But Whether It's LIHOP, or Whether It's MIHOP...
Some of you may remember the zither guy singing that wacky song in the Abby Scott video. What amazes me, though, is how many of the Truthers don't realize that LIHOP and MIHOP are mutually contradictory. That is, if one of them is true, then the other isn't. For example, suppose we accept LIHOP. That means that there were 19 hijackers on the planes, Hani Hanjour did fly AA77 into the Pentagon, and there was no controlled demolition at the WTC. I doubt many MIHOP proponents would accept those three facts.
We see this all the time from the Truthers, though. Hell, Dylan sometimes makes the case even weaker, stating something along the lines of "the government was, at a minimum, criminally negligent." That's not even LIHOP. That's IHBON (It Happened Because of Negligence).
Why do they do this? The answer is pretty obvious. Even the Truthers recognize that their case for MIHOP is a bunch of BS, and so they're setting up a series of fallback positions. Yes, they require a dramatically different account of the events of 9-11, but the one thing that doesn't change is the Bush Administration is, in one way or another, guilty as charged.
Hence, a new "Truther" movie from the rebunkers.
It's not going to work. This movie is just as bad as Loose Change; it's a mixture of the usual BS from the Troofers: Quote mining ("Set up to fail"), selective presentation of facts, and bizarre interpretations (Norm Mineta's testimony about a shoot-down order becoming a stand-down order, for example). Note as well that his hope that if LIHOP were discovered to be true, that the Patriot Act would be repealed and the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would end, has no basis in reality. If you accept LIHOP, then that still means there are dangerous terrorists in the world, right?
posted by Pat @ 11:50 AM
48 comments
48 Comments:
Pat: Please get in touch with me re: writing proposal for PJ Media.
Rick Moran
elvenstar522@aol.com
The NWO are at it again. When will the madness end?
For all the nuts who think Osama is dead, read this & weep...
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=G_MDAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Mutually exclusive? That's ridiculous! Didn't the patsy in the Reichstag fire actually believe he's burned the building down himself? What better cover story than a bunch of guys who actually believed they did it, and who would brag about it if captured?
tEA Party tells Inside Job Kooks to screw off
http://www.youtube.com/user/WeAreChangeSF911
Is there a "It Happened Because there wasnt enough clear information that could have helped to prevent it, just some vague warnings?"
An IHBTWECITCHHTPI?JSVW? Uh... on purpose?
I remember debating this point with that loony Brian Good. He kept insisting that LIHOP and MIHOP could both be true if the US government "influenced" the hijackers to attack in a certain way. Well, if you're influencing them, it's not LIHOP anymore, dumbass.
It's revealing that Truthers can't even stick to the meanings of the words they invented to describe their own beliefs. Everything's a moving goalpost, even when they mark the field.
I guess you lose perspective when yo9u blog about these nutters every day, but to any sane person BOTH CONCEPTS ARE COMPLETELY EFFING INSANE!!!!
Did he just say that Congress passed the War Powers Act as a result of 9/11?
Last I checked it was passed in the early 70s.
They might also want to learn how to spell "preparation"
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Congress passed the War Powers Act as a result of 9/11? Last I checked it was passed in the early 70s.
Obviously, they had foreknowledge.
I haven't seen the video yet but why do Truthers love quoting Eisenhower all the time?
Isn't that an appeal to authority?
What, we should quote your thoughts on the Military-Industrial-Complex instead?
What, we should quote your thoughts on the Military-Industrial-Complex instead?
Maybe you shouldn't think that quoting Famous Person X on anything washes away the swivel-eyed lunacy of Troofiness.
Do you think Eisenhower would be a Truther if he were alive today?
How about Gandhi, Jefferson, Martin Luther King and others you like to quote in a feeble attempt to give your nonsense respectability?
The answers are no, no, no, no and no.
To fit a widescreen YouTube correctly change the object width to 440.
the fact is....
it's all about oil. but thats been debunked right? because gas prices are so high, right? never mind the fact that oil companies are putting away record profits
Exxon Mobil Profit Sets Record Again
but thats just a coincidence, right?
What amazes me, though, is how many of the Truthers don't realize that LIHOP and MIHOP are mutually contradictory.
If twoofers were capable of such elementary logic, they'd realise the whole thing is a crock of shit and they wouldn't be twoofers any more.
Yeah, I don't care about width anymore. Why bother?
angrysoba said...
I haven't seen the video yet but why do Truthers love quoting Eisenhower all the time?
Isn't that an appeal to authority?
because Eisenhower is the one who coined the term "military industrial complex."
he warned that if left unchecked and given too much influence the "military industrial complex" would create imaginary enemies for the US to fight against.
I think it's more of an appeal for dipshits to pull their heads out of their collective ass, than an appeal to authority.
Spud1k said...
What amazes me, though, is how many of the Truthers don't realize that LIHOP and MIHOP are mutually contradictory.
If twoofers were capable of such elementary logic, they'd realise the whole thing is a crock of shit and they wouldn't be twoofers any more.
what amazes me is the resistance to a real investigation with subpoena power that debunkers express; when an actual investigation would clear all this up...
"Anonymous said...
the fact is....
it's all about oil. but thats been debunked right? because gas prices are so high, right? never mind the fact that oil companies are putting away record profits"
Ummmmm, you don't know much about economics, do you?
"when an actual investigation would clear all this up..."
Clear what up?
No investigation will make this go away, as has been proven by the number of investigations that have disproven truther claims, and yet been ignored or smeared.
Face it, the truthers don't want 'an investigation' they want 'an investigation that proves us right', and if they get anything else, they will simply ignore it and carry on with their bullshit, so why on earth should anyone waste the money re-investigating something that's already been done to death.
what amazes me is the resistance to a real investigation with subpoena power that debunkers express; when an actual investigation would clear all this up...
Have you even read the NYCCAN petition, you doorknob? Those assholes wanted every power imaginable short of executing people, with no oversight and no requirements that their board members even be competent.
You assholes don't want an investigation, you want a license to harass people. Fuck you and everybody else who wants "a new investigation."
Which, by the way, no one is stopping you from doing. In fact, countless 9-11 Truther investigations have been done, all of which has failed to eliminate any possibilities, or agree on the most basic facts of the day. That's kinda the entire point of this thread.
because Eisenhower is the one who coined the term "military industrial complex."
he warned that if left unchecked and given too much influence the "military industrial complex" would create imaginary enemies for the US to fight against.
I think it's more of an appeal for dipshits to pull their heads out of their collective ass, than an appeal to authority.
Oh, I see. So you admit that military-industrial complex is just a term you took from Eisenhower and turned into your own little plaything without any further elaboration from him so no further idea that what you have in mind is what he did.
Tell us more about that the military industrial complex that can be checked against Eisenhower's description of such.
"so why on earth should anyone waste the money re-investigating something that's already been done to death."
Well because truthers have questions, and questions mean those people have an ignorance of the facts of the event and also lack the ability to understand answers. And they certainly is no dearth of ignorance in the truther community.
You will never be able to overcome that much stupidity, so any investigation would be met with the same dull stare and slack jawed questions of the imbecilic truther. Remember in trutherville Questions = Conspiracy
Yet more whining from the loony cult loudmouth Shyte! Now,it's a conspiracy to harass people! How dumb do you have to be to say something that stupid?
"stupid?"
Yes, yes you are.
Now,it's a conspiracy to harass people!
You disagree that 9-11 Truthers seek to harass people? Your entire existence is evidence of that.
Yet MORE whining from the sick Debunker Cult!! Watching a house of cards tumble onto the pavement is just too weird.Now,the dumbass "Trite 'N Dopey" is moaning about being harassed by..... me!!! Turns out I'm a one-man wrecking crew and the wimps are dropping like flies.Irony couldn't be better illustrated than when the Debunker Cult weeps and moans about getting thumped on their own turf.What a bunch of jackoffs! Try jerking off lefty tonight Iron Butt!
Turns out I'm a one-man wrecking crew
Yes, that's true. You wreck every fucking thread with your incoherent trolling. You should have been permabanned a long time ago.
"Debunker Cult!!"
Rule #8 from "Top Ten Ways To Post Like A Conspiracy Lunatic"
8. Use “quotation” marks, *highlighting*, CAPITAL LETTERS and exclamation points!!!! indiscriminately.
Looks like Walt's gone back to his sock-puppetry again.
'it's all about oil. but thats been debunked right? because gas prices are so high, right? never mind the fact that oil companies are putting away record profits'
I thought you truthers argued that 9/11 was all about gaining access to Middle Eastern oil supplies, so that fuel prices became cheaper. Or am I mistaken in trying to see coherence and logic in your rants?
'what amazes me is the resistance to a real investigation with subpoena power that debunkers express; when an actual investigation would clear all this up...'
What amazes me is that after 8 years of feverish speculation none of you fuckers can come up with any evidence that proves that such an investigation is necessary.
Troof = no proof. End of story.
"Do you think Eisenhower would be a Truther if he were alive today?
How about Gandhi, Jefferson, Martin Luther King and others you like to quote in a feeble attempt to give your nonsense respectability?
The answers are no, no, no, no and no."
They'd all condemn the current state of the union in the strongest possible terms, chucklefuck.
Is Ghandi going to condone torture? Is Jefferson going to condone the "Patriot" Act? Is Martin Luther King going to condone the racial profiling? Would Eisenhower approve of endless wars against a phantom enemy and illegal preemptive invasions based on a pack of lies? Would they approve of the 9/11 cover-up? You do know there is a fucking 9/11 cover up, don't you, you disgusting, excuse making slime ball?
Your hat is full of hollow, you historically challenged, revisionist kook. Perhaps, one look at one of your comments would propel all four to take their own life as soon as they regained it.
Twat.
Sackdoofy,couldn't resist poking a stick at Shyte's immobile hulk there on the floor.God,you sure are a whiny fuck! "Anonymous",quit picking on "Angry,yet Subpar",don't you know he's out of his mind? have you ever seena more bizarre parsing of Eisenhower's speech than his? Jeepers,now the boob wants an elaboration from Ike.Only a Debunker Cult desperado could say something that silly!
"Angry, yet subpar"
LOL!
It's interesting to follow Anontard's thought process here:
Would Eisenhower approve of endless wars against a phantom enemy and illegal preemptive invasions based on a pack of lies? Would they approve of the 9/11 cover-up? You do know there is a fucking 9/11 cover up, don't you?
And there you have it. Historical figures would disagree with aspects of modern American foreign policy, therefore 9/11 was an inside job.
I would say "nice try," but it really wasn't. Also, you're an asshole.
"And there you have it. Historical figures would disagree with aspects of modern American foreign policy, therefore 9/11 was an inside job."
Straw man argument.
And "ASPECTS"?! "ASPECTS"?!?!
I'm sure Martin Luther King would be extremely proud to see Obama become president, only to see that nothing really changed.
These historical figures, you despicable fuckbag, would vomit over the ENTIRE current state of affairs. Not just ASPECTS. Gawd, you are one revisionist, denialist, flagsucking kook. This isn't about "inside job" you goof. I am very fucking much interested in REPEALING all the FASCIST LAWS and SO WOULD THEY BE.
So FUCK OFF.
Now,the weasely PornBoy (is that you WeakRon,and if not where the hell you been Greasy Guru?) is up in arms over a one man conspiracy to befuddle and annoy with......yes,you guessed it:quotation marks and exclamation points used....(drum roll,please)indiscriminately!!!!! You just can't beat the nutty Debunker Cult when it comes to insane whining and pedantic shrieking.Of course you gotta feel for a blogger who's relegated to complaining about penmanship and the like!! I feel your pain,DogBoy!!!
Is Ghandi going to condone torture? Is Jefferson going to condone the "Patriot" Act? Is Martin Luther King going to condone the racial profiling? Would Eisenhower approve of endless wars against a phantom enemy and illegal preemptive invasions based on a pack of lies?
Weren't we talking about 9/11?
Would they approve of the 9/11 cover-up? You do know there is a fucking 9/11 cover up, don't you, you disgusting, excuse making slime ball?
I doubt they'd want raving lunatics like yourself to ventriloquize them.
But this "chucklefuck" wants a few more chuckles. So, please answer, would they be 9/11 Truthers?
Would Gandhi be ranting into a bullhorn? Would Thomas Jefferson be wandering around in North Africa looking for the living hijackers (he might not be welcome if the locals remembered the Barbary Wars)? Would Martin Luther King be gibbering about bombs in the basement? Or Eisenhower thundering about the military industrial complex creating superdupernanothermitewhizzbangsilentexplosiveshapedcharges?
You do know 9/11 Truth is for the mentally ill, don't you?
These historical figures, you despicable fuckbag, would vomit over the ENTIRE current state of affairs.
That's not a very reverent image of those historical figures.
By having them vomitting everywhere you just show how much you yourself are projecting.
You're a sad little alcoholic, AngrySoba.
I can't predict what these people would have done, but MLK? Yeah. He'd be a truther. Like William Pepper is.
In fact, MLK's murder was found to be a conspiracy in a trial not well reported upon in the media.
How's that, prick?
So MLK blathering about basement bombs, that would be a yes.
In fact, MLK's murder was found to be a conspiracy in a trial not well reported upon in the media.
How's that, prick?
So MLK blathering about basement bombs, that would be a yes.
So, MLK was killed in a conspiracy therefore 9/11 was an inside job?
Even by Truther standards that has to rank as mighty sloppy logic.
MLK must be rolling in his tomb to have you making him out to be a Truther.
Have you no shame?
> Didn't the patsy in the Reichstag fire actually believe he's burned the building down himself?
So do most historians. The story alleging that Hitler started the fire was spread by the Comintern. Historians today generally agree that Hitler latched onto the fire as a cause for demanding more authority, but there's no evidence that he played any role in setting the fire. Hitler seems to have really believed that the fire was part of an attempt by the Comintern to seize power.
"So, MLK was killed in a conspiracy therefore 9/11 was an inside job?
Even by Truther standards that has to rank as mighty sloppy logic."
Straw man argument. By your standards, this is daily operation. :)
"MLK must be rolling in his tomb to have you making him out to be a Truther.
Have you no shame?"
The lawyer who made sure the truth about MLK was told, his good friend William Pepper, supports 9/11 truth. Therefore, it would be safe to say MLK would support this cause too, especially since he himself was the victim of a government conspiracy.
I know it stings, but your ignominious attempt to turn MLK against 9/11 truth with empty rhetoric failed.
If there is any shame to be had, any moral debt to be paid, it is yours. Karma is a bitch, especially for a self-righteous know-it-all electing himself a historian, psychiatrist and a journalist all at once, at the expense of fact, justice and truth. All merely for ego-gratification, a superiority complex and an ill-informed knee-jerk reaction to anyone who dares expose covert operations, such as the one which killed MLK.
In your mind, a.s. you are still the little schoolboy who looks up to authority and who feel threatened by people who shake the foundations of your naive catechism. One exception is the damage your alcoholism has caused you.
The truth is, MLK would be ashamed of people like you, and the policies and actions you condone through your self-delusional pseudoskeptic extremism.
"Angry Yet Subpar" says it's a coincidence that MLK,Jr. was becoming radicalized and intended to mobilize massive crowds to protest the obscene and racist Vietnam slaughter.Where would the Debunker Cult be without their beloved coincidences?
Awww da widdle Twoofers getting angry again?
9/11 was apparently a "perfect day for flying"! Is that a coincidence? Not in Trutherland. Nothing is a coincidence.
Everything's a coincidence in the Land of the Debunker Cult.That's why your tent has been neatly folded and you've trudged off into Delusion Country,jackoff.
Post a Comment
<< Home