Can't get much more official than this [Archive]

View Full Version : Can't get much more official than this

Skybird

09-08-06, 03:49 PM

For those that still claim today that there were links between Al Quaeda and Saddam, and thus:S Saddam and 9/11. Since three years I try to get it into people's minds that Saddam, like the Saudis, represented the prototype of what Osama considers to be the greatest treachery, the greatest enemy to Islam. Simply impossible that these two ever would line up and become allies. Who thought so, does not know what he is talking about when talking about Al Quaeda's goals and orientation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm

STEED

09-08-06, 05:10 PM

Saddam Hussein as far as I know hated al-Qaeda so there were no links.

TheSatyr

09-08-06, 06:08 PM

I always knew that...regardless of how many times the current administration tried to claim otherwise.

Back during the Clinton administration there were news reports about Al-Queda trying to assasinate both Hussein and Kaddaffi. Both leaders of Secular countries which Bin Laden absolutely loathed.

Then 9/11 happens and suddenly Hussien and Bin-Laden are best buds...yeah right.

Just another lie in this administrations string of lies to get us to support Bush's crusade...errr war...in Iraq.

SkvyWvr

09-08-06, 07:12 PM

SkvyWvr

09-08-06, 07:14 PM

Saddam Hussein as far as I know hated al-Qaeda so there were no links.

The link was though funding in general and no one can say none of it got to al-Qaeda.

Sea Demon

09-08-06, 07:28 PM

For those that still claim today that there were links between Al Quaeda and Saddam, and thus:S Saddam and 9/11.
My goodness, Skybird. This is a recycled news bit from last year. We've been through this before. And the 9/11 Commission has already said this stuff. As I've said in other posts, nobody has said Saddam and Al Qaeda were organized together in the context of 9/11. And irregardless, these things still don't explain why certain Al Qaeda members were in Iraq pre-invasion. Or how about some of the stuff they found in Salman Pak were terrorist related in nature. This thing you bring up here is old news. We've been seeing this stuff for two years now. ;)

And it doesn't change anything.

Godalmighty83

09-08-06, 07:30 PM

Konovalov

09-10-06, 05:51 AM

Saddam Hussein as far as I know hated al-Qaeda so there were no links.
The link was though funding in general and no one can say none of it got to al-Qaeda.

can anyone remember how much funding the cia gave to al-qaeda? it was a fair bit but the number escapes me.

That is nothing but a fairytale of BS. THe CIA DID NOT fund Al Qaeda. The CIA did not give direct funds to Osama Bin Laden or arms.

Skybird

09-10-06, 06:07 AM

Konovalov

09-10-06, 07:00 AM

The Avon Lady

09-10-06, 07:21 AM

Skybird

09-10-06, 07:55 AM

Osama has worked for/cooperated with the CIA in earlier years and also handled sums of CIA money during arms trades back then. I think it was related to the Afghan-Sovjet war, if I am not mistaken, but I may recall it wrong right now. Either this or that circumstances that many of the 9/11 flyers had worked or still worked for American intelligence is what Godalmighty probably is referring to.

Evidence please?
You mean you do not know this old news...? His code name was Tim Osman. that is very old news indeed. I just googled the name, and found - for example, one amongst many - this:

http://orlingrabbe.com/binladin_timosman.htm

I further recommend to have a look at Hopsicker: Welcome to Terrorland. Mohammad Atta und seine amerikanischen Helfer, which was published in 2004 in English and German at the same time.

This is all dangerous ground, because the borderlines between fact and conspiraction theories dissapear. I do not say that 9/11 was like this or like that, because neither me nor anyone else in the public has the needed foundation of solid information to do so. I say that stating that 9/11 has been like this (or that) is stupid, because many very serious questions remain and the government was so far unable to repel them completely. for example the theories about the collapse of an additonal bulding that never was hit by a plane. For that you can find this substantial report by a physicist and archeometrist:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

That author got fired from his mormon university for violating the taboos around 9/11 too often. He also did not serve his reputation well when having puplished this essay about Jesus visiting America back then:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm

Howeever, the government in it's latest attempt to weaken the most popular conspiration theories, just came up with this (ignoring the major points of Jone's analysis)

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2006&m=August&x=20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355

What to make of all this? We can only try to see clear, and then we must conclude that we do know only very little, and that many important questions remain unanswered and today are considered to be a taboo and a heresy. I simply have a hard time to believe that an operation of this scale could be thought and carried out and put together by some hobbits in a dark hole in the earth without massive assistance from insiders. I am also irritated that on that day the air defense systems were shut down for almost two hours, that Cheney seems to be involved in that, and that 9/11 was the best that could have happened to a seriously disrespected and laughed-about president Bush at that time, who made the same kind of use of it to push his agendas like Roosevelt did of pearl harbour - you know the stubbornly surviving theory that he already provoked Pearl Harbour to increase the population's willingness to finally join a war he considered to be too important as that the Us should stay away eternally.

Anyone, spare me with accusations about conspiration theories, I am aware of the nature of all these arguments myself. I just dont buy Bush's version so easily like he wants it to be swallowed. That man has already been proven to have told so many lies and misleading comments that it is a wonder that his statements about Osama doing 9/11 all by himself so far stands unreflected and unexamined.

So far I am open to everything, and consider no explanation to be impossible. Even not the explanation of an intel operation to fake a terror strike that then went out of control. The situation is that of that all we have is hypothesis, some on more some on less founded ground, no evidences for anything. And this situation is very unsatisfactory. Politics is the game of monsters.

The Avon Lady

09-10-06, 08:11 AM

Skybird, it's very simple. Why is it so unfathomable that Bush is just as much an idiot as Clinton (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/08/video-flashback-us-drone-had-osama-onscreen-in-2000/). Read to the very last word. Not that long anyway.

It seems very hard to get it through people's heads that the great big fat US intelligence agencies, especially both the FBI and the CIA, were already acting like blundering dumbkopfs for almost 2 decades prior to September 11, 2001. The mistakes they made, time after time, are so blatant that a 10 year old could point them out. No conspiracies required.

Sadly, US intelligence still isn't. :nope:

Konovalov

09-10-06, 10:13 AM

Skybird

09-10-06, 10:33 AM

The word is Dummkopf (word by word: stupid head).

AL,

Bush may be a "Dumpkopf", but Cheney for sure is not. He, not Bush, Rumsfeld or Rice, is the most dangerous mind in this administration. Do not mistake ruthlessness and selfish ambitions with stupidity. Bush is a hollow puppet, the strings of which are pulled by others in the background.

I just say that too many questions so far remained unanswered or where met with unsatifsfactory answers as that one could lean back in relaxation and think the things have been cleared. My impression is that nothing about 9/11 is that clear at all. Simply too many coincidences, and suspicious names involved. One random event is an accident. Two random events is bad luck. Three random events is somebody's intention.

Konovalov

09-10-06, 02:02 PM

Osama has worked for/cooperated with the CIA in earlier years and also handled sums of CIA money during arms trades back then. I think it was related to the Afghan-Sovjet war, if I am not mistaken, but I may recall it wrong right now. Either this or that circumstances that many of the 9/11 flyers had worked or still worked for American intelligence is what Godalmighty probably is referring to.
Evidence please?
The name Ali Mohammed immediately comes to mind. Maybe reading American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us (http://www.amazon.com/American-Jihad-Terrorists-Living-Among/dp/0743234359/sr=8-1/qid=1157890783/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3315969-5944002?ie=UTF8&s=books) has more details, though it's already been out for 4 years.

I assume you are referring to Ali Mohamed? At least that is the spelling according to official US court documents and US Authorities. If so then I'm sorry but pointing to the Egyptian Ali Mohamed as evidence of what Skybird said is pretty lame. I am well versed on this guy’s background and history. He first came to my attention in a book I read way back in 1999 by Simon Reeve titled "The New Jackals". At this time information was a little thin on this character. A few years later in Peter Bergan's book "Holy War - Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden INC" the picture drawn of Ali Mohammed became much clearer. In the book he writes P.70:

A further connection between the CIA and the Afghan Arabs is and Egyptian-American, Ali Mohamed, who worked briefly as a potential CIA informant in the early 1980s and later worked for al-Qaeda. However, while these links are certainly interesting, they are only that. They hardly amount to an operation by the Agency to train and fund the Afghan Arabs.

Bergan goes into greater details further as he writes with relation to Ali Mohamed’s entrance into the U.S. Army and involvement with Special Forces at Fort Bragg, P131-135:

This is emblematic of one of al-Qaeda’s most alarming achievements: its ability to stretch its tentacles into the heart of a variety of American communities and institutions. Indeed, over the last two decades the United States has proved one of the U.S. military’s most secretive establishments and plot terrorist acts on American soil. More chilling still is that trajectory of his life – from his birth in Egypt in 1952 to his arrest in the United States in 1998 – is the template for those al-Qaeda recruits who burrowed deeply into their American communities, biding their time with extraordinary patience as they hatched their plans for the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001.

He continues on a paragraph later with:

At some point in the early eighties he offered his services as an informant to the CIA, the first of his several attempts to work for the U.S. government. The Agency was in contact with him for a few weeks but broke off relations after determining he was “unreliable.” That would turn out to be a masterful understatement, as Mohamed was already a member of Egypt’s terrorist Jihad group.

The very notion that Osama bin Laden worked for and cooperated with the CIA is simply ridiculous and is without foundation in evidence and logical argument. Also ridiculous is the claim that bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organisation “handled sums of CIA money during arms trades” as alluded to by Skybird. Bin Laden had access to his own plentiful monetary funds during the time of the Afghan-Soviet war in which he invested in his own projects against the Soviets. In the book “Ghost Wars” by author Steve Coll, the former CIA officer Milt Bearden based in Islamabad at the time, commented on these independent self-financed activities of bin-Laden by saying “he actually did some very good things.” He continued by saying that “He put a lot of money in a lot of the right places in Afghanistan.”

CIA money and purchased weapons went to the ISI who then distributed this to the political parties that were formed to represent the Mujihadeen groups in Afghanistan.

Skybird

09-10-06, 04:18 PM

The cooperation between CIA and Osama goes back to the time when Osama bin Laden still was a representative of his family's business and recruited volunteers for fighting the Sovjets in Afghanistan. He was assisted in that by the Ameircans, and also money from the CIA was given that should be used to buy weapons for the Afghan resistance. additonally, bin Laden may have given money of his own, too, this does not change the American supoort for his cause. Not before investigations showed that for the attacks in Nairobi and Dar-al-Salaam (forgive my spelling) american explosves from US army stocks (that once had been deolivered to be used against the Sovjets) had been used, the Americans became suspicious that something worked terribly wrong with their new "friend".

That all is very old news, Konovalov, and over here it is regarded as fact that no one even tries to fight about anymore. Since you claim you know about terrorism I wonder that you never heared of the CIA's liaison with Osama. Really, it's very old news.

BTW, I never indicated - like oyu quote me wrong above - that Bin Laden and his already existing Al Quaeda were payed by the CIA or cooperated with them.

On 9/11, pre-planned anti-terror-exercises were held, masterminded by Cheney, and additionally for over 1 and a half hour vital parts of the air defense systems were off duty. Several members of the attacker's group stubbornly are described to have had a past in the American military or intel services, the government never was able to refute these findings of investigators by believable facts. and just in this time, four planes intentionally fall down from the sky, and within one hour first radio sation already "knew" who was responsible: Osama bin Laden. Well, tjhat is a bit too much bad luck and random chance, for my taste. I remind you that in an early first reaction, bin Laden has rejected any responsebility for the attcks. Later we got that seocnd video where he braggs within a closed cirlce of Afghan followers how well it worked. We cannot juudge on the basis of publicly available information if ahny oif these videos was faked (by whomever), or not. It must not be, but it is possible that Al Quaeda has not done it, at least not all by itself, and later jumped onto the train and claimed resonsebility for the attacks to take benefit of the propaganda success amongst Muslim sympathizers.

Usually, 9/11 is dealt with as if all that could be known is known. But the bitter truth is that we do not know anything, and that all the investigations so far give the strong impression to hide something completely different behind a dusty cloud of hectic activity that works as a deception. Polls say that 35-45% of the Americans do not believe the official versions and believe in some kind of conspiracy instead, conspiracy theories that come 9in a very huge variety. A slight majority of thes 35-45% say they could imagine that the government of hidden political circles initiated a terror strike to help the neocon's agenda getting pushed. I do not know if it is like this, or not, or if something like this was planned and then got out of control and turned into something bigger that was not planned that way - but I wouldn't be surprised and also think that politics today certainly are cynical enough to commit such crimes for their own goals. We have two great winners of 9/11, Bush and his political men behind the stage, and Al Quaeda. This is what one always should keep in mind.

Konovalov

09-11-06, 05:11 AM

The cooperation between CIA and Osama goes back to the time when Osama bin Laden still was a representative of his family's business and recruited volunteers for fighting the Sovjets in Afghanistan. He was assisted in that by the Ameircans, and also money from the CIA was given that should be used to buy weapons for the Afghan resistance. additonally, bin Laden may have given money of his own, too, this does not change the American supoort for his cause. Not before investigations showed that for the attacks in Nairobi and Dar-al-Salaam (forgive my spelling) american explosves from US army stocks (that once had been deolivered to be used against the Sovjets) had been used, the Americans became suspicious that something worked terribly wrong with their new "friend".

Ah, so you are making the claim that Osama worked with and was funded by the CIA during the Afghan-Soviet war when he formed the organisation with Azzam named the MAK which was the precursor to what later became Al Qaeda. You also said earlier that Osama "also handled sums of CIA money during arms trades" during the Afghan-Soviet war.

Wow! These are some mighty wild claims. Please, please provide me with direct evidence to support this? To save me a hell of a lot of time try reading this article to sum up your weak claims:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html

That all is very old news, Konovalov, and over here it is regarded as fact that no one even tries to fight about anymore. Since you claim you know about terrorism I wonder that you never heared of the CIA's liaison with Osama. Really, it's very old news.

Yes it is very old trash news that has no supporting evidence that could remotely support such a crackpot theory. As said in a CNN Q & A article with Peter Bergen:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen says the notion that Osama bin Laden once worked for the CIA is "simply a folk myth" and that there's no shred of evidence to support such theories.

If it's true that bin Laden once worked for the CIA, what makes you so sure that he isn't still?
Anne Busigin, Toronto, Canada

BERGEN: This is one of those things where you cannot put it out of its misery.

The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.

In response to the below I stand corrected:

BTW, I never indicated - like oyu quote me wrong above - that Bin Laden and his already existing Al Quaeda were payed by the CIA or cooperated with them.

I simply interpreted incorrectly what you said in the quote. Your claims are based on the premise of US cooperation, funding, and arming of Osama during the Soviet-Afghan war and not once bin-Laden formed Al Qaeda.

I really am surprised to see that you of all people pander to these kind of wacky, way out there, far left style conspiracy theories. But hey I've got an open mind and I'm all ears if you can back up your claims with evidence and sound fact based theory. Again I ask to back up your claims. Cheers. :)

Skybird

09-11-06, 04:18 PM

"I really am surprised to see that you of all people pander to these kind of wacky, way out there, far left style conspiracy theories."

Do I...? I repeatedly said that I do not say it has been like that, nor do I say it could not have been like that. I simply am aware of the many unanswered questions. I said that we have too weak a knowledge base in the public to build an opinion upon, and that the official version simply depends on a coincidence of so many random events falling together in one small period of time that it is hard to see it as random anymore. I also think that far too many questions only found superficial answers so far, but no really satisfying answers. Also, the question: "Who takes profit from 9/11 having happoeend?" is most uncomfortable for Bush, for his politcal wing has a crystal-clear motive. Which does neither say they are fully or partially guilty in it, nor does it mean they are innocent. It is one amongst many suspicious observations.

If I were a conpiration theorist, I would take all these theories as true, real, and granted.

As to your demand for being pointed to the backup info, I have a problem there for I red in in German print newspapers, saw it in TV docus (in several cases of correspondents for whom I have a general respect), and also depend on a lot of n ews snippets and radno input from here and there and from the web so that I have problems to serve you as you demand. My life does not competely take place in the internet. This you may want to take as a proof that my statem,ents are weal and unfounded. Okay, feel free to do so, it does not really matter for me. the many single bits and chips of comments and analysis and information I witnessed from so many sources during the last three years tought me for the better. And since this is no profession for me, I do not run around with a pages-long bibliographic and media-listing index in my head.

but as I recommended some postings above, this book may be worth a reading. It surely provokes the kind of thinking Bush and his gang wants to prevent, and distract from. I was speed-reading it when it was published in German. It did not give the feeling of now knowing it all, but it rasied dohbts and founded them, and asked uncomfortable questions. I couldm imagine the author surely polarizes people. which only means that he is hitting nerves - what did I say above about the heresy of asking questions about 9/11...?

http://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/sr=8-1/qid=1158009124/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-2728344-2896639?ie=UTF8&s=books

Skybird

09-11-06, 04:36 PM

By random chances just stumbled over this:

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy

National News (http://www.scrippsnews.com/taxonomy/term/67) | News (http://www.scrippsnews.com/news) | Politics (http://www.scrippsnews.com/taxonomy/term/69) By THOMAS HARGROVE
Scripps Howard News Service
More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.
The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.
Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Suspicions that the 9/11 attacks were "an inside job" _ the common phrase used by conspiracy theorists on the Internet _ quickly have become nearly as popular as decades-old conspiracy theories that the federal government was responsible for President John F. Kennedy's assassination and that it has covered up proof of space aliens.

http://www.scrippsnews.com/images/911poll.jpg

Seventy percent of people who give credence to these theories also say they've become angrier with the federal government than they used to be.
Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."
"One out of three sounds high, but that may very well be right," said Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also called the 9/11 commission.) His congressionally appointed investigation concluded that federal officials bungled their attempts to prevent, but did not participate in, the attacks by al Qaeda five years ago.
"A lot of people I've encountered believe the U.S. government was involved," Hamilton said. "Many say the government planned the whole thing. Of course, we don't think the evidence leads that way at all."
The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.
Conspiracy groups for at least two years have also questioned why the World Trade Center collapsed when fires that heavily damaged similar skyscrapers around the world did not cause such destruction. Sixteen percent said it's "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that "the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings."
Twelve percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.
GET MORE :FORUMS » (http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/10523) Post your thoughts and opinions in the forums
BLOG » (http://www.scrippsnews.com/marginoferror) Tom Hargrove's Margin of Error blog
POLL DATA » (http://www.newspolls.org/) Scripps Survey Research Center
That lower percentage may result from an effort by the conservative Washington-based Judicial Watch advocacy group to debunk the claim. The group filed claims under the Freedom of Information Act and got two fill loops released from Pentagon security cameras.
"Some people claim they can't see anything, but I see a plane hitting the Pentagon at incredibly high speed," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "I see the nose of the plane clearly entering the frame of one video and the tail of the plane entering the Pentagon in the other video."
Many conspiracy Web sites have posted the video loops and report the films are inconclusive or were manipulated by the government.
"Some folks will never be convinced," Fitton said. "But I'm hoping that these videos will dissuade reasonable people from falling into a trap with these conspiracy theories."
University of Florida law professor Mark Fenster, author of the book "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture," said the poll's findings reflect public anger at the unpopular Iraq war, realization that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and growing doubts of the veracity of the Bush administration.
"What has amazed me is not that there are conspiracy theories, but that they didn't seem to be getting any purchase among the American public until the last year or so," Fenster said. "Although the Iraq war was not directly related to the 9/11 attacks, people are now looking back at 9/11 with much more skepticism than they used to."
Conspiracy-believing participants in the poll agree their suspicions are recent.
"I certainly didn't think of conspiracies when 9/11 first happened," said Elaine Tripp, 62, of Tabernacle, N.J. "I don't know if President Bush was aware of the exact time it was going to happen. But he certainly didn't do enough to stop it. Bush was so intent on having his own little war."
Garrett Johnson, 19, of Manassas, Va., said it was "well after the fact" before he started questioning the official explanation of the attacks. "But then people I know started talking about it. And the Internet had a lot to do with this. After reading all of the different articles there, I started to think we weren't being told the truth."
The Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University has tracked the level of resentment people feel toward the federal government since 1995, starting shortly after Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. Forty-seven percent then said they, personally, feel "more angry at the federal government" than they used to. That percentage dropped to 42 percent in 1997, 34 percent in 1998 and only 12 percent shortly after 9/11 during the groundswell of patriotism and support for the government after the attacks.
But the new survey found that 77 percent say their friends and acquaintances have become angrier with government recently and 54 percent say they, themselves, have become angrier _ both record levels.
The survey also found that people who regularly use the Internet but who do not regularly use so-called "mainstream" media are significantly more likely to believe in 9/11 conspiracies. People who regularly read daily newspapers or listen to radio newscasts were especially unlikely to believe in the conspiracies.
"We know that there are a lot of people now asking questions," said Janice Matthews, executive director of 911Truth.org, one of the most sophisticated Internet sites raising doubts about official explanations of the attacks. "We didn't have the Internet after Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin or the Kennedy assassination. But we live in different times now."
Matthews' Web site averaged 4,000 "hits" a day last year, but currently has at least 12,000 visits every 24 hours. The site, according to its online policy statement, is dedicated to showing the public that "elements within the U.S. government must have orchestrated or participated in the execution of the attacks for these to have happened the way in which they did."
Participants in the poll were asked to respond to "several serious accusations that some people have made against the federal government in recent years." Five conspiracy theories were described and participants were asked if each was "very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely."
The level of suspicion of U.S. official involvement in a 9/11 conspiracy was only slightly behind the 40 percent who suspect "officials in the federal government were directly responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy" and the 38 percent who believe "the federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from other planets."
The poll found that a majority of young adults give at least some credence to a 9/11 conspiracy compared to less than a fourth of people 65 or older. Members of racial and ethnic minorities, people with only a high school education and Democrats were especially likely to suspect federal involvement in 9/11.
The survey was conducted by telephone from July 6-24 at the Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio under a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation. The poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.
(Thomas Hargrove is a reporter for Scripps Howard News Service. Guido H. Stempel III is director of the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University.)

Bin Laden blew up WTC and you all know it. (http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll#comment-263)

Submitted by TekWiz (not verified) on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 04:47.
Anyone who thinks that the U.S. govt. was involved in the incident is pretty retarded. Sure it could be that intelligence was fumbled or not enough security was put in place but that's a different subject. Just because Bush is a bumbling idiot who is now responsible for the deaths and maiming of thousands of U.S. troops and innocent Iraqis, and is totally evil when it comes to stem cell research, or other extremist, backwards policies, it doesn't mean the whole U.S. govt. is evil and conspired to blow up the WTC. Get a grip fools.
It is a known fact that 1 of 4 people has significant mental problems. We also know that the average IQ is around 90. Most people in the U.S. believe in god which is a good indication they are pretty damn gullible, I'd say. So it's not quite surprising that 1/3 or more just swallow MUSLIM propaganda and internalize it so well. I'm extremely sure that people with an IQ of at least 110 and no indication of psychological issues, good rationality, (like not believing in a supreme being in the sky that waits for people to pray to it), do not believe in such idiotic ramblings. If you insist you should check yourself into a mental ward because that's where you belong. With your kind of thinking you are a risk to yourself and others.
All you morons need to get it through your thick, slow heads that extremist, militant MUSLIMS have been crapping these ideas in the public arena in order to sway attention away from them, so that they can quietly continue to plan and carry out their terrorist plots.
Listen up: while you retards are just not that bright, (through no fault of your own--you cannot choose your IQ when you are born,) you can still be helpful in watching out for suspicious arabs in your town, and you can speak out against them. Yes, that way you too can prevent terrorist fires, like the one that brought down the WTC.
I gotta tell all ye retards, it is truely embarrasing to be living on a planet with so many backwards, primitive people. Something must be done ASAP in order to genetically improve intelligence, rationality, and critical thinking as well as reduce the tendency for violence in at least the newborn.
If we continue in this direction we are heading, earth will be destroyed soon by these rabid muslims because all the retards were too busy swallowing the barf being spewed into their wide open traps by the stinkin' evil terrorists.
Get real and wise up retards...
Tek. (Speaking on behalf of all us TekWiz's everywhere).

Skybird

09-11-06, 06:21 PM

http://www.911truth.org/images/911TruthZogbyPollFinalReport.htm

RE: Results from nationwide poll
Survey Methodology: Zogby America, 5/12/06 through 5/16/06
This is a telephone survey of adults nationwide conducted by Zogby International. The target sample is 1,200 interviews with approximately 81 questions asked. Samples are randomly drawn from telephone cd’s of national listed sample. Zogby International surveys employ sampling strategies in which selection probabilities are proportional to population size within area codes and exchanges. As many as six calls are made to reach a sampled phone number. Cooperation rates are calculated using one of AAPOR’s approved methodologies and are comparable to other professional public-opinion surveys conducted using similar sampling strategies. Weighting by region, party, age, race, religion, and gender is used to adjust for non-response. The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.
Zogby International’s sampling and weighting procedures also have been validated through its political polling: more than 95% of the firm’s polls have come within 1% of actual election-day outcomes.

See COOP4 (p.38) in Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates of Surveys. The American Association for Public Opinion Research, (2000).

Cooperation Tracking Study: April 2003 Update, Jane M. Sheppard and Shelly Haas. The Council for Marketing & Opinion Research (CMOR). Cincinnati, Ohio (2003).

Narrative Summary
23. Some people have said that the Bush Administration exploited the September 11th attacks to justify the invasion of Iraq. Others say that Bush acted correctly by going into Iraq because Saddam Hussein supported terrorism. Who are you more likely to agree with?

Bush exploited Sept. 11th attacks
44%
Bush justified an attack on Iraq
44
Neither/Not sure
11

People are completely divided on whether they believe President Bush exploited the 9/11 attacks (44%) or justified an attack on Iraq (44%). Approximately one in ten (11%) is not sure.
The largest majorities who feel that Bush exploited Sept. 11th attacks are Democrats (69%), Hispanics (59%), and Jews (64%). Close to half or more of 18-29 year-olds, single adults, African Americans, and residents of the Central/Great Lakes, West, and large cities agree.
The largest majorities who feel that Bush justified an attack on Iraq are Republicans (72%) and residents of rural areas (59%). Approximately half of whites, 30-64 year-olds, Protestants, suburbanites, and married adults agree.
Men and women are both evenly divided.

24. 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?

US government and 9/11 Commission are NOT covering up
48%
US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up
42
Not sure
10

Close to half (48%) agrees the U.S. government and 9/11 Commission are not covering up anything, yet nearly as many (42%) believe the government and 9/11 Commission are covering up. One in ten (10%) is unsure.

Both men and women and residents in each of the four regions are more likely to say the U.S. government and 9/11 Commission are not covering up anything. Majorities who agree include Republicans (64%), 50-64 year-olds, married adults, suburbanites (59%), Protestants, those with at least some college education, and people with annual household income of $50,000 or more (57%).
Majorities (50%-56%) of Democrats, 18-29 year-olds, Hispanics, single adults and those who are divorced/widowed/separated, residents of small cities, and adults with less education than a high school diploma believe the government and 9/11 Commission are covering up something. Nearly half of independent voters (48%) agree.

25. World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?

I am not aware of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse
43%
I am aware of it and think the Commission should have investigated it
38
I am aware of it and think the Commission was right to investigate just the Twin Towers' collapse
14
Neither/Not sure
5

A plurality (43%) is not aware of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. Nearly as many (38%), though, are aware of it and think the Commission should have investigated it. People are least likely to be aware of the building’s collapse and think the Commission was right to investigate just the Twin Towers' collapse (14%).
Pluralities in many sub-groups are not aware of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. This includes Republicans and independents, adults 30 and older, whites, residents of the East and Central/Great Lakes regions, and women.
Majorities of Hispanics (56%) and 18-29 year-olds (52%) and pluralities of Democrats and Southerners are those most likely to be aware of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse and think the Commission should have investigated it.
Republicans (21%), college graduates (20%), people with household income of $75,000 or more (22%), and men (17%) are among the most likely to be aware of the building’s collapse and think the Commission was right to investigate just the Twin Towers' collapse.

26. Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?

The attacks were thoroughly investigated
47%
Reinvestigate the attacks
45
Not sure
8

People are again closely divided, this time with a slight plurality (47%) saying the attacks were thoroughly investigated, while 45% feel the attacks should be reinvestigated. Nearly one in ten (8%) are not sure.
Republicans (70%) and people with annual household income of $75,000 or more (64%) are the most likely to say the attacks were thoroughly investigated. Other majorities who agree include up to 58% of whites, 50-64 year-olds, residents of the East and West, college graduates and those with some college education, and people with annual household income of $50,000-$74,999.
Majorities in several sub-groups feel the attacks should be reinvestigated. The most likely are Hispanics (67%) and African Americans (64%). Other majorities include up to 57% of Democrats and independents, 18-49 year-olds, residents of the Central/Great Lakes, high school graduates and those with less education. Between 56%-61% of people with household income less than $25,000 agree.
Men are more likely to agree attacks were thoroughly investigated (51% to 42%), while women are more likely to say the attacks should be reinvestigated (48% to 43%).

27. How would you rate the US media's performance regarding 9/11, including their coverage of victim families' unanswered questions, theories that challenged the official account, and how the attacks were investigated?

Good
33
Fair
36
Positive
43%
Poor
19
Negative
55
Not sure
3

A majority of adults (55%) rates the media’s performance as negative, including an overall plurality (36%) who rates it as "fair." In comparison, 43% give the media’s performance positive ratings, with most of these coming as "good" (33%).
Majorities in a few sub-groups give the media positive ratings. These include 50%-58% of African Americans, residents of small cities, divorced/widowed/separated adults, Progressives, those with less than a high school diploma, and people with household income less than $15,000 and $25,000-$34,999.
In all remaining sub-groups, majorities rate the media’s performance as negative. This includes approximately three-fifths of Republicans, conservatives, Hispanics, residents of the West, married adults, college graduates and those with some college education, and people with household income of $35,000-$74,999. People whose political ideology is Libertarian (74%) and very conservative (67%) are the most likely to give negative ratings.

Theory of false flag-operations:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm

One of the most prominent web-source of feeding the doubts on the the offical versions about 9/11:
http://www.st911.org/

Tricky terrain. I just can warn everyone to believe anything easily, even and especially when "well-known" names are involved from either the one or the other camp. Leave your brain switched on and ask questions. Skepticism is legitimate. It means to be open for all information and not believe something (or believe something) because it just comes from this or that source. Questions on motives and who took benefit of what are important.