Tag(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats      (3 comments)

Tales of 9/11 Truthiness

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)
Page 3 of 4 page(s)

opednews.com

"Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money [7]." ... "In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [13]." -Wikipedia, Larry Silverstein

Yeah, what a doofus. I'm surprised he can tie his own shoes. THAT's a valid argument.

"to me, he made it sound like the decision to pull and the building collapsing are successive events. He certainly does not mention "later on" or similar." --911veritas on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 2:24pm.

Okay, then:

'We watched the devastation of 9/11, then we saw the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.'

This must mean the two events happened on the same afternoon, in the same hour! Think, people.

"It's obvious what johndoraemi's agenda is here. No matter what the evidence is, or how many times johnjoraemi is proven wrong, he continues to try to engage everyone in endless debate [Heaven forbid you had to actually think!], repeating the same tired arguments over and over and over again. --Keenan on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 3:52am.

Has yet to prove a word I said "wrong." The paranoia is very attractive, though.

"Who the FECK do you think you are?

There are witnesses on record saying that members of the FDNY told them that they were going to bring the building down." --stallion4 on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 2:54am

This one refuses to even attempt to substantiate his claims until I cede editorial control of my website! You wonder if these are mainly junior high schoolers. It sounds like hearsay, gossip, anyway (inadmissable in court). Note how I am not supposed to question the dogma at all, "Who the FECK do you think you are?"

This is in spite of a long list of reasons to doubt the "truther's" interpretation of that comment:

1. NYFD doesn't blow up buildings.

2. "contain the fire" indicates firefighting operation was ongoing at the time of the call, making it plausible that the purpose was to "pull the operation."

3. Telling "pull it" to a fire department commander has nothing to do with controlled demolition and everything to do with the "fire department commander's" area of responsibility: his men.

4. "Silverstein's spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said in September 2005 that by "pull it" Silverstein was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building, and confirming that they should evacuate the premises." -Wikipedia, Larry Silverstein

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

 

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog: http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Editor

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
3 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Hang the Treasonous Scum by cliff567 on Thursday, Feb 8, 2007 at 2:57:22 AM
Pulling building #7 by Dan Merica on Thursday, Feb 8, 2007 at 3:55:24 PM
Good article. by pratliff94 on Thursday, Feb 8, 2007 at 5:00:32 PM