Friday, June 15, 2012

Why Do They Keep Asking Stupid Questions?

Truthers like to claim that they are "Just Asking Questions", but it is amazing that after 10 plus years they keep on asking the same stupid questions.  A perfect example is this recent post over at 911 Flogger regarding the Pentagon:


A few of the more compelling unanswered questions are as follows.
1. How could American Airlines Flight 77 have hit the building as it did, considering that the evidence shows the alleged hijacker pilot, Hani Hanjour, was a very poor pilot?
2. Why did the aircraft make a 330-degree turn just minutes before hitting the building?
3. Why did the aircraft hit the least occupied one-fifth of the building that was the focus of a renovation plan and how was it that the construction in that exact spot just happened to be for the purpose of minimizing the damage from a terrorist explosion?
4.  Why was the company that performed the renovation work, just for that one-fifth of the building, immediately hired in a no bid contract to clean-up the damage and reconstruct that area of the building? (Note: The same company was also immediately hired to clean-up the WTC site within hours of the destruction there.)
5. What can explain the damage to the building and the aircraft debris or lack thereof?
6 Why were the tapes from the surveillance videos in the area immediately confiscated by the FBI and never released?

Uhh, none of these questions are particularly compelling, all of them are idiotic.

1.  Because the Pentagon is one of the largest buildings in the world, and crashing into it is hardly a feat of aviation.  This is a little like saying, "How did that drunk man manage to crash a Corvette into the side of that parking garage?"

2.  Because Hanjour, not being a particularly good pilot, came in too high and needed to bleed off altitude.  Why do Truthers ignore the obvious answers?

3.  Because the west side of the building was the side the plane came in from.  If the plane would have hit the east side of the building, now THAT would have been suspicious.  This question is a bit like asking "Richard Gage drove from San Francisco to Portland on I-5 North?  Why did he do that, could it be because he was smuggling lemons and wanted to avoid the agricultural checkpoints on the California border which are only on I-5 South?  I find that suspicious..."

4.  Maybe because construction and demolition companies are often intertwined and share much of the same equipment?  The fact that they were already there shows that they have the experience and knowledge of the building.  If they would have been kicked out and some company from far off were brought in, now THAT would have been suspicious.

5.  A large passenger liner crashing into it.  NEXT!

6.  Why is it suspicious that the FBI collects evidence of a crime?  I never have figured out why that is somehow ominous.  If the FBI had shown no interest in the video footage, the truthers would be asking why not?

Nearly 11 years have gone by, and they have learned nothing.  Sad.

28 Comments:

At 15 June, 2012 18:16, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

These are "Selling Points" to lure new blood into the tree-house. It seems like every three months some idiot posts these same questions over st the JREF forums as if they've made a huge discovery.

 
At 15 June, 2012 19:06, Blogger Ian said...

This is how we know the truth movement is dead. They've come up with nothing new at all over the last 6 years.

 
At 15 June, 2012 19:20, Blogger Len said...

James aren't you also guilty of what you accuse the truthers of? "Why Do They Keep Asking Stupid Questions?" Isn't obvious? Because they are friggin stupid! Even the intelligent ones become stupified when it comes to this stuff.

Oh wait, the question was rhetorical you say? As Emma Litella would say, 'never mind'.

 
At 16 June, 2012 03:11, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

This is how we know the truth movement is dead. They've come up with nothing new at all over the last 6 years.

Well, new ways to fail. That's something.

 
At 16 June, 2012 08:30, Blogger James B. said...

Heh. Yes, that was a rhetorical question.

 
At 16 June, 2012 09:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

It is hardly a stupid question to ask how Hani Hanjour hit the Pentagon "as he did". The Pentagon is only 70 feet tall. The 757 is 40 feet tall.

Ian, certainly there's been new stuff in the truth movement. Kevin Fenton's work on the intelligence failures, Behrooz Sarshar's story about the FBI's "Kamikaze Pilots" memo, Sen. Graham's and Sen. Kerrey's federal court affidavits, Summers's book "The Eleventh Day" discussing possible Saudi involvement in 9/11, Jonathan Cole's experiments with gypsum and fire and steel, Cole's demonstration on making vertical cuts with thermate, the study of the Verinage demolition technique, the paper The Missing Jolt, continued release of material from NIST FOIA requests--there is a lot new in 9/11 Truth.

Your problem is that you can't distinguish your own ignorance from reality.

 
At 16 June, 2012 12:01, Blogger James B. said...

"It is hardly a stupid question to ask how Hani Hanjour hit the Pentagon "as he did". The Pentagon is only 70 feet tall. The 757 is 40 feet tall. "

Yes it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpshooter_fallacy

 
At 16 June, 2012 12:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

So the Pentagon was just random, not a target at all? It was a complete coincidence that it was on the target list of Project Bojinka?

 
At 16 June, 2012 16:03, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"It is hardly a stupid question to ask how Hani Hanjour hit the Pentagon "as he did". The Pentagon is only 70 feet tall. The 757 is 40 feet tall."

Oh it's stupid. The avionics on that plane make handling easy.

"Ian, certainly there's been new stuff in the truth movement. Kevin Fenton's work on the intelligence failures, Behrooz Sarshar's story about the FBI's "Kamikaze Pilots" memo, Sen. Graham's and Sen. Kerrey's federal court affidavits, Summers's book "The Eleventh Day" discussing possible Saudi involvement in 9/11, Jonathan Cole's experiments with gypsum and fire and steel, Cole's demonstration on making vertical cuts with thermate, the study of the Verinage demolition technique, the paper The Missing Jolt, continued release of material from NIST FOIA requests--there is a lot new in 9/11 Truth.

Your problem is that you can't distinguish your own ignorance from reality."


Your problem is you think this is all new. Most of these stories were floating around the internet and in national print media in the weeks after the attacks.

That there was an intelligence failure is not new. That people scrambled to cover their own asses is not news to anyone. Even when the last document is released into the sunlight it won't change who the hijackers were, their motivation, and it doesn't put explosives anywhere at the WTC.

"So the Pentagon was just random, not a target at all? It was a complete coincidence that it was on the target list of Project Bojinka?"

It was the alternate.

 
At 16 June, 2012 16:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, you make stuff up and you lie.

 
At 18 June, 2012 14:23, Blogger b. j. edwards said...

Remember:

Sunday, May 13, 2007

"Psychologists To Study Growing Apantophobia Within 9/11 Truth Movement."

"Apantophobia - the fear of answers - is largely unknown in educated populations but was common in history, most recently in Europe during the Bubonic Plague (Black Death) pandemic of 1347 - 1350."

http://911booger.blogspot.com/2007/05/psychologists-to-study-growing.html

 
At 18 June, 2012 14:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Try giving some believable answers before you say people are afraid of them.

How come Condi Rice ignored warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA? "Because she's black" may be good enough for you, but not for me.

 
At 18 June, 2012 16:13, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"How come Condi Rice ignored warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA?"

The same reason Sandy Berger did. Maybe not, maybe Sandy Berger was running a counter-intelligence OP using two of the Al Qaeda hijackers, and it blew up in his face.

Why else would he steal incriminating documents? : http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/sandy_berger_what_did_he_take.html

 
At 18 June, 2012 17:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

What evidence do you have that Sandy Berger ignored warnings? Sandy Berger wanted to have commando raids on the al Qaeda camps, but the Secy of Defense said it was a bad idea. So rather than fight DoD and start a war in the last weeks of their administration, the Clinton team decided to pass their plans for military action on to Condi in January 2001. Not only did she ignore them, she (and Zelikow) demoted Richard Clarke so he could no longer sell his plans in the cabinet.

 
At 18 June, 2012 19:00, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"What evidence do you have that Sandy Berger ignored warnings?"

This question alone underlines an unparalleled stupidity on your part. The guy DESTROYS documents, obstructs 9/11 investigations and you don't ask why?

Wait, you name your dildo don't you.


"Sandy Berger wanted to have commando raids on the al Qaeda camps, but the Secy of Defense said it was a bad idea."

No, the SecDef said BERGER'S ideas were bad. Sandy Shit-for-brains wanted immaculate raids with not collateral damage and no US casualties. The SecDef simply pointed out this wasn't realistic in the real world.


" So rather than fight DoD and start a war in the last weeks of their administration"

In other words do the right thing.

" the Clinton team decided to pass their plans for military action on to Condi in January 2001."

You mean dump them on the next administration.


"Not only did she ignore them, she (and Zelikow) demoted Richard Clarke so he could no longer sell his plans in the cabinet."

What? An incoming administration demoted a self-important blowhard? Bottom line on Richard Clark he contributed to the attacks of 9/11 by allowing his ridiculous ego get in the way of sound judgement. So screw him.

 
At 18 June, 2012 22:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, so thanks for showing that you have no evidence that Sandy Berger ignored warnings. He took some copies of documents. You have no evidence that he destroyed any originals. There's no point in talking to you because you make up your facts to fit your ideology. You don't know what Berger proposed to the DoD.

Richard Clarke had a plan for military action against al Qaeda. You're trying to make it his fault that Condi ignored the plan--until after 9/11, when it became the backbone of the Bush response.

 
At 19 June, 2012 13:50, Blogger Ian said...

So Brian, all that "new" stuff is related to failures to stop al Qaeda from striking when they did. So you believe in hijacked planes and al Qaeda's responsibility for 9/11 now? What happened to magic spray-on nanothermite and invisible silent explosives?

 
At 19 June, 2012 13:52, Blogger Ian said...

Wait, wait, don't bother answering, Brian. I can do it for you:

"Ian, your belief that al Qaeda flying planes into the towers and explosives being in the towers could not have happened together is irrational. Sometimes, I spend my Tuesday nights washing my hair with Drano. Sometimes, I spend my Tuesday nights exposing myself to women in Golden Gate Park. There is nothing contradictory about this. You live in a fantasy world."

 
At 19 June, 2012 15:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, there is no contradiction between al Qaeda and nanothermite. I'm sorry you can't recognize a false dichotomy as most 8-year-olds can, but that's not surprising coming from someone who had to resort to a 4th-rate MBA to try to qualify to earn a living.

 
At 19 June, 2012 15:56, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, there is no contradiction between al Qaeda and nanothermite. I'm sorry you can't recognize a false dichotomy as most 8-year-olds can, but that's not surprising coming from someone who had to resort to a 4th-rate MBA to try to qualify to earn a living.

Yup, that's the hysterical squealing I've come to expect from a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State. It's just too easy to humiliate you, Brian.

 
At 19 June, 2012 16:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

There's nothing hysterical about pointing out a logical fallacy to an idiot who thinks he's educated and can't even be held responsible for his lies because he's incompetent.

 
At 19 June, 2012 16:26, Blogger Ian said...

There's nothing hysterical about pointing out a logical fallacy to an idiot who thinks he's educated and can't even be held responsible for his lies because he's incompetent.

See what I mean about the endless hysterical squealing?

Brian, I know it must be tough being mocked by someone far more intelligent and successful than you, but please, try to have some dignity. You're making yourself look pathetic.

 
At 19 June, 2012 16:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 June, 2012 16:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your inability to recognize the basic logical fallacies in your positions shows your unintelligence. Your belief that you, with your diploma-mill MBA, are successful is what's pathetic.

 
At 19 June, 2012 16:40, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian. He failed out of San Jose State and his envy of those of us who were up to the task of graduating from college.

Brian, it's nobody's fault but yours that you were too stupid and lazy to get through college.

 
At 19 June, 2012 16:44, Blogger Ian said...

So Brian, how does it feel to know you've been banned from every truther site, and thus the only place you can post your spam about magic thermite elves is here, where I mock you and humiliate you on a daily basis?

 
At 19 June, 2012 16:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie.

 
At 19 June, 2012 17:13, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie.

Brian, you didn't answer my question. You're going to make Laurie Van Auken cry.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home