9/11 My Hypothesis.

My hypothesis part I.

Preamble

Before I commence a few rules that I earnestly request are abided by, thanks in advance. I will be writing this with a neutral point of view as best that I can administer, also as it`s a hypothesis I do expect a harsh review, for this benefit and to keep matters on an even keel, I will be asking of our forum debunkers certain events or a relative question for them to debunk, if you want to debunk this thread, fine, but you have to earn the privilege, to keep this as fair as I possibly can I will be asking debunkers to debunk something, which is relative to (to the best of my knowledge) their respective field.

As a very early example here`s the 1st event to be debunked and it`s for jthomas whose field of expertise is the Pentagon and fly overs, here we go jt...... prove that a Jet or any other aircraft did not fly over the Pentagon within the impact time, without using the word canard in your reply.

Collapsing of buildings and probable causes.

There are only so many ways that a building can collapse, what we must do therefore is to create a competent list of causes and remove them from the list with the process of elimination.

A). Subsidence.

B). Acts of God, (Hurricane, Earthquake, Tornado, Lightning, Landslide, Tidal wave.)

C). Fire.

D). Explosions caused by contents and or fossil fuel heating resources.

E). Controlled Demolition.

F). Structural failure due to losing support integrity.

G). Pancake affect.

Okay before we go through the PoE the next debunking question goes to Weedwhacker whose field of expertise is aviation... Prove Hani Hanjour was piloting the vehicle responsible for impacting the Pentagon.

Back to topic - We can safely rule out options A and B to start with. We agree there was sporadic fires in all three towers, we agree that after the initial explosion (even more so with WTC2 South Tower as a very high percent of the fuel ignited outside the building), there was only random office items and paper, we agree that neither of these would burn or sustain temperatures high enough to weaken tempered steel, we also agree that if kerosene managed to flow through elevator shafts it would not disperse evenly on every single storey whilst doing so. Fire most definately was a contributory factor but we agree it did not do enough damage to remove all resistance therefore initiating collapses.

We agree there were many reports of explosions, but these were sporadic and started 14 and 17 seconds before initial impacts and carried on occurring up to and including the collapses of all three towers, we must therefore conclude that those responsible where also responsible for planting incendiary devices in all three towers, we disagree wholeheartedly here on NISTS reluctance to test the steels pyrotechnically and explosive residue forensics analysis, we agree that content and fossil fuel explosions occurred but were insignificant to cause or initiate any of the collapses.

Okay whilst we are talking pyrotechnics and the like it`s debunk time again, this one is for Pteridine and again is relative to a field he takes a keen interest in....... Prove that thermite was not used - before, during, or after, any of the collapses, good luck with finding any relative papers or result analysis of pyrotechnic testing.

Controlled Demolition - We disagree entirely here due to the fact that NIST disregarded any tests whatsoever for signs of Controlled Demolitions, terrorists have managed to plant an explosive device in the WTC previously, and the signs were there to more than indicate they have done it again - no resistance - time of collapses - squib like expulsions at the time of collapse - flashes - eye witness accounts - irregular damage to steel beams, we feel that NIST have deliberately side stepped the probable cause of all 3 collapses for reasons unknown, this is duly noted and as of yet have still received no reply from them regarding these matters.

F). This is obviously the cause of all three collapses but it is only possible via any of the above reasons, before the analysis we agree that G). was not the cause due to resistances and time span of collapses, the only probable cause of structural failure therefore is controlled explosions by unknown devices placed in various pressure points throughout all three buildings by those responsible for the hijackings, again we are in disagreement with both FEMA and NIST for reasons unknown of not undertaking relative tests for explosive devices.

Okay next debunking goes to Thedman whose special field appears to be the rescue services, it was deemed possible and the respective units were there with equipment (cradles etc) to undertake roof top rescues from the North Tower, there was a long enough threshold after everyone below impact levels were evacuated from the tower, why were the doors not forced open and at least some of those whom were to die later, not saved?.

We therefore agree to disagree with both NIST and FEMA that the only reliable and most definately the nature of the collapses were controlled demolitions by persons whom were responsible for the jet impacts, there is no reasons whatsoever to have prevented those responsible from doing the relative tests.

Before I go into part II it`s debunk time again, and this one is for our highly intelligent and well travelled forumite mmiichael - An act of diplomatic essence for you my friend, directly after 9/11 it was deemed that OBL and AQ where responsible, intelligence reports at the time stated OBL was being sheltered by the Taliban, they were asked to hand him over and their reply was `Okay, but first give us proof`, why was this proof never provided therefore causing a war with Afghanistan, prove it was OBL that instigated 9/11, again you may want help here according to the F.B.I.`s most wanted website.

[edit on 11/08/2009 by Seventh]

Reserved for part II, which covers a side of all this that I personally have never seen mentioned .

Originally posted by Seventh
My hypothesis part I.

Preamble

Before I commence a few rules that I earnestly request are abided by, thanks in advance. I will be writing this with a neutral point of view as best that I can administer, also as it`s a hypothesis I do expect a harsh review, for this benefit and to keep matters on an even keel, I will be asking of our forum debunkers certain events or a relative question for them to debunk, if you want to debunk this thread, fine, but you have to earn the privilege, to keep this as fair as I possibly can I will be asking debunkers to debunk something, which is relative to (to the best of my knowledge) their respective field.

As a very early example here`s the 1st event to be debunked and it`s for jthomas whose field of expertise is the Pentagon and fly overs, here we go jt...... prove that a Jet or any other aircraft did not fly over the Pentagon within the impact time, without using the word canard in your reply.

Trying desperately to shift the burden of proof to others doesn't ever work.

You still haven't learned that it's your obligation to prove your own claims. The claim at issue is that a jet "flew over and away from the Pentagon."

So, instead of desperately trying to evade your responsibility, please provide the evidence I have repeatedly asked you and others for. Please provide the eyewitness statements of anyone seeing a jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon."

Originally posted by jthomas

Trying desperately to shift the burden of proof to others doesn't ever work.

Putting others in the same situations they put you in is called levelling the odds, not being able to prove certain aspects due to impossibility is beyond annoying. You guys think no proof = didn`t happen. Huge example here..
Man exists - fact, he evolved from creatures inhabiting this planet - fact, prove it!!. See, so as much as guys cannot prove a plane flew over the Pentagon near impact time, you cannot prove it did not. CD`s again, you prove they did not happen = impossible.

You still haven't learned that it's your obligation to prove your own claims. The claim at issue is that a jet "flew over and away from the Pentagon."

Here we go again, it`s not my burden to prove anything that is impossible to prove, as stated above no proof does not mean it did not happen.

So, instead of desperately trying to evade your responsibility, please provide the evidence I have repeatedly asked you and others for. Please provide the eyewitness statements of anyone seeing a jet "fly over and away from the Pentagon."

What do you think you will achieve by guys not being able to prove an impossible case - an I saved the world badge, free life membership to the national geographic?.

In case you haven`t noticed this whole scenario is based on corrupt power mongers, genocide, illegal wars, instigating ethnic hatrid, theft.

Let`s imagine that people like me do not sit here with tin foil hat and matching all in one body suit on, trawling the internet for a 1st sign of some form of conspiracy and steam rolling head 1st in.

Let`s imagine people like me - have children, and are trying the hardest to bring them up as honest law abiding citizens, to do this they must have idealist roll models to look up to, who should these be?, the guys that set our rules, doctrines and tenets that we abide by should be a damn good start.

Also do we want them raised in an environment full of hate and death, is this to much to ask for?, if we were fruit cases with un-based arguments then you would have a point, but we`re not, and you guys thinking the whole scenario is a game, based on a points won for not being able to prove an impossible point system, are trying to achieve what exactly?, e-peen of the year award maybe.

Originally posted by Seventh

You still haven't learned that it's your obligation to prove your own claims. The claim at issue is that a jet "flew over and away from the Pentagon."

Here we go again, it`s not my burden to prove anything that is impossible to prove, as stated above no proof does not mean it did not happen.

If it were "impossible to prove" then there would be no evidence of it happening. But the claim has been made that "a jet flew over and away from the Pentagon."

And I have already demonstrated for well over 2 years here and in other forums that it is not only possible to prove, it would be virtually impossible to miss for scores of people amongst the hundreds of people who were all around the Pentagon as the "explosion" happened.

You are not only trying to shift the burden of proof, you are weaseling out of any and all responsibility.

Stop dodging and give us the evidence.

reply to post by Seventh

...the next debunking question goes to Weedwhacker whose field of expertise is aviation... Prove Hani Hanjour was piloting the vehicle responsible for impacting the Pentagon.

"... field of expertise is aviation ..."

I don't see the logic in this "challenge". What resources are available to me to "prove" any one specific individual was at the controls of American Airlines 77 after the hijacking occured on 11 September, 2001? Determining a criminal's identity isn't my 'field'.

How is this relevant?


Here is a logical assessment of the situation:
Somebody obviously was flying the airplane. It wasn't me, and it wasn't you. SO, now we have positively 'proven' that two certain known individuals did not fly AA 77 that day. (Well, actually, that has 'proven' nothing! It could have been me, and I am complicit in the grand cover-up, the "fly-over", the entire charade. "Prove" that I am not involved!)

See? Absolutes existing in a vacuum, without supporting or corroborating evidences, are useless.

BUT, when considering the events of that day, there is a wealth of evidence, some clearly and admittedly circumstantial, some hear say, and all the other legal terms that I don't know, since that isn't my 'expertise'.

Not ALL of the various bits mesh exactly, they never do when Human perceptions (and misconceptions) enter into an event, especially one of this magnitude and emotional impact. BUT, as in any investigation, a critical examination will sift through the bogus "info", and attribute it to source. Therefore, the vast majority of existing evidence points to the AA 77, the hi-jacking, and the suicide Pentagon impact.

These many years on, after sorting through the false identities and finding the actual individuals involved in each hi-jacking, it is obviously assumed that A) Hanjour was onboard and B) He was the one who knew how to fly. Perhaps two of them did?? I don't know, do you?

Unfortunately, the CVR was unreadable from AA 77. AS is the case in AA 11 and UA 175. Based on the CVR from UA 93, it seems that there were at least two in the cockpit, it can then be assumed that was the case in the other hi-jackings (and there are phone conversations from crew and passengers on some of the other airplanes showing a similar tactic.)

Makes sense, it would have been a collaborative effort. "Moral" support, if you will. I don't presume to know the minds of those men, but although they seemed to have been twisted in their ideology, they were still Humans, and therefore it's possible to assign motives and understand methods.

The extreme machinations, illogical assumptions, logical fallacies, and other mental gymnastics necessary for the 'conspiracy theorists' to make the preponderances of evidence twist in order to fit certain pet theories that exist solely to contradict what they (the conspiracy enthusiasts) call the "Official Story" (a distraction --- I tried not to say 'canard' ---) goes against most people's common sense.

A prosaic example: The law enforcement officer comes across an accident scene involving one automobile. The car has impacted a brick wall. There is a person lying off to the side, apparently (see, it's starting already!) thrown clear. There is no "Proof" that the person lying on the ground was the driver of the car, but it is certainly logical and prudent to assume, since A) There is no one else present and B) The car's driver-side door is gaping wide open. Furthermore, there are empty and half-empty containers of alcohol, in the car, and scattered around the scene. The sole victim's body tests positve for alcohol injestion.

Is the person (victim) the driver? How would most people assess and examine that scene, and draw conclusions?

ANY additional datum of info that can be added, will help to strengthen the initial assumption, or alter it. Witnesses. How soon the law enforcement/first responders arrived at the scene. Personal history of the individual. People who saw the car leave the home (witnesses again, but before the fact). One witness thought she saw two people in the car. Five witnesses think they saw just the one occupant. BUT, they aren't 100% certain it was the same person they saw driving, or not. Which witness(es) do you discount? Which to you add to your determination of the sequence of events?

Did the one witness actually see two people? And the second person hid in the backseat during the time when the other five saw the vehicle? Guesses. Possible, yes. Plausible. Yes. Likely? Well.....

Do you see? There is no "proof" that the victim was actually the driver, but a whole lot of evidence to draw the logical conclusion.

The victim lives. His defense attorney, a shrewd lawyer, decides to claim that the entire accident was "staged", his client was "framed", it was an elaborate plot --- and his client deserves the benefit of doubt, and am acquittal of drunken driving charges.

You be the judge.......

reply to post by weedwhacker


In the nutshell WW you explained beautifully, which I expected, but call it reverse psychology I gave you an impossible to answer question, this is what we Truthers face every single day, art of character defamation via no win situations, thus weakening any voiced opinion they have about anything, therefore destabilizing them as any source of a reliable witness

It`s a Lawyer trait similar to a Yes or No answer situation..... scenario - divorce proceeding Lawyer.... `Did you kiss miss Tart?` `Well I....` Lawyer `Just answer the question`.. `Yes`.

You would have loved to answer `yes but only on her cheek`, okay your Lawyer will ask how you kissed miss Tart but it`s already in the Juror`s minds.

There are many small aspects that imho are still very important but overlooked, hence the new thread that I started, if only cases were won or lost on circumstantial evidence O.J. Simpson covered in blood springs to mind, but then again could open a huge can of worms here and mention a nearly all black jury for a black man white woman murder trial, but I won`t .

Anyway thx for replying.

Originally posted by Seventh

All right, then. Would you mind giving me a hypothesis on why, if this was all a false flag event to go to war in Iraq, why did they use it to frame Bin Laden, rather than Saddam Hussein?

I would have also liked to ask why, if they went to all the trouble of planting CDs in a building and then using aircraft to cover them up, why didn't they go any further and plant WMDs in Iraq and save themselves such a public relations nightmare, but I know that's completely outside the scope of this forum. The point is, yeah, it's one thing to hypothesize individual events, but when you try to put them together to determine the motives that were driving everything...which you know as well as I do you're obligated to do as a truther...it doesn't even remotely make sense.

I said this before and I'll say it again- if the conspiracy proponents were to ever hold their own conspiracies up the the same stringent level of critical analysis that they do the standard account, they wouldn't be conspiracy proponents for very long.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

All right, then. Would you mind giving me a hypothesis on why, if this was all a false flag event to go to war in Iraq, why did they use it to frame Bin Laden, rather than Saddam Hussein?

This was the pre-planned script to invade Afghanistan, Gas and Opium hold the key here, Iraq you don`t need an invite for tbh.

I would have also liked to ask why, if they went to all the trouble of planting CDs in a building and then using aircraft to cover them up, why didn't they go any further and plant WMDs in Iraq and save themselves such a public relations nightmare, but I know that's completely outside the scope of this forum. The point is, yeah, it's one thing to hypothesize individual events, but when you try to put them together to determine the motives that were driving everything...which you know as well as I do you're obligated to do as a truther...it doesn't even remotely make sense.

Hehe I love the way you just done that, here we are arguing the toss about America and underhand techniques to induce war and you blatantly admit there were no WMD`s that`s gonna cost you dear at the debunkers club .

What you must look at Dave is governments are going to toss red herrings in, off course they are, they will also be blatantly open about certain aspects also, knowing you just cannot prove it, come on think here... war games depicting exactly what happens on the same day, then exactly the same thing happens in London 4 years later, you seen the odds for that?......

3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1

I said this before and I'll say it again- if the conspiracy proponents were to ever hold their own conspiracies up the the same stringent level of critical analysis that they do the standard account, they wouldn't be conspiracy proponents for very long.

Dave, Dave, Dave, you really must lose the pent up angst against us, have a good hard long think here, forget proving this or evidence of that, that fateful day of 9/11/2001 was the day a President broke the basic laws of all that which must be, as depicted by the laws of science which we have obeyed and respected in the 2-3 hundred thousand years of our existence.

Never before in the field of human conflict have so many been manipulated by so few, you`re a high ranking official in a government run agency, or a powerful person on the board of a company that is required to do a report for the government, you are out one day by yourself and are approached by a few guys, they tell you how hard life is when your family have just been murdered, or the D.E.A. find 10 kilos of coke in your house and you`re introduced to your 20 stone built like a horse cell mate for the next 500 years.

Politics, you cannot tell me that an agency like NIST could make so many blatant mistakes, or NORAD could be so blatantly incompetent, the MSM so bias it`s beyond belief, just what they are capable of, don`t believe me, check this out.......

www.foxnews.com...

FOIA, children, your children, why do you guys have faith, trust, honour to them?.

Originally posted by jthomas

If it were "impossible to prove" then there would be no evidence of it happening.

Man walks the Earth = evidence. He evolved from apes - prove.

2nd time i`ve asked, stop side stepping and answer.

Originally posted by Seventh
Originally posted by jthomas

If it were "impossible to prove" then there would be no evidence of it happening.

He evolved from apes - prove.

What confuses you about the evidence of evolution?

Originally posted by jthomas

What confuses you about the evidence of evolution?

Well it`s not confusing but kinda weird.. Think of any animal that will if it has to - hunt, kill, and eat man (as there`s several types of certain animals, narrow it down to their genus), no insects or anything just animals, pack or solo it does not matter.

When you have all the various species - remove the ones that man cannot train to become his friend to such an extent they will do tricks and show love etc, etc,.

Way way off topic I know , but when you are done, post your answers here, it`s not a trick type thing either, and this is as far as i`ll go down the old evolution road lol .

Originally posted by Seventh
it`s not a trick type thing either, and this is as far as i`ll go down the old evolution road lol

.

Evolution is a theory. So is the theory of relativity, gravity, etc. Albeit a biological one, evolution is a theory that has been studied for what, over 300 years?

The Theory of Evolution comes packed...chock full of evidence. Read up on Darwin, Huxley, Wright, Mendel, etc. Then read up on the study of phylogeny and classification.

The difference between the theory of Evolution and the 911 Conspiracy Theories is simple. The is no viable evidence to prove that 911 was an inside job. The 911 TM uses hearsay, lies, 1/2 truths, etc. to get people to believe their garbage.

Originally posted by CameronFox

Evolution is a theory. So is the theory of relativity, gravity, etc. Albeit a biological one, evolution is a theory that has been studied for what, over 300 years?

Indeed it is, evolution is the mother of all theories, but, unlike every other theory, there are huge pointers - Dinosaurs - Man, unless we were placed here by some unknown phenomena, then that`s what happened, just got to solve the bit in between huge reptiles and mammals - simple really.

The Theory of Evolution comes packed...chock full of evidence. Read up on Darwin, Huxley, Wright, Mendel, etc. Then read up on the study of phylogeny and classification.

The theory is a pretty basic example of science cannot explain therefore it`s completely open for the rest to ponder over, we have Lizards then pure Bipeds, huge jump by mother nature there bearing in mind the only thing Dinosaurs ever evolved into were other Dinosaurs and how many billion years down the evolution chain were we at when the meteors hit?, if I were a Hollywood producer I would make a Biblical film depicting Noah but replace world wide floods with meteor showers and there we go, perfect.

The difference between the theory of Evolution and the 911 Conspiracy Theories is simple. The is no viable evidence to prove that 911 was an inside job. The 911 TM uses hearsay, lies, 1/2 truths, etc. to get people to believe their garbage.

There is no difference whatsoever between the two theories, remove government intervention and manipulation, and what evidence do they have?, more anomalies then all the other CT`s put together, absolutely no hard evidence whatsoever (again i`ll put a pointer here OBL and F.B.I most wanted), which means strangely enough no evidence to prove it was OBL and AQ.

Now let`s look at the bigger picture - no terrorist perp to begin with, yet war was declared, over eager?, hell the Taliban asked for proof and this is where it really does not sink in with you guys......

1). Taliban hence Afghanistan asked for proof that Bin Laden was responsible, and they would hand him over, that has to be the most reasonable and none obstructive plea for fairness ever stated just prior to war.

2). There was none.

3). Correct me if i`m wrong here but no proof = innocent = till proven guilty.

4). Now, in the real world, America`s next course of action should be... Get proof and return, State the proof has not been constructed yet brb, F*** it declare war anyway.

5). Is there any argument here that America started an unjustified hence illegal war?.

You say where`s the proof?, the Taliban asked for the proof which of course depicts truth, a huge case of bending the rules to suit needs here. Let`s see if they have done any more rule bending, but we`ll keep it 9/11 related.

Serious crime protocols, rules, guidelines, and overall procedures, to be adhered to at all times, the morning after 9/12/2001 ....... Ground Zero is now the scene of the biggest act of terrorism the world has ever seen, America is part of NATO hence our ally, we fight together, side by side - cut one all bleed, where were the respective investigators from all around Europe etc, this is NATO`s war not Americas, huge straying from the rules of any basic form of unilateral alliance here, anyway back to the crime scene.

Must have a clear mind now - America as of yet does not know whom were responsible for this, as is the norm for any on the crime scene investigators - eye witnesses, so we start with them, first responders will be easier to locate as most work for the services, after the investigators have interviewed the first few hundred a familiar pattern is forming - explosions, this has had little to no exposure as of yet as most of MSM were targeting witnesses for the Jet impacts, but that kind of evens things out, the news crews had choppers which obviously had covered the aerial side of things, via video recordings - the 1st signs of a rat in the kitchen are just starting to poke through.

Okay back to the plot, the amount of first responders now tops 500 and spews out over 19000 pages of evidence, and a very large percent of it explains in explicit detail - explosions, the Police look around, smell the air, and take in the carnage, it has just sunk in exactly what happened here, the consequences, freedom of liberty, the feeling of vulnerability on their own soil causes a sickening eruption deep in their bowels, but for now they have to be strong, for the people, they need it, they earned it, and they deserve it.

It strikes you as odd that the place is swarming with Feds, C.I.A. every counter terrorist agency known to man, and plenty that are not, yet there is no bunting anywhere, this is a serious crime and no areas are cordoned off, where are the guys in white disposal sterilized body suits?, where are the forensic teams?, where are the explosive and pyrotechnic experts?, they must have read the first responders statements?, yet, you cannot see anyone testing for remnants of explosives, hell - everyone saw the collapses on T.V. WTC7 collapsed and wasn`t even hit by a plane. All these government guys here, but their behaviour is erratic, it`s like they don`t have to investigate here, because they already know who done it.

Jesus F.Christ I just heard that the ground clearance is starting very soon, surely this place should be sealed off until such time every single piece of debris has been examined, something happened here yesterday that defied every law of that which must never be, and they open up the area for ground clearance?.

This is how I would see it from a neutral POV looking through the eyes of a NYPD veteran, he knows the way things should be run, he knows how serious crimes are met, he knows after interviewing so many 1st hand experience guys, and the seemingly lack of attention they get from the main intelligence officers, that something here is wrong, very wrong.

The Taliban asked for proof, there wasn`t any, war was declared.

Your Government, your vote, your children`s future.


[edit on 18/08/2009 by Seventh]