Discussion in '9/11' started by suede, Sep 28, 2011.
Irrelevant to the topic of this thread.
That's great but you've not even answered the question.
Or are you saying that the full 9/11 commission report constitutes the "accepted narrative"?
At which point I would ask for proof of its widespread acceptance.
Forgive me. I assumed the 9/11 Commission Report, aka the "official" BS fairy tale as RtWngaFraud calls it, would also be known as the "accepted narrative".
Do you have a more widely accepted narrative in mind?
Right... Well now it's just a matter of proving that so many people believe and agree with your story as written in the 9/11 commission report.
What percentage of people "accepted" the 9/11 commission report and agreed with it?
I'm not even sure how "widely accepted" yours is.. I never claimed my beliefs as having widespread consensus.
Well, if you Google the phrase "9/11 generally accepted narrative", the first result is a truther site which refers to the 9/11 Commission Report as follows . . .
As far as what percentage of people accept it, it depends on which poll you want to look at. But this page indicates that the overwhelming majority believe the version of events as contained in the 9/11 Commission Report.
Googling phrases is not a proper measure for anything unless we are discussing search engine algorithms or something.
Which poll(s) show the overwhelming majority belive the 9/11 commission report?
You are familiar with what Google is and how it works, aren't you?
So you don't think Google would return the most common reference to that phrase? Besides, a TRUTHER site referred to it as such.
Are there some views that the majority in those polls agree with that are not consistent with the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission?
"Accepted narrative". Is that like "officially the US does not conduct torture"?
Oh good, you're here, RtWngaFraud. I was hoping you'd show up.
If you would be so kind as to answer a question for me, when you refer to the "official" BS story or fairytale, do you mean the 9/11 Commission Report?
That is the "officially accepted" BS story, is it not?
I think so. But then the term "generally accepted narrative" started getting tossed around. I took it to mean the same as "official" BS story, fairy tale, etc, but happy fun dude didn't agree that the 9/11 Commission Report is considered the "generally accepted narrative".
But it seems that you do.
So would you consider the 9/11 Commission Report, "official" BS story, fairy tale, "generally accepted narrative" etc are all referring to the same thing?
For Exercise in New York Futility, Push Button
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: February 27, 2004Sign In to E-Mail
For years, at thousands of New York City intersections, well-worn push buttons have offered harried walkers a rare promise of control over their pedestrian lives. The signs mounted above explained their purpose:
To Cross Street
Wait for Walk Signal
Dept. of Transportation
Millions of dutiful city residents and tourists have pushed them over the years, thinking it would help speed them in their journeys. Many trusting souls might have believed they actually worked. Others, more cynical, might have suspected they were broken but pushed anyway, out of habit, or in the off chance they might bring a walk sign more quickly.
As it turns out, the cynics were right.
The city deactivated most of the pedestrian buttons long ago with the emergence of computer-controlled traffic signals, even as an unwitting public continued to push on, according to city Department of Transportation officials. More than 2,500 of the 3,250 walk buttons that still exist function essentially as mechanical placebos, city figures show. Any benefit from them is only imagined.
''I always push,'' said Réna, an employee at Long Island College Hospital in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, who was too embarrassed to give her last name after she pushed a button on Atlantic Avenue and was told the truth. ''The sign says push, so I push. I think it works.''
Most of the buttons scattered through the city, mainly outside of Manhattan, are relics of the 1970's, before computers began tightly choreographing traffic signal patterns on major arteries. They were installed at a time when traffic was much lighter, said Michael Primeggia, deputy commissioner of traffic operations for the city's Transportation Department.
The first ''semi-actuated signal,'' as they are called by traffic engineers, is believed to have appeared in the city in 1964, a brainstorm of the legendary traffic commissioner Henry Barnes, the inventor of the ''Barnes Dance,'' a traffic system that stops all vehicles in an intersection and allows pedestrians to cross in every direction at the same time. Barnes was also instrumental in completing the one-way conversion of major avenues in New York.
Typically, semi-actuated signals were positioned at intersections of a major thoroughfare and a minor street. The major road would have a green light until someone pressed the button or a sensor in the roadway detected a car on the minor street. Then, after 90 seconds or so, the light would change.
Now don't you feel like a *******
No, I feel superior to you more now than ever before (and that is saying quite a bit given your track record).
Which governments do you trust? Nice dodge.
Feeling superior and actually being superior are 2 different things.
6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit
Short yellow light times at intersections have been shown to increase the number of traffic violations and accidents. Conversely, increasing the yellow light duration can dramatically reduce red-light violations at an intersection.
Some local governments have ignored the safety benefit of increasing the yellow light time and decided to install red-light cameras, shorten the yellow light duration, and collect the profits instead.
Here are some of the cities that have been caught with short yellow light times over the past few years:
Important note: These news stories were collected from the archives of TheNewspaper.com, an excellent resource for anyone interested in traffic laws and other motorist issues. If you subscribe to TheNewspaper.coms feed, youll never miss the latest news. It makes an excellent complement to this blog.
1) Chattanooga, Tennessee
The city of Chattanooga was forced refund $8800 in red light cameras tickets issued to motorists trapped by an illegally short yellow time. The refund only occurred after a motorist challenged his citation by insisting that the yellow light time of 3.0 seconds was too short. LaserCraft, the private vendor that runs the camera program in return for a cut of the profits, provided the judge with a computer database that asserted the yellow was 3.8 seconds at that location.
The judge then personally checked the intersection in question was timed at three seconds while other nearby locations had about four seconds of yellow warning. City traffic engineer John Van Winkle told Bean that a mix up with the turn arrow was responsible and that the bare minimum for the light should be 3.9 seconds.
2) Dallas, Texas
An investigation by KDFW-TV, a local TV station, found that of the ten cameras that issued the greatest number of tickets in the city, seven were located at intersections where the yellow duration is shorter than the bare minimum recommended by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).
The citys second highest revenue producing camera, for example, was located at the intersection of Greenville Avenue and Mockingbird Lane. It issued 9407 tickets worth $705,525 between January 1 and August 31, 2007. At the intersections on Greenville Avenue leading up to the camera intersection, however, yellows are at least 3.5 or 4.0 seconds in duration, but the ticket-producing intersections yellow stands at just 3.15 seconds. That is 0.35 seconds shorter than TxDOTs recommended bare minimum. Dallas likewise installed the cameras at locations with existing short yellow times. A total of twenty-one camera intersections in Dallas had yellow times below TxDOTs bare minimum recommended amount.
The ticket camera program in Dallas made the news recently for shutting down some of its cameras because they were no longer profitable.
3) Springfield, Missouri
The city of Springfield, Missouri prepared for the installation of a red light camera system in 2007 by slashing the yellow warning time by one second at 105 state-owned intersection signals across the city.
The city defended its effort to the Springfield News-Leader by claiming it was standardizing and had increased the yellow time at 136 city-operated lights to meet national standards. During the city council meeting last October where the red light camera ordinance was approved, however, Assistant Director of Public Works Earl Newman gave a different explanation for the reduction. Newman said he was, concerned that many individuals run the light if the light remained yellow too long.
4) Lubbock, Texas
KBCD, a local television station, exposed the citys short timing of yellow lights at eight of the twelve intersections where the devices were to be installed.
Prior to the news investigation, Lubbock City Engineer Jere Hart assured city council members that he would not increase yellow times. According to the city councils traffic commission minutes of September 19, 2006, Jere said, if [the red light camera program is] implemented, the public would prefer to have an increased amber cycle, but he stated that, the program will not adjust the amber/yellow time.
Shortly after the investigation became public, red-light cameras were installed in Lubbock. However, after they proved to be both unprofitable (due in part to a new state law giving 50% of the ticket camera profit to the state) and unsafe (accidents increased where the cameras were installed), they were taken down.
Even without red light cameras, police in Nashville, Tennessee have been earning hundreds of thousands in revenue by trapping motorists in conventional ticket traps at city intersections with the shortest yellow warning time.
In 2006, Nashville resident Joe Savage obtained the data on every red light running ticket issued on Broadway street since 2000. He said that yellow lights are longer at intersections along Broadway until the areas where police are issuing tickets. At those locations, Savage clocked the yellow signal time at less than 3 seconds, in violation of both state law and federal regulations. A local newspaper, The Nashville Scene, then confirmed his findings.
6) Union City, California
In 2005, Union City, California was caught trapping motorists with a yellow signal time 1.3 seconds below the minimum established by state law. As a result, the city was forced to refund more than $1 million in red light camera fines.
The citys violation came to light after Dave Goodson, an engineer, received a ticket and realized that he did not have sufficient time to stop before the light had turned red. As a result of his inquiries, Union Citys traffic engineers admitted that they had set the yellow signal time at Union City Boulevard and Lowry Road at 3 seconds, despite the state law mandating the time be 4.3 seconds or greater.
Authorities said that the yellow was too short long before the cameras were installed, but that no effective system was in place to verify the timing of the traffic signals despite their direct impact on safety.
These are only the cities that have been caught; its likely that this happens much more than the general public has been led to believe. Many cities avoid the bad publicity involved with shortening yellow lights by installing the cameras at intersections with inadequate yellow light times from the beginning.
If you or a family member receive an unjustified red-light violation ticket, it may be worth your time to check the yellow light duration at the intersection where the ticket was given out.
The whole reason for the Bill of Rights was due to the distrust our Founding Fathers had in government.
Citizens who trust government, are those who are complacent and apathetic.
No.. Google ranks the search results in order of pertinence, not popularity.. Doing a search for that term now shows this forum thread right here to be top result. Because it has the most matching words to the query.
And? Somebody else said the same thing too? What's that supposed to prove?
Their views may or may not be consistent with the conclusion of the 9/11 commission report, the polls are NOT conducted in that context.
Unfortunatily, it doesn't look like a "do you believe the tale told by the 9/11 commission" poll was done.
Just because one can reconcile their belief with another belief doesn't mean they believe the other belief as well...
Most people, I'm going to guess, don't even know the details of the 9/11 commission report findings at all, regarding the whodunnit aspect of the attack, which is a very specific story. I'm guessing that most people haven't read the report, as well.
The largest belief in the United States I will guess, is the general belief that angry Muslim terrorists did 9/11.. Most of those who believe this, probably wouldn't know any names, save perhaps Osama Bin Laden... So it would be incorrect to extrapolate their views into agreement with a much more specific story told by the 9/11 commission.
If the "generally accepted account" is used to describe Muslim terrorist hijackers did it, then yes I can agree that is the case, for the United States at any rate.. As long as people don't try to pass off their more specific allegations like the 9/11 commission report conclusions as having acheived the same such consensus.
Geez, it's been so long I had to go back and see what the heck we were talking about.
That's funny. You're trying to discredit a fellow truther.
Well, okay then. I'm not sure how fine we want to split this hair but it sounds like we agree that the "generally accepted narrative" = the "official" BS fairy tale = the 9/11 Commission Report
Besides, RtWngaFraud thinks so.
And that's good enough for me.
As long as nobody tries to claim the 9/11 commission report as having more agreement than it does.
If truthers want to claim that most of those people swallowed that story then they are wrong... I'm thinking most of the people don't even know the story.. They just know the OBL story.
Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?"
Responses: 48% No Cover-up / 42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure
"World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?"
Responses: 43% Not Aware / 38% Aware - should have investigated it / 14% Aware - right not to investigate it / 5% Not Sure
"Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?"
Responses: 47% Attacks were thoroughly investigated / 45% Reinvestigate the attacks / 8% Not Sure
"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?"
May 2002 responses: 21% said "telling the truth", 65% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 8% said they are "mostly lying", 6% not sure.
3/30-4/1/04 CBS 24% said "telling the truth", 58% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 14% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.
4/8/04 CBS 21% said "telling the truth", 66% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 10% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.
4/23-27/04 24% said "telling the truth", 56% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 16% said they are "mostly lying", 4% not sure.
Oct 2006 responses: 16% said "telling the truth", 53% said they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something", 28% said they are "mostly lying", 3% not sure.
Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.
59% "not likely"
20% "somewhat likely"
16% "very likely"
The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.
10% "somewhat likely"
6% "very likely"
The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.
80% "not likely"
6% "somewhat likely"
6% "very likely"[16
Looks like people are more aware and in agreement than you give them credit for.
Yeah less than half of people are convinced the 9/11 commission report is not a coverup.. That's the only statistic you really have about it there.. Certainly nothing that indicates an agreement to the specific narrative of the 9/11 commission report.
Half of Americans think the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Who cares about opinion polls? As George Carlin said, "Think about how stupid the average person is. Then realize, half of them are stupider than that."
It matters when consensus is claimed.
You can't insist a certain position of yours is generally accepted by the public and at the same time pretend public opinion is irrelevant to this.. This is what's known as a copout.
I've had to clarify this exact same thing for you in the past.. I'm not appealing to popularity as an argument, and nobody is saying that something can be proved by popular opinion, rather I was disputing claims about the 9/11 commission story being so widely accepted, and to evaluate whether or not such a story is so widely accepted, we MUST look at the public opinion.
Incidentally, half of Americans think the world is 6000 years old?!?! That sounds like complete made up nonsense to me.
Please show me where I ever claimed the theory was accepted by the general public or claimed a public consensus.
When a principle is described as "generally accepted" it goes without saying - unless the person is completely ignorant of scientific terminology, ahem - that it refers to general acceptance among the community of people qualified to comment on the matter.
Except that, unlike 9/11 Deniers, I don't just make things up.
Here is a collection of polling on the subject. Depending on the poll, anywhere from 40-55% of Americans ascribe to so-called "young Earth creationism," the belief that the Biblical story of Creation is literally true. The 6,000 years was a reference to the beliefs of so-called "Creation Scientists" who are one step up from 9/11 Deniers in their scientific ignorance, and who say they can "count backwards" using lifespans and figure that humans were "created" about 6,000 years ago.
I never claimed you did say that.. I was CLEARLY discussing the topic with another guy, DDave, about the issue, when you butted in to declare that opinion polls are useless, even though their purpose was to suss out the public opinion about something.
Okay... If Ddave meant this he could have clearly said that by now, but didn't..
If YOU want to claim that the 9/11 commission report is generally accepted among "the community of people qualified to comment on the matter" then by all means acknowledge support of such claim..
This would of course require you to provide evidence that this is the common belief among this group, as well as define the group a bit better than the arbitrary appraisal of competence you've derived (like people with certain level of education, expertise whatever).
You do make seem to make things up.. You've done a great job showing some facts here, but you don't always seem to manage.
I seem to still be waiting to hear an example of one of these psychological studies you go on about regarding confirmation bias, lack of intelligence etc. among the group "9/11 deniers".
Incidentally since you've previously classified me as "9/11 denier" you should make good about your latest accusations of me, and cite the facts I've made up, and also explain what science it is that I am ignorant about.
George Carlin also believed the "official" BS story was BS. Glad you're on board with him.
Separate names with a comma.