Monday, December 04, 2006

Smirking Chimp Buys Into 9-11 Denial

This comes as a bit of a surprise. For quite a while the major liberal blogs have avoided the 9-11 conspiracy theories. Although they are obviously sympathetic to the "I blame Bush" mindset that the CTs start with, they have largely behaved responsibly. Oh, sure, the Huffington Post has occasionally dipped its toes into the swamp, but there it's understood that every man speaks for himself.

However, the Smirking Chimp dives right in today, in response to this article.

And here I was thinking I was being patriotic trying to expose the bald-faced lies and brazen evasions that have constituted the "official story" of 9/11 up to this point. After all, if the Bush administration and/or its cronies DID perpetrate or facilitate the crimes of that day, the central justification for the ongoing war(s) against our officially designated enemies would be undermined indeed.


Try digging a little deeper, Mike. You obviously don't have any problem with America's actions or agenda in the world so go ahead. It won't put you at risk of "cynicism", right? Watch a couple of David Ray Griffin videos and systematically debunk his points. Read Jim Hoffman's analysis on his WTC7 site. Show me exactly how their arguments are flawed.


That's not hard if you really have boned up on this stuff. Hell, Griffin still claims that no Arabs were on the flight manifests, one of the most ridiculous claims that the 9-11 Deniers have in their arsenal.

The Smirking Chimp is a very big blog. They average over 20,000 visitors a day. The fact that they have run with this piece tells me that perhaps the Left will not be satisfied with the Democrats' victory last month. They've been sorely disappointed with the pledges of no impeachment from the newly elected Democrats.

Be sure to read the original article which set off TSC. Although it does not discuss the CT with any detail, the writer does nail the likely effect of movies like Loose Change:

The danger to America does not stem from a “Second American revolution” as Mr. Avery speculated but in a growing public cynicism that may lead more Americans, particularly the young, to withdraw their allegiance to their country. When so-called scholars charge their government with complicity in an enormous crime that then leads to war overseas, the stage is set either for their dismissal as crackpots or an increasing erosion of public trust in the national leadership and institutions. In the latter, such cynicism ultimately leads to indifference, inaction, and a general decline in patriotism. During peacetime, this might be reflected in a reduction in civic participation and voter apathy. In wartime, this could be the difference between victory and defeat.

59 Comments:

At 04 December, 2006 07:21, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

...cynicism that may lead more Americans, particularly the young, to withdraw their allegiance to their country.

Hell you don't need CTs to do that, this administration does that fine and dandy on a daily basis. And they aren't withdrawling their allegiance to their country, it is to their government.

 
At 04 December, 2006 07:48, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Great question democrat. It is amazing to read in the foreign press what the American media doesn't discuss. Corporate censorship at its best.

The argument itself is highly common: "with us, or with the terrorists". I agree. It is like this: You either believe the entire official conspiracy theory, or you support terrorists. Wasn't that same arguement used by Bush, "Your either with us or with the terrorists!"
Yeah don't leave me room to think ya smirking chimp.

And to think the OS doesn't think terrorists could plant explosives in whatever form in the basements of the WTC 1,2, and 7. Heck if your wilily enough to make it through security at airports, escape capture and detection for years by agencies that know your here, take over planes with box cutters, fly them perfectly, and achieve great success, but yet they couldn't plant explosives in the towers. Hmmmm. Perhaps we underestimate the cave dwellers among us.

 
At 04 December, 2006 07:55, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like Hey man, Jason, look! - They're calling you a smirking chimp! Man! How did they know what we call you when you are out on a pizza run!

 
At 04 December, 2006 07:56, Blogger Alex said...

Room to think? Let's see, 19 Arabs kill 3,000 of your countrymen and cause billions of dollars in damage....and you blame your government and talk about starting revolutions. Yep, you don't support the terrorists at all, you're just "thinking". Me, I'm just thinking about kicking your ass.

 
At 04 December, 2006 08:51, Blogger Alex said...

See what I mean?

 
At 04 December, 2006 08:52, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Me, I'm just thinking about kicking your ass. Let's see, 19 Arabs kill 3,000 of your countrymen and cause billions of dollars in damage.(Disclaimer-the 19/3000 number has yet to be proven, henceforth remains a theory.

Yep that is the extent of the intellect from big bad Alex. Mind your own business you moronic Canadian. What I do in my country and how I feel about my government is none of your business.

Sure sounds like the banter of a person who cares for the dead, right Alex? I care for dead people, now I'm going to go kill for a living and kick ass. Don't you have some hypocracy to spread somewhere?

Perhaps I will report you to the FBI with the terroristic threat you just publically offered? Besides I doubt you could kick a dead asses, ass let alone someone of my nature.

Lets go with that Democrat...

Who did benefit from these attacks? Afghanistan? Nope. Islamic facists? Nope. Canada? Nope. Mexico? Nope. Iraq? Nope. OBL? Nope. Muslims in general? Nope. Constitution of the United States of America? Nope. Airlines? Nope. Middle America? Nope. Poor America? Nope. Alleged hijackers? Nope. Sadaam? Nope.
Did I miss anyone?

Rich America? Yep,depends on the shareholder.
Insurance policy holders? Yep. Shareholders in the defense industry? Yep. See the Perpetual War Portfolio.
Military budgets? Yep. Halliburton? Yep. Pentagon budget problems. Yep.
Israel? Yep (one less radical leader in the Middle East to worry about)
Did I miss anyone?

 
At 04 December, 2006 09:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

All this talk of "meta-politics" (which gets away from cold hard facts based on direct evidence from the event and other sources of official evidence, such as the 9/11 Commission Report, and tries to attribute motives and political reasoning to get at the truth), is exactly what I would hope sites discussing 9/11 would avoid.

Pat, I can see why you go where you are going, given the mindset that you simply think the actual truth of the matter does not point in the least to an inside job.

However, as someone who simply disagrees with you, I find your logical twists and turns and "in-depth deconstructions of liberals and such", which are based on your foregone conclusion that the govt story is correct.... bottom line: your speculations just add up to a bunch of gobbledy gook.

 
At 04 December, 2006 09:51, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Just found this regarding WTC CD
Ok, now begins the competition:

Which OS'er regular on here is going to call this guy names first before attacking his expertise in the area?

Ready! Set! Go!

911 WTC Demolition | Building 7 | controlled demolition | Danny Jowenko | demolition | Explosives | WTC7
Controlled Demolitions Expert Danny Jowenko:
"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns."
"This is controlled demolition."
"A team of experts did this."
"This is professional work, without any doubt."
For video, click below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_z8VMKL1ww

The vido clip above is an excerpt from a Dutch television program called, Zembla investigates 9/11 theories. It can be watched in its entirety at this link:
http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/vara/zembla/bb.20060911.asf

Here's some background information about Danny Jowenko's statments in Zembla investigates 9/11 theories:

Posted by dz on 911Blogger.com (9/12/06) under "Grab Bag of News Submissions":
One of the more interesting moments in this documentary (about 46:25 minutes into it) is when they ask demolition expert Danny Jowenko (who has his own demolition firm and reportedly has been active in this business for 27 years) to comment on videos of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7.His response to the WTC 7 video: "This is controlled demolition".
Link: http://www.911blogger.com/node/2801

ImplosionWorld.com lists Danny Jowenko as being a contributor to their production of "A History of Structural Demolition in America". Scroll down to "Interviews and conversations with the following licensed blasters and associates":
Link: http://www.implosionworld.com/history4.htm

Jowenko owns a demolition firm called, Jowenko Exposieve Demolitie B.V.. Information about his company's qualifications can be found posted on their website:
Link: http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,3,2

 
At 04 December, 2006 09:57, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Before you call me a retard, let the next competition begin!
Which OS'er is going to break out the tin foil brigade comments for Indira Singh, ground zero emergency worker and her CD comments?

Ready! Set! Go!


-Guns & Butter Radio interview - April 27th 2005:
Hosted by Bonnie Falkner
Guest: Indira Singh (Ground Zero Emergency Worker)

Bonnie: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?

Indira: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down...
...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.

Bonnie: Did they actually use the word brought down and who was it that was telling you this?

Indira: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."

Excerpt from above is heard approximately ten minutes into the interview.

Maybe Larry S. was right!

 
At 04 December, 2006 09:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swing Dangler said...

Just found this regarding WTC CD


This is a good argument. However, the idea that the truth of 9/11 is a matter best left to experts battle out would be giving up the most power argument and method of persuasion that is on the side of the GSS (govt story sketptics): there is any number things about 9/11 that are easily understood by people in all walks of like with average intelligence as huge red flags.

Buying into the logic that lands you here:

"Structural Engineers, NIST, etc., etc. say so, so we should relinquish our own reasoning to the experts" is a formula for letting the truth go down the drain.

 
At 04 December, 2006 10:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry about my horrendous grammer / typos in the last comment. I must not be awake yet.

 
At 04 December, 2006 10:15, Blogger Alex said...

So swinger is back to linking to a debunked video, and claiming that the fire department blew up WTC7. Well, there's a shocker. It's been abut a week or two since the last time we tore him a new asshole on those topics, it's about time he resurrected them. This fool just recycles the same garbage over and over and over and....

I mean, this is the same idiot who thinks that, because Germany didn't gain from WW2, Germany must not have started the war. Do they even MAKE medication that can cure what's wrong with him??

 
At 04 December, 2006 10:43, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Alex, do educate me and explain how that video has been debunked?

And really stop putting words into my mouth. Because I didn't make the statement that the FDNY demoed the building.

Finally is that all you have for the aide worker or is she a nutbar also?

 
At 04 December, 2006 11:10, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Ahhh watch the criteria change for the Mighty Lying Dylan:

Now it is one US firm instead of no firms. Got to love the shift in thought!

It also highlights the pre-conceived idea that there was no way CD brought the tower down, but then confronted with the fact that the video was WTC 7, the professional view point changes instantly. Check out the guys face when he finds out it was WTC 7 they showed. I wonder how many other professionals would change their mind if presented with the video in the same manner.

 
At 04 December, 2006 11:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swing Dangler said...

Alex, do educate me and explain how that video has been debunked?

The SLC standard for saying something has been debunked means that some lackey or some clearly tainted publication such as Pop. Mech. has made up a lot of BS that purports to say good evidence or good arguments are bunk.

 
At 04 December, 2006 11:30, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

BG That is so true. I've read their favorite site and I've found some good points but mostly terrible logic. And really most of it isn't a 'debunking' as in proving it wrong, but simply the author's explanation or reason for a particular event. In other words, it is a very large website that offers an even larger amount of opinion with numerous arguement fallacies. Heck, if I had the time I would publish a debunking guide to the debunking website along with the debunking the viewer's guide debunking of Loose Change 2.

 
At 04 December, 2006 11:48, Blogger James B. said...

Heck, if I had the time I would publish a debunking guide to the debunking website along with the debunking the viewer's guide debunking of Loose Change 2.


Oh please, they have been promising that on the Loose Change forums for 6 months. Apparently every conspiracy theorist in the world is really busy.

 
At 04 December, 2006 12:28, Blogger pomeroo said...

It is amazing that the liars dare to invoke Jowenko's name. How can their silly scam hope to profit?

Jowenko has stated the collapse of Towers 1 and 2 look NOTHING like controlled demolitions. Now, that kinda rips the heart right out of the liars' pernicious fantasy, no?

Jowenko was shown the usual misleading propaganda photos of WTC 7 (oops, we forgot to show the twenty stories of damage, the gaping hole with the smoke billowing out) and formed his erroneous opinion.

After being bombarded with e-mails from rationalists directing him to more accurate information, Jowenko, for reasons known only to himself, decided to clam up.

Another triumph for the liars.

 
At 04 December, 2006 12:32, Blogger pomeroo said...

Nobody knows who "Indira Singh" is, but her scriptwriter ought to know that the FDNY does not blow up buildings.

 
At 04 December, 2006 13:03, Blogger pomeroo said...

Chf, as I mentioned, he has simply clammed up. He ain't talkin'. If anyone has an update, I'd like to hear about it.

 
At 04 December, 2006 13:07, Blogger pomeroo said...

Some time ago, I wrote (see below) to Hugo Bachmann. He never responded. Pdoherty calls e-mails such as mine, "hate mail." That should tell you something.


Dear Professor Bachmann,

Your words concerning the probability that World Trade Center 7 was brought down by explosives are often cited on conspiracist websites. As you know, no structural engineers, physicists, or demolition experts in America agree with that conclusion. Would you be good enough to point out an error or two in the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC, or in NIST's preliminary report on the collapse of WTC 7?
Undoubtedly, you are aware of something that everyone else seems to overlook. Please enlighten us.

 
At 04 December, 2006 13:11, Blogger pomeroo said...

Hey, bg, when you wake up, find some time to tell Dr. Greening what he's missing.

 
At 04 December, 2006 13:30, Blogger Alex said...

These assholes are so disingenuous. We discussed Mr Jovenko something like a month ago, and both BG and Swinger were present for those discussions. Yet suddenly neither one of them remembers it. Right. Fuck you both. You won't find the truth while you've got your heads stuck up eachothers asses.

 
At 04 December, 2006 13:44, Blogger Alex said...

Tell ya what, buds. You get in touch with Jovenko and get him on record saying that even after reviewing more detailed evidence, he still believes WTC7 was demolished. You do that, and you'll convince some of us to take another look at the evidence. Until then, though, you're simply quoting a guy who was shown a limited amount of evidence, and drew a hasty conclusion. That kind of disinformation won't get you any fans around here.

 
At 04 December, 2006 13:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pomeroo, Bachmann made his assumption that WTC7 probably was brought down by explosives, after seeying a few videos from the collapse. He didn't study the case, he just watched a few videos.

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis (design ?) and construction at ETH*. And also Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives"

 
At 04 December, 2006 13:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is that translated video from Jowenko btw, the long version.

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=3271662324445998224&q=jowenko

 
At 04 December, 2006 13:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They only showed him one floor plan though and not the floor plan that was important, because the entire frontside was supported by horisontal beams.

 
At 04 December, 2006 13:57, Blogger pomeroo said...

You can't slip away so easily, democrat. Jowenko's opinion on the centerpiece of the liars' deception, the collapse of Towers 1 and 2, exposes the fraud. If the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy, for reasons that make no sense whatever, wanted to bring down buildings AFTER starting their war by flying planes into them, then the two most prominent symbols of American capitalism were the logical choices. No fantasist has come close to offering a minimally plausible motive for bringing down an obscure building seven hours after the attacks.

You're left with Jowenko cutting the heart out of your fantasy, while lending credence to a trivial side issue that simply doesn't fit any coherent conspiracy theory.

 
At 04 December, 2006 14:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah but Pomeroo, didn't they tell you that the whole thing was orchastrated from WTC7?? Just beating Democrat with that remark, because i know he will use it ;)

 
At 04 December, 2006 15:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jowenko has stated the collapse of Towers 1 and 2 look NOTHING like controlled demolitions. Now, that kinda rips the heart right out of the liars' pernicious fantasy, no?

They were not conventional CD's.

 
At 04 December, 2006 15:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pomeroo said...
Hey, bg, when you wake up, find some time to tell Dr. Greening what he's missing.


What I will tell anyone and everyone.

Jet Fuel, Kinetic Energy (from plane impact, plus fire (from Jet Fuel, plane parts, and building parts) does not equal explosions, dustificition of steel and other office and structural parts, and almost free-fall destruction of Tower 1 and 2.

This is not even to mention that "plane hitting above" does not equal explosion in the basement.

On WTC 7, no plane, no jet fuel, only large amounts of diesel fuel and other office flammables does not equal an almost perfect CD (complete with part of the penthouse dropping as supports are blown priro to massive catastrophic collapse at almost free-fall speed.)

 
At 04 December, 2006 15:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They were not conventional CD's.

Let me guess, A non-nuclear fusion hydrogen bomb.

 
At 04 December, 2006 16:03, Blogger Manny said...

They were not conventional CD's.

But wait. Wasn't the whole idea of the 9-11 denier movement founded on the suspicion that the tower collapses "looked just like controlled demolition?"

And now that it's established to even the most stupid and evil among you that the collapses did not look "just like" a controlled demolition, the new idea is that they were controlled demolitions, just not like the ones they were originally supposed to resemble?

You asshats will go to pretty astounding lengths to debase yourselves on behalf of your terrorist masters. No way all of you are doing it for free.

 
At 04 December, 2006 16:12, Blogger Unknown said...

Bg forgets that there was a 20 story gash in the side od the building that went in 25% of the way in and the fire burned the main truss supports that held up the whole building.

Hey toofer's. How about a detailed explaination to back up claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts?

 
At 04 December, 2006 16:14, Blogger Manny said...

Jinx!

apathoid owes me a Coke.

 
At 04 December, 2006 16:24, Blogger Pat said...

Jowenko is old hat; IIRC we discussed him here in September or even earlier.

Bill, my meta-analysis of the situation is based on my personal interest in politics which is clearly greater than that of most of the 9-11 Denial crowd. But I do note that one of the bitterest complaints from folks like Zwicker and others is this concept of Lefty Gatekeepers. If the Left Wing blogs start carrying 9-11 Denial, it will inevitably seep into other Lefty organs. That's why I think this post at SC is a big deal; your results may vary.

 
At 04 December, 2006 18:34, Blogger pomeroo said...

It is true that no conventional explosives brought down the Twin Towers.

No explosives of any kind did, either.

 
At 04 December, 2006 19:04, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

2005 - CT re: WTCs = CD
2006 - CT re: WTCs = UCD (UnConventional Demolition)
2007 - CT re: WTCs = STARWARS BEAM
2008 - CT re: WTCs = who cares, Dems win, Dems win...

lol

TAM

 
At 04 December, 2006 19:32, Blogger pomeroo said...

Bullseye, TAM !

 
At 04 December, 2006 19:34, Blogger Bubbers said...

"Heck, if I had the time I would publish a debunking guide to the debunking website along with the debunking the viewer's guide debunking of Loose Change 2."

==================================================================

So you have time to post on blogs all day, but no time to debunk Gravy's guide? Yeah, right. Maybe you CAN'T debunk it because you have no evidence with which to debunk. Do you think we're all stupid?(I really shouldn't say that because all CTists think we're all stupid. Typical smugness.) Get over yourself

 
At 04 December, 2006 22:24, Blogger pomeroo said...

BG, I think we can all conclude that you are simply not serious.

 
At 05 December, 2006 06:10, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

AGAIN, I will ask. How has Danny Jowenko been debunked?
Jowenko is old hat; IIRC we discussed him here in September or even earlier. I will accept your view then that Jowenko believes WTC 7 was CD. Again another reason for the NIST to investigate it as such.

Since he hasn't been debunked:
One, does that mean the CT has an 'expert' that the OS community will recognize as legit, or are you going to pull a beam weapon tactic on him?

Two, did Jowenko know it was the twin towers when watching their collapse? If so, then the preconvied ideas on reasons for the collapse are already there. Hence no demo.

Three, is Jowenko aware of the numerous explosions in the basements? Does he know about the explosion before the plane hit? Is he aware of the firefighter's, rescue workers, and citizens descriptions of explosions prior to collapse? Is he aware of the metal flowing like lava and looking like a foundry?

If he has all of the information regarding the towers he might come to a different conclusion or he might remain convinced it was not CD.

Either way, I don't have to accept his theory for WTC 7 and accept his theory on WTC 1 and 2. Three seperate events, correct?
Yet another argument fallacy from CHF. Come on guy, stop doing that. Lets stick with WTC 7 for the time being and not try to redirect, ok?

Oh please, they have been promising that on the Loose Change forums for 6 months. Apparently every conspiracy theorist in the world is really busy. Now James not all of us have the time to run a blog, research for a blog, post on a blog, post on other blogs, comment on blogs, write on JREF, write opinion papers to be peer reviewed, talk on radio shows, research occupations of the scholars, research different theories, read official reports, etc. etc.
What the heck do you do for a living that gives you that kind of time? Or do you do this for a living?
In my case, I have a family and a career to attend to which surely limits my time chatting with most of you fine folks.

Jay, thanks again for more ammunition!

With you folks, you can't win. A few experts are named stating it looks like a CD, probably is a CD and now you want to criticize the time they spent researching the event itself. I can guarantee NONE of you would bring that issue up if these latest experts listed their professional opinions that sided with the OS.
Hey accept it for what it is. expert opinions that supports the CD of WTC 7 side. And if the CD of WTC 7 is the case, then the Feds have some explaining to do.

Pomeroo That is all you got?? A sarcastic remark about script writers? I will take it as fact then that all of you accept her statements as factual until you post a retraction of her statement and an explanation or prove the whole interview was a fairytale. Fair enough?

 
At 05 December, 2006 06:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat said...

Jowenko is old hat; IIRC we discussed him here in September or even earlier.

Bill, my meta-analysis of the situation is based on my personal interest in politics


I acknowledge your points here.

 
At 05 December, 2006 08:36, Blogger Jujigatami said...

LD,

You need to be off your meds to read SD's posts.

For those of you not on meds, might I suggest 4-5 large bong hits.

 
At 05 December, 2006 11:53, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Dylan and Juti
I will take those both as a compliment. Any time I get a response as such, I know that:
1. You don't have an intellectual response to counter my information and stance or
2. you accept as fact what I post.



A hint fellows: try using TAM's tactic. It will actually get you somewhere.

 
At 05 December, 2006 15:45, Blogger Alex said...

Charges go off....5 minutes later more charges go off....10 minutes later...more charges...then down it goes.

*BOOM*

"Dammit George! I told you that one pound of C4 wouldn't be enough! Can't you do anything right??? Go plant another one!"

...

*BOOM*

"What the hell?? Our Zionist masters must have underestimated the construction of these towers. Better go set up some more explosives..."

 
At 05 December, 2006 15:47, Blogger Alex said...

Has been done and confirmed, but you couldn't read the language and wouldn't accept it from this guy anyway.

Well that's convenient. "I have proof but I'm not going to show you because you wouldn't believe me anyway".

You must be the only broke lawyer on the whole continent.

 
At 05 December, 2006 17:06, Blogger pomeroo said...

Sorry Swingie, you're still an ignorant lying fraud. There were no explosives in the WTC. The seismic data prove it. No demolition expert takes your nonsense seriously. You've been exposed.

 
At 05 December, 2006 17:08, Blogger pomeroo said...

Hey, bg, where did Dr. Greening go wrong? So far, you've posted utter gibberish that embarrassed even the other liars. Let's hear what errors Greening made.

 
At 05 December, 2006 18:55, Blogger ConsDemo said...

"Democrat", stop dishonoring the party by attaching your idiotic claims to it.

How many members of the incoming Democratic congress buy into your stupid conspiracy theories? You are no more of a Democrat than Lyndon LaRouche.

Unfortunately 9/11 denial is active on the left (and far right). It is mostly an ideology of convenience. Bush is evil (as opposed to just grossly incompentent and stupid), thus 9/11 was an inside job. Plus, it is a convenient way to avoid dealing with the terrorist threat: Get rid of Bush and there is no threat. It is stupid and juvenile and that is why no Democrat in the Senate or House embraces this idiocy but that doesn't stop plenty of activists from acting like loons.

 
At 06 December, 2006 12:31, Blogger Alex said...

WHAT coverup manoeuvres? You clowns have yet to show anything that resembles a coverup. And while we're at it, let's see you show a past example where 4 aircraft intercepted within 20 minutes of authorities realizing that they were hijacked.

Well? C'mon, since you're so incredulous over the whole thing, you must have at least ONE example of such an occurrence...

 
At 06 December, 2006 18:38, Blogger ConsDemo said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 06 December, 2006 20:56, Blogger ConsDemo said...

"4 planes
0 incerceptions"

So what, that doesn't prove 9/11 was an "inside job".

"It's fine if you believe the OS, just accept that others are more suspicious about the events."

You can believe anything you want, when did I say otherwise? Just accept when you slander innocent people or spread slander and cynicism about the country, others are free to criticize your claims.

"why not help them with a proper investigation to confirm the OS?"

Tell me, "Democrat", what would another investigation take to convince you what you call the "OS" was true?

 
At 08 December, 2006 07:28, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

WHAT coverup manoeuvres? You clowns have yet to show anything that resembles a coverup.

Do you even know anything about my President and his moves to counter an independent investigation, refusal to testify under oath, assemble a sham commission orginally to be headed by "I overthrow countries Kissenger, lie about the air quality, etc. The list goes on but your refusal to acknowledge it reflects your personal knowledge of the whole event.

Alex, study Canadian history. You might have a leg to stand on.

 
At 23 December, 2006 10:46, Blogger Chip said...

So the fact we didn't have F-15's shadowing commercial aircraft waiting to pounce proves a conspiracy? Or would doing such a thing prove a conspiracy? Shit. This insanity thing is too confusing for me.

 
At 23 December, 2006 17:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

4 planes
0 incerceptions


And the intercept vectors were? Oh yea, I forgot we got F-15's with warp drive...

 
At 24 December, 2006 04:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reading the comments of "truthers" begs a lot of questions. Like, "If 9-11 was an evil government conspiracy, why are the 'truthers' who exposed the conspiracy still alive?" and "Can I buy pot from you guys?"

Seriously, guys, don't you have more productive things to do than set rabbit cages on fire and circle jerking each other into ever more bizarre and completely irrational theories?

 
At 24 December, 2006 18:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, they don't.

And they must be on something a lot strong than pot, or perhaps it's just an overactive right side of the brain--as in Julian Jaynes's famous study of the bicameral brain, in which he theorized that the ancients actually believed they saw the Gods from Mt. Olympus and other mythical creatures because their dominant right brain caused them to hallucinate.

 
At 24 December, 2006 18:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, they don't.

And they must be on something a lot strong than pot, or perhaps it's just an overactive right side of the brain--as in Julian Jaynes's famous study of the bicameral brain, in which he theorized that the ancients actually believed they saw the Gods from Mt. Olympus and other mythical creatures because their dominant right brain caused them to hallucinate.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home