Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen? The Poll!

[butchersapron]

Which is an unclear option - did they have foreknowledge of the exact attacks rather than a smaller attack - did they know an attack was on the way? etc - it's all over the shop - what the fuck is it asking? A clearer poll might help.

And it also lends itself to using this confusion to sneakily support the CT theory of US state planning and execution because of this useless vagueness - if you have the slightest suspicion you have to vote as a supporter of the full blown CT. No one would accept these severely limited and unclear oiptions for a union or elected rep position. It is a bollocks poll.

 

[Loki]

how is YES or NO meaningless or daft, ffs

YES or NO aren't the actual options in the poll. Instead we've got

* 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.

Very few regulars who voted have bothered to debate on these endless 9/11 threads. Why do you think that is? My guess is cos they're rather bored of them.

 

[butchersapron]

how is YES or NO meaningless or daft, ffs

Because the fucking question and options top answer are unclear and daft you prat!

Are you going to force people to say that the poll is actually clear to them or something? Because it's not.

 

[Signal 11]

how is YES or NO meaningless or daft, ffs

It wasn't yes or no, I wouldn't have voted for either of them.

 

[Smølfine]

if you have the slightest suspicion you have to vote as a supporter of the full blown CT.

I started this thread in the vain hope that it would reverse the trend for nutjob theories ( )


"Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen?"

Has got nothing to do with tin foil hat wearing lizards piloting, passengerless planes into a mined and ready to explode twin towers, not a fookin thing.

 

[Smølfine]

Because the fucking question and options top answer are unclear and daft you prat!

You either think that he/they 'quite possibly' wanted and allowed 9/11 to occur or you don't, I don't see what the fuss is about.

 

[butchersapron]

I started this thread in the vain hope that it would reverse the trend for nutjob theories ( )


"Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen?"

Has got nothing to do with tin foil hat wearing lizards piloting, passengerless planes into a mined and ready to explode twin towers, not a fookin thing.

Don't you understand just how vague that question is, and how limited the voting options are? I can't vote, nor can most people i know on here - people who have very definte opinions on the issue. I'm not having a pop at you personally - but the poll is shit and it lets the CTers claim every vote that might have been forced (in the sense of, i do think they know somneting was up and allowed it to happen, but not 911, but have no other option) as a full blown vote for their ideas about planning and execution of the act.

 

[Smølfine]

Very few regulars who voted have bothered to debate on these endless 9/11 threads. Why do you think that is? My guess is cos they're rather bored of them.

Indeed, but you keep coming back for more.

 

[butchersapron]

You either think that he/they 'quite possibly' wanted and allowed 9/11 to occur or you don't, I don't see what the fuss is about.

See above. It's a fucked up poll. Can't you see the range of answers that 'quite possibly' covers?

 

[Loki]

Indeed, but you keep coming back for more.

That's because I don't like bollocks being spouted unchallenged on my favourite boards so I feel I should challenge it.

 

[Smølfine]

Don't you understand just how vague that question is, and how limited the voting options are? I can't vote, nor can most people i know on here - people who have very definte opinions on the issue. I'm not having a pop at you personally - but the poll is shit and it lets the CTers claim every vote that might have been forced (in the sense of, i do think they know somneting was up and allowed it to happen, but have no other option) as a full blown vote for their ideas about planning and execution of the act.

Like I said, this thread has been derailed beyond repair by both sides of the nutjob equation, I WAS hoping for some decent debate but people on both sides of the extremes have exploited this thread, which is a bit shit IMO.

 

[Smølfine]

That's because I don't like bollocks being spouted unchallenged on my favourite boards so I feel I should challenge it.

Loki & Butchers answer this:


Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen?

 

[butchersapron]

Like I said, this thread has been derailed beyond repair by both sides of the nutjob equation, I WAS hoping for some decent debate but people on both sides of the extremes have exploited this thread, which is a bit shit IMO.

Again - i was referring to the poll and the associated voting options not the debate. The debate is irrelavent in those terms. You're not responsible for the debate.

 

[butchersapron]

Loki & Butchers answer this:


Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen?

Arggh!!! Tell you what, do a fucking poll.

 

[Loki]

Loki & Butchers answer this:


Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen?

No. But it fitted nicely in with plans the intelligence authorities had ready.

I remember MI6 talking about switching to countering terrorism not long after the end of the cold war - the intelligence agencies needed new roles to justify their existence.

 

[Smølfine]

...

 

[Loki]

...

That means what?

 

[Smølfine]

That means what?

It means I give up........nearly

 

[bigfish]

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.

The poll question: Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen?

Option 1 yes, quite possibly

Option 2 no, he wouldn't do such a thing

Unless all of those people you've surveyed are fast asleep Butch then they'll surely be aware of the PNAC document calling for a "new Pearl Harbor" and that Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz all signed a Statement of Principles of the PNAC on June 3, 1997, along with many of the other current members of Bush's war cabinet.

Given that all of these people obviously desired a "catalysing event like a new Pearl Harbor", it's difficult to deny that Rumsfield and chums wanted something like 9/11 to happen because it's plainly obvious they did. Your objection arises from the conjunction that Rummy and chums "allowed" the attack to happen on purpose.

However, your objection to the polls formulation is entirely misplaced because the conjunction arises organicly from the fact Rumsfield and chums definitely did want something like 9/11 to happen. If somebody "wants" something to happen then it's reasonable to suppose that they will "allow" that something to happen when the opportunity presents itself, or even that thay are so motivated by their desire that they may even go so far as to engineer the events themselves!

Of course a sophist might object that while it may be an absolute fact that Rummy and Chums did desire a "new Pearl Harbor", this in and of itself does not categorically prove that they allowed the attacks to happen on purpose.

In which case the sophist is perfectly at liberty to vote.. no, he wouldn't do such a thing... such a vote would then accurately reflect the sophists position.

 

[Signal 11]

Of course a sophist might object that while it may be an absolute fact that Rummy and Chums did desire a "new Pearl Harbor", this in and of itself does not categorically prove that they allowed the attacks to happen on purpose.

That wouldn't be a sophist, it would be someone capable of logic.

 

[Loki]

Well wadda surprise. Another late night rambling post from bigfish. "the conjunction arises organicly" indeed.

 

[butchersapron]

Again:

"Can't you see the range of answers that 'quite possibly' covers?"

It's in your interest not to know - to refuse to believe that a poll could possibly ever be worded badly, and witrh associated voting options equaally badly worded.

Let's face it - you know that if someone gets off their arse and posts up a proper poll you are going to get wiped out and any mandate you may think you've recieved will also dissapear.

 

[editor]

The poll is an indicator of the view of a section of posters on these forums.

Strange how none of them have joined your conspiracy-tastic forums then, isn't it?

Why do you think it is that so few are interested?

 

[editor]

As for the calls themselves, several of them have a distinct ring of fakery about them.

Not to the wives and husbands who actually took the calls.

Please feel free to elaborate why you think you know more than them, bigfish.

I mean, what the fuck do you know about them? Who are you to tell the wives and husbands - who have never, ever doubted their authenticity - that you know best?

 

[editor]

how is YES or NO meaningless or daft, ffs

It's not 'yes'. The option actually says 'possibly' and that's about as meaningless as an option can get.

Possibly:
By chance
With a possibility of becoming actual
In a manner or to a degree possible of conceiving
To a degree possible of achievement or by possible means

So, definitely not an emphatic a 'yes' then.

 

[Jazzz]

Oh, poppycock.

This poll simply has just not gone the way you wanted, editor, and by far the most popular option is for posters who would seriously consider that 9-11 was deliberately allowed to happen by Rumsfeld & Co. (a criminal conspiracy).

Take it on the chin, man, and stop bleating pants about individual word definitions.

 

[Smølfine]

So, definitely not an emphatic a 'yes' then.

Well actually.....


..it's about as definate yes as would be fair.

I mean not one of use could emphatically say yes or no, could we?


So the real and honest answer from anyone of us would be either:

Yes, quite possibly OR

No


No?

 

[Smølfine]

It's not 'yes'. The option actually says 'possibly' and that's about as meaningless as an option can get.

Possibly:
By chance
With a possibility of becoming actual
In a manner or to a degree possible of conceiving
To a degree possible of achievement or by possible means

So, definitely not an emphatic a 'yes' then.

So why is it now that you start bellowing about the options, and not at the start of the thread, where you even changed the fucking poll in the first place!!!

 

[butchersapron]

Well actually.....


..it's about as definate yes as would be fair.

I mean not one of use could emphatically say yes or no, could we?


So the real and honest answer from anyone of us would be either:

Yes, quite possibly OR

No


No?

Well why not simply say 'yes' - why ignore me when i say that i (ands others) can't vote because of the 'possibly' in there? Do a proper poll.

Are we lying?

 

[editor]

Well actually.....


..it's about as definate yes as would be fair.

I mean not one of use could emphatically say yes or no, could we?

A more meaningful result would have been gained from these options:

1. Yes
2. Possibly
3. No
4. Please! No more 9/11 shit from these fucking tedious 9/11 obsessed nutters whose own boards are a laughable flop because no one gives a fuck.