Action alert: Poll on Jones and the WTC

[spooked911]

http://faxdaily.com/

Today's Poll - Do we have the full story of what happened to the WTC?

Daily Poll for November 23, 2005


The physics of 9/11 - including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell - prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor. In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones. Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations. It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes - which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes. As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation." Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science'." Do you think we have the whole story about what happened on 9/11?

yes 30%
no 54%
comments 16%

Total Votes: 37

THIS THING COULD USE SOME MORE VOTES!

[pauldp]

1. done. n/t

[mirandapriestly]

2. done, but who would say that we have the full story?

I mean if you are going to believe the official version, fine, but no one can say we have the full story, so I wonder who is voting "yes"?

[spooked911]

3. This is a very red-state-based paper

The answers I've seen always tilt very heavily towards the Republicans side.

[theSaiGirl]

4. Prof. Jones makes a rock solid case for controlled demo

Prof. Jones paper has already been favorably reviewed by his colleagues at BYU.
He has formally submitted it for "peer review" to the entire scientific community:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

A summary of Prof. Jones case:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

[TomClash]

5. I have a question

If it was a controlled demolition, why would you wait 1 hour and 42 minutes after AA 1 hits 1 WTC to set it off?

[theSaiGirl]

6. Why wait ... ? They could afford to be sloppy.

The South Tower, hit second and not even directly, went down first.
The North Tower went down about an hour later.

Why wait until 5:30 that very evening to take down WTC7 - plenty of broadcast news videos showing the controlled demolition of WTC7, which got minor damage from the hits on the Towers ?

Why ?
Because they screwed up.
But with control over the media and the ability to brainwash a population, they could afford to be sloppy-assed in the actual execution of the op itself.

The bombings themselves were fairly easy to do and didn't even require that many people.

But managing the post-op psychological operations, the "Reichstag Fire" presentation
and retailing the Big Lie to a gullible public through a prostituted media...
that's where the real complexity resides in any false-flag psy-op..

[TomClash]

7. I'm skeptical

not about Bush Administraton involvement, but about the demolition argument. They could afford to be sloppy is a poor answer - I doubt any paramilitary op would be conducted that way - and certainly no false flag black op would be done leaving things to chance.

No offense but "they screwed up" is a also poor answer. You may be right but we cannot come to that ocnclusion without evidence.

I suspect 7 was taken down because it housed many of the federal agencies in NYC - including the SEC and the CIA. It makes sense to destroy sensitive information you can no longer control - and I mean that in both the good and bad sense.