Poll: The Truth of 9-11

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
ThatsJustWeird, when I say, or anyone else here, says "inside job," or "government involvement," we're not ignorantly suggesting that all government employees orchestrated 9/11. What we mean, just so you know, is that the higher-up officials and heads of intelligence, etc., were involved in its planning an execution. "Government" is just easier to say than all of that jazz. It goes understood that everyone knows what we mean.

Let's examine how you just dodged a point or two here in your last post:

You say the Bush Admin couldn't have brought in so many corrupt people with it, because only so many changed when Bush arrived.

I agree with AlwaysLearning, as would any educated person, and say the gov's been corrupt for years, citing examples of scandals.

You respond:


The Bush administration wasn't in office for all those things.
That's where you're getting mixed up. I'm talking about the Bush admin, you're talking about the federal government.
Who said they weren't corrupt btw?


Thereby you totally switched points, and therefore this is totally irrelevant.

Who was behind those scandals btw? Were all 3 million employees behind Watergate? Were all 3 million behind Iran-Contra, Ruby Ridge, Waco? Or do you just deny any of those ever took place? Because if you accept they happened, and deny all 3 million people did it, then you are thereby agreeing with what I'm saying. Otherwise you're just being stubborn. It's common knowledge that higher-up officials do things without the consent of everyone else working in the gov! I don't see how you can possibly argue otherwise and simultaneously say that you know history. It's mind-boggling.

You say in order for it to be a conspiracy, all 3 million people in the gov would have to know about it.

I say that's total bs. There are different levels of gov, and the intelligence agencies could very well have done it themselves. Only a few would have to know.

You respond:


Dude, that's what I'm saying.
There are over 3 million people in the federal government (not including contractors and military). YOU'RE the one saying those 3 million+ planned and carried out the attacks if you're blaming the government.


You do not understand how the executive branch and its agencies and Congress interact. At all. Nor do you understand my claims, because I never said three million people were in on it.

Members of Bush's Admin (ie, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft) have denied information to both the public and Congress alike on several times since 9/11 regarding various figures and intelligence. An example of this is the Bush Admin's reluctance to give figures to Congress on how it's been using the Patriot Act. Congress has no idea how often the Bush Admin has been using the Patriot Act to invade people's privacy. That fact alone shatters your black and white thought that if one person knows, everyone must know. But to go further, ir's common knowledge that the CIA works with information that they don't have to let anyone without permission see. That's the whole "classified" thing, in case you've never heard of that word. It applies to people in the government as well. They don't have to submit their budget figures, let alone what they've spent it on or what they've been doing to Congress, or anyone else. Your average Joe Congressman from Kansas or Idaho doesn't have any idea what the CIA is doing, besides what they come out and say they're doing. It's likely that party leaders don't either. The CIA doesn't have to tell Congress what it's doing. If you disagree with this then you're simply ignorant and I cannot further respond. I apologize.


Did you even read my post?
I'll post it again...

"Only the heads of these agencies are put in place by the President/Senate. That's his administration. Everyone else has been there for years (unless of course they're new hires). The government has close to 3,000,000 employees. You didn't think all 3 mil are part of the Bush admin did you?"

Please explain how that is discrediting you in an "amateurish" way?
I explained the difference between the Bush admin and the federal government as a whole. As evident by your previous post, you didn't know that info so I provided. In no way did I discredit anything.


Lol, you forgot the
. It's called mockery.




If they wanted to do it, they certainly could, and I don't think anyone here can deny that. At any rate, the CIA alone could do it if you think al Qaeda could.


I didn't think that was too hard to understand. x.x

In short, I ask you two simple questions:

A) Do you deny that Teapot Dome, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Ruby Ridge, or Waco took place?

B) If not, do you think all 3 million employees participated in each event?

Let's see your answers.




posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
While you should feel free to add a comment with your vote, I also humbly request that we keep this thread free from debates on the issue itself and thereby attempt to avoid an atmosphere where members feel intimidated for their vote.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ
While you should feel free to add a comment with your vote, I also humbly request that we keep this thread free from debates on the issue itself and thereby attempt to avoid an atmosphere where members feel intimidated for their vote.


I agree. Apologies.


ThatsJustWeird, if you want to start another thread, maybe you can start it in response to my last post. I have a feeling there haven't been any threads to date on the subject of what we're discussing.

[edit on 12-7-2005 by bsbray11]


joi

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Big FatC

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Wanna Say C but for the time being i have to say B, because lets face it they knew it was coming.

The envolvment thing needs to be properly prooved, saying that i think im just at the point where i can no longer believe that a 757 hit the pentagon after watching a few Docu's try to proove it did with the folding plane theory.... which lets face it is nover gonna happen again (nore before for that matter!), utter BS!

Daz Out...



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   

A) Do you deny that Teapot Dome, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Ruby Ridge, or Waco took place?


Are you comparing the Teapot Dome, Watergate and Iran-Contra to 9/11????

Those "scandals" are NOTHING close to what you claim the government did on 9/11.

Ruby Ride and Waco are not even government cover-up they are just things that happened.


Get a clue...its A!

[edit on 12-7-2005 by Boatphone]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone

A) Do you deny that Teapot Dome, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Ruby Ridge, or Waco took place?


Are you comparing the Teapot Dome, Watergate and Iran-Contra to 9/11????

Those "scandals" are NOTHING close to what you claim the government did on 9/11.

Ruby Ride and Waco are not even government cover-up they are just things that happened.


Get a clue...its A!

[edit on 12-7-2005 by Boatphone]


Gah.. x.x

I wasn't talking to you and that was taken out of context. If you want to start another thread, I suppose you can go ahead too. But just so you know, Waco was an attempted cover-up, but it just wasn't very convincing. The government has not recognized it as a massacre to this day, maintaining their cover stories and pretending to "investigate".



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
In the book 1984, George Orwell did an aside on the history of class struggle where he concluded that the lower class would always remain lower and the upper and middle would be the interplay......pretty much, the upper class always had to succumb to advancements from the middle class.
It was then noted by Orwell that the upper class could never truly stay in power.

I had finished reading the book prior to 9/11, in fact a couple weeks prior. And when the planes hit, it occurred to me that the upper class(for lack of more definitive term) could remain atop the hierarchy if they destoryed society and rebuilt it themselves............

Though I don't think Bush Administration proper and specifically..........I completely submit option C.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I agree. Apologies.


ThatsJustWeird, if you want to start another thread, maybe you can start it in response to my last post. I have a feeling there haven't been any threads to date on the subject of what we're discussing.

Done
politics.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
C. Without question.




posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   
C. Inside Job.

There are far, far too many coincidences that allowed them to complete their mission.

The odds that they got completely away with it without assistance from the top down are about 1,000,000 to 1.

Everything from blocking local FBI investigations, to intercepters never scrambling (it's 20 straight miles from Andrews to the Pentagon) show that things went way too well for the hijackers.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   
This turned out to be a great thread wecomeinpeace!


My respect for ATS and 83.67% (and climbing) of it's members has gone WAY UP!!


You have voted wecomeinpeace for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   


While you should feel free to add a comment with your vote, I also humbly request that we keep this thread free from debates on the issue itself and thereby attempt to avoid an atmosphere where members feel intimidated for their vote.


After noticing several long comments throughout this thread, someone pointed the above comment out to me. Just thot I'd remind everybody to keep it short and sweet, as per the author's request.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
oops.. forgot - and go here:
politics.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
No doubt in my mind, C. a big portion of this is due to the science....



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I'll go with C, Inside job. Politics of fear.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
As a New Yorker and considering my mother worked in the South Tower and was saved by a heroic firefighter and came home covered in dust and debris I have come to accept the harsh truth of it all. I too was duped into believing 19 radical Islamists hit us and hit us hard. Then all the 911 coincidences and anamolies began to surface. Too many disturbing questions. Too many people not doing their jobs and looking the other way while the 21st century version of Pearl Harbor had been established. By the way I mean Pearl Harbor as it actually is meant to be used as in the government KNEW the attacks were coming and was complicit to justify entering a war planned long ago under the guise of sudden attack from hostile foreigners.

Oops almost forgot to vote.... C for Inside Job and an F for the coverup you fourth reichian bastard children of Satan.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   
.
You have excluded the possibility that it was some kind of inside job not necessarily connected with the Bush administration.

It could be in a post cold-war world some small military cabal did it to garner support for the military, to give them a reason for being.

There is the possibility that a small group of Israelis who want to create empathy and continued support for israel did it.

There are commerical interests who could be seen to benefit from this.
Building owners to avoid Eventual prohibitive Demolition costs of the WTC and collect insurance? [of course they would have to battle the insurance company, but if the government prevented that the insurers would be SOL]

Some war profiteer such as Haliburton or others who wanted to get the US into a war to make billions of dollars. Remember 9 billion dollars is unaccounted for in Iraq. Imagine several billion tax-free dollars in income, that would be a sweet pot.

The sad point is no careful forensics were ever done, which makes everyone look potentially guilty.

It could be that Bush & crew didn't know it was comming, but after it happened they played along and obscured any other explanation than muslim terrorists, because his presidency was struggling very deep in opinion polls. That was one gift-horse they didn't want to look too deeply in the mouth.

While polls may be political indicators, and in some instances initiate action, polls are pretty well divorced from the truth of what and why it happened.
ie. they prove nothing except what suspicions people have or don't.
.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
This is easy.. A big fat C



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Hey wcip, got a new tally?

Surprised HR, BP, and SV didn't mark down their C's yet.

I'm sure they want to but are still just a bit confused with all the new info Rove-ing.





top topics
 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join