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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 10:54 PM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
but on first glance, I'm not certain there is a singular post to covers all the points I'm looking for.

3) I'd like to also engage you (members) to consider how to refine the points in these posts to end up with our goal, 5 items you could mention with ease and aplomb at a mixed gathering.

Dear S.O.,

I think I have a better idea of what you're after. If you want to get the public to open up to the idea of some type of conspiracy, I think you need to get them to take baby steps. If you haven't read Robert Cialdini's "Influence" you should get it right away.

Cialdini talks about a concept he calls "Commitment and Consistency." What this means is that to influence people, you get them to agree to something small first, and then build to the bigger things. For example, a car salesman will get you to take a test drive. This establishes that you have a definite interest in the car. Accepting offers of free samples is another example.

To get people to open their minds to a 9/11 conspiracy, you need to get them to agree to something small first, something that 99.9% of the population will agree to. Things like...

* Politicians are not always honest...

* The FBI and CIA know more than they're telling us...

* If the Air Force shot down Flight 93, they wouldn't admit to it...

* Everybody knows there's more to the Kennedy assassination than they told us...

* Bush was just looking for a good reason to go into Iraq and finish what his dad started...

I think most people would nod their heads in agreement with all of the above statements.

So when it comes to 9/11, the only way to make any in-roads in the minds of the anti-CTers is to start with small bits and pieces that they will agree with:

1) Flight 93

There's no way that 90 minutes after the first hijacking the air force wasn't on top of Flight 93. There's debris 8 miles away, and no sign of a plane at the "crash site." The government would never admit to shooting down the plane.

Flight 93 most likely didn't just crash like the goverment said it did, right?

2) 9/11 Commission

Since they couldn't afford to let the cat out of the bad about Flight 93, they avoided for two years even having any sort of investigation. Even after they agreed to the 9/11 Commission, Bush and Cheney wouldn't agree to testify individually, or under oath. So they loaded up the 9/11 Commission with insiders from both the Bush and Clinton administrations to make sure that neither Bush nor Clinton took any "blame" for what happened on 9/11.

3) FBI, CIA, and WTC7

Most people didn't see the third building collapse on 9/11. This was a 47-story tower called World Trade Center 7. Interestingly, the FBI and CIA both had important offices in this building. This building wasn't hit by a plane, and had some superficial structural damage and some fires burning. The firefighters didn't even try to put it out. Not suprisingly, it "collapsed" 8 hours after the initial Trade Center attacks, taking down with it all of the FBI and CIA secret documents, never to be seen again.

In my opinion, three points like this is enough to try to get somebody to think on. Going for 5 points puts somebody in overwhelm, and rather than change their mind about 9/11, will push them back into defending their own non-CT beliefs.

Also, it would be smart to raise objections first before they have a chance to raise them. Something like...

4) I know that you're probably thinking that any type of cover-up would take hundreds of people. That might be true... I don't know. I'm thinking that the way the military and CIA work on a need to know basis, only a small handful of people would have known about Flight 93 and WTC7. The rest were told the official story.

5) I know you're thinking somebody would have spilled the beans by now. And under usual circumstances, you'd probably be right. But 9/11 wasn't a typical circumstance. The U.S. was attacked and heading into war. The people "in the know" were military and CIA, and they would never do anything to undermine the U.S. during a time of war. That's why nobody has come forward. To them, it would be treason.

Just my 2 cents...

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 12:26 AM
Jeeezz, not even an honorable mention.

Oh well.

Don't know why I even bother posting stuff.

I suppose extra credit doesn't count at this point?


Free Masons - US govenrment conspiracy mini documentary

How many free masons frequent these boards do you think?

[edit on 28-2-2007 by In nothing we trust]

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 06:41 PM
911 Conspiracy theory in two minutes!

1) US Defence

Nearly 700 billion spent on defence in US each year. In 2000 they sent interceptor jets out 129 times (Calgary Herald Oct 13 2005). They had prepared for this kind of thing. A lot. But on 9/11, they just happened to be running a unique exercise, Vigilant Guardian, that involved fake hijacks on the radar, so noone knew which was real and which was exercise. Left the whole country with it's pants down, and allowed 4 planes to beat the system, three of which hit their targets, one being the pentagon, the most heavily defended building in the world, which has a military airbase 10 miles away. Coincidence?

2) Qui Bono?

If Bin Laden did it, wouldn't he have put out a message on the day to make demands or warnings? On one hand he's supposed to be an evil genius who organised and succeeded in such an intricate and massive operation, but on the other hand he's so stupid that he didn't realise all he'd get in return was more muslims being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, which was what he was complaining about in the first place!

War. The money trail. I mean, they've already spent at least 400 billion dollars on the war in Iraq alone, theyre saying it might cost 2 trillion! Most of that goes straight to companies like Lockheed Martin (20 billion last year!), Boeing (18 billion!), and Dick Cheneys old company Halliburton. I mean that money could have been used to give free healthcare to everyone in America!!!. Then theres the insider trading. How low would someone above the law stoop for a scoop in the war chest?

3) Northwoods

Very low. A similar thing had been planned before. Got past the joint chiefs of staff and everything. It's there in black and white on the George Washington University site, called Operation Northwoods. Blowing up planes, ships, US bases, the lot. And its not the only example. These people are ruthless.

4) Collapses

The first tower to fall was the second one that was hit! Even a physics professor has said they must have been demolished. All 3, straight down, freefall. You couldn't have paid for a cleaner job. Especially the third tower, WTC7. That wasn't even hit by a plane, and only had superficial damage. No building of it's type in history had collapsed due to fire, and there have been some HUGE ones. To top it off, Larry Silverstein admitted they 'pulled it', and several news channels reported on WTC7's collapse 20 minutes before it came down! They conveniently lost their tapes.

5) Al Qaeda?
Fireproof passports? Last minute flight manuals for revision? Bin Laden? No evidence.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by Giordano Bruno]

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Essedarius
Then he said this:

I just don't want to believe that our government could do that. I can't think about it.

I would have to agree that this is the biggest hurdle to get over because for the most part it is true. When considering the size of the government probably 99% of the people in the government are innocent and hard working folks. I am not totally convinced it is true myself, but I know it would only takes a few in key positions to pull this off with good planning.

If you would start out by saying the government is behind the attacks most people will not even listen after that no matter what facts you present. I would say start out with other points first and save that for last.

Kudos to everyone for the great posts, and keep up the good work.

posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:58 PM
Just a question

Is there one of those super cool status things that go along with this? like fighter or scholar or something? just wondering...

[edit on 1-3-2007 by whatukno]

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 08:10 AM
You get the title of 911 dork in red under your username and byline.

Sorry, I'm a little groggy and a little burned out.

I'm trying to compile what I think S.O. is looking for...though I think it's impossible because I don't really think I know what S.O. is looking for...I mean, I do, but I don't. I feel his frustration at seeing bits and pieces, but not the whole, as I feel the frustration of trying to take the bits and pieces and make it into a socially acceptable whole.

I'm still trudging along though...going for broke for that 911 dork title.

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 09:58 AM
Just a thought S.O, that this thread is too good to call an early end to it, I mean those points don't cost anything, and if theyre an incentive for someone to come up with the killer 2 minute argument then its worth carrying on with surely?

Not that I'm trying to give you any more work

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Giordano Bruno
Just a thought S.O, that this thread is too good to call an early end to it, I mean those points don't cost anything, and if theyre an incentive for someone to come up with the killer 2 minute argument then its worth carrying on with surely?

Yeah, I'm not ready for an end just yet, besides I don't want the points as much as I want that 911 dork title anyway!
But seriously, it's not an arguement anyway- it's an enticement we want, er, S.O. wants...I think, right? A little taste of the truth to entice... a little honey

...but what is enough and what is too much? How much sweetens the theories and how much spoils them?

No, I don't want this thread to end just yet, I'm still having fun here, it's just frustrating because what are the 5 most important facts, and how to present them to just anyone...and concisely? Concisely? I mean, you wont grab anyone's attention with one liners-you have to give some factual details and expound a bit.

Then, if you want to be casting doubt on the official story of 9/11 without coming out like a nut presenting our government and the President as being a co-conspirators, Bin Laden an ally, the ISI funding etc ...And how do you stick to 9/11 facts without going into the pre-9/11 facts of conspiracy leading up to know? Which we are apprently to do if the second challenge specified 5 points of facts pre-911 that indicate a conspiracy pre-9/11...then the first 5 has to stick to just shedding doubt on the official story well...boy oh boy, my head is spinning!

:bnghd: :bnghd: :bnghd:

[edit on 2-3-2007 by 2l82sk8]

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:51 AM
From the official story, to the wildest conspiracies, somewhere in between are the bare facts and truth of Sept 9, 2001. Many people believe the official story blindly, but once you have some of the basic actual facts surrounding that day, you really must acknowledge the 911 pound gorilla in the room.

First, looming large is the fact that it is highly improbable and logically impossible to believe that four planes were successfully hijacked within minutes of each other and with terrorists instead of experienced pilots at the flight controls, managed remarkably difficult if not humanly impossible, maneuvers to successfully hit 3 out of 4 strategic targets successfully dead on, unimpeded by the US National Defense who delayed all efforts to intercept such hijacked aircraft. The term humanly impossible is used above because a group called Pilots for Truth, explain the attack on the Pentagon was not humanly possible to execute in a manned aircraft. The Pentagon confiscated and refused to release any surveillance tapes that might have shown an airplane striking it for an unreasonably long time, and when they did release tapes they proved nothing.

pilots for truth


The official story of 9/11 excuses the delayed defense response by first trying to say no one could have ever imagined such a scenario of hijacked planes piloted by terrorists on suicide missions flying into specific targets in NYC, and thus were unprepared and in shock, but then it contradicts itself by also saying the military response was delayed because of the war games it was playing at the exact same time, included simulated hijackings by terrorists, which caused much confusion and made it difficult for them to identify the real terrorists from the exercise at first, even after the WTC was hit and was on fire.

Another major flaw with the official story is, that it does not account for the fact the WTC towers collapsed demolition explosive style, instead of like a typical burning or structurally damaged building would, indicating explosives, engineering knowledge, and extensive planning were involved, not just a hit from an aircraft. Interesting to note, is how easily in all of the chaos, fire, and rubble, the hijacker passports were found in tact and the hijackers identified.

Indeed, WTC 7, seldom spoken of, collapsed in the exact same way as WTC 1 and 2, demolition style within minutes to the ground, and was never struck by aircraft. The laws of physics are broken in the official story, and the fact strategically placed explosive charges were used is proven by the fact molten metal was found at the towers, which no regular, or even jet-fueled fire, can cause such high heat required to melt metal. That extreme heat could only be generated by explosives.



Another anomaly of physics the official story purports is the crash of FLT 93. Flight 93 was one of the hijacked planes that supposedly crashed in a field in Pennsylvania after the passengers rushed the hijackers. However, the crash site yielded physical evidence which contradicts that claim, and instead is physically indicative of a plane that was shot out of the sky. FLT 93 must have been already hemorrhaging parts before crashing to cover the wide 8 mile area with aircraft debris the way it did as if it was falling apart from a huge outside trauma before it crashed. This is consistent with a plane sustaining fatal battle damage while flying. However, it is difficult to know the details of its crash because there is the fact the three aircraft control towers which would have been able to track flight 93 in Cleveland, Johnstown, and Pittsburgh were ordered evacuated by the FAA at that time for some reason.

Flt 93


Now, besides the official story 9/11 contradicting itself, the laws of physics, and the logic of national defense, there are numerous other facts to take into consideration when attempting to trudge through the rubble to get to the truth of 9/11, such as the Army Intelligence team known as Able Danger warned of Al Quada striking the US in the summer of 2001, but the officers of Able Danger were ordered not to testify in the 911 judiciary hearings in front of the 911 commission and congress, while President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney did not want to testify in the 911 judiciary hearings, and indeed at first the President adamantly refused to, however he and Cheney did eventually testify, but only under very strict exceptions such as they would not testify under oath, and no electronic recordings of their testimonies could be made, and all notes taken by 911 committee staff would be reviewed by White house and not be made public.

911 facts

Also, worthy to note is the fact the Pentagon was due to undergo criminal investigation for being unable to account for 2.3 trillion dollars in assets Donald Rumsfeld admitted. This investigation was not just put off or forgotten because of the terrorist attacks, but was successfully thwarted when the Pentagon was hit and records destroyed.

trillions missing from Pentagon

former CIA comments

edited for links

[edit on 2-3-2007 by 2l82sk8]

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:16 AM
I just can't quite get... it whatever "it" is.

It's just missing.

Maybe because I didn't delve into the more conspiratorial evidence of the ISI, and insider trading, and prescedents like just seems impossible. Impossible I tell ya!!!

it IS impossible to shed doubt on the official story of 911 by choosing just 5 points the average person would be inclined to consider and keeping it concise...

impossible I say!!!! I'm losing my mind!!!!!
ARGH! I've lost sleep! I need a shower! My dog needs a bath!

... and no one even wanted to try to collaborrate with me-ya bunch of snobs and punks the lot of ya! *snif*

[edit on 2-3-2007 by 2l82sk8]

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by 2l82sk8
You get the title of 911 dork in red under your username and byline.

YEA! whoo hoo! im gonna be a 911 dork! (does a little dance)

Can't wait to see who is going to win this thing. There were a lot of realy good submissions.

[edit on 2-3-2007 by whatukno]

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 11:07 AM
Who won? does anyone know?

(sits in fetal position rocking back and forth waiting for the answer)

I just gotta know man, who won this thing?

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 11:23 AM

Originally posted by whatukno
I just gotta know man, who won this thing?

The Overlord is still contemplating.

posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 03:42 PM
keep contemplating...I'll find better links...and revise yet another keep contemplating...I'll get it right sooner or later...

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 10:52 AM
I hope this contest hasnt been forgotten about.
I stand by my entry and my revision. I think what I talked about would realy get people thinking differently about the event.

On the plus side it won't make you look crazy when you brought it up.

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 11:10 AM
As this isn't my work I can't take any credit, but David Ray Griffin might have just won the competition...

Morons and Magic: A Reply to George Monbiot

Do you believe in magic?

1) The Twin Towers came straight down, which means that each building’s 287 steel columns all had to fail simultaneously; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

2) At the onset of each tower’s collapse, steel beams were ejected out as far as 600 feet; to believe that these horizontal ejections could be explained by gravitational energy, which is vertical, is to believe in magic.

3) Virtually all of the concrete in the towers was pulverized into extremely fine dust particles; to believe that fire plus gravity could have done this is to believe in magic.

4) WTC 7 and the towers came down at virtually free-fall speed, meaning that the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, provided no resistance to the upper floors; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

5) Pools of molten metal were found under each building. Because steel does not begin to melt until it reaches about 1,540°C and yet the fires could not have gotten over 1000°C, to accept the fire theory is to believe in magic.


posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:40 PM

Originally posted by 2l82sk8
You get the title of 911 dork in red under your username and byline.

Sorry, I'm a little groggy and a little burned out.

I'm trying to compile what I think S.O. is looking for...though I think it's impossible because I don't really think I know what S.O. is looking for...I mean, I do, but I don't. I feel his frustration at seeing bits and pieces, but not the whole, as I feel the frustration of trying to take the bits and pieces and make it into a socially acceptable whole.

I'm still trudging along though...going for broke for that 911 dork title.

I have chosen to focus on more concrete tasks myself. I suggested to SO splitting it up, letting five people each win 50,000 by each focusing on one point, a team effort with do-able parts for each. This total competition to write up fifty versions of something beyond most of our abilities has sucked a lot of energy. A week and no response. Please, don't knock yourself out.

posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:38 AM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by whatukno
I just gotta know man, who won this thing?

The Overlord is still contemplating.

Could you be kind enough to possible let us know who your "short list" finalists are? Many of us are awaiting the results with baited breath.

I, for example, think I had a pretty concise & convincing post on Page 6

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 12:03 PM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

The Short List... By SkepticOverlord

In no order other than (somewhat) reverse chronology...



Reality Hurts



Caustic Logic










timeless test




I am hoping for a decision pretty soon. Last I heard he was still contimplating it. Well there were great entries in this. So it's probably going to take some time still...

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in