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

[editor]

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!!!

I changed the 'fucking poll' later on because I felt - in my role as the fucking editor - that it needed some balance.

Clearly, the voting vindicated that decision.

 

[Smølfine]

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?

Would you be happy if I could change the 'possibly' to 'probably'?

 

[butchersapron]

This is stupid - we have an emphatic definitive 'no' option but no such one for yes - we get a vague 'possibly' - that's worthless and it's certainly not worthy of being counted as a yes.

 

[butchersapron]

Would you be happy if I could change the 'possibly' to 'probably'?

No. It needs to be changed to have other options as well. 'Probably' is just as unclear. If you want yes and no - do yes and no, and make the question equally clear.

 

[bigfish]

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.

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

Of course you are right Signal, but the point I am making (and perhaps I should have written it in just to be perfectly clear), is that the poll is not asking for categorical proof from anyone, only for their general opinion.

 

[Smølfine]

No. It needs to be changed to have other options as well. 'Probably' is just as unclear. If you want yes and no - do yes and no, and make the question equally clear.

Oh do me a favour, NOBODY honestly can 'yes' definately or 'no'...apart from the people involved and I'm not sure there is anybody here that is.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh do me a favour, NOBODY honestly can 'yes' definately or 'no'...apart from the people involved and I'm not sure there is anybody here that is.

No, they can give their opinion - what the fuck else do you want? Documented proof? And there are more opinions than yes or no.

You're asking what people think - they think lots of fucking things.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh do me a favour, NOBODY honestly can 'yes' definately or 'no'...apart from the people involved and I'm not sure there is anybody here that is.

So why then say that it is that simple in your defence of the original poll? Keep up with yourself mate.

 

[editor]

Would you be happy if I could change the 'possibly' to 'probably'?

Would you be happy if I started a new poll asking:

Did the USG allow 9/11 to happen?

1. Yes. Definitely. There is no doubt that they planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks on their own country and Al Q was not involved in any way
2. I believe that the USG knew all about the attacks in advance and let their own people be slaughtered and their cities blown up so that they could exploit the situation to invade Iraq/Afghanistan
3. I believe that the USG ignored vital intelligence reports and wildly underestimated the terrorist threat
4. I believe the official version to be more or less true, although the USG has since conspired to cover up their own incompetence after the event
5. I believe the official version more or less
6. Please! When will this 9/11 conspiracy shit end? It's clear that barely anyone gives a fuck about these endlessly recycled bonkers theories

Something tells me that when people are presented with an intelligent set of choices, the voting figures would begin to represent something remotely significant.

 

[Smølfine]

You're asking what people think - they think lots of fucking things.

Well from what i've learnt people get more wound up when there is more options and their predeliction is not included.

*remembers the 'how gay are you thread'*

 

[butchersapron]

Would you be happy if I started a new poll asking:

<snip>

I was wondering when this much needed poll would get happened. Bye bye CTers...

 

[Smølfine]

Would you be happy if I started a new poll asking:

Did the USG allow 9/11 to happen?

1. Yes. Definitely. There is no doubt that they planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks on their own country and Al Q was not involved in any way
2. I believe that the USG knew all about the attacks in advance and let them happen so that they could exploit them to invade Iraq/Afghanistan
3. I believe that the USG ignored vital intelligence reports and wildly underestimated the terrorist threat
4. I believe the official version to be more or less true, although the USG has since conspired to cover up their own incompetence after the event
5. I believe the official version more or less
6. Please! When will this 9/11 conspiracy shit end? It's clear that barely anyone gives a fuck about these endlessly recycled bonkers theories

Something tells me that when people are presented with an intelligent set of choices, the voting figures would reveal the true picture.

I think it's worth a poll but....

I thought poll options were supposed to succinct?

 

[pk]

Yeah, do a new poll.

And look out for aliases voting under multiple logins.

Voter names should be viewable.

 

[fela fan]

Something tells me that when people are presented with an intelligent set of choices, the voting figures would begin to represent something remotely significant.

I do hope and pray for your sake that you don't mean the choices you made in that post. Because they do not come under the banner 'an intelligent set of choices'. I presume in fact that you were having a joke.

Since i've been sleeping, lots of talk about a proper poll. I think for once those on opposite sides of the 911 argument could work together: let's, on this thread, come up with an acceptable wording for a poll, and then start a new thread with our agreed choices.

Looking at the last two pages, i'd like to ask butchers to start the ball rolling. That's for various reasons, two of which are that he isn't normally posting on these threads, and he will certainly be able to satisfy editor's requirement for some intelligent choices.

How about it butchers? Everyone?

 

[Smølfine]

indeed fela fan

 

[butchersapron]

Already trying to undermine any other poll, because you know the way it's going to go...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Already trying to undermine any other poll, because you know the way it's going to go...

yes quite right too...

you could hardly call butch intelligent and expect to get away with it

 

[Smølfine]

i never knew you was a CT fan BA

 

[butchersapron]

I do hope and pray for your sake that you don't mean the choices you made in that post. Because they do not come under the banner 'an intelligent set of choices'. I presume in fact that you were having a joke.

Since i've been sleeping, lots of talk about a proper poll. I think for once those on opposite sides of the 911 argument could work together: let's, on this thread, come up with an acceptable wording for a poll, and then start a new thread with our agreed choices.

Looking at the last two pages, i'd like to ask butchers to start the ball rolling. That's for various reasons, two of which are that he isn't normally posting on these threads, and he will certainly be able to satisfy editor's requirement for some intelligent choices.

How about it butchers? Everyone?

OK - i can do that, if people can wait till the morning. How we going to do this though - i come up with a set of options and questions i feel i fair and then we ask people what they think? Because i'm simply not doing it on my own - and there's no way any questions should not be collobarative. Otherwise we get all this again.

I'd be equally happy if no one thought that this was an idea worth pursuing.

 

[Smølfine]

this is dousafaour

Here's one option:

"Rumsfeld and Co wanted and allowed 9/11 to occur to push for 'full spectrum domination' "

 

[fela fan]

OK - i can do that, if people can wait till the morning. How we going to do this though - i come up with a set of options and questions i feel i fair and then we ask people what they think? Because i'm simply not doing it on my own - and there's no way any questions should not be collobarative. Otherwise we get all this again.

I'd be equally happy if no one thought that this was an idea worth pursuing.

Butchers, i mentioned you, because on these threads you're as good a neutral as we have! Plus it's obvious to me you'd attempt to do it fairly.

No need to be left on your own though. I for one will be more than happy to add my input, i'd have no qualms doing what i suggested you do, but i fear many on these threads will have qualms!

My idea over this was exactly to make it collaborative, so that it is acceptable to all the usual posters on these threads.

Some posters will not disagree with me when i say i yearn for a 911 thread without the usual derailments and abusive postings. I quite enjoy them anyway, but it is a serious subject, and it would be nice one day to get a polite well debated thread on the matter.

Maybe clever enough wording will not only provide a fair poll, but give us a specific direction in which to post.

 

[bigfish]

Here's one option:

"Rumsfeld and Co wanted and allowed 9/11 to occur to push for 'full spectrum domination' "

My own suggestion would be:

Do you believe the Bush Administration

Option 1. conceived of, organized and carried out the 9/11 attacks in order to create a false pretext for a pre-planned imperialist military invasion of the Middle East aimed at securing the bulk of the worlds remaining strategic oil reserves under US control (MIHOP)

Option 2. did not conceive of or carry out the attacks themselves, but did recieve advance warnings and deliberately stood down the NORAD air defense system allowing them to happen on purpose, in order to create a false pretext for the invasion of the Middle East and elsewhere (LIHOP)

Option 3. did not have any knowledge of an impending attack and through human error miscalculated their response with terrible loss of life (COCK-UP)

 

[editor]

I do hope and pray for your sake that you don't mean the choices you made in that post. Because they do not come under the banner 'an intelligent set of choices'. I presume in fact that you were having a joke.

I've really had enough of your moronic, insulting 'contributions'.

 

[editor]

My own suggestion would be:

Do you believe the Bush Administration

Rarely have I seen such a loaded set of questions.

But that reflects the sheer deperation of your fact free cause, doesn't it?

How did they fake the phone calls, by the way?

 

[editor]

Some posters will not disagree with me when i say i yearn for a 911 thread without the usual derailments and abusive postings.

You could make a great start towards that aim by not posting on that thread.

Your patronising matey matey "I just know" ramblings where you refuse to challenge anyone serving up a conspiracy-tastic version of events adds nothing to the debate.

 

[butchersapron]

Actually, on sober reflection, i don't want to help set up a new poll. I don't want to be sucked into what i fear will be a black hole - a thread that runs for weeks and weeks - i've been there and didn't enjoy it at all. I'll happily vote on a new poll and chip in now and again, but i think that will be the full extent of my contribution.

 

[editor]

Actually, on sober reflection, i don't want to help set up a new poll. I don't want to be sucked into what i fear will be a black hole - a thread that runs for weeks and weeks - i've been there and didn't enjoy it at all.

Probably the best decision. Trying to maintain a rational debate on 9/11 that manages to retain some vague connection with reality is like trying to herd cats.

 

[Pickman's model]

Probably the best decision. Trying to maintain a rational debate on 9/11 that manages to retain some vague connection with reality is like trying to herd cats.

cats are easy enough to deal with if you use a bit of thought.

and tuna.

 

[editor]

cats are easy enough to deal with if you use a bit of thought.

and tuna.

I challenge you to successful herd 15 cats in one direction in an open space.

Using tuna is cheating!

 

[pk]

Keep it simple.

Do you believe the conspiracy stories as touted by Dr Jizzz and Dickfish?

Yes?

No?