5 NonDebateable Points on 9/11

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Aw Jeez, not you again G.O.D.

I'm still waiting for the film you claimed you'd seen, of Rumsfeld telling us on 9/12 that the missing Trillions from the DoD's budget was purely an accounting error. I've looked for it, but can't find it!!! So unless you can find it, please do not spread disinformation.

Back on topic,not all have been de-bunked. You have tried to de-bunk them, but they are still up for debate. Especially the 'Pull It' quote. The BBC footage, I'm not buying just a simple journalistic mistake and you certainly cannot de-bunk the fact Silverstein made a hell of a lot of money from the insurance.

reply to post by questforevidence

Most of these "Non-debatable" points have already had their flaws pointed out, but I'd just like to point out a couple of things about ZIM:

They had been planning their move for 2 years.
and
They were moving to new offices, tailor-made for their specific needs and requirements as a shipping firm.
and
Their lease expired on September 1st.
and
They still had a small office with staff in the WTC.

Sadly, most of the common sources have gone dead (and I can hardly blame them, it's been 10 years, I dare say there a few websites that haven't had a major overhaul since then), but it's still possible to find them through the Internet Archive or Google.

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

You have tried to de-bunk them, but they are still up for debate.

I thought the point of the thread was that these points were not up for debate? It says so in the title.

But you're right. They're all extremely debatable. At best.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978

You have tried to de-bunk them, but they are still up for debate.

I thought the point of the thread was that these points were not up for debate? It says so in the title.

But you're right. They're all extremely debatable. At best.

I think the OP is correct. These points obviously aren't "debatable" if no one is willing to engage in debate. Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

reply to post by hooper


I was using "debatable" in a disparaging sense. But yes, the debate on most of the points is effectively over, so paradoxically the only way to sustain them is by refusing to engage in discussion concerning them.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by hooper

 

I was using "debatable" in a disparaging sense. But yes, the debate on most of the points is effectively over, so paradoxically the only way to sustain them is by refusing to engage in discussion concerning them.

There has been little debating, only derision. Each side accusing the other of any number of defects. That's why we need 'another' investigation of the events of 9/11. You say the story is 'proven', we say the 'proof' is suspect. This will usually resort in a hung jury, and when that happens, there's a re-trial. That's all we're asking, and then we'll all shut up. Pretty freakin' simple.

Originally posted by dillweed

There has been little debating, only derision. Each side accusing the other of any number of defects. That's why we need 'another' investigation of the events of 9/11. You say the story is 'proven', we say the 'proof' is suspect. This will usually resort in a hung jury, and when that happens, there's a re-trial. That's all we're asking, and then we'll all shut up. Pretty freakin' simple.

I think the story is proven beyond reasonable doubt, yes, and that's an opinion that is overwhelmingly popular. There are a few inconsistencies and the main issue for me regards the government's cover-up of its intel failures -something that Truthers tend not to bother with.

I'm happy for there to be another investigation. I don't think it will turn up much that will impress you or your ilk, and I imagine that at that point you will decide that it was crooked. I also rather think that if you want another investigation you need to do rather more than tell me that you want one on the internet. Why are there not more Truthers actually campaigning?

reply to post by dillweed

There has been little debating, only derision.

There's been plenty of "debate", unfortunately for you there hasn't been much success. (OK, no success).

Each side accusing the other of any number of defects.

Please be advised that there are not "two sides' to this issue. It is a settle matter.

That's why we need 'another' investigation of the events of 9/11.

"We" don't need anything. "We" are perfectly happy with the truth. You, on the other hand, need some attention so demanding an investigation that will never happen from people who have no power to conduct or order one seems pretty silly.

You say the story is 'proven', we say the 'proof' is suspect.

Yep, thats what you do - say the proof is suspect. You don't prove the proof is suspect, you just say it.

This will usually resort in a hung jury, and when that happens, there's a re-trial. That's all we're asking, and then we'll all shut up. Pretty freakin' simple

So you want two investigations! Because you know the first one will, of course, confirm what we already all know. That is to say that 19 foreign nationals, apparently motivated by religious and political fervor hijacked 4 commercial passenger planes on the morning of 9/11/2001 and proceed to crash them into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and apparently as a result of a struggle with the resisting passengers, into a field in southwestern Pa. So, what issues or "theories" are on the table? Everything? Do we need to investigate whether or not all the victims are computer generated creations? How about nukes in the basement? Holograms? TV Fakery? Thermite? Staged crash scenes? Any limits here or is everything in? If so, how do we know when we're done? If not then what do you tell the folks whose pet theories are left uninvestigated? Or is society now obligated to drop everything and start a new investigation anytime someone comes up with a new Hollywood plot line?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
-The BBC never said the WTC 7 collaped. They said the Salomon bros. building collapsed. They didn't know the Salomon Bros. building was the name for WTC 7 rather than WTC 1. Until the truthers started to grasp at this straw, *I* didn't know WTC 7 was called the Salomon Bros. building.

Really?

Are you really that ignorant over the subject?

I think you meant "They didnt know that the Salmon brothers building was called World trade center 7 to some"...

The bbc transmission was from late in the afternoon, the whole world already knew wtc 1 and 2 had fallen she is reporting that the Salomon building (wtc7) collapsed or will collapse. Its only in debunker wonderland that you can misinterpret what she said to fit your agenda.

Stop starting stupid conspiracies dave. Stick to the facts.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Have to agree with the gist of what you're saying. But of course the notion that the conspirators would involve the BBC (why?) is incredibly fanciful. Far more likely that they picked up on the reports that said the building was going to fall and made an error. It's not unheard of, especially in fast-paced news environments.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247

Please tell me how you came to that conclusion based on one comment I made that I retracted due to new evidence? How am I a Jew-hater because of my comment? Please point to any time on ATS that I have ever made a comment against anyone person of Jewish faith! I have disagreements with the politics of Israel, but have never made an ill-willed comment towards Jews.

I really and truly hate being dragged down these conspiracy rat holes to argue over absolutely nothing. According to Wikipedia ZIM is owned by the Ofer Brothers, which is a family owned corporation. These aren't mysterious secret agents nor are they sinister Jewish World Order assassins. They're two guys who happen to be Jewish who started a shipping company back in 1950 and the business grew. Here is Sammy Ofer, the guy who you're saying is "involved in the conspiracy to stage the 9/11 attack". He recently died a few months ago. I'm posting a link because I don't care enough about this lame argument to bother uploading his photo-

Photo of Sammy Ofer

It's one thing to accuse nameless entities that noone has ever seen, but it's another thing entirely when you're accusing real live people of conspiracy. What gets me is that between accusations against the gov't, Israel, the military industrial complex, big oil, NIST, FEMA, NATO, the CIA, the FBI, the NY police, the NY fire dept, NYPA, and even the BBC (plus one character is even accusing the Red Cross of being involved), according to you conspiracy people the only ones completely innocent in all this is Bin Laden and Al Qaida. It's becoming completely mental.

Are you willing to admit that you may have just went on a rant about hating Jews to the wrong person...who happened to disagree with the OP?

Well, someone around here is ranting about Israel and the Jews, because all the "coincidences" actually point to a Japanese World Order conspiracy and not any Jewish World Order plot. Remember the part about "if you don't need any evidence then neither do I"?

You are seeing "coincidences" of secret Israeli plots specifically because you yourself want to see coincidences of secret Israeli plots. It's not research you're doing; it's a Rorschach test.

Fact: There were live fly hijacking scenarios taking place on the 9th, 10th and 11th of September some of which had terrorists attacking NYC. All of the scenarios taking place on the 11th has been classified.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I didn't say that I disagreed with any of what you described. After seeing the Op's comments that I missed on my phone, I retracted my statement. Why? Because I was wrong.

So I think you are missing the point. You made unfair accusations against me without any evidence or reason. I guess I was expecting a humble apology, not a lecture about "it's not the Jew's....it's the Jap's!"

reply to post by questforevidence


Nice, thinly veiled anti-semetic crap. However, all 5 points are debateable, even debunkable. try again.

1. Larry Silversteen is a Jew, yes. I got news for you. So are ALOT of people in New York, rich or poor. Next.
Pull it has already been debated and debunked a thousand times. By "it" Larry Silversteen was refering to the rescue/firefighting operation at WTC 7. And I could care less if he was eating at Mc Donalds on 9/11. next.

2. Grey area, and thus, debatable. Next.

3. WTC 7 had been heavily damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, and falling debris. It is not the smoking gun. It was a smoking building that had a huge bite taken out of one of its corners. Oh, and it was on fire. DIESEL fire. next.

4. The BBC got their buildings mixed up. Guess what. First on scene media reports have been known to be wrong. Next.

5. Yes Israel was probably up to something. You know what other govornment was up to even MORE somethings? Saudi Arabia.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Do you not find his response almost robot like? He hasn't read your reply.

G.O.D you should at least read the posts in order to reply in a more informed state.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


I know that he either didn't read it, or is refusing to address the issue with honor and personal responsibility. I can admit when I am wrong,...I wonder if he can.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978

Do you not find his response almost robot like? He hasn't read your reply.

Usual mode for "truther" - find a site. Post idiotic crap copied from some website claiming absolute proof of
conspiracy

Take off to avoid exposure as ignorant moron.....

Click here to learn more about this warning.

I would throw in the towers have been hit by airliners as well. So far no private video that I know of has been produced that shows explosions and missing planes. Another undebatable point. In the 90s MPRI was the handler of many of the 911 terrorists, who were operatives in Bosnia. MPRI is a private organisation with ongoing contracts with the pentagon and staffed with former military personell who held high ranks.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


So what you are now saying is that it couldn't have POSSIBLY had anything to do with the Jews, because the Jews vacated, and it would just be too obvious then?

That sounds pretty ridiculous to me. That is like saying a suspect couldn't have been a murderer because he hid the body. It makes things too obvious.

Use more logic.