Alternative 9/11 Theories

I am creating this thread as a place for those that think that the planes did in fact hit the buildings, did in fact think the buildings fell down minus any sort of DC and more or less see those that soo enthusiastically run off the deep end with the "truther" movement as ultimately pointless escapades in overboard paranoia. With some "truth" seeking authors that are really only looking for the $$$.
This is a place to talk evidence and hopefully the above mentioned will just let it be, rather than sink it or drag it off into silliness as so often happens with any dissenting voice.

But do think that there was something fishy about how 9/11 went down.
Kinda like here: Simple and Elegant Plan (9/11) Thread

1) The fact that there just so happened to be a "training exercise" that day so no fighters were scrambled in what is supposed to be one of the more secure air corridors in the US.

2) The fact that Bin Laden is an old asset left over from the cold war and the Bush/Bin Laden family connections.

3) The fact that the NIST seems to be trying to hide piss poor construction and materials on the Twin Towers.

4) Why at WTC you got pictures leaked of ground zero when it was supposedly on "lock down" but with Shanksville you get none that I know of.

5) Someone once mentioned that a hacker said something shortly before 9/11 about a unprotected backdoor to the pentagon's network. If you are that person please post.

6) Etc.

Got an alternative theory. POST IT!




[edit on 29-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]

How bout the fact that the bin laden confession tape looked nothing like the guy. and the imposter was wearing a ring, which i believe is against ladens religion.
Or how bout the fact that the hijackers that supposedly flew the planes were magically found alive and well.
Or the fact that firefighters who had helped look for black boxes found some at ground zero yet the official story was none were found.
Or there was no damage left from the wings and no wings were recovered from the dc attack.
Or ppl were being pulled from the bottom floors of the towers including the basement, not the top,with injuries from explosives and saying there were bombs down there.
I could go on all day, but i will leave you with those to begin with

reply to post by 23Eulogy23

---

Or how about your exactly what I was talking about not being welcome.
Plenty of other threads for you to go play in.

As I do not wish to get dragged into the pointless pursuit of pointing out the wholes in your theories but would however like to talk about others.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]

how is it not welcome, those are facts

LOL a dictatorship post?

I'm posting this just because you said not to.

Please explain how the tilting top of WTC, which was under angular momentum, did not continue its angular momentum and fall in the path of least resistance as physics says it should?

Pretty simple question that has yet to be answered by anyone who believes the official story. In fact the official story doesn't even attempt to explain it, i.e. NIST report.

Do you think global collapse was inevitable once initiated, and how did the buildings, all 3, not meet resistance of undamaged columns and fasteners (welds, nut and bolts)?

Unless these questioned are answered nothing else really matters.

Did NIST look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.

NIST STATEMENT: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

Source

Why didnt NIST test for these compounds, when people on the ground were adament that explosives were going off in and around the buildings?

Peace

CR

(Mod Edit: All Bold fixed)

[edit on 4/30/2008 by thelibra]

One must really wonder why certain people are soo threatened by this post they feel the need to troll it.

As I said. I am not here to continue the pointless pursuit of arguing with you people. Unless someone me and the people that agree with me discussing our thoughts somehow threatens you. Which it obviously does. Then you really got to ask yourself why. But eh what do I know.


[edit on 29-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]

No one is threatened at all.

You stated in your thread: "This is a place to talk evidence".

So we are talking evidence.

I would like to hear your thoughts on AROKS and my post. Please refute the FACTS.

Peace

CR

It's easy for me now,

You compare the official version with the conspiracy version.

You then compare the conspiracy theories with the disinformation conspiracy theories. Which are which is legitimate question.

Once you put all these together you find a common ground: eg dates, times, witnesses, evidence.

Like a court of law you should then really have two sides to the story, and then an untainted jury (is this possible now?) to decide the outcome.

Pretty simple really, yet it is strange with the amount of people that want something like this to happen (in a free democratic society) can not get what they want. I often wonder what would constitute a movement large enough to let this happen? 1000 people? 10000? 100000? If new evidence is bought forward does this not warrent a new investigation? How can one legally propose this? I'm sure any laywer reading could help on that answer.

The basic idea is both believers and non believers would then have their day in court to decide once and for all what exactly happened on September the 11th 2001 in New York.

watchZEITGEISTnow

And the self righteous attempting to torpedo a discussion that is not their own continues.
If you don't agree just move along sheesh.

I WILL NOT BE DRAWN INTO ANOTHER POINTLESS SILLY DEBATE WITH THOSE THAT RELY ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN FACTS.

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Gemwolf]

Dude it's you who is ignoring the facts. I brought up facts and you have no idea how to answer how those facts came about because it's not in your precious NIST report, and you won't find it on any of your debunker websites. So you have no idea how to answer my questions so you pretend it doesn't matter or just ignore it.

You are afraid of the truth and this post of yours makes that very obvious. I just don't understand why you so blindly believe what we've been told when there is so much evidence that proves that the collapses were not natural.

Want to prove me wrong? Then explain what happened to WTC 2 as I asked in my other post. If you can't then you have to admit to yourself that something isn't right with what we've been told. Then do some real research instead of just reading what you want to hear on 911myths and the like.

How does this...
external image

End up like this?...

external image

Answer this question in your own words and I'll quit bugging you.
Shouldn't be a problem right? You are convinced of the official story right? You've done your research right? So why is it so hard to answer? And if you can't answer it then why are you so sure it was as we were told?

reply to post by ANOK

---

Dude.
I have spend more time then I would care to arguing with you so I will not continue it here. You think your right and your information spot on regardless what holes others TRY to show you.


GO ELSEWHERE. I did not create this thread to continue the BS argument with you or your kind. GO ELSEWHERE.

May I remind the participants of the thread of our 9/11 forum policy.




Please keep it civil and up to our high standards to avoid posts being deleted.

Thank you.

Could you please point out where the tilt of WTC 2 has been explained.

I've been on this forum since 2004 and I have yet to see that question answered.

It's rather telling when someone responds like you have, it shows you are frustrated with the question. Why is that? Because you have no answer for the question? Have you even thought about it? Or does the question make you question what you believe?

I bet if I brought up 'no planes' or 'holograms' you'd be all over it?

If you had an answer you would have posted it. I know you don't want to believe the truth, and will think anything to convince yourself the towers were demolished globally to the ground by office fires.
There were many in WWII Germany that refused to believe there were concentration camps until they were forced to see the truth.
It's Human nature to deny something that is so shocking to their belief system.

If you look honestly at the towers collapses there is no way that they were natural collapses. You can yell and ignore and tell me to go away all you want, but the truth is still there right in front of your face but you refuse to see the obvious. The truth is not going to go away.

It's your patriotic duty to question, however scary the answers might be.

---

---

The OP clearly doesn't want facts that support the government conspiracy view. He only wants facts that support the 19 Hijacker conspiracy view.

reply to post by Disclosed

---

I did, take a look...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Notice a lack of debunkers in my thread?

LOL I know it's off topic but there is a point to my questioning.
Unless the physics anomalies of that day are answered then how can the debunkers be so sure they're right?

What's the point of arguing 'alternative theories' if the basic physics of the collapses can't be explained?

The debunkers focus on the fringe theories, like 'no planes' etc., because they can be easily refuted, but whenever the hard physics questions are asked they're ignored.

If you're all so sure the collapses were natural then why do you not know how to answer this very important point?

My reason for this is to make it clear that this one point proves, either way, whether the collapses were 'natural' or they had 'help' from another source of energy other than fires and gravity.

If you don't understand this you need to start your research over.

It's like arguing over who, and how, joe bloggs was killed when all the evidence shows it was suicide. In other words pointless.

1979-1989 CIA Operation Cyclone, with joint funding from Britain’s MI6, heavily armed and trained over 100,000 Afghani Mujahideen (“holy warriors”) during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. With the help of the Pakistani ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), billions of dollars were given to create this Islamic army. Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars stated, “The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan. The US provided $3 billion [now many more billion] for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan’s demand that they should decide how this money should be spent … Today that money and those weapons have helped build up the Taliban … [who] are now making a living out of terrorism.”

Perhaps as Harrison stated, the CIA “made a historic mistake” in creating these Jihadists, or perhaps they knew exactly what they were doing. Recently declassified DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) documents prove that the US government was long aware of the ISI’s sponsorship/creation of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda



British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook stated before the House of Commons that “Al Qaeda” is not actually a terrorist group, but a database of international Mujahadden and arms dealers/smugglers used by the CIA to funnel arms, money, and guerrillas. The word “Al Qaeda” itself literally translates to “the database.” Not only did the CIA create the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, they continued funding them right up to the 9/11 attacks blamed on them. For example, four months prior to 9/11, in May, 2001, Colin Powell gave another $43 million in aid to the Taliban.



Major Pierre-Henri Bunel, a French military intelligence agent, who was framed and convicted no doubt for daring to raise his voice in December, 2001, said,



In a late 1980’s Newsweek article, outspoken opponent of President Bush and recently assassinated Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, told George Bush Sr., “you are creating a Frankenstein,” concerning the growing Islamist movement. She also came out in 2007 to say that Osama Bin Laden was already long dead having been murdered by Omar Sheikh. She was murdered herself a month after the interview, only two weeks before the Pakistani 2008 general elections.

This excerpt was taken from my new book The Atlantean Conspiracy available for FREE download at: www.linktoit.com/atlanteanconspiracy

To begin with, most people are unaware that the Bush and bin Laden families have been close friends and colleagues for a long time. Back in 1976 Osama’s older brother Salim bin Laden invested $50,000 in George. W. Bush’s budding Arbusto Energy Company. They met through fellow CIA employee and Bush family friend Jim Bath who handled all the bin Laden family’s American investments. By the late 1970’s the Bush’s and bin Laden’s already owned oil companies and airports together. Larry Klayman, President of Judicial Watch, among others has confirmed that the Bush family also vacations with the bin Ladens and usually stays at their home when they are in Saudi Arabia.



Since the late 1980’s the Bush’s and bin Laden’s have also worked together in the Carlyle Group, Washington DC’s largest private equity firm, which deals in the industries of Aerospace/Defense, Automotive, Consumer/Retail, Energy/Power, Healthcare, Real Estate, Technology, Telecommunications/Media and Transportation. In 1998 and 2000 George Bush Sr. traveled to Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Carlyle Group and met with the bin Laden family. Then on the morning of September 11th, as the planes were heading for the towers, George Bush Sr. actually sat in the Washington Ritz-Carlton hotel at a Carlyle Group meeting with Osama’s brother, Shafig bin Laden! The London Observer reported on this 6/22/02: “On 11 September, while Al-Qaeda's planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honor was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama." The Wall Street Journal later called for Bush Sr. to resign from Carlyle Group. He never did, but for fear of bad publicity, the bin Laden family formally sold their investments back to the firm in October, 2001. They went on national TV calling Osama the black sheep of the family, effectively disowned and washed their hands of responsibility for him. Nowadays Bin Laden Construction still builds most United States military bases in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, including the bases in Iraq.





Osama bin Laden was the 17th of 52 sons of construction baron Mohammed bin Laden. Back in 1979 The CIA paid Osama to recruit and train Al-Qaeda fighters. When Bush became CIA director in the 1980’s they recruited Osama, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban in Afghanistan to run their opium trade. Everything changed however on Dec. 4th, 1997, when American oil barons proposed the Afghanistan oil line to the Taliban who turned it down after demanding too large a share. A BBC headline from that day read, “Representatives of the Taliban are in Texas Visiting the Headquarters of Unicol.” The proposed pipeline was to be built by Halliburton, who’s CEO at the time was none other than Dick Cheney. Shortly after this the media began labeling the Taliban as terrorists.

I generally steer clear of impugning people's motives and ad hominem style attacks but when I read the OP's initial post, the idea that came to mind was, "The Bush administration's explanations of 9/11 have been so lame that maybe the brain trust that goes to work everyday in the bowels of the White House, decided to tap ATS for some kind of line that would at least hold together."

Other than that, as per the OP's instructions, I will go amuse myself elsewhere. Toodle-oo.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by ipsedixit]