My super controversial idea!

[Fallious]

I was thinking about 9/11 just now and I had a thought, which was entirely mine and a completely original theory which I think is quite interesting...

What if 9/11 didn't happen on 9/11?

I know some people are going to find this confusing or difficult to accept but I think it's important to discuss the possiblity that the events of 'that day' didn't actually happen on September 11th.

Do you actually remember the day that it happend first hand? I don't remember looking at the date except from seeing the time and date on the news tickers and radio announcements! A lot of the world actually keeps track of the date by the news and radio announcements in the morning. So what stopped them from changing the date on this day?

By moving 9/11 to another day, any attempt to investigate the events in court will naturally result in failure. When key witnesses are finally forced to testify under oath they will legaly be able to say that on 9/11 they genuinely weren't where they were!

Assuming all the news reports were rigged, we can safely say that most of the world will believe that the attacks happend on 9/11/01 when in fact they might have been any other day!

- Remember how the phrase 9/11 was invented even on the day! It was all over the newspapers the next morning..
- Many people report not going to work, and being confused about what they should do on the day..
- The pentagon crash video shows 9/12 on its date..
- Other videos also have inccorect dates.
- The WTC planes on 9/11 didn't take off that day.
- There are conflicting reports of the location of key administration members on 9/11, but not the other days of the week?
- Jeb bush announced marshal law before 9/11, or did he?

This is the most cunning way to commit a crime I have ever seen! By doing the attacks on another day, but making everyone think it was 9/11 anyone who knows the real date has an absolutely water tight alibi in court!

What do you think?

disclaimer: For anyone who might be a little slow, this theory is a 'Turd Sandwich'. Even so, it's theoretical grounding, even from just a few minutes of thinking about what I know of 9/11 is about as solid as i've seen from the No Plane and Beam Weapon analysis. Sure, it's not a multi page farse, but I hope i've shown how the myriad of conflicting data of the day can be used to argue pretty much any theory as long as you throw out a basic tennant of logic or evidence. If anyone is interested in enhancing this theory please do so, it would be interesting to see how convincing we can make it.

[Ally]

[Fallious]

[scubadiver]

Sadly Fallacious, as funny as it sounds, I remember that day quite distinctly because Reading played West Ham in the league cup as most other teams played that night.

I was in the bar before the game watching the footage.

http://www.royals.org/matdoc/110901.html

As a postcript, I accepted the story only until April of this year after watching F9/11 and reading "The 9/11 Comission: Omissions and distortions"

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

I remember the date because it was the day a family member died in a hospice having suffered terribly from cancer

[Fallious]

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm entirely convinced 9/11 was an inside job. There's ample evidence of that.

The problem is, when people start theorizing about the validity of evidence which is normally unquestionable, and stating that their reason for questioning that evidence is BECAUSE it's traditionally unquestionable. It does not, enhance the debate. It does not expose new evidence. It specially does not explain events in a more reasonable or understandable way.

Yet this is exactly what No Plane theory does. Let me say now that I find parts of this theory compelling, but it can only BE compelling on the basis that there was total media compliance and impossibly pre-produced materials, and that is impossible, thus the few compelling points in the theory are rendered void. It's also worth noting that no court will ever reject the video evidence of 9/11 based on the current analysis by No Plane theorists and who would they have the court prosecute I wonder?

[Fallious]

[scubadiver]

[Ally]

[Fallious]

Mods please keep this on topic, I wanted to discuss Turd Sandwich theory.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Fallious]

They are real, but they are light frequency weapons designed for use on humans. There is no evidence that they can be used for targets larger than missiles, let alone Towers. There is no evidence that they can be used to vaporise anything, let alone thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel, the only damage described in the documentary is minimal heat damage.

You see? What you need to find is a device which can vaporise vast quantities of steel and concrete in seconds. It should be fairly easy to find similar examples to the WTC's.. I have undisputed evidence of time manipulation in the Pentagon video, i'm sure you could at least get something as good as that. Get to it.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

RUTRHE BVMU

[paul wright]

[andrewwatson]

[Fallious]

[Fallious]

Why has this been moved to critics corner when no other No Plane discussions, or various pet Theory threads have been moved?

Critics corner is for "critics of the 9/11 Truth Campaign". Surely it's perfectly evident in my various posts, this included, that i'm no truth critic?

[paul wright]

[Andrew Johnson]

It was moved because of a somewhat offensive title - which I took not to be a serious discussion.

If you edit the 1st post and change the title to something like "I reject the 'No Planes' or 'NBB' idea because...." then I will move it back. By all means make it more witty or catchy, but not rude and ridiculous. And obviously if that's not what you *were* discussing, change the title to something more representative. This is a 9/11 forum not a faecal snack forum.

You might need to explain the "delayed fireball" while you're at it though.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=35852#35852

Thanks

Andrew

[Fallious]

Thanks Andrew, I appreciate the opportunity to change it.

As for the delayed fireball... I read that from you a while back, it's an opinion that confuses me a great deal.

I never found any of the video of 9/11 (except the pentagon movie) suspicious until I read some NPT articles. When the fireball delay is specifically pointed out, I can see why you might think it takes too long. However I don't see how a fireball acting a little uncannily allows you to embrace an entirely unfounded chain of events which so blatantly flout logical explanation.

As for the actual fireball, I personally think it's exactly as you would expect to see in a genuine crash.

Recall the movie someone (perhaps you?) posted in a previous thread of the bomber crashing and exploding. Really all you have to do to accurately translate this to the WTC's is to take scale and momentum into account....

- Consider, that the air plane fuel presumably ignited as the engines and fuel tanks impacted the building, from sparks or the engines exploding, as can be seen in most impact videos.

- So the fuel and initial explosion source is moving at roughly 500 MPH into the heart of the building. This simple fact makes me wonder why people would expect explosions on the impact side first, but I digress...

- Now take a look at the bomber video, how long does it take the fireball to reach it's extent and burn out? About a second right? Well there's your one second delay right there,

- But we also have the problem that instead of being in open air, the fuel is contained in an extremely restricted space. I can't imagine there being enough oxygen inside the impact floors to feed the fireball which is why the body of it exploded outside the opposite wall once it had made it outside the building, back into oxygen rich air.

Google 'backdrafts'. It's a very similar phenomenon that fire fighters face, where if they open a door or window to allow oxygen to a starved fire, after a second or so the fire can explode violently out of the opening, chasing the new oxygen source.

Backdraft video's tend to look EXACTLY like what happened with the WTC fireball. We know that even after the impact the small fires inside the WTC were oxygen starved, so I think a backdraft scenario is very likely considering the oxygen requirements of 10,000 gallons igniting all at once.

I'm not sure of this, but I expect it probably also created a vacuum inside the towers, just like a match sucking a boiled egg into a bottle. Perhaps this is another factor of the 'intake' of fire, smoke and such created immediately as the plane entered the building.

Anyhow, I guess that isn't so obvious. I think I must have learned about backdrafs on 999 and the vacum is just a little extra logic which seems to follow on.

[Andrew Johnson]

I will just comment briefly here - as this is turning in circles similar to how the CD argument did on the Physics board last year ago.

My view is that the 2 crashes in the videos are similar enough to have much less difference in the fireball ignition period - as an additional point, the WTC "plane" was almost certainly travelling faster than the B52.

Also, there are a great many other anomalies regarding the plane impacts, not just the "delayed firefball" and you can find these written in articles by Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood, already referenced.

I personally haven't seen any strong rebuttals to the anomalous evidence they hightlight - just mainly "well witnesses reported jets hitting" and "the planes WOULD behave like that".

Over the past 3 or 4 months I have considered the NBB evidence and agree with those who state that the video evidence contradicts the laws of physics (the delayed fireball being my current favourite element - perhaps because it is the most obvious to me).

[Bushwacker]

That 9/11 did not happen on 9/11 is a truly original idea that full deserves its place among the oddball ideas about that day; no planes, no Boeings, thermate, inside job, cruise missiles, bumble planes, voice technology, beam weapons, Marmite, RDX, LIHOP, MIHOP, stand-down, the list is endless and since there is no evidence for any of them, it is interesting that truthshirkers establish an order of precedence. This appears to be based on plausibility, which shows at least some grasp of it, even if as yet undeveloped.

Meanwhile the bold pioneers are forever pushing forward the boundaries of plausibility, and the wrong date pushes out in a new direction, while beam weapon pushes out in another. As John White quite rightly says, soon we shall have aliens. In fact I think alien technology definitely helps along the beam weapons case and NPT as well. Plane debris was probably introduced both to the Pentagon and WTC using a transporter beam, which would explain why that big piece on the Pentagon lawn was wrong-handed or inside out or whatever it is this week.

NOTE This thread was in Critics' Corner when I posted on it!

[John White]

[Patrick Brown]

[John White]

Well PB, there going to find it anyway. And what can we conclude from that footage?

Absolutely nothing

What my post may illustrate, for those with their eyes open, is that one can accept a great deal of things and still see no reason to accept No Planes or Beam weapons without question

This campaign is defined by the need to accurately define the reality of events surrounding 9/11

(BTW I have a certain intuition that the UFO was dropping off passengers, but its no more than that: Intuition. Intuition without reason is as imbalanced (and useless) as reason without imagination. I dont question the footage as genuine though, the difficulties with faking that image would be substantial)

[Fallious]

Looks like some people are slowly coming round to the TRUE events of 'that day'. Here's some more 'evidence' that came to me while I slept!

- FEMA documents state that it set up emergency treatment centres in New York on 9/10 a day before we date we were lead to believe the attacks took place!
- All the CCTV footage taken from buildings around the Pentagon because it showed the wrong date too.
- New York had a majority of people calling for the truth long before the rest of America.. why? because they saw the thing first hand and were not brainwashed by the news ticker times!

By ignoring and subverting normally indisputable evidence, and discounting the majority of counter evidence or witnesses as plants, I can build a case for my 'Not 9/11' theory. Just like 'No Planes' and 'Beam Weapons' this requires that believers ignore the bare faced facts of the day, and instead favour a chain of events which aim to explain minor anomalies, rather than the events as a whole.