2
   

Where Were You When you Started to Doubt the Official 9/11..

 
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 02:43 pm
Quote:
Thursday, August 3, 2006

Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?

By THOMAS HARGROVE AND GUIDO H. STEMPEL III
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appear to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Suspicions that the 9/11 attacks were "an inside job" -- the common phrase used by conspiracy theorists on the Internet -- quickly have become nearly as popular as decades-old conspiracy theories that the federal government was responsible for President John F. Kennedy's assassination and that it has covered up proof of space aliens.

Seventy percent of people who give credence to these theories also say they've become angrier with the federal government than they used to be.

Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

"One out of three sounds high, but that may very well be right," said Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also called the 9/11 Commission). His congressionally appointed investigation concluded that federal officials bungled their attempts to prevent, but did not participate in, the attacks by al-Qaida five years ago.

"A lot of people I've encountered believe the U.S. government was involved," Hamilton said.

"Many say the government planned the whole thing," he said. "Of course, we don't think the evidence leads that way at all."



The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

Conspiracy groups for at least two years have also questioned why the World Trade Center collapsed when fires that heavily damaged similar skyscrapers around the world did not cause such destruction. Sixteen percent said it's "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that "the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings."

Twelve percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.

University of Florida law professor Mark Fenster, author of the book "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture," said the poll's findings reflect public anger at the unpopular Iraq war, realization that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and growing doubts of the veracity of the Bush administration.

"What has amazed me is not that there are conspiracy theories, but that they didn't seem to be getting any purchase among the American public until the last year or so," Fenster said. "Although the Iraq war was not directly related to the 9/11 attacks, people are now looking back at 9/11 with much more skepticism than they used to."

The Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University has tracked the level of resentment people feel toward the federal government since 1995, starting shortly after Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. Forty-seven percent then said they, personally, feel "more angry at the federal government" than they used to. That percentage dropped to 42 percent in 1997, 34 percent in 1998 and only 12 percent shortly after 9/11 during the groundswell of patriotism and support for the government after the attacks.

But the new survey found that 77 percent say their friends and acquaintances have become angrier with the government recently and 54 percent say they, themselves, have become angrier -- both record levels.

The survey also found that people who regularly use the Internet but who do not regularly use so-called "mainstream" media are significantly more likely to believe in 9/11 conspiracies. People who regularly read daily newspapers or listen to radio newscasts were especially unlikely to believe in the conspiracies.

"We know that there are a lot of people now asking questions," said Janice Matthews, executive director of 911Truth.org, one of the most sophisticated Internet sites raising doubts about official explanations of the attacks. "We didn't have the Internet after Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin or the Kennedy assassination. But we live in different times now."

The survey was conducted by telephone from July 6-24 at the Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio under a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation. The poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

seattlepi
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 02:55 pm
Quote:
... The survey also found that people who regularly use the Internet but who do not regularly use so-called "mainstream" media are significantly more likely to believe in 9/11 conspiracies. People who regularly read daily newspapers or listen to radio newscasts were especially unlikely to believe in the conspiracies. ...

There ya go - the closer folks are to the real world, the further they are from fairytales. Not that that really needs to be noted.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 03:21 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Quote:
... The survey also found that people who regularly use the Internet but who do not regularly use so-called "mainstream" media are significantly more likely to believe in 9/11 conspiracies. People who regularly read daily newspapers or listen to radio newscasts were especially unlikely to believe in the conspiracies. ...

There ya go - the closer folks are to the real world, the further they are from fairytales. Not that that really needs to be noted.


Why are you using the internet then? get back to watching fox news! (which is closer to your real world) Laughing
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 03:30 pm
Quote:
More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

Well here it is rsizeded. Of the 1/3 , how many actually feel that the govt "planned and carried out the attack"?? I know that , from the timelines that were in the papers early in the post 9/11 time, it was apparent that FBI and CIA and local law enforcement were not cooperating and were catatonic. I personally think that the govt COULD have followed information that was available prior to this attack vigorously and maybe even interdicted. At worst, people should be fired for incompetence and lack of creative thinking within agencies that must overflow with creativity from hereon. However, there is absolutely no compelling evidence that supports a conspiracy.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 03:43 pm
Actually, much of my internet use centers on monitoring live feeds from a broad spectrum of wire services, both news and financial, and I'm not much of a FOX fan, not much of a TV fan at all, in fact, though during market hours generally I will have a couple financial channels tuned in on the TVs in my office, usually volume off as I mostly watch their tickers and screen crawls. C-Span 1 and 2 get a bit of watching here, when events or programming warrant, and evenings most often you'll find something from the Discovery Network, the History Channel network, NASA TV, or a good movie on the big screen - if its on at all. I just about never watch major network TV - couldn't even tell you what shows are popular now, and honestly, I have no idea where on the radio dial I might find either Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken. I subscribe to and regularly read more than one major newspaper as well as a number of weekly and monthly news and business/financial periodicals.


I'm kind to animals, too.




'cept varmints.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 04:13 pm
freedom4free wrote:
Quote:
Thursday, August 3, 2006

Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?

By THOMAS HARGROVE AND GUIDO H. STEMPEL III
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.




Apparently more than half theAmerican population are dumb enough to believe that Saddam had WMD and bombed the World Trade Centre...I don't know how many of them also believe in alien abductions...what do you think that figure proves about reality, if anything?
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 04:19 pm
dlowan wrote:
freedom4free wrote:
Quote:
Thursday, August 3, 2006

Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?

By THOMAS HARGROVE AND GUIDO H. STEMPEL III
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.



Apparently more than half theAmerican population are dumb enough to believe that Saddam had WMD and bombed the World Trade Centre...I don't know how many of them also believe in alien abductions...what do you think that figure proves about reality, if anything?


Err, it proves that there maybe some of those dumb people in this forum, and i might be actually talking to some of them ?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 04:23 pm
freedom4free wrote:
dlowan wrote:
freedom4free wrote:
Quote:
Thursday, August 3, 2006

Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?

By THOMAS HARGROVE AND GUIDO H. STEMPEL III
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.



Apparently more than half theAmerican population are dumb enough to believe that Saddam had WMD and bombed the World Trade Centre...I don't know how many of them also believe in alien abductions...what do you think that figure proves about reality, if anything?


Err, it proves that there maybe some of those dumb people in this forum, and i might be actually talking to some of them ?


That would be the wrong answer.


You need to think this time.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 04:23 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Actually, much of my internet use centers on monitoring live feeds from a broad spectrum of wire services, both news and financial, and I'm not much of a FOX fan, not much of a TV fan at all, in fact, though during market hours generally I will have a couple financial channels tuned in on the TVs in my office, usually volume off as I mostly watch their tickers and screen crawls. C-Span 1 and 2 get a bit of watching here, when events or programming warrant, and evenings most often you'll find something from the Discovery Network, the History Channel network, NASA TV, or a good movie on the big screen - if its on at all. I just about never watch major network TV - couldn't even tell you what shows are popular now, and honestly, I have no idea where on the radio dial I might find either Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken. I subscribe to and regularly read more than one major newspaper as well as a number of weekly and monthly news and business/financial periodicals.


I'm kind to animals, too.




'cept varmints.


Oh, i though you were some very smart/educated person, is that all you do ?

I knew i was wasting my time. Sad
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 04:26 pm
dlowan wrote:
freedom4free wrote:
dlowan wrote:
freedom4free wrote:
Quote:
Thursday, August 3, 2006

Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?

By THOMAS HARGROVE AND GUIDO H. STEMPEL III
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.



Apparently more than half theAmerican population are dumb enough to believe that Saddam had WMD and bombed the World Trade Centre...I don't know how many of them also believe in alien abductions...what do you think that figure proves about reality, if anything?


Err, it proves that there maybe some of those dumb people in this forum, and i might be actually talking to some of them ?


That would be the wrong answer.


You need to think this time.


Err, with that many dumb American's voting, any fool can become a president.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 06:04 pm
freedom4free wrote:
I knew i was wasting my time. Sad

Somehow, I doubt you actually do realize ypu're wasting your time - and a bit of bandwidth besides. Still, the inept, uneducatedly structured peddling of ignorance, bigotry and antisemitism evidenced through your posts offers some entertainment value.





Like varmints.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 06:08 pm
From my obtuse POV, I think Timber is drawing a conclusion about Butts
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 06:46 pm
This bein' the internet and all, ain't much point drawin' a bead.





Damned varmints.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 02:08 pm
freedom4free wrote:
dlowan wrote:
freedom4free wrote:
dlowan wrote:
freedom4free wrote:
Quote:
Thursday, August 3, 2006

Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?

By THOMAS HARGROVE AND GUIDO H. STEMPEL III
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.



Apparently more than half theAmerican population are dumb enough to believe that Saddam had WMD and bombed the World Trade Centre...I don't know how many of them also believe in alien abductions...what do you think that figure proves about reality, if anything?


Err, it proves that there maybe some of those dumb people in this forum, and i might be actually talking to some of them ?


That would be the wrong answer.


You need to think this time.


Err, with that many dumb American's voting, any fool can become a president.


And any fool can cut & paste on the internet...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 02:21 pm
freedom4free wrote:
b.t.w two planes crashing in the W.T.C could NOT have been an accident

I dont think ANYBODY says it was "an accident"...

Otherwise, I'm mostly just in awe of Farmerman's and Timber's apparently inexhaustible patience.. one from the left, one from the right, against so many dopeheads.. rather you than me, friends.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 02:24 pm
dlowan wrote:
Apparently more than half theAmerican population are dumb enough to believe that Saddam had WMD and bombed the World Trade Centre...I don't know how many of them also believe in alien abductions...

Dunno, but the same poll that showed that thirty-six percent of Americans believed that

Quote:
People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East

..also showed that thirty-eight percent of Americans believed that

Quote:
The federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from others planets

Link
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 03:08 pm
I wonder what percentage thinks there is intelligent life on earth? Could it be lower than 38%?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 03:13 pm
nimh wrote:
. . . one from the left, one from the right, against so many dopeheads.. rather you than me, friends.


You've got a nasty mouth on you, and you are willing to sling accusations around casually. The only "dopehead" here is the author of the thread, and he has been challenged since the very beginning of the thread.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 04:14 pm
Reversing all previous statements, The Washington Envoy to Canada, Paul Cellucci told his Canadian audience that a Canadian general at NORAD scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down flight 93

Read into the article below for the following section:

"He compared the situation to one that occurred during the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. He noted that it was a Canadian general at Norad who scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down a hijacked commercial aircraft headed for Washington."

Cellucci's statement thus reverses all of Washington's previous statements about Flight 93. (Other than the two times that Rumsfeld admitted that Flight 93 was shot down..)

Quote:
Missile rejection perplexes U.S.

CP | February 23, 2005
By COLIN PERKEL AND BETH GORHAM

(CP) - Canada's apparent decision to stay out of a North American missile-defence system has dumbfounded Americans as an unnecessary giveaway of sovereignty, Washington's envoy to Ottawa said Wednesday.

"We don't get it," Paul Cellucci said in Toronto. "If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile. We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest."

Despite strong pressure from the U.S. to sign on, Prime Minister Paul Martin was expected to pull the plug on Canada's participation in the missile program on Thursday.

However, reaction from American officials suggested the decision had already been made.

Regardless, said Cellucci, Washington would press ahead with its plans.

"We will deploy. We will protect North America," he said.

"We think Canada would want to be in the room deciding what to do about an incoming missile that might be heading toward Canada."

In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Canada had yet to inform the U.S. of its decision.

He refused to speculate on the effect a negative decision would have on relations between the two neighbours or whether it would cause a rift.

"We have a very solid basis of co-operation in many areas and we'll see how that sees us through," said Boucher.

A senior Canadian official who requested anonymity said Wednesday that Canada's decision was relayed at this week's NATO summit in Brussels attended by Martin and President George W. Bush.

But Canada's interest in Norad, the joint Canada-U.S. air defence command, remains paramount, said the official.

"The key for Canada is preserving the Norad relationship. It's such an important command that losing it would not be in Canada's best interests."

Boucher noted Canada and the U.S. amended an agreement last August to allow Norad to track any incoming rogue missiles.

Washington had hoped Canada would would go further and participate in building the continental defence shield, an elaborate system that some worry could lead to weapons in space and an international arms race.

Cellucci compared the situation to one that occurred during the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. He noted that it was a Canadian general at Norad who scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down a hijacked commercial aircraft headed for Washington.

Had that plane been flying over Canada, it would have fallen to the prime minister to make the decision to shoot it down, Cellucci said.

That's why Americans were "perplexed" as to why Canadians would want to leave it up to the Americans to decide what action to take in the event a missile was aimed at Canada.

David Biette, director of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, agreed with Cellucci's assessment that Canada is giving up sovereignty.

"I fear that it risks marginalizing Canada and Canada is ceding sovereignty by not being there when the decisions are being made," said Biette.

"It's making people unhappy in this administration that Canada is happy to take a free ride."

However, like Cellucci, Biette said he didn't think the issue would ultimately hurt Canada-U.S. relations.

Unpopular with most Canadians, the multibillion-dollar program to shoot down incoming missiles has been a political nightmare for Martin's minority government.

There's been intense pressure from Bush, who unexpectedly raised the issue during his visit to Canada last December and reportedly was blunt with Martin in a private meeting.

Some U.S. analysts were shaking their heads at the intrigue and confusion stirred this week by Frank McKenna, who takes over as ambassador to the United States next week.

McKenna told a Commons committee Tuesday that Canada is effectively already part of the missile-defence program, given Norad's increased responsibility.

"We're part of it now and the question is what more do we need?" he asked. "What does 'sign on' mean?"

Behind closed doors Wednesday, Martin indicated Canada hadn't joined the missile program and suggested McKenna erred by saying otherwise.

"Did Frank express himself badly? Perhaps," is the way one Liberal described the prime minister's message at Wednesday's caucus meeting. Another Liberal confirmed the account.

Liberal MPs have also been sent speaking notes from party brass, urging them to get out and toe the government line on missile defence.

"Canada is obviously not participating in BMD," said a copy of Tuesday's Liberal Research Bureau message obtained by The Canadian Press.

"The government has not taken that decision yet and the ambassador never intended to leave the opposite impression."

U.S. defence analyst Dwight Mason said Canada's refusal to get more involved would be "unfortunate in a symbolic sense."

"It's the first time since 1938 that Canada would have refused to participate in continental defence. It's a turning point. But the impact would be much greater if Canada pulled back from where it is now."

Flashback:

Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane 'shot down' in Pennsylvania
During surprise Christmas Eve trip, defense secretary contradicts official story

WND |December 27, 2004

WASHINGTON – Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, there have been questions about Flight 93, the ill-fated plane that crashed in the rural fields of Pennsylvania.

The official story has been that passengers on the United Airlines flight rushed the hijackers in an effort to prevent them from crashing the plane into a strategic target – possibly the U.S. Capitol.

During his surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the flight being shot down – long a suspicion because of the danger the flight posed to Washington landmarks and population centers.


Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy of the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000?

Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

Several eyewitnesses to the crash claim they saw a "military-type" plane flying around United Airlines Flight 93 when the hijacked passenger jet crashed – prompting the once-unthinkable question of whether the U.S. military shot down the plane.

Although the onboard struggle between hijackers and passengers – immortalized by the courageous "Let's roll" call to action by Todd Beamer – became one of the enduring memories of that disastrous day, the actual cause of Flight 93's crash, of the four hijacked airliners, remains the most unclear.

Several residents in and around Shanksville, Pa., describing the crash as they saw it, claim to have seen a second plane – an unmarked military-style jet.

Well-founded uncertainty as to just what happened to Flight 93 is nothing new. Just three days after the worst terrorist attack in American history, on Sept. 14, 2001, The (Bergen County, N.J.) Record newspaper reported that five eyewitnesses reported seeing a second plane at the Flight 93 crash site.

That same day, reported the Record, FBI Special Agent William Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second plane was nearby during the crash. He later said he had misspoken, dismissing rumors that a U.S. military jet had intercepted the plane before it could strike a target in Washington, D.C.

Although government officials insist there was never any pursuit of Flight 93, they were informed the flight was suspected of having been hijacked at 9:16 am, fully 50 minutes before the plane came down.

On the Sept. 16, 2001, edition of NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney, while not addressing Flight 93 specifically, spoke clearly to the administration's clear policy regarding shooting down hijacked jets.

Vice President Cheney: "Well, the – I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft."

NBC's Tim Russert: "And you decided?"

Cheney: "We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time ...

"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."

Russert: "So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?"

Cheney: "Yes. The president made the decision ... that if the plane would not divert ... as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by ... terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?

"... It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York.'"
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Aug, 2006 04:18 pm
Shittanta..

Quote:
The only "dopehead" here is the author of the thread, and he has been challenged since the very beginning of the thread.


You've challenged my butt ? Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/21/2019 at 08:20:17