Let's explore a different theory about 9/11 (My theory)

Hello, this is my first post on ATS, but i do love the survival forum...

first of all let me start with credentials..

I served in the Army as an infantryman.

I have BEEN to GTMO (which is Guantanamo Bay) where I helped guard the detainees. this was at the new camp Delta and a few at the old camp X-ray.

I have BEEN to Iraq, in fact I was there for OIF 1 ( the first year of the war), my platoon has the rare distinction of being on ready stand by for both the Ooday and Qusay mission and the Saddam mission.

look on wikipedia for operation red dawn...

I know from my PERSONAL experience that alot of the high ranking terrorist were educated in England and had more esteemed degrees than most of our countries leaders....so what does that mean---they were (are) well educated and smart. almost all of the leaders would read, write, and speak fluent English.

I firmly believe that these terrorist skum had the capability to pull of this attack.

In my year in Iraq (again personal experiance of hundreds of foot patrols through Tikrit) the only innocent people killed on purpose were killed by the bad guys (ohh wait here i need to explain the term bad guys... non coalition forces) and those bad guys were not working for George Bush (sr. or jr.)

the problem is that often the truth and reality are boring.

I know from personal experience that quite often eye witness reports or inaccurate.

and here is a reputable source to back that up.

psy.ucsd.edu...

www.visualexpert.com...

whether you want to know what kind of car the bomber was driving or what the explosions sounded like... often people's first impressions about the traumatic events that unfolded are at best inaccurate.

i think that if you asked most investigators of any kind what it meant if all or a group of eyewitnesses had the exact same story.

I can tell you from a year of chasing terrorists that it means they all colluded to a agreed upon story---not necessarily the truth.

so I would also like to point out that if alot of the people here believe the government controls the media...why cant they control lose change or the pilots for truth?

i think an explanation for that would be good.

also on aluminum and magnesium. having lived in a Bradley fighting vehicle who's hull is made of an aluminum magnesium alloy. we all knew that if our vehicle ever got hit it would catch fire and burn to the ground and the only thing left in the ashes would be the gun and the track. so i can completely understand why not alot of plane would be left. and we are talking about a hull that is close to an inch thick not an eighth or a quarter of an inch thick.

so are conspiracy theories bad...no, just like money and corporations are not naturally evil. but the consuming interest and love of any of those is, and the peoples motives behind them can be mis-guided (not necessarily evil).

reply to post by irongunner


Did you know that several of the 911 hijackers were trained or housed on U.S. Military bases? Just google hijackers trained at military bases. Although, the stories may have been scrubbed from some of the mainstream sites. (gee I wonder why...)

Have you ever heard of The School of the Americas? They go by another name now (Wikipedia) , but the curriculum is the same. Take a look at what our government has been doing to other countries. Have you heard of the Iran-Contra affair, CIA drug trade and money laundering?

Time to flush out your headgear, FNG.

ummm... i know that ATS is not a scholarly site, but i would get a big F on any paper for college that uses wikipedia as a source...

just a thought for any one that wants to be considered credible.

The entire Wikipedia article he linked to cites sources for all of its claims. Consider those the sources, not Wikipedia itself.

Originally posted by irongunner
so i can completely understand why not alot of plane would be left. and we are talking about a hull that is close to an inch thick not an eighth or a quarter of an inch thick.

So would you say that the aluminum and magnesium from the plane could have casued thermite type reaction that casued heat other then jsut form the fires form the jet fuel?

Then you have to look at the photos and videos showing what appears to be the nose section coming out of the other side of tower.

Now the nose cone is made of graphite composite and the rest of the cockpit areaa is very thin aluminum. So that said there is no way a nose section from a airliner is goig to survive hititng a building.

reply to post by irongunner


dear irongunner, what does Iraq have to do with 911, if your up to date on so much information than you realize that most of the so called highjackers were saudi arabians. also if your theory is true on the tensil strength of the so called planes, than where in God's name are the pieces of plane in the Penn. and pentagon explosions?

Hello All:

I strongly suggest that all of you visit www.popularmechanics.com...

Popular Mechanics has debunked all these claims about 911. It is SO SAD that the nations worst disaster is picked and weeded thru to find some anti-goverment bull.

By the way... our goverment is not as tight lipped as you may think. If there was some kind of plot to kill thousands of innocent Americans out there... somebody would have said so. Even if it was for money and power.

So blog about the Mothman or UFO's all you wish, but please stop being so heartless to all of the Americans and familys who's lives were distroyed that horrible day.

reply to post by IlovetheUSA1


IlovetheUSA1, great link, but I'm afraid you've just stepped into the lion's den!

Please don't get scared off, please stay, stand your ground.

There will be assaults, but in the end, respect should be the controlling authority of conduct in this forum.

Best, WW

"We're sorry, this page does not exist."

Hardly debunks much of anything. However, I've read the Popular Mechanics article and I can sum up everything they say in two words: "Nuh uh!"

Try this link to read the article.

Notice they only address issues that fit into one of three categories:

1. The completely insane, no-plane theories
2. Evidence that they "debunk" by citing the NIST report, which is considered part of the cover-up to begin with.
3. Evidence they came up with by having experts speculate on what may have happened. The key word here being "speculate."

At any rate, Popular Mechanics and its reporters are experienced in reporting on new inventions and emerging technology. They have little to no experience in doing investigative work and uncovering the truth behind government cover-ups. Anyone who read their article with an open mind, instead of in an attempt to justify their blind faith in the government, would have already realized that.

In addition to that problem, they are a commercial entity. They are owned and controlled by the wealthy elite. They make their fortune by telling people what they want to hear, which is, "Don't worry, your country really is as good as good can get, and its leaders would never do anything wrong, ever!"

All I'm saying here is, if I were looking for the truth about the devil I would not ask a demon.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by irongunner
so i can completely understand why not alot of plane would be left. and we are talking about a hull that is close to an inch thick not an eighth or a quarter of an inch thick.

So would you say that the aluminum and magnesium from the plane could have casued thermite type reaction that casued heat other then jsut form the fires form the jet fuel?

Then you have to look at the photos and videos showing what appears to be the nose section coming out of the other side of tower.

Now the nose cone is made of graphite composite and the rest of the cockpit areaa is very thin aluminum. So that said there is no way a nose section from a airliner is goig to survive hititng a building.

well, yes i saw that forum on ATS also, I have some problems with that video analysis.

first, I am by no means any kind of video enthusiast let alone expert.

but i did notice that

A: the plane was a match to the size of the explosion.

so this would mean that if some one was planning on "real time" editing of a "live" (delayed) video feed they would have to have a very good idea of what exactly the explosion would look like in size and directionality (in particular directions other than directly through the building).


I watched the video and say that the plane and yes the nose cone coming out the other side matched the explosion very well.

B: the plane that was "edited in" seemed to be in proper proportion to the building.

this would mean that the editors would have to know exactly how far away the helicopter that was shooting the images were away from the building and have some frame of reference of how big the plane would need to be against the building... I have no idea if this is possible or how easy it is. I just think that this working out correctly is highly coincidental....much like the coincidences that you all mock the government about.

ohh and about Iraq. and saudi arabia....

I do not think that sadam had any direct connections to 9/11 I do believe that liberating the Iraqi public was worth all that we have paid and more. but thats for another time and baord.

and Saudi.....dont get me started on that den of radical terrorists that are funded by the royal family that almost every modern president has had close ties to.

Originally posted by mattifikation
The entire Wikipedia article he linked to cites sources for all of its claims. Consider those the sources, not Wikipedia itself.

so then i would also call siting wikipedia lazy!

try that "they sight articles" excuse within any professional or scholarly organization and you will lose all credibility, as most of the boarders here have.

you have the duty in an argument to sight the most accurate, UNBIASED, and original sources possible.
also, using a source that has some sort of actual expertise/experience would also help your case.


i could go to that wikipedia page and add that dick cheney was caught on video paying OSB to take the blame and bush had the detinators in his pocket, and because of that they are both in gtmo right now and the people we see are imposters.

and that would stay until some one caught it and could prove it wrong.

besides if what the "truthers" think is true and the government controls all of the media how do we know that any of those other sights arent actually govt. misinformation sights as well...

well you cant, and I cant tell you with 100% accuracy that either side of the argument is making it all up.

all i can say is that when i look at the information rationaly with as little bias as possible, and truly look at the event as a whole i come to only one conclusion.

terrorists hijacked planes with box cutters because the American people have been lulled into complacency.

they flew those planes into buildings under the nose of our military because our military has not only been lulled into complacency, but has been encouraged to be confrontational and as cost sensitive as possible 9 yes, every military organization has a finite annual budget)

thats what i think.

as for the bin laden flight out of America, maybe we should go back to the time frame of when Kuwait was invaded and see if those middle eastern countries didn't make any special efforts to evacuate foreign nationals.
never mind the fact the most of the bin laden family are respected global citizens, not radical terrorists.



[edit on 1-4-2008 by irongunner]

reply to post by irongunner


So, rather than checking into my claims, you'd rather attack my sources?
Do you have access to a search engine? Got Google?

I've learned that no amount of reasoning, logic or weight of facts, can ever convince some people. It's an emotional issue, that many people cannot reconcile within themselves -- that our government has been, and is now, run by criminals.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Smack]

Weedwhacker, the range of a cruise missile is far enough that a submarine could be operating from international waters WHERE IT IS TOTALLY LEGAL FOR IT TO OPERATE and launch it. Also you are fooling yourself if you think the Soviets couldn't get a sub close to the coast of the U.S. Our coastline was initially protected by a series of underwater listening posts. But Navy officer turned soviet spy John Walker sold the Soviets the maps to these listening posts as well as access to the U.S. voice and teletype networks. The result is that for a period of time we were VERY vulnerable to Soviet subs. This isn't "Tom Clancy". It's history. Maybe you are to young to remember it, but I'm not.

www.time.com...
openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu...
www.heritage.org...

Please read:

www.globalsecurity.org...
Significant modifications were made to the original Project 971 Akula design beginning with the fifth unit. Classified as "Akula II", these modifications include a four-meter extension hull extension. They are sometimes called the "Walker-class," referring to John Anthony Walker, whose espionage data related to sonar detection was used to improve the submarine. Writing in 1999, Neal Stevens observed "The spying efforts of American naval personnel John Walker and radioman Jerry Whitworth made the Soviet Union’s military chiefs aware of how far advanced American submarines were. Substantial efforts to marginalize the sound profile of the Akula can be traced to intelligence gained from the Walker spy ring. A separate but equally empowering sequence of events for the Russians was the illegal sale of propeller milling technology by the Japanese firm Toshiba and the Norwegian firm Kongsberg. The combined results generated a steep drop in broadband acoustic noise profiles."

The Akula is the quietest Russian nuclear submarine ever designed, and the low noise levels came as a surprise to Western intelligence. Russia claims the Akula is the quietest of its domestically built submarines and is fitted with acoustic countermeasure equipment. Noise reduction efforts include rafting the propulsion plant, anechoic tiles on the outside and inside of the hulls and possibly other measures such as active noise cancellation. Nonetheless, the American Improved Los Angeles class retained a decisive edge in silencing compared to the Akuka I.

So please base your assertions on facts backed up with actual links rather than relying on wishful thinking. And for the record I wish that John Walker hadn't sold our antisubmarine secrets to the communists, but he did.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by nakedtruth

 

nakedtruth, just read your response...

I'm shocked that you would imagine that ANY enemy submarine would be able to get anywhere close enough to the East Coast of the US, let alone off the Eastern Seaboard of Washington, DC, and be able to launch a 'cruise missile' without the US Navy detecting?!?!?

Maybe in a Tom Clancy novel...hope his house is OK, heard he had a fire the other day.....

[edit on 1-4-2008 by nakedtruth]

A corollary to Godwin's law is that in any 9/11 research topic someone will inevitably cite a disreputable source like Popular Mechanics as "fact". The Popular Mechanics "debunking" has been "debunked" itself many times over. For example:

www.prisonplanet.com...
One of the most glaring errors in the Popular Mechanics hit piece appears in the 'Intercepts Not Routine' section where it is claimed that, "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."

As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent rebuttal, "This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!"

"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."

There are many other examples. The piece was edited by the cousin of the current Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff. It's simply a CYA piece. Or rather a CYCA (cover your cousin's ass) piece. Popular Mechanics didn't just stop with making falsehoods to cover up 9/11. They went on to "debunk the myths" about Katrina. One of the "Katrina myths" the "debunked" was that the government response to Katrina was slow. :rolleyes:

www.popularmechanics.com...

I might not believe that the levees were blown but it's intellectually dishonest to the point of destroying all credibility for Popular Mechanics to claim that just because the response was rapid once it actually got started that this counts as a "rapid response". So the days were people were left stranded with no food or water while Homeland Stupidity was redirecting firefighters to Atlanta for "sensitivity training" and telling doctors they had to get "special licenses" don't count? The days where Michael Chertoff kept insisting on national television that he had "no knowledge of people at the convention center" after the TV had SHOWN thousands of people at the convention center don't count? The bottom line is that PM lied about Katrina. And if they'll lie about Katrina they'll lie about 9/11.

Originally posted by IlovetheUSA1
Hello All:

I strongly suggest that all of you visit www.popularmechanics.com...

Popular Mechanics has debunked all these claims about 911. It is SO SAD that the nations worst disaster is picked and weeded thru to find some anti-goverment bull.

By the way... our goverment is not as tight lipped as you may think. If there was some kind of plot to kill thousands of innocent Americans out there... somebody would have said so. Even if it was for money and power.

So blog about the Mothman or UFO's all you wish, but please stop being so heartless to all of the Americans and familys who's lives were distroyed that horrible day.

Originally posted by irongunner
ummm... i know that ATS is not a scholarly site, but i would get a big F on any paper for college that uses wikipedia as a source...

just a thought for any one that wants to be considered credible.

Actually Wikipedia is no better or worse than any other source. Encyclopedia.com is crap but some think it's better because it has the name "encyclopedia" and because people wrongfully assume that the articles are scholarly. Sites like Wikipedia now pass for what used to be the "public square" where people bring their ideas for open debate. Unlike other more "scholarly" websites Wikipedia sites are often rated by how well documented they are and there are often comments left by "superusers" to let you know if the information presented is in dispute.

That said if you have not heard of the "School of the Americas" then you are uniformed. Here is a "non wikipedia" link.

www.cnn.com...

Originally posted by irongunner
ummm... i know that ATS is not a scholarly site, but i would get a big F on any paper for college that uses wikipedia as a source...

just a thought for any one that wants to be considered credible.

Wait a freaking minute! In one post YOU said:

I have BEEN to Iraq, in fact I was there for OIF 1 ( the first year of the war), my platoon has the rare distinction of being on ready stand by for both the Ooday and Qusay mission and the Saddam mission.

look on wikipedia for operation red dawn...

So on the one post you ask people to look up information in Wikipedia, and the next post you criticize someone for providing a link to Wikipedia? THAT deserves an F!

[edit on 1-4-2008 by nakedtruth]

Originally posted by nakedtruth

Originally posted by irongunner
ummm... i know that ATS is not a scholarly site, but i would get a big F on any paper for college that uses wikipedia as a source...

just a thought for any one that wants to be considered credible.

Wait a freaking minute! In one post YOU said:

I have BEEN to Iraq, in fact I was there for OIF 1 ( the first year of the war), my platoon has the rare distinction of being on ready stand by for both the Ooday and Qusay mission and the Saddam mission.

look on wikipedia for operation red dawn...

So on the one post you ask people to look up information in Wikipedia, and the next post you criticize someone for providing a link to Wikipedia? THAT deserves an F!

[edit on 1-4-2008 by nakedtruth]

LOL! I totally missed that. Good catch man. You get an A+

Irongunner - Once you take the red pill and start researching the history of the people and money interests involved, you can never go back to believing the lie.
Read Webster Tarpley's book 9-11 Synthetic Terror for free.

Originally posted by TheBerg
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Sorry about my reply. Your right I was angry.


Some people must learn not to be so rough on them self, Life will do it for them.

I know. It takes a while to get a grip on the fury. And it's a struggle to keep the grip. But gentle persuasion is always better than a blast furnace, so somehow we must hold on.

With practice, it does get easier. [smile]

Originally posted by nakedtruth

Originally posted by irongunner
ummm... i know that ATS is not a scholarly site, but i would get a big F on any paper for college that uses wikipedia as a source...

just a thought for any one that wants to be considered credible.

Wait a freaking minute! In one post YOU said:

I have BEEN to Iraq, in fact I was there for OIF 1 ( the first year of the war), my platoon has the rare distinction of being on ready stand by for both the Ooday and Qusay mission and the Saddam mission.

look on wikipedia for operation red dawn...

So on the one post you ask people to look up information in Wikipedia, and the next post you criticize someone for providing a link to Wikipedia? THAT deserves an F!

[edit on 1-4-2008 by nakedtruth]

I have to hand it you you naked, you got me on that one dead to rights...

so, let me try and clarify.

I have read, reviewed, and discussed the article with some of the original authors, or as I liked to call them my Battalion Commander and Company Commander.

so, yes, I will admit that was a very LAZYway of making a point. However that article is the only place I have found on the internet that tells most of the story so completely.

so, if any one messaging on this board is an expert in any field that contributed personnaly or at least know personnaly someone who wrote those articles my judgement still stands.

Originally posted by Smack

Irongunner - Once you take the red pill and start researching the history of the people and money interests involved, you can never go back to believing the lie.
Read Webster Tarpley's book 9-11 Synthetic Terror for free.

I think researching history is important.

a couple things you have to remember about history.
1. its is written from a particular perspective.
ie. for Americans Pearl Harbor fills books and is a major topic in history.
for japan it gets barely a foot note as a raid their military participated in.

2. it is written to an objective.
ie. the Indian wars.

3. it is useless without context.
the Norean war was a pointless endeavor, unless you understand the fight to stop the spread of communism ( i didn't say agree with the fight to stop the spread of communism)

so, no I will not go read someones manifesto, but if you can name who bought all of those options for AA, and did show the money trail about the money involved I dont think that theory is anything more than spirited speculation.