The experiment that WR mentioned, the 70% thingy....

Oh, the POLL. Here's the latest I could find, dated 01-16-2006

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Who orchestrated the 9-11 attacks on America?

41% (97) Osama Bin-laden.

2% (5) Sadam Hussein.

5% (13) Osama Bin-laden and Sadam Hussein.

8% (20) The Israeli government.

12% (28) G.W. Bush and U.S. partners.(Cheney,Rummy,etc.)

4% (11) Dick Cheney and partners.(George W. Bush unawares)

9% (22) Bush or Cheney with Osama as the hit man.

7% (18) The C.I.A.

3% (8) P.N.A.C.

0% (1) F.E.M.A.

3% (9) France.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

...and the link:

http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/239168/results

Interesting to note that more respondants think an American or Israeli source is behind it than Bin Laden.

I knew somebody would bite on my latest poll. Seems it is the guy that never checks out my links. "The gullibility of the masses", indeed.

If he were to check the site out, he might find other interesting polls to occupy his time. Such as....

Obi-wan vs Anakin

Rage Against the Machine for Xmas #1!! Who will truly buy it??

Your favourite Web Browser

Marriage and Winning the Lottery

Caps Attack!

Foxnews

Organic Products

The Ultimate Poll of Life, the Universe, and Everything

Who Should Play Who In The BioShock Movie

Seat belt choice

Harcourt, the poll is a joke. Only 232 people voted, and 3% of them said FRANCE was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Here is a poll liberals might find interesting. Please let us know the results.

http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/477644

chuck, I did note the numbers, thus I said "respondants", so as not to imply any specific demograph.

So, by your statement, "I knew somebody would bite on my latest poll.", you admit you were trolling?

Also, you have taken my "gullibility of the masses" comment out of context (as usual) because I made that comment regarding the earlier poll. No answer from you in context though .

Furthermore, you presented that silly poll as a response to the earlier poll being somewhat dated.... indeed trolling!

Oh, the POLL. Here's the latest I could find, dated 01-16-2006

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Who orchestrated the 9-11 attacks on America?

41% (97) Osama Bin-laden.

2% (5) Sadam Hussein.

5% (13) Osama Bin-laden and Sadam Hussein.

8% (20) The Israeli government.

12% (28) G.W. Bush and U.S. partners.(Cheney,Rummy,etc.)

4% (11) Dick Cheney and partners.(George W. Bush unawares)

9% (22) Bush or Cheney with Osama as the hit man.

7% (18) The C.I.A.

3% (8) P.N.A.C.

0% (1) F.E.M.A.

3% (9) France.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

...and the link:

http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/239168/results

Interesting to note that more respondants think an American or Israeli source is behind it than Bin Laden.

I knew somebody would bite on my latest poll. Seems it is the guy that never checks out my links. "The gullibility of the masses", indeed.

If he were to check the site out, he might find other interesting polls to occupy his time. Such as....

Obi-wan vs Anakin

Rage Against the Machine for Xmas #1!! Who will truly buy it??

Your favourite Web Browser

Marriage and Winning the Lottery

Caps Attack!

Foxnews

Organic Products

The Ultimate Poll of Life, the Universe, and Everything

Who Should Play Who In The BioShock Movie

Seat belt choice

Harcourt, the poll is a joke. Only 232 people voted, and 3% of them said FRANCE was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Here is a poll liberals might find interesting. Please let us know the results.

http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/477644

chuck, I did note the numbers, thus I said "respondants", so as not to imply any specific demograph.

So, by your statement, "I knew somebody would bite on my latest poll.", you admit you were trolling?

Also, you have taken my "gullibility of the masses" comment out of context (as usual) because I made that comment regarding the earlier poll. No answer from you in context though .

Furthermore, you presented that silly poll as a response to the earlier poll being somewhat dated.... indeed trolling!

Harcourt, your proctologist called. They found your head.

Bloviate, bloviate, bloviate.

I think the way the poll/experiment was done is not clear?

What apparently was done is they asked a bunch of people who they believed did it and a lot of folks believed it was Saddam with AQ.

Then those people were shown a clip of Bush I believe denying that link. 70% of the people that was shown "The Truth" refused to believe it.

Hence my earlier post where I asked who would ever believe it even when shown that perhaps the theory of the Soviet officer is correct, lot's of people would not accept a different truth.

I think the way the poll/experiment was done is not clear?

What apparently was done is they asked a bunch of people who they believed did it and a lot of folks believed it was Saddam with AQ.

Then those people were shown a clip of Bush I believe denying that link. 70% of the people that was shown "The Truth" refused to believe it.

Hence my earlier post where I asked who would ever believe it even when shown that perhaps the theory of the Soviet officer is correct, lot's of people would not accept a different truth.

AlexLah:

Generally a poll is taken by telephone. A polling company, news source, TV network, etc., will start calling possible respondents and ask them a series of set questions. The pollsters then record the answers and come up with percentages based on those answers. This particular poll interviewed 1,003 individuals.

The pollsters will seldom have film clips to show anybody. I expect the question to the old poll was something like...

"Do you believe Sadam Hussein was involved with Al-Qaeda in the attack on New York on 9/11/2001?

I do not know what questions were asked in that poll. WR's link doesn't go into that much detail.

WR's link showing the Russian Intelligence Agent (spy) was first shown on youtube some 4 weeks ago. Our pollsters didn't have this astounding information in 2003.

Here is a poll liberals might find interesting. Please let us know the results.

http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/477644

I have a feeling that some of our progressives became 'enlightened" after receiving one of those alien anal probes.

Ok found the link to the story.

http://www.alternet.org/media/143731/many_...e_some_idea_why?

Hope it works as it is a bit of a long URL.

I suspect UG must have been in the testgroup.....

Ok found the link to the story.

http://www.alternet.org/media/143731/many_...e_some_idea_why?

Hope it works as it is a bit of a long URL.

I suspect UG must have been in the testgroup.....

The link did finally open and I managed to gain a little information. The supposed truth of this link is....

1. Of those persons interviewed about Saddam supporting Al Qaeda, only one changed his opinion after being confronted with some so-called facts. They only interviewed 49 people that claimed to be Bush voters. I would hardly call this a representative group of individuals when we don't even know where they are from or what their beliefs are to begin with.

2. The interviews were conducted just prior to the 2004 Presidential election. Again, you are providing us information that is outdated by nearly 6 years.

Saddam always did support suicide bombers, providing $25,000 rewards to surviving family members of suicide bombers. I wonder if he gave rewards to the 19 suicide bombers of 9/11?

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129914&page=1

I am sure in 2002/2003 many individuals thought Saddam was behind the attacks in New York. I doubt seriously if very many people feel that way today.

The point is Chuck that it is amazing that just one person was willing to accept a new truth when showed.

If I think of myself and was shown a video that shows something else flew into those towers (not was is claimed here) I would have a hard time believing that, I have to admit.

About 30% of US citizens now think that the official story is not 100% true. Some of the 9/11 commission investigators said they were fed false or incomplete information.

As I said, where to look if you have doubts about the official conspiracy theory?

That governments and corporations try to cover up things is without any doubt, I hope you agree with at least that as there are plenty examples available.

The theory as presented here should at least looked into as it is indeed very strange that two buildings collapsed as a result of an impact and resulting fires, and one collapsed as a result of some some debris and fire.

From the super slow motion clip which shows the upper part of the first tower tilting and then disintegrating is strange.

I suspect UG must have been in the testgroup....

I never thought that that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, but I thought he had a lot to do with not allowing weapons inspectors to do their job. If he had complied, he would still be in power today.

The point is Chuck that it is amazing that just one person was willing to accept a new truth when showed.

You have been shown the truth by chuckd many times in OTB, yet you continue with wild fantasies. That group of people are not the only ones in denial.

Please UG, show me what really happened.

The point is Chuck that it is amazing that just one person was willing to accept a new truth when showed.

You have been shown the truth by chuckd many times in OTB, yet you continue with wild fantasies. That group of people are not the only ones in denial.

You beat me to it.

So w\hat happened?

Are you open to change your beliefs?

It seems that you have been studing repartee under the master. I just hope that Harcourt does not charge you too much.

The point is Chuck that it is amazing that just one person was willing to accept a new truth when showed.

If I think of myself and was shown a video that shows something else flew into those towers (not was is claimed here) I would have a hard time believing that, I have to admit.

About 30% of US citizens now think that the official story is not 100% true. Some of the 9/11 commission investigators said they were fed false or incomplete information.

As I said, where to look if you have doubts about the official conspiracy theory?

That governments and corporations try to cover up things is without any doubt, I hope you agree with at least that as there are plenty examples available.

The theory as presented here should at least looked into as it is indeed very strange that two buildings collapsed as a result of an impact and resulting fires, and one collapsed as a result of some some debris and fire.

From the super slow motion clip which shows the upper part of the first tower tilting and then disintegrating is strange.

AlexLah:

As I said in an earlier post, I saw the second plane on TV fly into the second tower live and in living color. I saws re-plays of the first plane flying into the first tower. I then watched as the two towers collapsed and I have been provided with what seems to me to be a reasonable explanation as to how that could have happened.

I, therefore, have come to the logical conclusion, in my mind, that what I saw actually happened. I don't for a minute believe there was a nuke planted underneath the two buildings that caused the collapses to occur.

You seem to believe otherwise.

Why waste all this band width trying to convince me of something that, in my way of thinking, never happened?

You believe what you want and I will believe what I want. OK?

If you want to solve a real conspiracy, find out who the shooter was on the grassy knoll.

If your mind is made up already then please stop replying or add comments.

This is outside the box.

You really should follow your own advice.

If your mind is made up already then please stop replying or add comments.

This is outside the box.

Who are you to presume to tell me what and where to post? Your reminder that this is Outside the Box is unnecessary. I know full well where I am posting.

You keep coming back to this ridiculous survey of 49 people that believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

Answer one question for me, please. How can a group of 49 people even remotely resemble a representative survey with a population base over 300 million? I would not consider a 49 person poll representative of the population of ThaiVisa alone, much less the US.

I have tried very patiently to explain my position, yet you seem to feel your 49 person survey is the solution to the discussion. To be quite frank, your link is ridiculous and the survey is laughable.

When, and if, you can come up with tangible proof there was a US conspiracy to bring down the Twin Towers, then present it and let us judge the proof. What you have presented is not proof of anything.

If your mind is made up already then please stop replying or add comments.

This is outside the box.

Who are you to presume to tell me what and where to post? Your reminder that this is Outside the Box is unnecessary. I know full well where I am posting.

You keep coming back to this ridiculous survey of 49 people that believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

Answer one question for me, please. How can a group of 49 people even remotely resemble a representative survey with a population base over 300 million? I would not consider a 49 person poll representative of the population of ThaiVisa alone, much less the US.

I have tried very patiently to explain my position, yet you seem to feel your 49 person survey is the solution to the discussion. To be quite frank, your link is ridiculous and the survey is laughable.

When, and if, you can come up with tangible proof there was a US conspiracy to bring down the Twin Towers, then present it and let us judge the proof. What you have presented is not proof of anything.

You're ignoring Alex's point; that people tend to make up their mind, then refuse to even consider anything else. You are a case in point.

Alex is not offering tangible proof of a conspirracy....as with many "conspiracy theorists", he is offering an alternate view to consider, which does not neccessitate subscribing to the theory.

The more open minded of us will at least consider new ideas, and find tangible proof to discard them, if such proof exists. If there is no proof to discard the idea, then surely the idea must remain on the table.

Otherwise, it is just a matter of faith, like religion.

What was that about the gullible masses?

If your mind is made up already then please stop replying or add comments.

This is outside the box.

Who are you to presume to tell me what and where to post? Your reminder that this is Outside the Box is unnecessary. I know full well where I am posting.

You keep coming back to this ridiculous survey of 49 people that believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

Answer one question for me, please. How can a group of 49 people even remotely resemble a representative survey with a population base over 300 million? I would not consider a 49 person poll representative of the population of ThaiVisa alone, much less the US.

I have tried very patiently to explain my position, yet you seem to feel your 49 person survey is the solution to the discussion. To be quite frank, your link is ridiculous and the survey is laughable.

When, and if, you can come up with tangible proof there was a US conspiracy to bring down the Twin Towers, then present it and let us judge the proof. What you have presented is not proof of anything.

You're ignoring Alex's point; that people tend to make up their mind, then refuse to even consider anything else. You are a case in point.

Alex is not offering tangible proof of a conspirracy....as with many "conspiracy theorists", he is offering an alternate view to consider, which does not neccessitate subscribing to the theory.

The more open minded of us will at least consider new ideas, and find tangible proof to discard them, if such proof exists. If there is no proof to discard the idea, then surely the idea must remain on the table.

Otherwise, it is just a matter of faith, like religion.

What was that about the gullible masses?

I have considered his point, if there is one, and have discarded it. Much as I discard most of your assumptions and presumptions.

New ideas should be presented with tangible proof. Not some cockeyed theory that has no basis in fact. Alex hs presented no tangible facts, nor have you.

The gullible massses accept the cockeyed theories. It is not something I choose to do.

Only if you add up a whole bunch of different nutty conspiracy theories.

Hey, listen sunshine......I resemble those comments

people tend to make up their mind, then refuse to even consider anything else. You are a case in point.

Ok nevermind, I was looking on YT for underground nuclear explosions and there are a lot.

This one grabbed my attention, not for what is shown but said (In the end).

Maybe you will have the same question in your mind as I after listening.

Let's see.

Ok nevermind, I was looking on YT for underground nuclear explosions and there are a lot.

This one grabbed my attention, not for what is shown but said (In the end).

Maybe you will have the same question in your mind as I after listening.

Let's see.

Where's your link?

Oops sorry,

I do have a few questions about this theory.

If there was indeed a nuclear device under the foundations of the buildings, the buildings would have crashed bottom in first right?

Now have a look at these pictures where clearly they come down top first.

The guy says there would be a huge cavity created by the device but I do not see any.

Have a look at the result of the Sedan test.

The explosion itself looks a bit similar though.

Anyway I have finally watched all parts and find it a bit strange that he mentions planes did go into the building and in another clip he says no planes went in.

Strange.

Oops sorry,

OK, I have watched your video. What is supposed to surprise me?

If it is the use of the words "Ground Zero", it means nothing.

Here is what Wiki says about the term:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The term ground zero (sometimes also known as surface zero[1] as distinguished from zero point[2]) may be used to describe the point on the Earth's surface where an explosion occurs. In the case of an explosion above the ground, ground zero refers to the point on the ground directly below an explosion (see hypocenter).

The term has often been associated with nuclear explosions and other large bombs, but is also used in relation to earthquakes, epidemics and other disasters to mark the point of the most severe damage or destruction. The term is often re-used for disasters that have a geographic or conceptual epicenter.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Chuck please why you keep using Wiki as a source.

Just ask yourself why the area of the WTC is mentioned as Ground zero when ground Zero is clearly defined as a place of some nuclear test stuff.

It is just a sick name to refer to the place.

Just ask yourself why the area of the TC is mentioned as Ground zero when ground Zero is clearly defined as a place of some nuclear test stuff.

Many words and phrases take on new uses in colloquial speech. Even before 9/11 to me "ground zero" had always meant the center of where something big happened. It doesn't have to be a nuclear explosion or natural disaster.

Chuck please why you keep using Wiki as a source.

Just ask yourself why the area of the WTC is mentioned as Ground zero when ground Zero is clearly defined as a place of some nuclear test stuff.

It is just a sick name to refer to the place.

Wiki isn't the only source. It was simply the easiest at the time.

http://ask.yahoo.com/20030326.html

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-gro3.htm

http://www.yaelf.com/questions.shtml

http://www.yaelf.com/911.shtml

The phrase was originally written to indicate where the bombs hit in Hiroshima and Nagasaki but has since been used in any number of situations. It is not exclusively used to denote the site of a nuclear detonation and hasn't been for many years.

It's only a "sick name" if you don't understand the usage of the phrase.

Now, ask yourself this question. Why was there no large amounts of radio activity recorded at the WTC site? Did they somehow use a non-nuclear nuclear weapon?

Your theory still has no legs.