Alternative 9/11 Theories

I'm sorry but everthing written here is completly WRONG. The twin towers were not realy destroyed. It was all an elaborate illusion formulated by the Iluminati so they could actualy have the buildings without paying for them, They in fact are still standing and are now the head quarters for the NWO. They are using cloaking devices back engineered from the Reetu Nebulati. crash of 1874. I have this on excellent authority from the side of my cornflakes box. You cannot deny the truth when its so boldly given with perfect faith. Naysayers will be consummed in the fires of the generators that run the cloaking device. So there!!!!
Zindo

reply to post by ANOK

Even if they could it doesn't change the fact that the fire could not have caused global collapse, nor explain the physics anomalies that the NIST report doesn't address.

1) Like most "truthers" you just leave out the damage caused by a plane smashing into it. It wasn't just a plane smashing into. It wasn't just a fire weakening the structural supports. It was a combination of BOTH. "Truthers" only separate the two to make themselves sound right.

2) Or there are no "physics anomalies" to be had and your full of it. I lean towards the last one.

And can we stop feeding the trolls you two? (jtj and pilgrum)
They are getting what they want by killing the conversation they apparently don't want to happen.
But I understand how frusterateingly fun it can be going round for round with them and making them illustrate the BS that they rely on to hide the fact their theories stink.

[edit on 4-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

6) Etc.

Got an alternative theory. POST IT!

Etc — et cetera. Oh, oh. This usually means “I have nothing left to say”/”I don’t know what else to mention”.

Well, I may be stupid, but for the life of me, I cannot see a single alternative 9-11 theory mentioned in this entire thread. Perhaps one is still buried somewhere in all the talk. Perhaps not all is drivel. But would it be too much to ask to have someone list — as promised in the thread title — a 9-11 scenario which is new and different.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Wonderful Woods

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods


I thought the thread was to offer alternative theories to the official story, not brand new theories. I got involved because I saw a post that someone actually believed the official time line was correct. I offered some proof to show the time line wasn't correct, and then went on to explain my thoughts that differ from the official theory. Of course, as with nearly every other thread, the conversation turned into the same ole same ole WTC collapse. I know my theory isn't new and isn't necessarily "mine", but I thought maybe some of these posters needed to see some evidence that was contrary to their hard line beliefs. A lot of people like to get into discussions about WTC collapse, Pentagon missile, and Flight 93 shot down because there is plenty of info for both sides to throw back and forth, but when you really start looking into the events that led up to 9/11, that's when the conversation seems to lose steam. There really is no ammo for official theory believers to respond. Then they are left with either these hijackers were agents or the "LIHOP". Either way, the belief in the official theory goes out the window.

reply to post by RomanMaroni


Or its not worth it.
It's funny how you self proclaimed "truthers" go on and on about "Official Story Believers" why not just chant "I am special. And you are dumb." over and over again and be done with it already?

Oh and your information has absolutely no unbiased or otherwise source provided so thusly no one really wishes to bother with it.
Pure hearsay.

Originally posted by _Del_
There are so many examples in so many threads, it's hard to keep track. Notice he then attacks me for pointing out the inconsistency by saying "I posted it five times.

When you learn to read get back to me.

I stated i posted 5 sources, not 5 times.

Originally posted by jfj123
This is what the NIST final report says about the jet fuel
Page 74 of the report.

You post 1 source, i can post several sources that state it was more.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Or its not worth it.
It's funny how you self proclaimed "truthers" go on and on about "Official Story Believers" why not just chant "I am special. And you are dumb." over and over again and be done with it already?

Oh and your information has absolutely no unbiased or otherwise source provided so thusly no one really wishes to bother with it.
Pure hearsay.

It's true. I for one can't even read apparently.

Why would we want a real study when there are youtube videos out there telling us exactly how it happened?

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
1) Like most "truthers" you just leave out the damage caused by a plane smashing into it.

Like most believers you just leave out all the reports that state the buildings withstood the planes impacts.

You also leave out the fact that no steel building hasd ever collasped from fire and/or structural damage.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
When you learn to read get back to me.

When I do learn to read will you send me a free copy of your book, or do I have to buy it like the other fools?

Originally posted by _Del_
Why would we want a real study when there are youtube videos out there telling us exactly how it happened?

You don't want real study becasue you wnat to live in a safe fantasy world and do not want to know what really goes on in the world.

As far as youtube, you may as well believe the video since you believe everthing you see on TV and are told by the media.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Name to me one building of similar design that had received similar damage with a similar fire. Notice the keywords of what I am asking.
Haven't we been over this one before?

Originally posted by _Del_
When I do learn to read will you send me a free copy of your book, or do ?

Only a person who has no evidnece to suppor their clams has to resort to very immature responses. Do i have to get the mods involved for you not staying on topic?

Its just too bad it been almost 7 years and you guys that believe the official story can still not show any facts and evidence to support the official story.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You also leave out the fact that no steel building hasd ever collasped from fire and/or structural damage.

NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

wtc.nist.gov...

I doubt you cover this in your book...

Will you quote from the final report at all? Maybe cherry pick a few parts out to say you used a reliable source and then ignore the main conclusions drawn?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


*cough* *cough* *cough* Pedrue Video *cough* *cough* *cough*

I can't apologise for constantly bringing that up because you claim it shows something it obviously doesn't and have been called on at least a million times now.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Name to me one building of similar design that had received similar damage with a similar fire. Notice the keywords of what I am asking.
Haven't we been over this one before?

Originally posted by _Del_
Will you quote from the final report at all?

I can show several steel buildings (just like the WTC buildings) that had longer lasting fires and MORE structural damage then the WTC buidlings and the did not collapse. I will be waiting for your evidence to debate them.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Do i have to get the mods involved for you not staying on topic?

I was unaware the topic of the thread was my literacy. I apologize for sending it off topic with talk about conspiracy theories...

NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.
wtc.nist.gov...

[edit on 5-5-2008 by _Del_]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Hmmm once again.
And we have been over this before.
No massive structural damage.

Just fire......

And you expect me to believe you why?
Because of your constant and unrelenting school yard BS insults?

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
I can't apologise for constantly bringing that up because you claim it shows something it obviously doesn't and have been called on at least a million times now.

Then show me a frame from the Purdue video that shows the NOSE, WINGS, and TAIL (INSIDE) the building. You keep ignoring that part of my post.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


Actually, a few posts ago I stated my claims can be verified at www.cooperativeresearch.org... I, in no way, think I am smart and you are dumb. I have come to terms with the fact that I am human, and part of that means that I'm not always right. So, I never take the I am smart and you are dumb approach. If you think my claims are pure hearsay, then you haven't bothered to check out my claims. There is no hearsay involved. The info I have posted is verified and was reported by several MSM outlets. Believe me Wraoth, I want to be wrong. I want to believe everything as it has been told to me, but I just can't because it doesn't add up to me. I also know the people who present the info are people that have lied to me repeatedly. The old "Fool me Once" .... (the real fool me once saying, not George Bush's, "Fool me once, umm , uh shame on ... shame on you, fool me .. can't get fooled again.") Couldn't resist.

If you think it's not worth discussing the hijackers and all the coincidences that led all the way up to 9/11, then why are you here? Maybe you should watch 9/11 Press for Truth to get an understanding of how the official story came about.