Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen? The Poll!
- Thread starter DrRingDing
- Start date
at the end of the day there's loads on information surrounding the 9.11 attacks, and for me most of it points to incompetence by the usg at most levels, they clearly had no idea what was happening no clue how to handle a multiple hijack when it was going on despite having procedures to deal with.
however, putting it all these pieces into one big internal conspiracy by the usg is displaying mild paranoia.
however, putting it all these pieces into one big internal conspiracy by the usg is displaying mild paranoia.
Loki said:
Well perhaps if the Editor had been happy with the original 3 options instead of adding another of his own then the negative results you so much require wouldn't be so watered down.
Stop adding the scores up Loki. Yes, quite possibly is clearly winning and at over 47%, not to be sniffed at - even after adding the other 3 options together
Citizen66 said:Stop adding the scores up Loki. Yes, quite possibly is clearly winning and at over 47%, not to be sniffed at - even after adding the other 3 options together
Are you suggesting "More lizards please" is a vote in favour of your conspiracy nonsense? I rather think it's just posters taking the piss.
If this topic is so popular where are all the posters rallying to your cause? How come the hundreds of regulars aren't posting on the three 9/11 conspiracy threads that seem to be still active?
Loki said:
I didn't suggest that more lizards please is favouring my 'nonsense' anymore than I think it's favouring yours. A poll is a poll and the results are the results Loki. People don't have to get into tedious round-in-circles 'debates' with the credible source advocators to have their voice heard. The results prove this Loki
No, I think it's crap because the options are:
* Yes, quite possibly
* No he wouldn't do such a thing
* More lizards please
* All this bonkers 9/11 conspiracy stuff is fucking irritating and further threads repeating the same thing and should be binned.
Posters could vote for any one for any number of reasons. It's not exactly a Mori poll.
* Yes, quite possibly
* No he wouldn't do such a thing
* More lizards please
* All this bonkers 9/11 conspiracy stuff is fucking irritating and further threads repeating the same thing and should be binned.
Posters could vote for any one for any number of reasons. It's not exactly a Mori poll.
Red Jezza said:
No, but it looks like somebody is.
I'm afraid you seem to have lapsed into moonspuddery here Red... "In the normal run of circumstances"!?
So, what was "normal" about the "circumstances" running on September 11?
There are a multitude of reasons to doubt the veracity of the claims of "hijackings" in progress described in various "passenger" phone calls Red, not least of which is a rather glaring absence of HARD material evidence establishing the physical presence of any of the 19 alleged hijackers in any of the targeted airports and that they ever boarded any of the flights in question. No "Al-Qaeda" presence at any of the airports can only mean one thing: "Al-Qaeda" didn't board the flights and therefore, the aircraft couldn't possibly have been "hijacked" by them.
As for the calls themselves, several of them have a distinct ring of fakery about them. Like the guy who formerly introduced himself to his own mother: "mom? this is Mark Bingham" for example. Or what about the speed certain other calls were converted into sobbing joint prayer sessions at the early instigation of the callers (these will have played well in the bible belt market, don't you think?).
Pardon me Red, but clearly there is no "body of evidence" categorically establishing the presence of any of the 19 alleged hijackers in any of the targeted airports that morning, or that they ever boarded any of the targeted flights.
At the very least then the descriptions given of "hijackings" in progress by "passengers" in the "phone calls" cannot possibly have involved the 19 named "Al-Qaeda operatives," that is if they involved anyone at all.
What you and the rest of the usual suspects are desperately contriving not to grasp, is that real events always unfold in real time. That means in reality that the alleged hijackers must have been present in the targeted airports long BEFORE any of the "passengers" could make any of the alleged "phone calls."
Instead of simply recognizing this FACT, you are here frantically attempting to cover over the rather obvious real time evidence hole with a patch made from the moth eaten cloth of a rather obvious logical fallacy.
I'm afraid your claim to knowing how world public opinion stands in regard to the phone calls can only be a wild and hysterical exaggeration Red. Take the population of Egypt, just for one example. 98 percent of the people of Egypt hold an unfavorable view of the US. My estimate would be that the vast majority of them will also view the "phone calls" with a great deal of skepticism too and rightly so. Or did you forget to factor in Arab public opinion when you concocted your earlier survey?
As for consensus, then the recent New York Zogby poll, along with a similar poll conducted in Canada in July, both clearly show—as does the poll on this thread—that a major polarizing shift in public opinion is taking place without much help at all it has to be said from either the mainstream media or the editor of these boards (why does the image of King Kanute enthroned before the ocean with his court together screaming (((((PHONE CALLS - DON'T FORGET THE PHONE CALLS)))) at the ever rising tide, spring into my mind at this point I wonder).
It looks to me as though that "open mind" of yours must have succumbed to what is commonly known as "group think", or a variant form known as "clique think". Let's hope it's only a temporary set back and you quickly regain the independence of your senses once again.
Yes, you've missed the elephant in the living room.
Smølfine said:The Thread asks a specific question ffs
Not do you believe lizards blew up the twin towers which is what you would like it to say.
Yes or no is pretty fucking simple, even you should be able to get yer head around that.
Was that aimed at me? The poll has a rather vague option ("More lizards please") and can hardly be claimed to be well constructed.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No - it's a stupid poll. Most people i know on here think that Rumsfield and co have made the most of the opportunities that 911 offered but did not plan and execute it. There is no option for this. The best you get is the chance to vote with the CT freaks, or vote for banning discussion of the topic. Anyone slightly less deep into this would see that this is a nonsense poll. If you want to do a proper one with viable options go ahead - and nsee just what happens. This is why it has to be worded so dishonestly and tied to other justifiable concerns - because the CT one will not stand alone in terms of votes - and the claimed mandate will have gone.
It's a fucking joke.
It's a fucking joke.
Loki said:
50% of people (those who voted yes or no) understand what a poll should be used for. The other 50% who voted for more lizards please or Editors call for a binning clearly aren't interested in a poll that guages opinion on these boards. Why is that Loki? (Editor added his option after the poll was started BTW).
It's pretty fucking juvenile if you want the truth mate. And you're a part of that.
butchersapron said:
There's also space for discussion if you can manage to get a word in edgeways with the obsessive repeaters Butchers, mate.
52 people have voted yes possibly, so stop trying to speak on everyone's behalf, eh? Or get 'the majority of people you've spoken to' to have their two penneths worth.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No, you talk about discussion when you're making a point about a poll - different things. You say the poll is clear - i say - is it fuck, and i know shed loads of posters who would like to votes but haven't because the poll is unclear (and i think it's unlcear for specific reasons). Do an proper clear poll, where each choice clearly specifies what it enetails - not this dishonest bollocks.Citizen66 said:
What you got to hide eh?
Loki said:
Bit like Hugo Chavez's opponents me thinks.
If yougo back and read what the thread is titled
"Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen? "
Choices were:
Yes
No
More lizards please.
No where before there was more votes 'yes' did any of you coincedence theorists bemoan what a mickey mouse poll this was...funny that
Similar threads
