What's your theory about 9/11?

Oliver Stone, feeling that his career was in a bit of the doldrums, arranged the entire thing so he could make a riveting dramatization of the event.
 
Brainache said:
Have we forgotten Max Photon and Ace Baker so soon?
Click to expand...


Max had more theories on more topics than I have had beers since I reached legal drinking age. AFAIK, he never had a single coherent theory.

Ace originally only cared about dustification, and when Judy jilted him, he moved on to his CGI nonsense. Again, he never had a theory meant to incorporate all of the evidence from that day.
 
Brainache said:
Have we forgotten Max Photon and Ace Baker so soon?
Click to expand...

In regards to Max, I almost mentioned his name to Homeland Insurgency. Even though HI may have read some of Max's theory, I held back in mentioning
that because it would've just given HI more stupid to argue with.
 
I'm of two minds on this.

Living in Hong Kong and under the English system, I think that 9/11 generally follows 8/11 and is, in turn followed by 10/11.

But my American side is at odds with my recent lifestyle. Considering my roots and upbringing, I often think that 9/11 is actually preceded by 9/10 and followed by 9/12.

Math(s) not being my long suit, I don't know if I'll ever settle this conundrum.
 
carlitos said:
I agree with the findings of the 9/11 Commission, and the additional information I have read like Lawrence Wright's excellent The Looming Tower. Al Qaeda planned, financed and conducted a terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, by simultaneously hijacking 4 aircraft and crashing them into 3 out of 4 of their targets. The 4th jet was crashed to the ground once the passengers figured out what was going on. The World Trade Center 1 & 2 suffered structural damage due to plane impact and fires and collapsed. WTC 7 suffered damage from being struck by WTC debris and fire and collapsed.

Here is a thread where those who believe alternative explanations can post their best theory. Post your theory as to who / what / when / how the attacks of 11-September, 2001 were planned, financed and executed.

PLEASE DO NOT JUST 'ASK QUESTIONS' IN THIS THREAD. Post your theory, or the alternative theory that you find most credible.
Click to expand...
With a purposeful grimace and a terrible sound he pulls WTC 7 down.
Go go Godzilla :)
 
There was a malfunction in the inverted tachnotronic disbursement ray when the time travelers left for their own time.
 
I was hoping to finally see a complete theory from a truther.

I am very disappointed.

It is almost like truthers do not even click threads like these.
 
Hokulele said:
All of the rest make it quite clear that they do not have any theories (RedIbis in particular), but are only here to attempt to poke holes in what they call the "Official Theory".
Click to expand...

And what exactly is wrong with that?
 
It was obviously Magneto.

1. Who else has the power to bring down steel buildings without a trace of explosives?

2. He blatantly hates humanity.

3. He's evil.

4. It wouldn't be the first time he pulled something like this.

5. He's openly bent on world domination.

6. He's jewish!


Case closed. Magneto did it. All the evidence fits, man.
 
RedIbis said:
And what exactly is wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Not a thing, Red. As long as you don't mind that we poke holes in your holes. Pretty soon there's nothing but whole holes, though, and no concrete theories. And since the thread title seems to be about actual theories, the fact that now we know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall doesn't really address his question.

So the short answer would've been,

RedIbis: No.
 
RedIbis said:
And what exactly is wrong with that?
Click to expand...


Hi RedIbis. I give you some points for at least posting in this thread, something other Truthers have thus far avoided.

As to your question above, the thing that's wrong with simply trying to poke holes in the "OCT" without offering any cogent alternative theory is that it's ultimately impotent. You see, I believe the OCT not because I'm a Bush loyalist (voted against him twice, more if they'd have let me) or think America can do no wrong. I believe it because by far, it's the theory that best fits all the available evidence. I've yet to see an alternative theory that can even stand on its own weight without collapsing into a mess of self-contradictions, never mind be able to explain the evidence. Thus right now, the OCT is the only theory that makes any sense. And I see nothing currently on the horizon that has even a remote chance to compete with it.

Now of course, as with any theory there's going to be some minor odds and ends that taken at face value may look a little odd or anomalous. Here's an example. Let's say you accept the theory that the moon is much closer to Earth than the stars, since it makes so much sense and the evidence for it is so strong. Yet I know of people who insist that they have seen stars within the dark portion of a sliver moon. Such a sight should be impossible under the current moon theory. Should we then toss it out, along with everything that we know, to accommodate the evidence presented by these eyewitnesses? Do we invent some bizarre and convoluted theory to incorporate this evidence? Or do we simply accept that these reports are flawed or misinterpreted -- perhaps the witesses misremembered, or mistook a slow moving satellite for a star.

It seems to me that the 9/11 CT movement consists entirely of equally specious bits and pieces, minor misconceptions and errors that add up to nothing. That these little anomalous bits exist speaks not at all to the viability of the OCT. However, the fact that however you choose to connect the dots, no other theory can even be articulated with a straight face, speaks volumes. Because until CTers have such a theory, one that can be examined and stands up to scrutiny better than the OCT does, then what Truthers are doing amounts to little more than barking at the moon.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom