Bush Admits Explosives Used on 9/11
It was all under your nose, Bill. But what isn’t with that big-ass fucking snot locker? I mean, seriously, look at that honker, and try not to stare. He picks his nose and his entire fist disappears.
For those of you unfamiliar with the term, attacking a straw man is to create the illusion of having refuted an argument by misrepresenting the original argument, without ever actually refuting it. It’s practice is the shameful solace of pedants, debate team drop-outs and scorned ex-girlfriends; and you see it a lot in media punditry and politics.
For example:
A states: “Bush said on national television that explosives were used on 9/11.”
B states: “Oh. So you believe the government was behind 9/11.”
A states: “Eat a dick, you ignorant, straw man chucking bastard. When did I ever mention the government being involved?”
B states: “Eat a dick? okay. Sounds good to me.”
As you can see, B never refutes the original statement of A. In an effort to refute an argument or statement he cannot, he creates his own absurd or exaggerated statement and calls it yours. Because the words he puts in your mouth are purposely absurd or exaggerated, it is an argument that is easy to attack and if it is successfully ascribed to you, the illusion that your argument or statement was refuted is created. B’s position is a logical fallacy. Appeals to this fallacy should have been cured in childhood; during which any loving, thoughtful parent would have taken the child gently aside, pointed out the error, and shot him.
Two inferences could be immediately drawn from A’s first statement of fact: either Al Qaeda set the charges, or the government did. Only a dipshit would jump to the conclusion that only the latter inference of a government conspiracy could be drawn. The straw man that we (meaning anyone questioning officialdom or our own eyes) believe the government was responsible for 9/11 has been pretty effective. Pointing out the simple fact that explosives were used was treated no differently than saying Congress openly voted for an attack on ourselves. Of course the whole point of the straw man is to ridicule and discourage any and all possible forms of educated dissent. Did terrorists cause 9-11? of course. Were rogue elements of the government complicit in facilitating it to ensure a war with Iraq or Afghanistan? I don’t know, and frankly don’t care unless there was something as startling and undeniable as the admission in the video; or that there was actionable treason involved in which prosecution of individuals responsible was possible.
That said, my own contention is simple: President Bush said what he said in the video, and that’s it. Bill Maher, Chris Matthews and their ilk, hitherto insisting that fire caused the buildings to fall, remain silent or understandably defensive about it, or maybe not. Afterwards, a NIST study concluded that fire caused the Building 7 collapse and the pancake collapse consistent only with a controlled demolition The findings were so laughably ridiculous and brazenly unscientific they earned themselves their own article.
[ca_audio url=”http://impiousdigest.com/Secondary Devices in WTC_NYCFD Chief_Albert_Turry_planted_device.mp3″ width=”500″ height=”27″ css_class=”codeart-google-mp3-player” autoplay=”false”]AUDIO: “Basically, he [Albert Turry, New York City Fire Department Chief of Safety] received word of a possibility of a secondary device; that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could but he said there was then another explosion that took place, and then an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place he said there was another explosion in one of the towers here so obviously his theory is that he thinks that there were devices planted in the building.”
Albert Turry, New York City Fire Department Chief of Safety was very worried about hundreds of firefighters in the first tower hit, and didn’t have any doubt about explosives in the building as he described the situation to NBC’s Pat Dawson.
[easyrotator]erc_51_1425242144[/easyrotator]Psychologists Explain 911 Denial
Cognitive dissonance and our inability to examine empirical evidence for fear of ostracism, anxiety, a challenge to our world view. How we appeal to denial to protect us from anxiety, and the effect of trauma on a national level after watching thousands of Americans killed on live television.
So we disagree on the actual physics behind the collapse without ever straying into the issue of government responsibility. Why do they have to be such goat-felching assholes about it and imply, nay, bleat and wildly assert we all believe the latter when there are at least two obvious conclusions that could logically be drawn? and by a child no less? Personally, when I do see people scoff at the idea that explosives were involved, I don’t just see a person mocking in ignorance like, well, a stupid motherfucker; I see something far more pathetic. I see a person like the subject in this video that is so desperate to conform he disbelieves his own eyes, and I would rather be shot in the face than be anything like him.
Even saying that Bush said what he said is falsely interpreted as a wild-eyed claim the government was responsible for 9/11. Again, the whole point is to make informed dissent look idiotic and to pretend this moment in history never took place. From the beginning, all we were asking is a simple question: how did Building 7 collapse when no plane hit it and fire could not possibly be responsible without breaking the laws of physics and thermodynamics, and how did Rudy Guilliani and the BBC know it would collapse 30 minutes before it did? Well, now we know. Here’s your answer. It’s no mystery.
NYC Fire firefighters discuss the demolition of WTC 7
That’s what makes Maher and truly reasonable people different: he speaks with the arrogant certainty of fools, as opposed to the measured uncertainty of experience. This latter attribute by default, doesn’t make anyone morally superior or even smarter, but it does make their argument stronger. How does this smug certainty make him any different than the knee-jerk, tea bagging knuckle-draggers on the fringe right? Bill. You’re just a pundit and tool, at bottom, nothing more, and Arianna is your peer. Arianna at least has good writers at her news blog, but ironically, her own entries suck and are so obvious they’re inexcusably bland. Consider her new book “Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed Ruined America.” Why not write something less obvious, like say, um, “Water: It’s Wet and Why We’re Soaked.”
Arianna is a genius at self promotion, and indeed, the most dangerous place on earth is between her and a television camera, but when it comes to writing…. I would rather read a phone book. That’s the problem. I don’t think Arianna really believes what she says about 9-11, but I do believe she wouldn’t dare voice those doubts because people would stop inviting her on their shows. Think about it, and you know I’m right. Arianna lives for attention, and that would be fatal. How many shows and panels have you seen her on, babbling about one thing or another? Don’t you see her almost daily? You can’t escape her. I can’t even watch local cable channels or the snow on dead channels without worrying she’ll pop up with that annoying voice, blessing us with her wacky wisdom and political acumen. Her entire success is based on great writers, but she’s too cheap to pay them writer’s wages.
If the news blog made no money, that would be cool, but Arianna can afford to pay her writers decent guild wages. Clearly, the advertisers pay well enough to make the site profitable. If celebrities or obscure writers think she’s doing you a favor, she’s not. She will censor your work. She will place the same limitations and gags you will find in the mainstream media. So what’s the point? Back to Bill, though. Eat a dick, carve that nose ham at a plastic surgeon, and kindly make yourself presentable before civilized people, you smegma-sucking corporate shill. Arianna doesn’t know any better but you… you have no excuse.
Here’s my challenge: if, using the scientific method, you can prove conclusively that President George Bush was joking about explosives in the WTC building 7, and that it did not fall by controlled demolition, this by recreating the events as set forth in the NIST analysis of the collapse, it will be conceded there is no God, no Jesus, and donations henceforth be sought to build a temple to worship Richard Dawkins or any human of your choice. Including your felching partner.
If you cannot, then you must concede your amazing powers of critical deduction are absent when it comes to the issue of false flag operations or media censorship having ever taken place in the United States (read a history book asswipe, e.g. the Spanish-American war resulting from the “sinking” of the Maine, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident designed to escalate our involvement into a full-scale war in Vietnam). In other words, you must concede you are a fraud and blowhard. But this was so evident all along, even to you. The facts were all under your nose. Oh. Wait a minute. No wonder you couldn’t see them. The thin ice of selective logic beneath you is concealed by that fleshy horizon of flaring nostrils, by that freakishly enormous, brown-nosing honker whose first act of concealment was to obscure the fact that WTC building 7, unlike the Twin Towers, was struck by neither plane yet collapsed in the same demolition-like manner, from a fire without the benefit of jet fuel.
As seen above, these firefighters were there, and you weren’t. So shut the fuck up, pedant. Damn, man, you’re a stupid cockgobbler. It’s like you’re stupid and you mean it.
Quien es Mas Macho Estupido?
On August 20th or so, Maher came on the Larry King Show to promote his new movie “Religulous”. Bill has every right to believe, or not believe, in God. That is not the issue here. The issue is intolerance. As there is intolerance in religion, there is intolerance of religion itself.
MAHER: So we’re not trying to point fingers in this movie. I think we do it — we’re laughing all the way through it. I think we’re winking and having a good time, and we’re not trying to be judgmental. But at some point, you know, mankind is going to have to shed this skin if he’s going to move forward. I do have a serious intellectual problem with it. And on another level it just ticks me off. It’s just the ultimate hustle. It’s just “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” You know, why can’t they, I always ask — I asked Jesus at Holy Land, “Why can’t God just defeat the devil and get rid of evil?” You know, and it’s the same reason the comic-book character can’t get rid of his nemesis. Then there’s no story. If God gets rid of the devil — and he could, he’s all powerful — well, then there’s no fear. There’s no reason to come to church. There’s no reason to pass the plate. We’re all out of a job. You know, it’s got to go on.
Wow. Not trying to point fingers? The whole movie is about pointing a finger at religion! Look at the title itself, “Religulous”! But here’s the answer to Bill’s question, and it’s obvious: provided you even believe in God, the reason God doesn’t just defeat evil is only something he can answer; just as there are questions only Bill Maher can answer. This isn’t a cop-out either. Now, if you don’t believe in God, who will you ask your question to? He’s imaginary, right? So any answer from anyone would be false. Any answer will be a story.
Assuming there is no God, one must assume the concept of God represents “good” and the devil represents “evil” to make any sense of the question. Asking why good doesn’t just defeat evil is a good question, but the answer is pretty obvious too: we don’t because we would all have to kill ourselves to do it. Evil and good are human behavior. Even if we are essentially good people, we are all capable of evil. It’s a scientific fact, and I mean we’re all capable of extreme, murderous evil simply by our vulnerability to blind obedience to any authority figure. That means me, and you too, dumb ass.
As for the actor playing Jesus: if we follow Bill’s logic, actors who portray historical personages on film are actually the real thing! In the film, as he interviews the actor playing Jesus, it is clear he is tacitly implying the Biblical Jesus is standing right before you. Otherwise, why ask questions only God could answer? Of course the hapless actor would be stumped. All he had to do was look the part, not channel Jesus. What made him assume the actor who played Jesus in his own mockumentary was real enough to ask theological questions to? He may as well interview a historical figure of Jesus at Madame Tussaud’s WaxMuseum.
Shit-eating anteater fucktard.
Maher’s Blind Faith in the Good Intentions of Cabals Designed to Avoid Them
It is clearly illogical, Platypus Bill, if we follow your crazy train of thought, and assume those who refuse to think in absolutes are imbeciles. What you’re guilty of is predicate thinking.Predicate thinking, Bill, is me saying you’re always wrong, about everything, and of course you aren’t. Think about that when you are about to call peaceful religious people insane, this by using the most fanatical, fringe examples of their faith as the absolute representative of the peaceful as a whole. The point I’m making here is why do it? What do you hope to gain? You’ll just annoy Christians but that’s it. Talk the same shit to a Muslim extremist and see how well it goes when you mock Allah with the same intolerance and vitriol.
Yeah, I thought so.
Consider Maher’s delusions and contrast:
- Here’s a peachy delusion: your movie, or Richard Dawkin’s entire body of work, will end religion. No one is his right mind will try to end atheism, either, because it’s just as retarded.
- The other delusion, the one harbored by Maher, is that logical fallacies can amount to truth. The manifestation of this delusion is the belief that the fewer people who know about a critical problem affecting mankind, the likelier it is the problem will be solved. Here we’re talking about blind faith in the good intentions of cabals whose whole purpose for existing is mischief and unaccountability.
The latter create two types of problems: the first is a problem they will have a ready-made solution to. For example, someone in this cabal of authorities doesn’t like a peaceful protest, so they plant trouble-makers amongst peaceful protesters who will try to incite a riot, become violent, and do whatever possible to make the protesters look dangerous. Witness COINTELPRO, the FBI’s covert action programs against American citizens, which came back stronger than ever with the cynically titled Patriot Act. Some background on on the program, to quote the Final Report of the 1976 Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities:
“COINTELPRO began in 1956, in part because of frustration with Supreme Court rulings limiting the Government’s power to proceed overtly against dissident groups; it ended in 1971 with the threat of public exposure. In the intervening 15 years, the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence. Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that. The unexpressed major premise of the programs was that a law enforcement agency has the duty to do whatever is necessary to combat perceived threats to the existing social and political order.’
“Protecting national security and preventing violence are the purposes advanced by the Bureau for COINTELPRO. There is another purpose for COINTELPRO which is not explicit but which offers the only explanation for those actions which had no conceivable rational relationship to either national security or violent activity. The unexpressed major premise of much of COINTELPRO is that the Bureau has a role in maintaining the existing social order, and that its efforts should be aimed toward combating those who threaten that order.”
In the example above, the perpetrators have thus created the problem (a “violent” movement), and introduced a ready-made solution like martial law, which will end the protest, get media support, and the fear and control they wanted in the first place is achieved. The other type is a problem created when the ready-made solution doesn’t work and backfires terribly. For example, a nation is tacitly provoked to an act of war because we assume the resulting conflict will last only a few weeks when we retaliate. The foreign nation finally commits an act of war on surprised and baffled Americans, and the solution is we declare war to “defend ourselves.” However, war which was supposed to be easy bogs down for years and empties our treasury. Because they are small and exclusive cabals, when they create such a problem, only a few minds can work out the problem they created and they have to do it in secret, and it doesn’t get worked out because you need a massive pool of great minds working together to fix this type of clusterfuck, if it an be fixed at all. They know this, but naturally, appealing to the obvious solution would mean exposing their own roles and risking arrest. Machiavelli said we can chose when to start a war, but not when we can end it. How right he was.
If you believe cabals and conspiracies don’t exist, I don’t know why you’re visiting this page. This page is for grown-ups. Go away. You only need two people to form a conspiracy, legally, and cabals exist and always have. You see the bankers in the libor scandals? That’s a cabal that got busted.
Let me elucidate further: If a computer serves as an analogy to a human brain, it’s like assuming that a couple dozen computers or so in the same archaic pool of computers, using the same punch card “programming”, it’s likelier we can solve any modern problems as opposed to using new computers, and more of them. The logical fallacy, and delusion, assumes this tiny pool of outdated and disconnected relics is superior to connected billions of new high-end computers of increasing capacity and processing speed that grows exponentially by the year. We’re talking about the internet, and those computers are people creating better software to access, store and disseminate information. Ask practically any question and type it into Google, and it will be on the internet with an answer or reference. There’s only one thing that could ruin this wonderful development in human history, and that’s censorship.
Maher’s all into censorship, though. Consider his rabid push for SOPA, which was an act that came crashing down for its potential, and likelihood, to censor the internet under the guise of copyright protection. A person might witness a heinous crime, tape it on his phone cam, upload it on YouTube and then have it taken down for alleged violation the criminal’s copyright. The accuser didn’t even have to prove he had the copyright anymore before action was taken.
Maher’s Second Major Logical Fallacy: Religion Only Demeans Man
No one can argue man’s worst idiocies and genocides have been done in the name of religion. I certainly won’t. It can be said religion was always opposed to science, but Christianity still created the first universities. Regardless, let’s take a look at a couple of “misguided” Christians who based their ideology on a book of “fairy tales.”
One of the most important men in American history was Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. What he did was end 100 years of Jim Crow segregation without war, but through reason and civil disobedience. Through tolerance. This man was a Christian. So was Abraham Lincoln, who freed the slaves. Bill, by asserting all Christians and Jews are idiots, you are only exposing your own logical fallacies, your own ignorance embraced. If you had done something as significant as these men, maybe I could understand but it would still be repulsive. But you haven’t. Even your soapbox is raggedy and unoriginal. The two men most responsible freeing Americans of chains and segregation were both Christian.
We have heard all about the illusions of religion and how man must get over it to truly reach his potential. The most famous man to propose this was Karl Marx, way back in the late 1800s. What has it accomplished? this notion of state enforced atheism? In Russia, it achieved Communism. That lasted a few decades. In China, it is giving way to capitalism. In North Korea, it has starved its people and reduced them to worshiping a man.
The need to worship, to believe in something or someone higher than ourselves, is hardwired in humans. This is the true god delusion. If not the abstract, then worship of another man will do. Given the fact man is woefully imperfect, I would rather believe that perhaps a higher being than man exists in our vast universe.
How the ENIAC is Relevant to Maher: An Example
Let’s take the age old question of population control, first posed by Thomas Malthus (1766-1834). He was wrong in assuming we’d be out of resources by now, he was very wrong simply because if 3 or 4 percent of the world own 98% of its resources, of course there will be famine, and crowding, and war. But you don’t blame the wronged. You have to place blame on those controlling massive resources they and their descendants, or even countrymen, couldn’t possibly exhaust in billions of years. You have to ask yourself why anyone should have a right to privately own obscene amounts of land and resources critical to the survival of all, because to do otherwise is cowardice and stupidity, with absolutely no concern for correcting the problem at hand. Famine, war and greed are symptoms of the unchecked private accumulation and monopolization of natural resources, the result of owning more than one could possibly need. But who gets blamed? Isn’t it possible to be rich beyond measure, yet not own all the resources your fellow human beings need to survive and prosper? If your wealth depends on controlling those resources, then you’re the salient problem, and always will be.
Since Malthus and even earlier, the world’s self-styled nobles of human ENIACs has determined they are not to blame, and if there are not enough resources for the masses, then the masses must be thinned until the “scarce” resources are enough for “everybody” No, this is not a communist idea I’m talking about. Free enterprise is great, and owning factories, creating businesses, etc., all that is great. We need it. The problem is when wealth buys what we all need and what should never be sold in the first place, such as the very air we breathe, clean water, or energy or land that can be spared to prevent famine.
The ENIACS in question are programmed to believe those outside their elite are profane, and are ripe for fleecing and manipulation. That’s why since the first models (in human form like, say, Adam Weishaupt) came around in 18th century Europe, the programming hasn’t changed for shit. Same people in control, same ideas, same solutions to the same problems. That’s why it was easy for anyone to predict world wars in the 19th century, and in fact they did. The programming is basically this: “anything that reduces our level of secret and absolute control of money and state is wrong.” But you know it’s flawed. We see what that absolute control has given us with every famine, every war, every banking debacle, every genocide in which outwardly philanthropic men tacitly ensured wrong could prevail if it meant they would lose no power, or status, or wealth, or any of their massive, irrational accumulation of natural resources.
The Occult History of the Third Reich- excerpt on scientific racism
Here then, is the worst delusion of all: the belief that trusted leaders meet and plan in darkness only because they know their deeds are good, and not evil. These archaic societies appeal to the worst instincts and irrationalities of insecure, malleable, and gullible man. Maybe it’s why we haven’t progressed as much as we should after hundreds of years.
Transparency is always opposed by these self-styled nobles have something to lose; such as an innate, unfair advantage over unwitting fellow citizens which allows said few to fleece, abuse and even kill their countrymen. And so you see, Bill, by selectively defending the logical fallacy of what clearly is a lie, and criminal act, you are defending the original Man Behind the Curtain and it is a fair inference to draw when I say you are among them, or at the very least, knowingly in their service, which is just as bad.
So I can picture the likes of Bill Maher in the 60s during the Civil Rights era, ridiculing Dr. King for a movement inspired and driven by his Christian faith. I can just picture his ilk in the days of slavery, ridiculing abolitionist preachers and Abraham Lincoln for basing their anti-slavery beliefs on a book of “fairy tales.” Hey, that’s exactly what many did. (Those who weren’t using the bible to justify slavery, since slavers used it for their purposes as well.) It’s not like atheism was not around then.
In either case, Lincoln or King would certainly hold their own against Maher’s onslaught of masturbatory “intellectualism” that will do, and can do, no better than people who argued his case better. Marx, for example, wasn’t an obnoxious asshole about it. He believed that religion was a symptom of class warfare and strife inherent in capitalism. A symptom of class warfare and strife, mind you, not the cause. You’re an asshole, Bill.
I would approve if you died.
And when you do, if we judge by what you’ve done thus far with your existence, you miserable sack of dog shit, I will stake my life your contribution to this world would have amounted to nothing. You’re a misanthrope. Your kind never amount to anything. You’re no George Carlin, you have no true grasp of the big picture and you don’t spend the last years of your life trying to convey the truth to fellow Americans.
*This is the concept of open-source software and programming.
