3292 replies to this topic

[RaptorBites]

bee, on 23 August 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

So....you fancy yourself as telepathic AND you can see into the future....

don't give up the day job....

.

I don't fancy myself as a telepath or claim to see in the future.

Read back and check on most of BR's posts.  Then you will understand why I made such a statement in the first place.

And also,  please re-iterate your position.

[RaptorBites]

Bee, here you go!

Sakari, on 04 August 2012 - 03:02 AM, said:

I hate to do this, but this copy / paste is really the only one I could find with a bunch in it....

Polls are polls...One side can tell you a number from a poll, and show you, while the other side can do the same.....

Personally, I think anyone whom thinks it was anything other than terrorists, well, they are idiots.....If I had to ask 30 people at work, I am pretty certain they feel the same.

Anyway, here ya go...





Zogby

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."
Newsweek Magazine polls

The Newsweek Magazine poll "What America Knows", conducted Princeton Survey Research Associates International, regularly asks American citizens a wide range of questions relating to world events past and present and a number of more trivial questions of general knowledge.^[7] On five occasions the following question has been asked: "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

• September 2003 responses: 47% Yes, 37% No, 16% not sure.
  
• January 2004 responses: 49% Yes, 39% No, 12% not sure.
  
• September 2004 responses: 42% Yes, 44% No, 14% not sure.
  
• October 2004 responses: 36% Yes, 51% No, 13% not sure.
  
• June 2007 responses: 41% Yes, 50% No, 9% not sure.

New York Times / CBS News polls

The first 9/11 poll carried out by the New York Times and CBS News was conducted in May 2002. The same 9/11 related question was asked again in April 2004 and October 2006. The 2002 and 2006 polls were apparently published for the first time not by CBS or the NYTimes, but by polling researcher AngusReid.com The 2004 NY/Times CBS poll is available at NYTimes.com (Question 77).
The 2004 poll was conducted by telephone with 1024 adults nationwide in the US, with a 3% margin of error.^[8] The 2006 poll was conducted by telephone on 983 randomly-selected citizens of the United States, with a 4% margin of error.^[9] One of the questions was the following: "When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?"

• May 2002 responses: 21% said "telling the truth", 65% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 8% said they are "mostly lying", 6% not sure.

• 3/30-4/1/04 CBS 24% said "telling the truth", 58% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 14% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.
  
• 4/8/04 CBS 21% said "telling the truth", 66% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 10% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.
  
• 4/23-27/04 24% said "telling the truth", 56% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 16% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.

• Oct 2006 responses: 16% said "telling the truth", 53% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 28% said they are "mostly lying", 3% not sure.

New York Times / CBS News have conducted a number of polls on the Iraq War that have included the question: "Was Saddam personally involved in 9/11?"^[10]

• April 2003 responses: 53% said Yes, 38% said No.
  
• October 2005 responses: 33% said Yes, 55% said No.
  
• September 2006 responses: 31% said Yes, 57% said No.
  
• September 2007 responses: 33% said Yes, 58% said No.

Scripps Howard polls

A poll from July 2006, sponsored by Scripps Howard and conducted by Ohio University, surveyed 1,010 randomly-selected citizens of the United States, with a margin of error of 4 percent.^[11] The survey found that 36 percent thought it somewhat or very likely that U.S. officials either participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them^[12] because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.^[13] It made some statements relating to some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories and asked respondents to say whether they thought that the statements were likely to be true. Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.

• 59% "not likely"
  
• 20% "somewhat likely"
  
• 16% "very likely"^[13][14]

The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.

• 77% "unlikely"
  
• 10% "somewhat likely"
  
• 6% "very likely"^[13][15]

The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.

• 80% "not likely"
  
• 6% "somewhat likely"
  
• 6% "very likely"^[13][16]

In November 2007 Scripps Howard surveyed 811 Americans about their beliefs in several conspiracy theories and asked this question^[17] How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely?

• 32% "Very Likely"
  
• 30% "Somewhat Likely"
  
• 30% "Unlikely"
  
• 8% "Don't Know/Other"

Other United States polls

Rasmussen Reports published the results of their poll May 4, 2007. According to their press release, "Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.", "Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure." and "Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view."^[18]
A poll reported in the Washington Post in September 2003 found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed Saddam Hussein was probably personally involved in the attacks.^[19]
In May 2007 the New York Post published results of a Pew Research Center poll of more than 1,000 American Muslims. It found that 40 percent agreed that "Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks," while 28 percent disagreed. Of the 28 percent that disagreed, a quarter (7 percent) believe that the US government is responsible.^[20]
In September 2009, a National Obama Approval Poll, by Public Policy Polling, found that 27% of respondents who identified themselves as Liberals, and 10% as Conservatives, responded "yes" to the question, "Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?"^[21]
A March 2010 poll conducted by the Angus Reid Public Opinion organization found that 15% of respondents found theories that the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition to be credible. Anywhere between 6 percent and 15 percent of respondents found credibility in claims that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, that no airplanes hit the Pentagon or the World Trade Center.^[22]

Found on the 911 forum post # 6


So, as you can see, polls will vary based on age, race, political affilitations.

Edited by RaptorBites, 23 August 2012 - 08:39 PM.

[bee]

RaptorBites, on 23 August 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

I don't fancy myself as a telepath or claim to see in the future.

Read back and check on most of BR's posts.  Then you will understand why I made such a statement in the first place.

I'm sorry but I don't have time to check out all of Babe Ruth's posts. He's a popular chap you know....
It even nearly morphed into the Babe Ruth thread at one point. You guys...and might I say YOU in particular
can't get enough of him...LOL

He even had an avatar especially designed and presented to him earlier in the thread...it was like a fond accolade...

Quote

And also,  please re-iterate your position.

If you insist.....

a bit later because I'm cooking chicken curry at the moment


edit....@ RaptorBites....just seen your post above. Thanks. Will look at it later.


.

Edited by bee, 23 August 2012 - 08:37 PM.

[RaptorBites]

bee, on 23 August 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

I'm sorry but I don't have time to check out all of Babe Ruth's posts. He's a popular chap you know....
It even nearly morphed into the Babe Ruth thread at one point. You guys...and might I say YOU in particular
can't get enough of him...LOL

He even had an avatar especially designed and presented to him earlier in the thread...it was like a fond accolade...

His ridiculous style of posting and rebuttal of any evidence with claims of "life experiences" have been hilarious at times, I'll have to admit. LOL

bee, on 23 August 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

If you insist.....

a bit later because I'm cooking chicken curry at the moment

Ohhhh yummy, had that last night for dinner!

Also, my apologies if I categorized you under the fly-over theorists.  I must have mistaken you for other posters here, possibly lilqwerty as I remember him posting a ridiculously faked picture of a 757 flying over the Navy Barracks a long time back.

bee, on 23 August 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

edit....@ RaptorBites....just seen your post above. Thanks. Will look at it later.

No Problem!  

[ADDIS77]

bee, on 23 August 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

but the fuselage would be angled towards the traffic cam....and in the images you have posted the fuselage is NOT angled
towards the traffic cam.

I have to disagree again. It appears to me to be headed toward the camera, slightly If you were to rotate the aircraft clockwise on its vertical axis it would swing the left engine further forward and the right engine further back. Of course you would get the opposite effect if you rotated it counterclockwise that would make its left engine appear to be further back on the fuselage like we already see.

Quote

lol...you sound like quite an old hand at the 9/11 merry-go-round  debate.

I started paying attention about six years ago. Then I almost stopped paying attention completely for three years, I've picked the interest back up a little bit here lately.

Quote

my first thought is that the video you posted would not be sufficient to prove anything in a court of law....

Alone it may not be, but add the pilot's testimony, radar data and eyewitness testimony, it certainly would be.

Quote

I think I've seen the O'Brien guy on a youtube vid where he is speaking to camera

I'm going to try and find that and have another look at it.

I will link to the only interview with the pilot that I'm aware of below. If you find something different please share. I would be very interested in seeing it.


.

Edited by ADDIS77, 23 August 2012 - 09:10 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 23 August 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

No definitive proof IN EITHER DIRECTION, Bee.  And that is the problem.

The real problem for the 9/11 CT folks lies in the fact that there are clear photos of B-757 wreckage in the markings of American Airlines lying around the Pentagon.

In addition, there is black box data, radar data, communication transcripts, eyewitness accounts of an airliner striking the Pentagon, and if they wanted further evidence that will stand up in any court, all they have to do is to start pulling flight and maintenance records for the airframe of American 77 to trace its flight history right up the day of the 9/11 attacks and of course, records pertaining to recovered human remains of crew and passengers of American 77.

Quote

As you and others have mentioned. it would seem there are many many ways this issue could be resolved by the authorities.  The most conclusive would be some photographic evidence...

We have photographic evidence already.

Quote

...and proffering the physical evidence of aircraft debris up for inspection by neutral parties.

May I suggest they contact the operator of American 77?!

[Czero 101]

Professor Buzzkill, on 21 August 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

I am willing to admit that i may be wrong about the "point of impact" comments,

Quote

but i stand by my comment that;

1. You can see the pentagon

And I stand by mine that you cannot see the Pentagon. Here's why:

Here we have a screen cap of Google Maps showing the vicinity around the Doubletree and the Pentagon.



The image has been reduced in size to 80% of it original size in order to be a bit more "forum friendly". The map scale can be seen at the bottom left of the map. At full size, the scale shows that 2cm is equal to 500 feet (or 1 inch equal to 200 meters).

The Green dashed line points in the direction from the approximate location of the camera to the part of the Pentagon that is nearest to the Doubletree
The Blue Arrow indicates that point on  the building.
The Red Arrow indicates where the sightline to the closest point of the Pentagon is blocke by the Hwy. 395 overpass.

Here is a screen cap of the Doubletree video. It is the same image I used in my previous post on this topic, but with the indicator arrows changed.




The Red Arrow indicates the approximate point at which the sightline to the closest point of the Pentagon is blocked by the Hwy. 395 overpass.

In my previous post on this topic I estimated that the height of the overpass to be approximately 30 feet. There's a chance its higher than that, but we'll stick with my original estimate.

Based on the scale of the map discussed at the start of this post, it can be estimated that the overpass is roughly 500 feet away from the Doubltree, and that the Pentagon is approximately another 1,350 feet beyond the nearest point of the overpass along the direct sightline.

To illustrate:


(CLICK FOR FULL SIZE IMAGE)

Please excuse the crudity of the image above, but it is to scale with 1 pixel equal to 2 feet.

The Green box in the lower left corner represents the Doubltree's camera, which I also earlier estimated to be approximately 10 feet off the ground.
The Blue rectangle indicates the Hwy. 395 overpass (which is roughly 300 - 400 feet wide around the point indicated, I have represented it as being 350 feet wide as a compromise)
The Red rectangle represents the Pentagon, which we know to be 77 feet tall. I have represented it as being 78 feet in the illustration for convenience.
The Yellow area indicates the area behind the Overpass that would be blocked from the Doubletree camera's view.

As you can see, the Pentagon is well within the blocked area.

Again the image above is a crude representation, and the measurements are made from Google Maps, so they may not be 100% accurate. But even if my estimations are grossly out of line, the most you could possibly see would be the top few feet of the roof of the Pentagon, and that is only if the video footage was of sufficient quality to allow details that small to be clearly identified.

Quote

2. you can see the explosion

Completely agree.

Quote

3. you cannot see any airplane

Completely agree.

Quote

This means that the aircraft must have flown at an altitude of (approx) 100-150 feet off the ground, whilst flying over the "spaghetti" junction, which itself must be at least 30-40 feet of the ground.

As I indicated in my previous post about this, the Columbia Pike cloverleaf interchange (the "spaghetti" junction, as you call it) that Flt. 77 flew over is at ground level although it does follow the elevating contour of the ground to meet Route 27. This can be shown by using the Street View option in Google Maps.

Route 27, which crosses over the Columbia Pike is elevated roughly 20 - 25 feet. This can be shown by using the Street View option in Google Maps, and estimations of the Route 27 overpass can be made based on known or knowable heights of objects shown in the Street View.

Hwy 395 also passes over Route 27 just a little bit south of the cloverleaf. Again, all of this is easily seen by anyone who knows how to use Google Maps Street View.

Flt. 77's approach is known to be on the west side of Hwy. 395. For Flt 77 to have hit the light poles that are on Hwy 27, it would only have to be about 10 feet above Route 27 which would put it at roughly 30 - 40 above ground level. That is low enough for it to have been blocked from the Doubletree camera's view, the same way that the Pentagon is blocked from its view.







Cz

[booNyzarC]

booNyzarC, on 23 August 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

bee, on 23 August 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

see the black lines I've drawn in.......THAT angle


the Traffic Cam 'plane' fuselage...does not show the necessary angle...to have the engine so far back.




http://www.airliners...66855b8d14c505b

.

bee, the images can be rotated as well, so that the angle isn't as you've shown.  Which is what I would do after I've found a good match for the expected perspective.  I probably should have clarified that as well when I gave you the list this morning, but I was a bit rushed to get out the door.

And just to clarify, when I say 'rotated' I basically mean this:

 1720541smallrotated.jpg   46.01K   4 downloads

Though I would probably cut the plane out as well, to superimpose upon the background as comparison, similar to one of the GIFs that frenat showed earlier.

The whole point being to represent the actual perspective as close to accurately as possible.

Does that make sense?

[bee]

booNyzarC, on 23 August 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

And just to clarify, when I say 'rotated' I basically mean this:

1720541smallrotated.jpg

Though I would probably cut the plane out as well, to superimpose upon the background as comparison, similar to one of the GIFs that frenat showed earlier.

The whole point being to represent the actual perspective as close to accurately as possible.

Does that make sense?

booN...you're having a laugh aren't you...?

no it doesn't make sense

you can't just rotate the PICTURE to get the plane how you want it to be....

and create a slope where there wasn't one before.

I think you are trying to bamboozle us.... naughty you....


but it's late where I am so that's all for now....


cheers





.

[Little Fish]

booNyzarC, on 06 July 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

Argument from Incredulity.  Argument from Ignorance.

do you believe a passport from the hijacker survived the impact and fireball to find its way to the street and then was picked up amongst the mess to be handed in to the fbi? is that what you believe?

[Czero 101]

Little Fish, on 24 August 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

do you believe a passport from the hijacker survived the impact and fireball to find its way to the street and then was picked up amongst the mess to be handed in to the fbi? is that what you believe?

Are you saying its not possible for the passport to have survived the impact and resulting fireball? Is it your contention that this is not possible, or without precedent for small paper items to survive catastrophic disasters...?





Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 24 August 2012 - 01:10 AM.

[skyeagle409]

bee, on 23 August 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

Under the circumstances......ie.millions of people believing the US government committed mass murder and high treason
against it's own citizens...I think it is required....

I have to disagree. Are videos of Pan Am 103 or TWA 800 available? We have videos of United 175 striking WTC2, but can you read its tail number?

Let's begin here:

1. We have photo evidence at the Pentagon of B-757 wreckage

http://www.aerospace...acy/q0290.shtml

http://www.aerospace...acy/q0265.shtml


2. We have black box data from American 77




3. We have evidence from passengers and crew of American 77.

http://911research.w...cs/Flight77.png

File:FirstFloor_Pentagon_Bodies.png

http://www.911myths...._Manifest_a.jpg

http://www.911myths...._Manifest_b.jpg

4. We have the confirmation on the loss of American77 by American Airlines.



5. And fleet  history of American Airlines, which depict the loss of American 11 and American 77

http://www.planespot...erican-Airlines

6. Flight path depiction of American 77.

American Airlines Flight 77

Since we know that American 77 used the Rolls-Royce RB11, investigators can follow-up on flight, maintenance, and replacement histories of the powerplants used by American 77, which is important because each engine can be tracked using its own identification number and only a certain number of those engines were built, so it is just a matter of using the 'process of elimination' to identify the engines recovered at the Pentagon. Let's use the following example. We have four engines, each painted a different color.

1. Red
2. Brown
3. Green
4. Blue

If an engine is missing and the red, green, and blue engines are accounted for, which engine is missing? We can also use B-757 airframes as well since only a certain number of B-757-200 models were built. In most cases, videos are not available in aircraft accidents. How was it determined this was the crash site of PSA 1771?

Quote

Sky....are there any bits of debris you can show that has been 100% identified as being flight 77...with the numbers on them?
and I mean 100%

No, but, there are ways I can determine the aircraft was American 77, and it only took me a few minutes to track down the first aircraft I've even flown, and that was back in 1969. That aircraft is now based in the State of Washington.

[Little Fish]

Czero 101, on 24 August 2012 - 01:09 AM, said:

Are you saying its not possible for the passport to have survived the impact and resulting fireball? Is it your contention that this is not possible, or without precedent for small paper items to survive catastrophic disasters...?

what about you?
do you believe a passport from the hijacker survived the impact and fireball to find its way to the street and then was picked up amongst the mess to be handed in to the fbi? is that what you believe?

[booNyzarC]

Little Fish, on 24 August 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

do you believe a passport from the hijacker survived the impact and fireball to find its way to the street and then was picked up amongst the mess to be handed in to the fbi? is that what you believe?

That would be what the evidence we have appears to support and I don't see any reason to doubt it.

Why do you ask?

[skyeagle409]

Little Fish, on 24 August 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

do you believe a passport from the hijacker survived the impact and fireball to find its way to the street and then was picked up amongst the mess to be handed in to the fbi? is that what you believe?

Suqami's Visa recovered from crash site



About the next terrorist

Abdulaziz al-Omari











http://www.911myths....ulaziz_al-Omari

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 August 2012 - 02:11 AM.