I'm curious how many ATS users still believe the official story

I was under the impression that ATS users have accepted the fact that 9/11 was an inside job after all the overwelming evidence indicating so. But after reading alot of these threads i have found that many users still accept the official story as fact. 9/11 is old news for me now, i researched it enough to know it was not done by 19 muslims, and i dont need any more proof. I lost one family member, my girlfriends dad, and my best friends dad. I was there in manhattan when the planes hit. The families have 9/11 meetings every week, and none of them are happy with the way the govt is hiding information from them. Most of them suspect that it was an inside job.. In no way would an independent investigation be an insult to the families, in fact the families are looking for some kind of closure, that excuse is just a copout to get people to stop questioning the events of that day.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and probably others are literally dead if there is ever a fair investigation. That's why they'll fight it with everything they've got. Plus, I suspect Israel was involved, and Israel doesn't want a war with America. the

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld and probably others are literally dead if there ever is a fair and official investigation. Therefore they fight it with all they've got.

Israel and the Jews (unfair, I admit, I won't cry for the Israeli government but only a very few Jews had anything to do with 9/11) will suffer greatly also and thus they fight it.

Just saying that I believe the official story will get me flamed, but it was the members on ATS that brought me to that conclusion.
The conspiracy folks never seemed to make a lot of sense, and their "evidence" never stood up to my scrutiny.

I won't argue my position, but I feel this was nothing more than a terrorist attack that was then used by the administration as an excuse to go to war.

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
Just saying that I believe the official story will get me flamed, but it was the members on ATS that brought me to that conclusion.
The conspiracy folks never seemed to make a lot of sense, and their "evidence" never stood up to my scrutiny.

I won't argue my position, but I feel this was nothing more than a terrorist attack that was then used by the administration as an excuse to go to war.

i respect your opinion, life was alot easier when i believed the official story! But you have to admit there are tons of loopholes in the official story!

btw, whats up AD!

ad, do you have an answer as to why the put options on the airlines in the weeks leading up to 9/11 were never adequately investigated?

I totally agree with anxietydisorder. Not everything is a conspiracy, and I just don't see one in this tragic event. That's not to say I don't respect your opinion hikix, and I am truly sorry you lost loved ones in this tragic event, regardless of what happened.

Oh yes, there are a ton of things that have yet to be explained.
And I'm sure the powers that be would just love to blind the citizenry so we don't see or understand what they are truly doing.

I just think this case has been blown out of proportion, and people are seeing things that just aren't there. One example being a controlled demolition of the towers, and an other being that a missile hit the Pentagon.

It's fun to read everyone's theories, but the time comes when you have to stop wading hip deep in BS or get a bigger pair of boots.
I don't have the money to buy a pair of boots big enough to get me through the mire that's been espoused about 9/11.

I can assure you though, I'm not the kind of person that takes the path of least resistance. If I saw a smoking gun in any of this I'd be shouting it from the highest mountain.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
ad, do you have an answer as to why the put options on the airlines in the weeks leading up to 9/11 were never adequately investigated?

I firmly believe that more people knew the attack would take place before the fact than what has been exposed, but people should be looking at corporations for those answers, not the government.


EDIT: I hope I don't get warned for posting a picture of a "Big Dick", but if there is any chicanery in this tragedy I would look at this man.




I think Bush was oblivious as to what was going on.

[edit on 27/3/2007 by anxietydisorder]

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
Just saying that I believe the official story will get me flamed, but it was the members on ATS that brought me to that conclusion.
The conspiracy folks never seemed to make a lot of sense, and their "evidence" never stood up to my scrutiny.

That's cool, but have you actually read the entire 9/11 Commission Report?

www.9-11commission.gov...

ad, it sounds as if you don't believe the official story either, but maybe not the majority unofficial one either. I encourage you to post your theories.

I believe at the VERY LEAST, the government had advanced knowledge that the attack would take place. I respect everyones opinion and i am curious to see who has what opinion on this subject.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

That's cool, but have you actually read the entire 9/11 Commission Report?

www.9-11commission.gov...

I've never managed to read the entire report, but I became jaded after reading the Warren Commission report. I'm that old.

I see the US government as a corporate pawn, no matter what party is in power.

I believe that if I were a terrorist with the resources to do something like this, that I'd choose better targets than the WTC early in the day and the Pentagon.

If I were aiming for maximum shock, terror (and being a terrorist, terror is what I'm supposed to cause, right?) and human injury, then a target such as a large sporting event like the superbowl would make more sense. The superbowl in 2001 and 2002 both had around seventy thousand attendees. A stadium large enough to hold that many people, even when hit with a plane say only on one side, would cause large numbers of casualties, and injuries, partly due simply to panic. If you wish to terrorize an entire country, an event which is watched by a large portion of that country on television would definitely cause mass terror.

Why would you choose to hit towers which, if you look at historical precedent, would in all likelyhood *not* collapse?. A few hundred deaths, while incredibly tragic, seems like a low terror payout for the amount of risk involved in hijacking four planes.

And the pentagon? Why attack one of the supposed best defended buildings in the world? Given the size and structure of the building, it would be unlikely, imo, that attacking a building like that would incapacitate retaliation or defense capabilities significantly, so other than a sort of childish "haha we got you where you live" concept, that too, to me, makes no sense. I would think that a higher psychological damage would come from attacking buildings that have a greater historical or patriotic significance, eg, the statue of liberty.

So yes, if I am a terrorist and my motive is to cause terror and injury in a large degree, and I have the resources to make what happened on 9/11 a reality, even if I risk an only 25% success rate, rather than a 75% success rate as happened, why am I so bad at picking targets, or why did I choose the ones that I did?.. I am not saying though, that I in any way consider what those people who have loss family and friends and dear ones went through as easy, it obviously was not.

But that's what, regardless of the varied theories about who did it, who covered up what, who knew what, which UFO hit which tower etc etc, that's what confuses me. Anyone spending a significant period of time watching the US's primary export of media, could not fail to realize that buildings which spent a relatively small amount of air time, would not achieve the maximum impact possible. So, why those targets?

Originally posted by Inannamute
I believe that if I were a terrorist with the resources to do something like this, that I'd choose better targets than the WTC early in the day and the Pentagon.

If I were aiming for maximum shock, terror (and being a terrorist, terror is what I'm supposed to cause, right?) and human injury, then a target such as a large sporting event like the superbowl would make more sense. The superbowl in 2001 and 2002 both had around seventy thousand attendees. A stadium large enough to hold that many people, even when hit with a plane say only on one side, would cause large numbers of casualties, and injuries, partly due simply to panic. If you wish to terrorize an entire country, an event which is watched by a large portion of that country on television would definitely cause mass terror.

Why would you choose to hit towers which, if you look at historical precedent, would in all likelyhood *not* collapse?. A few hundred deaths, while incredibly tragic, seems like a low terror payout for the amount of risk involved in hijacking four planes.

And the pentagon? Why attack one of the supposed best defended buildings in the world? Given the size and structure of the building, it would be unlikely, imo, that attacking a building like that would incapacitate retaliation or defense capabilities significantly, so other than a sort of childish "haha we got you where you live" concept, that too, to me, makes no sense. I would think that a higher psychological damage would come from attacking buildings that have a greater historical or patriotic significance, eg, the statue of liberty.

So yes, if I am a terrorist and my motive is to cause terror and injury in a large degree, and I have the resources to make what happened on 9/11 a reality, even if I risk an only 25% success rate, rather than a 75% success rate as happened, why am I so bad at picking targets, or why did I choose the ones that I did?.. I am not saying though, that I in any way consider what those people who have loss family and friends and dear ones went through as easy, it obviously was not.

But that's what, regardless of the varied theories about who did it, who covered up what, who knew what, which UFO hit which tower etc etc, that's what confuses me. Anyone spending a significant period of time watching the US's primary export of media, could not fail to realize that buildings which spent a relatively small amount of air time, would not achieve the maximum impact possible. So, why those targets?

awesome post... thanks for the reply!

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB: I don't really have any proof other than what I have seen posted here and there and since the thread point blank asks what my opinion was I will give it to you. Like others I have theories to why this happened. There are a handful of people that control the world's finances and the sheeple that eat grass on the planet. It's all about money, power and greed. By destroying the WTC buildings (which BTW were to be decomissioned in 2007 for no profit) were heavily insured in the billions. Secondly, this gave the higher uppers a reason to wage war anywhere they pleased and profit from the rebuilding and controlling of the oil fields. Two birds KILLED with one stone and it was a completely successful mission due to the fact that the waters have been muddied and now no one really knows.

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
Just saying that I believe the official story will get me flamed, but it was the members on ATS that brought me to that conclusion.
The conspiracy folks never seemed to make a lot of sense, and their "evidence" never stood up to my scrutiny.

I won't argue my position, but I feel this was nothing more than a terrorist attack that was then used by the administration as an excuse to go to war.

couldn't have said it better myself.

Originally posted by Inannamute
If I were aiming for maximum shock, terror (and being a terrorist, terror is what I'm supposed to cause, right?) and human injury, then a target such as a large sporting event like the superbowl would make more sense.

I guess the idea was to kill the politicians of America (White house and Pentagon and bring the economy to it's knees (WTC). Didn't work though.

Originally posted by CaptainLazy

I guess the idea was to kill the politicians of America (White house and Pentagon and bring the economy to it's knees (WTC). Didn't work though.

I think it may have been even more simple.
The terrorists hit targets that were large and easily visible from the air.

I think there are some unanswered questions and perhaps some after-the-fact coverups to CYA some people, but I wholeheartedly agree that the official story is far closer to an accurate description of what happened than any conspiracy theories I've read here and elsewhere.