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 Theory Questions that Need Answers

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I have been lurking for quite some time, and I am having some questions of my own, and I hope someone can shed some light.


1) I have yet to find a video of controlled demolition that resembles anything like WTC towers falling. Have you? (this excludes WTC7)

2) How many videos of buildings do we have where a building collapsed on it's own, due to a non-controlled situation so that we can compare with WTC towers?

3) If thermite was used in the destruction of the building, and we have molten steel coming out of the 95th floor (or whatever floor) just below the impact of the airplane, why would thermite be placed at such a high floor and on the outside wall? My understanding is that the building's support was in the center of the building, not the outside. If the goal was to put on a show for the entire world to see, why not a show for the Pentagon or the crash of flight 93? Why cover these up, and exploit the WTC?

4) If the building was rigged in such a way to be brought down in a controlled manner, why on earth would the conspirators of this event go to the effort of organizing and planning flying buildings into this structure? Why not just blow up the building at high noon? Less people (if any) to film it, would mirror the '93 bombing and a much more likely excuse that big bombs where used? It would also involve less people, and less people to pay off.

5) What is the grand purpose of the conspirators? To make more money? Why not take the 2.3 trillion that is missing and keep it for themselves?

6) Recently, NYC had an explosion of a steam pipe. Early reports where coming in, prior to the truth being known, that a transformer blew up and brought down a building. Many different and conflicting stories came out in the minutes following the event. We also know that if we are all sitting in a room and a person comes in very quickly and steals a ladies purse, then runs out, that a majority of us, if not all of us, would not be able to agree on the description of the intruder to give to the police. Why would we believe, with any common sense used, that in the minutes and even hours following the events that unfolded that morning, that the details being given by "first hand" people, who are obviously in a state of shock and panic, to give accurate, thought provoking and descriptive details and unknowingly providing grounds for a mass conspiracy of Biblical proportions?

7) WTC7 mirrors what we have all seen is a clean controlled drop, and there are a TON of details around this event and it being brought down. The "expert" that doesn't speak good English on the videos of WTC7 being dropped asked, "They blew it up the same day?" and then shakes his head, and says, "They must have worked fast." He didn't say it wasn't possible, he said, they must have worked fast. Has anyone investigated to find out if NYC fire department or emergency planners have, in their arsenal, prior to 9/11, a contingency plan to bring down a building in short order?

8) Why, in the big conspiracy theme of things, if you go to such lengths to plan out this event, to pay off all the people, to bring in any number of connections of people and resources, why on earth would the President put himself, for all of history to record, sitting in a chair in front of kids, reading a book? Why not have been in Air Force One at that time? Why did he not show his power and might, and strong courage and jump up to "save the world", but he sat there, in almost a dazed shock, wondering... WTF am I going to do?

Continue to next post...




posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   
... continued from above

9) The Pentagon. If, in the conspiracy theme of things, a patriot missile was to be shot into the pentagon, WHY on earth go to such lengths as to attempt to fly a plane into it, or if a plane didn't hit it, go to such great lengths to hijack a plane, then fly it to a super secret location and destroy it and the people in it? Why not just blow it up as well? Could the plane have been hit by a missile in the seconds before impact which could, in theory, explain some of the weirdness of that event.


I love conspiracy theories as much as the next person. I have watched hours and hours and hours of videos, and testimony, and all these things... and these are the questions I have for the theories themselves, that have come out of the events that unfolded.

9/11 is about the most random day you can ever imagine. If conspiracy theories are true, and this whole event was orchestrated by the powers that be, the secret people in secret locations, carrying on the grand schemes of secret societies from times past... then why on earth, did they fail to make these events, more dramatic?



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
These are good questions that indicate a lot of thought and most, if not all of them are discussed and debated at length in various threads. You finish up wondering why, if such powerful and historic conspirators were behind the events of 9/11, wasn't it more dramatic instead of so random. It was pretty dramatic for my taste, but anyway, here's a stab at your nine questions.

Answers to questions:


1) I have yet to find a video of controlled demolition that resembles anything like WTC towers falling.


1. Answered with another question, "What other building of that size has ever been demolished?" Very few buildings of that size and vintage have been built. Undoubtedly all but two are still standing.


2) How many videos of buildings do we have where a building collapsed on it's own,


2. There are a few of them out there. Sorry, no link. Buildings that collapse on their own usually fall over sideways or pancake, and I mean truly pancake so that the floors are stacked like pancakes at the end.


why would thermite be placed at such a high floor and on the outside wall?


3. Good question. I think it was to accentuate the failure at the point of the plane's impact to reinforce the illusion that the plane inflicted the intitial impetus for the collapse. Think of it as a special effect designed to further an illusion rather than a necessary mechanical element of the final result. As far as "shows" for the Pentagon and Flt.93 are concerned, there were shows for both of those events as well, I think. The overflight of an airliner at the Pentagon, (See the video Pentacon) and the roped off "crash site" with virtually no wreckage in it for Flt93.


why on earth would the conspirators of this event go to the effort of organizing and planning flying buildings into this structure?


4. This is a question that is more complex. I don't have the time to go into it in detail but let me suggest directions that lead to answers. The North Tower had been heavily re-inforced in the garage level. The technical challenges of blowing that one as a repeat performance by a group of sabateurs are high enough to raise serious questions in the public's mind. Keep in mind that in certain circles it had come out that the original 1993 bombing had been carried out with FBI assistance.

So you say, go for just the South Tower. That's what a real sabotage group would do and it would more than satisfy their agenda. Other agendas however, an asbestos related refit of the towers that Silverstein was looking at plus other stuff (research it in detail) demanded that the whole complex be razed. It had to be a Pearl Harbour like event. Your question number four is a good one because it underlines that this was not done by a group of sabateurs. This was done by people with an unlimited budget in money and expertise.


Why not take the 2.3 trillion that is missing and keep it for themselves?



5. On overall aims read The Grand Chessboard by Brzhezinski or the terms of Larry Silverstein's insurance agreement. Not sure which $2.3 trillion your referring to here, but to just cut to the chase, when was the last time you ever heard someone say "Ya know, I've just got too much money. I don't want any more."


Many different and conflicting stories . . . unknowingly providing grounds for a mass conspiracy of Biblical proportions?


6. Another good question. I'm with you on this to a point. I think a lot of wheat has to be winnowed from the chaff in the 9/11 story. The government, strangely, is not interested in doing that, and only had the flawed 911 commision report "over their bureaucratically frozen bodies."


Has anyone investigated to find out if NYC fire department or emergency planners have, in their arsenal, prior to 9/11, a contingency plan to bring down a building in short order?



7. Don't know the answer to this one. But on the subject of the demolition expert quoted, in the video I saw his remarks were translated as, "They were busy that day."


why on earth would the President put himself, for all of history to record, sitting in a chair in front of kids, reading a book


8. The president said he wanted to give an impression of calm, I believe. Unfortunately it didn't really work out that way and the Secret Service gave an impression of incompetence. The president's behavior that morning has been the subject of intensive analysis that you should look into if it interests you.


If, . . . a patriot missile was to be shot into the pentagon, WHY on earth go to such lengths as to attempt to fly a plane into it,


9. Hijacked airplanes were the theme of the day. Sabateurs would probably not have access to a missile capable of inflicting the sort of damage we saw that day and if you take the view that the government did it then they were "staying in character" if you will, by going with the hijack scenario.




[edit on 27-7-2007 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 27-7-2007 by ipsedixit]



new topics
 
0

log in

join