2
   

What Really Happened on 9/11?

 
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 11:23 am
Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story

Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll
Truth Movement has the huge majority of opinion
How will the Bush Cabal react?

Steve Watson & Alex Jones / Prisonplanet.com | October 14 2006

A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks.

According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"

The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job.

A recent CNN poll found that the percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington rose from almost a third to almost half over the past four years. This latest poll shows that that figure has again risen exponentially and now stands at well over three quarters of the population.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pictures/Oct06/141006nye1.jpg

It took 35 plus years for the majority of Americans to wake up to the fact that the assassination of JFK was a government operation. It has only take five years for MORE Americans to wake up to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job on behalf of the Neoconservative crime syndicate within the US.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 11:47 am
The poll you cite does nothing to support the proposition you forward, and in fact inconveniences that proposition, in the specific particular of that poll's finding the number of persons responding that they felt the Government was "Hiding Something" fell 12 points since that poll's 2002 version, from 65% to 53%.

Further, nothing in the poll lends any credence to the notion any significant portion of the population buys into any of the ridiculous conspiracy theories. The only thing dumber than a "massive institutional conspiracy theory" is a dupe who falls for one. All you evidence is your reliance upon argument from incredulity - that which one does not understand appears to that one to be impossible. What you have accomplished is a stunning demonstration of determined ignorance.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 12:44 pm
timberlandko wrote:
All you evidence is your reliance upon argument from incredulity - that which one does not understand appears to that one to be impossible. What you have accomplished is a stunning demonstration of determined ignorance.


And now ladies & gentlemen.

This is the same person (i'm willing to bet), who would have been completely confident about Iraq's WMD's, as he is completely confident about the 9/11 conspiracy theory now.

At the beginning of the Iraq war, timbo would have been 100% certain about Saddam's WMD's without any doubt (Bush had told him so)

Bush lied about Iraq's WMD. Why would he NOT lie about 9/11?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 12:55 pm
That's a bet you'd lose. I did find the weight of evidence provided via reports and assessments from all the world's intelligence services compelling, and cause for prudent action in the interest of due diligence, but no more than a component among many of the myriad reasons for taking action to resolve the decades-long intranigence of Sadaam's Iraq. My position on that particular is multiply recorded on these boards, in many, many threads.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 01:15 pm
timberlandko wrote:
That's a bet you'd lose. I did find the weight of evidence provided via reports and assessments from all the world's intelligence services compelling, and cause for prudent action in the interest of due diligence, but no more than a component among many of the myriad reasons for taking action to resolve the decades-long intranigence of Sadaam's Iraq. My position on that particular is multiply recorded on these boards, in many, many threads.


Hmm ok, you're smarter than i thought. Laughing

However my question still stands.

We now know that the WMD rationale, was a lie.

Why wouldn't Bush lie about 9/11 ?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 01:35 pm
The only lies pertaining to Iraq's Sadaam-era WMD actions, intentions, assets and capabilities issue from Sadaam and those who serve as apologists for him. The consensus of the world's intelligence community was - and remains - that Sadaam's Iraq was intolerably not forthcoming and compliant, but rather was defiant of and actively, persistently engaged in obstruction and violation of numerous sanctions imposed on painm of military intervention, as well as in violation of agreed ceasefire terms as implemented at Safwan in '91.

And the only lies pertaining to the events of 9/11 issue from those unwilling to recognize and accept the events for what they are, or from those incapable of understanding the clear, voluminous actual evidence freeely available.

As I said, the only thing dumber than a "massive institutional conspiracy theory" is one who falls for one.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 02:13 pm
Zippo sez
Quote:
Hmm ok, you're smarter than i thought. [Laughing]
. Now its our turn to rule on you. I must admit that you are as smart as I thought.
Interestingly, the poll is specific to "What intelligence did the administration have re: the 9/11 attacks before 9/11". Once again, Zippos limited comprehension skills are in play.

Maybe if the Zip would enroll in "Hooked on Phonics" hed be able to critically review stuff like evidence and data.

Whatta schmuck.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 02:51 pm
American 77 Flight Data Recorder Released (9/11 Pentagon)

Common Strategy Prior to 9/11/2001.

I find it hard to believe Capt. Burlingame gave up his ship to Hani Hanjour pointing a boxcutter at him... period...

Pilots know The Common Strategy prior to 9/11. Capt. Burlingame would have taken them where they wanted to go, but only after seeing more than a "boxcutter" or knife. Why did Burlingame, a 6'5" retired Military Officer with training in anti-terrorism, give up his airplane to 5 foot nothing.. 100 and nothing Hani Hanjour holding a "boxcutter". (Exaggeration added for size of Hani.. he was tiny.. lets just put it that way).

"Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters"

The pilots' number 1 priority is the safety of the passengers. Number 2 priority is to get them to their destination on time. Pilots dont just give up their airplane to someone with a knife.. regardless of what the press has told you about The Common Strategy prior to 9/11.

To those pilots out there. Think about the old Common Strategy... we know it was to cooperate.. but was it to give up your ship to anyone with a knife? No! What the press doesnt tell the public is that there is alot more to the old Common Strategy than "complete, full cooperation

Flight Data Recorder Analysis

Last Second of Data

09:37:44

08/20/06


We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles.

We have an animation of the entire flight provided by the NTSB. I have sat through the whole flight from taxi out at Dulles... to the impact at the Pentagon in real time.

The screenshot below shows the very last frame of the recorded data. Its stops at 9:37:44 AM EDT (Official Impact Time is 09:37:45). You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet. This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the
FDR. They refuse to comment.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/myPictures/44.JPG

More : http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 03:16 pm
What that screenshot shows me is an aircraft at very low level (well below 500 feet) with a helluva sinkrate (maximum nose-down control input), a buncha power (throttles maxxed), and significant forward momentum (around 462 knots, or about 530mph) - from that, the "Official Version" sure looks plausible to the point of certainty to me - but then, I'm just judging from A particular perspective, tinged with a bit of carrier landing experience.
0 Replies
 
MarionT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 08:33 pm
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 07:33 am
All that article shows is that everyone was not listenintg to SCott Ritter who was, until he got sacked, a chief inspector in the WMD search.
Clinton never went to war with Iraq, I may be a little hazy but I dont recall that he sent over 200000 troops to invade, nor did he stage a "shock and Awe" fireworks show for FOX news.

The intelligence community (all of it) aint worth a pinch of spit and should have had major sackings after 9/11 and then Afghanistan and finally, Iraq. They are tits on a clam, a useless bag of beurocrats without skills .
Itsd be much better if we subcontracted our Intel to the Israelis or the British
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 08:25 am
Good for 84% of Americans. Hallelujah. Hopefully the rest wont die in darkness kissing the butts of the madmen betraying this country and world. Time for big change.
0 Replies
 
MarionT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 02:41 am
You may have a point< Farmerman, about subcontracting our Intelligence Service to the Israelis and/or the British but are you aware that both those intelligence services assured us in 2000 and 2001 that Saddam possessed WMD's?

I am sure, that like you, there are many who feel that the Brits and the Israelis are very good at what they do and, as a result,gather reliable intelligence.

Should we have listened to the other intelligence services, Farmerman? You would appear to vote in the affirmative.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 05:23 am
In retrospect that p[osition is a no-brainer. I know SCott Ritter and hes an honorable guy who ran afould of the Clinton and Bush machines for some reason. He always told the truth as he saw it and it seemed that all of Washington had its head up its ass after 9/11.

If the 9/11 conspiracy guys werent such an embarrassment to themselves, they would be laughable. But, like many areas that require detailed forensic examination, easy shortcuts in logic are always those that sell books and get peoples faces recognized.

Ill bet noone recognizes the scientists and engineers that were empaneled within the 9/11 committees work groups, yet everyone knows the "9/11 scholars for truth"
We are products of 24 hour news where every minute is a sales target and the ,more outrageous a theory, the better. Noone has vetted or QA'dthe "scholars work". Ive only looked at a few areas and , like the "Finnish" expert who said that WTC was a small nuke, the gullible will buy that until they learn that every stinking bomb leaves a complex footprint that juswt wsnt there., nor was there any evidence of "cutter charges' (No PETN residues in the air), Also the seismic data was boogered in a most ameteur way by the "scholars" Also their facts of timelines dont ring true.
LAstly, I knew 3 people who were killed, 1 in the WTC working as an engineering modeller and 2 old people from Lubec Maine who were on the plane that hit WTC2.
MarionT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 03:17 am
Farmerman- sir- You never responded to my question. I know that is not your style. Now, again, if I may:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may have a point< Farmerman, about subcontracting our Intelligence Service to the Israelis and/or the British but are you aware that both those intelligence services assured us in 2000 and 2001 that Saddam possessed WMD's?

I am sure, that like you, there are many who feel that the Brits and the Israelis are very good at what they do and, as a result,gather reliable intelligence.

Should we have listened to the other intelligence services, Farmerman? You would appear to vote in the affirmative.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 04:45 am
Marion T, my method of handling a serious subject is often to ridicule it. Im not seriously considering subcontracting our intelligence or "outsorcing it". Id like it to be fixed. The fact that UK was hornswaggled also is not a surprise. They got much of their info from Us.

I keep recalling and reminding everyone that Scott Ritter (he is a Lancaster Pa native) was the only one who got it right and he was cast in the role of a traitor by the GOP. Yet, when all the info was in, Scott was right and everybody else, all the brilliant "yes men" of the administration, were wrong.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 02:03 pm
farmerman -- He doesn't understand satire.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Mar, 2016 04:53 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Amigo wrote:
The first thing to ask yourself about the 9/11 thing is what exactly are men capable of?


I suspect that is exactly the first question conspiracy theorists do ask themselves, and then they allow their imaginations to run from there.


Lemme ask you this, Tico - Do you now or have you ever given any credence to any lingering doubts that remained after any significant national event like an assassination, or an election, or criminals going free, or innocents getting prosecuted, or war crimes, or anything? In other words, are all "conspiracy theories" pretty much dismissed by you out of hand? If not, what kind of thing raised your doubts? Vince Foster, perhaps? Anything?


snood reviving Vince Foster. #1
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 14 Apr, 2017 02:29 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
If the 9/11 conspiracy guys werent such an embarrassment to themselves, they would be l.


Have you always used the same dog and pony show to avoid discussing the science, farmerman the scientist?
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2017 11:38 am
@camlok,
Truth eh? , whats your excuse??.

PS Now Im collapsing this thread on my machine so you can yell, scream, and whine all you wish, maybe someone who gives a **** about what you have to babble on about will drop in.

Im sorry for impugning the common sense of BAldimo. Seems I had him confused with ZIPPO. To BALDIMO I sincerely apologize. As far as your concerned JTT, you can stuff it all up your cloaca and disappear.


 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2021 at 08:40:52