It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

New ATS Survey: The 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

page: 8
69
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I answered "disagree" to most of the questions, just because I was like 8 at the time. Was anybody else like super young when it happened?
edit on 1-9-2011 by mossme89 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


The fact is the Twin Towers in my view going by photos, did not fall, they turned to dust. Everyone seems to think explosives was used in all 3 buildings (placed in the basements) when it clearly appears the basins of the Twin Towers were intact and vehicles were melted from 7 streets away!

I had to answer neutral to some questions because the questions were not thought out thoroughly
edit on 1-9-2011 by bluemirage5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Just a cautionary observation. At least on my computer, after having answered a question I have to take care to click the page away from the question before using the arrow keys to scroll; otherwise its the answer that scrolls between the various options and not the page.

In other words, my answer changed with every touch to the arrow key. I caught this a couple of times and corrected the answer, clicked to the side of the page, and moved on. Hope I didn't miss any because it would be easy to get erroneous results this way. I doubt there is anything ATS can do about this, but respondents need to be aware of this.

Maybe a cautionary note at the beginning of each page or something would help.
wayno
edit on 9/1/2011 by wayno because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Right, at least 50 thousand tons of concrete in each tower turned to talcuum like dust in mid-air. This is very strange and absolutely inconsistent with a gravity driven event. Concrete is a very tough material, it would take extreme temperature and unbelievable amounts of energy to turn all this mass into dust. Then it takes energy to eject this cloud of dust hundreds of feet away from the tower in what resembles pyroclastic flows from a volcano. Add the energy needed to neutralise the tower´s massive steel structure and turn the rest of the tower´s contents virtually into dust and you have an energy sink that doesn´t add up at all in any gravity driven event. So, some sort of extra energy must have been added into this collapse event. Energy isn´t created out of nothing and it doesn´t disappear. When things fall down to earth in gravity driven events their potential energy is turned into kinetic energy. As a result buildings that are reinforced to counteract the effects of gravity can not collapse virtually without resistance in gravity driven events. It´s simply a physical impossibility. The official story about the collapse of these towers is therefore just a tissue of lies and impossible nonsense.
edit on 1-9-2011 by galdur because: typo



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


you, sir, are either a moron or are lying through your teeth. there is no third option when it comes to
bieblers who still believe the whole official account of 9/11 (in general). that's just the way it is.
accept it and move on, sir. and instead of bitching how some dumbass (me, in this case) is calling
you "moron" (surely, a crime worth bitching about like some housewife from the beauty parlor), you
should focus on all those inconsistencies in the official account of 9/11. because, video evidence
doesn't lie. people do. since i imagine you have an IQ of at least 60 (you're able to read and you
know how to turn those pesky interwebs on), you already know that. right? and the only ones
you need to blame for "ruining ATS for you" is you yourself and the rest of the debunking bieblers
because you expect some faggy-ass treatment on a conspiracy forum as if we were in a comment
section of some mainstream bull# propaganda news portal. people ain't that gullible and stupid.
sir. so, on that note, adieu. and have a nice day. sir.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


did you watch those three towers collapse, at all?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


don't forget the indestructible pentalawn. not even a scratch. now, that's some heavy duty
"mad-with-hatred-ridden-muslim-boeing-driving-and-parking" if there ever was one. lol.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 


You can go back through it again and edit your answers!!



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by psyop911
 


Sure, I posted those artist´s renditions, based on the official story, of the Boeing airliner just before it struck the Pentagon wall feet off the ground at 530 mph. The official story is just a tissue of lies.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by psyop911
 


"""expect some faggy-ass treatment on a conspiracy forum as if we were in a comment
section of some mainstream bull# propaganda news portal."""

Now, that´s INCISIVE. LOL.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
As with any poll, this one has a limited scope, forcing answers out of me that are half true at best.




"I believe that the destruction of the World Trade Center twin towers (not Building 7) was either the direct result of a pre-planned demolition, or that planted explosives ensured the destruction of the towers after the impact of the aircraft."


I was in agreement until "after the impact of the aircraft"




"I believe that no large passenger aircraft struck the Pentagon and that some other type of military ordinance was used."


Why is this question limited to the pentagon? If it's good for the goose, it should be good for the gander.




"I believe that some of the craziest conspiracy theories involving the attacks on 9/11/2001 have been planted or otherwise invented by covert entities in an effort to create widespread denigration and rejection of any examination of conspiracy theories or government complicity."


This one depends on someone's definition of crazy, ie, i believe it's crazy to believe flimsy aluminum wings can sever structural steel box columns at any speed. Call me crazy.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



Call me crazy.


I'd have to get in a real long line.

Does it bother you that even on a conspiracy website, dedicated to the proposition of the existance of complex conspiracies, your particular brand of conspiracy is considered, well, crazy?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
On a more serious note, I don´t think it´s mainly because of the public´s stupidity that all these impossible official fables linger on for decades. Actually Main St. always knows best, the real question is what Main St. chooses to do with its knowledge. The implications of suddenly disclosing all those official lies, high treason, mass murder, war crimes etc. would be very severe indeed. Hundreds, thousands of people would be executed/incarcerated permanently. The two-part one-party corporate owned US political system would disintegrate. Wall Street would plunge thousands of points. It would be a crisis of monumental proportions.

Main St. knows this. It doesn´t wish to face this horrendous outcome. It wants to somehow keep clinging to a status quo. It´s human nature. You can endure a barrage of bad news for surprisingly long if you believe that the tide will eventually turn into good news. The main downside to this is that all those unresolved official scams create a constant overhang of uncertainty. This is a key concept. UNCERTAINTY. This is what everybody hates the most. The longer it´s there the more damaging it will be. Kind regards, galdur.
edit on 1-9-2011 by galdur because: missing word



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
im really looking forward to the talks coming up in toronto.

9/11 is such a massive incident its going to take a long time to get to the bottom of it and i look forward to following it and hopfully learning some new things, in whatever form (good or bad) they take



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 





im really looking forward to the talks coming up in toronto.


I predict nothing will come of it. People will show up. People will talk. People will go home.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Here's a sneak-peak at the results so far on one of the more important questions. The data split between members and non-members looks to be reliable, so I hope to be able to release the final tallies in this format:








I'll bet some of you will be surprised by the results on that question.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Well at least we know now why we get beat up so much in here...



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Nothing immediately visible will come out of it. However, it will most likely reinforce the concept of uncertainty regarding the impossible official narrative of 9/11. So, it will reinforce this very unhealthy official overhang.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Nice job ScepticOverlord.

There is a huge and very serious unresolved issue here and the general public knows it very well.

How this overhang of uncertainty over unresolved issues will develop - only time will tell.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Wow! I am really aghast. Even here, 21% of members either agree or strongly agree that 9/11 was an act of foreign terrorist. Wow.



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join