New 18 September 2004
Michael C. Ruppert has convincingly described in his speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco the Bush Administration's involvement in the 9-11-2001 disaster, as well as the aftermath of the pre-emptive invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The basic gist of Mr. Ruppert's charge (as well as many other investigative individuals and groups) is that key members of the Bush Administration orchestrated and staged the 9-11 disaster as a means of motivating the American populace to accept the invasion of several foreign countries [and supposedly following the election, the invasion of Iran, and possibly other countries as well]. The entire scenario was presumably done on the premise that access to the oil of the Middle East and Caspian Sea area was paramount -- for whatever reason.
Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission was populated by co-conspirators and those overly friendly toward the Bush Administration and its policies such that there is little of no likelihood that the results were even remotely descriptive of what actually happened. The basic idea is that the foxes guarding the hen house were advising on the viability of whether or not foxes should guarding the hen house. [Incidentally, the numerology of fox is 666. You might want to keep this in mind the next time you listen to Fox News.]]
Halexandria has surmised that this scenario may have occurred because of the belief system of the neo-conservatives / Dominionists who perpetrated the events... a belief system that such actions would be considered a highly patriotic act. In other words, these possibly highly deluded people (they are Republicans after all) may have thought they were acting in the best interests of the United States (as well as those countires with the closest ties to the U.S., England and Israel). Furthermore, there may be many people (including equally deluded Democrats) who would agree with the decision to commit these actions even after (or before) they were appraised of the facts and evidence to support Mr. Ruppert's theory.
This leads to the question of just how many open-minded people could be aware of the facts and evidence of Mr. Ruppert's theory -- as well as the possible justification for the actions in the interests of National Security -- and nevertheless find themselves with wildly different judgements on the matter.
Thus this non-official (Duh!), relatively un-scientific poll has been initiated in order to gauge the results -- and parenthetically satisfy my rampant curiosity.
The results of this poll will be posted periodically at the bottom of this page -- with the first tentative results slated for Halloween 2004 (in honor of the possibly scary nature of the results). The latter might also serve as a clue as to the outcome of the November 2nd Presidential free-for-all election. (Or is that the "free-fall" election?)
In any case, here are the Rules for Poll 911:
They begin with the requirement that each person indicating their preference first read Mr. Ruppert's speech. (This is called an informed citizenry. There is also the need for an open mind in this regard, but that is quite possibly asking a bit too much in a simple preference poll. Willful ignorance is always a decided possibility, but at this point it is perhaps presumptious which constitutes ignorance and which constitutes wisdom.)
A second rule is the rather arcane concept of each individual voting only once. To this end only those votes which include a return e-mail address will be counted, and each e-mail address, in general, counted only once. An exception may be made for any votes which includes all the names of those individuals using the same e-mail account. Try to be fair in this regard, and do no use your friend's name in vain.
[Rest assured that the e-mail addresses thus acquired will not be sold to any lists of any kind for any reason. We won't even give them away. They may be added to Halexandria's' update e-mail list, but will not if the voter so indicates.]
There is also the anti-Florida rule than anyone with an e-mail address can vote, even if someone with your name, but spelled differently, has been incarcerated in a prison, jail, or house of ill repute for any crime short of threading the noodle.
Another rule is that comments can be included in the vote, but no one should expect an immediate response to such comments -- if only because of the time and effort to answer what might be an underwhelming response to this poll, and the fact that if the receipient doesn't particularly like the question, there may be no response at all.
The final rule is to read Rule Number One again, and actually adhere to it.
Keep in mind that a basic question of the poll is whether or not -- given the premise that the Bushites staged, aided and abetted the 9-11-2001 disastor -- elite members of the American public (as well as anyone else hoping to become an elitist or just ride the US coat tails to the Land of Oil) would be willing to overlook the means by which this end is being achieved.
To this end, this poll is being conducted in order to establish the relative merits of 9 different responses to the details of this question.
The 9 responses are:
Preponderance of Evidence -- The evidence is sufficient to bring about a verdict against the Bushites on the basis of the preponderance of evidence (which may include circumstantial evidence). This implies a better than 50-50 chance of it being true and constitutes the requirement for a finding of guilty or responsibility in a civil law case. This leads to the following choices:
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt -- The evidence is sufficient to bring about a verdict against the Bushites as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the requirement for a finding of guilty in a criminal law case. This leads to:
Vote for only one choice, but make your vote count! (Just note in your e-mail which choice number you have selected.)
Use the feedback button below to register your vote, and please mark the subject of your e-mail as "Poll 911".
2003© Copyright Dan Sewell Ward, All Rights Reserved [Feedback]