Whole Lotta 9/11 Questions Just Begging to be Debunked

A buddy of mine sent me this site and while some of the questions I know the answer for, there’s a boatload more I have no idea about. For example:

Anyone have anything to backup/debunk these?

  1. Coincidence.

(I assume you meant 11.) Training.

  1. Bullshit.
  1. alert the media…somebody canceled a meeting! Good God! Ive never seen this happen!

  2. I don’t get it. whats the point? Sooo what are they claiming they were they really their for???

  3. Yeahh…now it all adds up…why one anyone waste the time to debunk meaningless trivia?

  1. They were there on an exercise that had been pre-planned. The conspiracy implication can be very easily debunked as most of the army troops involved were from the 1st Armoured Division, which unsurprsingly didn’t play any role in Afghanistan at all. Tanks aren’t much use rooting guerillas out from mountain caves.

Look, I don’t doubt that the stuff on that site is so much fecal matter. However, off-hand dismissals don’t prove anything, either. Does anybody actually know if any of these things happened? Was there even a meeting planned for 9/10 at the WTC? Has the London Times interviewed Rushdie post-9/11? Crusoe’s posting from the UK, so presumably he/she knows that the British Navy actually was in the Gulf at the time (which, of course, proves nothing, after all, the exercises could have been an annual event as many of the US Navy’s exercises in various places are).

Ah, crazy 'ol Jeff Rense. Anyway, I’m going to try and address all of the “general” questions, mainly since I’m bored and most are so blatantly insipid. So, here I go:

  1. Because it happened too fast?
  2. Never heard of this, sounds dubious.
  3. There were photos from the security cam. There were no video recorders on hand.
  4. They eventually did.
  5. Houston?
  6. Because they WERE boxcutters?
  7. Two have been found. Good luck finding the ones in the WTC rubble.
  8. Hm?
  9. He did? News to me.
  10. Coincidence.
  11. Because we have a good intelligence service.
  12. " "
  13. What?
  14. Hm?
  15. Oh, despite the dozens of eyewitnesses, photos, and wreckage, no one saw it…
  16. Not stable.
  17. Dunno, seems irrelevant.
  18. I don’t know you conspiracy nuts, how about you do a web search?
  19. Who cares?
  20. Maybe cause he was?
  21. Because they were suspicious maybe? Who knows.
  22. Maybe he errantly thought they weren’t a threat anymore.
  23. Do a search.
  24. Ditto.
  25. Who cares?
  26. Errant reporting.
  27. Did they not?
  28. Firstly, Muslims don’t have “bibles” [sic]. Furthermore, they weren’t devout Muslims.
  29. Because they had few records and were suicidal.
  30. Never heard of that.
  31. Dunno.
  32. Never heard of that.
  33. Probably cause some of them were terrorists. Just guessing here…
  34. Maybe it’s because Muslims don’t constitute a significant part of the population, and thus had an expectedly lower commuter rate for those flights?
  35. Ha, doubtful.

Ugh, now I’m tired.

Most of those are stupid, uninformed, and repetative questions. Nothing to see here people, move along, move along.

I think his last alien abduction also took out his spelling capability… Zeroxed :wally

You say off-hand dismissals don’t prove anything. True.

However, niether do off-hand “connections”. My birthday is 9/14. Was this a warning to ME? Note the date: 9/11. Note the emergency services phone number: 911. Was this an attack on New York’s Emergency Services?

Everyone in the world was doing SOMEthing, going to or from SOMEwhere, on 9/11. Anti-terrorism experts were meeting, military units were training. OTHER terrorists were plotting their attacks.

There is NOTHING to debunk about coincidences in time. Lacking further evidence of a connection, it does not even *merit[?I] refutation.

As I write, there is probably another person on earth also thinking about unusual coincidences. Is this a coincidence? YES!

My original off-hand dismissals were exactly what the website’s claims warranted. One could spend a lifetime refuting off-the-wall claims, until one realizes that even a refutation of a stupid claim (as opposed to simply ignoring or offhandedly dismissing it) lends it some degree of credibility.

I try not to post to “please debunk this” threads very often for just this reason.