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.


The "My Position on 911" Thread

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in

+14 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 07:39 AM
The purpose of this thread is to provide all members who participate in 911 discussions a place where they can state exactly what their position is concerning 911. Then, when they are in discussions on other threads about any particular 911 topic and some one asks what they believe/feel/theorize, or if some one accuses them of having a position they don't agree with, they can simply link to their post in this thread and not have to repeatedly restate what their position is.

So the rules of this thread are that anybody who would like to make a declaration of their position feel free to. NO ONE can make a response to that person's declaration. THIS THREAD IS NOT A DISCUSSION THREAD OR A DEBATE THREAD. This thread is intended for people who want to make their statement. Further to that, if you make your statement and then at a later date learn something that makes you change your position, feel free to come back to this thread and make a new declaration. Open-mindedness is NEVER a fault, and should NEVER be viewed in a negative manner.

[edit on 1-31-2008 by Valhall]

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 07:53 AM
My Declaration of my position about 911 as of 1/31/08:

1. I believe radical Islamists flew 3 commercial jets into three buildings and had another plane hijacked with the intention of flying it into a 4th building.

2. I believe the damage from the plane impacts and the ensuing fires could have brought down WTC 1 and WTC 2.

3. I believe there were additional explosions in the lower levels (below level 22 and down to as low as B4) of at least WTC 1 that have not been explained.

4. I believe there were secondary explosions at street level that have not been explained.

5. I can't even postulate on what happened to WTC 7 - it's a mystery to me. But I have no opinion one way or the other on it.

6. I believe the NIST did an atrocious job of investigating the WTC building collapses and forced their models to a preconceived conclusion.

7. I believe the U.S. government needs to explain the 3 minute discrepancy in the 911 Commission report concerning the impact time of Flight 93.

8. I wonder if the same group of people who flew the planes into the buildings may have done more than that and that there may have been operatives at the WTC complex on the morning of 9/11 who caused more damage than just the impact damage.

9. I theorize that Flight 93 was shot down and our government won't admit it. (I have no problem with it being shot down if it was, I have a BIG problem with being lied to.)

10. I am concerned that if the same group did do more than just fly planes into buildings (see #8 above), the government may be taking the same stance as in #9 above and choosing not to admit that the terrorists got to us as badly as they did. In other words, hiding the level of incompetence that may have led to the events of 911.

11. My personal opinion is that the investigation of the 911 Commission, and the NIST were not at the level the seriousness of the events of the day demanded...and for that I'm rather upset.

Basically, that states where I stand on the events of that of today. I look forward to everyone getting the opportunity to just state their position without any derailing or discussion of each person's position. If we can't state our position and accept the fact that "that's the way that person feels", then we might as well just stop talking.

[edit on 1-31-2008 by Valhall]

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:40 AM
My 9-11 Convictions:

1. There were no hijackings, planes or terrorists on 9-11. All news feeds were CGI. In NYC there is a good likelihood that holograms were used.

2. We blew up WTC-1, 2, 6 and 7 ourselves with antimatter triggered pure fusion hydrogen nukes using technology developed by the CERN of Geneva, Switzerland.

3. We blasted a hole in the Pentagon using who knows what.

4. All four 9-11 flights were fake reports. There were no hijacked planes in reality. They only existed as ‘words/sentences’.

5. 9-11 was carried out (by us) to allow us to conquer Iraqi oil fields and bring us close to our next conquest, the Iranian ones. 9-11 was a desperate act on our part to commandeer the world’s last remaining significant petroleum reserves.

6. We are involved in the Middle East for two reasons, oil and Israel. So the idea of using Islamic terrorists as the ‘bogeymen’ is also closely related to Israel’s desperate desire to get the American public to ‘experience the same pain’ she feels she’s unjustly going through on a daily basis. In case anyone hasn’t noticed yet, — prior to and post 9-11 — there are no Muslim fanatics blowing things up here in the U.S..

The Wizard In The Woods

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:26 PM
When I have figured out all the ins and outs of 9/11 I will post a statement (I hope I live that long), but in the interim I'll offer this synopsis of our present state:

The trail really starts in 1947 with Truman's creation of the national security state and the CIA. By 1961, Ike was warning us in his farewell address to the nation of the dire dangers of the military-industrial complex (MIC) and its relentless push to erode our liberties. In reality, Ike already knew the jig was up and that he had already lost control of what Sen. Daniel Inouye later termed "the secret government," and he issued this warning to salve his conscience about a fait-accompli that had already occurred while he had spent a good fraction of his presidency on the golf course.

JFK's assassination was a coup-d'etat with so many hands in it that it resembles nothing so much as Julius Caesar's murder, with every conspirator driving in his own knife. Since then the US has been "governed" by this cabal--the MIC, the national-security apparat, the black-ops/secret government, and the financial interests. We live in an aquarium, and can't see the glass walls.

The Reagan revolution and the rise of the Neocons metastasized this anti-republican cancer to a new level. GHW Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and that Neocon/PNAC gang, the political pointmen for the MIC, advanced the agenda of eternal conflict that Leo Stauss, godfather of all Neocons, outlined as its founding principle: To control a society and keep it cohesive, an enemy is required, and if one doesn't exist, just create it. An important corollary: war makes money, and the US has been at war somewhere or other with less than a decade's respite in the 62 years since since the end of WWII.

The fall of the USSR and the relative peace of the Clinton years saw the creation of a new enemy, terrorism, that is fundamental to the Neocon world-view. OBL was formed by the CIA to attack the Russians in Afghanistan and "Al Qaeda," which means the 'network' or the 'base,' was named for the secure internet network that linked various western intelligence agencies and Pakistan's ISI, and which those intelligence services used to communicate with it and which AQ had access to.

The '93 WTC bombing was abetted by the FBI, which actually furnished the bomb which was exploded in the basement parking garage. This is documented in court proceedings. Waco and OKC were intimations of 9/11 and the agenda to further suppress Constitutional rights, by creating "home-grown terrorists" to point at when it came time to enact the Patriot Act and other abridgments of our rights. How remarkable that that huge set of rights abridgments, well over 800 pages worth, was enacted within weeks of 9/11. It was quite obviously drafted well in advance and sat waiting on a shelf for the event.

9/11 enabled the PNAC agenda, the infamous "new Pearl Harbor" that Neocon manifesto cited as the requirement to push forward its militarization of American society, which it saw as fundamental to maintaining and expanding US military hegemony over the world (and that is exactly what GW Bush wrote into his diary at the end of that day--" a new Pearl Harbor").

The PNAC/Neocon agenda and its architects first crafted a security strategy for Israel under Netanyahu in the mid-90s. Wurmser, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle and other Neocon water carriers believed that the 51st state, to secure its existence, had to initiate regime change in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and these very states are also targeted in the PNAC manifesto, and it is no surprise that the invasion of Iraq, under ever-shifting justifications, was a direct result of 9/11, one lie enabling another, even though the country had nothing to do with the event.

The great problem with the scheme was the unforeseen resistance in Iraq itself, which threw off the timetable and has stalled an attack on Iran, and has allowed the US military and the CFR factions to block that next step in the agenda last spring and again last month, though it could quite well come to pass before the end of Bush's term.

As for 9/11 itself, nothing is what it seems. It is a labyrinthine psy-op of staggering complexity. A good summation was offered by a former German defense minister, who bluntly stated that it was simply impossible that the US defense establishment could have so completely failed in the face of such a well-known and anticipated threat. The 20-odd wargames and exercises are perfect proof of that assessment, enabling the plan to unfold by sowing confusion in US defenses and displacing the assets, such as fighter jets, necessary for a proper defense.

Bush himself was out of the loop, set up among grade-schoolers in FL and left to linger unprotected, unaware and uninvolved as the events unfolded. In the scripted world of Presidential staging, this was a clear message to the world that he was the "pet goat," a superfluous marionette. His aimless wanderings on AF 1, with 2+ hours intentionally without fighter escort, though planes were available in-state, simply re-enforces this conclusion; doubtless the conversation with Cheney was one of, "Join us as our cheerleader, that's all you were good for at Yale, anyway, or who knows what could happen to you in all this confusion." This would go a long way to explain W's disturbing and aberrant behavior these past years.

As for the 19 Arab hijackers, they were patsies just like Oswald, convenient dupes trailed by Mossad and protected from discovery by the repeated squelching by higher-ups of investigations into their activities by FBI peons. If they ever did board and gain control of the planes, I'm sure they were shocked to find they flew themselves.

Who knows what the heck happened at the Pentagon, but it's an age-old tradition among cowards in the military to shoot themselves in the foot.

The WTC was the heart of the operation, and the events of that day are so anomalous that I believe in the end the perpetrators intended two reactions: the first would be that some would actually believe the official story, but that those who realized otherwise would also realize the staggering criminality and simple evil of the act, and that this realization would instill in them fear and hopelessness. Either outcome was a net gain.

WTC7 apparently didn't go to plan, as it was so sloppily executed and so obvious that even today, over 6 years later, NIST has not dared issue its mandated report, fearing complete ridicule, and has farmed it out to another organization that is dragging its feet in fear of same. Instead, it was simply ignored, in the hope that it would just be forgotten, which was a wise strategy, as 90+% of the populace don't even know of its collapse. This MO was used before and after the attacks, with intelligence disregarded beforehand and investigation impeded after. The Big Lie.

The extreme cynicism and arrogance of the Bush administration in its conduct is grounded on the realization by its players and its backers that apathy and inattention to politics is epidemic in the US and that secrecy, lies, and manipulation are extremely effective tools in pushing forward its agenda in the face of an enfeebled body public, abetted by a disemboweled and concentrated media. Indeed the sum of their actions in the aftermath of 9/11 can only be interpreted as a deliberate program to destroy the US as we know it, in all domains. And 9/11 was the enabling event for their dismantlement or debasement of our Constitution, our morals and traditions, our economy, and our society.

But hey, then again I may be completely wrong and the past 60 years of US history is exactly what is written in grade-school civics books.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by gottago]

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:10 PM
My take on 911,

1. That not one, but four “”so called civilian”” airplanes good leave their planned routes, and had any time in the world to attack, because of the impossible coincidence that precisely on that day the most advanced Air Force in the world was in practice and therefore did not react in any way.

2. I said “”so called civilian”” airplanes because in my opinion it where not the original civilian airplanes that made the attacks, most likely remote controlled. The so called mobile phone calls from the civilians in the airplanes where possible faked.

3. The strange things who are visible on footage when the two planes hit the towers. The flash just before the impact of both airplanes. The strange pod on the belly and the lack of windows of the plane that hit the second tower.

4. The highly suspicious way the towers collapsed, such as, the explosions, the visible flashes, the free fall, total pulverised, the extreme temperature for days, the melted steel, the strange burned cars parked round the towers.

5. The very suspicious collapse of WTC 7. [absolute deliberately pulled down]

6. The strange circumstances of the crashed fourth plane.

7. The impossible impact damage of the supposedly crashed Boeing 757 at the pentagon, and the complete disappearing of the plane in the building. The highly suspicious debris [with the letters] on the pentagon lawn. The lack of specific pentagon security camera footage, and the confiscated camera footage of some other near buildings. The provided very suspicious camera footage of the pentagon, what in my opinion is absolute fraud. The different witness testimonies of seeing a different plane.

8. The strange coincidence that the two towers needed a very expensive costly redecoration.

9. The strange coincidence that a few weeks before the attacks there was some “repair” work done and all the security systems on that specific floors doesn’t work anymore during those “repairs”.

10. The strange coincidence that a few weeks before the attacks the insurances of the two towers where changed, to included terrorist attacks also.

Well, I think it is plainly visible what my opinion on 911 is.

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 07:12 PM
"My Position on 911"

by Captain Obvious

I started researching 911 Conspiracy Theories 3 1/2 years ago after watching a Pentagon video supporting the missile theory. From there I have watched countless videos for and against a conspiracy. I have personally contacted by phone, e-mail, or in person: FEMA members, Members of the ASCE, Scientists, Engineers, Commercial and Military Pilots, former ATC members, people with great knowledge of NORAD SOP's, Victim family members, FDNY first responders, and Grief Counselors from Ground Zero.

I have read the NIST report (no, i DIDN'T understand most of it) I read the 911 Report(yes it was boring). I read statements from literally hundreds if not thousands of witnesses from the Pentagon, the WTC, and Shanksville. When I didn't understand something that was WAY over my head, I asked those that did. IF I was still not certain, I would talk or write to someone else. I enjoy laymen terms

What do I think?

19 Highjackers took over 4 airplanes. 3 of them hit their intended targets. 1 did not.

WTC 1 & 2 were hit by flights 11 and 175 which caused severe damage and fires. Keeping an open mind to other reasons for collapse, there is not one shred of evidence that shows the towers fell due to CD. (conventional or nonconventional). The NIST report has been looked over with a fine tooth comb by many. Of all those that question the NIST report...not one has submitted a paper to peers for review. The fact is the the towers collapsed without the aid of bombs, TNT, c-4, thermate, thermite, DEW, etc.

WTC7 collapse although somewhat of a question fell due to the result of massive debris from the collasping tower. This caused large fires that went for the most part unfought by the FDNY. I still await the NIST report on this to learn the most plausible reason. Since there was not any steel recovered, I can not say that the reasons outlined by NIST will be 100% accurate.

The Pentagon was in fact hit by one of the 3 highjacked airplanes. (Flight 77) The crash killed all aboard and many inside. There is not one witness, physical evidence, or DNA evidence to support a missile theory or a flyover theory.

The one that did not hit its target, crashed in Shanksville,PA. Flight 93 went down at a 40 degree angle crashing in a field killing all aboard.
There is not any evidence to suggest the notion that there was a flyover at this location or that the plane was shot down.

From what I have been reading over the past several years, there have not been anyone coming forward with anything to support claims that have been around since the early days post 911. No new evidence, no true whistle blowers, no true "smoking gun".

IMO, the 911 conspiracy theories are now falling into the catagory of Sasquatch(Big Foot) and Loc Ness. There will always be those that question the existance, but there will never be evidence to support it.

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 07:36 PM
For the most part, I would agree with what Capt. O posted.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by Swampfox46_1999]

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 07:38 PM
I guess I would have to add that I started gathering information about the events of that day starting on Sept. 13, 2001. That was the day that I found out friends of mine had survived at the Pentagon. (You should be able to figure out what info I received)

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 07:50 PM
I never post on these 9/11 threads mainly because I don't know everyones theories. I am more then glad to put my 2 cents.

1. I think it was all bogus, a bunch of Islamist hijackers armed with knives takeover a Jet which holds American people.

Think about it, now-a-days everyone wants to play the hero role. I am sure that 3-4 people with knives took over an airplane that must have had at least 6-7 tired,grumpy and big men.

2. Something stinks in connection with the terrorist insurance. The time frame in which the owner took out the insurance and the time the planes hit. There is no more terrorist insurance, after that incident.

There was a profit. The towers also had asbestos which the owner was ordered to get it removed, and it would have cost him too much.

3. There was an outstanding amount of funds missing a day before 9/11.
2.3 trillion dollars was missing from the US government's funds. By chance, a smoke screen was put up just in time to shift the stage.

My 2 pennies.

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 07:57 PM
I agree 100% with ValHall with two additions - further information about the war games scheduled for that day/FEMA drill in NYC that day (FEMA arrived in NYC on Sept 10th) - those things never sat right with me (outside of witnessing it first hand).

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:45 PM

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:48 PM

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:52 PM
To those who actually read the original post in its entirety, understood the intent and then could follow instructions, this situation is being worked to be corrected, so stay tuned.

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:54 PM

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 09:06 PM

The "My Position on 911" Thread

Please restrict your posts to the topic at hand.

Thank you.

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 09:13 PM
This is a good idea Val thanx for this thread...

I believe, from my understanding of history and what governments have done many times in the past, that 9-11 was a false flag operation to increase US involvement in the Middle East. I don't claim to understand fully why they do, but it's obvious the west has been wanting to control the Middle East for a long time. One obvious reason, easy to see because they did it before, is to stop Iraqi oil production so they can inflate oil prices. The oil companies, and the banks, know full well that war creates a lot of capital and have done this before. The oil companies know we can't do without oil and we'll keep buying it, so what better to use to finance their wars and manipulate the economy. The military also has a big motivation to keep control of the oil, you can't run an F-16 on solar power...

Most people think the Middle East situation is new, but the west has been controlling the ME for a long time.

As far as the event itself there are just so many problems with the global collapse of 3 buildings being caused by asymmetrical damage and office fires. If you have any understanding of basic physics then there is no way you can justify total collapse, let alone total collapse with no sign of friction/resistance, a physical impossibility.

For a theory to be a theory it has to be testable and repeatable in the lab.
No one has yet been able to recreate what happened to the 3 buildings and never will.

The government doesn't really care that much about the few of us who can see through their obvious lies. They only care about the dumb majority, who probably wouldn't do anything if the gov admitted they did it. You'll see in 20 odd yrs when it becomes common knowledge that 9-11 was an inside job people will still go on trusting their government and refusing to believe they would do anything like that. Governments get away with mass murder daily and yet people don't see it as a problem. We are so conditioned to accept their authority as if it's a necessity that has always been there. If you look at the history of how governments came about, it's becomes obvious they were set up to control and exploit the masses for the benefit of a few ultra rich families. Land owners and serfs...

I have absolutely no doubt that the US government would and did carry out the 9-11 attacks. I have no real theory as how it was done, so pls don't assume I believe in holographic planes or space weapons. None of those are needed to explain the collapses. In fact I don't feel I even need a theory as to how I think they were demolished. All I need to know right now is that the way they are telling us they collapsed is physically impossible. So don't ask me what happened to the passengers, or how the 'explosives' were planted.
None of those parts of the 'plan' have anything to do with the collapses themselves, and just because I can't answer those questions doesn't make the collapses possible.

It's pretty simple, until someone can tell me how those buildings fell with no sign of friction/resistance then all your other 'arguments' are mute.

And friction/resistance is just the start of the physics problems. The tilt of WTC2 and its 'angular momentum' problem is impossible to explain with office fires and asymmetrical damage also. But it only takes one law of physics to be broken, that can't be explained, for the whole story to be bogus, and the friction/resistance problem is enough by itself and probably the easiest to understand.

(BTW when I say 'government' I obviously mean elements within it and of it, not the whole thing)

[edit on 31/1/2008 by ANOK]

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 09:16 PM

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 09:46 PM
I too support Val in that this is a good idea. I would very much like to know just where everyone else stands on the issue. An honest opinion from my fellow free thinkers is far more valuable than all the talking heads on television combined.

Regardless of what they have to say I'll still make up my own mind.

I have some strong opinions on this issue and would have spent an hour or so composing them, but I had other plans for the evening. I will compose them and make a contribution within the next few days.

Good thread Val, kuddo's.

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Valhall
what it means to want to share - instead of win.

On that note, I'll agree completely. I enjoy the exchange of ideas.

My position on 9/11? I think the official story is mostly correct. Sure, there are some oddities such as the military exercises, their inability to down a plane that was headed towards the Pentagon. Some stuff just doesn't add up.

Personally I believe that there was some foreknowledge of the events of 9/11. I don't know if I would say that the president knew, but someone did and they let it happen. Why? As a pretext for war. Why war? The individuals in charge want to secure the last of the remaining oil in the ground. They know the Saudis are lying through their teeth about the amount of oil they have left. We needed a reason to have our nose in the middle of things. Now we have it.

It's the opening salvo in the last war for the last of the oil. This should come as no suprise. Look at WWII. Why did the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor? Because we cut off their oil. It was a theme then, and an even bigger reason today for war. Hold on to your seats. The ride only gets rougher from here on out.

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 10:15 PM
My 9/11 viewpoint as of 1-31-08.....

1) The planes were remote controlled via QRS-11 guidance link. I don't know if the passengers and or crew were on board. (I don't know what happened to the passangers and crew of those planes)

2) Demolitions were in place in WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 for sure, maybe others prior to the attack, and were detonated after the attack.(I don't know exactly who put them there, probably the CIA)

3) Something either hit the Pentagon, or blew up in the pentagon. (I don't know what)

4) Flight 93 was shot down.(Probably by an F-16)

5) Bin Laden and Bush are good friends.

6)The only "Terrorists" are our own *&^$&^#&*((*^&#$@ Government.

This attack has since been used as a basis to invade 2 Middle Eastern Countries, and because of which has cost trillions of dollars, and millions of lives. Not to mention the #*@&#^* police state that this country has become based on this event.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in