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

Originally posted by rush969

1.- The no plane´s hitting the WTC towers, or holograms theory.
This to me is one of the most preposterous ideas.

Who cares what you THINK, the facts are clear. There is evidence

- To show that the footages are fake
- The Gaudet Brothers have disappeared without a trace
- If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon why not use ones for the WTC?
- Impact damage on another WTC building indicates a clear missile hit.
- Evidence from a Boeing engineer as well as the aircraft specifications shows clearly that could not have been aircraft. At the density of the atmosphere at ground level, such aircraft cannot fly much beyond 300 mph. At 650mph, their universally accepted approach speed, they would have suffered comprehensive structural failure and total disintegration within 90 seconds.

Removing the possibility of missiles possibly puts many innocent people in the dock and clears another raft of people for no reason.

Originally posted by rush969
.
2.- Right there with no planes would also be DEW. In the form of a weapon fired from another building or from space.

Neither one has credibility IMO.

YET AGAIN in YOUR OPINION. No effort to look at the facts.

People have claimed UFO and space weapons for a reason, streaks of high speed light flying up from the ground at time of impact. Why? Although this activity is associated with UFO's, it could be indicative of something else, eg an unknown tracking system or more likely high speed moving debris. Whatever it is, without determining an alternative explanation, you are just going to bury evidence without considering it.

In what sense have the "Gaudet "[sic] brothers disappeared?

Originally posted by rush969

3.- Remote controlled hijacked passenger jets.

Again, this is dismissed without consideration of facts:-

- There is evidence on the footage that these are planes with radio controlled devices.
- Masses of Raytheon executives died on those planes on 9/11. Which division did that come from? Radio controlled aircraft.

An alternative concepts that these are radio controlled aircraft filmed and superimposed on the footage to hide up something else. Whatever it is, dismissing facts and depending on gut feeling is cretinous way to proceed.

Originally posted by rush969

4.- Remote controlled secret military jets disguised as passenger jets.

Again, you ignore the facts and evidence. The Raytheon slaughter and the footage counters this. Furthermore, if they used a missile disguised as a jet at the Pentagon, why not at the WTC?

reply to post by abcdef


Wait a second. It can't be remote controlled planes and missiles. There can't be conclusive evidence for both.

Originally posted by rush969

5.- Mini nukes used to bring down the WTC Towers.

Again, you have utterly ignored the facts and the reasons why people believe this.

The fact are these:-

_ the pyroclastic flow of the explosions are the same style and colour as a nuclear explosion.

To ignore this, again, you are putting a whole group of peoplejn the dock whiilst letting off the actual criminals.

There si a key fact that people involved in discussions regarding the nuke theory fail to take into account which if considered leads to a stunning conlcusion through a chain of logic. A primary cause of the colour of a nuclear explosion is related to the bomb initiator. No-one considers the possibility that nuclear missiles were used, with the fissionble material extracted, but the detonators and the initiators left in place. Such use would produce these exact and identical results. If this was the case, taking into account all the other facts mentioned above, it puts almost the entire US Military, almost to a man, and makes it obvious who actually did 9/11.

Interesting...
How people start bringing up some specific theories.
It´s like the ones that have caught more in the conspiracy sites.
We have some that we see come up all the time in threads that are discussing other things.
Take this thread for instance. What has happened here I´ve seen turn up in many other threads.
Posters start to come up with the:
"No plane hit the Pentagon"
"Silverstein ordered 7 to be pulled"
"How were the pax. in AA77 identified by DNA??"
"The hijackers not in the pax. manifest"
"UA93 was shot down"
"UA93 didn´t crash at Shanksville"
"WTC towers brought down with CD"
Well, as I´ve said it all the time, I´m not against discussing other theories even when they aren´t the ones proposed here. But since people insist on talking about this, I would like to share my opinion in the ones mentioned above.
“No plane hit the Pentagon”.
Wrong. AA77 was crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.
There´s impressive amounts of evidence to prove this, and no evidence after more than 8 years produced on something different. A very good thread here on ATS shows it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
“Silverstein ordered 7 to be pulled”.
Two things wrong here. First, Mr. S. didn´t order anything. Even if you check his exact words (which are in my signature) he proves this, right there. Second, if the building was to be pulled, the procedure would be completely different from demolition with explosives.
So, some folks are just using this wording to perpetuate a theory with no merit. Fire men teams were “pulled” away from 7 after the decision was taken by their chiefs that the building was too damaged and they were certain that it was going to collapse and kill many of them if they stayed near.
This has also been proven over and over again, and still, it keeps popping up.
“How were the pax. In AA77 identified by DNA??”
One of the most recurring arguments against the DNA identification is the “ragging inferno” that reportedly took place in the crash site.
That is not a good argument against DNA identifying because only very tiny fractions of bones, hair, skin, are needed to do the testing. Teeth and some bones, are the body parts that usually remain even after a big fire, and they have the DNA information sufficient for identification.
Also, there were belongings or fractions of them, of pax. and crew that survived the fire. Not everything burned either. Evidence of this has been shown in a few threads here at ATS also.
“The hijackers not in the pax. manifest”.
Wrong. Again, some folks keep bringing this up, again and again, and it has been shown to be a lie, over and over. The hijackers are not in the “VICTIMS” lists. That´s different. And pretty obvious why.
“UA93 was shot down”
This has been proven wrong, we can rule it out simply with the timeline of 9/11 because the shoot down order was issued after 93 had crashed.
Plus, we have plenty of corroborating and circumstantial evidence that proves this wrong.
Eyewitnesses, traffic controllers, voice recorder, flight data recorder (black box), and the way the plane remains were found.
"UA93 didn´t crash at Shanksville"
There´s plenty of evidence that has been shown of this fact. Publicly available, there´s photographs of the crash site showing parts of the plane, part of the windows side of the aircraft with the United paint scheme clearly visible, plus we also have the DNA identification carried out at this site as well.
“WTC towers brought down with CD”
This I guess is one of the most powerful conspiracies out there.
But, again, it´s wrong. It´s been shown to lack any proof or supporting evidence. This theory is based mainly just on viewpoints. Meaning, “that looked like one of those demolitions dude!!” Even some of the journalists working the reports on the collapses made the comment that the collapses had looked like “”those controlled demolitions we´ve seen so often on T.V.””
Well, not true actually. You could say WTC 7 looked a lot like controlled demolition, I´ll accept that, only it´s missing all the huge explosions needed for it.
But you can´t say that about towers 1 and 2 at all.
Those looked very different than controlled demolition. And even new CD procedures were developed to adjust to the theory. “Top down CD”.
Isn´t that the last thing you´d want to do with a skyscraper??
But, the curious thing is that the supporters of this theory talk about basement explosions. How would you carry out a top down demolition with basement placed explosives??
I know some folks will come after me for "believing blindly what the Gov. tells me". Will my mentioning this here spare me of that??
My 2cts.

Removed, double post.

[edit on 12-4-2010 by rush969]

reply to post by abcdef


Thanks for your post. However, a question:
Wouldn´t the use of mini nukes completely rule out any possibility of survivors in the surrounding area??

And if the answer is no, another question:
Wouldn´t the use of mini nukes have caused ALL of those survivors to become ill and die shortly after??

And if the answer is, not all. Another question:
Wouldn´t we have seen some specific illnesses showing up in most of the survivors, different from what has been seen??




[edit on 12-4-2010 by rush969]

Originally posted by rush969
.
That is not a good argument against DNA

There is a cast iron argument against the DNA tests.

All the security around the remains was designed to prevent people removing the DNA samples, not adding to them.

The chain of custody of the remains was ludicrously long with the remains being moved around the country. It would be perfectly feasible for a truck to have turned up claiming to be delivering remains of 9/11 victims and had them logged as such but to have had them come from another location.

So, the DNA tests were indeed on those schedules as having died, but would not have been from the WTC but from another location, presumably where they were liquidated by gas, disease etc and then cremated, or possibly just cremated in an oven without being killed first.

Originally posted by rush969
It´s been shown to lack any proof or supporting evidence. This theory is based mainly just on viewpoints. Meaning, “that looked like one of those demolitions dude!!” Even some of the journalists working the reports on the collapses made the comment that the collapses had looked like “”those controlled demolitions we´ve seen so o

This is BLUNTLY FALSE.

1. I personally managed to spot the flashes of explosions going off in one particular video from a different angle.
2. Numerous witnesses confirm this.
3. Chemicals contained in the debris show this also.

The argument that you put is utterly absurd. Just because demolition experts usually do it one way os no reason to supposed that someone trying to do monumental crime will do it the same way, just for tradition's sake and risk the electric chair for it.

To "get away with it", explosions would have been set off slowly one by one, to weaken the superstructure, until a final small set causes the last shreds of what has now become a house of cards to collapse.

Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by abcdef

 

Thanks for your post. However, a question:
Wouldn´t the use of mini nukes completely rule out any possibility of survivors in the surrounding area??

And if the answer is no, another question:
Wouldn´t the use of mini nukes have caused ALL of those survivors to become ill and die shortly after??

And if the answer is, not all. Another question:
Wouldn´t we have seen some specific illnesses showing up in most of the survivors, different from what has been seen??

[edit on 12-4-2010 by rush969]

The answer to all of these is NOT AT ALL.

Remember, using the bomb's lithium initiators and its detonators would simply produce massive non-nuclear conventional explosions, but with the same colour and style.

One other point to consider....

Which is easier to hijack?

- A planeload of screaming passengers? Or an inflight missile if you have access to all its circuitry before firing?

- Bearing in mind that there were test firings of missiles off the eastern seaboard of the USA to which USA radar is blind, wouldn't t have been easier for someone with access to the circuitry of these missiles to have hijacked them electronically?

- And US Air Base At Langley which launched the planes out at the Atlantic...everyone considers only two of the three possiibilities:-
a. That they were getting them conveniently "out of the way"
b. That this was a monumental blunder.

No-one will consider the the other possibility...that Langley CORRECTLY identified where the attack on the USA was coming from...from Whiskey 386.

One other point to consider....

Which is easier to hijack?

- A planeload of screaming passengers? Or an inflight missile if you have access to all its circuitry before firing?

- Bearing in mind that there were test firings of missiles off the eastern seaboard of the USA to which USA radar is blind, wouldn't t have been easier for someone with access to the circuitry of these missiles to have hijacked them electronically?

- And US Air Base At Langley which launched the planes out at the Atlantic...everyone considers only two of the three possiibilities:-
a. That they were getting them conveniently "out of the way"
b. That this was a monumental blunder.

No-one will consider the the other possibility...that Langley CORRECTLY identified where the attack on the USA was coming from...from Whiskey 386.

reply to post by abcdef


It's clearly much easier to hijack a plane.

I think I could hijack a passenger jet, at least with a moderate chance of success, certainly in 2001. So could most people if they were in good physical shape, organised and unscrupulous enough, and able to take some kind of weaponry on board.

I know for a fact that most people couldn't hijack a missile electronically. That would be really hard.

Originally posted by abcdef
The answer to all of these is NOT AT ALL.

Remember, using the bomb's lithium initiators and its detonators would simply produce massive non-nuclear conventional explosions, but with the same colour and style.

Well. Those "massive non-nuclear conventional explosions" are nowhere to be found in any video footage of the collapses!!

reply to post by rush969


Not to mention....there is NO video evidence at all to support the contention of massive explosions, in the base of the WTC Towers.

The collapses are clear to see, on every video. The collapse begins at the point of impact, in each case.

The progression continues downward, as the mass above, under the force of gravity, overwhelms the structure beneath it....BECAUSE, once the major portion above the impact zones began to fall, the loads it imposed on the building's structural supports beneath it were OUTSIDE the original design parameters.

The structure was strongest, vertically, to withstand and support the static weight of the mass of building above. In normal design, that is.

Tremendous, undesigned-for shearing forces were imposed, as the damaged sections immediately beneath upper portion gave way.

In no case, ever, do the videos show any part of the lower portion of the building blowing up, as would bwe required by this "Nukes In The Basement" concept...(doesn't even count as a theory, and certainly not even a valid hypothesis, either...since it has NO evidence to support it).

Originally posted by kiwasabi

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

Excuse me??? When the towers fell and 3,000+ people were killed that was soul gripping and panic striking enough as it was, without needing to add any convoluted layers into the mix like faking suicide attack with passenger jets. If they wanted to shock the holy hell out of everyone, they would have deliberately tried to topple the towers over onto other buildings. They wouldn't even need to fake anything as terrorists already tried to blow up the WTC back in 1993.

So if they admitted to giving the order to do it, doesn't that mean they probably DID do it?

No, actually it doesn't mean that at all.

Originally posted by abcdef

Originally posted by rush969

1.- The no plane´s hitting the WTC towers, or holograms theory.
This to me is one of the most preposterous ideas.

Who cares what you THINK, the facts are clear. There is evidence

- To show that the footages are fake
- The Gaudet Brothers have disappeared without a trace
- If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon why not use ones for the WTC?
- Impact damage on another WTC building indicates a clear missile hit.
- Evidence from a Boeing engineer as well as the aircraft specifications shows clearly that could not have been aircraft. At the density of the atmosphere at ground level, such aircraft cannot fly much beyond 300 mph. At 650mph, their universally accepted approach speed, they would have suffered comprehensive structural failure and total disintegration within 90 seconds.

Removing the possibility of missiles possibly puts many innocent people in the dock and clears another raft of people for no reason.

Well.
First of all, the post of mine that you cite is about "HOLOGRAMS" which you don´t discuss. But I would like to argue the points that you mention anyway.

- To show that the footages are fake

Are you referring to the TV video footage here or does this include the dozens of amateur videos that MATCH EXACTLY what was seen on TV??
Were all those videos also fake??

- The Gaudet Brothers have disappeared without a trace

Says who?? Care to provide any proof of what became of them??

- If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon why not use ones for the WTC?

No evidence has been shown of a missile hit at the Pentagon.
The damage does not correspond with what you could expect there with a missile hit.
However, damage does correspond to a B757 hitting the building and
plenty of evidence of AA77 crashing there has been shown.

- Impact damage on another WTC building indicates a clear missile hit.

Care to provide any reference to this??

- Evidence from a Boeing engineer as well as the aircraft specifications shows clearly that could not have been aircraft.

Clearly, you´re not familiar with those "aircraft specifications". You have apparently been mislead by P4T.

At the density of the atmosphere at ground level, such aircraft cannot fly much beyond 300 mph.

This is a totally false statement.

At 650mph, their universally accepted approach speed, they would have suffered comprehensive structural failure and total disintegration within 90 seconds.

Well, I think you have confused the approach speed with maximum operating speed here. No big deal. But the disintegration issue is something else. How can you know if the aircraft was not "just about to start disintegrating" when it hit the building??

Removing the possibility of missiles possibly puts many innocent people in the dock and clears another raft of people for no reason.

And going on about missiles, and inside jobs puts a group of crazy radical terrorists bent on destroying the free world in the clear, for no reason.