Only 16% Think Government Telling the Truth about 9/11

[blogbart]

Here is the question and responses:

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?

• Telling the truth 16%
• Hiding something 53%
• Mostly lying 28%
• Not sure 3%"

Sourced from: Angus Reid

THe same questions were asked previously in and about April 2004 by NTY/CBS polling (Source: NYT) and produce the following chart:

Clearly, the "hiding something": and "telling the truth" (as well as "not sure") people are becoming converted into "mostly lying" people.

If you doubt the official 911 story, you are in the majority!

Below are more surveys indicating that many, if not a majority, of people in the US, and elsewhere doubt the official 911 story.

======================================
Toronto Radio Poll: 85% Of Canadians Believe 9/11 Inside Job
http://640toronto.com/station/corus_qod_poll.cfm?PollID=15087

======================================
Zogby Poll: Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66%
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

======================================
Over 70 Million American Adults Support New 9/11 Investigation
Poll results indicate 42% believe there has indeed been a cover up (with 10% unsure) and 45% think "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success" (with 8% unsure).
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=11269

======================================
June 2002 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll
Asked whether they blame the Bush administration for the attacks, 45 percent said either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount," up from 32 percent in a June 2002 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/11/911.poll/index.html

 

[wallyj]

This is a manipulation of statistics. I do not believe the gov't has released all the info they have on 9/11,but I do not think for even one second that they were behind it. What is happening here is the pollsters are lumping people with a healthy mistrust of gov't in with the Conspiracy Nuts . Quite disingenuous.

 

[Toro]

Of course, the conspiracists would like to think that simply because the government isn't telling us everything that it, of course, means the government was behind 9/11.

So silly.

 

[CDNBear]

Of course, the conspiracists would like to think that simply because the government isn't telling us everything that it, of course, means the government was behind 9/11.

So silly.

I know you won't like this Toro, but I do believe there is the possiblity that some factions may have turned a blind eye to what was staring them in the face, just for a reason to go to war. Kind of like my feelings about Pearl.

But that does not, a conspiracy make.

 

[Sassylassie]

I've developed a theory about the Conspirators regarding Conspiracy Theories anyone want to hear it?

Well pull up a chair, first they are Socialist yes you heard it here first. Baby Communist, their first step in spreading Socialism is: 1. Bring society to it's knees and make everyone Politically Correct in speech and manners, the truth be damn Politeness and vagueness will suffice. Step Two: Invent a set of Consperacies based on true events and spin a tale against the Reigning Government so horrific that half the public will believe it. Step Three: Install a new Government by using the "Vote", of Socialist of course, and then systematically take the publics Chartered Rights away from them one at a time. The public will be so grateful for the "States" monthly allowance (now called a paycheck) that they won't notice they are now Comrades not Citizens of Canada. Step 4: Have complete control of the Military to enforce the first three rules. Step 5: Assassinations of anyone opposing their Socialist views.

Why you ask-- do they want a proud Nation like Canada to become a Welfare State? Thank you for asking, I"ve noticed that "Some" (My Opinion only) Socialist think of themselves as Artists but they can't make it in Mainstream Music, Poetry, Penning Novels of great works of Art and such, they are mediocre painters, sculpters and modern artists so if they can enforce Socialism on Main Stream Society they can stay home get a monthly check never work a day in their lives and get paid for it. If you think I'm kidding think again I'm not. It's a pattern I've noticed on many forums, mostly Extreme Left leaning forums.

 

[MikeyDB]

Thanks for clearing all that up for us Sassy!

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...and then systematically take the publics Chartered Rights away from them one at a time...

Seems to me, based on the American experience of the last few years, that the political right is at least equally likely to behave that way. It's not really the left or the right that's the issue, it's people who believe they've got some kind of lock on truth and correctness. And they're everywhere, all over the political spectrum.

 

[blogbart]

intellectual honesty

wallyj This is a manipulation of statistics. I do not believe the gov't has released all the info they have on 9/11,but I do not think for even one second that they were behind it. What is happening here is the pollsters are lumping people with a healthy mistrust of gov't in with the Conspiracy Nuts . Quite disingenuous.

Nothing disingenous about this whatsoever, the questions in the NYT/CBS survey are quite clear. That people with different motives give the same reply doesn't make it invalid! The only differnce is that people with only a "healthy mistrust of gov't " won't go further and make more serious allegations. Please!

Toro Of course, the conspiracists would like to think that simply because the government isn't telling us everything that it, of course, means the government was behind 9/11.

The issue people like you should be concerned about is the issue of foreknowledge which is exactly what the NYT/CBS surveys illustrated in chart are about. For clarity's sake here is the question again:

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?

CDNBear but I do believe there is the possiblity that some factions may have turned a blind eye to what was staring them in the face, just for a reason to go to war ... But that does not, a conspiracy make

CDNBear is honest enough to acknowledge his doubts about foreknowledge and no shame in this, but it is pretty much in line with the survey results. Most people are concerned that the Bush Administration had foreknowledge of some type.

BTW, CDNBear you do not have to be afraid of the word "conspiracy"! If you "believe there is the possiblity that some factions may have turned a blind eye" you have to admit that would take more than a wink and a nod, and even at that, it involves more than one person, hence a conspiracy! Please don't fall for the name calling and peer pressure scare tactics that would not have you use proper words for things.

If people like you guys will have no truck with controlled demolitions, NORAD stand downs, or direct or indirect complicity in planning events of 911, the issue of foreknowledge and protecting the purported hijackers is something that is very real and each day we see it become more plausible with new revelations eg Bob Woodward's book, Condi's denial of Tenant's warnings, etc. I am challenging you guys to at least have the intellectual honesty to pursue/voice your doubts about the Bush administration.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I am challenging you guys to at least have the intellectual honesty to pursue/voice your doubts about the Bush administration.

Well, I certainly have serious doubts about the honesty and integrity of the Bush administration, but they have nothing to do with 9/11 and the fallout from it, except peripherally, as examples of what concerns me. The bad intelligence, the lies about WMD in Iraq, the "faith based" initiatives at home and abroad... These are people of both the political and religious far right who believe they know absolutely what is and is not true and correct, so if you don't agree with them you must be wrong. "If you're not with us, you're against us," as The Man said, which is a hopelessly stupid and shallow view of things. It leaves no room for legitimate dissent.

I don't for a second believe the Bush administration was involved in the events of 9/11 or had any specific foreknowledge of them, the evidence I've seen for any such claims is pretty lame and doesn't stand up to routine skeptical scrutiny. They certainly knew generally that the U.S. was a target for terrorists, but every thoughtful person on the planet knew that. They can perhaps be faulted for sloppy intelligence work, the failure of organizations like the CIA and FBI to properly co-operate in ways that might have revealed specifics and enabled them to take preventative measures, but did the U.S. government plan, or allow to happen, or have foreknowledge of, the events of 9/11? No, I don't believe so and never will, unless far more compelling evidence than what I've seen so far is produced. And exactly what does that mean? It means I need to see correspondence signed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeldt, Rice, or Powell, that clearly shows at least one of them knew there'd be an attack on New York and the Pentagon by al Qaeda agents on 11 September 2001, and they deliberately decided to let it happen. I'm often inclined to be pretty cynical about politics, but I'm not yet so cynical as to believe any American politician would knowingly allow something like 9/11 to happen in hopes of making political gains from it.

 

[elevennevele]

The issue people like you should be concerned about is the issue of foreknowledge which is exactly what the NYT/CBS surveys illustrated in chart are about. For clarity's sake here is the question again:

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?

We've become all too familiar with how little, or a great a lack of truth there is from the current government of the United States.

I think it is more in the interest of Americans to have a critical mistrust of the current administration than a benefit of the doubt. Those critical of the second Iraq invasion were slammed at the height of it's inception. History shows that such criticism was on the right side of good judgment.

The point of discussion here has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory. Lately, there is the problem of having very little or withheld information when it comes to government affairs. Moreover, the more secretive a government becomes of it’s affairs, or secretive of the details surrounding an event of great harm on it’s society, a warning light should go up in everyone’s minds. Especially for being prevented from knowing more to make valid judgments on one’s own country and of those responsible over how it’s being governed.

However in spite of that, a person can still be capable of good judgment on what can still be viewed in all of this. Again, nothing to do with conspiracy.

Politicians are elected by the people in countries such as the USA or Canada. Somehow the citizenry have forgotten that it is the politican’s job to be responsible to us. That they have their jobs because we have allowed it. That the citizenry deserve a significant level of transparency if the nation wishes to uphold any real value as a democracy.

Right now the politicians are acting as if the citizenry are to a point powerless and the greater crime is that the citizenry are letting the ‘politician’ get away with this.

 

[elevennevele]

... the failure of organizations like the CIA and FBI to properly co-operate in ways that might have revealed specifics and enabled them to take preventative measures, ...

(this isn’t an arguement on you Dexter Sinister but I wish to use this line to make a comment in general for the forum)

I find it just as interesting that Americans are willing to believe that their FBI, or their CIA or their Pentagon Intelligence is/was simply so poor or that ‘bad’ and such a slam on them in no way warrants an equal rally of supporters for their defense. Not like the circle of wagons that seem to come out of nowhere for the defense of this current US administration.

Yes, I find it strange that people can defend a government that has proven to push a war on false pretenses, but not defend the institutions that this same government have scapegoated to take the fall over such a catastrophe.

Maybe (think about it), maybe the FBI, or the CIA, or the Intelligence experts were doing a lot of things right. Maybe what is strange and unexplainable is the event of taking those FBI agents off the trail of the terrorists suspects of 911. Maybe the CIA was not the ones in the wrong. Like Wilson (who’s CIA wife was outed) trying to tell the government the truth as to Saddam’s weapons program. Maybe they were giving the government a lot of ‘right’ information, and that it was then up to the responsibility of this US government to take a position to do something ‘right’ or bear the responsibilty in having not done something.

From the stuff I’ve read, many of these departments (people in intelligence, etc.) did do something right leading up to the 911 tragedy. Did try to express the gravity of the situation that faced the country. Yet while we have to watch the wagons tirelessly circle around this administration, the CIA, FBI, etc. seem to have no such wagons and are given very little quarter for the 911 tragedy by the public because a very untruthful government for some reason gets to hand out where the blame goes.

If you ask me, this fish stinks from the head up.

 

[elevennevele]

I've developed a theory about the Conspirators regarding Conspiracy Theories anyone want to hear it?

Well pull up a chair, first they are Socialist yes you heard it here first. Baby Communist, their first step in spreading Socialism is: 1. Bring society to it's knees and make everyone Politically Correct in speech and manners, the truth be damn Politeness and vagueness will suffice. Step Two: Invent a set of Consperacies based on true events and spin a tale against the Reigning Government so horrific that half the public will believe it. Step Three: Install a new Government by using the "Vote", of Socialist of course, and then systematically take the publics Chartered Rights away from them one at a time. The public will be so grateful for the "States" monthly allowance (now called a paycheck) that they won't notice they are now Comrades not Citizens of Canada. Step 4: Have complete control of the Military to enforce the first three rules. Step 5: Assassinations of anyone opposing their Socialist views.

Why you ask-- do they want a proud Nation like Canada to become a Welfare State? Thank you for asking, I"ve noticed that "Some" (My Opinion only) Socialist think of themselves as Artists but they can't make it in Mainstream Music, Poetry, Penning Novels of great works of Art and such, they are mediocre painters, sculpters and modern artists so if they can enforce Socialism on Main Stream Society they can stay home get a monthly check never work a day in their lives and get paid for it. If you think I'm kidding think again I'm not. It's a pattern I've noticed on many forums, mostly Extreme Left leaning forums.

Sassylassie, please take this as a compliment in that my reading from this post, I’m making the assumption that you would be a really fun drunk.

“Why you ask-- do they want a proud Nation like Canada to become a Welfare State? Thank you for asking...” and then all that stuff about communists being artists who couldn’t make it. Very funny, and I am aware of a truth to some of that artist/communist angle. But those tend not to be the bad communists until they get heavy into politics.

But surely you were beaming with a smile whether on your face or invisible in your crafty mind when you wrote this. If you tell me you were sternly seriousness... no, I will not accept that. No.

 

[BitWhys]

...
The bad intelligence, the lies about WMD in Iraq, the "faith based" initiatives at home and abroad... These are people of both the political and religious far right who believe they know absolutely what is and is not true and correct, so if you don't agree with them you must be wrong. "If you're not with us, you're against us," as The Man said, which is a hopelessly stupid and shallow view of things. It leaves no room for legitimate dissent
...

Considering how much I disagree with you on other issues, I'll try to remember we very much agree on this very important point the next time we get into it about something. What really concerns me is from within that hornet's nest is not only self-rigtheousness, which is dangerous in itself, but the deadliest form on JUSTIFICATION there is and always has been. "They", by whom I mean the minds that drive the masses (in some denominations, literally), honestly believe, particularly when it comes to responding to the threat, they are doing God's work.

I personally think Augustine of Hippo was more than just a bit of a heretic himself. Justified War Theology is a crock of politically-motivated bull****.

There's nothing to convince me "the government" had a direct hand in 9/11. That's not to say they were probably not without their moles (bin Laden is/was a lot of things, but he is/was no hack). I think a lot of the disconnect between what "the government" is telling us and what most people in the the back of their minds would consider the truth can be readily (and likely) explained by the time-honoured tradition of the inept covering their butts. I'm going to a march in a couple of weeks where Micheal Chossudovsky is the main speaker at the rally. I like the good professor, although I haven't met him I love him like a brother, he's got knowledge and instinct coming out the ying-yang, but I think he gives The Beast far more self-awareness than it deserves.

That being said, and by way of analogy, for me 9/11 was essentially a hit by a mob of sorts playing games in a private world we barely care to acknowledge and, the likelihood of real justice being what it is, I really don't particularly care exactly which family pulled it off. Those lines have been blurred for decades. I also think the most powerful of the American administration at the time were predisposed by general disregard to making the very sort of fatal mistakes that created the opportunity for it or something like it to happen.

 

[Toro]

The issue people like you should be concerned about is the issue of foreknowledge which is exactly what the NYT/CBS surveys illustrated in chart are about. For clarity's sake here is the question again:

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?

Simply because a lot of people believe something does not make it so.

Lots of people believe Creationism, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Toro]

I am challenging you guys to at least have the intellectual honesty to pursue/voice your doubts about the Bush administration.

"Doubts about the Bush administration" and conspiracies about the administration's involvement are two very different things.

 

[blogbart]

elevennevele said - Again, nothing to do with conspiracy.

But elevennevele also said ...

Maybe (think about it), maybe the FBI, or the CIA, or the Intelligence experts were doing a lot of things right. Maybe what is strange and unexplainable is the event of taking those FBI agents off the trail of the terrorists suspects of 911. Maybe the CIA was not the ones in the wrong. Like Wilson (who’s CIA wife was outed) trying to tell the government the truth as to Saddam’s weapons program. Maybe they were giving the government a lot of ‘right’ information, and that it was then up to the responsibility of this US government to take a position to do something ‘right’ or bear the responsibilty in having not done something.

From the stuff I’ve read, many of these departments (people in intelligence, etc.) did do something right leading up to the 911 tragedy. Did try to express the gravity of the situation that faced the country. Yet while we have to watch the wagons tirelessly circle around this administration, the CIA, FBI, etc. seem to have no such wagons and are given very little quarter for the 911 tragedy by the public because a very untruthful government for some reason gets to hand out where the blame goes.

If you ask me, this fish stinks from the head up.

elevennevele, you really need to get over the word "conspiracy"! It is the proper to word to use to describe what you are refer to in the latter two paragraphs! You are describing a conspriracy to protect the terrorists as well as its cover up!

BitWhys said - There's nothing to convince me "the government" had a direct hand in 9/11. That's not to say they were probably not without their moles (bin Laden is/was a lot of things, but he is/was no hack).

9/11 was essentially a hit by a mob of sorts playing games in a private world we barely care to acknowledge and, the likelihood of real justice being what it is, I really don't particularly care exactly which family pulled it off. Those lines have been blurred for decades. I also think the most powerful of the American administration at the time were predisposed by general disregard to making the very sort of fatal mistakes that created the opportunity for it or something like it to happen.

I am in agreement with your description of the real perps and methods used. Frankly, there's nothing that convinces me that "the government" had a direct hand in 9/11 either, and this is the case with most credible people who doubt the offcial 9/11 story. I think people like Condi-lier Rice, Colin Powell, White House staff, Republican party members, etc who defend the official story do it with varying levels of earnestness and were not complictly involved in making 9/11 happen. They may have had roles in quashing investigation into hijackers, etc, but weren't aware explicitly that it would result in 9/11, some may have suspected, though turned a blind eye to it, though they may be suspicisous now, but have either been blackmailed or chose to ignore it. Rumsfield, Cheney, and the neo-cons are a bit more suspect in terms of complicity, but I think the real power players are not visible.

To better understand a more plausible modus operandi for 9/11, BBC's nearly three-hour documentary from 1992 on project "Gladio", NATO's secret "stay behind networks" put into place after WW II is very instructive. You can find it in three parts on Google Video. The first segment establishes the context of history and the prominent role played by future CIA wizard James Angleton, and features interviews with William Colby and Licio Gelli; the second examines the Bologna railway station bombing, and the third the Brabant Massacres and the assassination of Aldo Moro.

I also highly recommend watching Bill Moyers (wikipedia ref) "The Secret Government" which you can download in wmv format here in which Moyers many different people involved with the CIA and other government agencies regarding the CIA and the cold war (including Iran, Guatamala, Cuba, Viet Nam and Chile).

Toro tossed these bon mots

Simply because a lot of people believe something does not make it so.

Lots of people believe Creationism, but that doesn't make it so.

"Doubts about the Bush administration" and conspiracies about the administration's involvement are two very different things.

What are these? Haiku? Red is a colour, that doesn't make it blue? You could just have your dog come on the board and start barking which would contribute more intelligible dialogue. Pfhht.

 

[Toro]

You could just have your dog come on the board and start barking which would contribute more intelligible dialogue. Pfhht.

lol

I could, but it would still fly over your head.

 

[blogbart]

bring him on

What kind of dog is he anyways, so i can get the timbre of bark just right

 

[Toro]

What kind of dog is he anyways, so i can get the timbre of bark just right

I went and bought an Australian Sheppard puppy last weekend.

Here he is

And the only time he barks is when he's unhappy he's in his crate!

 

[Sassylassie]

Toro he's adorable.

Eleven wrote: But surely you were beaming with a smile whether on your face or invisible in your crafty mind when you wrote this. If you tell me you were sternly seriousness... no, I will not accept that. No.


So Eleven I guess I failed at my only attempt at being a tin foiler? Yes I was just having a wee bit of fun.