9/11 TRUTH

[LordSmaug]

Nobody in NYC, at least nobody I've ever met, believes that anything other than terrorists in planes were responsible for the destruction of WTC One and Two. If you've never even come here, you won't know jack.


9/11 conspiracy debunking site:
http://us.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm

what are you talking about? in a zogby poll in 2004 48% of new yorkers believed that the government had prior knowledge of the attack and failed to act on it.

[Breukelen advocaat]

what are you talking about? in a zogby poll in 2004 48% of new yorkers believed that the government had prior knowledge of the attack and failed to act on it.

Nonsense. I know people that were actually in the towers that day and none of them believe that.

Here's some information about (among other things) the Zogby International telephone poll - which is very slanted. There is NO WAY that "Half" of New Yorkers believe that the government knew about the impending 9/11 attack. In any case, even if they did believe so, that does not mean that they think the government actually carried out the attacks and planted bombs in the buildings.

http://newsbusters.org/node/5681?fro...ts_per_page=90
NYT Gives "Bush-Caused-9/11" Conspiracists a Respectful Hearing
Posted by Clay Waters on June 5, 2006 - 09:36.

A wacky group of conspiracy theorists who think 9/11 was an inside job on the part of the Bush administration met in Chicago over the weekend, and got a respectful hearing from Times Metro reporter Alan Feuer.

â??500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet To Seek the Truth of 9/11â?� made Page 1 of the Metro section, and that very headline gives the conspiracy-mongers the undeserved accolade of truth-seekers when theyâ??re actually just crawling for scraps of evidence â??provingâ?� that Bush, not radical Islamic terrorism, was responsible for 9/11.

Feuer explains: â??Such was the coming-out for the movement known as "9/11 Truth," a society of skeptics and scientists who believe the government was complicit in the terrorist attacks. In colleges and chat rooms on the Internet, this band of disbelievers has been trying for years to prove that 9/11 was an inside job.â?�

The text box puts this latest batch of conspiracists in the same box as other historical sceptics, to make them appear less wacky: â??Some participants see an American tradition of questioning concentrated power.â?�

Feuer writes: â??At the lectern Friday night, beside a digital projection reading â??History of Government Sponsored Terrorism,â?? Mr. Jones set forth the central tenets of 9/11 Truth: that the military command that monitors aircraft â??stood downâ?? on the day of the attacks; that President Bush addressed children in a Florida classroom instead of being whisked off to the White House; that the hijackers, despite what the authorities say, were trained at American military bases; and that the towers did not collapse because of burning fuel and weakened steel but because of a â??controlled demolitionâ?? caused by pre-set bombs.

â??According to the group's Web site, the motive for faking a terrorist attack was to allow the administration â??to instantly implement policies its members have long supported, but which were otherwise infeasible.â??

â??The controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement -- its basic claim and, in some sense, the one upon which all others rest. It is, of course, directly contradicted by the 10,000-page investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which held that jet-fuel fires distressed the towers' structure, which eventually collapsed.â?�

â??The movement's answer to that report was written by Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University and the movement's expert in the matter of collapse. Dr. Jones, unlike Alex Jones, is a soft-spoken man who lets his writing do the talking. He composed an account of the destruction of the towers that holds that â??pre-positioned cutter-chargesâ?? brought the buildings down.â?�

Feuer paints this rag-tag group in non-threatening, almost affectionate terms: â??[Group press director Michael] Berger, 40, is typical of 9/11 Truthers -- a group that, in its rank and file, includes professors, chain-saw operators, mothers, engineers, activists, used-book sellers, pizza deliverymen, college students, a former fringe candidate for United States Senate and a long-haired fellow named hummux (pronounced who-mook) who, on and off, lived in a cave for 15 years.â?�

Feuer brings up more palatable conspiracy theories, as if to shield the 9/11-mongers: â??Like a prior generation of skeptics -- those who doubted, say, the Warren Commission or the government's account of the Gulf of Tonkin attack -- the 9/11 Truthers are dogged, at home and in the office, by friends and family who suspect that they may, in fact, be completely nuts.â?�
Feuer even promotes evidence that â??Bush was responsible for 9/11â?� is a relatively mainstream view: â??It would even seem the Truthers are not alone in believing the whole truth has not come out. A poll released last month by Zogby International found that 42 percent of all Americans believe the 9/11 Commission â??concealed or refused to investigate critical evidenceâ?? in the attacks.â?�

But the pollâ??s co-author was David Kubiak itself, who spoke at the conference. And hereâ??s the question that led to that â??42%â?� answer.
â??Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?â?�
(Go here to see how slanted the poll truly is.) http://www.911truth.org/images/911Tr...inalReport.htm

The 42% figure is far too high and speaks badly of the gullibility of many phone poll-takers, but the question itself is loaded to deliver the first, skeptical answer. The second choice, with the sarcastic tone about â??honest and well-respected people,â?� perks up knee-jerk U.S. cynicism of government -- the subtext is that only a chump would think the government is full of â??honest and well-respected people.â?� People donâ??t want to be seen as naïve or unsophisticated, so they feign doubt where previously none existed.

The Times has not been nearly as respectful when it comes to right-wing conspiracy theorists alleging perfidy in Democratic administrations. See Timesâ?? contributing writer (Times Select $ required) Philip Weissâ??s â??The Clinton Hatersâ?� for the February 23, 1997 edition of the Sunday magazine, on those who questioned the verdict of suicide in the Vince Foster case.
The Foster-suicide skeptics arenâ??t seen as lovable losers the way Feuer portrayed the 9/11 skeptics. Weissâ??s 9,000-word article refers to Clinton â??hatersâ?� six times, â??Clinton craziesâ?� 11 times and four â??far rightsâ?� for good measure. While Feuerâ??s tone is sometimes skeptical, he doesnâ??t see a single hater or crazy among a sea of people holding up signs declaiming the â??Bush junta,â?� or alleging that Bush instigated the destruction of the Twin Towers.

UPDATE: The folks at 911truth.org appreciated Feuer's story, linking to it yesterday and noting with approval that it was drawing attacks from the "rightist blogworld" (that would be, um, me).

"In the meantime allow us to share another bit of history, the New York Times' first recognition of our existence, which has been the most popular story on AOL News all day. Yes, there are the expected hits and snickers, but Feuer had to get it through his editors and to his credit he inserts enough meat and salient points to make our case quite clear, clear enough in fact to already draw attacks from the rightist blogworld. - Ed."

[graymatter]

Isn't there a big difference between having prior knowledge of a specific horrific event and prior knowledge that a horrific event will happen? Sorry, I'm just a little suspicious of Zogby's methodology....

[birdgirl73]

A polling question the way that one was worded completely provides the answer the poll wants before the respondent even responds.

That would never be allowed in legitimate sampling. Or even in focus testing. Heck, it wouldn't pass muster on a high-school sociology test (unless you had a really dumb class that had to be provided the correct answer ahead of time.) It's that much of a lead-on question.

[slowthestone]

Polling NY'ers about any Sept. 11th happenings is a convoluted thing.

1. They have the air of...'I was there! I know exactly what happened!'

2. Ny'ers are NEVER wrong.

3. Theres only two kinds of NY'ers...Mets or Yankees. No matter the topic, the two will most likely never agree.

4. They take the whole matter closer to heart. Instead of an attack on America, they confine to an attack on NY city.

5. Anyone insane enough to live in that stwey mess of people, steel, and concrete isn't qualified to answer any polls!

+ =

[Breukelen advocaat]

Polling NY'ers about any Sept. 11th happenings is a convoluted thing.
1. They have the air of...'I was there! I know exactly what happened!'
2. Ny'ers are NEVER wrong.
3. Theres only two kinds of NY'ers...Mets or Yankees. No matter the topic, the two will most likely never agree.
4. They take the whole matter closer to heart. Instead of an attack on America, they confine to an attack on NY city.
5. Anyone insane enough to live in that stwey mess of people, steel, and concrete isn't qualified to answer any polls!
+ =

â??Jealousy is the tribute mediocrity pays to genius.â?�
Fulton J. Sheen, American cleric (1895-1979)

:thumbsup:

[LordSmaug]

I keep reading peoples comments on here who claim to be engineers. That's all you guys say "uh, yeah, i'm an engineer, and fire definitly took out the towers"

I'm not calling you liars i'm just saying that you're not answering any questions. I want someone to tell me exactly how the a hell fire brought down steel reinforced with concrete buildings.

I'm a real skeptic demanding to be convinced and so far the Conspiracy side is winning because no one else is showing me why the conspirators are wrong, they're just repeating that "they're wrong and stupid".

so go ahead and convince me.

[jamstigator]

Read the NIST report, it has more engineering info than your brain or mine can handle. Don't have the link handy, personally, but I read some of it a few days ago, and it was pretty convincing. I'm sure you can find it with google.

[thcbongman]

I keep reading peoples comments on here who claim to be engineers. That's all you guys say "uh, yeah, i'm an engineer, and fire definitly took out the towers"

I'm not calling you liars i'm just saying that you're not answering any questions. I want someone to tell me exactly how the a hell fire brought down steel reinforced with concrete buildings.

I'm a real skeptic demanding to be convinced and so far the Conspiracy side is winning because no one else is showing me why the conspirators are wrong, they're just repeating that "they're wrong and stupid".

so go ahead and convince me.

First you assume the fire was the main cause that brought it down. It was a structural collapse. Since the majority of the support beams were in the center, which is designed this way to sustain the high winds above. All it takes is a few floors to buckle down, and the supports in the center collapses like dominos. It it seemed like a controlled-demolition, it wasn't. The support beams were in the middle and the direction would be going straight down, which would seem like an implosion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/metal.html#

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-2ExecutiveSummary.pdf

[Bong30]

First you assume the fire was the main cause that brought it down. It was a structural collapse. Since the majority of the support beams were in the center, which is designed this way to sustain the high winds above. All it takes is a few floors to buckle down, and the supports in the center collapses like dominos. It it seemed like a controlled-demolition, it wasn't. The support beams were in the middle and the direction would be going straight down, which would seem like an implosion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/metal.html#

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-2ExecutiveSummary.pdf

Thank you for using your head...... using logic is good.:thumbsup: