9/11: Debunking The Myths

[Shabow]

Rush Limbaugh said it the best the other day on the radio "Yes there is a new poll out that says 1/3 of Americans believe that 9/11 some how invovled the government, but there are also 1/3 of Americans that say they are democrats."

[TOAD6147]

Quote:

Rush Limbaugh said it the best the other day on the radio "Yes there is a new poll out that says 1/3 of Americans believe that 9/11 some how invovled the government, but there are also 1/3 of Americans that say they are democrats."

What the hell doest THAT have to do with this discussion?

[Shabow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TOAD6147

What the hell doest THAT have to do with this discussion?

Oh woops...I got two of the threads confused...JP posted that poll on another similar thread.

[John Prophet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gambler2611

It's quite funny how John doesn't actually argue with any of the factual points given in the popular mechanics article, and instead refers to people here being 'ignorant'. Attacking a persons character, such as Benjamin Chertoff, doesn't debunk his argument. Listen to what's being said, not who's saying it. If we all adopted this approach, people would not take what you have to say in most technical discussions seriously, since a lot of the time people don't take your conspiracy theories seriously.

Andy

yes, I have addressed everything in that article numerous times....let alone hundreds of things that article wont touch

and yes, Benjamin Chertoff is a young kid who wrote a hit piece and had no clue what he was talking about....like I said, I feel sorry for him......he was interviewed and he had no understanding of simple matters such as insider trading etc.....all he could say was "no, i wasnt aware of that"........and I feel 2x as sorry for people who quote the Pop Mech piece to justify their belief in the govt version of the truth

leave 911 out of the picture altogether...if you take anything the govt says at face value, then by definition your are simply an idiot.....there is no nicer way to put that

in a court you are told that if you catch a witness lying that you dont have to believe the lie OR anything the witness said previously.....so where does that leave us with respect to our givt who had lied and been caught lying consistently (Gulf of Tonkin, hundreds of other such incidents)

anyway, this has been rehashed enough....if anyone has a legit question ill be glad to attempt to answer it...otherwise I have made my belief super ultra hyper crystal clear....and that based on historical precedence, declassified govt memos, leaked memos, statements by officials, current written documents showing global strategies, and on hundreds of hours of listening to views from all over the spectrum.......if someone thinks a magazine hit piece written by an inlaw of a high govt official will sway all that, then they are wrong, lol

again, it comes down to deeper issues....who are you willing to believe? in the end you have to educate yourself and you cant do that from one magazine or one website or one viewpoint..............can you go find a magazine or viewpoint to confirm what you already believe?? of course...but that doesnt constitute an education......this is why I have listened to many viewpoints and also studied historical precedents......are those who put me down able to say the same???

there is nothing new under the sun.....study Hitler and his rise to power, study the way the British navy and almost every other military used false flag events, study Iran-contra.....then come back with an opinion about 911

[jon5137]

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Prophet

yes, I have addressed everything in that article numerous times....let alone hundreds of things that article wont touch

and yes, Benjamin Chertoff is a young kid who wrote a hit piece and had no clue what he was talking about....like I said, I feel sorry for him......he was interviewed and he had no understanding of simple matters such as insider trading etc.....all he could say was "no, i wasnt aware of that"........and I feel 2x as sorry for people who quote the Pop Mech piece to justify their belief in the govt version of the truth

leave 911 out of the picture altogether...if you take anything the govt says at face value, then by definition your are simply an idiot.....there is no nicer way to put that

in a court you are told that if you catch a witness lying that you dont have to believe the lie OR anything the witness said previously.....so where does that leave us with respect to our givt who had lied and been caught lying consistently (Gulf of Tonkin, hundreds of other such incidents)



anyway, this has been rehashed enough....if anyone has a legit question ill be glad to attempt to answer it...otherwise I have made my belief super ultra hyper crystal clear....and that based on historical precedence, declassified govt memos, leaked memos, statements by officials, current written documents showing global strategies, and on hundreds of hours of listening to views from all over the spectrum.......if someone thinks a magazine hit piece written by an inlaw of a high govt official will sway all that, then they are wrong, lol

again, it comes down to deeper issues....who are you willing to believe? in the end you have to educate yourself and you cant do that from one magazine or one website or one viewpoint..............can you go find a magazine or viewpoint to confirm what you already believe?? of course...but that doesnt constitute an education......this is why I have listened to many viewpoints and also studied historical precedents......are those who put me down able to say the same???

there is nothing new under the sun.....study Hitler and his rise to power, study the way the British navy and almost every other military used false flag events, study Iran-contra.....then come back with an opinion about 911

Heres some evidence for you John P..... I was there...... 20 blocks from the WTC.....

With 3 other co-workes we heard the plan hit the building..... we then watched the horrible events take place over the next 4 hours (we literally had run with hunderds of other people as WTC 1 fell down). I can tell you this for a fact from someone that was there. 2 plans hit the WTC and that is it. There where no gov. planeted bombs... there where no CIA ops covertly blowing up WTC 7.

I think you are the scum of the earth and I really wish you would just stfu.

[John Prophet]

so I dont get a Christmas card this year?

[ShawnD1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cableuser

What about that guy got millions of dollars worth of insurance money after he bought the building.

That was Larry Silverstein. He insured the WTC complex specifically in case of terrorism. That may seem crazy to some people, but remember that it had already happened in the early 90s with some car bomb or something. Try to think of it from your own perspective. Once you get your car stolen, do you insure all your other vehicles in case of theft?

The problem with this debunking article is that it's not even debunking anything. Conspiracy theorists are saying it was a government plan to take down the WTC, and debunking people are saying "no it wasn't the government it was airplanes". Yes, because the government is not at all capale of controlling anything related to airplanes

If you want to debunk a conspiracy theory you try to show who is clearly responsible for something, not that the event really happened. Does anybody refute that JFK was killed? No, but some people have theories about who was responsible for it, and most of those theories involve either US or Cuban government. some people don't like to believe that some guy just went crazy and decided to kill the president for no reason, and is then killed before he can be questioned.

The best conspiracy video I've seen so far is one called Loose Change, which is available on Google Video for anybody who wants to watch.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...q=loose+change

[BBA]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cableuser

What about that guy got millions of dollars worth of insurance money after he bought the building.

What about those wives who are travelling around making millions on top of the millions they got from their husbands dying in the towers? I bet they planted their husbands in those buildings as well. It's all a conspiracy.

-

[Shabow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShawnD1

That was Larry Silverstein. He insured the WTC complex specifically in case of terrorism. That may seem crazy to some people, but remember that it had already happened in the early 90s with some car bomb or something. Try to think of it from your own perspective. Once you get your car stolen, do you insure all your other vehicles in case of theft?

The problem with this debunking article is that it's not even debunking anything. Conspiracy theorists are saying it was a government plan to take down the WTC, and debunking people are saying "no it wasn't the government it was airplanes". Yes, because the government is not at all capale of controlling anything related to airplanes

If you want to debunk a conspiracy theory you try to show who is clearly responsible for something, not that the event really happened. Does anybody refute that JFK was killed? No, but some people have theories about who was responsible for it, and most of those theories involve either US or Cuban government. some people don't like to believe that some guy just went crazy and decided to kill the president for no reason, and is then killed before he can be questioned.

The best conspiracy video I've seen so far is one called Loose Change, which is available on Google Video for anybody who wants to watch.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...q=loose+change

My reply to the "Loose Change" video.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

[BBA]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mad1

That is how it occurs when a person is confronted with the facts for which they have no legitimate response,they switch to attacking the person. .

Nah...it's only the way immature people react, the mature ones actually accept when they are wrong and move along.