It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poll: The Truth of 9-11

page: 10
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Again, the authour of this thread asked, in his first post, that discussion of 9/11 be absent from this poll thread. He asked this so that people give their honest answer and are not intimidated by inevitably heated debate.

There is a thread partnered to this poll to discuss your thoughts surrounding 9/11. Please do not ruin the impartiality of this poll any more than it already has been.

[edit on 8/8/05 by subz]




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I vote c. 9-11 was an inside job; just like the OK bombing, columbine, and Pearl Harbor.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
there is absolute proof it was a very well planned - but sloppily-orchistrated inside job, that may have left more evidence of government involvement than oklahoma or even kennedy's '63 capping (it was '63 wasnt it??)



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandid
there is absolute proof it was a very well planned - but sloppily-orchistrated inside job, that may have left more evidence of government involvement than oklahoma or even kennedy's '63 capping (it was '63 wasnt it??)


So is that a 'C' vote?



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   

there is absolute proof it was a very well planned - but sloppily-orchistrated inside job, that may have left more evidence of government involvement than oklahoma or even kennedy's '63 capping (it was '63 wasnt it??)


Absolute proof eh? Those aren't words to be thrown around lightly. If there were truelly absolute proof of an inside job than the entire world would believe it wouldn't they? Instead of thinking these conspiracies are the results of a troubled imaginary mind? If you want to provide me with this absolute proof than please send me a message regarding it, as opposed to leading this thread off topic against the will of the author.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
C.

Letting it happen doesn't seem as plausible as A or C. While no one can seem to prove any of the 3, I lean towards C simply because of instincts. The government has lied and covered up 9/11 to hells end. When you lie you have something to hide.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
i see what i saw and i sadly think it is C



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   
From C to shining C



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 01:28 AM
link   
I'm going with C.

More logic, less fantasy.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 03:10 AM
link   
C-- I wish I can say A, or even B.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Put me down for B on the part that the Bu#es knew that an attack was coming. They didn't do nothing to stop the attacks from happening so that they could have a reason, and a lousy one at that, to go to war. It is true that Bush did have the Taliban at his Texas ranch before 9-11. Their deal for an oil pipeline fell through and thats why we were attacked, so Iraq had not a thing to do with 9-11 whatsoever.
As to the collapse of the towers, there is absolutely no way that those towers could have collapsed because of the fire inside. When the two planes hit the towers, a large majority of the kerosene-based jet fuel burned off. Besides in the hour after the North Tower was hit, most of the fires had run out of fuel to keep going.
But as to what happened at the Pentagon, I believe it was a plane that hit it, but not a Boeing 767-200 like they said it was. I figure it was an aircraft smaller than a 707, possibly a Navy S-3 or a Learjet that actually hit the Pentagon. This is because a 767-200 couldn't have struck the Pentagon with such precision.
As to what happened to Flight 93 over Pennsylvania, that is up for grabs. I, personally, believe that it was shot down by a fighter pilot that didn't know what was going on. This is due to the way the plane came down and how far the debris landed from the crash site. There is no way that a piece of aircraft debris could fly for 8 or 10 miles without the plane being blown out of the sky.

[edit on 08/07/2005 by gimmefootball400]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I personally feel like it was C. Although i could lean into B the lack of credibility that the government would actually tell us what happened makes me think none other than C.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
C. Inside Job

[edit on 9-8-2005 by TrueLies]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Latest tally



Last member surveyed - TrueLies

A. Accept the Official Story: cownosecat, deltaboy, Boatphone, djohnsto77, WestPoint23, microcosm, rhelt100, ThatsJustWeird, futuretense, T_Jesus, DaTerminator

B. Had Prior Knowledge: xmotex, infinite, Umbrax, Curio, Seekerof, Zaphod58, evanfitz, Hal9000, Tinkleflower, Ponderosa, Dazzler22, Koka, Seraphim_Serpente, silentlonewolf, gimmefootball400

C. Inside Job: syntaxer, NoJustice, Hunting Veritas, Sauron, Lordling, lost, DiRtYDeViL, PsychevolvedApe, mrmulder, thematrix, dh, AdamJ, PurityOfPeace, AlwaysLearning, whaaa, Seoul On Ice, wecomeinpeace, Misfit, StarBreather, maidenwolf, GrOuNd_ZeRo, TheShroudOfMemphis, Lanotom, ANOK, billybob, bsbray11, XyZeR, tandino, ilandrah, ShadowHasNoSource, LazarusTheLong, Subz, Benevolent Heretic, joi, MemoryShock, EastCoastKid, Jeremiah_John, negativenihil, Aldarion, RebelSaint, TxSecret, theRiverGoddess, metalmessiah, ancientofdays33, ThichHeaded, aelphaeis_mangarae, UFObeliever, Malkut, Roy Robinson Stewart, magnito_student, uknumpty, Souljah, Musclor, Voice_of Doom, Britman, MERC, JRex, CyberianHusky, xu, LoneGunMan, Raist, consprtrkr, Kandid, white4life420, RaiderJose, FallenFromTheTree, joyouslyhumored, BigPimpin, Nathabeanz, TrueLies

Unclear votes: AgentSmith, jonSUN

Abstaining/Conscientious Objector: HowardRoark, slank




Keep 'em comin'!



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
B and C.

It's not "if" they had prior knowledge, that is all over mainstream media. The question is if they were involved.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
How does 'B and C' tally? o.O


Originally posted by DaTerminator

there is absolute proof it was a very well planned - but sloppily-orchistrated inside job, that may have left more evidence of government involvement than oklahoma or even kennedy's '63 capping (it was '63 wasnt it??)


Absolute proof eh? Those aren't words to be thrown around lightly. If there were truelly absolute proof of an inside job than the entire world would believe it wouldn't they? Instead of thinking these conspiracies are the results of a troubled imaginary mind? If you want to provide me with this absolute proof than please send me a message regarding it, as opposed to leading this thread off topic against the will of the author.


Galileo had absolute proof, and look how the world treated him.

People will stick to their preconceptions.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
A for me.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   
B as a minimum for me.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
The realization of it makes me sick to my stomach.....

But my appetite for the truth and common sense led me to only one conclusion, C.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   
9/11 was part of a much larger plan. In order for the United States government to police the world, a major turning point had to occur. American mothers and fathers would not buy Clinton rhetoric throughout the 90's, but if a major conflict occurred on American soil by a foreign entity, mothers and fathers would buy it, up to the point, of placing their own children's lives on the line.

George W. Bush is a very calculating man. He has a mission. He agreed that he would continue the global mission the moment he took up the run for the presidential office. The global mission does not entail freedom or fellowship, it entails enslavement and oppression. But again, American mothers and fathers would not buy into it without serious outcry. 9/11 was the turning point. 9/11 raised enough outcry via panic, hysteria and/or fear, that the mothers and fathers demanded justice.

Now, in 2005, mothers and fathers see that maybe, just maybe, this justice was not quite what it was cracked up to be. Even a crack, even a maybe.

The only way Bush and his friends/associates could prevail is if he and his circle can conitnue to keep the trust of the majority of mothers and fathers in this country (and the world). Because if the mothers and fathers of America shout at the top of their lungs: Bush, f*** off, the entire structure or the global plan (Commonwealth of Nations) comes undone.

So far, Bush has maintained the (overall) trust of the mothers and fathers of America. And Bush or whoever gets into office in 2008, 2012, 2016, so on and so forth, must also keep the trust of the majority of the mothers and fathers in America. If not, then, and only then, will this shell game, this global nightmare, this 9/11 ordeal, will begin to lose its momentum, begin to crack, and take us back to who and what America is really all about...no, not to George Washington, a bit farther back. Just a bit back beyond a man named Charles Cotesworth Pinckney...to a time where only 13 states could beat an entire nation called Britain. To a time, where the US Declaration of Independence meant something, and to a time where, the Articles of Confederation was the backbone of Americans.

So few understand who and what an American is. Of course, before we can even understand who and what we are as a people, we must break the mothers and fathers away from the (Alexander) Hamiltons or the elitist families and tyrannical governments they've, over the last 200 years or so, have come to know as justice, truth and freedom.

And so, yes, Bush orchestrated 9/11. He played a crucial role in bringing in the reign of the new world order. Bush knows full well what the plan is all about, and where it must go in the future...dragging the mothers and fathers of America by their shirt tails over and through mud and blood. One does not see Bush sending one of his precious daughters into battle in Iraq, why? Because as a father he knows better, he cherishes his daughter...as for your own daughter (or son), he spits on their grave, and shrugs it off with a laugh.

9/11, the great train robbery........ALL ABROAD!


Thanks for your time, Edward



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join