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.

 

Survey Results: The 9/11 Attacks & Conspiracies - September, 2011

page: 7
92
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Overall there is clear indication that a great many people are reluctant to agree with many aspects of the official story


People are reluctant to take surveys, people are reluctant to complain at a restaurant, people are reluctant to disagree with their boss...People are NOT reluctant to agree to the aspects of the OS..They just flat out do not believe the official story.

Peace




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Billybob: re your sig. The 'drill' on 7th July was mostly powerpoint presentations in a room. It wasn't a full military exercise like on 11th September. Not much coincidence at all really. Lots of stuff was going on that day.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


How else would our Government justify reentering Iraq after all that Bush and Norman Scwarzkopff and poor little Kuwait we need to rescue them from that BAD man Insane? They must have turned that one over a few times, finally agreeing that it was going to take some real Spectacular Excuse to go back in there. One the American people would never balk at.... I got it. How about a modern Pearl Harbor? (Blink goes the light bulb)


There's also a possibility that's far easier to organise and with no need for concealment. *After* a terrorist outrage, exploit the grief, anger and fear to justify a war.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bowser65
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 

Lets also not forget that it is a matter of public record that NORAD was conducting war games less than 24 hrs before the First plane hit with the exact same targets in their scenario.

Let us not forget that NORAD always conducts war games.

Technically, we are still living in a light Cold War environment.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 

How else would our Government justify reentering Iraq after all that Bush and Norman Scwarzkopff and poor little Kuwait we need to rescue them from that BAD man Insane? They must have turned that one over a few times, finally agreeing that it was going to take some real Spectacular Excuse to go back in there. One the American people would never balk at.... I got it. How about a modern Pearl Harbor? (Blink goes the light bulb).

Hold the presses... Time for a history lesson...

Pres. George Bush Sr.: Chronology of the Gulf War (1990-1991)
CNN: Clinton Iraq Has Abused its Last Chance (December 1998)

If people actually followed history, the war on Iraq was very much justified. Even though George Bush Jr. horribly sold the war to the public, Saddam was a major threat to the world. Read the links provided above for a brief history lesson. When it comes to finding reasons to attack Iraq, Saddam had given the world a billion to use.

edit on 9/7/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom1701
That's just about right.....You have the only honest - unbiased - non skewed poll on the planet.....

Nice try ATS....but.....

911 happened and it wasn't an inside job...

Get over it.....

get a life.......



Interesting stuff. Depends what you mean by” Inside Job”. Aspects of corruption and cover up, may be? Full blown Conspiracy? may be not.

I think the survey is very interesting in that it shows that are lot of people are unsatisfied with the lack of information and facts presented. Therefore it does not have a full explanatory account for certain conspiracy theorists and this has obvious psychological ramifications.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by lostjohnny
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Everyone said the same thing at the time the buildings collapsed:

"Why did they build such big towers that couldn't withstand a crash from an aeroplane?"

When building 7 went down, we all started to think we were living in an origami world.



For me, personally, the towers going down are the most interesting aspects of 911 because in effect they are highly disputed.

Most people are like how did huge skyscrapers burn and collapse to the ground and how did the third tower fall coz of fire? What is even more interesting and enigmatic is that this divides the qualified experts - the engineers with some saying its completely possible and some saying the opposite. I feel the whole conspiracy theory hinges on this



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by tonysobrado
 



Most people are like how did huge skyscrapers burn and collapse to the ground and how did the third tower fall coz of fire?

Really? Most people? I don't think so. I think the number of persons who may honestly feel that way would not even qualify as a subcult. More like a fringe on a fringe.

What is even more interesting and enigmatic is that this divides the qualified experts - the engineers with some saying its completely possible and some saying the opposite. I feel the whole conspiracy theory hinges on this

Wrong again. Experts are not divided on the subject. Anymore than to say that biologist are divided on their view of evolution vs. the bible.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by clintdelicious
reply to post by Jobeycool
 


Yes but that explosion didn't down the building alone did it otherwise it would have happened straight after the impact. I don't believe even a fire caused by jet fuel could down such a structure either after the crash.

What is your basis for that belief? Experience? Education? Intuition? Revelation? At this point I'm less interested in what people believe than why they believe it.


The fact that both of them collapsed was also odd.

Why? Both of them were built to the same specifications, as far as I know. Both suffered almost identical damage. If one collapsed, you would expect the other to collapse.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



Really? Most people? I don't think so. I think the number of persons who may honestly feel that way would not even qualify as a subcult. More like a fringe on a fringe.
9/11 Conspiracy Polls: 33% of Americans

84%

New Investigation: 48% of New Yorkers

70 Million Americans

People who believe that fire can bring down a skyscraper should be the minority, considering that's never happened before despite many other raging skyscraper fires.


Wrong again. Experts are not divided on the subject. Anymore than to say that biologist are divided on their view of evolution vs. the bible.
I haven't seen hundreds of experts publicly endorse their support of the official explanation of how the three buildings collapsed, have you? I've seen hundreds of experts say the opposite, but I haven't seen an organization of experts actually put it on the record that they support the official story.
edit on 7-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 





If people actually followed history, the war on Iraq was very much justified.


If people followed actual history, they'd know war is never justified.


One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!

Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?

(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)


whatreallyhappened.com.../april.html



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



I've seen hundreds of experts say the opposite, but I haven't seen an organization of experts actually put it on the record that they support the official story.


www.ihs.com...

There ya go - ASCE. American Society of Civil Engineers. Not one word about looking for secret explosives.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



There ya go - ASCE. American Society of Civil Engineers. Not one word about looking for secret explosives.
Thanks, I've never actually seen an organization endorse the NIST report. Here's something I found interesting though, this organization worked with FEMA to produce the original assessment:

The NIST recommendations, said ASCE, are largely consistent with the findings of the assessment report released in May 2002 by ASCE and the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The ASCE/FEMA report recommended six items - including improvements in fireproofing, sprinkler systems and egress design - in the design and construction of buildings deemed likely targets of terrorist attacks.
If it's not too much to ask, maybe there's an organization that publicly supports the official story that doesn't have ties to an investigation of the 9/11 attacks that they're supporting?
edit on 7-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: to edit my post



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



If it's not too much to ask, maybe there's an organization that publicly supports the official story that doesn't have ties to an investigation of the 9/11 attacks that they're supporting?


Here's another, American Institute of Architects:

www.nistreview.org...

Its a link to a PDF so I hope it works, its there response to the NIST report. Again, no call for searching for secret explosives.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Thanks, I've never actually seen an organization endorse the NIST report. Here's something I found interesting though, this organization worked with FEMA to produce the original assessment:

Here's a response from the Structural Engineering Institute:

enr.construction.com...

Again, its a link to a word doc so I hope it works.

Thats the American Society of Civil Engineers, American Institute of Architects and the Structural Engineering Institute.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Thanks. I've never heard of any independent organization supporting the official story, so it's good to see the experts who support the NIST report.

But regardless of what these experts say of the work NIST has done, the work they haven't done is what's made me suspicious. For one, testing for explosives would have probably erased any doubt of a controlled demolition.

Plus, the New Civil Engineering journal requested the computer visualizations used in their report but were denied access:

World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.
I don't know if those other organizations you've cited have looked over the models or not, but they still do support it.

I won't be satisfied until there is another investigation though, because there are lots of things that rub me suspicious about the NIST report/investigation.
edit on 7-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Results leaning strongly toward a conspiracy on a conspiracy website? Who would have thunk?


Yeah, but it included "guests". I thought the separation between members and guests was a great idea. The fact that the general population (willing to take a poll on 9/11, granted) polled so closely to ATS members tell you that over half of Americans do not believe in the official story.

I hope we separate and blend future guest results. It really says a lot about how non-conspiracy folks think and how they aren't all that different with their trust.


It's still a CT site, and as such attracts people interested in conspiracy theories. I don't think you could call them the general population. It also doesn't take into account people who have accounts but didn't log in for the poll.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



I won't be satisfied until there is another investigation though, because there are lots of things that rub me suspicious about the NIST report/investigation.


Short of water boarding Dick Cheyney or some such nonsense - exactly what would you investigate that a competent professional could not investigate on his/her own with regard to the NIST report? The collapse model used by the NIST is not unique and there is no reason that you could not use some other sort of finite analysis modeling.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Maybe its just me but I find it very weird that a lot of people that believe the official story believe it based on what the media says. I think its important to look at it from a scientific perspective like what temperature does jet fuel burn in open air, or what temperature is needed to melt steel. once you do research on 9/11 purely using science in my opinion there's only two options, the government lied or some laws of physics that we were taught is completely bogus. If you want proof Google sky scrapers hit by planes and please realize that there were sky scrapers in country's no where near the US in technology, yet they withstood the crash and fire.

Makes you say hmmm....



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I don't know what really happened on 9/11, but there is one absolute truth that 9/11 makes quite visible. There is something very wrong with the world we live in.



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join