9/11 Theories

[jetboat]

so heres my theory... 99% of what they have told us is true... Osama was the leader of the taliban, the taliban did plan it etc etc. What they didnt say is that they knew about it possibly years in advance and "needed" it to happen to pass their agenda. Think about how big goverment got right afterward. All of the sudden we have homeland security, the TSA, 50 czars etc. I've always baulked at the theories that there is an organization controling everything but, things that have been going on in the past 10yrs have been all too... planned out.

 

[montana.matt]

Which part, about the black boxes or the bodies?

Bodies.

From the "other" thread:

In 1945 a B-52 bomber crashed into the Empire State building.

B-52 didn't make it's maiden flight until April 1952....

I didn't come here to argue, but if you're gonna post "facts", please do research and get them right "thumbsup"


I still haven't made up my mind about the WTC attacks. I find it hard to believe that the number people that would have been involved (had to have been in the 100's at a minimum) would keep quiet.

As far as flight 93 goes.... I believe it could possibly have been shot down. It was heading for DC, and if the Air Force had an opportunity to shoot it down, it should have been shot down....

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

So I guess it was reported by a few civilians that they assisted federal agents in recovering 3 of the 4 black boxes at Ground Zero, yet official government reports claim none were found.

Flight 77's voice and flight recorders were found very near where the plane hit the Pentagon, but were either damaged beyond usefulness or apparently blank/erased. No data was successfully removed from either.

Flight 93's flight recorder was found intact shock with recoverable info.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

B-52 didn't make it's maiden flight until April 1952....

I didn't come here to argue, but if you're gonna post "facts", please do research and get them right "thumbsup"

Good catch, it was a B-25. I have a tendency to transpose numbers from time to time.

As far as flight 93 goes.... I believe it could possibly have been shot down. It was heading for DC, and if the Air Force had an opportunity to shoot it down, it should have been shot down....

Absolutely. It would be the easiest to cover up too.

 

[Greatscott]

The two things I have the hardest time wrapping my head around from 9/11 would be the plane that went down in Pennsylvania (Flight 93) and the one that hit the Pentagon (Flight 77).

The 93 spot never looked right to me. A little more investigation and I found that debris from that plane was found as far 8 miles away and was along its flight path before it crashed. I can't imagine airplane wreckage being flung that distance. They also found a nearly complete engine almost a mile away, also along the flight path. Why was it that far away and why wasn't it disintegrated like the rest of the plane supposedly was? Why was there just a small smouldering crater instead of a large area of scorched earth?

As far as 77 goes, the Pentagon still hasn't released any video worth examining. As I understand it, video was confiscated from a nearby gas station which had a camera aimed at its parking lot with the crash site in the background. That hasn't been released either.

I know 3 people that were in the Pentagon when it was hit, and two more that were in the parking lot at the time. They all say it was a large white plane.

As far as 93 goes, a lot of it depends on the flight path before it crashed. If the plane reached any kind of altitude (20k ft or more), then was pointed downward so that it exceeded its designed flight speed, it could have, and would have shed parts before it hit the ground.

The Towers- Some people claim their were explosives throughout that went off just that actually caused the Towers to come down; if you look closely at the videos of the implosions you can see puffs of smoke blowing out the windows before the body of the implosion got to that floor. This theory was derived by people who simply studied the videos, but have no engineering knowledge at all. You ask a structural engineer about these puffs of smoke, he'll tell you they were caused by the pressure wave that was caused by the implosion.

I'm not saying that there aren't facts the government isn't releasing to us, I've always thought the lack of black-boxes was a little weird, but you have to do a lot of filtering when people pull these theories out of their butts. The attacks themselves are an embarrassment to our government's intelligence services, several of them had information about the attacks, but there was no sharing of that information, if they would have the attacks would have likely been stopped.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

I know 3 people that were in the Pentagon when it was hit, and two more that were in the parking lot at the time. They all say it was a large white plane.

Its been said many times on the web, you'd have to be either extremely lucky or extremely good to hit the Pentagon as it was hit. Skimming the ground that closely by someone who had minimal piloting skills (as was reported) is a wee bit suspect IMO. Coming in that low and that fast and that level in something with a 130' wingspan is not an easy feat.

I also don't understand why the government hasn't released more video. All we get is low resolution crap that doesn't show a plane. The only other video released was from a nearby hotel that does not show a plane but does show an explosion.

As far as 93 goes, a lot of it depends on the flight path before it crashed. If the plane reached any kind of altitude (20k ft or more), then was pointed downward so that it exceeded its designed flight speed, it could have, and would have shed parts before it hit the ground.

Eye witnesses reported it flying overhead, rolling upside down, then nosediving.

It was also reported that various government agencies were already on scene before local rescue crews.

The coroner that arrived was quoted as saying that he "ceased to be a coroner 20 minutes after arriving because there were no bodies to examine". I believe the largest body part found was a thumb or something. It wasn't a very large piece.

The Towers- Some people claim their were explosives throughout that went off just that actually caused the Towers to come down; if you look closely at the videos of the implosions you can see puffs of smoke blowing out the windows before the body of the implosion got to that floor. This theory was derived by people who simply studied the videos, but have no engineering knowledge at all. You ask a structural engineer about these puffs of smoke, he'll tell you they were caused by the pressure wave that was caused by the implosion.

I thought about this one quite a bit. Those towers fell fast, and once they started they went down pretty easily. While the collapsing floors may have been designed to withstand the weight of the building, they were not designed to withstand the shockload of them falling.

I'm not saying that there aren't facts the government isn't releasing to us, I've always thought the lack of black-boxes was a little weird, but you have to do a lot of filtering when people pull these theories out of their butts. The attacks themselves are an embarrassment to our government's intelligence services, several of them had information about the attacks, but there was no sharing of that information, if they would have the attacks would have likely been stopped.

You're right about filtering, there is a lot of crazy shit out there, holographic planes included.

Bottom line is: if Osama really was the mastermind here, we simply got suckerpunched. Our reaction of going to war was out of line. It really honestly seems like our leaders were looking for a reason to invade the middle east.

 

[KC_JoNeS]

How about World Trade Center 7? It is no where near the towers, yet, it burned down the same day as the twin towers. It was reported that Enron had offices in that building. A little suspicious.

Casey

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

How about World Trade Center 7? It is no where near the towers, yet, it burned down the same day as the twin towers. It was reported that Enron had offices in that building. A little suspicious.

Casey

Its roof supposedly caught on fire, burning it from the inside out and causing it to collapse.

Here's a list of occupants. Be sure and read the note above the list. ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_Seven_World_Trade_Center

 

[KC_JoNeS]

Its roof supposedly caught on fire, burning it from the inside out and causing it to collapse.

That is not what was in the official report though. It was reported that a fire caught on either the 12th or 13th floor...causing it to get engulfed, and eventually come down. It is also reported to have been the first steel frame building to collapse due to fire....in history.

Casey

 

[nascarkeith]

I have my doubts to the official story as well. I don't think U.S. Officials demo'ed anything but the attack was probably allowed to happen. Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen 60 years ago.

What worries me more is the intentional destruction of the economy in order to control the population.

 

[rock hard]

I feel war was justified,IMO it was justified when osama tried to hit the trade center the 1st time.And justified after hitting the cole...it depends on your leadership.

basically most of the time,if a dems are in charge,there will be more diplomacy,and more missiles shot off for show of what we can do,as deems prefer a peace by policy.

if rep,are in charge,then there is a greater chance of war,as we conservatives tend to agree there is a type of peace you can only achieve after you have defeated your enemies.

deplomacy is a false peace,history shows us there has been long peace after many of the wars of past generations


as far as the attack itself,I have no reason to believe the government os ever complete;y honest.

I don't see how a weather balloon leaves a crash site?

but I also have no reason to believe it was covered up so we could prosper from war,we as a nation have never claimed the spoils of a war,and that is
where most nations profit,from the spoils of their victories.


we went to war to take the fight to their land,and keep the terrorist on defense,and like it or not,we have had much more peace than other nations who have regular bombings within their borders

 

[Mr.Slave]

http://costofwar.com/en/

 

[nascarkeith]

Interesting read

http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/binladen-mayfirst/

Lots of interesting stuff on that site.

I don't want to argue with anyone but since this is a discussion I would like to point out that the U.S. Often seeks to benefit from war. We made tons off of lend lease before entering WWII. The U.S. Even made up stuff to start the Spanish American War so we could benefit from it. T. Roosevelt even called it a splendid little war.

I will always stand up for and support troops and first responders. I am proud to be an American ( que Lee Greenwood :mrgreen but I don't trust politicians. They have 2 goals push their agenda and get re-elected.

 

[jokers_toys]

http://costofwar.com/en/

:shock: oh crap

 

[rock hard]

Interesting read

http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/binladen-mayfirst/

Lots of interesting stuff on that site.

I don't want to argue with anyone but since this is a discussion I would like to point out that the U.S. Often seeks to benefit from war. We made tons off of lend lease before entering WWII. The U.S. Even made up stuff to start the Spanish American War so we could benefit from it. T. Roosevelt even called it a splendid little war.

I will always stand up for and support troops and first responders. I am proud to be an American ( que Lee Greenwood :mrgreen but I don't trust politicians. They have 2 goals push their agenda and get re-elected.

teddy loved to fight,we was an adrenalin junkie!
Just cuz he said it was splendid,doesn't mean it was splendid cuz he or anyone else profited,I bet it was cuz it was FUN in his mind.

Though he was a touch crazy,he was no doubt brave and enjoyed battle.

 

[nascarkeith]

Yeah, Teddy was extreme before extreme was a thing.:lmao:

 

[rock hard]

Yeah, Teddy was extreme before extreme was a thing.:lmao:

extremem in his politics aswell,he was very liberal with his ideas of government. for example church and state,and who should have the most power,states or federal gov.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

I feel war was justified,IMO it was justified when osama tried to hit the trade center the 1st time.And justified after hitting the cole...it depends on your leadership.

No way. Absolutely no way. We got suckerpunched by a punk with no followup plan. It took them years to hit it the first time, and it took years to hit it again. There was no reason to retaliate like we did. We had time.

basically most of the time,if a dems are in charge,there will be more diplomacy,and more missiles shot off for show of what we can do,as deems prefer a peace by policy.

if rep,are in charge,then there is a greater chance of war,as we conservatives tend to agree there is a type of peace you can only achieve after you have defeated your enemies.

I think if you dig around a little you'll find more corporations who cater to the military industrial complex align themselves with the conservative party or are ran by right-wing minded individuals. There is no money to be made in peacetime for them. But when at war, they're offered millions or billions to develop technology for the military. Do you not find it just a tad bit suspicious that Haliburton was tapped as a major subcontractor in the Gulf Wars? Darth Cheney used them during Desert Storm, then became their CEO, then as VP used them again when we went chasing Bin Laden.

but I also have no reason to believe it was covered up so we could prosper from war,we as a nation have never claimed the spoils of a war,and that is
where most nations profit,from the spoils of their victories.

There is profit, but not for our nation. Profit goes to favored corporations like Haliburton and Blackwater. Also the oil companies...all those vehicles need fuel.

we went to war to take the fight to their land,and keep the terrorist on defense,and like it or not,we have had much more peace than other nations who have regular bombings within their borders

Again, no. We invaded under false pretenses. What we were supposedly looking for was not there. We stayed and fought to keep from looking stupid.

We have more peace because we are far removed from radical factions that oppose us. Both of our neighbors are relatively stable and of the same theological ideologies.

The Taliban have no air force, no naval force, no armored assault vehicles, no helicopters, no laser guided weaponry, only loosely assembled ground forces who's main goal in life is martyrdom. They're a bunch of grubby guys running around in a desert. That is not much to defend ourselves from.

 

[rock hard]

No way. Absolutely no way. We got suckerpunched by a punk with no followup plan. It took them years to hit it the first time, and it took years to hit it again. There was no reason to retaliate like we did. We had time.

That us your opinion,in this country is ran by 2 major parties,each with a different way of looking at,and doing things.I align myself with the republicans because I find myself agreeing with their ideology,and that includes going to war....You can say it was wrong,or we had no premiss,I say it was a long time coming,and bought dam time we did it.



I think if you dig around a little you'll find more corporations who cater to the military industrial complex align themselves with the conservative party or are ran by right-wing minded individuals. There is no money to be made in peacetime for them. But when at war, they're offered millions or billions to develop technology for the military. Do you not find it just a tad bit suspicious that Haliburton was tapped as a major subcontractor in the Gulf Wars? Darth Cheney used them during Desert Storm, then became their CEO, then as VP used them again when we went chasing Bin Laden.

There are not very many contractors set up to do the things halliburton does.
I find it totally reasonable they was used,they had the resources needed to accomplish the task.
and weapons manufacturers,and oil companies do intact profit during peace time:roll: Hell I guess hummer wanted war too so they could profit:roll:



There is profit, but not for our nation. Profit goes to favored corporations like Haliburton and Blackwater. Also the oil companies...all those vehicles need fuel.


like I said,I guess jeep wanted world war 2 so they coiuld profit,and if we start a war tomorrow you wil blame another person for eating for their efforts.
I guess if I make tires,I profit from war if I sell to the military,doesn't mean I want war,or that I need war to profit,but I do profit more during war as I would sell mote product...there is nothing wrong,or conspritory about that
same goes for oil companies



Again, no. We invaded under false pretenses. What we were supposedly looking for was not there. We stayed and fought to keep from looking stupid.


even clinton,the french,and nearly every other nation with entelagence said he had them,and just cuz we haunt seen them doesn't mean he diet have them
hell,they could be in russia for all we know

bush said in the beginning,the axes of eveil
he mentioned sad am and iran...and I agree whole heatedly then and now
just cuz you don't doesn't mean your wrong or I;m wrong
just that we as many other americans have different ideas of how to accomplish goals,and what is justified.'


We have more peace because we are far removed from radical factions that oppose us. Both of our neighbors are relatively stable and of the same theological ideologies.

The Taliban have no air force, no naval force, no armored assault vehicles, no helicopters, no laser guided weaponry, only loosely assembled ground forces who's main goal in life is martyrdom. They're a bunch of grubby guys running around in a desert. That is not much to defend ourselves from.

true,but they only have so many resources,the more they utilize there,the leas they have to use here,its that simple

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

That us your opinion,in this country is ran by 2 major parties,each with a different way of looking at,and doing things.I align myself with the republicans because I find myself agreeing with their ideology,and that includes going to war....You can say it was wrong,or we had no premiss,I say it was a long time coming,and bought dam time we did it.

Sometimes we have to go to war, I cannot disagree with that. But what we're doing now has cost us more in lives and money than anything the Taliban could do to us in 100 years. The gain does not outweigh the cost.

There are not very many contractors set up to do the things halliburton does.
I find it totally reasonable they was used,they had the resources needed to accomplish the task. and weapons manufacturers,and oil companies do intact profit during peace time Hell I guess hummer wanted war too so they could profit

Haliburton is or was chiefly involved in oil fields. Initially they were used to cap the oil wells in Desert Storm. Its also interesting to note that in 1998 Haliburton merged with a company owned by George W's grandfather.

like I said,I guess jeep wanted world war 2 so they coiuld profit,and if we start a war tomorrow you wil blame another person for eating for their efforts.
I guess if I make tires,I profit from war if I sell to the military,doesn't mean I want war,or that I need war to profit,but I do profit more during war as I would sell mote product...there is nothing wrong,or conspritory about that
same goes for oil companies

Hummer would not have existed without military funding. Nothing that is purpose built will survive very long if that purpose is not available. If you're a condom maker, you're betting on people having sex. If they aren't, you do something to make them.

even clinton,the french,and nearly every other nation with entelagence said he had them,and just cuz we haunt seen them doesn't mean he diet have them
hell,they could be in russia for all we know

The CIA sent an operative to investigate and came back empty handed, saying that the intelligence they received was false.

Here's the article that he wrote for the NY Times before he was outed as an operative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-find-in-africa.html?src=pm

We went to war on information from British intelligence that we could not verify.

bush said in the beginning,the axes of eveil
he mentioned sad am and iran...and I agree whole heatedly then and now
just cuz you don't doesn't mean your wrong or I;m wrong
just that we as many other americans have different ideas of how to accomplish goals,and what is justified.'

So he used 9/11 as an excuse.

true,but they only have so many resources,the more they utilize there,the leas they have to use here,its that simple

All the more reason we should have kept our asses at home and gone after him covertly and strategically.