Recent Headlines
Vice President Biden receives Thermitic Material paper
Much Of 9/11 Commission's Findings Cite Intelligence Garnered By Torture
First Eleventh of the Month Action in Wales
Pipeline-Istan by Pepe Escobar
Daniel Sunjata: Intellectual Dishonesty In The Age Of Universal Deceit...
Pardon Our Dust, or, Why the World Trade Center Dust Matters
Richard Gage Interviews Architects at AIA Convention, April 30, 2009
Marie-Paule Pileni (Bentham Open) and nano-technology
New Version of "Loose Change" on the Way
Pre-9/11 GPS "Aerial Navigation Corridors"
Fujita Gets Great Japanese Support
On the Torture Memos
No CIA/FBI "Wall"
Project Censored: Deconstructing Deceit
Turner Construction and NAVSEA
Lee Hamilton's Loose Grip on Moussaoui
Staged Terrorism Exposed in German Press
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Recent Media
Richard Gage AIA on KMPH Fox 26 in Fresno, CA
AE911Truth “Companion” Edition 10-Minute WTC 7 Video Online
AUDIO: Visibility 9-11 Welcomes John-Michael Talboo and Stewart Bradley of Debunking the Debunkers
VIDEO: Dutch TV Show Finds Osama Not Guilty of 9/11
VIDEO: Luke Rudkowski on Russia Today
VIDEO: Truth Action Ottawa 9/11 Truth At Willie Nelson Concert
AUDIO: Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Kevin Ryan and Dr. Steven E. Jones
AUDIO: Kevin Ryan on KPFK - 4.6.2009
VIDEO: Colbert tears into Glenn Beck's "9/12" Project
VIDEO: George Galloway on CBC's "The Hour"
VIDEO: Three Weeks In September A 9/11 First Responder Documentary Summer 2009
VIDEO: Would You Accept This?
VIDEO: The Art of Tabling
Action Items
Help Force Congress To Observe the Law on National Emergencies!
Ask A Lawyer to Join Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
New ACTIVATE Action Alert Tool at Visibility911.com
The Eleventh Day of Every Month
Support 9/11 First Responders
9/11 Email
Pledge: No False Flags or Martial Law
Blogads
Blogads
Asbestos Dangers

Mesothelioma is a dreaded cancer that is nearly always caused by just one factor: asbestos exposure.
FACT: Family members of those who are regularly exposed to high levels of asbestos also have a high risk of developing malignant mesothelioma.
Get the news, get the facts.
Banner Exchange
User login
9/11 Regional Sites
9/11 Related Sites
911Research.WTC7.net
911review.com
911proof.com
911Truth.org
truthmove.org
911pressfortruth.com
patriotsquestion911.com
911revisited.com
william911.com
Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission
International Citizens' Inquiry Into 9/11
truthaction.org
911readingroom.org
9eleven.info
tyrannyalert.com
universalseed.org
deceptiondollar.com
legitgov.org
911omissionreport.com
timetowakeup.net
911tv.org
grandtheftcountry.com
Youth for 9/11 Truth
truth911.net
justacitizen.com
MartialLaw911.info
911truestory.com
911sharethetruth.com
wanttoknow.info
explosive911analysis.com
flight93crash.com
911bookshelf.com
summeroftruth.org
supportthetruth.com
mime11.com
physics911.net
911docs.net
nw0.info
investigate911.com
theultimateconspiracy.com
9/11 International Sites
torontochange.com
911sandhed.nu
www.i11time.dk
investigar11s.org
911truth.no
911belgium.be
v911truth.org
stoplying.ca
911truth.eu
911truthpeterborough.com
luogocomune.net
911info.se
1192001.dk
11syyskuu.org
serendipity.li
eqgen.nl/aanslagen911
onderzoek911.nl
waarheid911.nl
zapruder.nl
911truthbristol.com
911truthtotnes.com
september11.se
vaken.se
911oz.com
nineeleven.co.uk
hintergrund.de
broeckers.com
thecoop.tv
operation911.de
medienanalyse-international.de
911komplott.de
deepjournal.com
truth4peace.co.uk
911truthskipton.com
wytruth.org.uk
reopen911.info
editionsdemilune.com
cremationofcare.com
Investigate 9/11
9/11 Truth Europe
911.yweb.sk
9/11 Memorial Sites
9/11 Poll Results: 2002-2006
As previously reported, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11.
We've also discussed results for the same poll as conducted in May 2002. I have also located results for the same poll from May 2004 (see page 28).
So here are the side-by-side results of the poll for 2002, 2004 and 2006 (the 2004 poll actually gives results for 3 different polling periods, in late March and early April 2004; for simplicity, I will just use the early April figures, which were taken right around the time of Richard Clarke's testimony to the 9/11 Commission):
|
May 2002 Telling 21% Hiding something 65% Mostly lying 8% Not Sure 6% |
May 2004 24% 56% 16% 4% |
Oct. 2006 16% 53% 28% 3%
|
So what do these results tell us?
Clearly, many Americans - 65% - believed right off the bat in spring 2002 that the government was hiding something. By spring 2004, that figure was reduced almost 10 percent by the 9/11 Commission's dog-and-pony show. The Americans who were only peripherally paying attention to the Commission's work believed that all questions about the attacks were being answered, and so the percentage of Americans who believed the government was telling the truth increased slightly, from 21% to 24%.
Interestingly, however, the percentage of people thinking the government was "mostly lying" doubled during that same period. So those paying attention to the facts and the actual substance of the testimony understood that the government was lying and whitewashing the 9/11 attacks.
Then by October 2006, the number of Americans who believe the government is mainly lying almost doubled again, to 28%. This is significant for a number of reasons. First, the 9/11 Commission Report has already been out for a long time. Second, the mainstream media has been defending that fairy tell for many years, calling anyone who questioned it a conspiracy nut case and -- as evidenced by Bill O'Reilly's attack on Jim Fetzer -- attempting to intimidate and harass 9/11 truthers. And third, the boys have spent untold amounts of money on psyops operations, likely including paying a bunch of desk-jockies to troll 9/11 truth discussions (such as those held at this site).
But still, the poll results show that the truth is winning out against the propaganda. Those who realize the government is lying about 9/11 has steadily risen, despite all of the bullying, disinformation, and "questioning 9/11 is unpatriotic" b.s. that has been spewed from every Orweillian talking box in the land.
The polls show that - if we re-double our efforts - we will win.
VIDEO: Bill Maher rips Charlie Sheen re 911
Bill Maher and panel
It is always curious to me why a Host and a panel of people take up a discussion on a subject they obviously know nothing about. Also there is nothing funny about the truth of this subject.
So what do these results tell us???
It tells us the Bush administration is ready for the
OT
Is Paul Thompson on the record endorsing MIHOP, LIHOP, etc?
Thanks in advance.
Last I heard...
...Thompson is a hardcore LIHOP, possibly a closet MIHOP.
Paul...
Doesn't put forward any theories, just facts. That is his mantra.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Example...
Paul would read an excerpt from the 9/11 Report...
I'm being Paul.
"The 9/11 Report says that the Secret Service didn't think it was important to run the President out of the school...
However, as you can see by these previous news reports...
April 2000, MSNBC reported, "They would move the President out of any dangerous situation as soon as possible, regardless of whether or not it was a photo-opportunity.
And on 9/10/2001, CNN reported that "The head of the President's security detail established that the protection of the President comes first, even if he's in a room full of school children."
Both stories are false, but you get the idea.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
I don't think it's necessary
I don't think it's necessary that Paul proclaim himself "LIHOP" or "MIHOP".
Simply documenting in detail the MSM's timeline is enough; it serves as an invaluable resource for all 911 researchers.
This is one of the things people have a problem with: the idea of division of labor.
There's a place for Paul, a place for Alex, a place for Tarpley, a place for Schoenman, a place for Scott, a place for Chomsky.
I included the last one just to bust your balls.
It's funny though, people give Greg Palast a pass even though he's been more hostile to 911 truth than Chomsky. Ditto all the right-libertarians at anti-war.com. Ditto all the liberals on TV, from Jon Stewart to what's his name on MSNBC.
I'm not saying Chomsky shouldn't be criticized -- I think he should -- but it's weird that people single him out while ignoring the fact that very few intellectuals have had the balls to come out in support of 91 truth.
They should ALL be criticized. At the same time, we shouldn't fall into the trap of "us vs. them".
Just my opinion.
I tell you what...
I have very little doubt that Paul Thompson has a better understanding of 9/11 than anyone. Almost to the point where he can probably tell us what happened.
However, that would be speculative, and that's what he tries to avoid.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Willard Scott?
I don't see how he helps. You don't need a weatherman...
Anyway, things become clearer as to who is for what as time goes on. It will be fun to watch some of the above try to justify their silence when the truth is more widely known. This is the kind of thing you NEVER let people forget.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Geez
Go scan over www.cooperativeresearch.org The Complete 911 timeline and tell me he doesn't help.
GEEZ!
We owe a huge debt to that guy for having the informatin to back up MIHOP, whether he is on record endorsing it or not.
Who said...
Paul doesn't help?
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
R.T., I don't disagree, and
R.T., I don't disagree, and that was Peter Dale, BTW.
LOL Willard Scott :)
LOL Willard Scott :)
I just had to comment on the
I just had to comment on the antiwar.com issue. I used to read them daily for about 4 years(3-6 hours a day). I literally read almost all the major headlines and issues relating to, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, South America, and the sections on the war at home. I feel that they did an excellent job of covering those issues. Any one who spent a large amount of time like I did would probably agree. In many cases there would be stories that the MSM would cover but at antiwar.com you could get more details about the story and as a result see how the MSM was spinning the story by changing the focus of the story, omitting information, or outright attacking other viewpoints. Antiwar.com has done an excellent job on those issues. Unfortunately, they bomb completely with regard to an unbiased presentation of 9/11 information. I have personally forwarded 9/11 documentation such as the very simple(high school level physics) speed of the collapses. I never recieved any response and those issues were not brought up by authors on the site.
It is unfortunate but those who decide what goes on the site are suffering cognitive dissonance on the 9/11 issue. I was astounded to find that they won't hardly touch the topic because it IS the biggest causal factor in the major US wars they are covering. Is that a sign of cognitive dissonance or what??? Needless to say I have switched to reading 9/11 related material in the manner I used to read the antiwar material. The antiwar material is great but unless the site owners are willing to take the blue pill and wake up they are wasting their time describing the post-9/11 effects. With out examining causal factors what is the point of looking at the effects? It's half of the story. The site has done a superb job documenting the actions of the PNAC crew and their motives hopefully they'll wake up and start to realize 9/11 WAS part of the PNAC agenda.
Here's to those of us willing to bite the bullet and face the harsh realities the world throws at us! Wake up Antiwar.com!
"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
antiwar.com
I have been reading antiwar.com for years and I have always contributed to their fundraisers but I've thought about it and I will not be contributing in the future. The disrespect for those who question the official version of 9/11 undermines Justin Raimondo's intellectual credibility, sorry to say.
It tells us nothing. The
Sorry to be so blunt but
Sorry to be so blunt but you're completely and utterly wrong. This is a poll of opinions not effects. There is no Independent Variable being manipulated by the pollsters. Opinions constantly change based on various factors. If you can't see the trends in these polls then I would recommend checking out, http://www.notrain-nogain.org/Train/Res/Num/how.asp or google "how do polls work".
"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
Coverage?
Has any MSM covered this????
The NYTimes, CBS---if it is their poll, what do they plan to do with the info if not to cover it???
The only coverage I've seen
is by Raw Story today:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Poll_53_say_Bush_Administration_hiding...
MSM Missing Again
yeah, i sw that too but I still don't understand why the NYT & CBS would have a poll conducted in the first place and then not use the results. Did they think the results would be different? What is the deal? Why would they risk the data getting out if the didn't intend on breaking the poll themselves? We need MSM to cover this MAINSTREAM MEDIA!!!! There are still honest, good people that just don't even know to question 911. Damn the MSM!
I never saw the 2002 or 2004
polls covered by the MSM either. Did anyone see them discussed back in the day?
Buzzflash
Digg also covered it....
Isn't this also coverage?
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/poll_only_16_percent_believe_gov...
This is good news, but let's
This is good news, but let's remember to keep it in context (a point on which we get nailed all the time). The question was:
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?
So, "only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/1" about what it knew before Sept. 11.
This is still huge, and is the crack that will open the flood gates. Let's just not overstate what it is not.
i know, the wording is
i know, the wording is terrible as usual. like i said, it always assumes too much and is usually pretty vague if its a major poll. still, with this poll, the recent South Park and usual Fox News 5 minutes of hate spots and the rash of hit pieces in recent months really makes me more hopeful than usual about this thing. and im probably the most cynical person on this board.
that is ok....
it shows a massive majority simply don't trust this administration when it comes to 9/11. They think they are lying and hiding info! That is good for truthers.








shut off italics.
damn, that was quick, haha.