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.

 

Why hasn't this type of 9/11 conspiracy theory been presented?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   
The only type of conspiracy theory about 9/11 that I've heard about over the past 6 weeks is that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition and that a rocket hit the Pentagon. I'm not discrediting this theory, but what if the government (or the New World Order, rather) oversaw the attack and didn't destory WTC in a demolition or hit the Pentagon with a missile? What if planes did hit their targets, and terrorists did carry it out, but the President and Vice President and others involved with the N.W.O. knew about it and had the terrorists do their dirty work for them? I would blame this bad press on the media, but even on the internet and on various forums this is the only conspiracy theory that's really talked about.




posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by laeteralis462
 


I think your refering to the "let it happen on purpose" theory. Just do a google or ats search for "LIHOP" you'll find what your looking for.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
A much more credible theory. Though I'd drop the NWO aspect and concentrate on the idea that some people in the USA were aware an attack was going to take place, and allowed it to go ahead as a convenient means of pushing for a war against the Taliban / Iraq / Iran / elements hostile to US world supremacy.

I still don't think anyone thought the twin towers would actually collapse though. No-one foresaw that design flaw ....



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
essan what if it was true that the terrorist did bring on board bombs on the plane with the complicity of the government and the CIA
Surely they had every intention of bringing down the WTC much as they had attempted it on the previous occasion.

And what if those terrorist were actually the CIA personel or it's recruits



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Essan, was it a design flaw? Do you have gov't documentations to support that (so the gov't specifically says that they came down due to design flaws?) because if this is the case, why haven't all of the families of the victims who were in those buildings at the time they came down sue the architectural firm that designed that building -- or those construction company's and engineer firms who helped build them?? And for that matter, why hasn't the owner Silverman been sued?

I know there are answers to this -- they all probably declared bankruptcy on 9/11 right? But what about Silverman? Did he declare bankruptcy too? Just wondering.



[edit on 16-9-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Actually IMHO I'm thinking that most of us do think that is what happened. I do believe the gov't hired the terrorist thru Bin Laden and the planes did hit the towers.
The controlled demolition was the when the towers actually fell, what most are saying is that; there is no way that a plane could make those towers fall and both buildings were lined with explosives. So yes your theory is correct and does fit in with the theory that most of us believe happened.
As far as the Pentagon that is a whole different flavor per say, I'm still researching this and hope to someday come up with some type of analysis at least to ease my own mind. I do know there were 3 video tapes of the actual incident but the FBI re-covered these within minutes.
Of course there is way more information about this, if you view alot of the videos that are on the net, you can pretty much come up with your own conclusions as to what happened. Of course all of this is just theory, I hope one day we will know the truth. That 9/11 was a inside job.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea
Essan, was it a design flaw? Do you have gov't documentations to support that (so the gov't specifically says that they came down due to design flaws?) because if this is the case, why haven't all of the families of the victims who were in those buildings at the time they came down sue the architectural firm that designed that building -- or those construction company's and engineer firms who helped build them?? And for that matter, why hasn't the owner Silverman been sued?


I don't know it's a design flaw
It's just my own little conspiracy theory - and you've immediately seen why if that were the case there might well be a big cover-up (equally if for example sub standard material had been used, another possibility).

It would explain much of the 'evidence' in support of a conspiracy offered by those who propose the building were deliberately demolished.

Probably a rubbish theory. But as far as I know, never investigated ....



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I don't think the government had anything to do with it, although there were many Quislings within our government that enabled 911.

'Private Contractors' did most of the work.

The orders came from the highest levels.

No, GWB is not among the highest levels....he is another Quisling.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by magycpapyri
 


I don't think I would go as far as to say our government actually hired the terrorists. But I do think it is pretty safe to say that they knew what the terrorists were planning, saw opportunities for their own agendas that could be brought to fruition as a result, and gave the terrorists the help that they needed to make it happen.
Globalists hiding within the shadows in our intelligence agencies can be very sneaky like that. Thats how they cover their tracks.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I wouldn't argue with that conclusion


I don't know enough about the US political and military structure to speculate who may have been 'in on it' and what, is any 'assistance' might have been provided.

At least this CT doesn't involve futuristic sci fi weapons and technology !



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I would speculate that the assistance provided came mostly in the form of inactivity...intentionally doing nothing to stop it. That way, the terrorists do their dirty work for them.
That and probably planting some explosives in the buildings that they knew were being targeted.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Well for 1 we had way too many warnings for the government not to know something was going to happen that day.

Also all the fire chiefs present did not expect the buildings to collapse, they were only concerned about the upper floors above the fires collapsing if the fires would have burned for several more hours (WHICH THEY DIDN'T)

Quote from 9/11 commission report staff statement #13 page 20

None of the chiefs present believed a total collapse of either tower was possible. Later, after the Mayor had left, one senior chief present did articulate his concern that upper floors could begin to collapse in a few hours, and so he said that firefighters thus should not ascend above floors in the sixties.



[edit on 16-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by laeteralis462
 


Because on the balance of the available (mountains of) evidence there is no reason to believe there was a passenger plane at the Pentagon or that there actually were real live terrorists on the planes. And again, the balance of (the avalailable mountains of) evidence suggests that the WTC Towers (and WTC7) were brought down in controlled demolitions; the Twin Towers in top-down demolitions (watch the movie Independence Day and the extras on the DVD to see how Hollywood did it!) and WTC7 in a classic bottom-first CD.

If there really were terrorists on the planes, the chances are something would have pointed to it - such as their names being on flight manifests or some CCTV footage of them being available. Remember the only CCTV footage available purportedly showing ANY of the "hijackers" is of Mohammed Atta at Portland, Maine - and that has question marks against it. Not only that, but so far 9 of the hijackers have turned up alive - plus Atta's father claims he received a phone call from his son the day after the attacks.

If a passenger plane really did hit the Pentagon there'd be more than just a few flakes of paint as evidence, and there'd have been no need for Pentagon staff to comb the ground and pick up and bits and pieces they found in a process called "removal of evidence". There'd also have been no reason to cover the lawn over with gravel to hide any remains of evidence!

So what you're proposing, whilst it has merit in and of itself, really doesn't stand up to examination against all the known evidence.

Your point about the NWO is valid and is kind of taken for granted by many of we died-in-the-wool CTers...
The US government, pretty much lock, stock and barrel, are members of the NWO - quite simply, if they weren't, they wouldn't be members of a government. In this day and age, ALL governments (or the most senior members thereof) are more than likely NWO goons.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by EssanI still don't think anyone thought the twin towers would actually collapse though. No-one foresaw that design flaw ....


I have to disagree violently with this. If there were some kind of "design flaw" in the WTC and there was no other case to answer, do you really think the rubble would have been disposed of quite so quickly? Noooooo! If the government had nothing to do with 9/11 you can bet your last penny that they would have carried out a PROPER investigation - for how could they know that other high-rise buildings which they themselves might have to occupy did not have a similar design flaw?

But you're right in one way; NO-ONE thought the Twin Towers would actually collapse - that's why they wired them up with explosives! And that there were explosives cannot be denied; there is simply too much evidence for their presence. Aside from the anomalous seismic signatures (out of time with the actual impact times) which suggest explosions BEFORE the planes even hit, thus corroborating William Rodriguez' story, there is any amount of eyewitness testimony, audio evidence, video evidence, and physical evidence in the form of sulphidisation on the steel. This was mentioned by FEMA but conveniently not explained. Oh, and don't forget all that lovely molten steel in the basement areas for weeks afterwards. This could ONLY have occurred through the use of explosives.

I could go on all day but I won't. Suffice to say, there is ZERO merit in the LIHOP theory. Whilst I respect people's right to believe what they want, in my opinion LIHOP is a theory that people cling to simply because they find the far more likely (based on the balance of available evidence) MIHOP idea too scary.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   
OK I don't know much about this because im only 14 but if it was controlled explosion then someone would have had to take the bombs into the WTC, meaning that if someone was to plant a bomb in the WTC it would have to be somebody who works there. Now im from scotland and dont know much about the twin towers themselves but it sounds like a main building in the world of stock markets which is very important and it is most likely that everyone employed to work in the WTC would have to be an american citizen. Now it could have been a converter to extreme islam but it is more than likely not, which makes me think that maybe it was't Al Quaeda after all. SO maybe it was the government, as they do have the money an power to pay the head of security "not to notice" if someone planted a bomb. But, as I watched on TV, the head of security for the WTC was an ex vietnamese hero who's only aim in life was the safety of others, now does that sound like someone who would settle for payment of this type?. Athough I do not know much about this and what I have just wrote is just based on my views but I myself does not think it was only a terrorist group but maybe someone else, plus, where would the terrorists get that kind of money?



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
You've given us much food for thought scotland! Your line of logic is well... logical. Also one should consider that there are a lot of professionals of one sort or another here in this forum who are also thinking the same way you are about all of this too. So, IMHO, those are the posts I pay attention too because so many of them have spent years researching all of the material available on what happened that day.

As I understand it, and someone can correct me on this as I'm just going by memory, the weekend before 9/11, the towers were closed down for maintenance of some sort or another -- things having to do with the security of those buildings and how it's wired up. So later, after 9/11, a least a couple of people who worked in IT security and maintenance came forward to talk about their suspicions that something fishy was going on over that weekend that had something to do with those buildings coming down that following Tues -9/11. Maybe someone here can give you a good link on that information but I think it might be in the Coincidences series on You Tube. Very interesting information and worth looking over.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Indeed. Google "Scott Forbes".



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Minoru Yamasaki the main architect for the twin towers said in a interview that im trying to find that the trade centers were designed to take multiple plane hits in the case of a radar blackout ((remember they were built before gps)) also i thought everyone knew by now the bomb sniffing dogs were removed two weeks before 9/11 also the buildings were evacuated for extended periods of time close to 9/11 so this would have been a perfect oppurtunity for anyone to plant bombs in there also the whole jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt steel and there were people standing ((photographed)) in the area were the heat was intense enough melt steel ((but not intense enough to burn people?))



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by scotland 1
plus, where would the terrorists get that kind of money?


Well, we'll never know. The 9/11 Commission insisted the money trail was important. This despite the revelation that the head of the Pakistani ISI supposedly wired $100,000 just days before 9/11 to "Mohammed Atta".

Of course, the answer that most defenders of the official story will give you to that question will be from Osama Bin Laden. What they'll omit, however, will be the fact that the Bin Laden family and the Bush family have been best buddies and business partners for at least the last 30 years...!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
It has long been my view that the people “terrorists” who took the planes and flew them into their targets, were not in control.

I believe that these men were CIA and they thought it was all a drill, like the massive drills being run on that day, they just thought they were part of it and “testing” Americans internal security. The planes were then taken over remotely and crashed into their targets. Steps were taken and things were covered up, but I am sure this was a CIA operation from the start and I don’t even think the hijackers thought it was real world.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join