Sunday, October 29, 2006

9-11 Topsites: You Can't Handle the Truth!

Hmmm, I submitted SLC to 9-11 Topsites about a week or so ago, got the code, got a confirmation email. Yet somehow we're not showing up. I wonder why? Could it possibly be because it would be embarrassing to the 9-11 Denial Movement that a Debunking blog is one of the very top 9-11 Websites?

We're currently averaging 3280 pageviews per day. How does that stack up at 9-11 Topsites?

Ahem. It would rank us third right now, at about 90% of the pageviews of the "Scholars" for 9-11 Denial's website, and about half of 9-11 Blogger's. I submitted us as a 9-11 Investigation Site; we'd be the #1 site in that category by about 5-1. The famed Killtown blog? Gets about 170 page views a day according to 9-11 Topsites.

21 Comments:

At 30 October, 2006 02:54, Blogger Robert said...

So, have you guys got the answers to all the questions people are now asking all over the world? From "How come Cheney was in command of NORAD on the morning of 9/11?" to "How come the routine intercept procedures were for the first time not followed that morning?" to "How come the kerosene fire blasted structural steel beams sideways hundreds of meters (and, for that matter, bodies onto nearby roof tops)" and "How come the fire pulverised concrete?" to "How come there were so many explosions heard?" and "How come the towers came down in 8.4 and 10 seconds, free fall?" and "How come Larry Silverstein gave the order to blow up WTC 7 in the afternoon?" to... etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.? Or will you do your usual trick of abusing people, crying "Conspiracy theory" and quoting the NTSI report and that Popular Mechanics article? That's about all you guys have to make your case, don't you? Make no mistake, you're on the losing end. The whole world is now saying that Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and all the rest of them had something to do with the mass murder of Americans by fellow Americans that morning. And as for a "conspiracy theory", there is absolutely no conspiracy whatever. Just remove your torture laws and even those who laid the charges will come out to say they were ordered to do so.

And I don't give a stuff whether you Americans murder each other off -- you did so in your bloody civil war. It's just that you've fooled the all rest of the world, who, in good faith, have passed all sorts of nasty "anti-terrorism" laws. The sooner you arrest Bush and co on suspicion of being a terrorist himself - blowing up those three buildings - the better. He then won't be able to start world war three by bombing Iran. Believe me, you have a very good prima facie case. Just rerun the worldwide media coverage of that morning - so conveniently not seen on free to air television any more - and the court case will be over in 20 minutes. You see, I have a friend in Tehran. If Bush starts bombing Tehran, she might be killed.

Oh, and one other thing, that oil in the Middle East isn't yours, you know. So if the Arabs don't want to sell it to you cheap, you should abide by that, like the good little right-wingers that you are (private property and all that?)

I'll challenge you again, answer all those questions, which people all over the world are now beginning to ask - with physics, chemistry and forensic science.

Robert_Hoogenboom[at]leftfoot.com.au
Sydney, Australia

 
At 30 October, 2006 03:09, Blogger remdem said...

Robert, all those questions have been answered already if you just looked at the top post/ read a few earlier posts/ searched for such posts. I believe this site has been up for at least a year, probably more, and there are about 3 posts per day on average. All of the prime debunking posts are there if you bothered to look for them.

And if oil was our prime target, why didn't we just invade Saudi Arabia/Dubai? Why Iraq? Why Afghanistan? If anything, wouldn't it be much easier to silently invade Canada and Venuezuela and take their oil?

 
At 30 October, 2006 05:20, Blogger Robert said...

How about YOU answering those questions. Go on, YOU answer them yourself! See if you can formulate a cogent answer to any of these questions without resorting to "someone has debunked them". You will find that debunking these questions, waylaying these objections is impossible. What would you like to argue? That Larry Silverstein didn't give the order to blow up building 7? That the three buildings didn't come down in free fall, or that it is possible for a building to pancake, floors collapsing on top of each other, at the same speed as free fall? Or that a building designed to withstand an impact by an aeroplane and the subsequent kerosene fire can nevertheless come down because of such an impact? Or that the seismological records of explosions, and the eye witness account, are fabricated. Or that the laws of probablity quite allow Dick Cheney to happen to be the first civilian to have been put in command of NORAD AT THE SAME TIME THAT an exercise across the whole of the military took place simulating a terrorist attack on the Twin Towers AT THE SAME TIME THAT this was happening?

Oil was a big consideration and I can think of any number of reasons why Bush and co didn't invade Saudi Arabia, Canada or Venezuela. I bet you can too.

Make no mistake, no one has answered the persistent questions. I challenge you again, try and answer any one of them.

And why are you defending Bush and co anyway? If a world war breaks out, China is bound to get involved. They have all teh weapons you have, and many more men (they can raise 100 armies a million men strong). Things may get very unpleaseant for America. And you may be drafted, and die a slow death because of the depleted uranium bullets you and your friends will be exposed to.

robert_hoogenboom[at]leftfoot.com.au
Sydney, Australia

 
At 30 October, 2006 07:19, Blogger CHF said...

Robert,

Your stupid questions HAVE been answered.

Explain to me how "pull it" equals "blow up" when demolition experts claim it means "pull down with cables."

Are you claiming WTC7 was pulled down with cables? Could it be that Silverstein was agreeing with the order to PULL back the firefighters in the area?

Maybe you should confront a structural engineer with your claims, Robert. See what they say.

 
At 30 October, 2006 07:34, Blogger SFC B said...

I have no idea how fire could pulverize concrete. However I'm willing to bet that a 30 story building falling on top of an 80 story building will do a lot of damage to the concrete in the building. It won't pulverize all of it, but it will crush a good deal. It will also crush all the drywall in the interior walls of the building.

 
At 30 October, 2006 07:57, Blogger James B. said...

Robert,

We have made nearly 800 posts since May, so if you do some reading we have addressed most of your questions, although I am sure you can always come up with new questions. Also check out the excellent 911myths and debunking911.

I didn't realize the fire threw steel beams hundreds of meters. That is a new one by me, although bizarrely when the conspiracy theorists aren't claiming the building feel into its own footprint, they are claiming it was blown every which way. Which is it?

Cheney was not commander of NORAD, you have been listening to Lauro Chavez. "Pull it" is not a demolitions term for blowing up a building, no matter how many times Jim Fetzer has claimed it is.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/pull-it.html

 
At 30 October, 2006 08:28, Blogger Pat said...

Robert, Cheney was not in command of NORAD on 9-11. The most advance notice NEADS got of a hijacking on 9-11 was seven minutes for Flight 11, so there was no chance for "routine" intercept procedures. The kerosene did not blast the structural steel beams sideways hundreds of meters; they were propelled sideways by the force of the collapsing building. The concrete was only partially pulverized, explosions do not mean explosives, and Larry Silverstein would have to be one of the Three Stooges to admit "giving the order to blow up WTC 7".

 
At 30 October, 2006 08:53, Blogger Alex said...

Amazing. I've never met an Australian retard before....

 
At 30 October, 2006 09:26, Blogger Stevew said...

Robert
How about a point-by-point rebuttal to PM's claims?

That's what PM did to your theories and what Mark's viewers' guide did to Loose Change.

Why have you toofers not filed charges so you could bring out all your so called experts?

You babble on and on asking the same dumb questions that have been answered by real experts. Why don't you give us scientific explanations and facts to explain your theories?

 
At 30 October, 2006 09:33, Blogger remdem said...

Oil was a big consideration and I can think of any number of reasons why Bush and co didn't invade Saudi Arabia, Canada or Venezuela. I bet you can too.


No, there are no reasons why you would go into Iraq for oil before any of these countries. All of the countries I mentioned produce as much or more. If our government is supposedly not against faking reasons a la 9/11 to invade Iraq, then we should be in those countries also.

Example: A quick coup in Canada, we replace their leader with one of our own, he approves a merger with the US, and bingo, we have their oil. How is that any less likely than Bush planning 9/11?

China is bound to get involved. They have all teh weapons you have, and many more men

This scenario, however, implies that every man and woman in China is suitably trained and armed, which is not the case. In fact, China has recently reduced the number of people in its army because it has more people than it can logistically support.

And it's funny you claim we, or China, wants to fight a world war against each other, considering that if they indeed went and destroyed America and allies it would effectively destroy their own economy. China's had more than enough chances to start World War III, yet they haven't, because it isn't worth it.

 
At 30 October, 2006 09:40, Blogger Richard said...

Because it doesn't work like that silly!

 
At 30 October, 2006 10:03, Blogger Cassiopeia said...

Not much to add, but although I'm sure you're sincere in your beliefs Robert, you are allowing them to cloud your judgement. All of your questions have been addressed if not here in other easily located places on the 'net. Not by Neo-Con Zionist NWO shills. By people that apply fact, reason and science.
As difficult as it might be for you to grasp, there are indeed terrorists that are rather keen on killing as many people as they can. I would have thought Bali would have shown you that. Whether terrorists are as big a threat as is being made out is certainly up for debate, as is the way in which politicians in many countries have reacted to the percieved threat. But that's not what this blog is about.
So: do a little more research. You accuse people here of being blinded by political ideology, but from where I'm sitting it's you with the agenda.

 
At 30 October, 2006 11:11, Blogger pomeroo said...

A simpleton named "Robert" shows up asking the same crap that has been debunked a thousand times. He is so contemptuous of reason that he is willing to repeat his silly canards without checking to find out why they're silly. He dismisses the NIST report and the Popular Mechanics book without having the slightest idea of what they contain.
Yes, Robert, the "questions" you pretend that people all over the world are asking have very definite answers. Those answers have been known for some time. If you can't comprehend the answers, or if you refuse to learn them, well, that means you're dumb.

 
At 30 October, 2006 11:13, Blogger Alex said...

Didn't you hear? Bali was really a mini-nuke set off by the CIA. I read it on the internet, it MUST be true!

 
At 30 October, 2006 11:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, have you guys got the answers to all the questions people are now asking all over the world?

Yes.

It's just that you've fooled the all rest of the world, who, in good faith, have passed all sorts of nasty "anti-terrorism" laws.

We were also behind 7/7, the Madrid bombings, the daily murders of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, USS Cole, a whole slew of embassy bombings, the Paris riots, the cartoon riots, the London bomb plot, and the first WTC bombings. You see, muslim extremists are basically a non-violent sort, not a threat to anybody. It's just that we asked them, as a favor, to blow up a couple of our buildings.

If you think terrorism isn't a threat in Australia, vote for someone who will repeal the onerous anti-terrorism laws. Your political leaders decisions are not my problem.


So if the Arabs don't want to sell it to you cheap, you should abide by that, like the good little right-wingers that you are (private property and all that?)

You're right. We should go to non-arab sources like Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria. Hey, would you look at that. Those are 4 of the 5 top countries for U.S. oil imports.

I'll challenge you again, answer all those questions, which people all over the world are now beginning to ask - with physics, chemistry and forensic science.

I'll challenge you - answer them yourself. There's no such thing as a stupid question, just stupid people who have to ask the question.

 
At 30 October, 2006 12:38, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

How about YOU answering those questions. Go on, YOU answer them yourself! See if you can formulate a cogent answer to any of these questions without resorting to "someone has debunked them".

Can someone please say

KOO KOO

Typical truther nutbar to demand answers BUT SOMEOINE ELSE needs to do the research for him.

WE NEED A DOUCHEBAG METER!!

 
At 30 October, 2006 14:59, Blogger shawn said...

Actually, robert, you made a bunch of baseless claims (buildings collapsed at free-fall, fire being the thing that pulverized concrete as opposed to falling 1000 feet and being crushed by more debris, beam blasts, Silverstein blowing up WTC7). YOU have to prove these claims true, not of the other Truthers have. The burden of proof is on YOU people.

"How come the towers came down in 8.4 and 10 seconds, free fall?"

Both towers took upwards of 20 seconds to collapse (8.4 seconds would be faster than free-fall - an impossibility).

So if the Arabs don't want to sell it to you cheap, you should abide by that, like the good little right-wingers that you are

...the war isn't about oil. If it was we wasted a whole bunch of money we could've used buying oil for the next century.




Next time research before you come here. All of you morons come along asking us to answer questions already answered. READ.

 
At 30 October, 2006 20:53, Blogger Simmo said...

More entertainment from Mr hoogenboom.

http://alternet.org/waroniraq/32747/?comments=view&cID=89606&pID=89586#c89606

 
At 30 October, 2006 20:54, Blogger Peephole said...

I wonder how much pageviews the other debunking sites are getting. Pretty funny we beat the CT's.

 
At 04 December, 2006 18:28, Blogger Ethan said...

Hey SLC, I'm the owner of the 9/11 Topsites. The topsites serves only as a 9/11 Truth topsites. I am the owner and I decide which sites make it and which sites don't. Got it? Good.

Cheers,
Ethan

 
At 12 June, 2007 18:25, Blogger WRH said...

I, too, was censored a couple of times from 9/11 topsites, and I posted a little rant about the hypocritical censorship by the conspiradroids but eventually took it down.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home