See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Study: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Gain Ground
Source:
Newsmax
URL Source: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/ ... nspiracy/2007/09/11/31624.html
Published: Sep 11, 2007
Author: Matt Purple
Post Date: 2007-09-12 13:28:27 by Peetie Wheatstraw
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 194
Comments: 15
The idea that the Bush administration participated in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks is not limited to fringe Web sites and conspiracy theorists, according to a poll commissioned by a Web site that promotes alternative explanations for the events of September 11. The poll, conducted by Zogby International for http://911Truth.org and released last week, found that 31 percent of Americans do not accept the official explanation for September 11 -- that "19 Arab fundamentalists executed a surprise attack which caught U.S. intelligence and military forces off guard." Among that 31 percent, around 26 percent agreed that the American government "knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them proceed for various political, military, and economic motives." Almost 5 percent believed that U.S. officials "actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack." Among self-identified Democrats, 42.6 percent chose an explanation other than the official one, as did 19.2 percent of Republicans and 30.5 percent of Independents. Those who doubted the official explanation also tended to be low-income, single, and young. They most frequently associated with a liberal or progressive ideology. "The number of people who question is growing," Mike Berger of http://911Truth.org, a leading 9/11 conspiracy Web site, told Cybercast News Service. "The issue is that there has not been mainstream media coverage of any of the anomalies, the omissions, the lies regarding what we know." "The mainstream media have basically tried to dismiss anybody who raises questions," he said. In addition to questioning the official explanation behind the events of September 11, other poll results indicated that some Americans are warming to the idea of alternative 9/11 explanations and reflected an extreme dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. About 67 percent of those polled indicated they believe that the government should have properly investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, which was not hit by a plane and crumbled eight hours after the Twin Towers. Tower 7's destruction is seen as a smoking gun by many conspiracy theorists, who contend that the building was brought down by explosives. Others disagree. According to a Popular Mechanics investigation of many prevalent September 11/super /nosupersub conspiracy theories, Tower 7 was only a block from the Twin Towers and the rubble produced from their collapse started a fire that ultimately destroyed the building. Nevertheless, many in the 9/11 Truth movement were unconvinced. Further, 31 percent of respondents believe that impeachment proceedings should be brought by Congress against President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, or both. This number was most heavily concentrated among self-identified progressives and liberals, 60 percent and 52 percent respectively. The poll is based on 1,000 telephone interviews conducted by Zogby International and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. The new media According to Berger, alternative explanations for 9/11 were generally ignored by the mainstream press and gained traction only through alternative forms of media, such as Internet blogs. "Rather than being a passive receiver of information as we have been in the past, you're able to go on the Internet and choose your own sources of news and evaluate [that information] yourself," he said. "And I think it shows that the young -- the people under 30 -- have a much different approach to information." The 9/11 Truth movement has established itself almost entirely on the Internet, the most popular source of news for the 18-24 age group, which overwhelmingly disbelieves the official explanation for the Twin Towers collapse. By contrast, older age groups, which are far more reliant on newspapers and television news shows for their information, are more likely to believe the official explanation. Among persons 55-69 years old, only 24 percent buy into alternative theories. For those 70 and older, the number is the same. Berger said he is hopeful that the poll numbers indicate a groundswell of anti-authoritarianism among the generation that will soon be running America. "These are the people who will be either drafted or sent off to fight these wars," he said. "They have a stake to question what they're being told, and it looks like they're very good with their skepticism of what they're being told through official sources. And I think that's a really uplifting number to see and it portends of a more activist youth." "These are people who have a real stake in the future. It's a majority, a supermajority," he added. The Internet has also become a home for Web sites such as http://debunking911.com and http://911myths.com, which challenge and allegedly refute many claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. There's even an online peer-reviewed journal, "The Journal of Debunking 9/11." Criticism has also come from older mediums. Popular Mechanics magazine published a special report and later a book tackling 9/11 conspiracy theories. Conservative talk radio hosts frequently ridicule members of the 9/11 Truth movement. Even Comedy Central's animated show "South Park" ran an entire episode contending that 9/11 conspiracy theorists were "retarded." But if the poll numbers are any indication, public momentum is currently moving in the direction of http://911truth.org. "It's being [promoted] by activists, by people who looked at the research and said, our whole world is being turned upside-down by this event, which, to this day, we still don't know what happened," Berger said.
Poster Comment: Despite the claims on 4um of disruptors, 9/11 Truth has by no means "stalled" - rather, it's gained such momentum that our tyrannical political class is forced to run stories on it while "commemorating" the so-called "terror attacks."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#0)
Daily Kos continues to ban discussions of conspiracy theories about 9/11. Kos reiterated this policy just the other day. On the other hand, there are frequent threads about Sibel Edmonds. If you accept her charges, you pretty much have to accept conspiracy theories, or at least to be willing to discuss them.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Symmetrically, evenly, in one neat little pile in its "footprint." No one among the "officialists" has even tried to address how that happened, even if debris from the Twin Towers collapse tore a hole in the south face of 7 (which I don't believe) and started fires (which I also don't believe), which resulted in its collapse.
"Those who give and those who receive arbitrary power are alike criminal, and there is no man but is bound to resist it to the best of his power, wherever it shall show its face to the world. Nothing but absolute impotence can justify men in not resisting it to the best of their power." ---Edmund Burke
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Note that WTC 7 had WTC 5 and WTC 6 between it and the Twin Towers, and moreover was surrounded by buildings that did not fully collapse: "Those who give and those who receive arbitrary power are alike criminal, and there is no man but is bound to resist it to the best of his power, wherever it shall show its face to the world. Nothing but absolute impotence can justify men in not resisting it to the best of their power." ---Edmund Burke
You should see the fires of wtc 5 and 6. The entire buildings caught fire and burned for hours but unlike the buildings next door they did not collapse. They had the World trade towers fall ontop of them and while 6 was severly damaged neither 6 nor 5 collapsed...NOT partial ot at all... Should give it a youtube search.
According to that map, WTC3 also suffered total collapse. I don't think I've ever heard of WTC3. What was it?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Bush Addresses the U.N. - tells the world no 911 discussions http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011110-3.html November 10, 2001 We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The World Trade Center Marriott. How it "collapsed" is not clear to me: for example, the Wikipedia article just says it collapsed "as a result of the collapse of the Twin Towers," as if we really knew how they collapsed. Here is an image at the Wikipedia site of WTC 3 "after the attacks": I don't see that as a "full collapse," but what do I know? I'm supposed to know only what the government wants me to know...
"Those who give and those who receive arbitrary power are alike criminal, and there is no man but is bound to resist it to the best of his power, wherever it shall show its face to the world. Nothing but absolute impotence can justify men in not resisting it to the best of their power." ---Edmund Burke
Have you noticed that every 9/11 Truth "debunker" always wants to connect skepticism of the official story with anti-Semitism? Avoid mention of Jews and Israel as studiously as you can when discussing 9/11 Truth, and your opponents will always bring them into the discussion anyway.
"Those who give and those who receive arbitrary power are alike criminal, and there is no man but is bound to resist it to the best of his power, wherever it shall show its face to the world. Nothing but absolute impotence can justify men in not resisting it to the best of their power." ---Edmund Burke
Thanks for the correction. On the 9-11 Research site, it reports with photos here: And this about WTC 6: "Those who give and those who receive arbitrary power are alike criminal, and there is no man but is bound to resist it to the best of his power, wherever it shall show its face to the world. Nothing but absolute impotence can justify men in not resisting it to the best of their power." ---Edmund Burke
Here's what the 9-11 Research site says about WTC 3: "Those who give and those who receive arbitrary power are alike criminal, and there is no man but is bound to resist it to the best of his power, wherever it shall show its face to the world. Nothing but absolute impotence can justify men in not resisting it to the best of their power." ---Edmund Burke
Yes that is the good news.. there IS a reason that the media is trying to bebunk the doubters.. I asked someone at work.. when was the last time you saw a FRAME house/building collapse from a fire in less than 10% of the building? They said never.. I said then explain how a concrete and steel building collapsed in just a few hours with less than 10% of the building on fire.. they couldnt.
Here's the real explanation for WTC 7's collapse: :P
"Those who give and those who receive arbitrary power are alike criminal, and there is no man but is bound to resist it to the best of his power, wherever it shall show its face to the world. Nothing but absolute impotence can justify men in not resisting it to the best of their power." ---Edmund Burke
You are free to discuss the government's conspiracy theories, especially the one about those "Islamofascist terrorists" out there who "hate us for our freedoms" and thus "want to kill us." In fact, you have to be willing to discuss them and demonstrate your credence of them. It is beyond me that so-called "progressive" sites like Kos and "libertarian" sites like http://Antiwar.com alike ridicule, denigrate and suppress discussion of "9/11 conspiracy theories." Except the government one, which they all swear fealty to.
"Those who give and those who receive arbitrary power are alike criminal, and there is no man but is bound to resist it to the best of his power, wherever it shall show its face to the world. Nothing but absolute impotence can justify men in not resisting it to the best of their power." ---Edmund Burke
#2. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#0)
#3. To: ghostdogtxn (#2)
There's no way fire brought that building down the way it fell.
#4. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#3)
#5. To: ghostdogtxn (#4)
#6. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#5)
#7. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#5)
#8. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#0)
(Edited)
#9. To: aristeides (#7)
I don't think I've ever heard of WTC3. What was it?
#10. To: robin (#8)
To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror.
#11. To: titorite (#6)
You should see the fires of wtc 5 and 6. The entire buildings caught fire and burned for hours but unlike the buildings next door they did not collapse. They had the World trade towers fall ontop of them and while 6 was severly damaged neither 6 nor 5 collapsed...NOT partial ot at all...
Despite the massive structural damage shown by the holes, and fires far more severe than those in WTC 1, 2, and 7, WTC 5 did not collapse. FEMA's report has a number of photographs of Building 5 wreckage, and concludes that fires caused the collapse of portions of this building, without making a convincing case.
Despite the massive structural damage shown by the holes, and fires probably more severe than those in WTC 1, 2, and 7, WTC 6 did not collapse.
#12. To: aristeides (#7)
WTC 3 was first partially crushed by the steel skeleton fragments from the South Tower and then further crushed by those from the North Tower. In each case the rubble, falling from as much as 1300 feet, collapsed regions spanning several floors but was arrested by the building's steel structure. This behavior contrasts with the officially accepted story that progressive collapse entirely destroyed each Tower.... There is not much evidence of fires in WTC 3. That contrasts with WTC 4, 5, and 6, each of which had severe fires.
#13. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#0)
#14. To: ghostdogtxn (#4)
Explanations for WTC7 are almost never included in the "official conspiracy theory" explanations of 9-11. I've never heard anyone come even close to a satisfactory explanation for it's collapse.
Larry Silverstein owned WTC 7 and had it insured for replacement cost.
#15. To: aristeides (#1)
On the other hand, there are frequent threads about Sibel Edmonds. If you accept her charges, you pretty much have to accept conspiracy theories, or at least to be willing to discuss them.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
