digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story

infowars.com — A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • satipip, on 10/12/2007, -27/+102The interesting thing about this poll is that they have done the very same poll in May 2002. And the figures then were interesting as well:

    May '02 --> Oct. '06
    # 08% ----> 28% "Mostly lying"
    # 65% ----> 53% "Hiding something"
    # 21% ----> 16% "Telling the truth"
    # 06% ----> 03% "Not sure"

    And this development happened within 4 years where the mainstream media didn't do anything at all to expose any potential Government involvement and its cover-up (on the contrary, they did defend the official story all the time).

    That is completely unlike their style of reporting about Nixon's plumbing squad that broke into the Watergate Hotel, or about Clinton's blowjobs.

    This shift of opinion happened while there was not a single "investigative journalist" that digged into 9/11 contradictions and unanswered questions....

    Hail the Internet!
    • BadassCheese, on 10/12/2007, -47/+19What condtridictions? Specifics please.
    • Chromoly, on 10/12/2007, -24/+127I'd get out my grains of salt for anything coming from this article after this paragraph.

      "It took 35 plus years for the majority of Americans to wake up to the fact that the assassination of JFK was a government operation. It has only take five years for MORE Americans to wake up to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job on behalf of the Neoconservative crime syndicate within the US."
    • iTorrey, on 10/12/2007, -10/+47@Chromoly

      Yeah but this poll wasn't done by the person who wrote that so I'm not sure how you can debunk one because the other
    • iTorrey, on 10/12/2007, -15/+19Also there is strong evidence that the Zapruder film was heavily edited

      http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/fast.html
    • TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -42/+46In other news 84% of the american public are morons :-)
      Then again, if presented with that poll I'm not sure I would pick telling the truth because everything said by politicians these days is more heavy handed retoric rather than truth.
    • steeel, on 10/12/2007, -20/+17http://www.mininova.org/tor/446155

      Download and watch this movie.

      Forget about Loose Change, this one has experts questioning ground 0

    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -30/+34I don't understand why the approval rating of Bush is nearly 40% if only 16% believe the government explanation...

      For the record, I have yet to see a convincing 9/11 conspiracy theory.
    • pilot3033, on 10/12/2007, -12/+34FTA: Telling the truth 16%

      Hiding something 53%

      Mostly lying 28%

      Not sure 3%"

      The thing about polls, is that they don't do anything of value. You can get someone to blatantly contradict them self by asking the same question in two different ways.
      The question "Do think the government is hiding something about 9/11?" (if it was even specific" is a firggen no brainier. 53% is not surprising at all, in fact I thought it would be more. But "hiding something" does NOT equal "Reject official story". In order to draw that conclusion you would have to ask "Do you believe the official story?". And even then you have wiggle room.

      We get the whole truth? Nah, but it had nothing to do with the cause of 9/11, just the failure to prevent it.
    • starfighter01, on 10/12/2007, -21/+30You believe the presidential approval ratings? I guess you believe the president won a fair election too.
    • musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15If you get past that propaganda page and go to the poll information (one with less propaganda at least), and scroll down to the bottom, they polled 983 Americans...
      http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469
    • steeel, on 10/12/2007, -13/+18http://www.mininova.org/tor/446155
    • MAJORstrasser, on 10/12/2007, -16/+20And yet even if 89% of the country thought the offcial story was BS and thought it was an inside job, if there was an election today, odds are George Bush gets re-elected. ***** morons....
    • Intangir, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26all i can say is god bless the internet ;)

    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25I just saw this video, and thought it was very well done. 9/11 Press For the Truth.
      It's about the research done by families of some of the ones killed in the world trade center, particularly the four women, now single parents, known as the "Jersey Sisters'"

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250&q=Press+for+Truth&hl=en

      Its also available with bit torrent:
      http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=9/11%20Press%20for%20Truth

    • Niffer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Everyone here seems to miss the point that this poll asked if you trusted everything your government said about 9/11, not whether or not there was a conspiracy to commit 9/11 on the part of the government. Of all the things that happened on that day, you have to assume something in the official story is not honest, because what government admits that they ***** up that bad? There are a lot of questions about who had information about the attacks and who didn't act on that information to stop it. The Bush camp didn't even want to have an official investigation into what happened. When they were pressured to testify, they didn't do it under oath. Who does that unless they know something and aren't being honest? I say the other 16% need to get with it because we will never fix the mistakes if we can't see them.
    • compwizz, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Hmm, is it just me or does this poll seem inaccurate. If you look at the question that they say was asked to the people being polled:

      "Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?"

      That question doesn't say anything about 9/11 at all. Its asking an extremely general question. Now, if I'm missing something, please let me know, but the way I see it, is that question has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 conspiracy, its the author of the article that made it look like it does.
    • rejectpenguin, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3Most of you will deny this, but its not hard to rig an online poll to vote multiple times. If this were an actual SURVEY it might be believable, but an online poll.. give me a break.
    • pathy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4iTorrey,

      That sounds like it was written by someone with an idea and some skills in *****.
    • remington, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4The hyperlinks from the text of this article, particularly those that refer to the assorted polls, lead to another conspiracy blog site. That site and the site that hosts this article appear to be related (they have ads for each other's sites). This is journalistic incest and undermines the credibility of the article. Why isn't there a link to the polls at CBS or CNN? Bottom line, this is a shady site with a clear agenda and shouldn't be taken seriously.
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Three words: argumentum ad populum.

      "An argumentum ad populum (Latin: 'appeal to the people'), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that 'If many believe so, it is so.'"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

      Don't let non-engineers try to tell you something that only engineers can determine to be true or false.
    • ISIfunded911, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22This poll does not surprise me at all, especially after having heard what the families of the people who died in the World Trade Center said in the documentary "9/11 Press for Truth", about their effort to get all the truth about 9/11 from the government:
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250&q=Press+for+Truth&hl=en
      They said that 60% of the questions they wrote down never got answered. Neither by the government, nor by the 9/11 Commission, nor by the media.
      That is a lot of hiding.
      What to think of it?
      I am not a specialist, so one option is to listen to whitleblowers, like Sibel Edmonds (ex-FBI):
      http://www.justacitizen.org/
      And the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition: http://www.nswbc.org/
      Many of them now think that covering-up so much can only mean one thing: complicity.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15@ISIfunded911
      Yeah that was a great film I just saw it today, and included that link in comments too.
      I bet half of these bush-lie apologists wouldn't even watch it, for fear of seeing the truth!
    • ISIfunded911, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@WaterDragon
      I wonder how they will react to all the revelations about the role of the Pakistani secret services (ISI). The ISI created Al-Qaeda with the CIA, as was revealed by the British:
      "Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."
      Robin Cook - former British Foreign Secretary (he "died" one month after he revealed this big secret).
      And the ISI sent money to Mohamed Atta.
      And the FBI heard an ISI agent in the US, who was buying weapons for Bin Laden, say about the WTC before 9/11: "these towers are going to fall". Of course (?), the FBI did nothing.
      All this is in "9/11 Press for Truth".
      The last revelation comes from the mouth of an FBI agent.
    • DigiRaven, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2wow people just wow. I guess 85% do not understand physics very well either.

      " it couldn't be a plane that crashed into the pentagon. no way. where's the shape of the wings in the building. doh." :
    • gophertau, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2How is compwizz being dugg down?

      The poll doesn't ask anything about any 9/11 government cover-up, or whether people think there was any government involvement in 9/11. It asks whether or not people think that the government is telling everything they knew prior to 9/11 about possible terrorist attacks. That's a long way from government involvement.

      Marked as inaccurate. Don't misinterpret poll results.
    • TheLastProphet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Watch OutFoxed,

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8775995341064689390&q=fox+news&hl=en

      Ex employees and other news officials spill their guts in this expose' on American propaganda.

      Also this article on how the FCC destroyed a report on how back-ass-ward Fox culties are:
      http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14836500/
    • LVsFINEST, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@iTorrey

      Thanks for the JFK zap film link. I always thought the zap film was "proof". Wow, was I wrong.
  • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -37/+28Something had to happen so Bush could wipe his behind with the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. You have to hand it to him though. There are still people so brainwashed that they worship at his feet and offer their children for sacrifice.
    Preemptive information for the Bush groupies. For once, look at some hard facts. Read the Patriot Act Two and think what will happen when all your rights are gone and someone you don't like is in power. This isn't a one way street.
  • LoneRanger85, on 10/12/2007, -54/+30Wow, that's way up from South Parks's estimate of 24%. Now, 85% of Americans are morons.

    This truly IS the year of the Democrats.
    • maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -19/+42I have doubts that all 85% think it was a crazy govt thing like in south park. Most people probobly beleive that details are being hid because our incompetant administration doesnt want the public to know about their probable massive failure to prevent it and their slow witted response the day of.
    • CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -37/+16No wonder Republicans are known as morons--they take their facts and talking points from a cartoon! What's next? Claiming that Democrats are fools for believing that humans never walked with dinosaurs, in clear contradiction of the Flinstones?
    • kidd3ckz, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7All politicians are equally stupid and meaningless. Go fight a war or something.
    • aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18@CopperFalcon

      Don't give me that line of BS. Everyone knows of the dinosaur conspiracy created by radical left-wing scientists to support their evolution sham.

      Seriously though, this was the response I got from a religious zealot a few years back on an evolution 'discussion'. The irony is, with thinking like that, its amazing he hasn't already been an example of natural selection (or deselection in this case).
    • Duffy40, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Will laugh at you on Nov8 when you are crying about how the Republicans stole the election again
  • NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -15/+44=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

    Its not important who brought down the Reichstag- its only important what kind of propaganda the Nazi's could create with it. For politicians, the only "facts" are what opinions people have, and what ***** they be made to believe.

    Thank heavens the credibility of the people is beginning to be strained.
    • Garda, on 10/12/2007, -22/+15It seems Bush and the neo cons got their reichstag fire and went around the world like crazy texan cowboys
      I don't actually feel sorry for anyone except the americans. They chose him, they can have him.
    • goffy59, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27This is exactly what bush did. I think the Nazi's and bush administration got a lot in common as far as strategy and tactics goes.
    • Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -9/+26Although they won't put it on a bumpersticker Neocons are more closely related to Nazi's than just about any other recent political party.
    • Garda, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9Like to make a correction. Meant to say i feel sorry for everyone, except the Americans. Now the last sentence from before makes sence
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Google PNAC and "new pearl harbor"

      We got exactly what the "doctor" ordered.

      The goal of PNAC is to insure Israel's security by removing every possible threat from the region. The fact the U.S. will spend two TRILLION dollars doing it and will put your children and grandchildren into tax slavery all their lives is totally worth it. To them.

      Me and my kids have our second passports. We won't stay. We won't pay. And hell no, my kids won't go fight.
    • JackRiddler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@NoahVail:

      Your point about the Reichstag fire is well-taken; regardless of who did it, the Nazi apparatus was primed and prepared to exploit it fully. They used it to do what they had wanted to do regardless.

      However, this does not mean the identity of the Reichstag arsonists is unimportant. If the Nazis themselves had been revealed to a sufficiently large public as the authors (whether by planning out the whole thing or by intentionally allowing others to do it for them), this might have toppled them from power.

      And if 9/11 is convincingly shown to be an inside job* to a sufficient number of Americans, this will almost certainly topple the Bush administration; induce a paradigm shift about how things work; teach people about what the secret "intelligence" sector actually does (sow dischord and chaos, causing the problems it supposedly is meant to solve); and possibly spark an American revolution to restore constitutional government.

      (Well, a fellah can dream...)

      That is what motivates a great many people involved in 9/11 truth; and the preponderance of available confirmed facts certainly supports the "inside job" paradigm over the official story - see the genuine research sites by 9/11 skeptics, like Justicefor911.org, cooperativeresearch.org, or especially the work of Nafeez Ahmed, Michel Chossudovsky.

      (Now quite a few members of 9/11 truth are typical examples of American education or just old-fashioned sophists, and no more able to make a logical or factual case for their point of view than most people are able to make for anything, but that's a different problem that applies to supporters of the Official Conspiracy Theory in at least equal measure.)

      * 9/11 was an inside job =
      a) the result of a covert "false flag" operation by US intelligence networks orchestrating the events (probably centered within privatized entities),
      b) with or without "real hijackers" whose own plans are facilitated
      c) and almost certainly with the knowledge, approval, willful negligence and/or participation of various officials and influential persons within the Bush administration and US military command.
  • Archeologist, on 10/12/2007, -24/+10And where was this poll held? I don't remember voting... It would be it would be wayy higher...
  • patience, on 10/12/2007, -37/+38Lets see:
    Incompetent government bueracrats who have screwed up Katrina and the war on terror somehow managed to carryout this broad conspiracy.

    Look: the only thing this conspiracy nonsense shows is that there are stupid people here AND in the middle east.

    Wake up, guys. The X-Files was canceled years ago.
    • maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -13/+38most people probobly believe that they are hideing details that would reveal the full extent of their extreme incompetance in preventing and handeling 9/11. not that they actually were involved in the attacks.
    • archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22The point is not necessarily that they were responsible for actually organizing 9/11, but rather that the population thinks they are hiding something...I don't know, like, their own incompetence in preventing it AND how they recuperated it to push their political agenda.

      The other thing is that, when you cultivate a culture of secrecy (like this administration has since before 9/11), it's not a surprise that people give credence to conspiracy theories. Being open is the best policy against this.
    • kolop1, on 10/12/2007, -22/+13 The government did not screw up Katrina. They just don't like Black people. Let a natural disaster hit Beverly hills, and see how quickly the government reacts.
    • hessian, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8@maiku00

      Yes I agree. If people keep hearing the same message enough, whatever that is lie or fact, people begin to believe it. Everyone loves a conspiracy, so it's little wonder once the message "they hiding something" is repeated enough, by a wide enough audience who is already suspicious of Bush's honesty record, that it will catch on. The pragmatic principle of repetition was enunciated by Goebbels many years ago. This is a good thing, after years of not asking questions, the American middle ground is once again becoming emboldened (somewhat), to inquire after the veracity of the conservative party line.
    • meatwig, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13They have not screwed up katrina and the war on terror, both of these events have helped them gain power over the people. They did exactly what they wanted to do, they have achieved their goals in both of these situations, they are very competent at completing their own interests. Im not saying they are smart, but lets not believe that they are this dumb and can possible create such problems that just happen to benefit them. They are playing dumb.
    • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17You know I'd buy the "bumbling govt" excuses if it weren't for the fact that our civil liberties, constitution and everything which makes America great are being wiped out every time these "mistakes" happen. I don't give a ***** if they are all low grade morons, the assault on my country needs to stop, period. The corporate mass media is controlled - that's the fact and yes I have first hand knowledge of that from working in the media. Just because Fox and CNN make the few of you left who still worship Bush and Co think you're the popular majority doesn't make it true. Let's see what happens in November and God help the govt if the Diebold machines steal elections again. If the majority of America really does support this administration, it's policies and it's actions then we're completely *****.
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"You know I'd buy the "bumbling govt" excuses if it weren't for the fact that our civil liberties, constitution and everything which makes America great are being wiped out every time these "mistakes" happen. I don't give a ***** if they are all low grade morons, the assault on my country needs to stop, period."

      The reason for this is pretty simple. I kind of hate to say it, but... Right now there's one group of people more bumbling than the government: the U.S. citizens. Whether we're wasting our time on nutty, baseless conspiracy theories, or vegging out on the couch watching Oprah or "wrastlin'", we, as a whole, are letting this happen to us.
    • fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Sigh. Digg's comment reply placement error. My bad. Kill this.

    • TheLastProphet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Wake up... or at least read.

      Operation Northwoods:
      http://www.ealchemy.org/northwoods.pdf

      PNAC:
      http://www.ealchemy.org/PNAC.pdf

      False-Flag attacks and imperialism are documented.
      Get a clue... please.

      Bush is an idiot - UNTIL you read PNAC.
      Katrina was a disaster - UNTIL you see the precedents set.
      9/11 seemed tragic - UNTIL you read Northwoods.
  • patience, on 10/12/2007, -13/+20http://www.madweird.com/animation-videos/south-park-1009-911-episode/

    Full episode
  • DucoNihilum, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12Argumentum Ad Populum.
    • milomilomilo, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4bravo, you know the list of logical falacies.

      Unfortunately, its an overplayed card, and since the way this country works is based on the majority it is more than apropriate to appeal to the majority, in fact I think its a law.
    • DucoNihilum, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Sorry, it's late, but are you using an appeal to popularity to justify appeal to popularity? Just because it's our system doesn't make it logically right. Even if 100% of people thought this was true, that wouldn't mean a single thing without evidence, or in our democratic system... Even if 100% of voters think that, for example, bush should be impeached does not mean he should be. We need to use logic, not its fallacies.
    • CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8An ad populum fallacy is an argument that goes "since a lot of people believe something, that something must be true". Claiming that a lot of people believe something (or in this case, don't believe something) is not in and of itself a fallacy.
    • texasmojo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17So every poll is useless because they are by definition a logical fallacy?

      We need to stop this "Bush is Hitler! The Democrats as Socialists!" mindset. They've got us rooting for the home team, meanwhile the fans never notice the game is fixed! I guess if people can think that pro wrestling is real then they can believe this faked us vs them cheerleading is real too.

      The Democrats are absolutely no better than the Republicans in this mess. Do you REALLY think that if we had a Democratic president/house/senate that things would be better?

      It was Johnson that gave us Vietnam and Carter was arguably the worst president I've lived under.

      We need REAL change in this country, not Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.
    • archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Yes, I think it's good to stress again that this is not about people *believing* in conspiracy theories, but rather about people *disbelieving* the official government's official line on 9/11.
    • archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Wrong thread...
    • DucoNihilum, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"An ad populum fallacy is an argument that goes "since a lot of people believe something, that something must be true". Claiming that a lot of people believe something (or in this case, don't believe something) is not in and of itself a fallacy."

      Right, but when used as a poll like this it is trying to imply it's true.

      And yes, polls are really.... useless, especially because they can be abused (IE: fallacy...)
    • archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7(Well, whaddya know, it was in the right thread after all...)

      Carter was a fine president, vilified by the corporate elites for not putting U.S. empire-building at the top of his priority list. He mishandled the hostage crisis and was crucified for it, but that shouldn't erase the better parts of his presidency.
    • bcdowell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3this is not necessarily an "argument ad populum." Now of course we don't -know- what really happened, and perhaps the article delves a bit too far into the realm of speculation.

      This poll shows that most americans now are suspicious of the offical story. It's fallacious to say that the official story must be a coverup -because- the majority of us suspect it to be, but of course, the data should not be interpreted that way.

      The best thing to say is that most people distrust the government. Those 85% don't feel the way they do for no reason; while nothing can be -proven- based on that poll alone, the fact that so many americans feel that something about the official story is amiss should warrant some kind of deeper investigation into the matter.

      The majority can be wrong, but when the majority believes in a -conspiracy theory- ... it's clear that something is not adding up.

      I feel that, at least, the government owes us some kind of explanation. There are -hundreds- of questions and problems that have been raised, and if the government is telling us the truth, then why haven't they given us the information that would be needed to put the conspiracy myths to rest ?? ( For instance, why are they so relunctant to releast the pentagon footage from the many cameras that would have caught the incident on tape ??)
  • JHawk24821, on 10/12/2007, -22/+13I wonder if this is the same percentage of people that think the moon landing was faked? :::Tin Foil Hat Alert:::
    • nevenmrgan, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6Pretty close to the percentage of people who think that biological evolution is made up, too...
    • JHawk24821, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6Evolution?! Blasphemy! Everyone knows God created us, and that the world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise. And don't go getting smart on me, I know what that tortoise is standing on - it's turtles all the way down.
    • macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9More like ass hat alert. You can question the official story about 911 and not believe that neocons orchestrated it with the help of ET. If anything this poll implicates both sides. This is about moronic incompetence and using a tragedy to start a crusade for cash. I hate alex jones. And this poll is much more damning for the us government than anything he has to say about bush.
  • novaHands, on 10/12/2007, -18/+27why is everyone an idiot? im serious, someone answer me
    • kagelump, on 10/12/2007, -20/+20so if you think your government might be hiding something, you're an idiot now?
      oh the irony of digg =]
    • JHawk24821, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15Our society caters to followers rather than thinkers.
    • ga7sh, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5not everyone. just you. idiot
    • cybersphere, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0look in the freakin mirror and let me know what you find!
  • dw2005, on 10/12/2007, -22/+12Because this is on an Alex Jones site >> auto buried for inaccuracy.
  • equitium, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25Poll must have been taken at a college.
  • Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11I don't buy the official government story, but I also reject some of the conspiracy theories out there; I think it's somewhere between. I'm certain the government knew the attacks were going to happen (Didn't Condi Rice get an advance warning from the CIA? Didn't a handful of foreign intelligence agencies warn us and get brushed off?), and evidence/circumstance/suspicious activity (Building 7 of the WTC, the way the towers fell, etc.) suggests that the government took advantage of the attacks, and may have guaranteed that they would succeed.

    However, Infowars is clearly biased toward one explanation; I'm not sure how reliable their reports of "scientific studies" on opinions are.
    • BL1NDFA17H, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13I'm sorry Berkana, but I thought I heard you say that, "the way the towers fell," was evidence/circumstance/suspicious activity. Does this imply that you have seen two 110 story buildings collapse due to planes being crashed into them before? If so, please describe how buildings "should," fall when hit by aircraft, since you seem to make statements inferring you would know.
    • macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Mr. Clapton, I think this question is aimed in the wrong direction. The question would maybe make more sense if you asked "how many skyscrapers have ever collapsed from a fuel fire period?" .
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4macmcrae wrote: "The question would maybe make more sense if you asked "how many skyscrapers have ever collapsed from a fuel fire period?" ."

      *sigh* You seem to have forgotten about the planes... again. It's common rhetoric from the conspiracy crowd.

      Also, let me ask you a simple question: If it's impossible for a building to collapse due to fire alone, then why are there strict specifications for fireproofing the steel structure?
    • Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@Blindfaith

      Your answers are here. Skip the early footage of people yelling at each other and all the old video footage. Watch the whole thing. Several engineers explain the evidence. If you don't watch, you are willfully blind indeed.

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782

      @cl1mh4224rd:

      The fireproofing issue is very thoroughly addressed in the above video.
    • macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why is it the "conspiracy" crowd always have the best arguments? I mean the guys preaching the official story are always the ones who are a few sammiches short of a picnic basket. Always! Take george bush as a prime example of this observation.

      "Also, let me ask you a simple question: If it's impossible for a building to collapse due to fire alone, then why are there strict specifications for fireproofing the steel structure?"

      Bwahahahhahahah! You sir are a moron. Sit down before you hurt yourself.
      Knucklehead. :)
  • charlesnorbert, on 10/12/2007, -12/+42Mark as Inaccurate. 85 percent don't think it was faked (as the linked article says), the poll says 85% believe that the government is hiding what they knew before 9/11. It is the difference between saying that NASA blew up the Challenger space shuttle or NASA hid that it knew the O-Ring on the external tank was potentialy dangerous.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Your argument is very persuasive. Marking as inaccurate.
  • phort99, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6One of the strongest selling points to me of the 9/11 conspiracy theory is the highlights in video footage of the collapses where you can see what look like small detonations. There really isn't much of an explanation for that, especially with the arbitrary locations of some of them.
    • JHawk24821, on 10/12/2007, -16/+26"you can see what look like small detonations"

      "Looks like" does not equal "is". You say there is no explanation for this, however, there is: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

      Puffs Of Dust
      CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

      FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

      Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

      Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

      Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
    • mav451, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18I think it is still odd that the public, nor I (as an engineer) has heard an EXTENSIVE engineering explanation. No watered-down, over-spun *****. Just plain engineering, with numbers and analysis. I find it odd that as an ASCE member, that this issue was never raised by ASCE since the initial "investigations" (*****) took place.

      There's something called the ASCE Code of Ethics, that is NOT being followed here:

      "Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by:

      1. Using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare.
      2. Being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity the public, their employers and clients." - (this is just the first 2)

      Is there a reason the engineers have been quiet? What the hell is going on?
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Despite the 13 diggs on JHawk's post, the pancaking explanation used in the Popular Mechanics story was debunked by the NIST report.

      http://wtc.nist.gov/

      Prison Planet...Popular Mechanics...true believers...skeptics. Two sides of the anti-pragmatic coin.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"Despite the 13 diggs on JHawk's post, the pancaking explanation used in the Popular Mechanics story was debunked by the NIST report."

      Anyhow, that particular part of the whole made-up oficial story certainly wasn't meant to explain the 'collapse' of building#7. it was only a few stories tall, compared to the twin towers....but it had the same kind of textbook-perfect collapse.

      And the owner of the site even was captured by a news camera saying they had to 'pull' #7. Miraculously, the required demolition charges ( which he clearly was referring to) were somehow already in place.
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4WaterDragon wrote: "it was only a few stories tall, compared to the twin towers..."

      At 47 stories tall, WTC7 was almost half the height of the twin towers. "[A] few stories tall". Pssh!

      ". . .but it had the same kind of textbook-perfect collapse."
      Hardly textbook. The east mechanical penthouse collapsed a full 5 seconds before the rest of the building.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWemhf8fZ2w

      It also clearly leaned toward the damaged south face as it collapsed.

      http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f1.jpg
      http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f2.jpg

      This is something many conspiracy theorists claim *should* have happened, but *didn't*. They use the "fact" that it didn't as proof that it was demolition. Oops!

      "And the owner of the site even was captured by a news camera saying they had to 'pull' #7. Miraculously, the required demolition charges ( which he clearly was referring to) were somehow already in place."

      No demolitions expert has ever heard the term "pull" used to describe explosive demolition. Brent Blanchard, a demolitions expert with Protec, and contributor to ImplosionWorld.com:

      "We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway."
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@Cl1mh4224rd
      I won't dignify the rest of your lies and true-believer BS with a response.
      But as to your whiney excuse:

      "No demolitions expert has ever heard the term "pull" used to describe explosive demolition."

      The public statement that they had to 'pull' it was not made by any demolition expert, or engineer, but was made by Larry Silverstein, the owner of the site.
      Naturally, he didn't use the official terms.

      I'm familiar with the bogus claims you quote, in your ongoing strategy to breed confusion and conformity , to keep people from thinking.
      Crawl back under your rock with all the others who are afraid of reason and common sense.
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Wow. You're a paranoid son of a bitch, aren't you? Ooga! Booga!

      "From the Popular Mechanics book 'Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts' ( http://tinyurl.com/pkeqq )

      Four demolition and engineering experts tell Popular Mechanics that pull it is not slang for controlled demolition. "I've never heard of it," says Jon Magnusson of Magnusson Klemencic Associates.

      Ron Dokell, retired president of Olshan Demolishing Company, says the same thing. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. adds that the only way he can imagine the term being used is in reference to a process where the legs of a structure are precut and attached to cables, and then large machines are used to literally pull the building to the ground."

      You're only justification is that "he wouldn't use the official word." How weak is that?

      Also, if you believe his admission was a mere accident which blew the whole conspiracy wide open... umm... why didn't he just demand they reshoot that scene? It's not like it was live.
    • argusbargus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The public statement that they had to 'pull' it was not made by any demolition expert, or engineer, but was made by Larry Silverstein, the owner of the site.
      Naturally, he didn't use the official terms."

      Please watch and see if you can find any other meaning than what the building owner said and meant: http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
  • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13a scientific poll of peoples opinions? that doesnt blur the lines of fact and fiction at all!
    • bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8The word 'scientific' refers to a poll's methodology. It means that the poll was conducted in a scientifically verifiable and objective manner. I have no idea what you think it means, but apparently not that.
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10Scientific poll my ass. They must have had a mailing list of the Tin-hat community.
    • dmjarrington, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Why the hell does everyone give a positive digg to a tin foil hat reference... Is that the only joke you stupid ***** have?
  • Knife720, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14At first I thought that this would be a huge gain for the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but then I realized that 53% of people only think that they were "hiding something," a vague claim that could cover just about anything.

    I don't trust the government 100% myself, and am sure that they are hiding something, but nothing to the magnitude of what the conspiracy theorists state.
  • tgilmore, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8There are thee types of lies. Lies. Damn Lies. And Statistics. -Mark Twain

    That number seems really high. Sure there may have been something the government could have done better to prevent 9-11 but to say they had a hand in it seems a little crazy.
    • texasmojo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Does it seem any crazier to you than saying that the government had a hand in the first WTC bombing? Is that crazy or a verified fact?

      Why is one crazy and one not?
    • offput, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Mark Twain did not originate that. 95% of all people know that... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_Damn_Lies,_and_Statistics
    • mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@ texas, that is crazy, both conspiracy theories are crazy. You don't have to accept 9/11 commission is infaliable but to assume the US government had a role in 9/11 is absolutely insane. The bush administration cannot stop classified information leaking to the media, how would they be able to stop the spread of rumors from an action like 9/11 not being leaked within days of the tragedy?
  • InsaneHomer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4What's the difference between a normal Poll and a 'scientific' one?
    • pak314, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Two things that come to mind. A scientific poll would have a large sample size of randomly selected individuals. The questions will be phrased so that the response is not biased.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10There are rules to be a scienctific poll, mainly rules of randomness and number of people that have to be polled to get the margin of error you need along with the confidence level and a few other things.
      Where as a poll you choose to take at say a news website isnt for a lot of obvious reasons. These while they may appear to represent the truth very well, they havent followed the standards of statistics to be able to say it is true with any accuracy at all. That is why web polls dont have a margin of error or confidence level.

      To get /-3% margin of error at 95% confidence, you need to interview ~1000 people, that is why most polls are 1010-1040 people
      it doesnt matter total population size, and yes i know that sounds crazy but it has been proved.

    • paladin144, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@PowerCow

      I find it amazing that you are being modded down for this comment. Some people are really into suppression, aren't they?
  • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3The Gov'ment didnt tell the whole story.
    Faking that confession....
    Those Israelis who knew bout it and tried to frame the palestinians....
    Theres a lot being covered up.....
  • Lax32, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Rule number one- You can butcher statistics and polls to say anything you want.

    If I wanted to, I could create a "scientific poll" that said that 95 percent of Americans are regular meth users.
    • sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7yeah, but then it wouldn't be "scientific." there are other rules, read above comments on the "scientificness" of polls. dumbass.
  • Pacotheparrot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Oh dude this is totally an unbiased website. I mean who wouldn't believe a site called infowars.com which has links to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

    I'm not saying something isn't fishy but can we at least get some fair information.
    • texasmojo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6There's no such thing as "fair" information! Never has been and never will be. The best you can do is read both sides' stories and figure the truth is somewhere in the middle.

      Yeah I think Alex is a little crazy. Sometimes he draws conclusions from tenuous connections. But all his news stories are taken from mainstream news sources. Watch a couple of his documentaries and see that he does indeed have some valid points.

      And please note that he's not a Democratic moonbat or a Republican Neocon. He railed just as hard against Clinton as he does against Bush. He seems to truly care about individual liberty and the Constitution.
    • paladin144, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@Pacotheparrot

      Good point, but nobody else seems to be covering this. Where's the mainstream media on this one? It's clearly a shocking statistic and they usually love that sort of thing. How come the media hasn't really looked into this?
  • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11"Reject official 9/11 story"

    There is no "official" story. The events of that day were covered on the news and you could see for your own eyes.

    In addition, we have Osama on tape saying he's behind the whole thing.

    Or may be it's all a lie and soon Morpheus will make me choose between a blue and red pill?

    Come on people!
    • texasmojo, on 10/12/2007, -12/+14I saw it with my own eyes. I heard firemen clearly say they heard explosions. I heard a lot of witnesses say they heard explosions.

      That "Osama" tape is nothing of the sort. Only a blind man or an idiot could believe that guy on the tape looks anything like Osama Bin Laden. Not to mention the numerous problems with the government's interpretation. Other security agencies say its impossible to tell WHAT is being said on those tapes, and our vaunted "Homeland Security" was simply making much of it up.

      Not to mention how the tape was found. Its more incredible than finding Atta's passport in pristine condition mere hours after the collapse.

      Do some research please before pretending to spout off facts.
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Texas,

      There is a very worrisome element in your response: you choose to ignore elements that do not support your conclusions and cast them away with things such as this was osama or the translation was not correct.

      I urge you to look at all the facts those that appear to support as well as those who do not support your conclusions.

      Let's take your first line for instance. People and firemen saying they saw explosions. One theory could be the one you seem to embrace that of a big conspiracy. Another could be there were objects in the building prone to explode when exposed to fire or compressed ex. gas.
    • texasmojo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9I appreciate your comments. I was responding to your observation that we did indeed "see it with our own eyes". I saw a plane hit the buildings. I saw many professionals describe explosions. I saw the buildings fall down. How those two events relate is the cruxt of the disagreement.

      Was a plane hitting the building enough to bring it down on its own? One of the designers said just a couple of months previously that no, it was not. "Like poking a hole in a screen with a pencil" is how he put it.

      Was the fire ever hot enough to weaken the steel? The tests done on the few pieces indepent researchers could get their hands on don't seem to support that theory. It certainly was never hot enough to cause molten pools of melted metal that no one disputes existed. But of course all that evidence was whisked away before anyone could really reconstruct what happened. A suspicious person would call that destruction of evidence.

      And on the Bin Laden thing, look at the tape for yourself. See if this guy has anything but a passing resemblence to Bin Laden. He's much larger, he has a different nose.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk519bkcLjg is a good starting point.

    • meatwig, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8yes there was an "official report" like an major event has.

      And how do you know what Osama was saying? can you understand him, or did you just listen to what the pretty anchor said? And what do you mean "we" have him on tape, you dont have anything, Osama worked for the CIA and guess who has him on tape. The CIA.

      You put a lot of trust in other people to tell you whats happening, think for yourself.
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Texas,

      I did look at your link...
      Honestly, to me, the guy is Osama.

      Let's say for argument's sake that you are right he isn't.

      Al Qaeda has released many tapes/audio besides this one claiming responsibilites for 9/11 and that 9/11 was just the beginning and there will be more attacks coming.

      You might argue that they just claiming responsibilities for an act they didn't commit but wouldn't they get more support if they claimed innonence and said 9/11 was not their doing and a government conspiracy?
    • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5There's one more thing I forgot to mention about the link.

      The narrator points to the fact that Osama is wearing a ring and watch and states it is against islamic law insinuating that because of this it cannot be Osama.

      It's a totally absurd argument and conclusion from the narrator.
    • texasmojo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Bishop,

      I appreciate your replies. Its enjoyable talking to someone rationally about this.

      If there are "many" video tapes of Bin Laden confessing, I missed something somewhere, perhaps you could fill me in?

      And Bin Laden DID claim innocence on the September 28, 2001 tape. But that's mostly been buried by now. And it wasn't widely reported in this country for some reason :)

      Here's a bbc report on the 'fake bin laden' tape that points out that other services weren't buying it.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2526309.stm

      And you DID forget to point out that the guy was writing notes with his right hand, while our very own government says he's left handed.

      and PLEASE answer me this. If the case is so airtight against Bin Laden, why isn't the 9/11 attack part of his wanted poster? Isn't that kinda strange?
      Thanks again.

    • foxymcfox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@ Texas:

      http://www.september11news.com/Nov3OsamaTVSpeech.jpg here's Osama's mystery ring. Looks like he makes a habit of wearing it as there are other pictures of him wearing it as well. I love how someone managed to "figure out" that his ring and watch must be gold simply by looking at them. On the other hand, Islam frowns upon suicide...Osama sends people to commit suicide...maybe there are some other Islamic laws he takes liberties with

      As to his appearance: that video is MUCH longer than that short YouTube clip shows. In it you can even see him look like this: http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image157.jpg . To my eye, that looks just like Osama.

      As for his handedness: A) he could be ambidextrous, B) Maybe our intelligence about which hand he uses is wrong (*GASP*), C) Or maybe he knew that all he had to do was use his right hand in this video and some kid living in his mother's basement would see the video, and, knowing Bin Laden's FBI file by heart, know that he was using the wrong hand, causing that kid to defend a man who was the one of the minds behind the most horrific day in modern American history.

      Now that I am done writing my thoughts in run-on form, I feel sorry for you. I'm sorry that facts, empirical evidence, scientific analysis, and numerous expert opinions is not enough to make you see the truth. One of the greatest gifts that humans have been given is that of a logical, rational mind. It's a real shame you missed out on one.

      Good day.
  • blizzardice, on 10/12/2007, -13/+12Only a moron would would think that the buildings were manually demolished. I saw the video of building 7 and there was nothing to make me believe that someone set off demolition. Remember this, there are gas pipes in the building. Gas + Fire = explosion
    • texasmojo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13Only a moron could think that some gas could cause a symmetrical collapse. Just think all these years, these demolition companies have been painstakingly placing shaped charges and timing them to go off within milliseconds of each other when all they had to do was install a natural gas line and fire it up!
    • Dregga, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3I see you netted one such moron.
    • texasmojo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13OK if I'm a moron why did the 9/11 commission not say it was caused by burning gas? They failed to touch on the WTC 7 building at all. And even FEMA said that their scenario (the only one they bothered to investigate BTW) had a "low probability of occurrence".

      Why did column 40, a column undamaged by the falling debris, and incidentally the one hold up the penthouse, go first? was that gas too? Since when can asymmetrical damage to a building cause a symmetrical collapse? Take your legos or lincoln logs or whatever, build a small skyscraper, and pull out some support from one side. Does it ever collapse on top of itself? Ever? This isn't rocket surgery here.

    • Dregga, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4@texasmojo:

      Your insinuations are entirely circumstantial and without evidenciary backing. Show me a specific reference to your claim about column 40.

      Get some critical thinking skills, please.
    • texasmojo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10My insinuations are no more circumstantial than the goverment's.

      And 40 went first because the penthouse went first. That side of the building was NOT damaged by the debris. You can watch the slow-mo tapes yourself and see that.

      And please tell me where I've failed in my critical thinking skills. I've done nothing BUT present facts and get modded down for it.

    • spidoman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"Gas + Fire = explosion"

      Proof please? (joke)
    • paladin144, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@blizzardice

      Explosions? How would the gas lines explode spontaneously at the exact same time? The building didn't denotate; it collapsed like a house of cards:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

      What happen to its steel supports? I could see a partial collapse on one side of the structure, but the building seems to collapse evenly. Something's fishy here.
    • OopsIGotRoot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6@texas

      Take off the conspiracy glasses for a minute and try to rationalize what blizzard's comment was saying... He was proposing: "Perhaps the collapse led to such explosions from, say, gas and compression?" He was not proposing: "Perhaps gas explosions led to, say, the collapse?"

      Calm down and try to think before you type, otherwise you're falling into the conformity that other comments spoke of.

      Also... where there is a fire, even not fueled by gas (though it is very likely that any gas lines in the building were broken), the mere act of intensely compressing air like between the collapsing floors can cause an explosive fire, due to the idea of flashpoints. It produces an even more dazzling show when gasses that flare a lot more than compressed air are used, i.e. natural gas.
  • dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12It's no surprise considering that most Americans have seen things like

    * The Zapruder home movie of the JFK assassination.

    * Documents detailing illicit experimentation on unsuspecting citizens using LSD and hallucinogens in an attempt to control/brainwash people.

    * A President who sent us to war against a foreign nation with no backing from the UN and for reasons that were highly questionable and turned out to be completely false or even fabricated.

    I don't trust this Government one bit to do what's right by me. When they say the sky is blue I look for a window to make sure.
    • mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5And when you see the sky is blue do you then think it is different becuase the government said it was blue?

      In addition the United States only needs the approval of Congress to go to war and does not require permission from the UN. I understand you probably know this but you should be reminded that the UN's responsibility is to the world and will never have America's best interests in mind when making decisions. I am not saying that the invasion were correct, but not having UN permission should not shake one's faith in their government especially when faith in the UN is shaky enough.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@mage

      Surely, you meant to say "declaration of war." Hmmm. I don't recall one of THOSE being passed.
  • KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11how the hell did an infowars link get 100 diggs?
  • Draracle, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9We can look back at history and see countless time when governments (elected or otherwise) have done horrible things to its own people to achieve some end. We have no trouble believing these stories, infact, in the light of history, they are rather obvious. Yet, for some reason, people have a difficulty believe their own government could do such things. Why? Maybe people wish to see the best in their government... or maybe... as one famous leader said, "The broad mass of the nation ... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” Interestingly, that lead attacked his own nation and blamed it on another group of people, and then suspended civil liberties, began a military escalation, and began invading other nations. Of course, history never repeats itself.
  • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7I think the reason that I believe that Al Qaeda under Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11 is that after the fall of Afghanistan video tapes were captured that had Osamma and his happy band of mullahs bragging about it.

    Our gov't can't even keep its nuclear weapons designs and page pounding politicians a secret. How were they supposed to keep a secret as big and requiring as many people as 9/11?

    The day that it happened I knew that the 9/11 attacks would quickly eclipse the Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy in the tin-hat community. After all, it's easier to believe that there was a big conspiracy rather than the US and its alphabet soup agencies just got caught with their pants down.
    • babbling, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12They wouldn't need to keep it secret, so long as anyone who spoke out was branded a "conspiracy theorist".

      The government doesn't even deny that they are "hiding" something - they confiscated tapes of the plane hitting the pentagon and haven't released those.
  • richiestang78, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11If you want to believe theres more to the terroritst attack fine there may be, but the other conspiracies such as the government bhind 9/11, if you believe them your a retard.
    • Dregga, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6People actually think they're really smart for believing this *****.
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2It is just what Al Qaeda would like: to cause fear and distrust of our own gov't.

      Sad part is that Washington's knee jerk reaction is playing right into their hand.
    • paladin144, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@richiestang78 said "if you believe them your a retard."

      I love it when insults backfire.
  • zerocomm, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Whats up with all these 9/11 conspiracy theories on the front page of digg these days?
    • Dregga, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Some very zealous conspiracy theorists modding people down on this thread.

      (Oops, this was meant to be a new comment...not a reply...)
    • ptwrtr17, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Digg is full of glue sniffing, Birkenstock wearing, unhinged liberals! That's why. Why else would a group of people be so glad to believe that 9/11 was somehow our/our government's fault.

      The only thing that drives them crazier is when you defend Israel's right to exist! ;-D

      *waiting for: left-wing shrieking/ this comment to be buried*
    • babbling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Some very zealous conspiracy theorists modding people down on this thread."

      Congratulations. You just came up with a conspiracy theory about a thread on Digg. You're calling OTHER people conspiracy theorists?!
  • joosebuck, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5polls mean nothing. numbers are so skewed from professional pollers. i also refuse to digg anything having to do with something dylan avery (loose change director/author/conspiracy theorist/outright liar) supports.

    http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
    http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

  • cheeseron, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9Incredibly bias and manipulative website. No digg and labelled inaccurate for assuming a crazy opinion for most of America.
  • Gerbil, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6How the conspiracy is born:
    1) Hey, everybody, let's DU this poll!
    2) Hey, look at the result of this poll! Everybody agrees with us!
    3) How come people agree with us in all the polls, yet elections show a completely unexpected result? Kkkonspeeeeracy!!!
    • Dregga, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3What has that got to do with this topic? Or did you just want to bitch about DU?
    • Gerbil, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Patience, my friend! What I am suggesting here is that if a poll indeed shows this sort of results, someone DUed it biiig time. Sapienti sat.

  • Wavey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9So, 69% think that the government was either telling the full truth or mostly telling the truth. That is the real result.

    A couple of factors:
    1. In any poll or survey that has a choice of the highest absolute, or one step below the absolute, most people will choose the one-step-below choice. (Think of how many times you've filled out a survey that has Strongly Agree or Agree, or Always/Mostly, or 5-star vs. 4-star, or Excellent vs. Very Good. It is generally accepted that the majority of responses will not fall into the extremes.)

    2. Most people assume that, in ANY governmental situation, there are layers of information to which they are not privy. That is nothing new -- it is generally accepted by most people that this is the way things work and is understood by most reasonable folks that the withholding of classification of certain information is even a necessity. Couple that with the general feeling that politician by default, like lawyers, are not people whose words you should take at 100% face value, and again, the poll results will reflect that.

    To twist this around to say that 85% of those polled "reject the 9/11 story" is, at best, being ignorant, and at worst, being disingenuously manipulative to serve one's own agenda.
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6>>being disingenuously manipulative to serve one's own agenda.


      Ding, ding, ding! We've got a winner here folks.
  • DrLawyer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12RE BLizzardice comment "Only a moron would would think that the buildings were manually demolished."

    I compel you, all of you, to explain why the 9/11 Commission report made no mention of the fact that building 7 even fell. Seriously. There was no mention of building 7 in the report. None.

    See: http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/commission/report.html

    I've read the commission report. I've read the book "Omissions and Distortions". There are some serious omissions and distortions. I am writing a paper right now for a fourth year honours thesis on 911 conspiracy theories at Canada's top university, and while I am not convinced it was a conspiracy by the Bush administration, I am convinced that there are some tremendously troubling issues that are not being addressed. Of course, many will raise the argument that, like Holocaust deniers, acknowledging and responding to their argument gives them a platform and so forth. I say bullocks.

    Check it out, kiddies. Read it for yourselves.

    -The Doctor
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4After all the ***** that happened that day, building #7 was the last thing on anyones mind.

      That day and ever since, the big question on everyone's mind has been when the next shoe is going to drop.
    • mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Putting the word scientific before the word poll does not make this poll any more credible. Furthermore the question is so vague that you can draw any conclusions from this poll. Marked as inaccurate for it being called a scientific study. 9/11 is the new Pearl Harbor.
    • bcdowell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@jamessavik:

      "After all the ***** that happened that day, building #7 was the last thing on anyones mind."

      Yes, but what about 5 years later ?

      And more importantly, this was the official government report !! Should not every possible detail of what actually objectively -occurred- be put into it, if only for historical purposes ??

      I maintain that the government owes us a hell of an explanation. There are so many crucial pieces of evidence that they are witholding from us, so many things that have been overlooked, and so many things that just don't make sense that skepticism is the rational course !!

      This is one of the few cases, in my mind, where skepticism and conspiracy != tinfoil hat; the official story is so full of holes that to believe its every word is as absurd as believing that the earth is 6,000 years old and that noah's ark is sitting on top of a mountain in siberia.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5
      @ DrLawyer
      This movie may be useful for your paper. I found it to be very well done.
      "9/11 Press for Truth"
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250&q=Press+for+Truth&hl=en
  • IronDioPriest, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12I really hate to be so blunt; but this is such f*cking bullsh*t. Conspiracy idiots should stop smoking so much dope, get outa the Internet echo chambers of the hate spewing websites, and think realistically instead of just parroting what feeds your hatred of all things not counter-culture.

    Do any of you conspiracy nutters know how many hundreds of freaking people would have had to be in on this conspiracy of yours to pull it off? And how every single person involved would have had to keep their mouths shut, while thousands of their countrymen were murdered, and not be striken by conscience, even now?

    Do you know what goes into controlled demolition of a building the size of the WTC? Ever watched any of those controlled demolition shows on TV? It would have taken months of planning by dozens if not hundreds of people to demolish the WTC. To actually pull off the explosions would have required an on-site presence of whole demolition crews, out in the streets of New York City. The explosives would have had to have been planted over days or weeks, without the knowledge of any of the WTC workers.

    Just for argument's sake, let's say that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and our military shot down flight 93.
    • zerocomm, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7The problem with the conspiracy theorists is they don't see "the establishment" as consisting of real people. They look at it as some monolithic evil entity. This isn't the case. Yes, they are real people, with real problems and real consciences.

      When I was in high school, we pulled off the greatest senior prank our school had ever seen. We ripped the valve stems out of 40 bus's and got school cancelled for the district for a day. We tried as hard as we could, but eventually someone talked. It was 4 people, and it took 3 days to get caught. A plot like this would take hundreds of people, and its been years. No way they could keep their mouths shut for that long. Its against human behavior.
    • bcdowell, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Well it's something that we will never know...

      but regardless, not cool hating on dope smokers. Have some respect for the ganja!
    • MOGua, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4"No way they could keep their mouths shut for that long. Its against human behavior."

      Shut up or die. Considering normal human behavior, which one would you choose?
  • sardonic, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2***** YOU FRANK!
  • joosebuck, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5There is a Penn & Teller's ***** Show devoted to questioning numbers that falls exactly along these lines.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=jW-iPfZbUIY
  • vbbx, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7South Park was right, the country has been taken over by morons. Now you can't believe your own eyes, got to go read some loons website. Why only 84%?

    Personally, I think space aliens did it to rob us of the bill of rights.

    Democrats win, knew it all the time, after all, the exit polls don't lie -- but the pollsters do. So where does it leave us? Why vote, let's let the NYTimes do the polling, if they are still in business.
  • RedViper1999, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6That hiding something question is what is skewing the polls so badly. Everyone is going to have a very different interpretation of this question. Something could mean absolutely anything at all, its too imprecise of a word to be using in a poll. Is this even scientific in its approach? I honestly doubt alot of these companies that do these polls. Unless its standard error is less than +/- 2.5 I wouldn't put much faith in the poll.
  • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I'm not sure what to think of this... I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories, but if I were asked if I trusted the official government explanation of 9/11, I would probably say No. I'm sure they are hiding a lot of important details and twisting the truth in certain places.
  • bishop, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10What's amazing with those conspiracies idiots is the fallacies of their reasoning:

    1. Don't believe what you see. Those towers didn't fall by themselves. Those planes were not the cause of the fall. There were hidden explosives.

    2. I didn't see a plane hit the Pentagon so there was no plane! It was a rocket.

    You guys don't believe what you see and you don't believe what you don't see. You just choose to believe something and twist the facts so they fit your stupid conclusions.
    • bcdowell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6uhh... it's a good bit more complicated than that.

      True that people will believe what they want to believe regardless of the reality of the situation; however, there are just a lot of things that flat -dont- -make- -sense-.

      Yes the towers fell, but how do you, -we-, know that the plane crash -caused- them to fall? Without a proper, scientific, mathematical explanation, we can't know for sure.

      The pentagon is worse because not only did we not see the plane hit the building, but the building itself did not show clear signs of being hit by a -jumbo jet- other than a few random scraps scattered about the yard.

      ---

      Basically, all that to say it's assinine to attack people for disbelieving something for which there is no clear evidence, regardless of what it is. Moreover it's reasonable to disbelieve something when the facts and the evidence don't line up well.
    • doddilus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2...but there is clear evidence of all of what you just said, find a structural engineer that says "theres no way the towers could have fallen because of the planes". Now show me proof that the planes did not bring the towers down.

      There are tons of pictures of aircraft wreckage found at the pentagon as well both flight data recorders were recovered. Now show me proof it was something other than an airplane.

      You conspiracy theorist make these accusations and have no evidence what so ever to back it up.
  • Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Well, OK, maybe 84% of people don't believe the government's official story, but this does not mean we should jump to conclusions and believe that 84% of the American public believe stupid ***** stories like Loose Change.

    I personally don't think the government has given us the whole story, and the truth is they probably won't give us the whole picture for decades. Hell, we're still learning stuff about WWII. But, is the government keeping back information about an elaborate plot that had to have involved thousands of people, yet nobody at all has spoke up about it? No, but I do think some people inside our government should really be held accountable for the terrible events that happened that day. It was obvious that before 9/11, our security was slacking, and we were severely wounded because of it. Somebody wasn't doing their job
  • IronDioPriest, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12I really hate to be so blunt; but this is such f*cking bullsh*t. Conspiracy idiots should stop smoking so much dope, get outa the Internet echo chambers of the hate spewing websites, and think realistically instead of just parroting what feeds your hatred of all things not counter-culture.

    Do any of you conspiracy nutters know how many hundreds of freaking people would have had to be in on this conspiracy of yours to pull it off? And how every single person involved would have had to keep their mouths shut, while thousands of their countrymen were murdered, and not be stricken by conscience, even now?

    Do you know what goes into controlled demolition of a building the size of the WTC? Ever watched any of those controlled demolition shows on TV? It is not a matter of planting some bombs and running away to hit a secret detonator. It would have taken weeks or months of planning by dozens of people to demolish the WTC. To actually pull off the explosions would have required an on-site presence of whole demolition crews, out in the streets of New York City. The explosives would have had to have been planted over days or weeks, without the knowledge of any of the WTC workers, operations and maintenance engineers, or security. All this would have had to have been accomplished without causing any prior suspicion, without any noticeable presence of the perpetrators, without any evidence left over, no physical clues left on the scene, and no tattle-tales. Stupid, stupid fools. Loose Change be f*cking damned! Idiots!

    There is a counter-culture element in this country that wants to transform America from what it has always been; what made the US great; into something entirely different. A new America that does not resemble the one we have known. This element will say and do anything to achieve this goal. They will use the Internet to spew lies and conspiracy, knowing that many are gullible enough to believe them. They will say and do anything to bring this country to its knees, until our people beg for the warm embrace of the new United Socialist States of America.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5"Do any of you conspiracy nutters know how many hundreds of freaking people would have had to be in on this conspiracy of yours to pull it off?"

      Which conspiracy? There's at least a dozen separate conspiracies I have seen on the net of varying argumentative validity. So pick one and argue against it.

      You realize this is the same mindset that wonders why Shia and Sunni fight when they're all brown people.

      (Is it a conspiracy with only one person?)
    • texasmojo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9So how many hundreds of people had to keep silent about the first bombing? You DID know that our government was intimately and admittedly involved in that one didn't you? If it wasn't for the fact our mole got suspicious of the FBI and started taping his conversations, we wouldn't even know about that!

      So why is it an objective proven fact that our government trained, paid for and delivered the explosives to the "terrorists" the first time, and yet when it happens a second time, only an insane person could possibly believe government involvement?

      And I am NOT a birkenstock wearing liberal. I detest the "progressive movement" just as much as I detest neocons. I'm simply a person asking questions that have yet to be adequately answered, and getting modded into oblivion for it.
    • ptwrtr17, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6I see, Texasmojo-

      You're just an "anti-establishmentarian," right? Hah!

      You're a joke. You think that somehow you are "non-conformist" and "earthy," by trying to go against the grain and talk about how the omnipotent state controls everything.

      If you had half a brain, you would realize by doing that you are allowing other to determine your actions and thoughts by doing the exact opposite. You don't think for yourself, you just do and think the exact opposite of common-sense and decency.

      That, sir, requires all the intelligence of a simple calculator. Asking questions, indeed...
    • texasmojo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Wow you should look up +"ad hominem" +"logical fallacies" in google some day.

      You're just an "anti-establishmentarian," right? Hah!

      No, I've just taken our Founder's entreaties to be always vigilant about my freedom

      You're a joke. You think that somehow you are "non-conformist" and "earthy," by trying to go against the grain and talk about how the omnipotent state controls everything.

      No I just see it as a real threat, as I've read the writings of Jefferson, Paine, Madison, Voltaire, you know, wackos like that.

      If you had half a brain, you would realize by doing that you are allowing other to determine your actions and thoughts by doing the exact opposite. You don't think for yourself, you just do and think the exact opposite of common-sense and decency.

      As opposed to being a lap dog for a government? You have absolutely no conception of the attributes or function of a government to make such an ignorant statement.

      And who the hell are YOU to say I lack common sense or even decency? I've been nothing but decent and done nothing but present facts.

      That, sir, requires all the intelligence of a simple calculator. Asking questions, indeed...

      As opposed to the ridiculous belief that my government loves me and has only my best interest at heart? are you really that stupid?
    • ptwrtr17, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Texasmojo, are you sure you would like to discuss "ad hominem" attacks? Perhaps you haven't thought about the thousands of people who died on September 11th...

      No, you wouldn't, because in the end this is all about you and your narcissistic need to full fill your fantasy as a "revolutionary." Who else would compare himself to Tom Paine?

      Well, in the end everyone can see that. They can see why your "questions" need not be asked no more than the shameless denials of the Holocaust.

      Don't you DARE lecture me about ad hominem attacks while you insult the memory of the dead.

      You care about the victims of 9/11?

      Yeah, and the Holocaust deniers are just interested in "historical accuracy." Hah!
  • burnttoast11, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7"It took 35 plus years for the majority of Americans to wake up to the fact that the assassination of JFK was a government operation."

    Any article that says something like this, I won't really trust.
    • paladin144, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@burnttoast11

      Why? Do you actually believe a lone gunman killed Kennedy?

      Or are we just not supposed to talk about it?
    • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2>Do you actually believe a lone gunman killed Kennedy?

      Yes. So many nut jobs try to kill the president (any president) that we NEVER hear about. It stands to reason that a US Marine Corp trained sniper might just get lucky.
  • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
    --John Lennon

    Anyone who completely swallows what the leadership tells you is a lapdog. You may completely believe what the NIST tells you. You may completely believe what the 9/11 commission tells you. That makes you accommodating perhaps, but not necessarily a lapdog. There is an expected level of trust in a bipartisan committee.

    That trust is perhaps, in hindsight, badly placed. Many of those on the commission were incensed that their findings and opinions were cut out of the document or reworded euphemistically in order to preserve partisan self-interest (you can guess which party is complaining more about details being left out). If you honestly believe the 9/11 commission covers everything consistently, then I have to ask...have you read it?

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

    I read the NIST report, and one thing that struck me is that, while several conspiracy theories are actively debunked, several anti-conspiracy theories are just as easily debunked (like pancaking). As the NIST specifically states, it does not investigate anything that lies outside of its hypothesis, which is that the planes could have caused the building's collapse. As it says, it does not disprove any outside malice, it only explains and supports the possibility that the planes could have caused the collapse on their own.

    What was interesting about the NIST report is how the scientists involved are still inconclusive about the details of what happened and how they address but do not seek to investigate or explore reports and evidence of what many of the conspiracy theorists point out. Again, they explain this by saying that was not the point of their investigation.

    The NIST report is extremely thorough and detailed and necessary reading. The reason it is most necessary is because many anti-conspiracy theorists have no idea what the Hell they are talking about and are just as ignorant as many pro-conspiracy theorists on the issues and facts.

    Here's a few bits of information, not conspiracy, just facts.

    The Popular Mechanics editor responsible for heading up the segment on 9/11 conspiracies is the cousin of the head of Homeland Security. The only theories debunked were those presented in Loose Change. Only one of the Loose Change filmmakers graduated from college (or went to college).

    It's not crazy or ignorant to think there was a government cover-up. The fact is, most of the evidence of the scene was removed illegally counter to an FBI memo demanding no evidence be touched. It's ignorant to ignore Dick Cheney's documented and recorded actions with eyewitnesses leading up to and following 9/11. It's crazy to think anyone in the leadership has been looking out for your best interests these last 5 years.

    Whether it's stupidity or malice, a healthy discourse should be encouraged on these issues -- and by healthy, I mean reasonable and within the bounds of logic and evidence and theory that can be proven or disproven. We should be debating information, scouring for more of it, and then debating that. Instead I keep hearing people declare there was no conspiracy because conspiracies don't happen and that people should stop worrying about it, which is about as ass-backwards as insisting that despite the evidence your theory is still sound.
    • mav451, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Lol people who question authority (e.g. this crappy Administration) are being dugg down...why?

      A healthy discourse is certainly welcome and overdue.
    • Canthros, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5This is not a healthy discourse; most of it has nothing to do with the linked article. The article appears to be reaching a bit on its interpretation of some pretty bare statistics: although the title appears to be technically correct (the best kind of correct), it's also overblown, because we don't know the grounds on which the story is being rejected. Some of the 84% undoubtedly believe that the government or some shadowy extra-governmental organisation concocted the whole thing. Wouldn't bet on it being even half of them, though.

      A healthy discourse needs to focus on facts, especially on verifiable ones, and interpret them in the light of more than hunches and guts feelings. We're not getting that here. We are getting a load of wild accusations and ludicrous suppositions based on nothing of any substance whatever. It's not healthy at all. It's just dumb.
  • Tentei, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Some of the best words ever said on things like this is
    "Even truths are filled with lies".
  • joosebuck, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4"We should be debating information"

    It's a shame that people are too busy regurgitating the theories and "facts" they acquired from films like loose change to do that.
    • texasmojo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6As opposed to the admittedly incorrect and incomplete "facts" in the 9/11 report and the FEMA document?
  • lowlight, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5I always thought it was 1/4 of America that was retarded... Turns out, it's actually 84%
    • cybersphere, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4So 53% of people believe the government is "hiding something". That doesn't mean much. It just means they may have a little suspicion something went wrong. Such doubts are natural. What's not natural is to accept everything you're told like a good little sheep.

      The 53% are the people that the 9/11 truth movement has to reach out to. They need more information to convince them that the Bush Administration is in fact evil, and needs to be removed. To most people in the world, this is obvious.
  • tastypastry, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9When are some of you diggers going to wake up and smell the coffee.

    This isn't the first time in history that a government has attacked its own people to gain power. Hitler did it and so did the Romans. 3000 people is nothing to the US Government.
    • ptwrtr17, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Yes, the evil, souless, omnipotent government... Bwahahaha!!!

      I swear, one moment Bush is an idiot who can't even speak properly and then the next he is masterminding grand and nefarious scheme more complex than anything else done before in the history of man.

      I really wish you "anti-establishment" libs would make up your minds...
    • cybersphere, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8For God Sake, Bush IS an idiot, which is why he's not controlling things.

      The people who have the real power don't want to show their faces.

      Look behind the scenes, towards the people who wrote the PNAC plans. They're the real evil masterminds.
    • tastypastry, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@ptwrtr17

      Ofcourse Bush wasnt the mastermind. He's just a puppet taking orders on his cell phone.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is