ATS Poll: 9/11 Conspiracy vs 9/11 Story

YES

The US was hijacked by evil people a long time ago. 9/11 shows how far these criminals can go..
Who's gonna stop them? Not the police, that's for sure.

Originally posted by Starwatcher
I don't know what to believe. NORAD clueless....I don't buy it, only one camera showing something hit the pentagon...., 3 steel buildings collapsing at almost freefall speed, 2 wars one for oil and one for heroin/natural gas, Cheney giving an order to an aid regaurding the object heading toward the pentagon. Well something just looks fishy here so I would have to say,
YES.

And this is coming of a former supporter of the war on terrorism and Bush.

It's nice to see another supporter of the War on terror/ Bush
thinking for themselves and asking legitamite questions. Now if only the rest of the sheeple would wake up and smell the roses......I mean lies

Originally posted by Orion_grey
Yes - the evidence is staggering.

Orion_

This is exactly why I will sound out a resounding "no". There is no real evidence at all, actually. It's all biased and untested; when was the last time two other buildings this size were hit with air-liners? It's pretty damn scary when research by lunatics like Jones is considered staggering evidence.

I have a couple other ideas for some polls! How many of you who answered yes use drugs currently? How many of you hold degrees in physics or trade-certificates in thermodynamics? How many of you live with your parents?

You honestly think a poll on a conspiracy theory site is going to reflect the true number of skeptics in regards to this baseless sham-theory? The quote "Think for yourself, question authority" is one i try to follow on a regular basis. There is a massive valley between questioning authority and blindly swallowing anything anti-establishment, however. Look inside your own mind and ask yourself why you truly answered "yes". This "staggering evidence" that so many of you suggest exists out there is probably not why.

Originally posted by PartChimp
This is exactly why I will sound out a resounding "no". There is no real evidence at all, actually. It's all biased and untested; when was the last time two other buildings this size were hit with air-liners? It's pretty damn scary when research by lunatics like Jones is considered staggering evidence.

Their have been other steel buildings with longer fires the the WTC buildings and suffered worse stuctural damge and did not collapse.

Other buildings close to the towers suffered worse structural damge then building 7 and had fires but they did not collapse.

The WTC buildings have been the only steel buildings to collapse from fire and stuctrual damge in the last 30 years in the US.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

911research.wtc7.net...

Since the jet fuel fire was brief, and the building still stood, we know that the composite floor slab survived and continued to function as designed (until the buildings were demolished one or two hours later). After the jet fuel fire was over, burning desks, books, plastic, carpets, etc, contributed to the fire. So now we have a typical office fire. The fact that the trusses received some advanced heating will be of little consequence. After some minutes the fires would have been indistinguishable from a typical office fire, and we know that the truss-slab combination will survive such fires, because they did so in the 1975.

Yes

There is mostly circumstantial evidence but that's because the government failed to investigate. The beams of the WTC were bundled off to China in a hurry. There was no follow-up on the actual highjackers, 6-8 are alive and well, so who did the deed? Why were the records of the Venice Florida airport where some of the 'pilots' were trained packed up and taken to DC by Jeb. Why was the WTC powered down weekends before the attack? It was a black opt but not by Osama, in fact he's not important any more, the president told us so.

****************NEW RESULTS****************

VOTES: 53

YES: 46
NO: 7

Conspiracy = 87%
No Conspiracy = 13%

Well, I guess the results speak for themselves.

I'd like to conduct another poll soon with the option of "Previous Knowledge" and also try to get other people than just ATS members involved. It'd be great to get a feel for the public's awareness of the inconsistancies regarding the events of 9/11. I know that there has been other polls conducted to do just that, but I'd like to see an updated poll.

Thanks to everyone!

[edit on 1-5-2007 by tyranny22]

YES,The morning of 9/11 I was in a state of shock.That is until both towers fell the way they did.The moment that hapened I knew that something was fishy.There were many reasons for 9/11 to happen.The war in Iraq/Afghanastan and Patriot act are a couple examples.Wonder how many folks ran to the recruiting office and signed up after that fateful day?

YES - Way to many inconsisties in the official story.

The results are incredible I cant beleive that 13% of ppl still beleive in the Official conspiracy.
What kind of drugs do they use?
Did you drop out from school when tyou were 3 yrs old?
Guys sorry to tell you but Santa Claus does not exist.
Wow 13% really impressive.

YES: 46
NO: 7

Conspiracy = 87%
No Conspiracy = 13%

Yes. Being familiar with PNAC, I suspected a false flag operation before the towers had fallen.

Yes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a one liner.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

The WTC buildings have been the only steel buildings to collapse from fire and stuctrual damge in the last 30 years in the US.

But they didn't fall from structural failure.

Originally posted by tyranny22
Well, I guess the results speak for themselves.

Which is not really a surprise, since this is a conspiracy related forum.

Oh and I would also have to vote yes.

I count the vote to be 49 YES and adding my vote, makes it 8 NO plus one OTHER.

Frankly, the United States Government under B43 is incapable of pulling off such a complicated mission. Heck, it was just 4 years ago the first day of this month that our Maximum Leader proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln after flying in all decked out in a custom fitted flying suit which probably cost taxpayers $3,000 or $4,000. I suppose the Alabama Air National Guard confiscated his old flying suit when he was taken off flying status? For failing a required physical? Snorting coke again? Hmm?

[edit on 5/10/2007 by donwhite]

I vote NO on this one.

I'm open too all ideas and conspiracies, I just want proof.

Mikey

I'd have to vote NO.

There's plenty of interesting questions, but no concrete evidence.

I'm willing to change my opinion should any evidence come to surface.

There is a poll already done on 911, might as well bring that one up to life again, alot of people voted there.

Originally posted by donwhite


Frankly, the United States Government under B43 is incapable of pulling off such a complicated mission. Heck, it was just 4 years ago the first day of this month that our Maximum Leader proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln after flying in all decked out in a custom fitted flying suit which probably cost taxpayers $3,000 or $4,000. I suppose the Alabama Air National Guard confiscated his old flying suit when he was taken off flying status? For failing a required physical? Snorting coke again? Hmm?

[edit on 5/10/2007 by donwhite]

The US government is incapable, yet 19 Arabs living in caves are? I think you have it turned around. There's no way in H*ll 19 Arabs did 9/11 without help from the US government and I'll bet there where no Arabs.

Originally posted by Steel Penguin
I'd have to vote NO.

There's plenty of interesting questions, but no concrete evidence.

I'm willing to change my opinion should any evidence come to surface.

I'm not knocking you, but it just doesn't look like you've spent a lot of time with the subject. On the other hand, maybe I don't understand what you mean by "concrete evidence." There's no concrete evidence of ufos (in the form of an actual vehicle available to public scrutiny), but if you see one, you don't need it. Likewise, I saw the towers fall at freefall speed defying physics. I saw Building 7 fall the same way without an airplane impacting it.

No offense, but in my mind, IF--I say IF--you're familiar with the countless perplexities in the government's version and you vote "no," you appear less a judicious skeptic and more someone who simply can't adequately assemble assorted facts and come to a logical assessment. As I mentioned in a previous post, familiarity with PNAC and the Bush administration's agenda sets the motive, and everything falls into place from there.

Originally posted by yuefo

Originally posted by Steel Penguin
I'd have to vote NO.

There's plenty of interesting questions, but no concrete evidence.

I'm willing to change my opinion should any evidence come to surface.

I'm not knocking you, but it just doesn't look like you've spent a lot of time with the subject. On the other hand, maybe I don't understand what you mean by "concrete evidence." There's no concrete evidence of ufos (in the form of an actual vehicle available to public scrutiny), but if you see one, you don't need it. Likewise, I saw the towers fall at freefall speed defying physics. I saw Building 7 fall the same way without an airplane impacting it.

No offense, but in my mind, IF--I say IF--you're familiar with the countless perplexities in the government's version and you vote "no," you appear less a judicious skeptic and more someone who simply can't adequately assemble assorted facts and come to a logical assessment. As I mentioned in a previous post, familiarity with PNAC and the Bush administration's agenda sets the motive, and everything falls into place from there.

I've spent a fair bit of time on the subject, although it doesn't dictate my every waking moment.

Your UFO analogy probably highlights the difference between me and you:

**There's no concrete evidence of ufos (in the form of an actual vehicle available to public scrutiny), but if you see one, you don't need it.**

Well, seeing isn't always believing. i've seen UFO's, that doesn't automatically equate to them being alien in origin. Similarly, discrepancies in the official version of events on 9/11 doesn't automatically equate to a conspiracy.

It might be good enough evidence for you, for me they're are just unanswered and interesting questions.