Too many 9/11 conspiracy theories. Let´s narrow it down.

reply to post by rush969


But what about evidence like this?

www.rense.com...

Originally posted by rush969
2.- Then we have to account for passengers, crew, communications, flight plans, radar coverage, ATC controllers, DNA, phone calls. All of those would have been faked. Not likely at all.

Almost all of these things were faked or lied about at one point or another.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Cherry picking certain theories and calling them preposterous is, to say the least, not a very professional or objective way to enter into an investigation.

This is not an investigation, and I´m not cherry picking theories. I stated clearly what I want to do and why I propose the discussion of those 5 theories.

A skilled, competent and unbiased investigator approaches any case with an open mind, not a smirk. Discounting any theory without the benefit of a full and conclusive investigation is being a tad narrow minded and will rarely lead you to the truth.

Again. This is not an investigation. And I´m no truth seeker.

Insulting and belittling individuals who put forth unconventional explanations is a sign of insecurity by the scammer, for fear of being exposed as a fraud.

No insult was intended for anybody. If someone feels that I have insulted them. My apologies.
No scam here either. I´m trying to be honest and show respect for the opinions expressed.

This technique, used by your textbook debunker, is to some degree effective, although rather transparent.

No "technique" is being used. Just giving opinions and reading what people think about the different theories.

It is the hope of the debunkers that the fear of ridicule will be a strong enough emotion to prevent most individuals from putting forth or believing such alternative scenarios.

HAHAHA...
I don´t think even you believe what you posted here.
What "fear of ridicule" do you have in the anonymity of the web??
This is part of the problem. There´s no shame, no measure, people say the most incredible things, because we are all anonymous. They freely claim things have been proven. Evidence has been shown.
Then you dig a little and find that it´s all presumptions, assumptions, fictions invented by improvised "investigators" and researchers, and scam artists getting money from the gullible.
(That was funny though...)

Taking this one step further, it is probably reasonable to state that individuals with lesser intelligence believe the OS, while more intelligent individuals do not believe it. For example, if you are not bright enough to be able to read, what other information alternative do you have other than the TV and word of mouth? This is how television played a big role in selling the bag job.

Well, thank you SphinxMontreal, for your opinion.
We are all entitled to one.

reply to post by rush969

1.- Those were not crashes, like airline crashes. Those were considered criminal acts, and as such, they didn´t have to be investigated as airline crashes.

Since you are so familiar with air crash investigation law, then please explain why there was an extensive investigation into the criminal crashing of the plane into the IRS building in Texas recently.

2.- The identities of said airliners was never in question. No need to identify parts from the planes or establish which flights they were. This was never in doubt.
This is a myth that has been created by one of the many "truth movements".

1. The mayor of Cincinnati stated in a press release that flight 93 landed safely and was immediately taxied into a hanger and the passengers unloaded. The Mayor claimed they were notified that there was a bomb on board.
2. Flight data proves that flight 93 did not crash in the location the government claims. (Please read)

[color=gold]

United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar

www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

3. As far as the Pentagon show me the crash debris that identifies the plane beyond question.

Alright rush969, so you're eliminated all the possibilities presented. What's left? What actually happened?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by rush969

You say it as if it has been proven, that explosives were used to bring down the WTC!!! (Thats your opinion...ok.)

Perhaps so, however you have no problem [color=gold]given your opinions with out any proof. You talk as if the OS is all a proven fact, when we all know it is not.
As for explosives being used to bring down the WTC, yes I do believe it. In addition, there is evidences that supports it.
I will give you a website with leading experts who are convince that the WTC were demolished by the use of demolition and I have yet to see anyone disputed the science and evidences by anyone with any credible background.

[color=gold]Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

www.ae911truth.org...

I know what you´re going to say.
People heard explosions. The collapse looks like a CD. First time in history.
Those are all arguments used by the several different "truth movements" to try and preserve theories that have been debunked time and time again over the years.

These are not theories, these are proven facts and credible eyewitness testimony such as firemen, police offices, fist responders, WTC office workers, bystanders, and so on… or are you going to say everyone is lying? If so then you need to prove it.

I have never seen eyewitness testimonies that went on record stating they heard and saw explosions in and at the WTC ever debunked. If so, you would have eagerly posted this information to back up your opinion. You talk about all these theories that “have been debunked time and time again over the years” yet you give us nothing but your opinion where are YOUR sources to back up your opinions or claims.

The explanation of the collapse, given by NIST and many other institutions working together, with structural engineers amongst them has not been shown to be wrong in any way whatsoever.

You are sadly mistaken and NIST has been proven a fraud by professionals in Structural Engineers and Architects and sciences furthermore NIST refuse to be confronted by their proven faulty pseudo sciences. That is an undeniable proven fact, that cannot be denied.
It has been proven time and time again that NIST lied in their reports and their sciences does not measure up to real science and I will give you the proof.

[color=gold]Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST

www.911blogger.com...

[color=gold]Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and
Widespread Impact Damage

www.journalof911studies.com...

[color=gold]The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

www.journalof911studies.com...

[color=gold]Propping Up the War on Terror
Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories

www.911review.com...

[color=gold]

The NIST WTC Investigation--
How Real Was The Simulation?

www.journalof911studies.com...

Building a Better Mirage
NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century

911research.wtc7.net...

[color=gold]PROOF THAT THE THERMAL AND GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY
AVAILABLE WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MELT STEEL IN THE TWIN
TOWERS AND 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11/01

www.journalof911studies.com...

[color=gold]

NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire

journalof911studies.com...

[color=gold]

Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum

www.sealane.org...

[color=gold]

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

journalof911studies.com...

[color=gold]

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and
Nano-Thermites

www.journalof911studies.com...

[color=gold]Explosives Found in
World Trade Center Dust
Scientists Discover Both Residues
And Unignited Fragments
Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics
In Debris From the Twin Towers

911research.wtc7.net...

[color=gold]Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

[color=gold]The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

www.journalof911studies.com...

As far as I know, it has been demonstrated that this particles found in dust samples by Prof. Jones could have come from many components present in the buildings. I´m sure you´ve read this things too.
And you and I know, he hasn´t demonstrated or validated the existance of thermite or thermate or nano-whatever in that dust.

Again, this is your “opinion” and it is false, you need to go back and read Jones work.

[color=gold]Journal of 9/11 Studies

www.journalof911studies.com...

Perhaps, you would like to demonstrate where Jones did not validate the existence of Thermite or na-no Thermate?
Good luck trying to debunk these credible experts in their field of expertise.

Cheers












[edit on 9-4-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by impressme

Everyone knows no UFO hit the pentagon, but there are those that will make those claims to only insult the truth movement. To call a missal a UFO is really a desperate attempt to discredit the truth movement and in hoping, to make us all look crazy.

I thought we are in here to deny ignorance, NOT promote it.

Ahem. UFO means,"unidentified flying object", in that something was flying through the air but you don't know what it is. I've grilled you "no passenger plane hit the Pentagon" conspiracy people left, right up and down what it supposedly was that actually hit the Pentagon, if it wasn't a passenger plane, and not a single one of you are in agreement as to what it was. If you don't definitively know what it really was that hit the Pentagon, then, yes, you ARE saying it was a UFO that hit the Pentagon, whether you mean to say it or not.

Every eyewitness who was there are in agreement that it was a Passenger jet they saw, plus, they found plane parts in the rubble that would have come from a passenger jet, plus, they found the black box fromflight 77...but you keep inventing reasons why you don't have to believe any of that. This shows right there that you're in "making up your own stuff as you go along" mode, in which case, the undentified flying object could very well have been a flying saucer from the planet Nudnig 5 just as equally as it could have been a cruise missile, global hawk, predator drone, or whatever. There is exactly the same zero amount of information supporting one as there is for the others.

...unless you're saying you're ALL correct and it was a remote controlled passenger jet AND a cruise missile AND a global hawk AND a predator drone hitting the Pentagon all at once...?

Stop lumping all people in the truth movement in one category. Why are you dragging the JEWS into this topic anyway?

I'd have thought it would be obvious- if someone has a pre-existing angst against something or another, they're going to naturally perceive the 9/11 attack as an extension of that pre-existing angst. It's the "everything starts looking like a nail if all you have is a hammer" principle. All you need to do is read the posts from your fellow conspiracy peopel here so see you're all blaming everyone from Bush and the gov't to Israel to even secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists. It's the whole reason why there are so many screwball conspiracy claims to begin with.- the whole 9/11 conspiracy movement is little more that a Rorschache test.

...unless you're saying you're ALL right and the WTC was destroyed by space lasers put into orbit by Israel which set off that nuke in the basement planted by the Illuminati...?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
"making up your own stuff as you go along" mode,

Thank you GoodOlDave.
AN EXCELENT description of much of the "truth movement".
It´s one of the things that prompted me to try and start this thread.
I am amazed at the variety of theories that have been coming out.

Edited to be rewritten later.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by rush969]

How I see it:

* 2 planes hit the WTC Towers that were pre-rigged with explosives.

* Flight 93 - Shot down.

* Pentagon was hit by an aircraft. (I'm not 100 %convinced it was an aircraft BUT, given the fact the passengers can't be accounted for any where else, thats the most feasible scenario)

I firmly believe based on what little evidence there is (photos, vids, witness statements etc) in combination with common sense and my own personal investigation efforts that the above events are what happened on 911. Disagree if you must...thats cool with me, but I just cannot buy into the hologram aspect or the nuke bomb issue or the other theorys.

I also believe there was either complicit behavior/actions on the behalf of several in the executive levels as well as they already planned to invade Iraq and thats been proven without a doubt. I believe those in government saw their chance to do either nothing or delay their responses in order to have the reason(s) to go ahead, make the plans public now and proceed. The events of 911, in my opinion were foretold to the US gov by many foriegn governments (again, well documented now) and the likes of Bush and his clan sat back, allowed it to happen so they could run amuck in the world.

[edit on 4/9/2010 by mikelee]

Originally posted by mikelee
How I see it:

* 2 planes hit the WTC Towers that were pre-rigged with explosives.

If the idea was to destroy the WTC with explosives then why did they waste their time and resources with that whole "hijacked aircraft" bit?

* Flight 93 - Shot down.

If they're trying to hide their shooting it down, then why did the gov't admit to the 9/11 commission there was a shoot down order, and NORAD would definitely have destroyed it if they found it?

Methinks you're simply adding conspiracy elements into the mix solely for the sake of adding conspiracy elements into the mix.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by mikelee
How I see it:

* 2 planes hit the WTC Towers that were pre-rigged with explosives.

If the idea was to destroy the WTC with explosives then why did they waste their time and resources with that whole "hijacked aircraft" bit?

Because it's much more shocking to see passenger airlines crashing into the buildings.

* Flight 93 - Shot down.

If they're trying to hide their shooting it down, then why did the gov't admit to the 9/11 commission there was a shoot down order, and NORAD would definitely have destroyed it if they found it?

Methinks you're simply adding conspiracy elements into the mix solely for the sake of adding conspiracy elements into the mix.

So if they admitted to giving the order to do it, doesn't that mean they probably DID do it? Of course, I think this is all just more misdirection. I think that SOMETHING was just flown and crashed in a deliberate spot.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Stop lumping all people in the truth movement in one category. Why are you dragging the JEWS into this topic anyway?

I'd have thought it would be obvious- if someone has a pre-existing angst against something or another, they're going to naturally perceive the 9/11 attack as an extension of that pre-existing angst. It's the "everything starts looking like a nail if all you have is a hammer" principle. All you need to do is read the posts from your fellow conspiracy peopel here so see you're all blaming everyone from Bush and the gov't to Israel to even secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists. It's the whole reason why there are so many screwball conspiracy claims to begin with.- the whole 9/11 conspiracy movement is little more that a Rorschache test.

Again, your ignorance precedes you again. You continue to lump everyone in one barrel, I agree there are some people out there that have crazy ideas who claim they are in the Truth movement. However, most people do not believe in the “wild, insane garbage” that you accuse all of us of believing in.

Here is a fine example of some brilliant, credible people in our government, military, and police officers, that you have no problem into insulting, ridiculing, and name-calling such as “screwball conspiracy claims,” “secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists.”

NEW SECTION 400+ Medical Professionals NEW SECTION

200+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
1,100+ Engineers and Architects
250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
400+ Professors Question 9/11
300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals

[color=gold]Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement,
and Government Officials Question
the 9/11 Commission Report

Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report or have made public statements that contradict the Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This page of the website is a collection of their statements. The website does not represent any organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 200 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite. (continued below)

www.patriotsquestion911.com...

If you can’t deal with these facts, then perhaps you should find something else to put your energies into, I have fed you enough.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


There's a ton of evidence that points to the shooting down of flight 93. However most are too preoccupied with trying to call other people names, defend the official lie and so on to perform any real investigating on their own. Most of these people are nothing more than debris on the windshield of the truth movement vehicle. Have a nice day now!

reply to post by impressme


Just one example, of many:

1. The mayor of Cincinnati stated in a press release that flight 93 landed safely and was immediately taxied into a hanger and the passengers unloaded. The Mayor claimed they were notified that there was a bomb on board.
2. Flight data proves that flight 93 did not crash in the location the government claims. (Please read)


United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar

I must point out that, despite being shown, many times, that these assertions are in error, ATS member 'impressme' seems to continue to ignore facts, and rather would continue to post the same inaccuracies, over and over.


This is symptomatic of what is called the 'truth movement', in a particularly dogmatic determination to reject any new information, once their "minds have been made up".

However, it might not be a particular "agenda" on the part of ATS member 'impressme' --- indeed, it is most likely the fault of so many websites out there (like, in the referenced above, "Pilots For 9/11 Truth") who do NOT update their sites, when presented with direct proof that what they've posted is inaccurate (to be polite), or just outright lies. THEY likely have an agenda, and it is a shame that so many gullible people continue to fall for it.


Having said that, now....back to the axample, above.

I now challenge ATS member 'impressme' to substantiate this:

1. The mayor of Cincinnati stated in a press release that flight 93 landed safely and was immediately taxied into a hanger and the passengers unloaded.

I challenge this, because I know it to be a factual error.

When I say this is 'symptomatic', I say that these are not isolated incidents.

It is a general sloppiness, though, that perpetuates, and further muddies the so-called 'truth movement'. Doesn't help them in the slightest bit, and IF i were advocating for them, I would be very upset at these mistakeas and fallacies being continually misrepresented.

It sounds like the Associated Press ran the story only momentarily before it was immediately pulled. What makes you think that Flight 93 landing safely wasn't just covered up?

www.associatedcontent.com...

"The WCPO report is actually the result of the 'perfect storm' of confusion that was the rule of the day on September 11. According to Liz Foreman of WCPO, the person whose name is associated with the story, their information came directly from the Associated Press - a report that was retracted just minutes later."


[edit on 9-4-2010 by kiwasabi]

reply to post by weedwhacker

I now challenge ATS member 'impressme' to substantiate this:

1. The mayor of Cincinnati stated in a press release that flight 93 landed safely and was immediately taxied into a hanger and the passengers unloaded.

I challenge this, because I know it to be a factual error.

I will challenge you any day any time.

Did you think the media could scrubbed this story off the internet? Did you “think” no one would find it? You obviously didn’t do your Google search right did you.

I know this is a fact because, I witnessed this Press release myself on television the same morning.

Now where is YOUR proof that you claimed stating that my statments are false?

Mayor White of Cleveland was credited with saying that a 767 out of Boston had made an emergency landing, and had been evacuated. The next line says that United (not Mayor White) had identified the plane as Flight 93.

www.associatedcontent.com...

Thank you kiwasabi for finding that for me.

Not only did he say it, I personal watch it on television myself!
So, in light of my information I stand correct as usual. Before you make false claims against someone why don’t you do some research.
Nice tag team.





[edit on 9-4-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


Any chance you could find the footage where that press release was put on tv? It seems all of the major US television footage is stored here:

www.archive.org...

I encourage everybody to watch all of the footage, and think about what makes sense based on eyewitness accounts, what we're told, what news reporters ignore (by not responding to/commenting on), etc. One thing I've noticed is there are NO markings on the planes whatsoever; the government has no proof that these were commercial airliners.

Also, no footage was allowed in front of the pentagon for the longest time (15 minutes or so). Eventually they made everybody leave.