Still Moron Bill Deagle

Our buddy the Feathered Bastard listened to his speech and points out some of the yet more interesting things Bill "modified attack baboons ate my brain" Deagle had to say:

"I have been in underground cities."

"The only thing that could have done that (brought down the Twin Towers) are nukes. There is no other conclusion. It's not something that's open to discussion."

The entire speech is Stundie material!

Chomsky and the Left Gatekeepers

Is the subject of Stephen Lemons' latest post on the 9-11 Deniers.

Back to David Ray Griffin soon, but I wanted to make some points about so-called left gatekeepers, Noam Chomsky and whether or not the 9/11 "truth" movement is left-wing, right-wing or just plain crackpot. I personally tend to think the movement skews left and eventually explodes in a great big supernova of woo. Most of troofers I've encountered in person tend to be libs -- moon-howling, Bush-hating loony libs. They want Bush impeached and the troops home from Iraq yesterday. They think Cindy Sheehan walks on H2O, and are convinced that Bill O'Reilly's a giant turd who sits at the right hand of Satan. Well, they may be right about O'Reilly. I'll give 'em that one.

You know, I'm a conservative, but I can't stand O'Reilly either, except of course when he's bashing Jim Fetzer or Kevin Barrett.

Some excellent quotes in here from Mark (Gravy) Roberts as well, all written with Steve's humorous and biting style. Highly recommended!

The Bird Takes On Griffin

Hmmm, is that the bird against a half-bird, half lion? Anyway, Stephen Lemons, whose cover story on this blog last week thrilled us, takes a good whacking stick to the posterior of David Ray Griffin:

Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking is all about ego. I'm looking to get hold of an electronic copy, so the number of times Griffin uses the first person pronoun "I" can be counted. Griffin's latest is weirdly self-referential and, um, self-reverential. He takes debunking tracts to task for not including him into their arguments. Why, the mere fact that an intellect of his stature has taken up the 9/11 conspiracy cause, should be proof enough that there's some validity in all this troofer wombattery, eh?

Highly recommended! Steve did a lot of research on the cover story that due to space and/or narrative constraints could not make it into the print edition. It looks like he's going to release that information via his blog.

The Bird on Kerry

Our buddy the Feathered Bastard got an email from Sander Hicks alerting him to Kerry's supposed conversion to 9-11 Denial. He checked with the campaign:

I got an answer later that day from Kerry's press secretary Amy Brundage via e-mail that, "The only comment we've got for you is that of course the Senator would never say that."

Stephen never fails to delight with his use of language:

The 9/11 conspiracy movement is basically a religion, with folks looking for Christ's bearded mug in a taco shell. Ridicule is helpful, I think, in preventing others from going to sleep with the pod beside their beds. I don't know if it does any good, though, once the body snatchers have already replicated.

BTW, I've been meaning to get around to doing a review of Hicks' book, The Big Wedding. I'll try to do it some justice later, but Hicks' big problem is that he trusts too many shady characters like Delmart Vreeland, Randy Glass, Daniel Hopsicker, and of course James' favorite, Ambassador Leo Wanta, the wealthiest man in the world. If you're skeptical about the official story, but find Wanta credible, I've gotta wonder whether your BS detector is a little faulty.

Assorted Nuts

The Feathered Bastard lays one on the chin of an East Valley Tribune reporter who wrote the piece AP picked up a couple days ago on the 9-11 Accountability Conference in Chandler while somehow missing the whole story about Eric D. Williams.

But even if Markham was unaware of Williams’ Holocaust-denying book The Puzzle of Auschwitz, and did not know that several scheduled speakers have flaked on the kook convention since the Williams debacle broke, why pen a story that treats 9/11 conspiracy buffs as if they’re no more controversial than Civil War reenactors? Doesn’t the guy have Google on his ‘puter? Check this typical passage:

There are plenty of differing theories on what happened on Sept. 11. One is that government-planted bombs, not terrorist-hijacked jetliners, brought down the Twin Towers. And another is that an air-to-air missile shot down United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.

At no point is someone quoted dismissing or criticizing such crackpot views, even though conference spokesperson Pete Creelman admits (after the jump) that “he doesn’t have proof of the government’s complicity.” Huh? Then why interview this guy without asking him any tough questions, like “Why do you believe in something you have no proof for?” Seems like a logical line of inquiry to me.

In fairness, the mainstream media may just think this stuff is self-evidently crackpottery.