http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=231

Link to Zogby’s poll

Loose Nuke - 06 June 2006 10:09 PM

Afraid to look at the unanswered questions, are you? http://www.911independentcommission.org . These were to be the “roadmap” for the Commission. These are questions that any normal person and police investigation ask. Why couldn’t the Commission give answers to 70% of these questions? What are they hiding?

Ummm. . .nowhere on that site can I see anything saying that 70% of those questions couldn’t be answered or weren’t answered by the Commission.

Loose Nuke - 06 June 2006 10:28 PM

“As you should damn well know, the big electronic voting machine companies are run by wingnuts.  The Diebold machines are designed for the specific purpose of being hacked.”

This statement is from perrylogan.org; if you can believe a conspiracy this massive exists, that the MSM is helping to coverup, what’s stopping you from critically examining the holes and lies that support the official 9/11 story?

Timeline made exlusively from mainstream sources. Type “alive hijackers” into the search bar- the nutjobs at the BBC, Wash Post, LA Times, ABC and a dozen or so other reported these and have never retracted them. The 9/11 Commission Report names the same 19, uses the same photos of people who were verified alive by agencies whose reputation is on the line. Yet, now, no MSM is discussing this anymore- just like they didn’t ask any questions after the 04 election results and the exit polls were wrong in a major way- though they almost never are when there isn’t fraud. Dick Morris stated that as evidence that the “liberal” coporate-owned media were trying to steal the election.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Sorry, but that post didn’t really make much sense at all, nor do I see how it really has anything to do with what were were talking about.

Loose Nuke - 06 June 2006 10:31 PM

http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=231

Link to Zogby’s poll

Yes, that gives a little information about the poll.  It still doesn’t mean anything, though.  Also, notice that according to the poll, there are more Americans who don’t think that there is a government cover-up than there are Americans who do.  Also, more Americans think the attacks were thoroughly investigated than don’t.  The one little statistic that you keep pulling out of there is just saying that many Americans feel that there are still unanswered questions.  Not that they don’t trust the Commission reports.

Thanks for the questions.

1) Check the “unanswered questions” section of http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html . 400 or so questions- the 70% figure comes from the activists who were monitoring the Commission who compared its final report to the original questions proposed. If you think the Commission couldn’t possibly have ignored so many questions, or that the media wouldn’t let them get away with it, check it out- as the Report for some reason doesn’t have an index, you can use the searchable one online at http://www.vivisimo.com . The Commission never would’ve happened w/o the persistent efforts of 9/11 victim’s family members- it took 14 months to form, was given only a few million dollars, later raised to 14 or so million, (Clinton’s blowjob got 70mil) the Executive Director was Bush insider Phillip Zelikow- he actually had to testify before his own Commission!, every Commission member had conflicts of interest- except the one who dropped out, Cleland, who called it a coverup, and half the staff did as well. Zelikow controlled what questions were asked and what evidence was looked at.
115 ommissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

2) “Sorry, but that post didn

Also about the poll- 43% unaware a 3rd building had collapsed, but almost 3 out of 4 of those who knew said it should’ve been investigated- obviously, as more people become aware of this, the number of people calling for a new investigation is going to increase, easily to 70%. Do you think it should’ve been investigated and covered in the Commission’s report? They didn’t even mention WTC 7. FEMA’s report said the diesel tanks in the basement probably caught fire and brought it down, but they also said that theory had “only a low probability of occurrence”. So why did the Commission omit it?

A 47 story steel-framed skyscraper collapsed completely. No steel-framed buildings have collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, even those who had fires that burned much hotter and longer- 24 hours in the case of a building in Madrid- http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150

Dr. Steven Jones’ paper
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

How’d molten metal get in the basement? The government’s reports admit the jet fuel fires weren’t hot enough to melt metal.

Loose Nuke - 06 June 2006 11:27 PM

1) Check the “unanswered questions” section of http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html . 400 or so questions- the 70% figure comes from the activists who were monitoring the Commission who compared its final report to the original questions proposed. If you think the Commission couldn’t possibly have ignored so many questions, or that the media wouldn’t let them get away with it, check it out- as the Report for some reason doesn’t have an index, you can use the searchable one online at http://www.vivisimo.com . The Commission never would’ve happened w/o the persistent efforts of 9/11 victim’s family members- it took 14 months to form, was given only a few million dollars, later raised to 14 or so million, (Clinton’s blowjob got 70mil) the Executive Director was Bush insider Phillip Zelikow- he actually had to testify before his own Commission!, every Commission member had conflicts of interest- except the one who dropped out, Cleland, who called it a coverup, and half the staff did as well. Zelikow controlled what questions were asked and what evidence was looked at.
115 ommissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

Hmm. . .on that “Unanswered Questions” page, it doesn’t say that the Commission didn’t answer those questions listed.  I took it to mean that those were questions that the people asked the Commission, since they didn’t have answers to them.  You’d think that if the FSC really had most of its questions ignored, it would have made a fuss.  But they seem fairly happy about most of the results, with one woman only saying that a few of the answers they received seem to have not had enough factual support.  They mentioned not having some questions answered only once in passing, and don’t seem to be raising any fuss at all about it.  After all, this is reality:  not every question can be fully answered.  They seem to have moved on to other things instead.  It’s other people who are claiming that there are problems with the Commission’s answers to the FSC’s questions.

Loose Nuke - 06 June 2006 11:38 PM

Also about the poll- 43% unaware a 3rd building had collapsed, but almost 3 out of 4 of those who knew said it should’ve been investigated- obviously, as more people become aware of this, the number of people calling for a new investigation is going to increase, easily to 70%. Do you think it should’ve been investigated and covered in the Commission’s report? They didn’t even mention WTC 7. FEMA’s report said the diesel tanks in the basement probably caught fire and brought it down, but they also said that theory had “only a low probability of occurrence”. So why did the Commission omit it?

Probably because they didn’t feel that they needed to.  Why ask me?  Try contacting somebody who has something to do with the Commission and ask them?

A 47 story steel-framed skyscraper collapsed completely. No steel-framed buildings have collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, even those who had fires that burned much hotter and longer- 24 hours in the case of a building in Madrid- http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150

But none of those other burning buildings were the World Trade Center.  Before the Wright brothers’ airplanes, no other heavier-than-air craft were very successful; does this mean that the Wright brothers’ couldn’t have been successful, either?  Or could it be that their airplanes had a different construction than the other ones did, and so had different properties?

Dr. Steven Jones’ paper
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Dr. Jones appears to be an astrophysicist and to specialise in metal-catalyzed fusion, archaeometry, and solar energy.  If we were arguing the collapse of a star into a neutron star, then he’d be a good source.  But what are his qualifications regarding collapsing buildings?

How’d molten metal get in the basement? The government’s reports admit the jet fuel fires weren’t hot enough to melt metal.

Well, there were plenty of reports of fires still burning in the rubble for a long time after the collapse.  A trapped, smouldering fire can easily reach up towards 1000

Excellent questions. If I don’t provide a link for something and you doubt it and would like verification, you can search the relevant key words or ask me- your questions seem sincere.

“Unanswered questions” means “unanswered questions”. The 9/11 Family Steering Committee came together from 12 9/11 family members who wanted accountability for the intelligence and defense failures without which 9/11 couldn’t have succeeded. While the final statement of the group is innocuous, the group disbanded at the end of the hearings. At the “1 year later” hearings held by McKinney, Lori Van Auken said, “One such statement was that 9 /11 was a failure of imagination: a failure of whose imagination? What exactly does that mean? When you have a CIA Director with his hair on fire, a system blinking red, 52 FAA warnings, an August 6, 2001 PDB entitled ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States,’’ leads on several 9 /11 hijackers..  warnings from many foreign governments, a Phoenix memo, warning of Islamic extremists taking flying lessons, the arrest of would-be terrorists Zacarias Moussaoui, facts imparted to one agent, Agent Frasca, at the RFU of the FBI, 9 /11 was truly a failure, all right, but I would certainly not call it a failure of imagination”.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query this is the link to the 9/11 search return, so you can check the hearings on Able Danger as well- Atta was identified a year before the attacks and considered a threat- several involved personnel have testifed and the Pentagon has attempted to destroy their careers and block the investigation. This is former FBI Director Louis Freeh’s statement on Able Danger and the 9/11 Commission.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007559

June 24, 2005, thru 9/11 Citizens Watch, the Jersey Girls released this statement:
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=577&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Of the 52% of Americans who knew WTC7 collapsed, 3 out of 4 think it should’ve been investigated- I’m one of them- I find it suspicious that the govt says fire collapsed a building with massive steel columns on the perimeter and 24 even bigger ones in the center, with redundant, asymetric cross trusses, engineered to support loads 5 times greater than it had to bear- collapsed it to the ground into its own footprint at almost free fall speed- without a miracle- or controlled demolition, which would mean 9/11 was an inside job. Watch video of WTC7 collapsing:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7 Look around this site- this is considered one of the most credible on controlled demolition by the biggest activists in the 9/11 Truth Movement. WTC 1 and 2 were just as solid, engineered to withstand multiple 707 crashes. They could’ve made mistakes in the design and construction, but many, many people looked at and signed off on it. Look at the pictures of the construction, and look at the videos of the collapse; what’s turning all that concrete and steel into a rapidly inflating dust cloud? They didn’t collapse, they were disintegrated. Then there’s all the Firemen and WTC employees who reported hearing, seeing and feeling explosions and the effects of explosions.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
http://911revisited.com/video.html

These things are more tangible than a scholar’s paper, but Dr. Jones has won over many intellectual people who are smart enough to weigh the data and methods he’s used. Check out his paper for pics and video of the molten metal pouring out of the side of one of the towers, if the molten metal found in the wreckage weeks later doesn’t make you suspicious.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

In my own opinioin, and that of a growing number of Americans who review what’s been told and not told about 9/11, there is an overwhelming prima facie case for a new investigation. And considering they lied and said “no one could’ve imagined” and there were “no specific warnings”, when it has since come out that there were lots of very specific warnings and clues building into a “summer of threat”- the word was all over the middle eastern community in NYC- 2 gradeschool boys told their classes the towers were coming down a week before the attacks. Then the air defense failures coincidentally happened on a day with numerous war games taking up resources and confusing the events, at least one of which had a scenario of hijacked planes crashing into the WTC and the Pentagon, etc. etc.- there is really no chance that it’s not an inside job. This means we are in the midst of a Constitutional crisis; the Republic has been hijacked and the powers of government are in the hands of mass murderers and Congress and the Media are complicit in covering it up. People have talked already, like former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, the most gagged person in American history, who has said the American people have not heard who the real culprit is behind 9/11.  Her allegations were confirmed by the FBI’s IG and the Joint Intel Committee investigation of 9/11, but she’s only a footnote in the Report; why did the Commission omit her testimony? In regards to Able Danger, they’ve said “it didn’t fit with the story we wanted to tell”.

THE TOP 40 REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

115 ommissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

Complete 9/11 Timeline- Mainstream sources, only.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

I wish that I had the time to research the details of these events without having to rely on indirect sources such as commision reports, experts, journalists, and conveyors and purveyors of these sources, such as those whose debates rage on sites such as this one.  I think that the best way for me to REALLY know what is going on “out there” is to be “in on it”.  There is simply no other ironclad way.  I would either have to be directly privy to the going-ons of those involved in such a way as to be effectively the same as them for purposes of what I know (like a mole would be), or I would have to actually be involved (perhaps with a mole looking over my shoulder).  Without recourse to either of these privileged sources of information, I must struggle to analyze and synthesize a wide array of information that must have gone through myriad distortions before reaching my experience, regardless of most interpretations I might take of it, many of which contain a sort of “distortion corrective” as part of their modus analyticus, if you will.

But let me say this: there tends to be a rampant disregard for epistemological limits on both sides of the issue.  There is also a disregard for decency, tact, dignity, rhetoric (in its proper sense), and an honest commitment to the truth.  Or to put it roughly in the local dialect, “None of you losers actually knows what the fuck you are talking about, and are too stupid to actually realize it, ever.”  But then again, if I actually said that and meant it, that would be mean.  It would be like some who say entire swaths of people they don’t know have 80 I.Q.s.  Alas, there can be no real parley, dialogue, exchange, mutual assistance and correction, or figuring out of anything with this kind of low-grade wrath-spewing.  It is like apes slinging their fecal matter at something their primitive psyches cannot withstand an exposure to.  Please.

I have some, if I may say so, brilliant approaches to the problems that even a brilliant mind would face (and would be capable of acknowledging it must face) in trying to interpret these and other world events, to include the events that transpire in the massive majority of peoples heads, as well as the special few who have “figured it out.”  I’m not to sure I would field them here.  I must complement the moderation on this site, however.  It seems that maturity and intelligence do roughly correlate with the number of little green squares under a picture.

Theorist - 11 June 2006 02:50 AM

I must complement the moderation on this site, however.  It seems that maturity and intelligence do roughly correlate with the number of little green squares under a picture.

Would it be too churlish of me to point out that you yourself only have the one?