Topic: [Vote] Who did 911? - page 36. (Read 63039 times)

If you notice, he didn't specify WHO is engaged in a disinformation campaign, just that one was taking place



Wikipedia. Thats cute. You are mistaken. Just because you can dig up a single bias poll from 2008 does not magically mean most people agree with you. Times have changed, people see how much of everything else that was reported was lies and they are starting to reexamine their belief systems with this new information in mind. Like I said before YOU ARE THE MINORITY now, and the ranks are still swelling. Believe it or not, the world progresses without your approval .

http://www.911truth.org/results-from-nationwide-zogby-poll/
Bush exploited Sept. 11th attacks   44%
Bush justified an attack on Iraq   44%
Neither/Not sure   11%

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



http://rethink911.org/docs/ReThink911Survey_Results_PressRelease.pdf
1- Iraq- do Americans think the Bush administration exploited 9/11 to attack Iraq? (44% do, 44% don’t);

2- Cover up – did the government and its 9/11 Commission conceal or refuse to investigate evidence that contradicts their official story? (only 48% said no);
    
3-The collapse of WTC 7, which was not even mentioned by the 9/11 Commission and has seldom been reported in the media—were respondents aware of this collapse and, if so, did they think it should be investigated (only 52% knew about it, but over 70% of this group believe it should have been investigated);
    
4- new investigation of official complicity – do respondents think we need one? (only 48% said no); and
  
5- mass media – how do people rate its performance, including its coverage of alternative 9/11 theories, unanswered questions and inquiry issues? (43% rate it positively, 55% negatively).

Well 7% believe other so maybe that includes other terrorist organizations.

When you look at all the facts, and assemble all the points, isn't it difficult to see which campaign is the dis-information campaign?

Such is the result of active dis-information campaigns.  Part of which is on this forum right now.  Cheers!

Hard to believe less then 50% believe al-Qaeda did it.

No "most people" do not think this.  About 15% do, and they are the less educated.

Please do not use this forum as a place to spread mis- or dis- information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

only 12% vote for da joos? it will be more when more people see this.

it was all the joos fault to get more oil they needed to start a war.

Different people have different beliefs and different perceptions. But most of them think that it was US Government responsible for the  attacks of 911 with the support of Ossoma Bin Laden and his terrorist group or vice a versa can't get a judgement on it.

Now you're saying North Koreans did 9/11.   

No, not at all.

The sentence I used was "Even in the mind of a Jew-hater, the picture can't reasonably be construed as statist.  Therefore I conclude that you are making things up."

This should read as <> ....

I have no clue what your thoughts or feelings are and don't try to guess at such things. 

It is only completely baffling, any relation of such a picture with "statism."

I can certainly show you some pictures and art that is statist.

Here, have some fun with our friends in North Korea before they all starve to death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwoSFQb5HVk

 Did I touch a little to close to home exposing your diversionary tactics? Because I am critical of the state of Israel I am a Jew hater?
[/end all respect for you and your opinions]

i will make you as reference to the one i pick for you

Well, after you pick one of the four flights, I will ignore anything that's not relevant to the one you picked. In fact, I'll see it as an act of bad faith if you keep bringing up things that are irrelevant. For example, if you pick Flight 93, everything about the Pentagon and WTC will be irrelevant. The point of focusing is to focus.

I didn't know that. If my posts start getting deleted in a thread, I'll just leave. Anyway, I have to make one of my priorities not spending so much time on bitcointalk.

the reason why i am opting for a new thread to post everything is because you never really reply to my answers and questions, you just pick whichever you want to reply. whilst the new thread i will be the one posting the 5 first thus you cannot say you didnt notice them or it got lost in the pages

Better to just copy and paste his answers here.  Remember Netyder the guy who has twice said a thread should be closed because it wasn't going "his way". 

He just wants to control the thread so he can delete posts, and close the thread if it doesn't go his way.  Which it won't most likely.

@Netpyder: I'll check in tomorrow morning to see if one of the four flights has been chosen. If you start a new thread, please link to it here.

the interview was done 1 month AFTER the 9/11 not in the chaos moment

Science is a place  where a proven fact invalidates "many reports."

Yes, he certainly could have meant that, in that total chaos of the moment.  Moreover it seems reasonable to issue an order to essentially "Move Back".  In other words, not just to "get out of the building" but to get men, equipment and supplies, including the fire trucks and vehicles, a safe distance away from that building.

"what if i prove it?"

We first have to agree on what "it" refers to. If "it" is something that I agree would prove the official narrative of 9/11 is false, then I will be someone who no longer believes the official narrative of 9/11. This wouldn't be such a huge victory since I'm just one person, but maybe the public posts would convince others. The most likely outcome is that we still disagree but at least we have a clearer view of what we're disagreeing about. But I've changed my mind about my interpretation of historical events before. (Many people do over the course of their lives.)

You mentioned some Larry Silverstein quote which I had to google. A possibility would be if he said "pull it" when he meant "pull out." He's over 70, and even people in their prime misspeak. But this is the kind of rabbit hole we could easily spend a lot of time on without it being relative to the actual statement you're trying to support. After all, if you decide to focus on Flight 93 or the Pentagon, Larry Silverstein's quotes will not be relevant at all.

Focus on one thing. It looks like you agree planes did hit the two towers. If you think the towers are the case where you have the best evidence, pick one of the two towers and try to give a clear argument why it's impossible that the towers could have collapsed due to the structural damage caused by the plane crashing into it. If you think you have clearer evidence that Flight 93 didn't go down in Pennsylvania, then choose that to focus on. If you think the Pentagon case is clearer, choose that. Just please pick one and then we can focus on only that one. Tell me which one you choose. Then let's try to determine precisely what you're asserting about that one.

We should determine the statements in the argument you're using before we start trying to support or refute the statements in dispute. To take an extreme case, you could say:

(A) If 1+1 = 2, then the official narrative is false.
(B) 1+1 = 2.

I could still believe the official narrative is true by rejecting (A). It wouldn't matter how convincing an argument you made for (B). We must determine what the relevant clear statements in dispute actually are.