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.

 

Some 9-11 Questios & Theories

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Hello,
I'm sure that this has all been done to death, but there's a couple of things that bug me that I wondered if we could discuss, and maybe add other odd coincidence type bits & pieces here.

What bothers me is the massive coincidence of the war games simulating the exact thing that happened on 9-11, with Dick Cheney present at the time at NORAD.

Firstly I wondered what was the purpose of the war games? Surely it would be to test the system and the response times of jets intercepting, etc, not just to sit there & let the imaginary hijacked planes hit their targets - so why were there no jets to scramble or other action that could be simulated?

Surely that makes the simulation pointless?

Secondly is it always necessary for someone of DC stature to be present?

Thirdly, if the real attacks weren't immediately obvious because they mimicked the simulated attacks, then surely that has to mean that on that day there were going to be some real aircraft deviating off course & giving hijack alerts - otherwise it would have been immediately obvious that this serious development was not part of the simulation.

Surely the greenest of radar operators at NORAD would have spotted this?

This leads me to question whether there isn't a bit more misdirection going on here with regards to the hijackers.

That is, did the hijackers actually know that they were hijackers, or did they think that they were taking part in a simulation where they were being paid to act the part of terrorist hijackers?

This would be useful, since if they were apprehended before the attacks by say an overzealous security person at the airport, their bag of weapons, etc could legitimately be explained away by the authorities.

This has the advantage of plausible deniability of both the govt & the "terrorists" since the "terrorists" genuinely believe that they are not terrorists (since they aren't they're actors) - hope that makes sense!

Also, if the crew & flight attendants think that they're taking part in a simulation then they offer no resistance, and maybe even make simulated contact with the air traffic control explaining that they're being hijacked because they think it's a game.

Finally, the thing that really bothers me with whether the "terrorists" really were terrorists is that on 7/7 in London, exactly the same thing happened.

A simulation was being carried out that exactly mimicked the exact attacks on the morning of the real attack.

The terrorists who carried out the attacks bought return railway tickets (why?), one argued over not being given enough change (why?), they left other "explosive devices" in the boot of their hired car (why? - what use would they be?), and the one who got on the bus kept ringing his friends and kept looking nervously into the bag with the bomb in it after they'd allegedly killed themselves.

Could it be that he suddenly suspected that he was a patsy. Surely it's pointless to ring your friends when you know that they're already dead?

Did his bomb not detonate at the same time as the others because he was out of range of a transmitter that was in the underground stations since he missed his train?

Did they too think that they were being paid to take part in a simulation, and was that simulation taking place to cover up any problems if they were caught by accident, and of course to get the "terrorists" into place with their explosives (that they thought were props)?

I'm also bothered by the WTC buildings all falling exactly into their footprints - surely this too is a massive coincidence, and I wondered if anyone had ever looked at this from a slightly different angle - that is, suppose you wanted to demolish the WTC buildings, what would you need to do, and where would you need to plant charges to do this?

And has anyone then taken that knowledge & rewatched the videos of the collapse to see if the blow outs, etc appear where they would if you were deliberately collapsing the buildings.

Does this tie in with the reports of an explosion in the basement?

Also, if the "terrorists" were patsies on 9-11 then the planes would surely need to be guided in by a homing becon or other transmitter/controller - so is there any way to look back at records of radio transmissions/ reports of odd radio activity on that day.

Interference with other transmitters maybe, like taxi ranks, etc?


Thanks for being bothered to read to this point!

[edit on 13-6-2009 by Power_Semi]




posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Very interesting thoughts. Personally after reviewing all of the Bona Fide news footage I came to the conclusion that their were no planes. IF you watch "September Clues" then you will see what convinced me... Not that video so much as me watching my own VHS copy of the days events looking for and finding the things they pointed out.

Anyways, I digress.

Especially with the 7/7 event... You post a very interesting idea...One I have not seen discussed much in any detail here on ATS... Unwitting patsies..... And you know that fits the MO because that is exactly what the FBI did in 93 the first time the WTC was bombed. Only the patsy did not do as he was told (he refused to park the truck next to the interior support column) and as a result the towers did not fall that day.

I hope more speak on this subject... It is a very good perspective that should be discussed more if for no other reason than it is not discussed much in the first place.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Hi,
thanks for the reply.

I've always felt its a bit futile to go over the evidnece, videos, etc and re analyze them to death, sonce it can get you no further forward, and so I started trying to look at things from a different angle to see if that lead anywhere.


The cover story of the simulation does not for me make any sense - a simulation where no response is taken and no one can tell that the sequence of events is not what is supposed to happen - and it happens twice on 2 seperate terrorist attakcs!

Anyway, I hope people will add their thoughts.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Power_Semi
Hello,
I'm sure that this has all been done to death, but there's a couple of things that bug me that I wondered if we could discuss, and maybe add other odd coincidence type bits & pieces here.


The truth is, yes, this all has been done to death, here and elsewhere, and the "things that bug you" are mostly bad information being put out by these conspiracy con artists specifically to "bug you"...

a) the war games did NOT simulate the events of 9-11. They were exercises to intercept bombers coming in from the sea.

b) Dick Cheney wasn't in charge of NORAD at the time, It was a naval officer from Canada.

c) Yes, there were jets scrambled- F-16s from a base in MA and F-15s from a base in Virginia.

d) there were some moments of confusion, but when they announced "this is not a drill" they knew it was the real thing, not part of the drill.

e) the towers "did not fall in their footprints". They threw wreckage around in every direction. The Deutchbank building got hit, as the Trinity church several blocks away. WTC 5 & 6 were flattened and WTC 7 got whacked, too.

f) the "blowouts" were air being forced out of the structure as the buuilding collapsed.

g) "Reports of explosions in the basement" are silly. The building began collapsing at the point of impact of the aircraft, not the basement.

Everything else is entirely speculation on your part, based entirely upon the bad information you previously posted, so it can be dismissed with prejudice. Besides, you're an otherwise intelligent person so I know this crap isn't coming from YOU, but from these damned fool websites feeding you this bullpoo in order to foster false public unrest and sell you their books, DVDs, t-shirts, frisbees, etc etc etc. If anyone ever tells you everything you know is fake and that they can show you the REAL truth if you give them your money, run away and don't look back.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18/6/2009 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I have a question that I cant get an answer too. Mainly this......

Please consider....If WTC7 was wired for demolition just like the twin towers and the planes were the slight of hand used to fool us as far as the twin towers were concerned. What was the slight of hand that was meant to fool us with WTC7? Was it also to be a plane and if so what happened to it?

Respects



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I do not believe there were any 19 hijackers or foreign terrorist that did 911.
It has not been proven, we do not know who really flew any of the airplanes on 911 furthermore, the government now has ADMITTED there was no paper trail that let to any country. In addition, if anyone said there is, I would like to see it. However, the . director of the FBI, Robert Mulluer has made this statement. I am not even going into the hijackers who are alive and are demanding some answers from our government



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
It has not been proven, we do not know who really flew any of the airplanes on 911 furthermore, the government now has ADMITTED there was no paper trail that let to any country. In addition, if anyone said there is, I would like to see it. However, the . director of the FBI, Robert Mulluer has made this statement. I am not even going into the hijackers who are alive and are demanding some answers from our government


Thus, the reason why I say these conspiracy websites pushing these stupid "inside job" conspiracy stories are lying sacks of poo. I recognize right away whan this poster is referring to, as these web sites reveal one or two individual truths while withholding other information to get people to connect the dots on their own and get them to believe what they want people to believe, without actually coming out and saying it.

What Muller ACTUALLY said is that they themselves don't have any information on Al Qaida. This is becuase it's military intelligence information, not criminal investigation information. It said right in the 9/11 commission report that the FBI and CIA don't share information with each other (which is one reason why the attacks were successful). It's also true there ISN'T any paper trail becuase there wasn't anything relevent put down on paper. German intelligence confirmed that the people who hijacked the planes all knew each other becuase they lived together in Germany, plus there are electronic banking records showing money trasnfers from Al Qaida to the hijackers.

Not that any of this matters...if someone is so madly in love with the idea that the gov't was behind the 9/11 attack then they're going to believe the gov't was behind the 9/11 attack regardless of what anyone else says. It has absolutely nothign to do with there actually being any gov't involvment in the attack, and everything to do with fulfilling some inner need to believe such conspiracy stories.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18/6/2009 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

g) "Reports of explosions in the basement" are silly. The building began collapsing at the point of impact of the aircraft, not the basement.


out of all the misinformation you posted, this is the silliest. To say that there weren't bombs is possibly debatable, to say there were no explosions isn't.


Isaac reiterated what a 9-11 survivor told this journalist during our protest at Ground Zero on Sept. 11, 2005�that emergency radios were buzzing with information about bombs being detonated inside the World Trade
Center towers.

Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York.



Jack Kelley: "That is the working theory at this point, that is still unconfirmed but that is what the FBI is going on at this point."
In 2004, Jack Kelley was fired after it emerged that he had fabricated sources for his stories as a foreign correspondent, so on the face of it his credibility is in question.

However, MSNBC's Rick Sanchez also reported that officials strongly believed a van packed with explosives parked underneath the towers had contributed to their collapse.

"Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion," stated Sanchez live on air.

"I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosion at the besides the ones made with the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked on the building that may have had an explosive device in it.”



Edmund McNally phoned his wife Liz twice following the [WTC 2] aircraft impact. Mr McNally said in his second phone call "Liz, this was a terrorist attack. I can hear explosions below me." [NY Times]

Tom Elliott, WTC 2 survivor: They saw only two firemen going up. They told them there had been an explosion near the 60th floor. [csmonitor]



Firefighter Schroeder recollects in great detail how he was one of the first firefighters to rush to the complex. “We first assembled on West Street, where we saw someone burnt beyond recognition. We were like ‘What is going on here?’ and then went straight into the Marriot building” From there, Firefighter Schroeder made his way to the lobby of the North Tower. “It looked like a bomb went off, and we started making our way up the stairs to rescue as many people as we could.”

As they were making there way up the floors, Firefighter Schroeder heard a huge explosion. “The elevators just blew right out. We couldn’t believe it. The plane hits 80 floors up but the elevators explode at least five minutes later? It was unreal.”



Indeed, the FBI told a reporter for USA Today that FBI agents believed there were bombs in the Twin Towers.

Similarly, the Washington Post believed that bombs were involved, as reflected in a September 21, 2001 article containing the following phrase:

In the hours after Tuesday's bombings . . . .

Many firefighters and policemen also said there were bombs in the Twin Towers.

www.google.com...:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a


"We're stuck on the stairs for a while. We finally got down to the lobby, and then when we get to the lobby there was this big explosion."

whatreallyhappened.com...


"Tower two has had major explosion and what appears to be a complete collapse"


"...those involved in the secondary explosion at tower 1, 'kay, I've got five patients..."


"We have got numerous people covered in dust from the secondary explosion..."


"We've got another explosion at the tower..."

whatreallyhappened.com...


No explosions indeed.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
If you have 19 men willing to die in the name of someone they believe was a prophet (and of course the 16 someodd virgins that await you). They took over planes and targeted different buildings. Then why not go for the White House? I mean, sure the WTC messed America up. But they had 4 planes, why not crash direclty into THE symbol of America?

Perhaps they thought security would be tight and they would be shot down. Well why go to the Pentagon if that's the case?? The central point of intelligence, as far as the outside world is concerned. This is the thing that bugs me, why not the White House? They pulled off the biggest suprise attack (And I use the term VERY loosley) in history and never went for the President of the Big Bad United States!?



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
out of all the misinformation you posted, this is the silliest. To say that there weren't bombs is possibly debatable, to say there were no explosions isn't.


Ahem...go back and reread what I posted. I never said there weren't explosions. OF course there were explosions. Emergency personnel heard explosions, Tenents heard explosions. News journalists heard explosions. We even heard explosions on TV as they were broadcasting it. Yes, there were explosions.

The deceit comes in when these conspiracy web sites try to claim these were bombs and not the gazillion flammable objects that would be in the WTC that would naturally explode as the fires reached them I.E. fuel tanks for the emergency generators, electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, etc). I know that's what they were becuase the explosions in the WTC were going off randomly, not in precise coordination as demolitions would need to be. Besides, take a look at where the planes hit, and you can see right away it was only a floor or two above/below the maintenence floors where the fuel tanks, electrical transformers, elevator motors, etc would have been.

Oh, and just *when* did I ever post any misinformation here? I'm presuming you can provide an example, since it's one thing to simply not want to hear what I'm posting here, but it's another thing entirely to irreverently giggle "it's a pack of lies" before running away like a little girl.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by RenDMC
Perhaps they thought security would be tight and they would be shot down. Well why go to the Pentagon if that's the case?? The central point of intelligence, as far as the outside world is concerned. This is the thing that bugs me, why not the White House? They pulled off the biggest suprise attack (And I use the term VERY loosley) in history and never went for the President of the Big Bad United States!?



We'll never know becuase they're dead, but if you want an educated guess, it simply may be the case they actually were planning to hit the White House but they simply couldn't readily find it from the air, especially when they only have seconds to spot it before flying by it. The Pentagon OTOH would be VERY easy to spot from the air.

Someone ought to go to Google Earth to check that out.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


the quotes i posted directly refute what you are saying.


g) "Reports of explosions in the basement" are silly. The building began collapsing at the point of impact of the aircraft, not the basement.


First responders pointed them out many times. (explosions in the basement, lobby, and floors that were not burning). You use the word silly to describe it also, when there in fact had been bombs in the basement used in previous attacks.


e) the towers "did not fall in their footprints". They threw wreckage around in every direction. The Deutchbank building got hit, as the Trinity church several blocks away. WTC 5 & 6 were flattened and WTC 7 got whacked, too.


As far as CD experts are concerned they met the industry standard definition of doing just that.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



What Muller ACTUALLY said is that they themselves don't have any information on Al Qaida.


STOP LYING! What Robert Muller said is:


In September 2002, [FBI Director Robert Mueller] told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers." [Insight]

Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists' identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, "Whatever trail was left was left deliberately-for the F.B.I. to chase." [The New Yorker]


whatreallyhappened.com...



FBI Chief Raises New Doubts Over Hijackers' Identities
WASHINGTON -- FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged Thursday that investigators may not know the true identities of some of the 19 suspected airplane hijackers from last week's suicide attacks.


911review.org...

Now where are your sources?


This is becuase it's military intelligence information, not criminal investigation information.


Oh really, please show a creditable sources to your ridiculous claim?


It said right in the 9/11 commission report that the FBI and CIA don't share information with each other


Right, and they share their info only with you, but you can’t post any sources to back up your ridiculous statements, from those websites that sell disnfo T-shirts that preach against the 911 OS is lunacy.


(which is one reason why the attacks were successful).


Yes they were successful, because it was an inside job. (Prove it was not?) You can’t.


German intelligence confirmed that the people who hijacked the planes all knew each other becuase they lived together in Germany, plus there are electronic banking records showing money trasnfers from Al Qaida to the hijackers.


All lies, where is your proof? If there is no paper trail then why should we believe in hearsay? Governments lie all the time nothing but lies.

If you want people to take you seriously then I suggest you start posting some sources and not your opinions.



Not that any of this matters...if someone is so madly in love with the idea that the gov't was behind the 9/11 attack then they're going to believe the gov't was behind the 9/11 attack regardless of what anyone else says.


Yes, you are right, especially when all the evidence points to the Bush administration. However, there are those that are in such a state of DENIL that they can’t see the truth starring them in the face. It is so easy to close one’s eyes to all the available facts that are a keystroke away, and to live in a make believe world.


It has absolutely nothign to do with there actually being any gov't involvment in the attack, and everything to do with fulfilling some inner need to believe such conspiracy stories.


Another one of your ridiculous opinions. Where is your proof the government was not involved? Oh, that’s right, you can’t produce it.


[edit on 16-6-2009 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I guess you missed this story then....




AP) The FBI has resolved questions about the identities of the 19 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks and has discovered places outside the United States where the conspiracy was planned, FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday.




Saudi Arabian officials and others have questioned whether some of the hijackers identified by the FBI in the weeks after the attacks used stolen identifications. Mueller said those questions have been answered




We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible," he said. "We have been successful in working with our foreign counterparts in identifying places where the conspiracy we believe was hatched as well as others who may have been involved in the conspiracy."


www.cbsnews.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I guess you missed this story then.


Mueller provided no new information on the hijackers' identities beyond his statement at a briefing Friday for reporters. Neither did he name any of the places abroad where authorities now believe the conspiracy was initiated, or any of the other conspirators.


www.cbsnews.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by RenDMC
Perhaps they thought security would be tight and they would be shot down. Well why go to the Pentagon if that's the case?? The central point of intelligence, as far as the outside world is concerned. This is the thing that bugs me, why not the White House? They pulled off the biggest suprise attack (And I use the term VERY loosley) in history and never went for the President of the Big Bad United States!?



We'll never know becuase they're dead, but if you want an educated guess, it simply may be the case they actually were planning to hit the White House but they simply couldn't readily find it from the air, especially when they only have seconds to spot it before flying by it. The Pentagon OTOH would be VERY easy to spot from the air.

Someone ought to go to Google Earth to check that out.


These guys were supposed to be in the U.S for months, they didn't bother to map out where it was? Obviously the Pentagon is easy to recognize, but what a coincidence it hit the only part of the building that had yet to be/had been I forget, my bad) restored. As you say though, they're dead, so we'll never know.... Or are they?? As reported by various sources.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Another box of rocks I see...

You post statements saying that the FBI wasnt sure who the hijackers were. So when someone posts a story saying they know exactly who they were it confuses you....I get that.

I do not know how to put it any simplier to you...when that story was released, the FBI had corrected the mistakes in spelling and middle names that had confused everyone in the days right after 9/11/01...and still confuses truthers to this day........



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by RenDMC
 


Maybe because that section was also the EASIEST approach to the building?



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by RenDMC
 


Maybe because that section was also the EASIEST approach to the building?


Or was it?

"The complexity and precision of the approach maneuver are nearly impossible to reconcile with the official account that the plane was piloted by Hani Hanjour, an incompetent pilot of even single-engine prop-planes"

911research.wtc7.net...

These below par flying terrorists impressed a whole lot of pilots with the flying they showed on 9/11 (or what we've seen COUGH release the videos COUGH) So couldn't they have aimed straight down into the MIDDLE of the Pentagon. Why one side? I mean Flight 93 was supposed to have just come down vertically, given the imprint in the ground.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by RenDMC
 





These below par flying terrorists impressed a whole lot of pilots with the flying they showed on 9/11 (or what we've seen COUGH release the videos COUGH) So couldn't they have aimed straight down into the MIDDLE of the Pentagon. Why one side? I mean Flight 93 was supposed to have just come down vertically, given the imprint in the ground.


First you rely on the "Hani was a bad single engine pilot", without knowing, appearantly, that he had obtained a commercial pilot's license. Then you confuse the pattern he flew with the part about that area of the Pentagon being the easiest to hit. That side of the Pentagon had the best chance of a successful atttack. Keep in mind, that the terrorists did not want to have a mid air collision with an aircraft taking off from Reagan National, that eliminates about 2/3s of the Pentagon as a target point....you know what, go to DC and drive around the Pentagon....you will see what I mean.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join