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.
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.