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.


Bring All Your Different Theories Here.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 08:55 PM
As many of you know, two weeks ago I did a piece on 9/11 for ATS Premium about the Islamic Fundamentalists and the CIA connection starting with the war in Afghanistan between the CIA/Mujahadeen and the Soviets. This was a background piece on the whole 9/11 story, of just one of the groups involved.

What I would like to do next is look into the different theories that have grown up over the years. I'm NOT here for a discussion thread at this time, but rather to ask anyone interested to provide links to what you consider the best theory for what happened that day.

Please give me links that I can follow to a site or a thread that gives a clear presentation of these ideas, without me having to wade through months of back threads trying to glean information during often brutal arguments.

Much like a forensic investigation, I want to view all the evidence, no matter who makes the claim, or how unusual the theory. I have ruled NOTHING out on this, as I have made clear in the Premium thread. I simply want the best evidence with the least wasted time finding it for EVERY theory.

But please, again, this IS NOT the thread to convince me or anyone else the merits of a theory. Just point me to the spot that seems best to you to tell the story of what you think took place, and why it took place.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this research.

posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 09:10 PM
It seems i'm the most ready to go first, and it just so happens that my particular theory requires little research and a lot of hindsight.

I believe you are now aware of my remote-control theory, as you so put it (rather well, i thought).

I believe in this theory because of the simple reason that these days we have the technology available to us to 'know' if people suddenly disappear - as such, federal agents/teh CIA will not sacrifice it's own agents - it would be impossible to prove any cover-story alluding to their sudden disappearance, and as such the colleagues of those agents would likely come out with the truth or at least cause major hassle if they found out - through investigation - that their closest working partners had been killed off by their own government.

What i'm saying is that it's too risky nowadays in today's political climate to use people and then simply kill them, possibly due to the information about false-flag attacks that is freely distributed on the internet.

My theory is a zero-risk, zero-counter intelligence approach.

I believe that from what we know about the flights, we CANNOT prove that the U.S government or any body for that matter had anything to do with the attacks.

So i like to approach the issue from what we know.

We know that Osama Bin laden has ties to the CIA, and as such they most certainly know how to contact him if needs be.

My theory is that Osama Bin Laden is a willing stooge for the cover-up, but i lack the resources (and the sense of personal safety, tbh) to investigate that fact for evidence.

However, we cannot prove that He didn't have anything to do with those flights - so the only person who truly CAN know is Osama Bin Laden Himself.

Which is why i don't like the fact that we haven't found him yet.

EDIT: There are two important things that i'm paying attention to -

1: There is no such thing as 'No-witnesses' in today's society - you can't kill everyone, that is against the rules.

2: I am safe in my theory, even if it is correct, because of the simple fact that i cannot prove it.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by Throbber]

posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 09:20 PM
reply to post by Throbber

I take it this is a personal theory? Do you have any evidence, such as the recognized ability to do this by anyone? Do you have any links to scientific papers that assert the capability of this? Are there any newspaper accounts of civilian aircraft, or military aircraft of comparable size and complexity being flown in this manner?

As I said earlier, I am trying to remain in the realm of what can be proven, at least to some degree. I do like the idea, if for nothing but it's novelty, and I agree that the technology seems like it would exist. Yet, without some proof, it will not have much power to convince the world that there is the need for further investigation .

Thank you for your response.

posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 09:35 PM

Originally posted by NGC2736

As I said earlier, I am trying to remain in the realm of what can be proven, at least to some degree. I do like the idea, if for nothing but it's novelty, and I agree that the technology seems like it would exist. Yet, without some proof, it will not have much power to convince the world that there is the need for further investigation .

Thank you for your response.

Thank you for making my post seem worthwhile, but sadly that's the problem of my theory.

If i were in charge of the thinking behind the events of 9/11, i would make certain that it would never come back to me, my superiors, or even my organisation.

I cannot prove anything about it*.

Which is exactly what makes it so damn reasonable...

*In theory, if they kept the black boxes in order to make perfect copies, and DIDN'T DESTROY THEM AFTERWARDS, it would be provable if one had access to them.

Or of course, you could make a fake of a fake, except on that showed different evidence from the original fake - but that kinda defies the point really.

EDIT to ADD: This makes Osama Bin Laden of vital importance, if not only because of what the official story is.

What scares me about this is that If true, it means that all along the U.S Government has been pointing to what we need in order disprove the official story all along - saying; "This man is so important, we're going to show him on national Television, on the Internet!", even though it's supposedly trying to hunt him down.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by Throbber]

posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 09:49 PM
No one else has any theories they'd like to share?

edit to add: While my theory appears dire, by no means is it hopeless to try and disprove the official story - perhaps there are methods i am unaware of, but i am aware of three things that a person might do to disprove the story.

1: Find the Original Black Boxes.

2: Fake the Original Black Boxes.

3: Find Osama Bin Laden and Interrogate him.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by Throbber]

posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 09:59 PM
reply to post by Throbber

I know there are more theories out there. I've seen them in passing.

And thank you for understanding that at some point we have to consider those areas that can be proven, at least to some degree. If there is a plot, so well conceived, and so well executed, that no trace of it remains, then it will remain so forever. We can only hope it's not so, or we all lose.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 06:27 AM
The problem with evidence-based ‘theories’ (which is a misnomer for most of the 9/11-related alternative conspiracy discussion I see) is that there are very few if any of them. Even the consensual mainstream theory is supported by very little hard evidence. Its biggest ‘sell’ is that the government wouldn’t perpetrate a crime of this magnitude against itself. But – and I know it’s cliché - ‘every man has his price’. If the drivers were compelling enough, the government certainly would perpetrate a crime of this magnitude. So that’s my starting point.

Now, although debunkers like to ridicule the claim, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that oil was one of the principle drivers. I’ve expanded upon this theme at length elsewhere so I’ll keep it shorter here.

There are several convergent factors to consider:

  • Industrialised nations require oil as collateral for their economic growth and stability.

  • The US consumes around 25% of all oil produced.

  • Oil is becoming less plentiful.

  • Within the next 5 years or so, the Middle East will produce more oil than the rest of the world combined – the so-called ‘crossover event’.

  • Competition for oil is rising with rapidly industrialising countries such as China and India set to double their consumption every ten years or so.

In addition, we have the future of the US currency to consider. Since 1973, the unit of accounting for virtually all oil transactions globally has been the $US. This has allowed the US to run up extraordinary trade deficits whilst other countries, most notably Japan and China, have accumulated significant dollar reserves.

Since 1999, some oil-producing countries have been talking about adopting the Euro for the settlement of oil transactions - in fact Saddam went ahead and did just that. More recently, Iran has followed a similar route and Chavez would dearly love to. Meanwhile, troubled by the weakening $US, some countries have started to move away from $-denominated debt instruments. Additionally, there was talk for some time of an Iranian bourse, which has fizzled out, ostensibly for logistical reasons.

If there is to be a transition away from the $US, it needs to be managed at a rate that doesn’t precipitate an economic disaster in the US and, by extension, the world.

Put these two themes together and you have a compelling need, from a US perspective, to establish a widespread physical presence in the Middle East and Caspian Region. In so doing, it has gone some way to securing access to energy resources; it has deterred or else made life very difficult for competitors; and it is also in a strong position to shape the policies of others in the region.

It seems to me that this is what the War on Terror is really all about. Next stop Pakistan – in pursuit of al Qaeda of course – which will have the added benefit of further isolating China and Russian from the Middle East, leaving the US in a battle with them for influence over the littoral Caspian republics.

As for precedent, a lot of ‘theorists’ get very excited about the Northwoods Document, which describes a never-actioned plan to blame the Cubans for a series of terrorist incidents as a pretence for war.

It’s a neat distraction, albeit an interesting one. No one seems to pay enough attention to Operation Gladio and the Strategy of Tension – a real, fully-actioned, US sponsored terrorist campaign throughout Europe, the purpose of which was to prevent Communism gaining traction in Europe during the Cold War.

I cannot understand why so few people find this interesting. Terror cells that were deeply embedded in governments across Europe were, with CIA funding and training, killing civilians and politicians, and blowing up public infrastructure in order to frame the Communists. And this was happening during the 1970s and 1980s not some dim and distant past. It was even condemned by the European Union. Yet ‘truthers’ would rather debate the details of Northwoods. Baffling.

Now bring in the US association with the mujahideen in Afghanistan during its war with Russia, and we start to see a clear pattern of the US achieving its objectives through the actions of others.

US support to the mujahideen was channelled through the MAK - bin Laden’s organisation – via the Pakistani ISI, which was itself, of course, said to have supplied funds to Atta.

Today, in Iran, the CIA is attempting to unsettle that country – Operation Ajax-style - by working through Jundullah, a known ‘terrorist’ organisation with well-established links to al Qaeda.

The list goes on, but you get the idea. The CIA’s very existence, and that of any similar organisation, is founded upon the ability to conduct covert operations…

…which are conducted or sponsored by this [the US] government against hostile foreign states or groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which are so planned and conducted that any US Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorised persons and that if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them. Covert action shall include any covert activities related to: propaganda; economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition, and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.

That brings us to the day itself.

It seems to me that nothing can be proven either way. As a community, the ‘truth’ movement is even trying to argue itself out of believing the most basic ‘facts’, such as planes hitting buildings. There’s very little, if anything, we agree on anymore.

The one thing we do all seem to agree upon, however, is that there are simply too many inconsistencies in the official account. Too many implausible scenarios and too many loose ends. Important avenues have been left to go cold, such as Able Danger and the question of who funded the alleged hijackers. Too much emphasis has been placed on collapse models of questionable legitimacy and judgements affected by the ‘fog of war’.

I believe that, if 9/11 was a self-inflicted wound, the only way we’re ever going to start to unravel the mystery of the method is if someone – an insider – comes clean.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:27 AM
reply to post by coughymachine

You are very astute, my friend. There is still back story to cover on this, and you present the case for the CIA hand in events very well. I agree that there is an element of duality of purpose by the US policy makers in all of this. Much like the Iran contra drugs and money and arms debacle, many things may be intertwined, layers on layers. It is often this way in real life.

When and if the full answer to what happened and why is found, it will not be a simple one. Complex events always seem to have complex answers.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:40 AM
reply to post by NGC2736

However ultimately it is the complexity of the plot that will lead to their downfall.

If one becomes aware of but a single facet of the 'layers of deceit', then suddenly that awareness spreads to other areas, and we have what i like to call 'Contradictory Fact'.

IF George Bush was aware of Osama Bin Laden's involvement with 9/11, and therefore went after Saddam Hussein, why was Saddam not interrogated as to Osama's whereabouts before he was executed?

As i said, the complexity of the plot has become too complex for even the makers of the plot to keep up with.

EDIT: They rely so heavily on Osama and Al Qaeda It's unnerving.

After all, there are more terrorist groups out there than merely the ones in the middle-east.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Throbber]

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by Throbber

They rely so heavily on Osama and Al Qaeda It's unnerving.

Especially if you allow yourself to think of al Qaeda cells as the modern-day equivalent of US-backed, Gladio-like stay behind armies; and the War on Terror as a modern-day Strategy of Tension.

As for bin Laden, he's just a real-life Goldstein, isn't he? Someone to help whip us up into a state of Orwellian 'two minutes hate'.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:56 AM
reply to post by coughymachine

You know what, because of that comment i've decided to go hunt down a copy of 1984.

it strikes me as apparent that much of the thinking that goes on here in terms of NWO seem to come from it.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:09 PM
I know this is taking the discussion slightly off-topic, but it is following one of the sub-threads established earlier - namely the intervention of the US in the affairs of other countires through the CIA.

Take a look at this 5 minute clip from John Pilger. It deals with US involvement in South America and includes an interesting interview with Duane Clarridge, a CIA employee.

Warning: some of the images are disturbing.

Source site: Brasscheck TV

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:29 PM
What is most alarming about all of this is the fact that al Qaeda did not even exist until this event and/or shortly before. People tend to forget about this issue and it says a lot about the entire 9/11 debacle.

Interesting video above me.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by dk3000]

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 06:00 PM
I personally don't have a "definitive theory", or rather,hypothesis.
I'm leaning towards remote controlled aircraft like Throbber is and have for sometime, but of course I can't prove anything.
This at least shows that the U.S. government has or had thoughts of false flag attacks.

Operation Northwoods

National Security Archive

Gulf of Tonkin

U.S.S. Liberty

I usually don't use Wikipedia as a source but I'm trying to stay away from "conspiracy" sites on this.

Another poster has started a thread here

If the flights were remote controlled, then passengers and crew would have to be incapacitated.Betty Ong says they can't breathe, or find it difficult.This might be evidence of gassing.

As far as evidence of remote controlled Boeings goes, you might have to spend some time and watch Loose Change.They cover this in the video.

Loose Change 2nd Edition

This one is old and a bit flashy, but covers the Penatgon hit.

Aviation Explorer

This site has links to Boeing for such technology.


This General appears to have some opinions regarding the Pentagon attack.It's not evidence per se, but could be considered expert and reputable.Some may not agree.

General on the Pentagon
UAVs are certainly not unknown to most people and I personally believe one form or another of these hit the Pentagon.


We then get into the cell phone calls that were supposedly made from the airplanes.I don't have links for those but I believe it ties into the remote control hypothesis.Bases need covering to sell the official story.

Of course this is only one aspect of the 9/11 tragedy.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 07:07 PM
A short and simple explanation of petrodollar recycling and the importance of global dollar hegemony as a motivation for war.

Google Video Link

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 07:53 PM
Throbber, yes it's the in the details, like the proverbial fine print in a contract, where the real truth is found. If we are to ever find the who and the why of 9/11, it will because no one, and no group, can plan and execute well enough to hide all the details.

Dk, there is no doubt that Al Qeada is a child of the CIA. The paternity test on that one is certain. While some have accused my method of looking to cause and effect in this as "following the 9/11 Commission", they should remember that the best lies are hid by a veneer of truth.

citizen, thank you for all the links. This will give me the starting point for seeing which theories best fit the events and players behind 9/11. The fact is, I have no preconceived idea on how 9/11 went down. I only feel certain that I, like the rest of the world, was not told the real truth.

coughy,as always you bring timely and relevant resources to the historical foundation that must be built for any 9/11 theory to stand firmly on. The scope of your information and insights in this area are amazing, and much appreciated.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by NGC2736

Well, we have one distinct advantage over all the attempts to hide the truth there are.


Sooner or later a certain person is going to die, and when that person dies a vacuum will be left by the sudden void of power.

It may be possible the truth will be used as ammunition in this event, in order to consolidate power and although this is a rather distasteful method of finding the truth, it is ultimately what we seek in this situation.

There is only one foreseable way to hide the truth indefinately, and that is the one and only thing that is against the rules when it comes to these 'spy games'.

If they want to stop the truth from getting out, they need to silence every single person who seeks the truth.

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:32 PM
reply to post by NGC2736
coughy,as always you bring timely and relevant resources to the historical foundation that must be built for any 9/11 theory to stand firmly on. The scope of your information and insights in this area are amazing, and much appreciated.
follow the money!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:04 PM
reply to post by Throbber

Time may heal all wounds, but if you don't stop the infection, you still pay the price. We need to root out the cause of so many wounds to America.

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 12:26 AM
NG, well I thought my theory of how the thermite was used
on the columns was a pretty good theory. I even included
diagrams of how it could have been done in this thread

You'll have to scroll down to see the images in my posts

How Thermite COULD have been used

[edit on 28-11-2007 by Zeta115]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in