Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen? The Poll!
- Thread starter DrRingDing
- Start date
miss minnie
Well-Known Member
i have successfully hearded 9 cats to a public park without using tuna.
they were a very docile bunch that had acquired a habit of following one cat when it was being carried to the park. once in the actual park they ran amok but when the lead cat was picked up again the rest followed it home.
they were a very docile bunch that had acquired a habit of following one cat when it was being carried to the park. once in the actual park they ran amok but when the lead cat was picked up again the rest followed it home.
42 pages now, i guess that might be a record.
42 pages with only the occasional foray onto the topic. The latest area of discussion is now cats, and the herding thereof.
Most of these threads most of the time are more to do with the protagonists rather than the topic.
It's funny really.
42 pages with only the occasional foray onto the topic. The latest area of discussion is now cats, and the herding thereof.
Most of these threads most of the time are more to do with the protagonists rather than the topic.
It's funny really.
butchers...
... i guess that's fair enough, but a pity nonetheless.
Anyone else out there that is not easily identified as being on one side or the other that might care to have a go? Pickman's model comes to mind!
Mind you, and of course i'd say this, but it is genunine, the options bigfish came up seem to fit the bill perfectly. The language is unambiguous, and the three options cover all possibilities.
But let's see if anything else comes up.
Editor, why don't you try putting up a candidate? In the absence of neutrals, surely if we have something from both sides of the dividing line, we can come to an agreement between us? It could sort of be half yours, half bigfish's.
If nothing else turns up in the next day or two, i'll put up my effort. We could almost have a poll to see how the poll should be worded...
... i guess that's fair enough, but a pity nonetheless.
Anyone else out there that is not easily identified as being on one side or the other that might care to have a go? Pickman's model comes to mind!
Mind you, and of course i'd say this, but it is genunine, the options bigfish came up seem to fit the bill perfectly. The language is unambiguous, and the three options cover all possibilities.
But let's see if anything else comes up.
Editor, why don't you try putting up a candidate? In the absence of neutrals, surely if we have something from both sides of the dividing line, we can come to an agreement between us? It could sort of be half yours, half bigfish's.
If nothing else turns up in the next day or two, i'll put up my effort. We could almost have a poll to see how the poll should be worded...
I'm not challenging anything. But IMO the lack of posters is a pretty good indication that most of the good people of urban75 really aren't interested in debating further on the many, many 9/11 conspiracy threads we've had of late.Citizen66 said:Yeah, okay
A Loki 'challenge' : Not many people are posting on this thread, why do you think that is?
What are you challenging there Loki? People's posting habits?
Loki said:
Followed by;
Loki said:
Which proves fuck all. And one minute he's challenging and the next he denies that he is. Is there any wonder how decent 9/11 debates never happen when obsessive posters like Loki don't even know which way round their head is screwed on?
this is dousafavour
Or do you think perchance that these very same people are the ones that avoid the brick bats being chucked around here and would prefer to watch from the sidelines and mibbe even vote?
There has been 7,206 views of this relatively young thread is this all down to the handfull of nutters?
Loki said:
Or do you think perchance that these very same people are the ones that avoid the brick bats being chucked around here and would prefer to watch from the sidelines and mibbe even vote?
There has been 7,206 views of this relatively young thread is this all down to the handfull of nutters?
Smølfine said:
It's cos it's been relentlessly spammed by a few conspiracy theorists and then bumped by the few of us who can be bothered to say we're not convinced.
Over 1,000 posts and I'm not convinced the CT's have got anything. I would dearly love to see Bush shafted but there just isn't any evidence.
Loki said:
My time of posting: 1037 posts on 42 pages. It's not a wee thread now, is it?
Over a 100 posters have voted on a poll thread: is that a record for a poll?
And nearly half of them recognise what is in effect the madness of rumsfeld in that he would want 911 to happen, regardless of whether due to that desire he would have had it planned himself. That is about 50 posters who recognise the possiblity that it was not down to incompetence that 911 happened. Not a wee amount of posters now, is it loki?
You see loki, despite your increasingly uncredible and desperate claims (all in the good defence of the good posters on your favourite boards), there is quite a bit of interest in the topic of 911. And it's obvious from this poll that many posters are reading these threads, but not necessarily posting on them.
Why don't you start a thread claiming that
the sky is green
and the grass is blue
and i don't have a clue...
Loki said:
Not with your eyes and ears clamped shut, no there isn't.
Open them though, and all will seem entirely different. Try looking at that cooperativeresearch web site again. I know you've looked at it six times, you've told me, but really loki, that particular site which is all about links to mainstream media, would take probably 24 hours of constant reading to get through it.
And yet you tell us you've seen nothing of any interest on it in six readings of it.
I just think you're not interested in the slightest about an opinion on the topic that is contrary to your current position.
You are a closed shop.
fela fan said:
I also recognise 'the possibility' that 9/11 could have been organised by Rumsfeld and friends. But I don't believe it was.
Smølfine said:
This is a more than likely scenario, and one i'm currently subscribing to. It would explain why bush looked like a rabbit in front of headlights when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane had hit the second tower. And why he carried on reading (he thought this the best thing to do, with his extremely limited intelligence, and limited ability at thinking on his feet), and why nobody whisked the president off to safety which is an automated procedure in such times of emergency... cheney's orders.
Loki said:
Whether it's a word or not, you've understood the meaning. Not credible.
And oh yes you are mate, and constantly do so. You attempt to hoodwink the forum that not many posters are interested in the topic of 911. But my post pointed out with reams of evidence that the topic is in fact a very popular one. And not just amongst what now seems to be two posters who are 'CTers'. I say two, coz over the last few days, it seems i have finally persuaded everyone to drop my name from the list (except for editor, but he's not a man for turning...).
So all this tizzy over two posters eh? It really is futile, give it up mate.
Try opening your mind up instead of defending an undefensible position. You are going to increasingly look sillier and sillier if you don't adapt to the times...
editor said:
Really!?
Then I recommend you take a look at the cuckoo option 4 on this poll. It reads:
All this bonkers 9/11 conspiracy stuff is fucking irritating and further threads repeating the same thing should be binned.
I've highlighted all the loaded, pejorative and subjective elements in the option to make it easier for you grasp.
How did the alleged hijackers manage to pass through 3 airports and board 4 flights without anyone seeing hide nor hair of them by the way?
Loki said:
But don't you see what i was driving at? If you saw it once and didn't like it, why the hell did you go back to it a further five times?
But then you say 'at least six times'. It gets dodgier, your claims. No one in their right mind keeps going back to a web site that has nothing to add to their knowledge. Can you tell the forum why you keep going back to it?
And furthermore, the web site in question has everything that you've ever requested: ie mainstream media links all over it. Not loopy anonymous unknown web sites. It's all mainstream media.
But no, you tell us it has nothing of interest, and you tell us that despite this you've read it 'at least six times'. Why do you return to a web site that adds nothing to the debate loki?
Contrary to your claim, it seems your eyes and ears are decidedly unopen (probably not a real word, but you'll know what i mean).
fela fan said:
Utter bollocks. I simply come along to point out I'm not convinced by the "evidence" presented and explain why. I've already expressed my opinion about Bush. I would love to see the man shot down in flames. But, despite thousands of posts and dozens of threads on the subject the posters convinced there was some conspiracy about the event simply have not made a case.
It's clear the topic isn't very interesting amongst posters - hence the very few who bother to post on these threads, in a community with hundreds of people actively posting.
Similar threads
