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.

 

Alternative 9/11 Theories

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


jfj123 wrote "My personal hypothesis is as follows:
The official story timeline is correct. The governments only role was covering up their incompetence."

The official time line is a complete contradiction, and seems to have been done to coincide with the "cover-up."

Norman Mineta states he enters the PEOC bunker at 9:20am. He says the VP Cheney and his wife are already there when he arrives. There are some accounts that verify this by saying Rice and Cheney went to the bunker at 9:10am. A White House employee and Karl Rove both say this to be true. Rove says Bush tried to call Cheney at 9:16a and couldn't reach him because Cheney was being forced into the bunker by Secret Service agents. Other accounts say Cheney was nearly picked up off his feet and carried into the bunker around 9:30a, and Rice followed soon after. The 9/11 Commission states he arrived in the bunker around 9:58a. Mineta arrives at the White House around 9:15a and is briefed by Richard Clarke. He is told to go to the PEOC bunker to be with Cheney. Mineta has verified his statement by saying, "VP Cheney was absolutely there when I arrived." Mineta says Cheney and Lynn Cheney are both there when he gets there at 9:20a. The 9/11 Commission, however, states Cheney gets to the PEOC at 9:58a and Lynn Cheney doesn't arrived to the White House until around 9:52a.

This is extremely significant because Flight 77 doesn't impact The Pentagon until 9:37a. Don't you think Cheney would remember exactly where he was when the Pentagon was struck? Mineta goes on to tell story about the guy who was advising Cheney about the plane being 30 miles out, 20 miles out, 10 miles out ..... do the orders still stand? According to the 9/11 Commission this conversation couldn't have taken place, because Cheney didn't get to the bunker until 21 minutes after the Pentagon impact.

Do you still believe the official time line? If so, explain why you fell Norman Mineta made up such a specific and elaborate lie.




posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
jfj123 is a mason/agent and he's been providing the establishment view of 9/11 here on ATS for a long time. He has a Masonic eagle overlooking the burning towers, a quote from the nihilist Nietzche, and comes to ATS everyday to go point-counter-point with 9/11 truth-seekers. I dealt with him a long time ago. And Mods, don't delete my posts when I talk about the agents on ATS. It is a serious issue that needs to be brought to light... if you think I'm wrong/crazy/paranoid, then that should be funny for you and you can just not take me seriously, okay? But no need to keep deleting my posts.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by freight tomsen
 


Also freight, on July 3rd 1979 President Jimmy Carter signed into action a secret aid package against the Pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. This is 6 months prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Some thought this was to antagonize the Soviets and force them into action. Zbigniew Brzrzinski, Carter's national security advisor, was asked about this as to if we were trying to provoke the Soviets. To which he replied, "We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would." Weird since we are always told we didn't get involved until after the invasion.

Also, in the 70's, the US sent textbooks to Afghanistan. These textbooks were made at the University of Nebraska and paid for by the US taxpayer. These textbooks were intended to push a violent form of Islam onto the Afghan children to incite them against the Soviets. A review of a 100 page textbook was shown to have 43 pages with violent images or passages. Some of these textbooks are still being used today.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Well if you guys are up to it we can still chit chat and just ignore the "vultures".
I have found arguing with them is a exercise in pointlessness and since the mods feel trolling a thread is perfectly acceptable, why don't we just ignore them and talk evidence for what we see?



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 




My personal hypothesis is as follows:
The official story timeline is correct. The governments only role was covering up their incompetence.


I started out there. But I dunno. Just it doesn't seem to jive that, that is the case.

Ugh more of a response when my brain is shutting down for sleep due to Nyquil.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
Actually, No, he has started this thread in spite of said people. All that has been asked is that it doesn't slide into a mass of fairy tales & cut n pasted web tripe.

Within the guidelines of the site, that is his right. Just move on if you don't agree, you are impressing nobody here.


Well it's pretty easy to prove if someone is cutting and pasting, just copy the text and google it.

Not sure who's post you were referring to but be my guest to check all of mine. I'll even help you...

www.google.com...

If you're going to make accusations you better back them up.
So now we have a new troll who adds nothing to the discussion but whining about what's being discussed. It's actually none of your business what I or other post here. If there is a problem that's what the mods are for. You are just wasting band width with your baiting and trolling. I say goodbye sir!


[edit on 1/5/2008 by ANOK]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by whiteravenI have cut, welded, torched, hammered almost every metal out there and no...you cannot demo a building this way. If you could it would sure be a lot cheaper then the way we do it.


Then you know how incredibly LOUD controlled demolitions are. The explosions are loud and unmistakable. The WTC collapses were not accompanied by those very distinctive and very loud explosions. And cheaper? Would it be cheaper to have an airplane fly into the building, knocking off fireproofing and igniting fires hot enough to weaken steel? Somehow I doubt that.

www.youtube.com...

Controlled demolitions also collapse from the bottom up. The WTC towers collapsed from the point of impact of the airplanes. How do you explain that?



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by ClashWhoThe idea that the WTC towers were wired with bombs is preposterous for a host of reasons. It takes months to wire buildings for demolition. Someone would have noticed.


Yeah, like you pester the maintenance men servicing the buildings you go into.


I don't, but WTC security does. What, do you think they were "in on it"? It's amazing how many people have to be "in on it" for these ludicrous conspiracy theories to work.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smallsOh and that islamic terrorism myth perpetrated by western governments.


Myth? The 1993 WTC bombing? The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing? The 1998 Tanzania and Kenya US embassy bombings? The 2000 USS Cole bombing? The 2002 Bali bombings? The 2004 Madrid bombings? The 2005 London bombings? All myths?



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOKSo to put that in context with WTC2 ask yourself, what was it that acted on that top section to make it stop in mid air and then fall straight down?


It didn't stop in mid air. It's path of descent changed as the building buckled underneath it. Simple as that.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by freight tomsen
jfj123 is a mason/agent and he's been providing the establishment view of 9/11 here on ATS for a long time.

This is what is known as an ignorant comment. I assume you can prove this idiotic accusation? Of course you can't as it's not true. Grow up !


He has a Masonic eagle overlooking the burning towers,

An eagle for me means freedom. It's our mascot DUH!
And notice the eagle is CRYING because of 9/11 DUH!


a quote from the nihilist Nietzche,

The quotes are neat. Nothing more, nothing less-you are paranoid and should seek help.


and comes to ATS everyday to go point-counter-point with 9/11 truth-seekers.

Because I disagree with the conspiracy...DUH!!!!!


I dealt with him a long time ago.

Didn't you "deal with me" by putting me on ignore instead of having a civil debate????


And Mods, don't delete my posts when I talk about the agents on ATS.

I'd appreciate it if the MODS also leave it up to show how delusional he is.


if you think I'm wrong

YES


/crazy

YES


/paranoid,

YES


then that should be funny for you and you can just not take me seriously

YES

The reality is I'm a general contractor in Michigan. If a Mod wants to look into that for any reason, I can provide my contractor ID number which can be looked up at the michigan.gov website. Today I'll be doing cement repairs on a sidewalk. Welcome to reality


[edit on 1-5-2008 by jfj123]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by jfj123
 


Well if you guys are up to it we can still chit chat and just ignore the "vultures".
I have found arguing with them is a exercise in pointlessness and since the mods feel trolling a thread is perfectly acceptable, why don't we just ignore them and talk evidence for what we see?


I'll do my best but sometimes when someone personally attacks me, I do respond. Please review freight tomsens post above as example saying something about me being some kind of masonic disinfo agent. Just as a legal aside, I wonder if that is SLANDER???


He's done this to me and other people in other threads also for some reason.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by jfj123]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

Well if you guys are up to it we can still chit chat and just ignore the "vultures".
I have found arguing with them is a exercise in pointlessness and since the mods feel trolling a thread is perfectly acceptable, why don't we just ignore them and talk evidence for what we see?


Exactly.

About all they bring to the forum is comedic relief.

As the saying goes - Don't feed the trolls.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ClashWho

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yeah, like you pester the maintenance men servicing the buildings you go into.


I don't, but WTC security does. What, do you think they were "in on it"?


Duh? It was freaking Securacom, just under a different name. Look it up. Do you know who Securacom is? This is the security company with ties to the Bush family and several infamous security breaches elsewhere.


Just so it doesn't come as a shock to you later, I think the PA was in on it, too. They were bringing in experts and figuring what could bring the buildings down back in 1984 when WTC7 was being constructed.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


jfj, it's odd that you chose to respond to someone you feel is ridiculous, when I made a post that refuted your belief in the accurate time line. Seems a waste of time to try and discuss something with someone who you feel is ridiculous. You accuse "truthers" of picking clean any rational conversation, and then you proceed in an irrational conversation. I will ask you my question again. If you believe the official time line is correct, why do you feel Norman Mineta made up up such a specific and elaborate lie?

Seymour Butz, why don't you take a stab at it? You say people's questions are comic relief, but you refuse to say anything. I'm not talking about nuclear bombs or hologram planes, this is a real glaring issue with the 9/11 Commission's official time line. The Commission's time line is full of time adjustments to shield certain people from blame or collusion.

Donald Rumsfeld says he was in his office when the Pentagon is struck at 9:37a. He says his office shook and he ran outside and started helping to put people on stretchers and hold IV's. But Richard Clarke states he was on a video conference with Rumsfeld when the Pentagon was hit. Clarke says Rumsfeld only left the video conference to move from one teleconferncing phone to another. Then Rumsfeld tells the 9/11 Commission, "I went outside to determine what happened. I was not there long because I was back in the Pentagon with a crisis action team shortly before or after 10a." That's 3 different stories. Still think the time line is accurate?



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I think I've posted more evidence for the "official story" than anyone else here.

If that's what this thread is really about then why isn't anyone posting the evidence? Instead you just argue with us and tell us to shut up in your thread?



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I can't bring any alternate theories, well none that haven't been suggested many times previously. I have no doubt that aircraft hit the buildings exactly as reported and my ideas of underlying conspiracies are associated with the hijackers themselves like the amazingly rapid and all-too-convenient location of evidence pointing to them but I have no proof of this.

The idea of orchestrating in advance which buildings would fall and how right down to the smallest detail seems just too much of a logistical nightmare leaving way too many loose ends and loose mouths to contend with.

So I ask, would the US response to the attacks have been any less if all the buildings had failed to collapse and the total count of casualties was say 1/4 of the actual event?

Basically - did any buildings *have* to collapse following such an attack on the symbols of western economics and US military power?



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
I don’t know where you got the quote “crazy conspiracy theorists”, I never said such a thing on this thread.


You can thank the OP for that, he did it for you (I'm assuming it's a he).


“Last time I checked attacking someone else's viewpoint is not covered in freedom of speech”
… then you are using a different copy as everyone else. That is the very essence of everyone else's.


Attacks are not covered under the T&Cs, nice job quoting a portion of my text.


This thread has not “stifled” anyone, but it has pointed out the fact & proven the fact that most on this site can not bring themselves to not respond to every thread just to see their name in print.


When the OP says "crazy conspiracy theorists" and wants only the government conspiracy theory discussed, that is stifling discussion.

What is there to discuss? Its over. Al Qaeda attacked us on 911, 3 planes hit 3 buildings and 1 plane crashed in Pennsylvania.

Why even bother coming on a CONSPIRACY DISCUSSION FORUM if you have nothing productive to add? Its a waste of your time, not mine.


It was asked at the beginning & through out to stay on topic and discuss the points supporting the official story. Your ego has out weighed your understanding the OP point.


Ah yes. And where in this entire thread is there any facts supporting the official story? There is none.

I guess discussing the truth is too much for you to handle. Why don't you go back to Foxnews.com you'll be able to talk with like-minded individuals who scratch the government's nutsack.


Your responses seem to support that CTers have an ax to grind & have trouble telling fact from fiction... the agree with me or get out mentality.


That's where you're wrong. I actually started a thread in the board and business section asking for an official ATS investigation, and that never happened. So don't tell me what I have trouble understanding.

If you know the facts, why are you even bothering to talk about 911? What happened happened.


I doubt you will come up with anything worthy of further response.


Yes I bow to your higher intelligence and ask for forgiveness lord and savior.

I doubt you have the ability to think critically and put the pieces together.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by ClashWho

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yeah, like you pester the maintenance men servicing the buildings you go into.


I don't, but WTC security does. What, do you think they were "in on it"?


Duh? It was freaking Securacom, just under a different name. Look it up. Do you know who Securacom is? This is the security company with ties to the Bush family and several infamous security breaches elsewhere.


Just so it doesn't come as a shock to you later, I think the PA was in on it, too. They were bringing in experts and figuring what could bring the buildings down back in 1984 when WTC7 was being constructed.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by bsbray11]


Pfft. Conspiracies of that size are a fairy tale. The more people that have to be "in on it" for a conspiracy to work, the less likely it becomes. These 9/11 conspiracies are so ridiculously massive in scope that calling them "preposterous" doesn't go nearly far enough. Securacom and the PA are a bunch of mass murderers, eh? There sure are a lot of mass murderers in your world.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


I never said any such thing as "crazy conspiracy theorists" and I would appreciate it if you did not attempt to put words in my mouth.

Especially considering I think there was a conspiracy to be had, just not the fairy tail mainstream "trutherism" theories.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join