Debunking 9/11 Website Debunks Itself
Middle school grammar, contradictory arguments befit proponents of the official conspiracy theory
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | September 22 2006
A website which purports to disprove claims that there was government complicity in 9/11 and that the twin towers and Building 7 were demolished with explosives is riddled with errors, middle school grammar and arguments that both defy common sense and contradict one another.
Since the 9/11 truth movement's success in attracting an increasing crescendo of positive media attention, a backlash of websites and videos have sprung up that attempt to reinvigorate faith in the official conspiracy theory of the government fairy tale - a yarn that has about as much basis in reality as Humpty Dumpty.
The author of the Debunking 9/11 website refuses to reveal his or her identity but does admit to being part of the left gatekeeper crowd, confessing on the front page, "I am a flaming liberal and proud of it."
The website is littered with misspellings, inaccurate terms and middle school level grammar.
As writers we all make the occasional typo but when an entire website is cluttered with jerky and difficult statements it betrays a certain lack of intelligence on the part of the author.
For example, the term "conspiracy theorist," in the singular is used throughout the website in phrases such as, "In every major event there are coincidences, false, poor record keeping and unconfirmed news reports which make it to the public. Conspiracy theorist live for this."
The author seems unable to grasp the concept of the plural.
"Am I not publicly debating the issue? Why should a hall filled with conspiracy theorist clapping at every utterance from one of the "scholars" change the facts on this site?"
If a hall is filled one would presume the presence of more than one person.
Again, if I had found a few typos I would be nitpicking but if this individual can't even construct a basic sentence how can he or she be trusted to refute the scientific analysis of a career physics professor?
The author uses the buzzword of 9/11 official story conspiracy theorists in citing the "logical fallacies" allegedly associated with 9/11 skeptic's arguments and yet the website's Building 7 page betrays the biggest logical fallacy by completely contradicting itself.
The website first refutes claims that Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment meant to demolish the building by quoting Silverstein's spokesman.
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
Having established that there were firefighters in Building 7 and that those firefighters had to be "pulled" from the building, the website concludes that,
"There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the fireman out." (Again note the serious case of plural amnesia).
And yet in the second paragraph of the page the author claims that, "Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above the them ." (another error).
So if the Building was subject to "unfought fires" which were the sole cause of its collapse how could there have been any firemen to "pull" out of the building?
To repeat Silverstein's spokesman, "The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires."
Popular Mechanics , which is cited by the Debunking 9/11 website in its links section, also quotes NIST in saying "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."
Which is it to be? Firemen or no firemen? Pull or nothing to pull?
The contradiction proves one of two things - either Silverstein is lying about what his "pull it" comment meant or the so-called "unfought fires" which contributed to the building's collapse were actually being extinguished.
You can't have your cake and eat it.
The likelier scenario when one judges the length of time it took before Silverstein responded to the "pull it" controversy and an overview of firefighter's comments on the day strongly suggests that no firefighters ever entered WTC 7 - meaning Silverstein is lying about his 2002 comments on the PBS documentary.
The website seems to take unbridled joy in the threat to Professor Steven Jones' livelihood in the wake of his suspension, failing to mention that the suspension was preceded by a World Net Daily article that claimed Jones had called for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government - a completely bogus and libelous charge that World Net Daily later retracted after the writer Jonathon Moseley was unable to cite his source for such comments during an appearance on the Alex Jones Show.
In the links section, the website carries a You Tube video of Loose Change guru Dylan Avery's appearance on the Jack Blood Show. Mirroring other reactionary hit piece videos against the 9/11 truth movement, the clip slyly juxtaposes victim's family members looking solemn and images from beheading videos against Avery and Blood making dismissive remarks about the official story - implicating that trashing the official story is insulting to the victims. The contrast of the emotionally laden images of crying wives and children with Avery and Blood's light-hearted casual conversation is a trick to deceive the naive viewer into believing Avery and Blood are rude and unsympathetic to the tragedy of the event.
Even Avery's occasional use of the word "whatever" is portrayed as a sideswipe at the 9/11 dead.
As Avery and Blood discuss the incredulity of Arabs with box cutters being able to take on passengers and burly ex-military pilots, unconnected images of BBC articles about Britain's knife amnesty and how knife crime is rising are flashed.
This is all about emotional style over substance and is bluntly intended to characterize 9/11 skeptics as uncaring inhumane carpet baggers - without ever being able to address the evidence.
We urge our readers to comb through this website for themselves - it won't be long before you run across bizarre leftfield arguments (at one point the collapse of the twin towers is compared to two pool balls hitting each other), confounding statements that are an affront to the English language, and outright errors concerning the claims of the 9/11 truth movement.
We invite you to e mail the anonymous author of the website, maybe take pity on them and offer to buy them a dictionary.
COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE
Infowars.com is Copyright 2006 Alex Jones | Fair Use Notice