Is it common practice to accuse "truthers" of antisemitism?

Originally posted by hooper
So you're stating that the terrorism rider on the insurance policy was not required by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, but was wholly and completely at the request of the leasee?

No, roboe claimed Silverstein merely took out insurance that was mandated by his lease contract. He provided no evidence that a "terrorist attack" clause was mandated by the contract, and from what I've seen, once Silverstein took over the lease, this coverage was a first for the property. If you have proof that such a clause was required by the Port Authority, then it would be a welcome addition; however, this thread isn't really about Silverstein's lease, but about notions regarding claims of anti-semitisim against perceived "truthers".

What I am stating is that a few aspects that often come up with the 9/11 discussion are the "dancing Israelis" who were detained, and the Israeli "art students" who had what some deem to be "unusual" access to the towers. There's also the "pull it" quote by the man who leased the towers, Larry Silverstein, and who took out special terrorist attack insurance coverage just before the event. There are other circumstantial Jewish/Israeli ties as well, but generally speaking, any discussion regarding anyone of Jewish faith being remotely, or directly, attached to that day, and/or to the lead up, is usually met with some accusations of antisemitism.

Do you believe those three examples haven't received much discussion in regards to 9/11, or that the discussions springing from them were not met with claims of anti-semitisim?

Originally posted by thedman
Considering fact that terrorists had attacked the WTC in 1993, buying insurance would be prudent

No one is debating the prudence of the action. What is in question is if it was mandated by the port authority.

Originally posted by thedman
Wonder why consider truthers as anti-semetic ?

Do I? No. People like to play the victim card, and stifle discussion. Baseless and broad sweeping claims of anti-semitisim are an easy way to accomplish both. Similar to how, for some, anytime people question Obama's actions there are accusations of racism.

That said, it appears that some, like roboe, can't seem to be able to discuss information surrounding that day without tossing around slander like "dirty Jew"; however, roboe doesn't exactly seem like he would fall into the "truther" camp.

reply to post by redmage

Do I? No. People like to play the victim card, and stifle discussion. Baseless and broad sweeping claims of anti-semitisim are an easy way to accomplish both. Similar to how, for some, anytime people question Obama's actions there are accusations of racism.

So your solution is to ignore Anti-Semitism so as not to chance offending some Anti-Semite? Sorry, when I see it I say something. Don't like it? Don't like being accused of being a Anti-Semite? Then consider your position. I don't want you to think that I'm trying to stifle your free speech rights, but be advised that free speech is a two way street. You say something and someone may say something in return.

reply to post by hooper


Your reply makes no sense. As of yet I haven't seen anyone accuse me of being an Anti-Semite.

The question was "Do you believe those three examples haven't received much discussion in regards to 9/11, or that the discussions springing from them were not met with claims of anti-semitisim?".

Originally posted by redmage
reply to post by hooper

 

Your reply makes no sense. As of yet I haven't seen anyone accuse me of being an Anti-Semite.

The question was "Do you believe those three examples haven't received much discussion in regards to 9/11, or that the discussions springing from them were not met with claims of anti-semitisim?".

edit on 6/12/11 by redmage because: (no reason given)

Not claims of Anti-Semitism, but actual occurances of Anti-Semitism. Sorry, but thats just the simple truth.

reply to post by redmage


You forgot the rabbi in charge of the pentagon treasury drpt which got hit.

reply to post by hooper

Not claims of Anti-Semitism, but actual occurances of Anti-Semitism. Sorry, but thats just the simple truth.

You can't be anti-anything just for stating facts, regardless of how often you try...

reply to post by redmage

No one is debating the prudence of the action. What is in question is if it was mandated by the port authority.

As usual have problems with reading comprehension

It was not the Port Authority which required more insurance it was the banks loaning the money to protect their
investment - specificly GMAC (Now Ally Bank)

But Mr. Silverstein came up with $125 million in equity, including $14 million of his own money, and $563 million in financing from the GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation. He paid the Port Authority $491.3 million and pledged to pay more than $100 million a year in rent.

After Sept. 11, Mr. Silverstein was lambasted for underinsuring the trade center. But the Port Authority had carried only $1.5 billion in insurance coverage on the complex, which Mr. Silverstein more than doubled, as required by GMAC. As a result, Joseph J. Seymour, a former executive director of the Port Authority, noted, ''Right before Sept. 11, we got additional insurance coverage because of Larry.''

Operative phrase "as required by GMAC"

the only correlation between truthers and anti semitism one can see is that the truther is trying to uncover the secrets that the semitics are actually hiding. when he finds incriminating evidence against them that's when anti-semite is brought up as a counter scapegoat to turn it back on them and deflect any claims.

they have something to hide and know it, so they hide behind a word too.

Originally posted by thedman
It was not the Port Authority which required more insurance it was the banks loaning the money to protect their
investment - specificly GMAC (Now Ally Bank)

My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks, and your source doesn't support the claims that "terrorist attack" coverage was somehow required. One can easily double their insurance coverage amount simply with increased payments, and your source makes no claim that a "terrorist attack" clause was mandated by GMAC, or by the Port Authority lease agreement. If you fail to see those facts, then perhaps you should question your own reading comprehension before making accusatory comments regarding others'.

It has been confirmed by multiple people, that it is indeed to use baseless accusations of antisemitism as "arguments" by 911 deniers. I also found examples of people being subjected to that tactic and experienced it myself. All the people who accused me of being an antisemite on here would fall into the 911 denier category.

I feel the thread has run its course.

*ats noob reporting in*
whats a truther?
i hear it getting thrown around on ats but i've no clue what it means. i might be an idiot, but i'd guess a few others are wondering too.

People who want to find out the truth about the 911 attacks.

Originally posted by Cassius666


doyoueverwonderblog.wordpress.com...

DU’s Boloboffin caught using fake evidence to slander Richard Gage, the founding member of ae911Truth.org.

I got bored so I decided to check into this accusation.

I clicked all the links read everything and traced it back to the original source.

Post 13 in this thread

It was posted on March 26 2009 nobody complained about his link to A$E 911Truth not working

On Aug 7 2009 post 34 we are told the slides was no longer available at the site. I clicked the link anyway and it said the page was no longer available.

Next I copied the page address and and searched it with the way back machine. No luck.
But i was able to find a few slides from that slide show that were saved by the way back machine.

Here is a comparison of the two slides.



Same black background.
Same yellow font.
Same dot at the beginning of each point.
Same changing of font size to emphasise a point.
Both have a white slide number in the lower right hand corner.

My conclusion: Richard Gage of A$E 911 Truth made both of these slides and Boloboffin did not use fake evidence to slander Richard Gage, Richard did that himself.

The only thing the 911Truth movement has ever got right is the date.

Originally posted by yourmaker
the only correlation between truthers and anti semitism one can see is that the truther is trying to uncover the secrets that the semitics are actually hiding.

Yeaah! that's the ticket! If those Jews would stop their scheming, there wouldn't be any need for anti-semitism in the first place!

What a circus this place has become.

Originally posted by neonitus
*ats noob reporting in*
whats a truther?
i hear it getting thrown around on ats but i've no clue what it means. i might be an idiot, but i'd guess a few others are wondering too.

Someone who ascribes to the tenets of the 9/11 "Truth Movement". In actual fact not a movement but a collection of largely bogus notions based on selective quotation, junk science and profiteering websites.

There's usually a generous sprinkling of New World Order paranoia, anti-semitism, or anti-government sentiment. Basically a little utopian cult that tries to find some comfort and meaning in an alternative narrative of 9/11.

There is anti-semitism in the Truth Movement. There's evidence of it on this page. So not all accusations are baseless - indeed most seem to be fairly well supported.

reply to post by redmage


Silverstein bought property damage/business interuption policy - acts of terrorism were covered under the
policy terms

In 1993 insurance companies paid out for damages after the bombing

The property losses for the World Trade Center towers are likely to be covered under U.S. insurance polices, which do not usually mention coverage for terrorist acts explicitly, Hartwig told Reuters. Insurers paid out $ 510 million after militants bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.

It has been confirmed by multiple people, that it is indeed to use baseless accusations of antisemitism as "arguments" by 911 deniers. I also found examples of people being subjected to that tactic and experienced it myself. All the people who accused me of being an antisemite on here would fall into the 911 denier category.

I feel the thread has run its course.

reply to post by Cassius666


Yes, many bloggers and trolls and shills who
visit ATS and other sites use Antisemitism as
a tool in their toolbox no different than Dems
playing the race card when they need to.

It is a label placed which moves to an end goal.
Propaganda lies

I have even been called Antisemitic on quite a
few threads here at ATS which I am not. However
do not confuse Antisemitism with Anti-Zionist.
They are 2 completely different things.

There are some fine Jewish folks out there,
I have been privileged to know a few of them
personally and even worked for a few. But
even some Jews will admit that they face
a somewhat similar situation that we face here
in America which is the takeover by Zionists.
And most times it is the Zionists who give a bad
reputation to the Jewish people as a whole.

The war on terror IMO is a war between Zionism
and Radical Islam. To wit the Jewish people and the
devout Muslims are stuck in the middle and
both used as patsies for an agenda.

The label of Antisemitism is the crowbar which
pries the monkey off the back of the Zionists.

Is it common practice to accuse "truthers" of antisemitism?

Yes. It's also common practice to ...

- accuse those who point out Obama's flaws - of being 'racist'.
- accuse those who discuss radical islamic terrorism - of hating muslim people.
- accuse those who say Israel has a right to defend itself - of being ADL moles.
- accuse those who believe in God - of being far right wing loons.
- accuse those who believe in social security - of being communists.
- accuse those who know there is a NWO conspiracy - of being unstable and paranoid
- accuse those who - - and so on and so on .....