New "Truther" Lies Exposed

Fellow Debunker 1, who readers will remember from an earlier article  sent me the following YouTube video for my analysis.

Here are the problems:

            If you know the building is going to be destroyed the next day and think the evidence would be destroyed along with it  and cannot possibly be recovered ( meaning you are unaware of the German company in question), why would you bother trying to cover it up? It seems like a lot of unnecessary work that could actually draw MORE attention to you.

            Just because some of the transfers may have been illegal, it does not necessarily follow that the government was aware of or behind the impending attacks.  There were plenty of businesses in the WTC- it would not be unreasonable to assume some of them were engaging in shady behavior.  The timing of the suspicious transactions does not necessarily make sense only if someone knew the attacks were coming- it COULD simply have been coincidence, although, admittedly, with that amount of money, coincidence is unlikely, and again, it does not necessarily follow that the government was behind it.  Logically, the government would want the data recovered to further the investigation and catch more culprits in order to stop more attacks. . Also, around 1 minute 8 seconds, they sound a little unsure.  If the DOD is sending it over there, it is not surprising that some of it would be classified top secret.  After all, some of the recovered data might provide more clues to the terrorists and you don’t want the enemy knowing you’re onto them.

            I know some “truthers” are looking to see who benefits from the attack because they can’t grasp the concept that just because someone benefits from something doesn’t mean they were behind it.  For example, if you have a rich relative that dies in a car accident and leaves you everything, then obviously, you’re benefiting from the accident.  However, more than likely you did NOT cause the car accident.  Also, using “truther” logic, the various “truthers” who have benefited financially from writing books claiming a conspiracy and so forth would have to have been behind it- obviously they aren’t.

            Furthermore, good luck getting insurance companies to agree to look the other way on something that would at the very least cost them tons of money, if not be outright cases of insurance fraud. At 3 minutes 45 seconds, they state that it leads to the suspicion that the speculators knew the attacks were coming. A suspicion is NOT proof and can be wrong.

            At 3 minutes 52 seconds, the guy states that “if it were insider trading, it must have been someone connected to Al Qaeda.”  This actually corroborates the government claim. Furthermore, we already know they Al Qaeda was already able to place sleeper agents in the United States in order to carry out the 9/11 attacks, so it would not be unreasonable to expect them to plant someone in the WTC or on Wall Street to engage in insider trading.  After all, like any other terrorist group, Al Qaeda needs money and that would be an excellent way for them to fund their operations.  I would not be at all surprised to learn that Al Qaeda did indeed plant one of their own with foreknowledge of the attacks on Wall Street with the orders to engage insider trading in order to finance more of their operations. After all, hiding in plain sight is often the best strategy.  In short, after watching the video in its entirety, it seems to me that it actually puts another dent in the “truther” argument.  

            Now, switching gears, another thing “truthers” use to “prove” a conspiracy is the fact that Bush remained at Booker School during the attacks. 911myths.com  provides this quote, which they obtained from here, stating the “truther” claims: “Given the Secret Service’s obligation to protect the President;

Given the Secret Service’s open line to the FAA and therefore its knowledge that a plane had been hijacked and subsequently ploughed into the World Trade Center;

Given the potentially deadly threat to President Bush if he proceeded to a public place, on schedule, as announced the day before and known to everyone in the region;

There is only one explanation for the Secret Service allowing President Bush to take the deadly risk of going to the Booker School on the morning of September 11th.

George Walker Bush knew the plans for 9-11. And because he knew those plans, he knew that nobody was going to attack the Booker School.”

            911myths.com correctly points out that “truthers” contradict themselves due to the fact that you would require far too many people in on it to keep everything secret.

            “Truthers” also forget this little detail- after the second tower was hit, it was obvious we were under attack.  Obviously it doesn’t occur to “truthers” that there were other possibilities that the Secret Service had to take into account. 911myths.com  points out the following possibilities with this quote: “Perhaps there’s an alternative explanation for the actions of the security service, then. Maybe they weren’t sure where to take him, for instance. How did they know that the attackers might not be relying on Bush being moved? Perhaps there was a truck bomb waiting for Bush to be moved to the airport. Maybe there was an ambush planned there. What if Air Force One was the target? The Security Service staff at the school with Bush did not have an overview of what was going on, and as Bush was in an area that was secure on the ground, at least, then surely it’s reasonable to take time to consider where Bush should go next. And take guidance from someone who was in the loop, back at the White House.”  Hint to “truthers:” If you are under attack, it’s probably NOT a good idea to move the president around.  After all, it’s much more difficult to secure the skies than a school due to the fact that a school has a SLIGHTLY smaller area.  Also, anyone with an IQ above room temperature- which automatically eliminates “truthers-“  knows that Air Force One would have been an IRRESISTABLE target for the terrorists.

            As for Cheney’s account being vague and contradictory, that doesn’t prove squat-  after all, everything was happening very fast. Even young people can get confused when events happen fast and Cheney’s not exactly a spring chicken. In addition, confusion is normal in the chaos that occurs after a disaster.

            As for why Bush didn’t head back to D.C. immediately, there’s a good reason for that too.  Cheney was already there and when you are under attack you do NOT want the president and vice president in the same area.  It’s the same reason that the president and vice president NEVER travel together on the same aircraft carrier.  It’s called “covering your ass.”

            Once again, we see you should watch what you step in when walking behind “truthers” due to the cow patties they leave behind.

 (picture from here )

Advertisements

Posted February 25, 2011 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

Tagged with , , ,

%d bloggers like this: