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.

 

Is anyone else a believer in 'hybrid' 9/11 theories?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
No I'm not talking about hybrid ETs though I believe those are likely real too.


What I mean is, do you think it's possible that planes DID bring down the towers, the hijackers WERE Islamic extremists, but the plot was still an inside job done by someone who was NOT Muslim and was connected to the global elite and some people within our government?

Fans of the official story ridicule truthers for far-out theories like holographic planes that most of the truth movement doesn't take seriously, and point out that the complex could have been entirely destroyed by the planes alone, though that is debatable, there might or might not have been bombs involved as well.

Personally, while I accept that planes hit the towers in NYC like most truthers and believers in the official story alike, I do question whether or not that 3rd plane hit the Pentagon. You would think there would be higher quality footage of the crash into the building, but all there is as a really low quality security camera video. Perhaps it's possible that the 3rd plane actually crashed into the ocean or something and they launched a missile into the Pentagon?

Even if we think a plane did indeed hit the Pentagon, that the towers were indeed taken down by jet fuel fire, and Building 7 was taken down as well by the jet fire, that still doesn't mean that Bin Laden was behind the attacks.

The real evidence of a coverup regarding 9/11 is not in the manner of how the buildings were destroyed, but instead with the way the related political leaders acted before and after the event.

It took Bush ten years to 'explain' his reaction when he heard the news. Bin Laden denied that he was behind 9/11, only to 'admit' it in 2004 in a very very fishy CIA video that looks obviously doctored. Cheney would not swear under oath about 9/11. 9/11 was used to take away many of the rights we had as citizens prior to 2001. It gave the war machine a new mission.

It's known fact that our intelligence has planned to stage terror attacks before and blame them on other people to start a war (Northwoods and many, many others). Why is it so crazy to think 9/11 was exactly such an event?

My theory, I think the hijackers were Islamic militants, but I think the originator of the plot was the global elite, not Bin Laden. I think the hijackers thought their orders were from Bin Laden, but they were actually from either the CIA or the global elite. And there is no way Islamic militants could have done something similar without help from the elite.

I think the conspiracy is much deeper than our elected government. I don't think 90% of Congress is even aware that 9/11 was an inside job. The global elite have plants in our government, and they know how to manipulate it, but for the most part, I think they are just as in the dark as most people are.

So yes, I do think the story coming out of the mainstream media is part true. Islamic militants crashed the planes into the towers. However, the attacks themselves were never about Islam or Bin Laden. The terrorists were simply used as tools because the powers that be would never sacrifice themselves, and more importantly, it would cause the West to be willing to go to war against Muslims.

I think we have a much deeper coverup than anyone thinks.




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I personally am inclined to believe that it was outsourced.

It would have been far too dangerous for anyone directly connected with the government, to be able to be traced directly to the event. So yes, the administration probably gave the orders in general terms, but after that, a seperate group was paid to carry out the actual operation. It might even have genuinely been some Arabs; that would work in with the cover story, if so.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by m1991
 


Interesting take on the whole thing and something I guess I've agreed with the whole time just never put it out there in the fashion that you did. But be prepared for the militant OSers to stop by and bash bash bash your thread against the wall lol
edit on 15-8-2011 by itbenickp because: changed butta he to but be......frigging auto correct



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Al-qaeda DID do it...but with the funding and support of the CIA.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by m1991
 





What I mean is, do you think it's possible that planes DID bring down the towers, the hijackers WERE Islamic extremists, but the plot was still an inside job done by someone who was NOT Muslim and was connected to the global elite and some people within our government?


Actually, I think a good chunk of the "truther" community feels that way too. The no planes theory is pure disinfo at it's finest, and no one who actually LOOKED into this can put any weight into it.

My take?:

Mossad, working in tandem with rogue elements within the US government and Defense departments (i.e. neocons/zionists) pulled this one off.

The actions of the "Muslim" hijackers alone shows you they were in no way practicing Muslims. Mossad agents? It certainly wouldn't be the first time intelligence agents have been caught passing as Muslim terrorists.

I believe a plot was hatched to attack the US and drag it into a war for Israel, as since 911 we've seen north America fall as a leading super power, our freedoms restricted, and the entire time wars rage against Israels enemies.

So many signs point to, at the very least, Israeli foreknowledge of the attack, and their stunning unwillingness to share that intelligence, at the worst, direct involvement.

I believe planes were flown into the towers, timed the way they were, to ensure live media coverage. The instant people saw that second plane strike the tower, the whole world was paralyzed with fear, some people still haven't recovered.

I believe the planes were used as simply bombing the building wouldn't be enough, the tried that in the 90s and it didn't work. As well, too much explaining would need to be done, too much to track. Fly a few hijacked planes in there, then demo the thing, and you've covered your tracks.

I do believe 4 civilian airliners were hijacked and crashed. I do believe teams were on each plane, highly trained pilots said some of the maneuvers were almost impossible, so no novice is doing what they did without missing their target, or tearing the wings off the plane.

I also believe there were more teams, more aircraft, and more targets, that got called off at the last second.

PNAC called and wished for a new pearl harbor to bring the US into a war against it's perceived enemies, and we've been following that original plan to the T (you can still find the unedited page somewhere out there)

I don't believe Bush had any knowledge of the attack, or any part in it. Part of this attack was a broad slap in the face from Israel reminding the "most powerful person on earth" who was really in charge.

I believe mossad teams gained access to the WTC towers and building 7 in the weeks and months leading up to 911, and I believe the thermite residue is proof of this.
=====
Lets also not forget something that is easy to overlook.

For weeks and months, heck, years after 911, we were told over and over:

"there is no way we could have seen this coming"
"No one could have anticipated this"

Beyond knowing now, those are bold faced lies, it highlights something. For months after we are told this was a massive surprise attack, no one saw it coming.

YET.

While the towers still burned, before they collapsed, the news was already reporting, from armchair expert opinion, this was "Al Queda" and "Had Bin Ladens fingerprints all over it"

Yes. That clears it up for me Al Queda, the one that didn't even exist until the CIA created it after 911, had nothing to do with it. Merely a patsy to shift blame and remove any need for investigation.


edit on 15-8-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by m1991
 


I've always thought the holographic planes theory were put out to discredit the truth movement. But official story believers love to bring that up and say things like "You truthers get sillier everday, with your claims of holographic planes who can take you seriously?". We don't all believe the craziest theory that you've heard, so I hate when they lump us in that category and generalize like that.

One thing that bothers me is when people say they think there were "bombs" in the building. When I hear the term "bombs", I image something like this:
But in reality, a controlled demolition requires explosives placed on the key structural components of the building, detonated within milliseconds of each other to ensure that the demolition goes exactly as planned. They don't just grab some dynamite wired up with an alarm clock and throw it in the building.

I believe that Bin Laden was a scapegoat for the false flag attacks, and he was blamed in order to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. I'm sure the hi-jackers that we see images of actually existed, I don't think the planes were remote controlled, I mean somebody had to fly them. Whether or not those people were working in conjunction with the CIA, FBI, or some other government organization would be purely speculation on my part, but I believe that's the case, especially since the CIA funded and trained the organization that evolved into Al Qaeda, Bin Laden being one of the members at the time.

On the subject of the Pentagon, there's evidence backing a missile as well as evidence backing a Boeing 757, so I need to do more research before I'm 100% sure about which side I'm on.

I think the Shanksville plane was shot down by our military after they eventually got it together after a day of confusion and training exercises, because members of the military have strongly suggested that.

I know WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, because the damage the building sustained from fire and falling debris could not have caused a symmetrical free-fall collapse. The official story of how the building collapsed is impossible, because fire/falling debris cannot cause a symmetrical collapse. WTC7 isn't even up for debate IMO, it collapsed symmetrically, but the fire/falling debris damage wasn't symmetrical, making a symmetrical collapse from the sustained damage impossible, leaving a controlled demolition as the only possible explanation. But no matter how I explain it, people always argue "der wuz fire damige, a billding felled on it", and conclude that the damage was sufficient to cause a symmetrical collapse.
The collapse of WTC7 based on the damage was impossible, and nothing anybody says can make it possible because the damage it suffered was asymmetrical. Claiming that the fire damage was symmetrical is a false assumption, and it's impossible because there wasn't a fire of X degrees burning on floor 37 for 48 minutes on the right side of the building while another fire of X degrees burned on floor 37 for 48 minutes on the left side of the building.

With the twin towers, I believe real planes, not holographic planes, struck the building, however I think that the building was brought down in a top-down controlled demolition. I don't see how planes of different masses striking at different speeds at different angles at different areas of the building spilling different amounts of jet fuel causing fires to burn at different areas of the building can cause the bottom sections of the building to be destroyed identically, especially when the top section of the South Tower was tilting at an angle and rotating while it should have been crushing the building.

edit on 15-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 



You and I have pretty much the same beliefs.
But were also called anti-semites. I guess name calling is the only thing left, when someone is close to the truth.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by m1991
 


I think the key to understanding 911 is learning the motive. Most of the information available is deliberately misleading.

I have a thread which sheds light on the motivations here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

911 can't be studied in sound bites...it takes time, but if my post is too daunting and you'd prefer to go the source, here are some good resources. Fair warning, they're longer than my post.


After six years of research, this report presents corroborating evidence which supports their claims, and proposes a new rationale for the September 11th attacks. In doing so, many of the anomalies – or inconvenient facts surrounding this event - take on a meaning that is consistent with the claims of Eastman et al. The hypothesis of this report is: the attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which ‘unknown’ western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation. In doing so, the attacks were justified under the cardinal rule of intelligence: “protect your resources” and consistent with a modus operandi of sacrificing lives for a greater cause. The case for detailed targeting of the attacks begins with analysis of the attack on the Pentagon. After one concludes that the targeting of the ONI office in the Pentagon was not random – and that information is presented later. – one then must ask: is it possible that the planes that hit the World Trade Center, and the bombs reported by various witnesses to have been set off inside the buildings 1, 6 and 7 and the basement of the Towers, were deliberately located to support the execution of a crime of mind-boggling proportions? In considering that question, a pattern emerges. For the crimes alleged by Eastman, Flocco, Durham and Schwarz to be successful, the vault in the basement of the World Trade Center, and its contents - less than a billion in gold, but hundreds of billions of dollars of government securities - had to be destroyed. A critical mass of brokers from the major government security brokerages in the Twin Towers had to be eliminated to create chaos in the government securities market. A situation needed to be created wherein $240 billion dollars of covert securities could be electronically “cleared” without anyone asking questions- which happened when the Federal Reserve declared an emergency and invoked its“ emergency powers.” that very afternoon.


www.scribd.com...


Congratulations ! You are reading the one 9/11 website with a hope in hell of getting us somewhere : one with some actual hard documentary (literally) evidence behind it —and one that names names. You won't find the Illuminati in this one ; you won't find the claim that no planes ever hit the Trade Center, because I don't believe that ; you won't find your time wasted with "proofs" of demolitions carried out by folk who are never identified, even by speculation.

Step 1 : anyone interested in 9/11, no matter what your views on who did it, should already have a DVD copy of the film "9/11," directed by Jules and Gédéon Naudet and James Hanlon. If you think you're an expert on 9/11, but you don't have that film, you're not..


www.frankresearch.info...



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
With the twin towers, I believe real planes, not holographic planes, struck the building, however I think that the building was brought down in a top-down controlled demolition. I don't see how planes of different masses striking at different speeds at different angles at different areas of the building spilling different amounts of jet fuel causing fires to burn at different areas of the building can cause the bottom sections of the building to be destroyed identically, especially when the top section of the South Tower was tilting at an angle and rotating while it should have been crushing the building.

edit on 15-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post


ABSOLUTELY!!!

The tilt/rotation of the top of the south tower is the single weirdest thing of this entire 9/11 business.

The entire Physics Profession is incredibly derelict for not being all over that for TEN YEARS.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century and it should be DECADES before the physics profession lives this crap down.

Can we nuke physicists for dereliction of duty?


psik



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The media, goverrnment, academia, business, finance and the military of most of the world's nations are colluding in the biggest lie in the history of big lies.

It doesn't bode well for the future of the species to believe in impossible things.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by m1991
No I'm not talking about hybrid ETs though I believe those are likely real too.


What I mean is, do you think it's possible that planes DID bring down the towers, the hijackers WERE Islamic extremists, but the plot was still an inside job done by someone who was NOT Muslim and was connected to the global elite and some people within our government?



How would that make any difference? Suppose the buildings were indeed brought down by the airplanes piloted by extremist terrorists, if they were shielded, funded, trained and protected by those who wanted a massive attack on america, to justify military intervention, then they are still as guilty. IMO too much time has been spent on how exactly it happened, rather than who done it, something I can understand because in the beginning all you had were the videos. But that has changed and we should move our focus.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   
To the OP... yes!!!

I think anyone who reads about Operation Gladio and the Strategy of Tension, and also about Operation Cyclone, will have unwittingly learned a great deal about 911 as a result. Add to the mix the claims that the then head of the Pakistani ISI, General Mahmoud Ahmad, who was reportedly in Washington on 9/11, was responsible for the transfer of $100,000 to Mohamed Atta, and the case for some sort of hybrid theory becomes even more compelling.
edit on 18-8-2011 by coughymachine because: Spelling



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The media, goverrnment, academia, business, finance and the military of most of the world's nations are colluding in the biggest lie in the history of big lies.

It doesn't bode well for the future of the species to believe in impossible things.


How do you know they aren't being fooled as well? I don't think all of them are in the know.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by m1991
No I'm not talking about hybrid ETs though I believe those are likely real too.


What I mean is, do you think it's possible that planes DID bring down the towers, the hijackers WERE Islamic extremists, but the plot was still an inside job done by someone who was NOT Muslim and was connected to the global elite and some people within our government?

Fans of the official story ridicule truthers for far-out theories like holographic planes that most of the truth movement doesn't take seriously, and point out that the complex could have been entirely destroyed by the planes alone, though that is debatable, there might or might not have been bombs involved as well.

Personally, while I accept that planes hit the towers in NYC like most truthers and believers in the official story alike, I do question whether or not that 3rd plane hit the Pentagon. You would think there would be higher quality footage of the crash into the building, but all there is as a really low quality security camera video. Perhaps it's possible that the 3rd plane actually crashed into the ocean or something and they launched a missile into the Pentagon?

Even if we think a plane did indeed hit the Pentagon, that the towers were indeed taken down by jet fuel fire, and Building 7 was taken down as well by the jet fire, that still doesn't mean that Bin Laden was behind the attacks.


What I would say is that I don't really BELIEVE anything. As I understand the word "believe" or "belief", it requires faith to believe something. And I think you're always asking for trouble when you believe something to the point to where it basically becomes an issue of faith. Or it almost becomes a religion. Once people cross that line, they tend to have a hard time changing their minds even if a new theory emerges that makes more sense.

But I agree with you. I THINK that it's probably more likely that planes DID hit the buildings and that this DID causes the collapses (or at least was the main cause of them). I'm not a scientist or an engineer but I don't have a huge problem with the idea that a huge airliner slamming into a building at high speed might cause it to collapse.

I have thought for a long time that the controlled demolition theory might have been "planted" in the conspiracy community as a distraction to keep everyone arguing over things that are really rather irrelevant. IF the government was somehow involved in this, it doesn't really matter so much HOW they did it. But suffice to say that the less evidence that they were involved the better it is for them. IF they were involved, they would have expected conspiracy theories to be flying before the dust settled so they would have obviously planned for that. At the end of the day, if the truth movement has spent 10 + years arguing the towers were brought down by controlled demolition and the government somehow manages to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that that's completely impossible (and likewise that a plane did hit the Pentagon and crashed in Pa), it's going to be very, very bad for the truth movement.

And then you have the fact that most of the more popular theories would require massive numbers of people to somehow be in on it. This automatically makes 9/11 truthers look like idiots and that would very, very good for the insiders who actually were involved. Anything that makes us look bad (or worse) and makes 9/11 conspiracy theories look like nonsense would be quite good for whomever planned and carried them out (assuming it was "an inside job" of some kind).

It's much more likely that it may have been "a small faction" within the government than the whole government. But it's just as hard to come up with an entirely plausible theory for how that would work as it is for the other ones.
edit on 24-8-2011 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join