the beginning being long before 9/11/2001. Further – and more importantly, He has not been “caught” because there is barely a perfunctory effort to find and capture him. With the amount of remote sensing, telemetric, and lethal resources available to the “most powerful nation on Earth”, if we wanted him bad enough, we could have had him by now. Also, like Oswald/Kennedy/CIA, UBL and his relationship with the Soviets/CIA is a quagmire that will never be able to avoid conspiracy. Just a few readings:
Well – do we know where he is or don’t we?

Grassy Knoll of WTC

Al Jazeera Shoots Itself In Foot

Did UBL Get a No-Catch-U Deal?

”Letting” Bin Laden Escape

Taliban Admits Knowing Where UBL is…

Hints on UBL Location. Find Him: easy!

Paki “army” lets UBL slide – Loves Him!

even ABC knows “the Path” to BL

Stone Cold trail – cuz know one’s really looking…

CIA Insider says gov’t halts search

Bush says he can’t find him – or even look for him

Dead or Alive? Yeah right…

Bush and Bin Laden Families mighty tight

US lets UBL go in exchange for Paki “help”

4.) Where’s the Gold? Depending on the source, between “several hundred million” and “several hundred billion” dollars worth of gold is “missing” from the WTC wreckage and has, thus far, “never been found”. A big deal was made in the media about two Brinks trucks that were found under the rubble and that “over $200 million” was recovered. But where’s the rest of the vault(s) contents? Reports of clandestine emptying of vaults in the dead of night before the attacks raises two very important questions: Who took the money? And, far more importantly, HOW did they know to get the loot out just before the attacks? Some background:

A King’s Ransom: Who’s Got it?

WTC Vault was L-O-A-D-E-D

Show me the Money!

Commando Mission, Objective $$?

[links edit]
(continued below)

[edit on 2/13/2007 by Outrageo]

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:18 PM
I shall come back with a complete post.

[edit on 13-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:22 PM
5.) Was there an “a priori” knowledge before the attack? Other than potential gold thieves or embezzlers as alluded to in #4 above, who else besides the perpetrators had knowledge that the attack was imminent? Evidence and testimony indicates that there were plenty who knew – all around the world. From “put options” on Wall Street to Saudi “Royalty” to CIA Operatives to our “friends” in Pakistan. To me, this is one of the most disgusting revelations of all, because an attack of this magnitude could have been prevented, or at least mitigated, and many innocent lives saved, had any one of these ‘enlightened’ parties had the guts to act on their knowledge. Take your pick from any of the following:

Evidence of Foreknowledge

Stock Play of the Century – Who Knew?

The 9/11 Commission “speaks” (with forked tongue?)

Another Arab and Iranian connection?

Scholars treasure trove of Info/Links

9/11 for Dummies – an Aussie Perspective

The following are three thermal infra-red aerial photographs taken over the WTC site. Notice the DATES. The first is 9/17, about one week following the attacks. As might be expected, there are still some hot zones under the rubble, though fire officials were surprised by the extent of the residual heat – inconsistent with a collapse – even a kerosene/jetA fueled fire. The second photo was taken 9/27, and the last one on 10/10 – nearly ONE MONTH after the attacks. The amount of remaining heat is wholly inconsistent with a building collapse, but IS consistent with an explosive accelerant such as thermite, which would have melted the steel and kept it hot for weeks after the collapse.

WTC Aerial Thermal 9/17/01

WTC Aerial Thermal 9/27/01

WTC Aerial Thermal 10/10/01

The images below are aerial photos of WT7 immediately after the attack and a LIDAR (Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging) image with superimposed (gray) buildings of the seven WTC complex. Note that WTC7 (far right on LIDAR image) is completely collapsed into its footprint, without having been struck by any airplanes, while other buildings between it and the twin towers remain standing.

WTC7 Air Shot1

WTC7 Air Shot2


[link edit]

[edit on 2/13/2007 by Outrageo]

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:29 PM
I feel like many "9/11 Truth" efforts ask people to swallow too much without really setting the table for them beforehand.
I just don't think you can hit an average U.S. Citizen in the face with "NORAD" and "squibs" and "Illuminati" right out of the gate and expect anything but rolled eyes.

We're not trying to win an argument, we're trying to start a dialogue.

Along those's my pitch...

* * *

It’s not about being paranoid.
It’s not about being democrat or republican.
It’s not even about being American.

Take a moment to listen. Take a moment to think.

Three thousand people died.
You can afford to think about them for 60 seconds.

Take 10 seconds to think about AIRPLANES.
An airplane can’t bring down a skyscraper.

Not even the two Boeing 767 aircraft that hit the Twin Towers, weighing over 100 tons and traveling at 450 miles per hour, could cause enough structural damage to destroy those buildings.

…structural damage to perimeter columns as a result of aircraft impact of the framed-tube system appears to have played a minimal role in initiating the collapse.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center - Appendix Q, p.Q-4, June 2004.

Take 10 seconds to think about FIRE.
Fire can’t bring down a skyscraper.

In 2005, a skyscraper in Madrid caught fire and burned for almost 24 hours. When the fire was put out, the building looked like this:

The building eventually came down. Six months later. Using demolition robots.

Take 10 seconds to think about PHYSICS.
Concrete and steel offer more resistance than air.

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Frequently Asked Questions

To give some perspective about those collapse times, a brick dropped from the top of a World Trade Center Tower on September 10th would have taken about 10 seconds to hit the ground.

Which means that the tops of the Twin Towers fell as quickly as a freefalling object even though they had to pass through about 110 floors of concrete and steel to do it.

Take 10 seconds to think about DEBRIS.
Buildings are specifically designed to withstand threats such as structural damage and fire. While many buildings near the Twin Towers caught fire and sustained damage from debris on September 11th, only two suffered a complete collapse.

One of those buildings was the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. This church was located at the very base of Tower Two, and was crushed in the Tower’s collapse.

The other building was World Trade Center 7 (WTC7), which collapsed neatly into its own footprint, despite the fact that every other building around it (Verizon Building, U.S. Post Office, 30 West Broadway), including the two between WTC7 and Tower One (WTC5 and WTC6), suffered only a partial collapse or no collapse at all.

The collapse of World Trade Center 7 is particularly puzzling, not only due to the tidy and unlikely nature of its destruction, but because it is logical to think that the building would be structurally reinforced to protect its high profile tenants:

The CIA, the Secret Service, the Department of Defense, and the Mayor’s Off ice of Emergency Management.

Take 10 seconds to think about MONEY
Immediately before the 9/11 attacks, Wall Street professionals noted an unprecedented surge in a very specific type of trading called a “put option.”

A “put option” rewards an investor for predicting when a particular stock is about to drop in price.

On September 10th, 2001, put volume on American Airlines stock was 4,516. That is above average. More accurately, it’s nearly eleven times its average daily volume.

Individuals with prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks made a tremendous amount of money on the stock market, and it is virtually impossible that terrorist entities could be solely responsible for these investments.

The fact is, there are certain official explanations of September 11th, 2001 that don't make sense.

It’s okay to disagree with that. It’s okay to argue about that.

It’s not okay to ignore it.

Three thousand people died.
You can afford to think about why for 60 seconds.

* * *

(Edit to fix picture.)

[edit on 13-2-2007 by Essedarius]

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 03:05 PM
The more I researched this the more I began to believe.

1. So many with forewarned knowledge of the attack.
- There are so many different items of proof that the US government knew of the attack way before it happened. Such as:
A. Mayor Willie Brown, San Francisco, receiving a call 8 hrs before the attack, advising him that, “Americans should be cautious about their air travel.”[1]
B. The advanced Preparedness of the Major News agencies
C. Several Companies traded commodities like they had for warned knowledge
D. World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz gave a West Point Commencement speech about surprise attacks 4 months before 9/11.
These are just to name a few. I know there are more examples out there.
E. FEMA arrived on Monday for a Bio-terrorism drill [6]

2. Building #1, #2, and #7 were destroyed by controlled Demolition
- There are so many different theories about what actually destroyed the buildings its amazing. There are way too many to put all of them down. But the main thing is that too many highly educated engineers don't believe the story.
A. My own personal theory about the fuel needed already being there.
B. Deomolition
-Listen to the Demo wave as it blows:
-One man’s investigation into the towers calapse (Long but Most Excellent)
This will change you mind, or at least open it to the possibilities. The Boom before the calapse.
C. More picture, and diagrams of how it could have been done:
D. Major power downs in towers 1&2 a week before. Strange workmen that were caring loads of cable and supplies. They were “Updating”, the cable in the building. Then bomb sniffing dogs were removed, along with the security during that week.[6]

3. The many inconsistances of flight 93
- There are many different conflicting reports about flight 93 that bother me. There are many who believe that much of what was learned about flight 93 was to stir anger in American men, and sympothy in American women. That a group of everyday americans fighting to the death to stop the plane from hitting another building, would galvanize the American spirit and support the war.
A. Was Flight 93 shot down by us?
B. Flight 93 landed safely (This article was later refuted as mistaken identity. But was it)
C. That the phone calls got through. Many believed that for so many to get through, it had to be faked, or been a miracle of epic proportions.
D. There are also some who believe they were already dead, and flown by remote to crash.

4. That the N.W.O., or elite was behind the attack
- There is much speculation about the Elite, N.W.O., The Bilderberg group, were behind the attacks in a effort to further their globalization agenda
A. A video I’m sure we have all seen by now, that is an interview of Aaron Russo by Alex Jones about talkes he had with what Nick Rockefeller told him:
B. More on the Rockefeller family
C. What the Bilderberg group is:
D. What the N.W.O. is:
E. What is Globalization?
-While I can’t find a link to back this up, the overall general feel I get for this conspiracy is that 9/11 was the beginning part of a globalization plan by one of these, or all of these groups.

5. Pentagon not hit by an airplane
- There is a belief by many that the Pentagon was hit by a missle or something else other than the airplane they told us it was.
Here is video proof. Does this look like a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon to you?
Here is some photo’s of the crash site:
I think the thing you really have to ask yourself is. If a 757 really hit the Pentagon, why is there a still photo of the plane? If nothing else just to shut up all of the theorist. You want to know why, because there wasn’t a 757 crashing into the Pentagon

My sources:

[edit on 13-2-2007 by Royal76]

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 03:09 PM
I have not had much to add to the 911 Threads, so I have just been reading them. This contest is great, and the same questions are brought up where I believe most have been answered.

Although most think I am a "debunker", I do believe there is a conspiracy. Most of my questions surround the 911 Commision Report, and how the Bush administration delt with it. These are in order of the date.

#5 January 24, 2002: Cheney and Bush Pressure Senator to Avoid 9/11 Inquiry
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D)claims that on this day, Vice President Cheney calls him and urges that no 9/11 inquiry be made. President Bush repeated the request on January 28, and Daschle is repeatedly pressured thereafter. Newsweek summarizes one of the conversations:

“Bush administration officials might say they’re too busy running the war on terrorism to show up. Press the issue ... and you risk being accused of interfering with the mission.”
Newsweek, 2/4/2002

#4 May 23, 2002: Bush Opposes Special Inquiry into Terrorism Warnings

President Bush says he is opposed to establishing a special, independent commission to probe how the government dealt with terrorism warnings before 9/11.
CBS News, 5/23/2002

#3 November 27, 2002: Kissinger Named Chairman of New 9/11 Commission / Then
ecember 13, 2002: Kissinger Resigns from New 9/11 Commission.

This I thought was very suspicious from the start. Kissinger has been known throughout his political life as someone that keeps secrets from the American public.

“Documents recently released by the CIA, strengthen previously-held suspicions that Kissinger was actively involved in the establishment of Operation Condor, a covert plan involving six Latin American countries including Chile, to assassinate thousands of political opponents.” He is also famous for an “obsession with secrecy.”
[BBC, 4/26/2002]

“Indeed, it is tempting to wonder if the choice of Mr. Kissinger is not a clever maneuver by the White House to contain an investigation it long opposed.”
New York Times, 11/29/2002
His Resignation
On December 11th,2002, the Bush administration argued that Kissinger did no have to disclose his private business clients. New York Times, 12/12/2002 However, the Congressional Research Service insists that he does, and Kissinger quits rather than reveal his clients. MSNBC, 12/13/2002; Seattle Times, 12/14/2002
It is reported that Kissinger is a consultant for Unocal, the oil corporation, and was involved in plans to build pipelines through Afghanistan. Washington Post, 10/5/1998; Salon, 12/3/2002
Kissinger claims he did no current work for any oil companies or Mideast clients, but several corporations with heavy investments in Saudi Arabia, such as ABB Group, a Swiss-Swedish engineering firm, and Boeing Corp., pay him consulting fees of at least $250,000 a year. A Boeing spokesman said its “long-standing” relationship with Kissinger involved advice on deals in East Asia, not Saudi Arabia. Boeing sold $7.2 billion worth of aircraft to Saudi Arabia in 1995. Newsweek, 12/15/2002

#2 April 29, 2004: Bush and Cheney Privately Meet with 9/11 Commission; Decline to Provide Testimony Under Oath and Bush Declines to answer questions without Cheney present.

The 911 commission allows Bush and Cheney to appear together, in private, and not under oath. The testimony is not allowed to be recorded. Commissioners can take notes, but the notes are censored by the White House. Knight Ridder, 3/31/2004; Newsweek, 4/2/2004; New York Times, 4/3/2004.
The commission drew most of their questions from a list submitted to the White House before the interview, but few details about the questions or the answers given are available. Washington Post, 4/29/2004
When Bush was asked by the media prior to the questioning WHY he was being questioned WITH Cheney, he tried to side step it and responded with "They want to ask us questions...."

#1 January 27, 2003: 9/11 Commission Starts Off with Little Funding
The commission has $3 million and only a year and a half to explore the causes of the attacks. By comparison, a 1996 federal commission to study legalized gambling was given two years and $5 million. In addition, The Space shuttle Columbia tragedy was given a 50 million dollar investigation budget within two MONTHS of that accident. ( 7 lives compared to 3000)Associated Press, 1/27/2003 Two months later the Bush administration grudgingly increases the funding to $12 million total. Philip Zelikow, the director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia and formerly in the National Security Council during George H. W. Bush’s administration, is also appointed executive director of the commission. Associated Press, 1/27/2003 Zelikow cowrote a book with National Security Adviser Rice and was also, in 2002, responsible for completely rewriting President Bush’s national security strategy. [9/11 Commission, 3/2003; Mann, 2004, pp. 316-317] A few days later, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton says, “The focus of the commission will be on the future. We want to make recommendations that will make the American people more secure. ... We’re not interested in trying to assess blame, we do not consider that part of the commission’s responsibility.” United Press International, 2/6/2003

All of what I have listed here, although not "sexy" like thermate talk, holograms, missing planes, controlled demolition, ect, however posesses facts. I could have listed the 911 Commision as only 1 item, but i felt that listing specific facts do point to some sort of a cover up from the Bush Administration. At a minimum, Bush made MAJOR mistakes during his short time in the White House. CAn it be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was intentional? I don't think so. Though it CAN be proven that Bush DID cover up the mistakes he and his administration made.

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 04:05 PM
I think the best way to get other people interested isn't to come right out and say "The government did it and heres why..." That is the best way to get them to ignore you.

You must also leave the president out of it , or it looks like "jealous politics".

The best way to get them interested is to raise questions about the events of that day that have real problems in the official story.

1. Why, immediately after the attacks on 9-11, when EVERY person in the country except military fighters were forbidden from flying, was the Bin-Laden family allowed to board a plane and leave the country with absolutley ZERO questioning?

2. Why does the crash-site of Flight 93 look different than every other plane crash in the history of mankind?

3. Put options. A put option is an option to sell a stock at a certain price in the future. If a stock is worth 20 dollars today, and I say in 4 days I'll sell it for 15 dollars,you think its a good deal and sign a contract agreeing to buy. The only way I can make money is if the stock price falls dramatically. Put options on the affected airlines increased by 20 TIMES in the 3 days before the attacks on the Trade Center. The investigation was halted by the government. Why?

4. With the dozens of videos that are known to exist, why has the government only released grainy, mislabeled and unconvincing video of the pentagon attack. How did the FBI arrive at all the cameras that captured the attack within minutes of it happening? Why did they tell some witnesses not to talk about what they had seen?

5. Project Northwoods. While not an exact blueprint for the attack, the documents prove that certain groups in the government are willing to kill Americans and fake terrorist attacks to accomplish their goals.

If you can get them interested in these points than they will see the rest with their own research. You can't throw things that are to 'extreme' at them right off the bat or they will get uninterested fast. If you tell a Christian right off the bat that God is fake and the church is a scam, they will ignore you. If you ask them why the "Good Reverend" drives around in a BMW and lives in a 500,000 dollar home, they'll see for themselves.
(Sorry Christians, I just used you as an example)

I did not provide links because you asked for something to talk about in an elevator type situation for about 90 seconds. These are the types of talking points that peaks interest and encourages people to look things up for themselves. You can not point to a link in an elevator or on a construction worksite, etc.

[edit on 13-2-2007 by Tiloke]

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 04:12 PM
1- If you look at all the footages (where the planes hit the towers), you'll see a flash coming from the tower, right before it hits. And if you look under the plane, there is something on the fuselage. Like a rocket pod (or something similar). See for yourself, zoom in and watch it frame for frame. All angles show a flash coming from the building.

2- How can boeing 757 destroy 9ft/3m of Steel reinforced concrete (keep in mind there are 3 outer rings, each has 3ft/1,5m of SRC). It is made to withstand a big bomb (like a conventional bunker buster). Also the hole is too small for a boeing 757, and with its fuel-load, there should've been a fire that would've lasted for days. Yet there is no major fire damage. If you look closely, nothing that big slammed into the building, because you would've seen the damage the wings made. The roof (where it was hit) collapsed a while after impact (the footage showing the collapse)... where it should've collapsed or pushed upwards (leading to a collapse directly afterwards), depends on the angle of approach the boeing had, and at what angle the boeing was banking at (if it was banking at all). And there was no recognizable wreckage that came from a boeing 757.

3- Why did they decide to destroy WTC building 7, hours before the towers even collapsed? For a demolition to take place, it takes weeks of planning (studying the structural integrity, planting charges, etc.). And the streets should be cleared too (indicating there's a demolotion taking place).

4- Why was there only no cameras on at one of the most protected buildings in the US (the pentagon)? And why did the FBI/CIA confiscate video's from the gas station that was situated nearby?

5- Why did the firefighters hear explosions (in a demolition fashion) coming from the building (one of the towers)? If they lied... Why did they lie about it? If they lied about it, their reputation would be six-feet under (and I think they would know that, if they lied).

This one is to think about (and off the list)... how can magazines publish the 9/11 incident on the same day? And how can books be released so quickly?

unfortunately no links.

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 08:37 PM
I would not consider myself to be any kind of an expert on what happened on 9/11 and I certainly don’t expect to win this contest, but I was intrigued with the premise of this thread because I have talked about 9/11 conspiracies with friends, so I will concentrate on what I always say when the subject comes up.

I don’t think WTC building 7 collapsed on it’s own from the damage that occurred. I am an engineer but not a structural engineer or an architect, but I did do a little structural drafting years ago and I know enough to know that I can’t make an informed judgment about the Twin Towers collapse and will leave that to the experts. However I do have common sense and after reading a lot on WTC7 the only conclusion I can draw is that it was brought down by other means and not from fires or structural damage.

The reasons that are clear to me are:

1) WTC7 was not hit by an airliner and only sustained damage from debris from the aircraft and the collapse from the North Tower.

2) WTC5 and 6 were closer to the North Tower and sustained much more damage than Building 7 and also had fires but they did not collapse.

3) Fires did get started in the building, but they were not large enough to threaten the entire building. Even though there were several diesel fuel tanks in the building for backup generators, most of the fuel was recovered after it collapsed during the cleanup, so it could not have burned in the fire.

4) The WTC7 building was the first steel structured building in history to ever collapse due to fire (not including the Twin Towers because they were hit with airliners), and when it collapsed it came straight down evenly and not how you would expect if it were due to fire or structural damage. You would expect the collapse to start at the weakest point where the damage occurred, but from the video it starts near the center of the building.

5) There was obvious prior knowledge that the building was going to collapse and people were evacuated, and even the news crews were told in advance that the building would be coming down even though it has never happened before that day.

I just can’t get over how this building collapsed the way it did. Just like I will never be convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter in the JFK assassination, I don’t think I can ever be convinced that this building came down on it’s own, and I have listened to both sides of the argument.

As far as how the building did collapse, again I will leave that to the experts. I don’t know if there was demolition involved or the structure was deliberately weakened some other way. I also don’t know why or exactly who was behind it. I do believe terrorists attacked us that day, but how much anyone knew of the attack is hard for me to say. I think 9/11 was allowed to happen, but more from incompetence than cooperation. This is why the government was slow to react when people insisted on an investigation, and to this day no one in the government has been held accountable for failing to react to the intelligence warning of this attack.

Once you open someone’s mind to the idea that things did not happen on that day the way they were told, it is up to them to pursue it and I would not try to force it on anyone. The usual response I get is people think all politicians are crooks and liars so they don’t want to know. It is not because they don’t believe you. They just feel powerless to do anything about it.

[#3) edited for clarity per member request]

[edit on 14-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 12:00 AM
1) When the 9/11 story broke on the news, early reports of an alleged Cessna accident were intentionally downplayed to buy time as the NYSE was raped.

2) NORAD's inability to identify and stop the 'attacks'.

3) The Secret Service not securing the President and Air Force One immediately per standard operating procedures.

4) F.E.M.A. arriving in NYC a day early.

5) The lack of a thorough investigation... (i.e. the steel was wisked away from ground zero and shipped overseas).

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:05 AM
1) Silverman's insurance deal, Bush's relative involved with Tower security, and the power-down the weekend before the event.

2) The quick removal of the forensic evidence--the steel!

3) Plastic knives and paper cutters?

4) Cheney's morning of 9/11 "war games", and N.O.R.A.D.

5) The Administration's reluctance to investigate, or their outright refusal to testify finally at the 911 Commission Hearings; at which too many witnesses were not allowed to testify, nor were their depositions taken.

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 06:06 AM
1. Molten steel puddles burning for weeks after 911.

The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.


2. Removal of evidence (whole building) from crime scene.

The editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering magazine, William A. Manning, issued an urgent ?call to action? to America?s firefighters at the end of 2001, calling for a forensic investigation and demanding that the steel from the site be preserved to allow investigators to determine what caused the collapse. ?The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately,? Manning wrote.

3. Dynamics of the buildings falling down, melting steel, pulverised concrete.

There are quite a few still pictures showing what can only be described as explosive ejections of material from the towers, pulverized concrete and shattered pieces of the steel perimeter columns thrown out even in the early stages of the collapses. Some of these, for example the south tower pictures below, show clear rings of explosions running completely around the building just below the point of collapse. In other pictures we see extremely energetic ejection of debris that simply cannot be accounted for by gravitational forces. The immense volume of pulverized material generated early in the collapse gives rise to a phenomenon usually seen only in volcanoes, a pyroclastic flow that can be seen in some of the videos racing down the surrounding streets.

4. None of the planes intercepted after loosing transponder contact.

"Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings. These ‘protocols’ were in place and were practiced regularly for a good reason -- with heavily trafficked air space; airliners without radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.

Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. -- a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11.

Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?

5. Steel does not melt in a normal fire.

The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center's twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001. Kevin R. Ryan was terminated Tuesday from his job at Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., the consumer-product safety testing giant.

Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:22 AM

Top 5 September the 11th Conspiracies

I myself think we need to focus less on the Twin Towers themselves and the external events that happened. The public as a whole do not understand structural integrity, and so on and so fourth. It also can cause a lot of boredom and confusion and remove people from the debate all together.
  1. According to the NIST Report; “WTC 7 was located immediately to the north of the main WTC Complex, approximately 350 ft from the north side of WTC 1.” [1] How can anyone believe items falling 350feet and more would land (on a building which is externally cased in concrete) and catch fire?
  2. Why was the President allowed to (and why did he remain) telling stories to children when September the 11th was happening? Surely the safety of his Nation should come before a childrens story. [2]
  3. Normal rules of engagement for hi-jacked aeroplanes were not followed. NORAD should have scrambled jets to intercept and make sure the plane wasn’t allowed to enter residential or commercial air space, to limit any ability to cause such an event. After one plane had hit the towers, why the others were not shot down (collateral damage) remains un-answered. The idea that NORAD can not split reality from a drill and the people were not explained that it wasn’t part of the drill shows problems that can not be explained. [3]
  4. Constant lies by the CIA, FBI, the President and other people involved. Causing the official story to be changed time and time again. [4]
  5. The fact Osama was a CIA Agent, was trained by the United State’s, his terrorist camps paid for by them can not be just over-looked as it has been. His ability to do these, to co-ordinate these events and the whole Global Islamic Terrorist movement stems from the United State’s. Exactly why they did it has yet to be explained and why they were still being used as recent as Kosovo has yet to be answered. [1]
    [2] Fahrenheit 9/11
    [4] Telegraph
    [5] Noam Chomsky; “Hedgemony or Survival”.

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 09:28 AM
1) it was the goverment did it (reasons to go to war)
2) it was the Israelis (gives them more leaway)
3) it was neo nazis working together to get east and west into conflict)
4) it was the KGB (russions) pissed that they lost most of their proxy states
5) it was the new world order

i win so when do i get the 250k (cheaqe would do)

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 10:14 AM






posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 04:03 PM
These are not my beliefs, but 5 of my theories are:

1) The planes were never hijacked; the "regular" American pilots formed a suicidal/murderous cabal because of psychiatric problems and they could have had links to a secret part of the U.S. government, al-qaeda, Afghanistan, Iraq, or other parts of the world.

2) The video of planes crashing were made-up; no planes crashed and there were no deaths on 9/11: the twin towers were partly or wholly detonated to reorganize systems and boost the economy.

3) U.S.A. military pilots flew the 4 aircraft that crashed and did so to blame the middle east for the event in order to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and prevent nuclear war.

4) Russia threatened nuclear war with the U.S.A. if the U.S.A. did not at least slightly self-destruct.

5) George Walker Bush implemented one of many plans to defend a war in the Middle East in order to deter the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear war.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by GreatTech]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in