Poll: The Truth of 9-11

the four 9/11 flights are still hidden somewhere. those planes are going to be used again. this time they will film it right. no civilian passegner plane hit world trade centres. none hit pentagon. no plane crashed in the field. they were military jets converted to look like civil planes. All passengers that boarded the original flights have been excecuted. Their phone calls have been faked. All the tapes from cameras on buildings in New York City have been confiscated. World's most secure and monitored building, the Pentagon, was photographed from all angles. Washington has government and private CCTV cameras everywhere. All those recordings have also been impounded by the authorities. No questions. It was a matter of national security. people had to submit those tapes. Government moved quickly on the morning of 9/11. They have tied all loose ends. no evidence can now lead to their plot.

BUT

Some brave people hid their tapes. They are still out there.
They can be used to convict the Bush Administration of most evil act in American history.




[edit on 21-3-2006 by mr conspiracy]

A



2 buildings collapsed after bieng hit
The Pentagon was struck by a plane, not a missle
Flight 93 was shot down
end of story.

Our own government admitted intel failures that led to the ability for Al Qeada to do this. Living in denial will not make the terrorists go away folks.

Originally posted by esdad71
Living in denial will not make the terrorists go away folks.

Living in denial doesn't make the official story true either....

Anyone...with eyes, ears, and a BRAIN can say that it's C! 9/11 was planned, and there is just way too much evidence for it not to be true. All those documentaries. I don't trust the government one bit. They lie all the time, why should we trust them this time?

C.

Blatantly obvious secondary explosions + controlled demolition at WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.
The 911 Commission omitting WTC7 sealed the deal.

IMO, 9/11 was an inside job that was planned well in advance. It was necessary to begin the war scenenario. I beleive Bush had knowledge of the attack as well as his people.

This is my educated opinion, having read all the material i have been through for the past 4 years.

This would be a "C"

[edit on 21-3-2006 by dgtempe]

So dgtempe and llfrequencyll, are those C's? I think WCIP wants you to explicitly state a letter so it can be tallied or whatever.

Originally posted by esdad71
Living in denial will not make the terrorists go away folks.

But clicking ignore makes you go away. And I liked it better when you were. ;(

Seriously, who would rather live under a fascist, citizen-slaughtering government than live with the extremely remote chances of dying in a 9/11-style attack by crazy Muslims from half a world away? You stand a much better chance of dying in a car accident than in a terrorist attack, but a fascist, war-mongering state is eventually going to seriously impact us all. To think that it won't is the real denial.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by bsbray11]

C

C - INSIDE JOB

without a doubt.

C - Big style

Gordon.

Gotta say C have looked at as much evidence as I can and cant see any other explanation.

A combination of all three choices, if anything...

There is plenty of evidence to prove that Islamic terrorists were the perpetrators, and their motives for the attacks are clear and obvious.

I am fairly certain that the U.S. government had prior knowledge that an attack was imminent, and did nothing to stop it. It seemed clear to me right from his election in 2000 that George W. Bush was eager to exercise American military might, and more specifically to finish what daddy started in Iraq.

However, the idea that the September 11th attacks were carried out by the government itself is too far fetched, and the so-called evidence which suggests this does not hold up. The idea that the twin towers were hit by converted military aircraft has been debunked in previous ATS threads.

The collapse of the WTC7 building is highly suspect, and is the basis of the main argument for government involvementas far as I'm concerned. I do not believe, however, that any conspirators faking a terrorist attack would be stupid enough to blow up a building which had not even been hit by an aircraft or affected in any way by the collapse of the other two buildings.

Investigations have shown that the twin towers were not brought down by controlled demolition. They collapsed because burning aircraft fuel melted the steel trusses supporting each floor, causing them to fall and creating a domino effect which brought the towers down. This was due to inadequate fireproofing on the steel structure of the buildings, which can be seen in footage filmed a few weeks prior to the attacks.

My overall view is that the government was involved to some degree, although I doubt Bush's administration was directly responsible. They were, however, at least negligent. I also think that after 9/11, they jumped at the opportunity to use it as a mandate to invade Iraq in a most dispicable manner. 9/11 was shamelessly used as an excuse to justify the pursuit of the Project for the New American Century and the neo-conservative agenda of military dominance.

The whole episode bears a startling similarity to the Reichstag Fire in 1934, blamed by the Nazis on communist insurgents. The way in which the Patriot Act was passed under the premise of protecting the U.S. from the terrorist threat which had apparently materialised all of a sudden reminds me of the way Hitler used the Reichtag fire as an excuse to pass the Enabling Act, which clamped down on political opponents and give the Fuhrer absolute power - leading to subsequent laws which restricted the freedom of the German people. There is still considerable doubt as to who started the fire. Not that I'm comparing Bush to Hitler, the point is people never learn from history.

If only people were more cynical.

Seriously, who would rather live under a fascist, citizen-slaughtering government than live with the extremely remote chances of dying in a 9/11-style attack by crazy Muslims from half a world away? You stand a much better chance of dying in a car accident than in a terrorist attack, but a fascist, war-mongering state is eventually going to seriously impact us all. To think that it won't is the real denial.

So defending the 9/11 conspiracy is just a way for you to promote your agenda, and you have no true feelings about it. You do not like the facist government, and this is your platform to use. See, that is the difference between you and me. I am looking for the truth, and you are simply afraid of living in a war mongering state and choose to blame the government for everything that occurs. You live in feas it would seem, where I am content. I feel bad for you, really.

That said, this is neither the time nor place to have this discussion, but you decided to make it personal.


there, no agenda...



[edit on 22-3-2006 by esdad71]

Esdad, you have completely twisted my words. If I were the one pushing an agenda, I'd be the one telling people how to vote.

esdad71
Vote A!

This poll is very slanted, as most polls are, and make only the point of the writer. In my opinion, the most likely situation…

D. The Bush Admin. was caught with their pants down & orchestrated a massive cover-up. Realistically, they had no more specific information then any prior administration. Being in office for less than nine months is hardly enough time to plan such an operation, so if any administration is to blame it would be the Clinton Admin. I believe there is much more proof of a cover-up than any involvement in it, but hind site is 20/20.

I see that as a HUGE difference. Unfortunately, the true conspiracy is over shadowed by the sensationalism of controlled demolition, “fuzzy fisics” & remote controlled planes.

Ah Jake, so you think every new administration is a clean slate? It realy doesn't work that way IMO. What we see is just the public face of those in control. The face changes, those that really run things doesn't. The agenda has been the same since government started, complete control and minipulation of the public to maintain that control, only the methods of that agenda change.
If the agenda comes up against disent they get wiped out, ala Kenedy...

People like rumsfeld and cheney have been doing their dirty work for yrs, no matter who president was at the time. Do you know about 'Operation Northwoods'? That's the same plan as for 9-11, and when was that written?

Even if someone else was president we would have still gone to war, just the method to get their might have been different. Bush was chosen (just like all presidents) to impliment this stage of their plan...

[edit on 23/3/2006 by ANOK]

The answer is C' but the operation was NOT run by Americans or Arabs.

Part B, also applies because some high up in Washington did know about the attack due to the military stand down etc.

Anok, I totally agree. That's one of my points in picking option "D". It doesn't matter what party or who is in office, but things that get lost & overshadowed by the headlines would occur non the less.

I'm pretty surprised, even with the bias of this board, that nobody felt the need for another choice...

B for me. I don't feel like arguing or debating for me. Nontheless i don't like living in a fantasy world. I feel that the government did know and did nothing about. It's just like shooting someone in the face after that person agrees to help the shooter. A nice slap in the face then we are told nothing really happened.



[edit on 23-3-2006 by malakiem]

Anybody keeping track of the percentages on this?

Oh, well, add a big "C" from me. Total inside job; no way I will continue to listen to the professional liars.