TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

You posted a link to a my space profile that's supposed to be me. You brought it up, not me. I think I have a right to ask what the purpose of it was.

Secondly; I think the conspiracy topic is VERY MUCH worth side-tracking!

Lastly; What is COR?

What I don't get about the 9/11 Commision is that if the claims being made are true (ie its biased) how can the citizens of USA sit back and allow a process like that to occur. In OZ we have govt Inquiry which is I think bi-partisan meaning both sides of politics are represented, it is not just a bunch of the Prime Ministers mates from down the pub, and in the case of death (which is what this would investigate) there would be a Coronial Inquest to find the exact details of what occured. This would be held by the Coroner and would have absolutely no political interference whatsoever.
how can a democratic country be run like that?

Ashcroft may face prison over 9/11 cover-up, says Daniel Ellsberg

by Fintan Dunne, Editor
BreakForNews.com,
15th June, 2004

Two whistleblowers stood side by side before a courthouse in Washington, D.C. on Monday. Veteran of the Pentagon Papers scandal, Daniel Ellsberg was backing a protest by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, against a court gag order which has silenced her revelations about the September 11th, 2001 attacks.

The whistleblower pair were protesting yet another delay by Judge Reggie Walton of the District Court of Columbia in determining whether Edmonds' closed session testimony to Congressional inquiries can be declared state secrets by U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft.

In a statement, Edmonds called Ashcroft's legal moves anti-freedom of speech and anti-due process.

Ellsberg's common cause with Edmonds is founded on his own battle to make public a top secret study of US decision-making in Vietnam, known as the Pentagon Papers.

In an exclusive interview with BreakForNews.com he said that Ashcroft's legal actions against Edmonds were: "clearly intended to keep her from bringing out in public information that could lead.... to criminal indictments and possible convictions of major political figures."

Ellsberg says that if Edmonds' allegations are confirmed, the current Attorney General could be judged obstructive and share the fate of A.G. John Mitchell --who in Ellsberg v. Mitchell famously tried to squelch Ellsberg's 1971 revelations, and served prison time over the affair.

"John Ashcroft may well sleep eventually in the same cell as John Mitchell," Ellsberg said.

In a recent interview with BreakFornews.com, Sibel Edmonds alleged that the US State Department had blocked investigations showing links between criminal drug trafficking networks and the terror attacks on 9/11.

"Certain investigations were being quashed, let's say per State Department's request, because it would have affected certain foreign relations [or] affected certain business relations with foreign organizations," she said.

Edmonds also indicated that the FBI's intelligence translation service had been penetrated by a criminal, semi-legitimate intelligence group --not linked to any government. Her measured words hinted at politically explosive connections between non-terrorist criminal networks and the 9/11 attacks.

Since October, 2002 Edmonds has been bound by provisional gag orders while awaiting an opportunity for a full hearing and a definitive ruling. The recent moves in the case arose from a government bid to exclude her testimony from a class action lawsuit by families of 9/11 victims.

Judge Walton had scheduled Monday as the first ever hearing at which Edmonds was to be allowed counter the state secret privilege assertion by Ashcroft. But after an in camera presentation last week by the government side, he called off the hearing. Unofficial reports say a new date may be set for early July.

Talk of US government interference in 9/11 investigations, and the considerable volume of online analysis discounting the official conspiracy theory, resonate with Ellsberg.

"I'm not an expert on all this," he admits. "But I am increasingly open to the explanation that people in the administration did see this coming... and may have indeed reduced some obstacles.., or opened the door, in effect. I haven't been absolutely convinced on that, but it does seem to me to be an open question that deserves investigation."

"Now beyond that... it seems to me quite plausible that --plausible, that's all I'd say-- that Pakistan was quite involved in this, and that many Saudis were well informed on this," says Ellsberg.

"And to say that. To say Pakistan-- is to me, to say C.I.A. Because I think the relations between the Pakistan I.S.I. [intelligence service] and CIA were very close from the beginning. And it's hard to say that the I.S.I knew something that the CIA had no knowledge of."

"So if you say, do I accept confidently, and do I rely on the official interpretation? Certainly not. But, I wouldn't say that I have been yet been thoroughly convinced by any alternative."

"I can add one thing though -from my own experience, that's relevant."

"Is it possible... that an American president could have... welcomed an attack on America that he would interpret [as] justifying an invasion of another country?"

"Well, that's more than possible, that happened --under a president that I served. Lyndon Johnson did put American destroyers in harms way, deliberately provoking an attack.. in the Tonkin Gulf. Not only in August of '64, but in February of '65. ...There was an attack on August 2nd, and that was not unwelcome to the United States at that point."

Sibel Edmonds has already become somewhat of a flag-bearer for the diverse 9/11 truth movement, which ranges across advocacy groups, families of victims, individual investigators and a host of online web sites --all disputing the official 'Al-Qaida conspiracy' theory.

But an article today by Scott Loughrey on the Baltimore Chronicle online, alleges that Edmonds is offering a limited hangout version of events, and accuses her of "repeating the propaganda of the state."

Loughrey writes that Edmonds blames intelligence failures, rather than more sinister explanations, for the failure to prevent the attacks.

That's misleading and unfair. Yes, the superficial reports of her claims in the mainstream media focus mainly on intelligence failures. Yes, Edmonds was coy in her early public statements --out of defenence to the sensitivity of her information and the gung-ho public sentiment at the time, no doubt.

But in closed session testimony to Congressional inquiries, Edmonds has given a much fuller account of her concerns. So dangerous an account that Ashcroft seeks to retrospectively cloak that testimony with state secret privilege

And as a disillusioned Edmonds has seen her evidence disappear unremarked into the black hole of those inquiries, she has blown the whistle publicly --as unreservedly as the gag order allows:

She says the pre-9/11 US intelligence system had been penetrated by a drug-linked, semi-legitimate criminal intelligence network, operating with seeming impunity inside the FBI.

The post-9/11 intelligence 'failures' included the willful quashing by the government, of investigations tracing those criminal networks.

The 9/11 terror plot itself, intersected with the activities of a drug trafficking network of international scope, in ways that form a "crystal clear" picture of what was going on --to quote Edmonds.

If that's a limited hangout, God help us. The truth must be awful.

If it's true, as Edmonds asserts, the official line is a shallow sham.

Fintan Dunne, Editor

http://www.breakfornews.com/Sibel-Edmonds1.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Despite whatever you might want to think, this thread isn't about you, donny - it's about the U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11. Stick to the topic or go back to the COR where you belong.

I dont think you ever really answered this..

Do you honestly beleive the Bush administration orchestrated the 9.11 attacks? or do you feel that did not orchestrate them but are covering up key elements?

In other words...do you beleive the Bush administration killed 3000 of its own citizen on purpose? Just answer those questions and nothing else for me please

quote:

Originally posted by skot_e What I don't get about the 9/11 Commision is that if the claims being made are true (ie its biased) how can the citizens of USA sit back and allow a process like that to occur.

Because our country has been brainwashed to think that anyone who entertains the notion that there was a cover-up is helping the terrorists. Well, that and the fact that people are self-policing (i.e. - donnybrasco) and are highly intolerant of any opposing viewpoints.

Simply by looking at donny's desperate attempts to derail this thread you should be able to get a good idea of how ignobly immature people can get when presented with evidence that contradicts the official storyline.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 I dont think you ever really answered this.. Do you honestly beleive the Bush administration orchestrated the 9.11 attacks? or do you feel that did not orchestrate them but are covering up key elements? In other words...do you beleive the Bush administration killed 3000 of its own citizen on purpose? Just answer those questions and nothing else for me please

Why are you so concerned about what I think? Does my opinion really even matter to you? How come you guys are so focused on me rather than the subject matter itself?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot...

quote:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

As long as people keep responding to this thread it will always garner some votes. This is in no small part on the count of people who keep it alive by offering their opinions whether for or against complicity.

This thread has seen more action in the last month and I owe it all to those that responded.

Thanks guys you have shown this thread life rather than it just fading away into obscurity. By giving this thread validity it has offered some worthwhile information from both sides.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Why are you so concerned about what I think? Does my opinion really even matter to you? How come you guys are so focused on me rather than the subject matter itself? Oh yeah, I almost forgot...

because i am curious....can you answer...do you think the Bush administration killed 3000 of its own people?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X How come you guys are so focused on me rather than the subject matter itself?

Because the subject is absurd...and yet, you believe it. I think it's stopped being a thread about conspiracy theories so much and more about how people who believe this stuff get to this point.

And Tiesto, he can't answer your questions...I mean, he could, but then, he'd have to kill you cause you know too much!

Hey, he didn't answer mine either, so don't feel left out...come to think of it, I think I smell a conspiracy!

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 because i am curious....can you answer...do you think the Bush administration killed 3000 of its own people?

I'm inclined to believe that they may have let it happen, but I'm not 100% certain in regards to their actual complicity - I need more evidence before I can make that judgement.

Cheney was the one who was in control of the drills that day, but good luck with getting him to testify on anything.

quote:

Bush and Cheney Block 9-11 Investigation By Mike Hersh Oct 24, 2002 Democrats keep pressing for a full hearing into the massive failures which left us open to terrorist attacks. What caused the breakdown in intelligence and national security? What happened to the Clinton Administration plans to combat Al Qaeda? Have Bush and Cheney cured the flaws in the system? If not, why not? Why are Bush and Cheney still blocking a public 9-11 investigation? The Washington Post, NY Times, and Others Ask: What Are They Hiding? George Bush is blocking a full public inquiry into 9-11. Richard Cheney threatens Democrats to keep quiet. "Press the issue, Cheney implied, and you risk being accused of interfering with the [war on terrorism]." The Battle Back Home, Newsweek Magazine: 02/04/02. Note: article also available from Newsweek archives. Senate Leader Tom Daschle said "I can tell you on January 24th, first, and on January 28th second, and on other dates following, that request [by Cheney and Bush not to conduct any Sept. 11 inquiry] was made." Daschle: Bush, Cheney Urged No Sept. 11 Inquiry, Reuters News Service: 5/26/02. Strangely this story is no longer available on the original site, but echoes remain on the web. Cheney admitted "he would advise President Bush not to turn over to Congress the August intelligence briefing that warned that terrorists were interested in hijacking airplanes, and he insisted that the investigation into Sept. 11 should be handled by the Congressional intelligence committees, not an independent commission." Cheney Moves to Block 9-11 Probe, The New York Times: 5/20/02. Months later, the chairperson of the 9/11 investigation confirmed Cheney had carried out his threats. Bush and Cheney keep undermining Democrats' efforts to protect us from a repeat of 9/11. Undaunted, Democrats demand a public inquiry. Daschle said: "Intelligence is just a piece of it. People need to know what happened." Senator Bob Torricelli added: "We do not meet our responsibilities to the American people if we do not take an honest look at the federal government and all of its agencies and let the country know what went wrong." Bush Seeks To Restrict Hill Probes Of Sept. 11, The Washington Post: 1/30/02. And Bush Asks Daschle to Limit Sept. 11 probes, ALLPOLITICS, CNN : 1/29/02. Joe Conason reported: "Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle - along with most of his fellow Democrats and a handful of prominent Republicans, notably including Arizona's John McCain" support an independent investigation into 9/11. That hope "is dead, at least for the moment." The Republicans "quietly set aside legislation that would establish an independent commission to investigate the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001." Putting "Today" before tomorrow's security Salon.com: 06/22/02. Key Questions Remain: Why Didn't Our FBI, CIA and Military Protect Us? President Clinton ordered two attack submarines to stand watch over the Taliban and bin Laden's terrorists. Bush ordered the subs to stand down. See: The Covert Hunt for bin Laden: Broad Effort Launched After '98 Attacks, The Washington Post: 12/19/01. Clinton warned the Taliban he would hold the Taliban leadership personally responsible for any attack by bin Laden against Americans. Bush lifted that decree. See: Clinton's War on Terror: The Covert Hunt for bin Laden, The Washington Post, 12/20/01. But Bush eliminated these safeguards. Bush sent $43 Million to the Taliban. His administration supported negotiations with terrorists on behalf of his campaign contributors. These included corporations seeking to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. These multinational special interests employed his father and former Bush administration officials including James A. Baker III, the man who led Bush's efforts to wrest the White House from Al Gore. British media report that Bush ordered national security agents to "back off" the bin Laden terrorists. A former CIA agent appeared on BBC TV saying: "We were just told, 'You get caught spying on the Saudis or looking into their affairs, and you will lose your head!'" FBI And US Spy Agents Say Bush Spiked Bin Laden Probes Before 11 September, The Guardian (London): 11/07/01. Transcript: Did Bush Turn A Blind Eye To Terrorism? BBC Newsnight: 11/06/01. -- On Demand Video. Intelligence agents reveal Bush turned a "blind eye" to terrorism by ordering our CIA and FBI to "back off" Saudi terror suspects - including Osama bin Laden's brothers - operating in the US. See: Call it 9-11Gate, American Politics Journal: 5/17/02. Because of Bush's orders, top FBI officials ignored warnings efforts to investigate and arrest the terrorists who later hijacked and flew our planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A Gulf War vet, Lt. Colonel Steven Butler says "Bush knew" about the impending terrorist attacks, but did nothing to prevent them. Butler was "suspended for writing a letter in which he called President Bush 'a joke' and accused him of allowing the Sept. 11 attacks." News sources quote Butler's letter: "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama." DLI official removed for criticizing Bush, the Monterey County Herald: 6/3/02. Colonel Butler, a veteran with 24-years of Air Force service added: "His presidency was going nowhere. He wasn't elected by the American people, but placed into the Oval Office by the conservative Supreme Court...the economy was sliding into the usual Republican pits and he needed something to hang his presidency on." Air Force colonel suspended after bad-mouthing Bush, The Associated Press, 6/4/02. FBI Special Agent and Minneapolis Chief Counsel Coleen Rowley wrote: "The Minneapolis agents who responded to the call about Moussaoui's flight training identified him as a terrorist threat from a very early point." Rowley's memo confirms the FBI knew enough to arrest the terrorists before 9-11. Rowley fears a cover-up is underway: "I feel that certain facts ... have, up to now, been omitted, down played, glossed over and/or mischaracterized ... perhaps even for improper political reasons." Agent Claims FBI Supervisor Thwarted Probe, Washington Post: 5/27/02. And Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller, Time Magazine: 5/21/02. If McKinney is wrong, why are Bush and Cheney Still Blocking a Full, Public 9-11 Investigation? When Former Representative Cynthia McKinney asked, "Why then does the administration remain steadfast in its opposition to an investigation into the biggest terrorism attack in history?" the White House ridiculed her. Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer laughed: "The congresswoman must be running for the hall of fame of the Grassy Knoll Society." McKinney's statement today on her comments, the administration, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 4/12/02, And McKinney draws fire for Bush remarks, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 4/13/02. Newsweek Magazine reports, "Dick Cheney played a behind-the-scenes role last week in derailing an agreement to create an independent commission to investigate the 9-11 attacks. Last month the White House endorsed the formation of the panel. But on Thursday, hours after congressional negotiators hailed a final deal over the scope and powers of a 9-11 panel, Cheney called House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Porter Goss [to block] an independent commission to investigate 9-11." It worked. Goss told a closed-door conference committee he couldn't accept the deal, citing instructions from 'above my pay grade,' sources say." Cheney: Investigators, Keep Out, Newsweek Magazine: 10/21/02. Cheney is taking a huge risk just before the critical midterm elections. Why is Cheney exposing himself and his party by covering up the causes of 9-11 so close to 11-5? This smacks of desperation. There's a lot the top Republicans don't want Americans to know. 9-11gate, Halliburtongate, Harkongate, Enrongate, Votergate -- the list of Republican scandals keeps growing. Asking these questions and demanding answers is our duty as Americans. It's the height of patriotism. Especially on the eve of an election. Especially with our national security at stake. We have the right to know what went wrong. You can help. Use the links below to: Support our efforts. Keep yourself informed. Voice your views. Call Congress and the White House. Contact the media. Demand a public investigation into 9-11. http://www.mikehersh.com/Bush_and_C...tigation_.shtml

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 because i am curious....can you answer...do you think the Bush administration killed 3000 of its own people?

I know this is not directed at me, but anyway... NO.
i don't think they had agents pilot the planes into the buildings etc, I do however think that the govt is trying to hide something. What I don't know, but something. Otherwise why do they not release ALL the relevant photo's video's documents etc. What harm can it do other than clear up peoples misconceptions.
Why seal documets as classified if the contents do nothing to threaten the security of a nation (all govts not just US), unless there is something that may weaken the govt in the eyes of the people.
Maybe that is the real reason the US is trying to hide the info, maybe there are real concerns at the top about the security in the US and it's inablility to properly defend itself from futher attack. Tho I doubt it.

On a side note: taken from Jan press conference at the whitehouse...

Q Scott, does the administration believe that the President's wartime powers gives him the authority to authorize an extension of Patriot Act-style counter-terrorism techniques, whether or not Congress renews the act?

MR. McCLELLAN: The extension of the -- we want to see Congress reauthorize the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is an important tool in helping us to prevent attacks. It has helped us to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening, and that's why it's so important that Congress move forward on renewing the Patriot Act.

Avoiding the question?

quote:

Originally posted by skot_e Avoiding the question?

Apparently that's part of his job - deflecting serious questions that the Bush administration wouldn't want to answer.

How Bush Hit the 'Trifecta' on 9/11 - and the Public Lost Big-Time

It is sickening to contemplate an administration intentionally looking the other way while terrorists scheme so that whatever havoc they wreak can provide cover for the president to raid Social Security.

On February 1, 2006, BYU Professor Steven E. Jones gave a public lecture on the various anomalies of 9/11. The lecture took place at the Utah State Valley College in Orem.

The nearly 2-hour lecture was broad in scope, and very well attended. Everything you ever wanted to know about 9/11 is here, presented professionally and conclusively.


http://madcowpolitics.com/byu.wmv

quote:

Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy By THOMAS HARGROVE 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 appears 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 Qaeda 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. 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. That lower percentage may result from an effort by the conservative Washington-based Judicial Watch advocacy group to debunk the claim. The group filed claims under the Freedom of Information Act and got two fill loops released from Pentagon security cameras. "Some people claim they can't see anything, but I see a plane hitting the Pentagon at incredibly high speed," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "I see the nose of the plane clearly entering the frame of one video and the tail of the plane entering the Pentagon in the other video." Many conspiracy Web sites have posted the video loops and report the films are inconclusive or were manipulated by the government. "Some folks will never be convinced," Fitton said. "But I'm hoping that these videos will dissuade reasonable people from falling into a trap with these conspiracy theories." 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." Conspiracy-believing participants in the poll agree their suspicions are recent. "I certainly didn't think of conspiracies when 9/11 first happened," said Elaine Tripp, 62, of Tabernacle, N.J. "I don't know if President Bush was aware of the exact time it was going to happen. But he certainly didn't do enough to stop it. Bush was so intent on having his own little war." Garrett Johnson, 19, of Manassas, Va., said it was "well after the fact" before he started questioning the official explanation of the attacks. "But then people I know started talking about it. And the Internet had a lot to do with this. After reading all of the different articles there, I started to think we weren't being told the truth." 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 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." Matthews' Web site averaged 4,000 "hits" a day last year, but currently has at least 12,000 visits every 24 hours. The site, according to its online policy statement, is dedicated to showing the public that "elements within the U.S. government must have orchestrated or participated in the execution of the attacks for these to have happened the way in which they did." Participants in the poll were asked to respond to "several serious accusations that some people have made against the federal government in recent years." Five conspiracy theories were described and participants were asked if each was "very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely." The level of suspicion of U.S. official involvement in a 9/11 conspiracy was only slightly behind the 40 percent who suspect "officials in the federal government were directly responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy" and the 38 percent who believe "the federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from other planets." The poll found that a majority of young adults give at least some credence to a 9/11 conspiracy compared to less than a fourth of people 65 or older. Members of racial and ethnic minorities, people with only a high school education and Democrats were especially likely to suspect federal involvement in 9/11. 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. (Thomas Hargrove is a reporter for Scripps Howard News Service. Guido H. Stempel III is director of the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University.)

ARTICLE USED WITHOUT PERMISSION FOR EDUCATIONAL, NON-COMMERCIAL USE ONLY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

its funny how the evidence supporting the theory is adding up by each passing day, and yet all you brainwashed idiots can't think of any arguments so you just attack people for thinking outside of the box. do you enjoy being a sheep?

whatever you reckon einstein. every piece of so-called 'evidence' has been taken to task and shown to be lacking in any real substance. sheep? youre the ones following obscure websites and conspiracy nuts. get a life.

quote:

I've been getting a lot of email lately from people sending me this stupid 9/11 conspiracy video called \"Loose Change.\" I've tried to ignore it for months now, but you morons keep forwarding it to me, and I keep having to add more email addresses to my spam filter. The ironic part is that I'm a huge conspiracy nut, and even I can't stomach this bullshit. For example, I believe that there is a small, reptile-like creature called Chupacabra that sucks the blood of goats in Mexico. Area 51? Hell yes. Roswell? Pass me the Kool-Aid. But \"Loose Change\" elevates bullshit to an artform. Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid. Unlike others who debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories, or \"cons\" for short, I'm not going to bother with going through intricate point-by-point rebuttals, or pointing out the hundreds of factual inaccuracies and outright lies in this \"documentary,\" because I don't need to. In fact, I can debunk the entire story with one simple observation: The fact that this man is alive... ...is proof that \"Loose Change\" is bullshit. Here's why: 1. The man in the picture above is Dylan Avery. To be more precise, the fact that Dylan, his friends, and family are alive, is proof that \"Loose Change\" is bullshit. He, along with a couple of his friends, created a 9/11 conspiracy video claiming that the US government and the military caused 9/11. Take a closer look at the last part of that last sentence: he's claiming that the US government, for whatever ends, killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans, and tens if not hundreds of thousands of more lives in the conflicts that ensued because of it. 2. Since Dylan's arguing that the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, this raises the question: if his documentary is true, and we've established that the government has no ethical qualms about killing thousands of its own people, then why wouldn't the government kill Avery and his friends as well? What's a few more lives to them to ensure the success of this conspiracy? Whatever reason it may be that the government supposedly orchestrated this conspiracy, it must have been worth it to them to cause so much suffering and loss of life. So if there's any truth to this, then you can bet your ass that the government wouldn't let a couple of pecker-neck chumps with a couple of Macs and too much time on their hands jeopardise their entire operation by letting this stupid video float around on the Internet. I can picture you morons emailing me now: \"BUT MADOX, MAYBE DYLAN POSTED IT ON THE INTERNET BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT HAD A CHANCE TO REMOVE IT LOL.\" Yeah, too bad this rebuttal is inconsistent with the premise of Dylan's shit-festival of a movie: that the WTC was brought down \"in a carefully planned and controlled demolition ... and it was pulled off with military precision.\" Now we're expected to believe that the same government that was able to commit the largest terrorist operation in history--with military precision no less--is suddenly too incompetent to sniff out and shut down a little website set up by some college losers within days, if not minutes of its creation? I win. There is no conspiracy. Eat my shit, losers. The other type of 9/11 conspiracy email you dipshits keep sending is the $20 dollar WTC conspiracy. Glenn Beck--a loud-mouthed, fat-faced asshole on CNN--has a copy of it on his website: The new U.S. $20 dollar bill contains hidden pictures of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks! Yes! see for yourself... 1st) FOLD A NEW $20 BILL THIS WAY: 2nd) CONTINUE TO FOLD THIS WAY Compare your fold precisely to this picture. 3rd) FOLD THE RIGHT SIDE UNDER, exactly as you folded the left side. You'll immediately see the Pentagon ablaze! (red circle) 4th) NOW FLIP IT OVER AND SEE OTHER SIDE The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center are hit and smoking. What are the odds that a simple geometric folding of the $20 bill would accidentally contain a representation of both terror attacks? What are the odds that a simple geometric folding of a $20 bill with elements of design that were conceived in 1928 by a committee of treasurers, a full 42 years before the World Trade Center even existed, could accidentally contain a representation of both terror attacks? Pretty good, apparently. The article on Beck's page goes on to ask: Need even more proof? No, you cock! You had me at \"the U.S. $20 dollar bill contains hidden pictures of the World Trade Center.\" As if a folded picture of shrubbery on a bill that kind of looks like smoke wasn't convincing enough of a conspiracy, Beck offers this gem on his site to sway those few remaining skeptics: This is followed by the fact that 9+11 = 20, and in big red letters: COINCIDENCE? YOU DECIDE! The question mark at the end of \"COINCIDENCE\" is clearly there to denote a rhetorical question, as clearly, this is not a coincidence. To help out Glenn Beck, I sat down with a $100 bill and tried to find any hidden messages the bill might contain. Here's one that he hasn't found yet: Step 1: Fold the bill so that the \"ON\" of \"ONE\" is covered: Step 2: Fold again like so, covering \"HU\" of \"HUNDRED:\" Step 3: Another fold covering part of \"DOLLARS:\" Step 4: Finally make one last fold, and with a magic marker, add the following letters to reveal a hidden message! Coincidence? YOU DECIDE! Further Reading: For anyone interested in a point-by-point debunking of some of the most popular conspiracy theories out there (like the fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C), check out the following links: Popular Mechanics Loose Change guide

link

wow you really debunked all the conspiracy theories with that article, nice job.

no one has proved anything. maybe steel does lose 50% of its strength or whatever, but that doesn't disprove the governments involvement in what happened, and the fact that theres so much information missing in the official "investigation" report. if you think the cops stole your car, would you let the cops run the investigation?

omg. how simple are you? that article had nothing to do with debunking any of your shit, it was merely mocking your abject stupidity.

ive watched many of the vids, read many of the sites, and youre all still grasping at straws. so many experts from so many fields have taken the time to analyse these nutjob theories, so how about you take the time to read their rebuttals instead of repeating already debunked bullshit?

ok show some rebuttals then. particularly one that proves that the government was not involved, i could care less what temperature steel melts

http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...se/1227842.html

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

that should be enough to get you started.

as for proving the government wasnt complicit, i think you just need to understand how many people would be required to keep this all a secret. think about it.

don't know how someone worked out that $20 thing, and I don't have a US bill to see if it works, but it makes me laugh to think that in 1948 someone in Treasury designed the bill so that nearly 20 years later someone else could design a building that would be then targeted 30 years after that.
Talk about long term planning.

It's amazing that a few anti-conspiracy nuts forget that over TWO THIRDS of TA's believe there was a cover-up and yet post msm articles as if they were facts.

There is no CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT for commercial speech. That being so; why do people actually take the news media as the standard bearer for truth is beyond me.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Commercial speech such as that from news media does not have to be accurate. On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast. On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie (Wayback link)

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 It's amazing that a few anti-conspiracy nuts forget that over TWO THIRDS of TA's believe there was a cover-up

oh well then, youve convinced me!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.