ATS 9/11 Conspiracy Survey Results, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times


reply posted on 10-7-2006 @ 05:38 PM by Harte
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Our first question asked, "Do you believe there are one or more conspiracies related to the events of 9/11/2001?" Three quarters of all respondents indicated they do indeed feel there is some level of conspiracy. The remaining respondents were evenly split between uncertain and believing there are no conspiracies. While at first glance, the large number of respondents believing in conspiracies may seen appropriate for a "conspiracy theory" website, we are somewhat surprised at the relatively small percentage indicating "no". Given the broad reach of AboveTopSecret.com, and the high visibility of some "debunking" members, we expected the "no" response to be higher.


Skeptic,

Perhaps you should consider that there can be no doubt at all that there was a conspiracy involved, regardless of whether you believe in a government conspiracy.

Think of the definition of the word "conspiracy" and you'll see that even if the attacks were planned, financed and executed by the men blamed by the "official" story, it would still be a conspiracy - a conspiracy of Arab Terrorists!

Given that fact, the question becomes "Why would anybody at all vote anything but 'yes' on that question?"

Originally posted by SkepticOverlordMore than half of all respondents agree while only 21% disagree with the idea that orchestrated terrorist events will occur in the future.

Your survey in no way supports this statement.

You asked "Do you believe persons within the United States government, or government agencies, are planning future events designed to appear as terrorist attacks?" You did not ask if we believed that such plans would be carried out. Hence, you cannot say whether any statistical population agrees or disagrees "with the idea that orchestrated terrorist events will occur in the future."

Given revelations about previous plans the government has made, and recognizing that all imaginable contigencies must be planned for to some extent by various parts of any government, it's just silly to vote any way other than "I agree" on this question of planning, while reserving judgement on whether such activities will actually be executed.

Assuming, of course, that honest answers are desired.

Harte

[edit on 7/10/2006 by Harte]


reply posted on 10-7-2006 @ 09:45 PM by bsbray11
I hope this isn't too off-topic. :-/

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I asked for theories with credible evidence to back it up. And haven't been debunked already


Steven Jones' paper has been "debunked"? By other scholars, or by people on internet forums that have a chip on their shoulder and a weak sense of fairness? Have a link or something?

The three questions you raised have simple answers. Quick run-down:

For how they got into the building, look at the company that ran security on the buildings. That company was supposed to prevent things like explosives being brought in, among other things, and was actually ran by Marvin Bush for years after the '93 bombing. (Btw, I wouldn't *dream* that he would have anything to do with an elitist family that got wealthy off of banking for the Nazis, and then going into the oil business, with George Sr. even serving a very high position within the CIA. I would definitely trust a WTC security company being run by a Bush.) The simple answer to your question would be that the explosives were allowed in with security clearance by the WTC security company, which was 'in on it' at the top. It would have come in the form of various maintenances, which have been reported by WTC employees, though all the maintenance logs and tapes and etc. were destroyed on or after 9/11, and the Port Authority isn't talking.

Why didn't explosives go off on the impacts? Who says none did? Watch the impact videos and you'll see the same fine concrete powder jetting in large amounts out of both buildings ahead of the fireballs. Look at a range of photos and you'll realize that the concrete ejections appear to have come out perpindicular to the buildings' facades, too, rather than in line with the plane trajectories.



Why didn't explosives go off during the fires? Because some explosives take very high amounts of heat or pressure to initiate. Thermite, for example, could only be set afire by some kind of detonator that would expose it to very high temperatures (that hydrocarbon fires could never reach alone). Explosives like C4 can similarly be thrown into fires and not go off, depending on how many plasticizers are in it. Were you unaware of this?

Nothing like this has EVER happened before in the history of the human race so please show me credible evidence (meaning you've tested everything) that buildings and surrouding buildings would not have reacted the way they did.


Impact damages to the structure were about >15% of columns severed (see the FEMA Report, 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2.2; NIST impact modeling), and less damaged or etc., while skyscrapers are built to be massively redundant (at least over 50% redundant; WTC were no exceptions, see column safety factor ratings). Therefore the fires would've had to have failed most of the structure on any given floor. What there is no precedence for, is fire ever doing anything like that to a skyscraper. The impacts just didn't do enough damage to make it that easy on the fires.

I'm also STILL waiting for someone with credible info to explain away the terrorists...


You mean the patsies? What about them needs to be explained away?

That's kind of like asking a JFK researcher to explain away Oswald if the CIA actually had a hand.

I'll try not to divert this into a stereotypical 9/11 thread though.



reply posted on 10-7-2006 @ 09:51 PM by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by Harte
Think of the definition of the word "conspiracy" and you'll see that even if the attacks were planned, financed and executed by the men blamed by the "official" story, it would still be a conspiracy - a conspiracy of Arab Terrorists!

Given the context in which the questions were asked, a website with a primary focus on conspiracy theories that focus on government wrong-doing, I think the wording is concise, clear, and unmistakable that we're referring to a conspiracy within the government.


Hence, you cannot say whether any statistical population agrees or disagrees "with the idea that orchestrated terrorist events will occur in the future."

Now I think you're looking for hairs to split.
The question: Do you believe persons within the United States government, or government agencies, are planning future events designed to appear as terrorist attacks?
This is clearly the indication of expected future events, not "Northwoods-styled" protocols to be filed under "if we want to attack America".


There is much ado over very little in many responses. This is clearly a voluntary unscientific survey of people who visit a conspiracy theory website. The number of respondents is now getting close to 2,200, and the overall percentages are still so close to the original analysis there's no point in updating. However, it's interesting to note that the percentages are holding steady, even with 2/3 of the responses now coming form non-members.


reply posted on 10-7-2006 @ 10:23 PM by dgtempe
Originally posted by WestPoint23


Oh really? YOU know? Well that has so much credibility, your self asserted view that YOU KNOW and that everyone else who disagrees with you is in denial or unintelligent is not the way to go. Read what another members said in the previous page about being too confident about yourself and about ridiculing others who disagree with you. C’mon DG you have proven to be better than that, don't let me loose my faith now.
I'm sorry Look, i was wound up about the people who dont care one way or another. I know so many people who dont care- seriously, its driving me crazy. By not caring i mean if you bring up something that happened that day, newsworthy, they look at me and say "Well, i dont care- i only care about what happens to me" Hello? Isnt whats happening in the world important? Maybe its just me, WestPoint. I 'm an Aquarian and i am way out there worrying about politics, the constellation, my faith, children starving, i take it all in and worry about it all. Others do not care one bit. I did not mean to say "ditch your friends because they dont know anything"- I sure did, though. I am sorry i said that, because i did not mean to be so narrow-minded as to think that everyone should think like me or else they're nuts.
Anyway, my apologies to that poster and to everyone here.
And thank you for pointing it out, because that is not how i am. I was ignorant in saying that, but it was triggered up by my own feelings and wonder of why some people i know and love can live in this world and not care about anything.


reply posted on 11-7-2006 @ 10:26 AM by ThatsJustWeird
Originally posted by bsbray11
Steven Jones' paper has been "debunked"? By other scholars, or by people on internet forums that have a chip on their shoulder and a weak sense of fairness? Have a link or something?

Several people have given their reasons why they have dismissed that paper...
This is a link within a link in this thread www.geocities.com...


The three questions you raised have simple answers. Quick run-down:

The simple answer to your question would be that the explosives were allowed in with security clearance by the WTC security company, which was 'in on it' at the top. It would have come in the form of various maintenances, which have been reported by WTC employees, though all the maintenance logs and tapes and etc. were destroyed on or after 9/11, and the Port Authority isn't talking.

lol
Ok, so
1) the security company was in on it
2) the demoliton company was in on it

The security company willingly allowed a demolition company for several weeks (because that's how long - if not longer - it would take to wire a building like the WTC) to come in and set explosive. All this went magically unnoticed. 5 years later, still not a peep from either companies. Please, please tell me what these companies were that purposely killed thousands of Americans with no problem and why?

Why didn't explosives go off on the impacts? Who says none did? Watch the impact videos and you'll see the same fine concrete powder jetting in large amounts out of both buildings ahead of the fireballs.

What?
LMAO!! I take it you've never seen an explosion before. You see, when something explodes inside of something, the explosion causes whatever was surrounding it to *shocker* explode. That air, fire, and pressure want to get out, so they push whatever's in their way out of the way.

Look at a range of photos and you'll realize that the concrete ejections appear to have come out perpindicular to the buildings' facades, too, rather than in line with the plane trajectories.

Wow, are you serious?
Those "ejections" went north and south as well. They went in every direction known to man. It was a explosion. Not sure what your point is?

Why didn't explosives go off during the fires? Because some explosives take very high amounts of heat or pressure to initiate. Thermite, for example, could only be set afire by some kind of detonator that would expose it to very high temperatures (that hydrocarbon fires could never reach alone).

So...whatever detonated the thermite somehow survived the crash, explosion, and fires as well?

Explosives like C4 can similarly be thrown into fires and not go off, depending on how many plasticizers are in it. Were you unaware of this?

You still haven't explained why they lasted over an hour. You still haven't explained how they somehow stayed in their exact spots (in a CD, placement is critical). You still haven't explained why no one ever saw these explosives. And you still haven't shown me that a plane couldn't have done all that.

Therefore the fires would've had to have failed most of the structure on any given floor.

On the impacted floors the fire and damage was significant enough for those floors to fail. I take it you have credible evidence to suggest the chain reaction that would be sure to follow would just somehow defy the laws of physics and stop?


You mean the patsies? What about them needs to be explained away?

Why did they spend years of training and planning for this if the government was just going to do it anyway? Why would they willingly work for the government? Who in our government worked with them? Pre 9/11 how did they decide who would be killed, captured, (tortured?) by the people they're working for? They played the biggest role that day so why are they always ignored by the government did it crowd? Wouldn't they be important in trying to debunk the official story?


reply posted on 11-7-2006 @ 03:04 PM by Harte
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by Harte
... even if the attacks were planned, financed and executed by the men blamed by the "official" story, it would still be a conspiracy...

Given the context in which the questions were asked, a website with a primary focus on conspiracy theories that focus on government wrong-doing, I think the wording is concise, clear, and unmistakable that we're referring to a conspiracy within the government.

Sorry, but my answer would have been different if I had known that I was permitted to put my own spin on the questions themselves.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Hence, you cannot say whether any statistical population agrees or disagrees "with the idea that orchestrated terrorist events will occur in the future."

Now I think you're looking for hairs to split.
The question: Do you believe persons within the United States government, or government agencies, are planning future events designed to appear as terrorist attacks?
This is clearly the indication of expected future events, not "Northwoods-styled" protocols to be filed under "if we want to attack America".


"Splitting hairs" is another way of saying "Doing Statistics." If you wanted to know if we thought that the government would conduct red flag "terrorist" operations in the US some time in the future, you should have asked that. That's all I'm saying. I mean, my response, again, would have differed had I thought you meant that.

Harte

[edit on 7/11/2006 by Harte]
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 4 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 5 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 16 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 4 days ago with 49 member flags