Debating 9/11

Seeing as how today is a day ending in Y, I got into an internet argument about who was responsible for 9/11.  9/11/01 that is.  Even the CIA now admits it was responsible for 9/11/73, which gives you some idea just how blatantly evil they are.

I understand that a lot of people, even the majority, accept the official bullshit version of what happened on that day.  It’s what’s been reported in all the papers.  I don’t agree with their position, but I can understand how they came to believe what they do.  But there are some arguments frequently used by the anti-truthers which strike me as completely invalid,  and we could have a more constructive discussion if they could be stricken from the  record, so to speak.

1.  You’re nuts.  Sometimes they just preface their statement with that, sometimes that is their whole statement.  It’s an ad hominem attack, it doesn’t  in any way refute what we are saying and it is undoubtedly, at least in some cases, untrue.  Sure, we’ve got Alex Jones on our side and he’s nuttier than a fruitcake, but so?  There are crazy people who like pizza and chocolate, that doesn’t  mean that it’s crazy to like pizza and chocolate.

2.  I’m from New York!  I saw the towers fall!  I have friends who died!  Sorry for your loss.  It doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about.  There’s another point I’d like to raise here, and I’m not accusing any individual specifically.  But, here goes:  3,000 people died that day.  Let’s assume that they had 100 friends each, on average.  If we’re talking about real friends and not facebook friends,  that’s a fairly high number.  So, assuming that number, there are approximately 300,000 people who can claim they lost friends on that day, or slightly less than 1 out of 1,000 Americans.  As often as you hear the statement, you know some people are lying.

3.  I just can’t believe that people in our own government would do such a thing.  That is your problem.  Your inability to believe it is no indicator that it didn’t  happen.

4.  All of your arguments have been debunked!  No, they haven’t.  They have barely been addressed.  There is a difference between debunked and shouted down.  Rebuffed is not refuted.

5.  Why would they have done it?  Cheney’s company, Halliburton, made $39 billion on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Larry Silverstein got $10 billion in insurance money.  George W. Bush and his minions got total power to do whatever they wanted.

6.  A conspiracy of that size is impossible!  Says who?  There are lots of jokey statements about how impossible it is to keep a secret but I don’t think any scientific studies have ever been done on that subject.  Of course, maybe they’ve been done secretly.  I wouldn’t know.

7.  Our government isn’t competent enough to pull that off.  And  yet you think Al Qaeda is?  If Al Qaeda were actually capable of pulling off something like this, why have they done nothing comparable since?  (the London bombings were not comparable.  No airplanes were involved.  No buildings were destroyed.)

Those will do for now.  If you accept the official version, and can avoid using these 7 completely ridiculous arguments, I’d  be happy to debate the issue with you.


1 Comment

Filed under Blogs' Archive

One response to “Debating 9/11

  1. Great points sir..I tend to be more wordy when dealing with the head-in-the-sand types, but everything you said hits the nail squarely on its head. Enjoyed your FB posts yesterday…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s