MSNBC TV Asks About U.S. Involvement in 9/11 in Question of the Day Poll

Do you believe any 9/11 conspiracy theories that indicate the U.S. government was involved? - MSNBC TV

Jay sent in this poll posted as 'MSNBC TV Question of the Day' for today. At first I thought this was the same poll as this one (direct link), but after noticing the vote counts it appears this is indeed a different poll.

One that says 58% believe the U.S. Government was involved, the other 52%. Interesting.

So, get on over and vote if you haven't.

Thanks Jay for the heads up!

63,000 votes in the original

I believe JEWS were

I believe JEWS were involved. Not the "government", "illuminati", or "freemasons.

Silverstein, Dancing Israelis, Clean Break, New "Perle" Harbor. Where's all the evidence that rich white WASPS did it for money and oil?

There is none, you scumbags can get away with defaming Anglo-Saxons, those are the rules the jews set up. They at least have an anti defamation league.

If you were going to pull of 9/11, would you even TELL mentally retarded, inbred (as many jews are) George Bush??

Everyone reading this needs to know that every sight not pointing out the jew connection to 9/11 is a co-conspirator.

For an "illuminati" "freemasons" "Romans" did it - free zone, where honest men tell the whole truth, visit

Sick of the vile anti-white hatred of the jew controlled media? Free your mind.

Stop spewing your crap,

Stop spewing your crap, no-one here is interested in hearing it.

Wow, over and over again the

Wow, over and over again the polls are in our favor! I'm suprised they haven't rigged one of these polls yet...or maybe they have.


Been reading 911blogger for a while, first post.

I was able to vote on this the first time, and now I cannot vote, even though they reset the counter...

Seems like rigging to me.

Yeah Janus...

I noticed the same thing. This poll was up over 50,000 yesterday. I've got screen shots to proove it. Now its back down in the 30,000's. Has MSNBC turned over their polls to Diebold?

Something smells fishy.

they are 2 different polls

they are 2 different polls right? one shows one amount of votes, the other another amount of votes..

here are the links:

Huh, how about that?

Both of them seem to be showing very similiar results. Fascinating!

If you want to rig the votes

If you want to rig the votes just clear your browser cookies, this will let you vote again and again and again thus skewing the results. I wouldn't do this.

That doesn't work

Try it out, it definatly doesn't work. The page reloads with the poll, but your vote will not be re-entered, they log the IP's of the votes...

Oh, I was hoping for that.

Oh, I was hoping for that.

some theories/ questions I have

pretty suprising results....

I have a couple of theories that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere so I thought I'd put them here in case anyone finds them useful:

1. Why didn't they use a real plane at the pentagon? Is it possible that the hijackers of flight 93 became "rogue" and so the pentagon strike was improvised with a missle instead? Perhaps flight 93 had a different intended purpose altogether?

2. The guy in charge of the air traffic control in NY is listed on the net as ex-military, and he is in Iraq helping them rebuild the airports there.

3. I find it suspicious that the French videographer making the film about the firefighters (seen on tv tonight) was right there and captured the first impact. They were out on a "gas" call, in perfect view of the first hit.. The "gas" call was for a street vent gas leak. I'm assuming some "civiliarn" called in concern about gas coming from a street vent. I wonder who called that in?

In defense of the official story, it would be fair to ask ourselves these questions:
1. Why not just blow up the towers with bombs at the base of the towers? why take all this risk and do all this planning and execution?
2. Why not use a real plane at the pentagon?
3. I'm still not convinced the towers were demolished with explosives... The weight of the top 10 floors upon damaged cores would have to be considered. I haven't heard anyone mention that the cores were just single stories each end on end. All the pictures I saw had them connected with 4 bolts. Wouldn't these bolts snap like twigs from the massive falling weight from above? Granted, the empire state building didn't fall when struck with a plane... but from photos I've seen of it being built (empire state), it was built like a tank (kind of like they used to build the old cars)... They probably got really efficient in their designs later and skimped.. Just being fair here. The pictures of the WTC1 collapse look like it starts to fail right at the impact point. Not above (assuming they had explosives on every floor). How could they hope that their explosives there would not be compromised by the impact. Then they would have had to have the collapse begin lower and that would have looked bad... Hmmm. I guess I'm still not convinced. It's all quite puzzling.

- A real plane may have hit

- A real plane may have hit the Pentagon. A smaller drone may have have hit the pentagon. A missile may have hit the pentagon. There may have bee been a flyover of a 757. Perhaps some combination of all of these.

- A missile or smaller drone/missile would be a lot more precise than a massive 757 flying at 500 mph. Don't forget that some of the perps were INSIDE THE BUILDING. Damage had to be kept to a minimum. They would have needed the strike to be razor-sharp in its accuracy in order to hit the rennovation wing and take out book-keepers who were pouring over the missing trillians.

- The most important issue with respect the Pentagon is how is was able to be struck in the first place, that and Hani's flying skills.

- I also find the Naudet presence at Ground Zero suspicious. Perhaps they were working for French Intelligence.

- Re: explosives. Others can address your arguments, but you ommitted mention of WTC7.

- My opinion is that the physical evidence should take a back seat to issues like war games, able danger, put-options, Dancing Israelis, Norad stand-down, drugs, pipelines, PNAC and so on.

WTC7 & motivational evidence vs. physical evidence

Regarding WTC7: To be fair I would have to say it did seem to lurch forward in the upper left corner a bit before it collapsed. I know there was damage on one of the corners of WTC7 from one of the towers falling (not sure if that corner). I'm not a physicist but I wonder if all that weight wouldn't prefer to fall straight down once one of the corners was comprimised... wouldn't it take quit a bit of horizontal/anti-gravity motion first to get it to fall over? I'm just postulating (with no scientific knowledge mind you) that maybe the lurch caused the rest of the base to "crack" and it dropped?

It seems odd that silverstein would be so foolish to allow himself to be interviewed and let it slip out that he said to "pull it" (which he obviously did) if it is true that they went to all the trouble to prep it and the towers. I would think he'd be extremely careful. Plus, why would he be the one to give the order? And why would they wait 9 hours to drop it? Why not within 2 hours? Surely they didn't run in and place explosives after the towers collapsed? I guess that's possible but it seems awfully risky and dangerous given the environment at the time. Or maybe his comment was intentional to distort the truth by exposing the truth (i.e. why would they admit it?)... actually, that tends to be their typical way of doing things now that I think about it. Plus, the whole brother bush owning the security company (presumably), silverstein getting the lease and the billions in insurance, and the power outs and unusual maintenence in the month prior all seem extremely damning.

I agree about the motives vs. the physical evidence. But it's difficult to ignore the physical evidence. For me, it really boils down to it taking the fighter jets like two hours to respond. Actually, in some ways it's a grandiose coverup... provide so very much circumstantial evidence that it becomes overwhelming to grasp it all...

this is one attempt at

this is one attempt at listing all the coincidences:

Re Naudet Brothers' Film

If you haven't already checked it out, here's a good breakdown of just how "lucky" the Naudet brothers were to be in the right place at the right time.

On the other hand, I'll take this documentary any day over "Path to Idiocy." There was some new footage in it tonight, and an emphasis I don't recall from seeing it before, on the way human remains (God rest their souls) were for the most part completely dismembered. One firefighter refers to the roof of one of the nearby buildings, saying it was just covered with body parts. Another anomalous result of a supposedly "gravity driven" collapse -- er, I mean, "pancaking."

CBS also let those guys say fuck approximately once per minute without bleeping them, which I found completely appropriate.

Rob, allow me to address

Rob, allow me to address your questions.

I take a slightly different approach than a lot of truthers.

I believe the real planes hit the towers and pentagon, with the hijackers and passengers on board.
I fully believe the al Qaeda hijackers were merely being used by Pakistan by way of the US just like old times.
A slight possibility Pakistan concieved of the attacks and told the US to allow it, but theres proof that the ISI funded and controlled 9/11 with American money. Thats your smoking gun. Video Google 9/11 Press For Truth, as it totally shows the Pakistani ISI involvement, which IS the smoking gun.

If you can prove that Pakistan controlled the all too willing hijackers by way of the US, thats MIHOP. You dont need any other angles or speculation.

I am not convinced that explosives brought down the towers, however I am rivetted by the documentaries and legitimate facts truthers bring forth. I believe its *possible* there WAS explosives planted, but that ultimate the weight of the tops were what felled the towers. I think that vans with explosives may have been going off seconds before each crash.

WTC7...well, a federal judge in Con Edison versus Silverstein Properties RULED that the diesel fuel tank did not cause the collapse. We know that the ISI used Standard Chartered Bank to fund the hijackers, and Standard Chartered Bank was housed in WTC7. We know Jerry Hauer was one of the main OEM bunker guys, and also send Oneil to die at the wtc on 9/11 AND was good friends with the anthrax guy.

I believe fully that flight 11, 175, and 77 were electronicly hijacked and flown into their targets to prepositioned spots. THIS would account WHY the CEOs of Fudiciary Trust and MArsh Mclenin were absent, why unusual put options were placed on those two companies...the two companies EXACTLY where the planes hit...and why the plane hit the renovated part of the pentagon WHILE HAVING proof the hijackers were on it via the burned ID's found.

Hope this helps answer some questions.

I believe Flight 93 plunged into a deep mine shaft covered in light soil, but not before parts broke off either from a bomb or some other reason.

As for the Naudet 9/11, I

As for the Naudet 9/11, I believe fully that the guy who called in the fake gas leak was in on 9/11 or had advance knowlege knowing the film crew would come...and the person who locked the roof doors of the wtc was in on it.

For me the smoking guns of 9/11 are:

Pakistani ISI( US --> ISI ---> al Qaeda patsies)
NORAD war game intentional confusion
Able Danger
Where the planes hit the towers and pentagon
"Angel is Next" air force one threat
the total obstruction of the FBI
Forcing Saudi embassy heads to allow the hijackers into America
Allowing Osama to be rescued out by Pakistan
the anthrax coming from the government
the low occupancy of the four flights
Mossad shadowing the hijackers in Florida
Kepping Bush in the classroom

Just stating personal

Just stating personal hypotheses here.

1. Apart from the obvious problem of making the approach with a large passenger plane, I believe the Pentagon's Kevlar-reinforced several feet thick concrete walls would have effectively resisted the aircraft, which could have compromised the meme of the extreme devastating potential of such an attack. After all, in case the Pentagon had just taken it, wouldn't it seem a little absurd that the towers were completely destroyed? SANDIA Labs once made an experiment wherein they crashed an F4 Phantom into a concrete wall specified for reactor housings, with the result I would expect at the Pentagon.

3. There is exhaustive research and theorizing on, but you've already been pointed to that.


1. Remember that in `93, this was attempted, albeit unsuccesfully. I'm not sure if a more sophisticated attack of this kind, i.e. one implementing cutting charges and the like instead of truckbombs, wouldn't have stretched the imagination more than the 9/11 plot. As it was, it's been credible for years for most people. The initial plane impacts had the added benefit of complete public and medial attention before the final fireworks.

3. Not sure I understand your first point about the "cores" being "single stories each end on end", please elaborate. Concerning the explosives, it's completely plausible that the charges affected by the impacts retained their functionality. Thermite needs about 4000°F to ignite and high explosives such as C4 are so inert that you can shoot them with rifles or throw them into a fire without igniting. C4 will burn, however.

Another Convenient Coincident

I just watched the Naudet film again:

I noticed something unusual.

When shooting film, an experienced cameraman usually adjusts the camera focus to be appropriate for his subject, in this case it would have been the firemen. So the focus would logically have been set to ten or fifteen feet, the distance to the firemen. If the towers were the real subject, the focus would have been set to infinity or just a little bit shy of infinity.

After the airplane passes overhead, the camera swish pans to the towers, then snap zooms all the way in after the hit. The picture is completely in focus as it zooms into the fireball. There is no indication of any adjustments to the focus during the zoom or after the zoom had finished. It appears that the camera was pre focused on the towers, not on the firemen, before the airplane hit.

It could well be that the cameraman was inexperenced and had his focus set to infinity while shooting the firemen, because when a camera is at maximum zoom out, focus in not that critical, but when zoomed completely in, focus is very critical. It could also have been that the cameraman was very experienced and at the end of the swish pan, he racked his focus to infinity before he zoomed in. This could be determined with an analysis of the original film. I'm not sure it can be detected in a video copy.

Think of it this way, when's the last time you were using a video camera fully zoomed out and then you zoomed completely into something different and the picture was completely in focus without adjustment or pre positioned focus?

As a former professional TV camera man...

... I can affirm your statement. If you do a shot like that, you have to focus on the most distant subject, before you can do a pan shot. There is clearly something fishy with the Naudet brothers.

Very good read about the Naudet footage

This poll must have been

This poll must have been getting to much attention. It has swapped out.

There's a different poll there now...

They changed the poll. Now it's about whether or not we're being properly protected by our big daddy government.

Poll results 59% vs. 36% - 63K votes - Wow!

I think the Truth Movement has definitely gotten the word out, otherwise the figures would be different. I mean, that is a very revealing poll. People are definitely hip to the 9/11 truth movement and agree wtih it - as the majority! We're not in the minority according to these polls.

Cheryl M - San Francisco, CA