That Zogby poll was specific to New York. However, a new nationwide zogby poll done in 2007 has this to say:
People who believe:
Official story: 63.6%
Let it happen: 26.4%
Made it happen: 4.6%
NS (I'm guessing Not Sure): 5.6%
http://www.911truth.org/images/ZogbyPoll2007.pdf
So a minority of people interested to answer the poll believe it. Now it bears mentioning that this, also, is the problem. It only took a minority of interested Germans to bring about the
Beer Putsch and, ultimately,
Krystallnacht against the opposing, but passive will of the majority of Germans. This is where the emotion-based arguments of the Troofer movement is headed.
The 2004 article also includes some information from other countries:
*********************************************
W. David Kubiak, executive director of 911truth.org, the group that commissioned the poll, expressed genuine surprise that New Yorkers' belief in the administration's complicity is as high or higher than that seen overseas. "We're familiar with high levels of 9/11 skepticism abroad where there has been open debate of the evidence for US government complicity. On May 26th the Toronto Star reported a national poll showing that 63% of Canadians are also convinced US leaders had 'prior knowledge' of the attacks yet declined to act.
I've lived in Canada, and I hate to say this...but Canadians are extraordinarily gullible and led about by neoleftism to a degree I don't think would be possible elsewhere. As a
genuine communist, this frightens me to no end. They are - with exceptions - uncritical, disinterested, politically ignorant and browbeaten; there is almost a feeling of satisfaction in Canadian teenagers at being ignorant of the world around them excepting the mall. No one questions the questioners, because it's seen psychologically as "rocking the boat" - a colonial leftover that hangs over them still. I feel genuinely sorry for Canada, because it's going down a long, irrevocable road to hell on earth.
Not that everyone else isn't, of course.
Yeah, "might" tends to mean it's a supposition.
Then there we are.
How about you give me some theories on a better approach? Or are you all talk ;-)?
Simple. Right off the top of my head, the first thing that occurs is a proper bomb in the basement foundations. It would be simpler, it would be more certain, and conventional materials could be used since the entire affair would appear as an 'actual' terrorism attack. More stuff could be delivered - and if you actually think that the Bushies opened up every little wall and planted explosives in WTC 1 and 2 and 7 and all the others without anyone at all noticing, then you must agree that it would be as easy or in actuality far, far easier to do - planted in complete security - merely throw a "Construction in progress" sign across the basement entrance - and bang, done. Whole truckloads of materials could be delivered, the guards claimed to be dead or bought off, and the buildings destroyed outright (not hit and then left standing while Troofers gathered to gibber at the moon) from the get-go.
What the Troof movement has done is paint an unrealistic picture of a scenario they
wish could have happened, since, as we all know (yes, yes,
we get it) they really, really hate Bush and federal drinking age restrictions, and also no-coupon days at Urban Outfitters. But it isn't
real. It's a fantasy concocted by bitter extremists and wannabe-prophets (like the Un-Reverend Griffin and the equally Un-Reverend Jones) who think they can springboard massive political change ("Political Loose Change"? hehe) on a transparent lie, if only they yell loud enough. And kudos to them for thinking that, because history bears out that a loud, vicious minority can sometimes impose its will on a more vast but timid majority,
a la Krystallnacht. For those of us who
remember history, however, and its consequences, this is a damning, damning foolish movement, and it might have consequences for us all.
David Ray Griffin has written 4 books on 9/11, something neither you or I have done.
Argument from false authority. He is a priest. (Does he want to be a Kingpriest?)
Anyway, I sincerely believe that your theory is essentially what the pancake theory is.
Then outline how my theory is impossible
in your own words, please. I only chase down so many pdfs if the other side won't even do me the courtesy of reading my material in fairness, as you admit below.
Can you cite an example of your claim?
1. The melted steel bridge in California.
2. The explosion of transformers to account for the bangs heard by witnesses.
3. The destruction of the machine listed for no apparent, logical reason. (You realize they were trying to knock the building down, not making guerilla war on the World Trade Center, I hope.)
4. The difficulties of actually planting explosives in any of the buildings. How, for instance, did they predict with such startling accuracy the massive fire in WTC7 caused by burning debris?
5. The failure of Jones to produce any actual evidence of molten metal at WTC 7. Has he no photos, nothing at all?
6. The failure of thermite charges to cause smouldering.
Your contribution in this argument is one of
belief, not reason. We are attempting to show you the fallibility of your god, but you prefer not to hear it, and have even resorted to disingenuousness, which shocks and appalls me.
I disagree; I think the simplest explanation is that explosives were used. Because -no one- believes that explosives couldn't have taken down the building and so far the only argument against this that I've heard the government mention is that 'experts' say it can't be so. The american people deserve better then to be high browed by so called experts.
First you demand expert opinions, then you dismiss their importance, taking the word instead of a
theologian. Which is it you want? I have no idea how a sensible person can continue to believe in this.
And, no, the simplest explanation is not explosives. That would require
substantially, massively greater levels of intrigue on the part of the Americans, and you know it. Let's cast aside pretense, here.
I admit that one currently has me stumped. But while this may make me ponder how that steel melted, it seems clear that this is -not- what happened on 9/11.
Then you will be so good as to illustrate in what way the effects of massive amounts of burning gasoline on steel differ from those of massive amounts of burning gasoline on steel, please. This is twice I've had to ask you about this.
God, I just love my counter to that one
..
This one is far better, trust me.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
But there's the
love thing - a statement of emotional belief, not factuality. Freud, are you home?
From Zeitgeist, sometime after minute 50:
*****************************************
Dr. Steven Jones:
"I started looking at the molten metal. All 3 buildings, both towers, in the rubble, in the basement areas, and building 7, there's these pools of molten metal."
For well over 6 weeks after the collapse, hot spots of over 2000F were documented in the debris.
*****************************************
You'll forgive me, but this is mere happenstance eyewitness testimony. You've already denounced eyewitness testimony. I would be - quite factually - happy to accept your pronouncement on molten steel at WTC 7, but I would need firsthand corroboration from some other sources. I believe there probably
was molten steel at WTC 7, but I can't run around taking Jones' word for it. He's a guy who doesn't believe in third-party investigation.
Ok, that's for the melted steel issue for now (perhaps I'll find an explanation soon), but there are still lots of other issues.
Your entire defense of Trooferism has
depended to this point on molten steel. Without it, there is no argument. We cannot now simply push the matter aside because you've hit a troubling spot. We require conclusion, or retraction. Which will you do?
Personal statements are great. Unfortunately, some are indeed afraid of losing their job and so may remain silent. Some have actually been fired for what clearly seem to be sinister reasons as well. -However- in the case you mention, the experts are on the government's side. Far from going against the powers suppressing unwanted information, they're agreeing with them. Perhaps what they're afraid of is losing credibility in the community once their so called expert advice turns out to be so nonsense, as seems to be the case with certain elements of NIST's reports.
Minus the supposition about suppression, is Steve Jones' report on WTC 7 and thermite then also subject to the same fear of loss of credibility? Obviously, yes. He cannot now back down, and he knows it.
That's Brigham Young University. And why is it that you hold such contempt for said university?
I hold contempt for
Bring Em Young for the reason that it is located in the midst of a large, festering community of the arguably insane, and speciously malevolent towards the rest of the nation. It's difficult to take anyone seriously who comes from a university run by people who propose to "
bleed the Beast", "
Beast" being Mormonic for "
everyone else".
What do you mean by 'a note of caution for truthers'?
Because in their claims of suppression and oppression (which may or may not be true, but in every case springing from the horror of the wiser mind at sheer gullibility) they seek in their revolutionary zeal to impose the same on the rest of us. It is the classic tyranny of the revolution;
silence the opposing voices, so that none may challenge our rubric so dearly held. When someone else speaks, chant them down. Intimidate the masses so they will adhere to our slogan without thought. And so forth.
I'll grant you one other possibility from trying to cover up the idea that fires didn't do it; they thought that perhaps the fires -did- do it and that perhaps they had properly tested the metal of the building and they didn't want this possibility to be investigated. Is this what you had in mind?
Not in the slightest. My point was that he spoke on the record while being a member of an firm that had concluded otherwise. As I said, it's deplorable and definitely should be litigiable (and I would encourage this, frankly, within its proper context), but isn't necessarily conspiratorial.
The title itself is offensive. I had thought of not watching it at all, but I managed to stomach 4 minutes before realizing it was a waste.
Because it contradicted your basic tenets; yes, I know.
Within the first 4 minutes I heard enough falsehoods to draw the conclusion that the rest wouldn't be worth the trouble.
In a word:
absurd. I would add: narrowminded. You are proving the position I accused Troofers of: intolerance of dissenting opinion. This is an example of the virulence and anger of the 'movement'. If you were genuinely interested in learning the truth, you'd watch it
all, much as I watched the ridiculous
Loose Change. I didn't agree with it, I could see every diversion and deception, but I watched it all the same out of respect of the other side. Can you say the same?
Prove your words, Scott. Prove you want to be objective about 9/11. There's hope for you yet if you're really interested in an answer to the mystery - and sometimes answers are "no".
Best regards,
SP
