ATS 9/11 Conspiracy Survey Results

Blaine,

Its time to ditch those friends of yours and go out in the real world, and talk to intelligent people then get back to us. I bet those people you talk to laugh at this while never reading, never investigating anything. Just tune in to Faux TV before bedtime and that's where they get all their facts.
I know this because everyone i know is in denial also. Its so much easier for people to be in denial and not look for the truth.
Then, there are those who just plain dont care. I know people who DONT CARE what happens, as long as they can still get their Screaming Hot buffalo wings and their beer, everything must be fine. "Who cares" they say.
IMO, that's extremely ignorant. Also, the "undecided" and the ones with "no opinion" get to me. :shk: What do you mean "no opinion"??? Dont you live in this world???
Maybe they're aliens, huh.

Originally posted by df1
Those debunking the official story have pocket chain and virtually no equivalent resources, yet they are still able to easily shred the official story. If you are unable to hear an unofficial explanation with less holes then you just arent listening.

I've been listening for the past 5 years! I have yet to hear any other complete theory. People may take pieces of the day then use that and that alone to say whatever they believe. I have yet to hear a complete alternative theory on the events of that day. From begining (planning stages) to the end.


As for "shredding" the official story or holes you can fly a plane through (that was good btw subz 9/11, planes, holes...very good lol) ....
Care to share some examples backed with credible info?


dg:

Also, the "undecided" and the ones with "no opinion" get to me. What do you mean "no opinion"??? Dont you live in this world???

Why the hostility?
There are still alot of unanswered questions. If people don't have enough info to answer one way or the other...then why would they pick one way or the other?

[edit on 10-7-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]

I wasnt trying to be hostile. I simply was refering to Blaine and the people "outside" ...the polls...even in general elections there are the undicided.
I find it a little hard to believe, thats all. I'm not being hostile.

Also, if people dont know what they want , they shouldnt answer a poll, dont you think? Maybe i'm being too...i dont know what. Sorry.

[edit on 10-7-2006 by dgtempe]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
As for "shredding" the official story or holes you can fly a plane through (that was good btw subz

9/11, planes, holes...very good lol) ....
Care to share some examples backed with credible info?

That question is not the question of some one who is genuine in seeking our side of the argument. Define "credible info" for starters. Which is fine, you dont have to believe us if you dont want to. We're not missionaries trying to save your soul or what not.

There are ample examples of 9/11 events that run contrary to the official account on this board alone. If they have not convinced you then nothing I say will. Im no superman

[edit on 10/7/06 by subz]

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]

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.

I understand your point. But let's not split hairs. I would think that the term "conspiracy" when used in the context of this poll was quite apparent to refer to some "non-government explanantion" version of events.

[edit on 10-7-2006 by Apoc]

DG your post at the top of this page is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

You said its time to "ditch those friends of yours", why? Do you consider the opinions people have on a given event before you consider them your friends? If so that's very close minded for someone claiming to be seeking the truth. And you say "and talk to intelligent people then get back to us" are you implying that his co-workers are not intelligent because they don't believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories? I’m sure they are very capable of deciding between what they consider right and wrong no need for you to question them, their intelligence or what they may watch.

Originally posted by dgtempe
I know this because everyone i know is in denial also. Its so much easier for people to be in denial and not look for the truth.

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 lose my faith now.

[edit on 11-7-2006 by WestPoint23]

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by dgtempe
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.

Well said, DG. Thank you for re-establishing yourself, in my eyes anyway. I, like westpoint, was shocked at some of your remarks.

We all tend to over-flatulate on the boards, from time to time; however, most of us aren't so quick to admit it. Thanks for reminding me how much better we come across to others when we are considerate, rather than always trying to be right.

-Sour(fellow Aquarian)

[edit on 10-7-2006 by SourGrapes]

Originally posted by Allred5923
why drag the most devistating dellima we have ever experienced to the forum's of a place such as this? Give respect's to the ones that lost thier family member's . The only thing I can see this "Survey" doing is rekindling the time that there are so many American's wish to forget. "No 'Sypathy guy's?' "

Allred and anyone else who would believe that we should "forget" the second most important thing to happen in recent times,

Those who "forget" never get to the truth. For example, you can thank our friends the baby boomers for "forgetting" that a sitting president was murdered in plain site with help from factions inside the US Gov't. For that forgetfullness we now have a gov't for the corporations, by the corporations.

Forgetfullness kills.

.......................................................

Go back to sleep, America. Everything's under control...

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?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

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 not do a little checking on those Security companies before running your mouth? It would certainly be a good idea, in this case, I think.

Originally posted by Communication_Burger
Why not do a little checking on those Security companies before running your mouth?

Why don't you answer my question instead of making remarks like this?



edit: hey wait! I thought you had me on ignore?

And I do know they companies who were in charge of security. Ok now answer the question...

[edit on 11-7-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Why don't you answer my question instead of making remarks like this?

[edit on 11-7-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]

Because it's a stupid question, and it doesn't really make any sense? What do you mean "Please tell me what these companies were?" You know what they were; they were Security firms, offering Security. I don't think anybody is saying these companies killed thousands of Americans, but someone higher up must have ordered them out of the way, while somebody else did. It's either that or these buildings were rigged to blow from day 1.

Originally posted by Communication_Burger
Because it's a stupid question, and it doesn't really make any sense? What do you mean "Please tell me what these companies were?" You know what they were; they were Security firms, offering Security.

Oh, if you didn't understand the question in the first place you should have said something...
Or did you finish reading the rest of the question? Knowing you, you probably didn't.
"what" as in "who are they?" Are they fronts? What's these companies names so we can prosecute everyone associated with those companies.


[qutoe]I don't think anybody is saying these companies killed thousands of Americans, but someone higher up must have ordered them out of the way, while somebody else did. It's either that or these buildings were rigged to blow from day 1.
I'm going by what BS stated. He said the security company willingly allowed explosives to be brought in and placed.


Who was the demolition company btw??

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]

I am amazed ... A M A Z E D !!!!!!

So two gigantic plains filled with fuel aren't enought to blow up two buildings ????
I honestly and seriously hope none of these ppl work in construction or engineering... please tell me they don't !

Are you ppl out of your minds ???? The damn top of the building EXPLODED after the impact and colapsed ...COLAPSED over the rest of the building ... now ... what part of that is so hard to understand ?

God.. if you do exist .. please help them.

Originally posted by BaastetNoir
I honestly and seriously hope none of these ppl work in construction or engineering... please tell me they don't !

Some of us do, sorry. ;(

The damn top of the building EXPLODED after the impact

The buildings didn't explode, the fuel did. And it exploded mostly outside of the buildings.

and colapsed ...COLAPSED over the rest of the building ... now ... what part of that is so hard to understand ?

A lot about the collapses is apparently hard to understand, or else you wouldn't see the numbers you do in this survey.