Alternative 9/11 Theories

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by WraothAscendant

 

Here is an alternative theory...

19 Insane, Religious Jihadists took over some airplanes and declared war on the U.S at the behest of Osama Bin Laden.

More alternatives...
Bin Laden never, repeat never worked for the U.S.
WTC 7 had massive damage on the far side of the building that was not seen on tape.
There was a simple training excercise.
"truthers" hate America.

I'm not sure this one's on a youtube video, but if it was, I'd gobble it up...

Certainly seems more plausible than some of the other theories floating out there...

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
You should admit to yourselves that NOTHING would prove to you ANYTHING other then what you have made you mind up happened.

CT-ers didn't just make up their minds out of the blue. They did it after extensive research. So of course we won't be swayed easily.

Before looking into things many of us believed the official story -- myself included. We couldn't imagine something as big as 9-11 being a false flag event. So we didn't dare to ask questions. Somehow, over time, all of us CT-ers decided to start thinking about what happened on that day. Then, we only changed our minds precisely because the facts dictated that we do so.

E. g. airplanes can't disappear and steel skyscrapers don't turn to dust without massive inputs of energy. Hence, the outlandish seeming theories of holograms and hydrogen bombs. If you think that's crazy then please offer an alternative theory that fits the facts on the ground -- no aircraft parts and four buildings turning to ashes (WTC-1, 2, 6 and 7).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

FYI: In another thread, we THOROUGHLY debunked the hologram idea.
Here's the thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can also post a summary here if you like? Just let me know.

Originally posted by jfj123
FYI: In another thread, we THOROUGHLY debunked the hologram idea. Here's the thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nobody cares that you can debunk hologram theories when are you going to address the real issue of the collapses brought up by me and others which you continue to ignore as you focus on BS theories?

It's pretty funny you completely proved my point raised at the start of this thread, that you're only interested in discussing what you think you can easily refute, those are your alternative theories.

That's why I bring up the south tower 'tilt' and other physics anomalies. It just proves you have no idea what you're supporting.
You don't understand what is lacking in the NIST report. Yet you talk like you think you're an expert. Explain to me what angular momentum is?

So what if you thoroughly debunked the hologram idea? Does it make you feel special? When you or your friends can actually make an intelligent comment on the physics problems, outlined by me and others, you might get taken seriously. You debunkers are seriously becoming a joke. You probably made up the hologram theory yourselves anyway in order to have something to debunk...

reply to post by crmanager

Bin Laden never, repeat never worked for the U.S.

Ummm yes he did, the government admits that much. But the divergence is they say he doesn't work for us anymore.




[edit on 8-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

Ummm yes he did, the government admits that much.

Really? I might have actually learned something here then.

I was aware that the US govt helped the jihadists that fought the Russians that eventually became the Northern Alliance, the group that partnered with the US when we invaded Afghanistan.

But I was always under the impression that OBL financed himself, etc. Not that there may have been some trickle down of weapons from the NA, and as such could be loosely said that he "worked for us".

But I wasn't aware of a direct connection - him meeting with us govt personnel, receiving intelligence and/or weapons, etc.

Originally posted by jfj123

In another thread, we THOROUGHLY debunked the hologram idea.
I can also post a summary here if you like? Just let me know.

Really? I'm not sure how you refuted the hologram theory, as you claim you have. Personally I'm not sure there were holograms either. But I am entirely certain there were no planes on 9-11.

1. For the FIRST time in USA aviation history no attempt was made to reconstruct/rebuild crashed commercial aircraft.
2. Of course for the FIRST time in USA aviation history no NTSB or FBI or whatever institution generated crash reports either.
3. None of the 'live interviews' in NYC on 9-11 showed plane wreckage.
4. Not a single piece of visual documentation exists showing plane parts relating to UA175, AA77, AA11 or UA93.
5. None of the airlines issued passenger manifests -- only the newsmedia did.

So, jfj123, these are the facts. And a theory is needed to explain them. I suggest either the 9-11 'eyewitnesses' who claim they saw aircraft are either lying or they saw holograms. What's do YOU say, jfj123?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 5/8/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Originally posted by _Del_
19 Insane, Religious Jihadists took over some airplanes and declared war on the U.S at the behest of Osama Bin Laden.

More alternatives...
Bin Laden never, repeat never worked for the U.S.
WTC 7 had massive damage on the far side of the building that was not seen on tape.
There was a simple training excercise.
"truthers" hate America.

1. Too bad there is noreal evidence to support the conspiracy of the 19 terrorsit hijacking planes.

2. The CIA funded Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

3. Firefighters on scene reported SOME damage to 10 floors. No steel building has ever collpased from fire no matter how severe.

4. Their were military excercises going on that week.

5. "Truthers" are the only ones who care enough about the people that dies that day and America to do research to try to find out what really happened.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by jfj123
FYI: In another thread, we THOROUGHLY debunked the hologram idea. Here's the thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nobody cares that you can debunk hologram theories when are you going to address the real issue of the collapses brought up by me and others which you continue to ignore as you focus on BS theories?

Obviously people do care as there are several threads dedicated to the idea.
I can focus on what I like as I am a free human.

It's pretty funny you completely proved my point raised at the start of this thread, that you're only interested in discussing what you think you can easily refute, those are your alternative theories.

Well the hologram idea is an alternative idea.

That's why I bring up the south tower 'tilt' and other physics anomalies.

The south tower tilt has been addressed.

It just proves you have no idea what you're supporting.

Pointless statement as I have posted quite a lot of factual evidence to support my position. Maybe that huge chip on your shoulder is blocking your vision so you can't read them????? If you try removing that massive chip, you may have better luck.

You don't understand what is lacking in the NIST report. Yet you talk like you think you're an expert.

I've never claimed to be an expert on 9/11. I do have expertise in various fields based on education but I am not now now have I ever claimed to be a 9/11 expert. Stop making things up to try and cause an argument.

So what if you thoroughly debunked the hologram idea?

Yeah so what??? Well let me explain. You see my angry friend, by debunking one idea, we remove one idea from the pool of ideas which can narrow our focus onto other ideas. It allows us to reach singular conclusions when initially faced with many hypothesis'.

Does it make you feel special?

No. Should it? If so, why? If I am supposed to feel special and I'm not, I should probably know so please let me know about that. Thanks

When you or your friends can actually make an intelligent comment on the physics problems, outlined by me and others, you might get taken seriously.

Get over yourself.

You debunkers are seriously becoming a joke.

Yes that whole demanding that people back up what they say with actual evidence, thing has really gotten in the way of fun made up stories, hasn't it???

You probably made up the hologram theory yourselves anyway in order to have something to debunk...

As far as I know, John Lear brought that IDEA to to the table. I could be wrong but the first time I saw the IDEA, he was discussing it.

People may be more open to discussing things with you if you calmed yourself down a bit, dropped the huge attitude and acted a bit more like an adult. This is of course just my opinion. You tend to GET what you GIVE.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Originally posted by jfj123
So, jfj123, these are the facts. And a theory is needed to explain them. I suggest either the 9-11 'eyewitnesses' who claim they saw aircraft are either lying or they saw holograms. What's do YOU say, jfj123?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 5/8/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

I can tell you that it wasn't holograms as it's not possible for a variety of reasons that have been addressed on that other thread. Again, if you ask, I will post a summary of reasons why it's not possible or feel free to read the thread. Just let me know.

I don't believe all those witnesses were lying, all the video's were faked, all the photos were faked, etc.. so that means since it's NOT possible for the planes to be holograms, they must have been real.



[edit on 8-5-2008 by jfj123]

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods


Here are a few reasons why holograms wouldn't work in the situation you are refering:

1. Laser divergence over distance.
2. No medium to project onto.
3. Would require banks of super computers to project.
4. There is no such thing as an anti-light laser.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

1. Too bad there is noreal evidence to support the conspiracy of the 19 terrorsit hijacking planes.

2. The CIA funded Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

3. Firefighters on scene reported SOME damage to 10 floors. No steel building has ever collpased from fire no matter how severe.

4. Their were military excercises going on that week.

5. "Truthers" are the only ones who care enough about the people that dies that day and America to do research to try to find out what really happened.

For someone very touchy about quotes, you certainly misrepresented mine.

1. Surely you mustn't be serious.

2. Possible. Considerably if it was indirectly.

3. No building every suffered similar structural damage combined with serious fires before the event.

4. Possible

5. Very insulting. You've accused me of this several times. In fact if I said what I really want to about this I have no doubt I'd be banned. You, however, seem to have a blank check to say whatever inflammatory thing you'd like.
So instead I'll ask why you continue to use ad hominem against people who disagree with you "analysis" of the "facts"



[edit on 8-5-2008 by _Del_]

Originally posted by jfj123

Does it make you feel special?

No. Should it? If so, why? If I am supposed to feel special and I'm not, I should probably know so please let me know about that. Thanks

I, for one, think you're special. Just as you are. Now stop making sense trying to end the slander of hundreds of good people...

Pleeaase how many times does this have to be repeated?

The SOUTH TOWER TILT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED.

Prove me wrong!

(holograms has not been debunked either not that I believe in them. And who cares who came up with that theory it's irrelevant and a distraction from the real issues. The physics of the collapses tells us all we need to know, and the fact that you keep ignoring it and glossing over it in favour of irrelevant arguments is very telling).

Originally posted by _Del_
Originally posted by jfj123

Does it make you feel special?
No. Should it? If so, why? If I am supposed to feel special and I'm not, I should probably know so please let me know about that. Thanks

I, for one, think you're special. Just as you are. Now stop making sense trying to end the slander of hundreds of good people...

Thank you for your kind words

I am sorry for attempting to end the slander and am at this very moment slapping myself on the wrist. Bad jfj12 BAD Hopefully I've learned my lesson.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 8-5-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by ANOK

(holograms has not been debunked either not that I believe in them.

Yes they have unless you can address the 4 points I have mentioned above and all the points made in the thread which I posted earlier. Good luck with that !!!

And who cares who came up with that theory it's irrelevant and a distraction from the real issues.

You care obviously or you wouldn't keep responding to it and accusing me and people like myself of making it up just to debunk it.

The physics of the collapses tells us all we need to know, and the fact that you keep ignoring it and glossing over it in favour of irrelevant arguments is very telling).

Please post your mathematical model showing your point about the collapses. Please include all equations and variables used and why you chose said variables to be included in your model. If what you say is true, this could be a huge breakthrough !

It's been explained to me that I can insult all truthers as a group no matter how many people it insults as long as I don't single them out... apparently... I'm tempted to test this theory one day in the form of offering my opinion...

Originally posted by jfj123
I don't believe all those witnesses were lying, all the video's were faked, all the photos were faked, etc.. so that means since it's NOT possible for the planes to be holograms, they must have been real.

jfj123,

You're saying the planes must have been real -- only because you don't think holograms are possible?

Well, it doesn't matter if there were holograms or not. By the way, I don't think John Lear was the first to mention them. Sherman Skolnick mentioned them as a possibility in early 2002. Holograms aside, the question should be whether there were planes on 9-11 or not.

A theory needs to be found which explains these facts:

1. For the FIRST time in USA aviation history no attempt was made to reconstruct/rebuild crashed commercial aircraft.
2. Of course for the FIRST time in USA aviation history no NTSB or FBI or whatever institution generated crash reports either.
3. None of the 'live interviews' in NYC on 9-11 showed plane wreckage.
4. Not a single piece of visual documentation exists showing plane parts relating to UA175, AA77, AA11 or UA93.
5. None of the airlines issued passenger manifests -- only the newsmedia did.

I say there were no planes. You, jfj123, say there were. Which viewpoint fits the facts better, that is what we need to ask ourselves.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods






[edit on 5/8/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

no aircraft parts and four buildings turning to ashes (WTC-1, 2, 6 and 7)

I have seen plenty of airplane parts, or at least as many as could be expected. Funny how there are theories saying that the airplane parts are even not from the right planes. I honestly don’t know how many parts you think should be there.

As for ashes, I can’t say I saw any piles of ashes. They were probably obscured by all the dust, steel beams & chunks of concrete. Two of the tallest buildings in the world totally collapsed, as expected, and did people expect neat piles of floor beams, exterior support structure & concrete floor slabs? The potential energy in 110 floors is not something that you can compare video of an old grain silo or hospital building collapsing.

CTers seem to have all the answers when it comes to thinking something “doesn’t look right”, but they have no answers to what it should have looked like. People also use words like “explosion” or “bombs going off” during many disasters involving structures, fires & crashes. Our minds often fill in the blanks after seeing & hearing events that we are not accustomed to on a regular basis.

How long can people ignore the repeated explanations to simply questions, just to further their theories? People can only explain things so many times before they want you to prove that you have thought it through. Funny how only real experts if they support your theories, whilst the OVERWHELMING majority of experts support basically the official story. Yet again, we are back to anyone who tells you anything other than your beliefs is wrong. Your side will never believe anything other then themselves.

Originally posted by jfj123
Please post your mathematical model showing your point about the collapses. Please include all equations and variables used and why you chose said variables to be included in your model. If what you say is true, this could be a huge breakthrough !

No maths are required, no model is required, see my post here and add your comments...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That thread has been up for over a year you must have mist it?

I find it odd that you require maths and a model from me to prove what we already know about physics yet you don't require the same of the government? Where is the model that shows why the top section of WTC 2 acted the way it did? Where is the maths that explain how angular momentum can be changed by, er nothing?
Where in the NIST report does it explain what happened once the collapse was initiated?

If you're expecting models and math formulas it would be pretty easy to do, but you would just ignore it like everything else. If you can't see the problem with the physics now why should I expect showing you a model would make any difference? You seem to want all the answers to be super complicated and impressive to explain simple physics, yet not one of you has yet to answer the questions,
1. How were the buildings not effected by friction/resistance?
2. How did the angular momentum of the top of WTC2 not act in accordance to known physics if the collapses were the result of weakened structure?

You keep claiming you have answered these problems, so where is it?

(lol and you accuse me of trying to discuss holograms as you again try to convince me to argue your points on, holograms. I don't believe there were holograms! Do you not get that, or do you just want to argue? Or maybe you're just trying your hardest to steer the discussion away from relevant points to argue BS?)

Holograms make no difference, it could have been a flying fish, the towers could not have globally collapsed from asymmetrical damage and sporadic office fires...

Originally posted by _Del_

1. Surely you mustn't be serious.

2. Possible. Considerably if it was indirectly.

3. No building every suffered similar structural damage combined with serious fires before the event.

5.Very insulting. You've accused me of this several times. In fact if I said what I really want to about this I have no doubt I'd be banned.

1. Well then show me an official report that matches parts founf to the 9/11 aircraft. If you have real evidence to support the official story.

2. There is prove that we supported OBL.

3. I have shown buildings that had longer fires and worse structural damage then the WTC buildings.

5. Only after you made the statement about turthers hating America, THAT IS INSULTING.



[edit on 9-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]