• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The facts speak for themselves, debunked?

ericverducci

New Blood
E
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
11
I'm not allowed to post links yet, but I'm wondering about the article 20080930000847323 at 911truth[dot]org. This is featured in many other places, it's the "The facts speak for themselves" list.

I was wondering if anyone had any resources debunking the 50 "facts" that have been spreading around the Internet for some time. I tried looking on these forums and google around, but I couldn't seem to find a list where anyone's debunked or discussed them all. Some of them I already know where to find information about, but others I don't. Has anyone had any luck regarding this set of articles?

While we're at it, does anyone have any resources that debunk the Charley Sheen 20 minutes with the president? I know there are threads here about it, but to make things easier, is there a single article/page/thread where they're all debunked? If not, I'm not really concerned about it, primarily only the first thing I mentioned.

Thanks a lot for any help!
 
Charlie Sheen didn't meet with the President for 20 minutes, so there is nothing to "debunk" there. :)

ETA - Some of those 50 facts prove that 9/11 was a giant clusterfark, and some are false, and some prove nothing. No time for me to address them all right now, but Jews dancing on the van, PNAC, etc. is just noise. I mean really, "Bush's popularity soared" after 9/11 proves what, exactly?
 
Last edited:
If you are even entertaining the idea that Sheen met with Obama for 20 minutes to talk about 9/11 then I'm not sure there is much to talk about it.
 
20 minutes is just enough time to watch Two and a Half Men if you skip the intro and commercials. So it's possible! :)
 
The 911 power debunker is a great search tool for you to find out more about truther claims. It's usually the first place I go when I hear a truther claim I'm not familiar with. At this point I've pretty much heard them all though.
 
Here is the link for you eric, with jon Golds update...

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090104025547844

In typical Jon Gold Gibberish, we are unable to extract from his meandering exactly what part of his bs is the alleged "Fact".

For instance, is "Fact#1" that the Bush admin was made up predominantly of member of the "project for a new american century"? Or is Fact#1 that this group produced the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses"? Or is it something else in the 4 lines of crap that he gives for "Fact#1"?

Let us presume the "Fact#1" is that the Bush admin was made up predominantly of the members of the "project for a new american century". Well for that to be fact, Gold must produce (A) the # of people that were in the entire BUSH administration, (B) the number of people that constituted the group "project for a new american century", and the # of people in the latter must be greater than 50% of the # of people in the former.

TAM:)
 
Fact#2, while likely true, is not only irrelevant, but it is part of the evidence one could use to prove 9/11 was NOT an inside job. If Bush et al, came to power wanting go to war with Iraq, and if this same group ORCHESTRATED 9/11, then why were none of the hijackers Iraqi? Why was Hussein not framed for the attacks, but rather it was OBL???

TAM:)
 
Fact #3: Cheney was CEO of Halliburton.

SO!!!!!! How does this even REMOTELY prove that 9/11 was an inside job? Oh wait I know...

Dick is bad, mkay...So Dick made 9/11 mkay, so that his former company could profit from the oil reserves mkay.

nice story, but where is your PROOF?????

TAM:)
 
Does this list go beyond "Bush and Cheney liked oil, and made 9/11 happen to get Iraq oil"?

oihhh

TAM
 
I replied to Gold last year about this list. Note: He admits making some adjustments to the list of facts based on my critique, although not nearly as many as he should have made.

For example, consider these "facts":

Fact #8
On the morning of 9/11, there were several military exercises taking place, some of which allegedly mirrored the events taking place that day. A lot of different people didn't know whether or not the hijackings were "real-world or exercise." The 9/11 Report only mentioned one of these wargames, and in a footnote in the back of the book.
Click to expand...

Fact #9
From the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), Dick Cheney allegedly monitored Flight 77 from 50 miles outside of Washington D.C.
Click to expand...

Fact #13
The heads of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, Sen. Porter Goss, and Sen. Bob Graham, along with Sen. John Kyl, met with an alleged financier of the attacks on the day of 9/11.
Click to expand...

(Bolding added for emphasis)

See the problem? Allegations are not "facts". You'll see variations on that word pop up elsewhere in Gold's manifesto, in 6, 16, 19, 21, 30, 31, 32, 36, 43. So much for the Joe Friday, "Just the facts, ma'am," approach.

Note this one:

Fact #3
Dick Cheney was the CEO for a company called Halliburton. During his tenure there, he gave a speech at the Institute of Petroleum that said, "while many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow." On 10/11/2005, it was reported that the shares that Dick Cheney claimed he no longer had with Halliburton, rose 3281% in one year.
Click to expand...

Where is that referenced to? Why, Jon Gold's website. From there we go to the Carpetbagger Report. But even if we accept the sourcing on this, the fact of the matter is that Cheney had long ago pledged any proceeds from his stock options (not stock) to charity.

Cheney said Sunday on NBC that since becoming vice president, "I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."

Democrats pointed out that Cheney receives deferred compensation from Halliburton under an arrangement he made in 1998, and also retains stock options. He has pledged to give after-tax proceeds of the stock options to charity.

Cheney's aides defended the assertion on NBC, saying the financial arrangements do not constitute a tie to the company's business performance. They pointed out that Cheney took out a $15,000 insurance policy so he would collect the deferred payments over five years whether or not Halliburton remains in business.
Click to expand...

So the implication made by Gold that Cheney benefited from his Halliburton stock options is incorrect.
 
but but but...the word "facts" makes it "undebunkable"....lol

TAM:)
 
Fact #45
NIST released a report about the collapse of building 7 that is in dispute. Recently, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) published comments critiquing NIST's report on building 7. The September Eleventh Advocates released a statement that cleverly mocked their report. There is an organization known as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that disputes this report. A physics professor formerly of Brigham Young University named Steven E. Jones, a whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories named Kevin Ryan, and several others belong to a group called Scholars For 9/11 Truth & Justice that have written several critiques of NIST's reports from over the years that have been published. NIST's questionable report on building 7 caused people that were once on the fence regarding the collapse of those buildings on 9/11, to think that those advocating something different than NIST's conclusions, responsibly, might be right.
Click to expand...


I'm a little surprised they think the CTBUH report is on their side when it clearly supports the NIST report's main findings,differing only in their desire for more detail on preventative measures that should be introduced and a small difference in whether the collapse was caused by the failure of column 79 or caused by the collapse of the floors which led to the failure of column 79 and other columns.

http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/WorkingGroups/Fire&Safety/CTBUH_NISTwtc7_ DraftReport.pdf

"The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in
the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building
professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a
direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. We
have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 ‘truth movement’ presents
and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition
on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings. The Council considers that the
‘truth movement’ is a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance
issues which should be at the center of the debate about how best to continue
to improve and develop fire and life safety in tall buildings."
Click to expand...
 
DavidJames said:
If you are even entertaining the idea that Sheen met with Obama for 20 minutes to talk about 9/11 then I'm not sure there is much to talk about it.
Click to expand...

No, I know they didn't meet, but the "facts" he beings up is what I'm referring to.
 
Reactor drone said:
I'm a little surprised they think the CTBUH report is on their side [...]
Click to expand...


Don't be. This tactic is about the most clever thing truthers are capable of. You'll note that they aren't actually claiming that the CTBUH report supports their position. They're presenting it merely as non-specific criticism of the NIST report in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the NIST report in the reader's mind. I believe this is "poisoning the well".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom