It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


How long did it take you to think there was a conspiracy in 9/11?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 12:11 PM
In October of 02' when Bush and Powell lied at the U.N. about Iraq and Saddam's capabilities. Here they were lieing there way into a conflict with someone they'd set up in the mid-seventies and had controlled for ten + years. If they lied us into war, they would lie their way in and out of everything.

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:23 PM

How long did it take you before you first felt there wasn't as simple an explanation as terrorists flew planes into buildings, buildings collapsed?


As soon as i seen how G.W.Bush reacted when he heard of the 2nd plain hitting.

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 04:07 PM
I bought the official story for about two years, then I became a LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) believer. After reading some physical analysis on the collapse of the towers (and the fact that there's pulverized body fragments still being found on building tops. (how does pancake theory explain that?) and doing over a hundred hours of research on this intriguing conspiracy, I believed that the towers were brought down by explosives. This was about two years ago, and further research has only fortified this belief.

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 04:27 PM
I watched as it happening live on TV, and I was already studying and questioning the official story as it was being formulated there on air.

This is one of the few positives of the 24 hour media culture.... They're so hungry to delivery it NOW, that it's almost like watching the raw footage of a movie before the edit, you get to see the odd mistakes and the underlying motivations.

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 04:34 PM
It took me almost two years because I hadn't dug into the story at all at the time. But I knew as soon as the planes went into the towers that a war was coming.

I remember telling people that very morning that the white house would not be happy and would want revenge. I was right about that but not knowing at the time that it was a white flag op. NOW I look for white flags everywhere and surprisingly I think about half of what goes on is a white flag gambit.

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:26 PM
Im from Finland and i wondered almost when they fell verticaly.. now thats wierd.. And what are those explosion sounds??

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 10:46 PM
Consider the Kennedy assasination and what we are to believe about that.

Consider Ruby Ridge

Consider Waco and what the government did there, the disinformation campaign that followed and no prosecution of government officials.

I know Waco has been talked about but if you saw the documentary Rules of Engagement you can't deny what we are up against. The government murdered those people at Waco, Ruby Ridge and they killed Kennedy and they have now murdered 3000 plus in NY.

Waco was a final test run and a final phase on how we would/may react to a 911. We were happy with our government. That bad David Koresh needed to be killed and so did his followers. Those babies need to be gassed with CS gas and then burned alive. That's what most Americans were basically saying and what we continue to say. We don't demand justice for those murders and so we get 911.

The success of 911 is an affirmation for the shadow terrorists that hold the power of world governments.

The next 911 will be justified and we will accept it like good sheeple... Oh well...

posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:41 AM
I believed the official story for quite some time, however I had a friend that was not buying 'that' story from day one. I started doubting the official story when I started watching the videos of the towers falling. It really does look like a controlled demolition to me. Then the lame video of the supposed plane hitting the Pentagon, well, that wasn't very convincing either.

I watched a documentary a few years back (already suspicious anyway) and it was about the Pentagon. In this show, they talked about how the pentagon had been remodeled, just prior to 911, and how all the sprinkler systems in the area of the pentagon that had been hit, had been replaced, but they hadn't remodeled the rest of the pentagon. I couldn't believe my ears
and thought they had let a major piece of info slip, seeing how it was the only part of the pentagon that had been updated, safety wise. After that, I just knew it had been prepped (the pentagon) for what was going to happen to it.

posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 07:53 AM

Originally posted by magnito_student
Since Alex Jones has a cable tv show here in Austin Tx and I knew from some of the things he talked about on Oklahoma City. I pretty much knew there was a conspiracy a couple days after 9-11 (9-13)

Wow, love that link! I believed the hoax for a while, as I voted for this man, loved the way Guiliani handled things and so on. Was I gullable or what!?!?

Too many unanswered questions and not enough PROOF to debunk them, i.e.:
1. Flight 93 - (10 miles of pieces & cell phone usage 20,000 ft in the air)
2. WTC7 - coming down with utter ease and perfection, not to mention the timing of everything
3. The President's initial reaction and soon thereafter
4. Our fighterjet response or lack there of
5. The SMALL hole in the Pentagon
6. The disappearance of the Pentagon and gas station tapes?
7. The WTC1&2 explosions underground, heard by MANY
8. The most PERFECT building collapses EVER witnessed!
9. Squibs detonating off as the buildings collapse
10. White smoke at the bottom of the WTC's before they collapse
11. The inner core "precision cuts"
12. The presence and "smell" of thermite everywhere
14. The Silverstien "pull it down" quote
15. The six week inferno that followed
16. The fact FEMA was holding "practice drills" that very day
17. The fact the employees (most government) were evacuated from WTC7 prior to the government scandal.
18. The "we need another Pearl Harbor" quote

I guess I could name 100 reasons I feel like I got duped. It did take some time though. So my answer, perhaps a year later, I finally saw the light. Thank god I did!!!

posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 11:04 AM
I knew something was wrong as when they finally did show any photos and videos of the Pentagon their was no proper crime scene and no proper debris field.

The FBI originally stated it would take 30 days to do the crime scene at the pentagon but stopped after 5 days.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24, 2001 -- The FBI assumed crime-scene jurisdiction at the Pentagon terrorist attack site Sept. 21 from the Arlington County (Va.) Fire Department, officials said.

FBI officials estimate the crime scene investigation would last about a month, Arlington Fire Chief Edward P. Plaugher said. He said he expects "additional remains will be discovered during the course of the FBI investigation" and mortuary specialists will remain on site to process them.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26, 2001 -- The FBI handed over Pentagon crash site management to the Army Military District of Washington at 7 a.m. today.

The transfer of responsibility marks the end of the FBI's crime scene investigation following the Sept. 11 terrorist attack against the Pentagon. MDW will oversee ongoing security operations around the damaged area of the building. FBI investigators will move their operations to the Pentagon's north parking lot and continue to sift through debris for more evidence.

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 06:05 AM
I also watched 9/11 live and when the alleged 2nd plane hit, I started to question the story. The news people botched it bigtime. If a jumbo jet flew over NYC during rush hour and struck the WTC, then why didn'y ANY news networks report this to their viewers? Instead of showing the carnage at street level, the TV cameras were showing the top of the building from a bad angle.

CNN and FOX News were repeating the same sketchy account of a possible Cessna crash. There was no implied urgency in their voices, and none was invoked by the images that were shown. From their camera's perspective, which wasn't from the best angle, the story fit the picture. The situation did not appear to be serious.This is where you should focus your attention. Most of the free world has seen footage of the second WTC tower being impacted and the reaction from people on the ground. When the first jet allegedly impacted the WTC earlier that morning, don't you think it was equally if not more dramatic?

Instead, they reported that the buildings were safe and the minor damage was confined to a small area and actually encouraged people that worked in and around the WTC that it was business as usual! Why? Is it fathomable that anyone witnessed a JET in NYC exploding into a skyscraper but mistook it for a Cessna? How likely is it that all of the networks, many with offices in plain view of the WTC, could be so clueless? ABC, CBS, and NBC eventually broke from their regular programming to cover the WTC story, all exhibiting similar confusion, speculation, and basically
incompetent news gathering capabilities.

Instead of warning of the inherent dangers and urging people to stay clear of the WTC, they were actually giving the "all clear", specifically calling stock traders into work! Something was important enough for the networks to put many lives at risk while losing a little thing called CREDIBILITY. Bad news travels fast. Maybe it headed towards the Atlantic Ocean and had to circumnavigate the globe on 9/11. Did space aliens take over the bodies of the news people?

They made sure that every camera was rolling at 9:03AM to show the second "surprise attack". Nobody was on commercial break at the time! The shock value was so great that the media's earlier bout of amnesia went virtually unnoticed. Meanwhile, I wonder if any of the news media made any last minute stock transactions before the market closed at 9:30? The NYSE opening bell shouldn't have even sounded that day. Time lines on 9/11 have been questioned and there are many variations around, most stating that the NYSE never even opened on 9/11. Whether or not our own government carried out the inhumane acts of terrorism on the WTC is not open for debate. What caused the towers and WTC7 to collapse is trivial and serves as a diversion. The financial implications of 9/11 and what part the media played should be the issue.

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 06:31 AM
For me, it was by the 17th or 18th of September that year.

The pieces just did'nt seem to fit.

My theory is and I still believe it, is that the crashing of the planes into the twin towers was a smokescreen for what was really happening in building 7. Think of all of the agencies that had offices there. I'm thinking along the lines of the SEC in particular.

The pentagon I believe was a seperate objective on that day. (since NORAD was basically down for the most part, why not take care of several birds with one stone)

I think that it was not just a cut and dry case of they did it for "x" reason. I think that there were multiple reasons, different objectives.

I don't want to go much further, as I am going way off topic. This should really be in a thread all to itself. Perhaps I will start one, when I get all the info together, to back my theory.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in