Canonize 9/11, If the Movement would be so kind.

There are so many theories out there, so many have alleged smoking guns..BUT since there are so many people that don't believe in one or more of the theories it is impossible to determine what their platform for debate is.

I suggest we Canonize the 9/11 theories. Help would be greatly appreciated.

Let's look at the claims: I will start in the chronological order these theories appeared, to the best of my recollection.

1.)Jews had inside knowlege of 9/11 and failed to report to work in lower Manhattan. ( I say, pretty much dropped)

2.)No plane hit the Pentagon, instead it was a cruise missle/global hawk( This one is a pretty popular claim, although a recent poll shows the majority of "Truthers" no longer believe this is true-- Alex Jones calls the claim a "honey pot" for being true ( Flt 77 hitting) although it was a lead conspiracy at one time... Canonize? or NO?)

3.) Flight 175 had Pods attached to the base, indicating it was not a commercial jet and possibly carrying explosives in the pod (pretty much dropped, I haven't seen a pod person in quite a while..I say this one goes away..you?)

4.)The World Trade Center Towers were a controlled demolition with explosives "see the squibs!" ( I would say canonize, BUT the whole thermate theory evolved from this one due to NO SOUND or glass shrapnel from High Explosives.. What say YOU?)

5.) Dancing Israelis show Moussad had forknowledge of attacks ( I feel the "movement" has pretty much dropped this claim, although it resurfaces every now and then. I also feel that the subjective testimony of one individual is a shaky foundation for canonization...but that's me)

6.) Flight 93 never crashed, but landed in Cleveland, and the passengers were led to a NASA hangar. ( I would say this claim FAILED, and is not accepted by anyone anymore..perhaps I am wrong..feedback?)

7.) 7 World Trade was a controlled demolition ( This would have to be canonized, simply because the events were uncharacteristic of a superstructure-- even though this building had been through a lot of unprecidented stress that day; there is a lot of room for speculation.)

8.) No plane crashed in Shanksville, the debris field was staged ( I see there is still debate on this but it is relatively rare...I say dump it..input?)

9.)The hijackers are still alive. ( I say dump due to everytime someone brings this up, they all show the same BBC article that has been retracted and is VERY old. I say dump this claim)

10.) The Planes were remote controlled ( I say dump..you?)

11.) No planes ever hit any buildings on 9/11; TV fakery/ Holograms. ( I would say dump this due to even the Truther leaders getting all bent outta shape about it.)

12.) There was molton steel in the wreckage days after 9/11. ( Keep or chunk?)

13.) Top Secret beams from outter space brought down the towers ( this is a weird claim, and has divided the Movements leadership somewhat, strangely enough this claim was made by the movements most qualified "expert," Engineer Judy Wood, and backed by a professor that taught "critical thinking" --of all things-- James Fetzer... I say dump, but who knows what ATS thinks of this remarkable claim)

14.) Thermate brought down the towers with special new sideways steel cutting technology. ( microsheres, red chips lots of stuff to literally microanalyze- This is the truth movements very own NIST report in that it could take years, even lifetimes (seemingly) to come to a conclusion, open ended stuff is inherently good for the twoof movement so I say canonize..your opinion? Do you go with Jones, or do you go with Woods/Fetzer?)

15.) MicroNukes brought down the towers (one word-microdump...you?)

16.) Silverstein "pulled" WTC7 to make money ( As time goes by this is less and less true, I feel this "theory" is doomed and silverstein will lose money..so No)

17.) Official Story. ( I say, biggest dump on American people's intelligence of all time. Full of inconsistencies, bogus claims, hidden evidence, corrupt cleanup, lies, etc.)

I agree with some points you make on that list, but I think most you dismiss far too easily. The obvious ones are just that, but the majority, inconclusive.

reply to post by Taxi-Driver


I think if you can't think outside the square you will never understand how blatantly obvious 9/11 was "an inside job".

watchZEITGEISTnow

Originally posted by adjay
17.) Official Story. ( I say, biggest dump on American people's intelligence of all time. Full of inconsistencies, bogus claims, hidden evidence, corrupt cleanup, lies, etc.)

I agree with some points you make on that list, but I think most you dismiss far too easily. The obvious ones are just that, but the majority, inconclusive.

I must have been unclear with my post. Sorry for that. What I am trying to find out is what "exactly" people believe, what they "did" beleive and what is new that they might believe more "now".

There are more than just the 16 CLAIMS I posted ( ran out of posting space).. I am asking for input to get an idea what exactly the 911 truth movements platform is.

I think it would be interesting to see how it has evolved, and see what claims are considered "accepted by the majority of Truthers" i.e. canonize the theories so the movement can have somewhat a coherent ring to it...

Instead of "certain" people championing all-claims (even if they contradict with one another) Like "micro-nukes" AND thermate, AND high explosives to bring down the towers

AND no planes, AND remote conrolled planes...

Do you see what I am getting at?

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Do you see what I am getting at?

Yes, you're trying to pigeon hole and stereotype people who ask questions and can see we're not being told the truth.
Can't you just except that some people are going to believe there were no planes, or differ on what they think was used to weaken the supports, and take us all on an individual basis? This is a big problem with de-bunkers, you want to lump us all in one basket so it makes it easier for you make blanket statements and not tackle the real issues. Like why we don't see the law of friction causing massive resistance in the collapses? Like how does sporadic fires and asymmetrical damage cause global collapse of a building CD style into its own footprint?

Friction is the resistive force acting between bodies that tends to oppose and damp out motion. Friction is usually distinguished as being either static friction (the frictional force opposing placing a body at rest into motion) and kinetic friction (the frictional force tending to slow a body in motion). In general, static friction is greater than kinetic friction.
The force due to kinetic friction is generally proportional to the applied force, so "a coefficient of kinetic fiction" is defined as the ratio of frictional force to the normal force on the body.
The study of friction is called tribology.

Source

And that’s just the start of the physical laws that seemed to have been broken if you are to believe fires caused the complete global collapse of three buildings. You don’t have to believe me, it’s all in black and white if you can be bothered to read and understand it.

You keep bogging yourselves down with irrelevant points that have no real effect on the big picture either way. You can debunk every hypothesis out there but you can’t explain away the physics problems (Oh but it was inevitable!). Planes or no planes, it doesn't change the FACT that the buildings, all three, defied known laws of physics. Thermite or the Allah's foot, it doesn't change the FACT that the buildings, all three, defied known laws of physics. That FACT is something you all keep denying and ignoring over and over again. You all claim that it doesn't matter and that once the collapse was initiated global collapse was inevitable.
That is nothing but a crock and a way for the officials to avoid having to explain the physics problems with their hypothesis. You only believe this lie because you are being told this by people you have been conditioned all your life to believe have your best interests at heart.
Once you can admit to yourself that you have been lied to since birth, and all that you’ve been told is right and good is in fact wrong and corrupted by greedy power hungry men and women, the sooner you can see the big picture.

I refuse to be locked into a set of ‘beliefs’ I have to except, and be stereotyped, because I share a common belief that 9-11 was an inside job.

[edit on 9/1/2008 by ANOK]

You lost me as soon as I saw the word 'truther'.
Canonize?
No, I think we should Extricate... from this thread. Anok hit the nail on the head.
Only Big Brother himself could be so bold as to make the word "truth" out some kind of negative stereotype. Truther... lol what does make the other guys?

Edit: Have a star Anok!

[edit on 9-1-2008 by twitchy]

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

1.)Jews had inside knowlege of 9/11 and failed to report to work in lower Manhattan. ( I say, pretty much dropped)

Big difference between 'Jews' and Zionist MOSSAD insiders.

2.)No plane hit the Pentagon, instead it was a cruise missle/global hawk

Isn't it now thought that the plane that hit the Pentagon was a smaller military jet? Pretty sure that's what they've deduced through witnesses and the area of impact after the crash. No way that thing was a Boeing.

4.)The World Trade Center Towers were a controlled demolition with explosives "see the squibs!"

For those of us with eyes and a working sense of logic, we've already concluded that there's no way for a skyscraper to fall in on itself from the bottom up because of fire damage at the highest floors. The whole 'pancake' theory is laughable.

10.) The Planes were remote controlled ( I say dump..you?)

Kind of hard to dump something like that when insider informants and whistleblowers have already told us they were remotely controlled. But we're not supposed to listen to those crazy people...

11.) No planes ever hit any buildings on 9/11; TV fakery/ Holograms.

Who the hell even promotes this theory? Nobody. Way to sensationalize the out of control conspiracy dialect that truthers are already faced with.

12.) There was molton steel in the wreckage days after 9/11. ( Keep or chunk?)

Proven and unexplainable without the use of specific high-temperature explosives. Thermate residue has already been found and catalogued.

15.) MicroNukes brought down the towers (one word-microdump...you?)

Miniature nuclear weapons devices have already been reported by whistleblowers. We're not supposed to believe them so let's just sweep this under the rug.

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes, you're trying to pigeon hole and stereotype people who ask questions and can see we're not being told the truth.

No, actually I am not. I realize there will be different opinions, if this site had a poll function I would have used it.

Look, how many times can the same question be asked before people begin to tire of the same hackeneyed exchanges? How does "just askin questions" ever propel this movement forward?

Can't you just except that some people are going to believe there were no planes, or differ on what they think was used to weaken the supports, and take us all on an individual basis?

Me? Sure...John Q. Public? for a short time, possibly, then you will be destined to wind-up as wild speculators.

This is a big problem with de-bunkers, you want to lump us all in one basket so it makes it easier for you make blanket statements and not tackle the real issues.

No, actually it was a "top response" on a recent "truth movement poll" twenty four percent of those polled desired a platform of congurent ideas, moving forward... coupled with 25% wanting to drop "no plane theories" Question 80--

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

I elaborated on this idea, here on ATS, to get a feel for what the posters here believed would make a good platform-- I have solicited ATS member's opinion on every talking point (claim) I listed! I have even encouraged posters to add to the list.

Like why we don't see the law of friction causing massive resistance in the collapses? Like how does sporadic fires and asymmetrical damage cause global collapse of a building CD style into its own footprint?

Thanks, that can be #18.)

And that’s just the start of the physical laws that seemed to have been broken if you are to believe fires caused the complete global collapse of three buildings.

I believe it was more than just fire.

You don’t have to believe me, it’s all in black and white if you can be bothered to read and understand it.

Cool I read a LOT.

You keep bogging yourselves down with irrelevant points that have no real effect on the big picture either way.

Why do I now feel "pigeon-holed" and "stereotyped?" I suspect, for many, it is no longer the kill, but the thrill of the chase at this point--i.e. flame war- debunkers vs. truthers... or skeptics vs. openminded theorists.. how ever you might choose to characterize the exchanges, and viewpoints. A cycle of futility.

You only believe this lie because you are being told this by people you have been conditioned all your life to believe have your best interests at heart.

Wow you are way off the mark on that one.

Once you can admit to yourself that you have been lied to since birth, and all that you’ve been told is right and good is in fact wrong and corrupted by greedy power hungry men and women, the sooner you can see the big picture.

So tell me, what do I see? Did I see this in the 1990's when I was writing extensive papers on the misuse of Posse Comitatus in Waco? How about in depth studies on Right -wing evangelicals trying to control and censor T.V. programming through bulling tactics? What was my conformist ass seeing back then?

I refuse to be locked into a set of ‘beliefs’ I have to except, and be stereotyped, because I share a common belief that 9-11 was an inside job.

Then don't.





[edit on 10-1-2008 by Taxi-Driver]

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
12.) There was molton steel in the wreckage days after 9/11. ( Keep or chunk?)

I guess FEMA is on the conspiracy side of things now?

Originally posted by Griff

It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occured in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel in the WTC 7.

www.fema.gov...

Are we still going to argue that there was/wasn't melted steel at Ground Zero? Please read that report and tell me, even if it was the sulfur from the drywall (gypsum board), how we could have evaporated steel without having melted steel?

That is definite proof that there was melted steel at ground zero. If you want to argue that it was only microscopic, you still have to admit that there WAS melted steel found and analysed.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'