What really happened on 9/11?

Forums: 911, Conspiracy Theories
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I generally avoid 9/11 conspiracy theories... but the recent spate of them in multiple threads has got me to thinking. What if the 9/11 truthers were right? The arguments I have seen so far are about refuting the standard theory (Al Qaeda flew planes into the towards). I have not seen very much talk about what (according to the alternate beliefs) actually happened.

The goal of this thread is to understand what actually happened with the assumption that the Al Qaeda theory has been debunked. This is not a thread to rehash the old arguments about Building 7 or jet fuel.

For an interesting discussion, I am setting the following rules for this thread. Please follow them.

1. It is accepted as fact that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives that were carefully placed before the morning of 9/11.
2. It is accepted as fact that the link to Al Qaeda (or any other Islamic terror group) was made up by the real perpetrators.
3. Any discussion of scientists or NIST reports are inappropriate for this discussion.

So now, I would like start the discussion with the answers to these questions.

1. Did airplanes actually fly into the Twin Towers?
2. Were the planes actually hi-jacked by Atta and crew?
3. Was the shell-shocked look on President Bush's face an act? Did he know what was about to happen before hand?

We will start there. I am hoping that I can get a realistic timeline of what actually happened according to the 9/11 theories.

I am also going to want to know more about who was really behind it, and what the motives were.

I am really hoping to gain an understanding of the conspiracy theories.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 4,680 • Replies: 67
Topic Closed

[+3] - Sturgis - 03/19/2017Plain and simple max (though likely not simple enough for you), what in the hell is wrong with you? Oh, did that not fit the dumbass "rules" you are attempting to dictate? Too bad....

View best answer, chosen by maxdancona

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1. It is accepted as fact that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives that were carefully placed before the morning of 9/11.

This is absurd. It suggests that security turned a blind eye or never noticed any activity out if place.

It suggests a team of explosive planters were callous to the idea innocent people were going to die?

It suggests the government is capable of carrying out a black ops plan without any rats coming out to blow the operation? The government can't even tie its shoes without someone objecting.

We even have whistle blowers on the attempt to bend the US laws to support an Iraq invasion. Why no whistle blowers on an explosive planting?

Is it at all possible the "explosions" are a natural result of pressure built up in a simultaneous collapse? Meaning a collapse happens prior to outside visual ques which created pressure in the stair wells looking for weak points causing window blow outs? Any possibility at all? No?

maxdancona wrote:

2. It is accepted as fact that the link to Al Qaeda (or any other Islamic terror group) was made up by the real perpetrators.

They were extremists bent on revenge for the US involvement in the middle East. Its irrelevant if they belonged to any group. They sought justice for injustice.

maxdancona wrote:

1. Did airplanes actually fly into the Twin Towers?

Yes. I have a friend who was living in the city and witnessed the planes first handedly.

maxdancona wrote:

2. Were the planes actually hi-jacked by Atta and crew?

Yes, I have friends of friends who lost family members who were on those flights.

maxdancona wrote:

3. Was the shell-shocked look on President Bush's face an act? Did he know what was about to happen before hand?

He deserves an Oscar if he was pretending. I doubt he was pretending.

maxdancona wrote:

I am also going to want to know more about who was really behind it, and what the motives were.

Is it at all possible, even remotely possible that it was just a retaliation toward the US for its support for Israel against Palestine? Any possibilities st all? No? None?

maxdancona wrote:

I am really hoping to gain an understanding of the conspiracy theories.

I'll admit the US track record for being secretive lends itself room for conspiracies. But there are just too many factors that conspiracy nuts leave out that would need to be in place which are not.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Here is a video on building seven.

Take note of the burnt cars some thirty to forty feet from the building. Intense heat burned them.

Take note of the raging fire in building seven. Multiple floors with Windows broken due to heat. Some you can witness breaking as the fire moves.

Please note building seven was not designed in the traditional manner of rigid I beam construction. It was a modified shell construction so you can not compare it with standard I beam construction or how they behave during collapse. Its irrelevant comparison.

Take note at the beginning of the video showing how internal collapse happened prior to exterior movement.

This is why armchair engineer conspiracy nuts fail. They assume data and ignore other data. They desperately WANT it to be a conspiracy so they ignore any possible other reason.

Watch the whole video.
https://youtu.be/41UOo4pQuJU

1 Reply

@Krumple,

You are breaking the rules, Krumple. There are plenty of other threads for the argument that you are putting forward. If you want to argue these points, go to one of the other threads.

The entire premise of this thread is to accept a few key statements that I chose as core to a 9/11 conspiracy theory as facts. If you don't want to do this, go to one of the other threads.

If you can't accept the basic premises on this thread, then you aren't going to be able to participate in this discussion.

0 Replies

Plain and simple max (though likely not simple enough for you), what in the hell is wrong with you?

Oh, did that not fit the dumbass "rules" you are attempting to dictate? Too bad. Free board, free speech, free to say what I dang well want about this idiocy of yours.

Planes hit, one for each tower, fuel from the planes helped fuel the inferno which ultimately led to their collapse.

What next max, a thread where you decide to say nobody actually died, that all people were removed from the towers and the Pentagon before anything began and that the planes were being piloted by robots on planes with no passengers or crew?

2 Replies

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

Plain and simple max (though likely not simple enough for you), what in the hell is wrong with you?

Oh, did that not fit the dumbass "rules" you are attempting to dictate? Too bad. Free board, free speech, free to say what I dang well want about this idiocy of yours.

Planes hit, one for each tower, fuel from the planes helped fuel the inferno which ultimately led to their collapse.

What next max, a thread where you decide to say nobody actually died, that all people were removed from the towers and the Pentagon before anything began and that the planes were being piloted by robots on planes with no passengers or crew?

If you don't understand what Max is doing with this thread, maybe it's not the thread for you to participate in?

0 Replies

@Sturgis,

It is a standard method of intellectual inquiry first introduced to students in the second year of high school (at least in the US) . You accept a set of statements as givens and see if you can develop a set of logically consistent conclusions from them.

My stated goal is to understand the consequences of 9/11 truther theories, and to see if a logically consistent conspiracy theory is possible with this particular set of assumptions.

If you aren't interested in this exercise, go find another thread. There are plenty of threads on the topic... this one is coming at it from a unique perspective.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

3. Was the shell-shocked look on President Bush's face an act? Did he know what was about to happen before hand?

In all likelihood, he did know. His guilty demeanor illustrates that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjO-7ejWtMg

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

1. It is accepted as fact that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives that were carefully placed before the morning of 9/11.

Correct.

1. The existence of molten [2,800F] and vaporized steel [4800F+] at WTC shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that explosives were used to bring down WTCs 1, 2 and 7.

2. The existence of molybdenum [4,700F at WTC shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that explosives were used to bring down WTCs 1, 2 and 7.

3. The existence of vaporized lead [3,180F at WTC shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that explosives were used to bring down WTCs 1, 2 and 7.

4. The existence of molten iron microspheres [2,800F] at WTC shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that explosives were used to bring down WTCs 1, 2 and 7.

5. The molten steel [2,800++F] seen pouring out of WTC2 minutes before its collapse shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that explosives were used to bring down WTCs 1, 2 and 7.

6. Jet fuel and office furnishings burn at max, 1,800F and the actual fires at WTC were much lower than that. Therefore, none of these molten metals should have been present at WTC.

7. [Much more to come.]

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

2. It is accepted as fact that the link to Al Qaeda (or any other Islamic terror group) was made up by the real perpetrators.

On 911 the propaganda mill rolled and OBL was blamed for the attacks. Bush, Cheney, Blair, Powell, all the usual liars. Bremer was on the news within two hours of the hits proclaiming OBL.

The long promised proof never came from any of the above liars.

Only problem is the FBI has always said there is no evidence that OBL was involved in attacks on 911.

0 Replies

@camlok,

Quote:

His guilty demeanor illustrates that.

Why did the "reporter" jump in and save Bush? Why did all the "press corp" help in the grand distraction?

You all know that had that been Putin or some other US "bad guy" caught in such an obvious lie, you folks would be all over this like a lion on a wildebeest.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

1. It is accepted as fact that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives that were carefully placed before the morning of 9/11.

The twin towers fell at accelerating speed. This is simply NOT POSSIBLE. It goes against Newton's Third Law - Conservation of Momentum

"Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

For WTC1, that "one body" included, roughly speaking, the floors above the crash zone and the floors of the crash zone.

How could this much much smaller block, 19 floors, exert a force on the second much much much larger block, of much stronger materials as we go down, 91 floors plus 6 or 7 basement floors and continue to accelerate all the time?

Only one way that can happen - controlled demolition removing the supporting structure below. That is the only scenario that is consistent with Conservation of Momentum.

0 Replies

People voting down realities too harsh, too real for them to face.

Why would A2K even allow this for ADULTS?

0 Replies

Camlok,

Please stick to the questions of the thread (you are arguing things that are givens in this thread). This is a thread to understand your perspective of what really happened (not to rehash points that have already been argued ad nauseam).

So far you have answered one of the questions. You assert that George Bush did have foreknowledge of the attacks. (I would like to understand this better, but this is a good starting point,).

The other questions were.

1. Did airplanes actually fly into the Twin Towers?
2. Were the planes actually hi-jacked by Atta and crew?

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Please stick to the questions of the thread (you are arguing things that are givens in this thread). This is a thread to understand your perspective of what really happened (not to rehash points that have already been argued ad nauseam).

I did stick to those questions and pointed out a number of things that illustrate the complete impossibility of the US official conspiracy theory. Do you understand what "completely impossible" means?

1 Reply

@camlok,

This thread isn't about the "US official conspiracy theory". This is a thread about what you say "really happened" on 9/11. Forget about anything other than what really happened. You see, once you claim to have debunked the "official theory" you have to support and defend a theory on what really happened.

That is what I am asking for. If you can do this, you will go a long way to convincing me you are right. You asked me to have an open mind. On this thread, I have an open mind. An open mind means I have questions that I need answered for you to show me that you are right. Now answer the questions please.

Did planes hit the towers?

Did Atta and crew hijack these planes.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You see, once you claim to have debunked the "Official theory" you have to support and defend a theory on what really happened.

You know that is ludicrous and still you say it.

Police "debunk" things all the time by finding evidence to the contrary of the official/perpetrator story.

When they have government officials saying the equivalent of "there was no gun" when there is voluminous evidence for the gun, including the gun, powder burns on the body, bullet holes thru the building and body that match the gun, thinking people, as you would say yourself, are willing to consider these things.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

2. Were the planes actually hi-jacked by Atta and crew?

One point; over 300 CCTV cameras in, I think, Boston's Logan Airport and not one image of the alleged hijackers.

You can click on each point at the link at the bottom.

H. Consensus Points about Hijackers on 9/11

Point H-1: Mohamed Atta’s Mysterious Trip to Portland

Point H-2: The Claim that ‘Able Danger’ Failed to Identify Mohamed Atta’s Probable Presence in the US in January 2000 New, June 2016

NEW POINT, March 2017:
Point H-3: The Claim that the Hijackers Were Devout Muslims

NEW POINT, March 2017:
Point H-4: The Claim that Mohamed Atta Had Become a Fanatically Religious Muslim

http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/#Hijackers1

1 Reply

@camlok,

Thank you Camlok. I am not arguing on this thread. I am just asking questions with an open mind, trying to piece together what actually happened (given that the "official" story has been debunked). You have answered two of the three initial questions.

1) You said Bush did know about the plot to blow up the buildings beforehand.
2) You now say that Atta and crew did not hijack the planes (correct me if I misread your response).

That makes the third question pretty important (which you haven't answered yet)

Did airplanes hit the World Trade Center towers on 9/11? It is a "yes" or "no" question (although you can elaborate if you choose).

0 Replies

Here's a great 1.5 hour documentary that catalogs a guy who really had never heard much about 9-11 and the issues surrounding it. Then he heard one question and his whole world changed.

It's a great watch. My horses, dogs and cats loved it. They're still undecided.

THE ANATOMY OF A GREAT DECEPTION - Full Movie by DAVID HOOPER

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v2TAiyW54Q

1 Reply

What really happened on 9/11?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know