It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Anomalies

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:20 AM
So the other day I had a member on this site make a very good point about 9/11 that at first, for a second really did challenge my beliefs of what happened that day. This thread will make more sense if your read all of it so please don’t get half way through and jump in with a knee jerk reaction.


To explain, I am personally a proponent of the official narrative of what happened that day, yet I do have some questions. One such example of this is that I do find it strange that NIST would refuse to provide all of the data that went into their computer modelling. Anyway when discussing this the member (whose name I forget) quite rightly asked me a interesting question, if I have some doubts about one part of the official narrative then how can I still maintain that the official narrative as being the “truth”?

Anyway this got me thinking, broadly speaking I believe the official narrative of what happened on 9/11 as stipulated in the 9/11 commission report and that NIST are correct in their views regarding how the buildings fell. If one would like we could call this the “official theory” of what happened that day. Now in science no theory can ever explain everything there are at times anomalies what some may call “residue problems”. In other words I accept that when it comes to the official theory there are some isolated anomalies which it cannot adequately explain.

In my view something that 9/11 truthers do is taking these anomalies and then trying to construct a entirely new theory, a “alternative theory” which presents these anomalies as part of a deeper darker plot that is contradictory to the official theory that fits in with a preconceived notion of what really happened. However the problem is that these new theories do not adequately explain existing and established facts that the “official theory” explains.

Events at the pentagon can perhaps best illustrate my point, according to what we will call the official theory for the purposes of this thread American Airlines flight 77 was crashed into the pentagon. As proof of this we have the wreckage found at the site, eyewitnesses, limited CCTV footage and we even have the voice recorder of the plane that was found at the site along with the history of the flight leading up to the movement of impact. Yet despite all of this there are some anomalies with the impact at the pentagon as a few eyewitnesses at the time say that they thought they saw a missile hitting the pentagon.

This presents a anomaly within the official narrative, this man talks about something "like" a cruise missile . What truthers then do is take these anomalies and a preconceived notion that 9/11 was a “inside job” and put them together. Now they present an “alternative theory” based on these anomalies which then says that a missile hit the pentagon because this eye-witnesses said so. This alternative theory then seems to grow legs as it competes with the “official theory” to explain other facts. So the alternative theory morphs into something much more elaborate, the plane was switched and they launched a missile at the pentagon, planted all of the wreckage at the scene of the attack then killed off all of the real passengers at a undisclosed location and buried all the CCTV footage showing the missile.

We are thus presented with two schools of thought regarding what happened, the official theory and the numerous alternative theories. Yet if we then apply a principle of parsimony to the two schools of thought as to what really happened at the pentagon it is obvious that the theory that makes the least assumptions and can explain the most facts is the official theory. As such for my logical mind I can only say with confidence that the “official theory” must be the correct one as it is the one that can explain most of the facts.

There is a BUT in this idea; although I can say with confidence that the official narrative provides the most reasonable explanation of what happened that day I also must accept that it does not provide all of the answers to the anomalies and in these anomalies i must also be prepared to make attempts at seeking out the answers to them and adapt my views as such. This means that as more of these anomalies are solved or explained they should strengthen my conviction on the official narrative as they should corroborate with it. Yet at the same time as a individual who is passionate about the truth when these anomalies are explained in a way which seriously questions the official narrative I then must also question my beliefs.

I guess the best way I could summarize this thread is by saying that when it comes to 9/11 even those of us who believe the official narrative should accept that we do not know everything that happened that day. And in that grey area where the anomalies reside we should also accept it is possible that there could exist information that has the potential to radically change those views.

Anyway that was just an interesting personal reflection on my beliefs I had the other day.

edit on 23-1-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:27 AM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Glad to see your eyes are open, finally! Only took 13 years, but anywho...

This is how they trapped you in believing the Official BS story.....They make all points exactly point to truth, EXCEPT those few that really matter! This way, there is overwhelming proof that their theory is true, all the while not telling the parts that lead against the OS.

Most of their points are correct, but how does a building fall at freefall speeds that wasn't effected by the initial attack? How does a plane create the hole in the pentagon? That was most likely a missile....But their OS can prove mostly everything to be true, hence making you and most others believe they found all evidence for everything and it is all true too!

Glad to see you questioning your own beliefs and actually looking into what you thought was without a doubt true from the start! This is what makes ATS awesome!!!

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:30 AM
Go to the nearest demolition firms or schools of architecture and to the engineers there show them WTC 7( dont tell them that is from 9/11), and finish with your beliefs and wonderings about OS on 9/11.

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

I think you might be missing my point.

I actually used to be a truther then started to realize that when i studied the attacks that many of the claims were lies for example the buildings never feel at free fall (there was 2.25 seconds where WTC-7 did but thats it).

What I am saying however is that at the same time, we who believe the offical story should also accept that there are some anomalies with the offical story that we should all seek out the answers to.

My views on 9/11 changed once before based on looking at the evidence i went from a truther to a OSer, so to speak. There is no reason that could not happen again should one of these anomalies turn into something more. It would take quite a lot i think really, such as absolute proof explosives where used or a high level whistle blower but it is possible.

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:42 AM
The Pentagon represents a "honey pot" for "theories", built right into the operation itself, likely to both minimize casualties and to mess with the "conspiracy theorists", so it draws people to it for various reasons. The 9/11 truth movement are wise to have turned away from it, and the Shanksville crash scene, towards the attacks in New York.

"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association” – Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184

Jim Hoffman of 9/11 Research:
“The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.”

As to the Pentagon - one question:

Why not release the video evidence showing the building being impacted by the plane? (from all the cameras and angles)

That would put to rest all speculation as to what really happened there.

There's nothing more to say about it, without getting drawn into "sticky" speculations.


posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:42 AM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Why would a whistle blower change your mind? You are questioning things about the OS, therefore you are no longer an OSer anymore! To believe the OS, you wholeheartedly believe it no matter what, that is what believing the OS actually means! With you not believing what they say about the pentagon or any part of the OS, this makes you on the side that still demands answers.

There is proof on everyone of these threads about how a plane that size could not make that small of a hole in the pentagon, yet you still believe the OS? If not, you are not an OSer anymore buddy....

I will not get into details to sway you one way or another, my post was to congratulate you on your trek to questioning the OS, finally! It is nice to see people change their beliefs when some things, no matter how minor, of an OS is actually more like BS.

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:44 AM
It's pretty much the same with the New York Trade Center.

When the planes hit the buildings and exploded, witneses said it sounded like a bomb, that quickly turned in to " it was a bomb".

And when the floors in the building collapsed on each other and made the sound of small explosions going of, it turned in to " explosives placed on each floor in the building to take it down".

I really have no opinion on 9/11 anymore, it's just to complicated to get a clear view on what happened, and the truth will forever be unclear.
edit on 23-1-2014 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

I dont actually like the label "OSer" or talking about the "Official story" these are just terms that have fallen into the lexicon of the 9/11 debate. If i was to go with any label i would call myself a "truther" as i seek out the truth regarding what happened that day, it just so happens that my quest for this truth has shown me that the offical narrative of what happened that day is a accurate reflection of the events.

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

I'm in your camp. It seems fairly small

Maybe I'm farther along in the undoing of the official story. The difference (in this small camp) is I can negate the official story without the need to have a substitute grand theory.

Sill piecing together...
Things I'm 100% sure of:

Someone, maybe multiple parties had prior knowledge. Insider trading patterns are well documented.
WT7 was a demo job.
WT7 was home to offices of CIA and the US federal reserve.
The NSA had all the data required to recognize, in advance what was going to happen and to subsequently uncover the source of all insider trading activity in the weeks prior to 9/11.
The NSA, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are all known traitors to the USA per the constitution.
edit on 23-1-2014 by InverseLookingGlass because: shpelling

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 11:02 AM
Reading over the last few replies i dont quit think i have articulated my point as well as i could have.

What i am saying is that I believe what you all might want call the "offical story" however I also recognize it does have some anomalies that have created conspiracies. I am also saying that when it comes to 9/11 I accept that, at least for the public, there are some anomalies that will never be explained and that while these should be accounted for i still believe the offical story as it provides a much more robust theory of what happened that day than any of the conspiracies.

Yet I am also saying that I do believe that it is possible that within one of these anomalies it is possible (although I think very unlikely) there exists evidence that could strongly question my current beliefs of what happened that day.

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 11:47 AM


This way, there is overwhelming proof that their theory is true

Of course most people,when presented with overwhelming proof that something is true, tend to believe it. What with the overwhelming proof and all. It takes a truther mindset to get past all that fact.

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:00 PM
There is no such thing as an "Official Theory"or "Official Story" per se. What there is is a series of narratives from different groups, and these change depending on the perception and self-interest of each respondent. The one broadly retailed by the US government has some holes, and it's mostly designed to make it look like their readiness and response were professional and measured. Compared to the narratives advanced by most Truthers, where one exists in any viable form, the authorities' summary is convincing.

The reason Truthers concentrate on pretending there is a single mandated official narrative is because it allows them to automatically assume that by definition a conspiracy exists. If there is an "OS", someone must be tasked with creating it, which automatically assumes bad faith and a conspiracy. It has the added bonus of allowing them to nitpick small details in it, instead of providing an alternative. When they do provide one it's usually pretty funny as it requires awesome feats of twisted logic and nonsensical behaviour.

No wonder they rarely attempt it.

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:11 PM
Something has always bothered my about the 911 conspiricy theories. I'll admit there are a lot of eyebrow raising tidbits surrounding the whole event. The eyewitnesses the videos the coincidences and so forth. But what has always bugged me was the number of people that needed to be in the know for this plan to work. Why do we not have dozens of whistle blowers coming out? I'm supposed to buy the idea that the govt can pull off such a huge caper without blowing their cover. Yet when they claim wmd's in Iraq, they can't plant a few just to cover their butts. That has always been a sore spot with me. I must be missing the connection.

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:15 PM
It might be interesting to do a separate thread (or here?) on stuff that non-truthers, debunkers, whatever you want to call them - people who broadly believe the mainstream narrative of 9/11 - on stuff that we/they find odd in that narrative.

- I agree regarding NIST's refusal to release their figures. Seems a bit weird.
- I find the passport odd - or at least a bit... implausible. Not necessarily that it survived, but that it appeared with so little chain of custody. It just smells strange.
- I think there's perhaps something in the insider trading.
- On balance of probabilities I don't think they shot down 93 but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out they did

That's about it for me.

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:44 PM



This way, there is overwhelming proof that their theory is true

Of course most people,when presented with overwhelming proof that something is true, tend to believe it. What with the overwhelming proof and all. It takes a truther mindset to get past all that fact.

Basic evidence of the details of the day is where I am going with that. When they can provide 9 pages of truth, the 10th page is blank and that is where the rest lies.....I am saying when they put together a massive report on the details, mostly all true, it is hard to argue against it.

Although there are not details in there of the issues that we try to find daily. If they overload a report with thousands of pieces of generic evidence that what they are saying is true, nobody will look for the few pieces that are actually missing! I think you misunderstood what I was trying to convey with my posts....

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:48 PM
It would be nice if the label "truthers", as a disparaging type of name calling, wasn't employed by the "trusters".

The "beauty" of the official story narrative is that it apparently presents the most believable and consistent narrative capable of explaining all information and data according to the apparent use of Occam's Razor.

Where it falls apart is under a close analysis of the events and phenomenon themselves within the context of a purely scientific approach to those events, like the free fall time recorded during the onset of WTC7's destruction as but one example of many.

If anyone is curious or uncertain I recommend the documentary linked in my signature, all three parts and the full five hours worth, when you have the time to give it the attention it deserves.

And as to the OS narrative, i encourage a deep study of the cell phone record, how it was covered up in the Moussaoui trial evidence presentation, as well as the 9/11 Commission Report, along with an in depth analysis of the content and nature of all the calls from the alleged passengers on the four planes to their loved ones, and in the case of flight attendant CeeCee Lyles recorded on an answering machine at the end of which, while fumbling with phone she whispers.. "it's a frame", which can be located and heard at the wikipedia "flight 93" page.

This book covers those calls in fine detail, one by one

Hijacking America's Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence

If the central narrative of the official story is proven false, as with the case of the cell phone record (given that such calls, when taken together as a whole, cannot have been placed from the altitudes and speeds at which the aircraft were travelling when the calls were made), then indeed an alternative hypothesis emerges involving events taking place both in the air, in the case of the south tower plane recorded travelling in perfect control with deft maneuvering at 90 knots over it's Vd limit, which represents an airspeed for controlled flight for such an aircraft type without precedent in the recorded history of aviation, as well as simulated hijacking enactments taking place from the ground under the pretext of military exercises along with other "frames" or psychological pressure points to make sure that the participants stayed on script and did not say certain things along the lines of "but don't worry because it's just an exercise". When this evidence is applied to the narrative for flight 93, including the cell phone record for alleged passengers aboard that flight, as well as the pristine condition of their personal effects..

the only conclusion that can and must be drawn, is absolutely devastating, because like the destruction of the twin towers, which occurred to within 4 or 5 seconds of absolute free fall for both 110 story buildings, along with all the other evidence pointing away from a "progressive, pancaking collapse" hypothesis and towards a precision engineered controlled demolition hypothesis, initiated from around the impact areas - it points a very sturdy finger at what can only be called the crime of the century and a crime against humanity that is among the very worst in recorded history, when seen and recognized as the false flag, "shock and awe" black-op psy-op that it really was.

On a long term basis, as the OS comes under increasing scrutiny and analysis by more and more people of every discipline and walk of life - that's what remains as the alternate hypothesis, a murderous hoax of far reaching implications capable of indicting the PTB and the perpetrators of the crime itself, either during their lifetime in this generation or in absentia upon their passing off the scene.

There's just too much information and too much data which directly contradicts the OS narrative for it to hold up under the continual and accumulated weight of objective, rational, scientific scrutiny and analysis, and so therefore history will rise up to condemn it (the official story, it's narrative, and cover up) in unequivocal and incontrovertible terms.



edit on 23-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

Fair enough, sorry if I picked you up wrong. However, I don't think it's suspicious that there's a lot of detail in reports about something like 9/11. Are you saying that they should provide a precis version or something?

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:08 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

There's no such thing as an OS narrative. I covered that. It's a strawman.

You're sure that the government has lied though and you're obviously completely convinced by your evidence. So what do you think happened?

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by JuniorDisco

A murderous hoax. A false flag global psy-op perpetrated to bring about and realize a narrow agenda according to a very BAD policy.

I'll come back to explain the nature of the "honey pot of the gaps" that present themselves when the official story narrative falls apart, which is something that clearly appears to have been embedded into the operational planning of the event itself in regards to what's "left over" outside of and beyond that narrative in terms of an alternate hypothesis, without at the same time falling victim to that "honey pot" as it appears may have been intended by the OP, and possibly yourself as well, if you are as intelligent, informed and aware as i think you and the OP may be in regards to this issue. For now, think it through in terms of what i presented, above.



edit on 23-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2014 @ 01:29 PM
I know i asked you that question multiple times in your WTC 7 thread...
How can one believe the OS but then at the same time question the validity of the report.

I guess it comes down to trust for me, I trust nothing the government is telling me, all i have seen over the years lies about everything until it is convenient to tell the truth. And even then it is a watered down version to protect their own interest

The insider trading that followed this event is the smoking gun for me
Why would some one buy 2 asbestos filled towers when he knew the only way fix it was to replace floor by floor...
Was in a car crash while the deals were going on and made them take him of the morphine so he could legally sing the paper work just 2 months before it happened? And he just happens to own 7 that falls as well??
Obviously the put options and then the promotions for key figures that had roles in 911.

The ole follow the money saying works out in this case IMO

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in