It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 Truth, Yay Or Nay For Libertarian National Committee

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by bsbray11
If I make a thread titled,

"TraditionalDrummer Finally Shows the Facts and Evidence His 9/11 Opinions are Based on"

would you post on it and actually show your evidence?


Quit trying to derail every thread.

Get on topic.


Fine. I'll u2u you and ask the exact same thing.

And if no one sees this thread, they'll know why I'm not wasting my time.



I say put up or shut up and once again your choice is...




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I hope you've also noticed that over the years the numbers have been steadily growing anyway.


Was it an Angus Reid poll? I think so.

And truthers voting multiple times with multiple socks hardly counts as rising numbers.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


No, Joey, I'm talking about scientific surveys done over telephone:


Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy

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. ...

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.


www.scrippsnews.com...


Another three Zogby polls as summarized by a Wikipedia article:


The polls that have received the most widespread media attention are those conducted by Zogby International. The Zogby polls have been sponsored by organizations within the 9/11 Truth Movement including 911truth.org.

The first one was conducted in August 2004, on the eve of a Republican National Convention, on 808 randomly-selected residents of New York State. It found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state citizens believe individuals within the US government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act".[4] The margin of error for this poll was 3.5 percent.

The second major Zogby poll on 9/11 was conducted in May 2006. It was a telephone interview of 1,200 randomly-selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 81 questions, with a 2.9 percent margin of error.[5] Some of the questions asked include the following:

"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?"

* Responses: 48% No Cover-up / 42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure

"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?"

* Responses: 43% Not Aware / 38% Aware - should have investigated it / 14% Aware - right not to investigate it / 5% Not Sure

"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?"

* Responses: 47% Attacks were thoroughly investigated / 45% Reinvestigate the attacks / 8% Not Sure

The third major Zogby poll regarding 9/11 was conducted in August 2007. It was a telephone interview with a target of 1,000 interviews with randomly-selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 71 questions, with a 3.1 percent margin of error.[6]

The results of the 2007 August poll indicate that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30% of those polled seek immediate impeachment. While only 32% seek immediate Bush and/or Cheney impeachment based on their personal knowledge, many citizens appear eager for clear exposure of the facts.

In addition, the poll also found that two-thirds (67%) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Only 4.8 percent of the respondents agreed that members of the United States government "actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack."


en.wikipedia.org...


Those Zogby polls were in 2004, 2006, and 2007. The Scripps Howard/Ohio University shown first was also done in 2006.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
It really does not matter WHO did 911.


Spoken like a true Tea Party member.

I will make sure I let the families of the victims burned alive and all of the Men and Women who are sick and dying that the Tea Party does not care about who did 9/11

This just serves as further confirmation that the Tea Party is nothing but a bunch of rats trying to cover up what the world already knows.

Maybe if you were standing in lower Manhattan sucking fumes on 9/11 you would not feel that way.

When I try and sleep but cant because my lungs are wrecked I will remember the Tea Party line "it matters not who did 9/11".

You are a sick man.


[edit on 5/7/2010 by samhouston1886]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 




He should change his name to Joey Baloney, it fits a lot better.

I would be willing to bet he knows all the facts better than most here, it is said the devil can quote any page in the scripture.
If he states he did not know something I can bet you he does, it’s his job to know.

Why do I make that claim?

Why else would someone spend years and many hours a day trying to convince “crazy conspiracy wackos” that they are wrong?

Seems fruitless unless you consider that it is part of an organized effort.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


No, Joey, I'm talking about scientific surveys done over telephone:


Indeed.

As we all know, all science is conducted over the telephone.




TOTAL FAIL.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by samhouston1886

Why else would someone spend years and many hours a day trying to convince “crazy conspiracy wackos” that they are wrong?



Perhaps because you have proven no conspiracy and without proof, some people wish to keep those "crazy conspiracy" notions from penetrating the national conscience. Such crap lead the mayor of NYC to believe that the recent TS bomber was not, in fact, a radical islamic bomber, but instead a "tea party" member.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, Joey, I'm talking about scientific surveys done over telephone:


Indeed.

As we all know, all science is conducted over the telephone.




TOTAL FAIL.


Actually it is conducted over the phone in random surveys. Guess you've never had statistics either.


Btw I notice you totally ignored my post above as well as my u2us.

So it isn't a case of being off-topic, it's a case of you being a hypocrite towards others when you have no evidence to support your own opinions, and no back bone to admit as much.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by acrux
 





Only after an independent investigation can we find out if it was Bush/Cheyney or Terrorists.


Dont you mean after an investigation by truthers? One predestined to blame Bush/Cheney?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by acrux
 


Only after an independent investigation can we find out if it was Bush/Cheyney or Terrorists.

Dont you mean after an investigation by truthers? One predestined to blame Bush/Cheney?


You can read it between the lines how ever you want, because you have already predestined your mindset on this topic.

Regardless of my personal feelings towards Bush/Cheyney, I support the idea of a truly neutral party investigating this situation & stand behind the statement.

"ONLY AFTER AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION CAN WE FIND OUT IF IT WAS BUSH/CHEYNEY OR TERRORIST?"

[edit on 10-5-2010 by acrux]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

"Only 4.8 percent of the respondents agreed that members of the United States government "actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack."


[edit on 7-5-2010 by bsbray11]


Less that 5 per cent of Americans are "truthers"? And this figure was lower in 2006?

There's a mighty wind coming. Revolution is in the air.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Less that 5 per cent of Americans are "truthers"? And this figure was lower in 2006?


Like I said, define "truther." I define it as anyone who thinks the investigations done so far were a sham. That would be more somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the population according to the polls above, and not the 5% that are already convinced the fed had something to do with it. Nice try though.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Sham is a strong word. Your polls don't show that at all.

I define a "truther" as someone who thinks that the US government or some variation thereof was behind the 9/11 attacks. And the number of people who believe this is very, very small.

About ten times as many believe in creationism. Only marginally fewer Americans apparently think that Obama is the antichrist. You're in a very special club.

Still, I'm off to man the barricades against the billions of people who are demanding a new 9/11 investigation and who are willing to storm the palace of government - oh no, sorry, I mean sit on the internet - to get it.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Sham is a strong word.


Read the questions yourself. Between 1/3 and 1/2 want re-investigation. Meaning they aren't satisfied they know everything already either. "Sham is a strong word," oh boo-hoooo I didn't mean to use a "strong word" and get your panties all in a knot about what these 9/11 polls show you. Suddenly their meaning has vastly changed.



I define a "truther" as someone who thinks that the US government or some variation thereof was behind the 9/11 attacks. And the number of people who believe this is very, very small.


Good for you. Another ignorant worldview reinforced. I'll give a damn about your personal definition when you matter more.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Read the questions yourself. Between 1/3 and 1/2 want re-investigation. Meaning they aren't satisfied they know everything already either.


And this makes them "truthers" in your opinion?

Nonsense. You may not like the term "truther" - indeed I know you think, in your charmingly sophomoric fashion, that it's racist or something
- but the word as commonly used means something much closer to what I wrote than your woolly definition.





"Sham is a strong word," oh boo-hoooo I didn't mean to use a "strong word" and get your panties all in a knot about what these 9/11 polls show you. Suddenly their meaning has vastly changed.



You used a word that was intended to make the survey responders look like they were saying something which they were not. Something may be inadequate, but that doesn't mean it's a "sham". You know this. You're just trying to mislead.

And your attempts at irony? Just... oh I don't know. It's a good job you're studying an "industrial" subject, put it that way.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And this makes them "truthers" in your opinion?


Yes, and I've already stated as much. Since there is no established authority defining what constitutes a "truther," especially that uses your personal definition...


And more vitriolic ranting. Miserable people never fail to satisfy there.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


More hilarity! Stop, seriously, you're killing me.

But honestly, you think that more people would consider your definition accurate than mine? You're welcome to your opinion, but it's not one shared by many. Indeed it's only really shared by people who desperately try to misrepresent the results of polls to make it look like lots of people agree with them.

Anyway, it's all irrelevant. Your contention was that some sort of revolution is coming. Your polls show nothing of the sort.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Your contention was that some sort of revolution is coming. Your polls show nothing of the sort.


Show me where I said the polls indicate this.




posted on May, 12 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


It's right there above. You made a naive post about the coming conflict which you implied would be led by a vanguard of the 9/11 Truth Movement. When challenged on this you produced polls to back up your argument.

You may not have specifically deployed the exact words, but I shouldn't have to point out to you that employing something as evidence to support your argument demands that you accept the implications of that evidence.

Put another way, if you think the polls don't support your contention, then why do you hold that view?

[edit on 12-5-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join