| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ferdy T." |
| Date: |
08 Oct 2006 06:33:33 PM |
| Object: |
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts |
THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY NUTS
by Alexander Cockburn
[...]
I find the illogicality and stupidity of this article literally staggering.
Did the April 24, 1980, effort
to rescue the hostages in the US Embassy in Tehran fail because a
sandstorm
disabled three of the eight helicopters, or because agents of William
Casey
poured sugar into their gas tanks in yet another conspiracy?
See what's he's doing here? He's presenting a risky, long-distance attack on
foreign soil as something that plainly doesn't need a 'conspiracy'
explanation to explain its failure. Yet by this standard, 9/11's risky,
long-distance attack on foreign soil ought to have failed too -- all the
more so since those who failed on 24/4/80 were highly trained and massively
resourced military professionals, whereas those who succeeded on 11/9/01
were apparently hopelessly under-trained and minimally resourced amateur
terrorist zealots. Cockburn's example does *exactly the opposite job* to
that which he manipulatively sets it up to do.
My in-box overflows each day with fresh "proofs" of how the towers were
demolished. I meet people who start quietly, asking me what I think about
9/11. What they are actually trying to find out is whether I'm part of the
coven. I imagine it is like being a normal Stoic in the second century AD
going for a stroll in the forum and meeting some fellow asking, with
seeming
casualness, whether it's possible to feed 5,000 people on five loaves of
bread and a couple of fish.
Another utterly misconceived example: the 'loaves and fishes' story is a
glowing example of a completely fabricated piece of expedient ***** that
became, and has since been upheld as, the 'official explanation'.
And if it was a missile, what happened to the 757? Did the conspirators
shoot it down somewhere else, or force it down and then kill the
passengers?
Fascinating, the way our stooge 'asks' this 'question' thinking that (i) it
constitutes an instant 'knock down' rebuttal, and (ii) it hasn't been asked
and addressed in the 9/11 truth literature.
Why plan to demolish the towers with pre-placed explosives if your
conspiracy includes control of the two planes that hit them?
Duh, because the planes alone might never have brought down the towers.
Again, one has to wonder what kind of level this guy's thinking is on: since
plane-impact and subsequent fires had never before brought down such a
building, one would actually expect things to be the *opposite* of the way
he slyly implies they are. If you have control of the planes that hit the
towers, you are *inevitably* going to want bombs placed *as well*.
Why bother with
the planes at all?
Duh, because if no-one has a list of foreign-looking hijackers to look at,
someone might eventually start wondering about who had means, motive and
opportunity to spend weeks putting bombs in a building. It's frankly amazing
that a journalist is suddenly so forgetful of elementary principles of
control and manipulation...
Why blame Osama if your fall guy is Saddam Hussein?
I thought they were *both* blamed; and that the purpose of blaming them both
was so that we could attack two countries. Duh.
It was a conspiracy of thousands, all of whom--party to mass
murder--have held their tongues ever since.
Plenty of people who are 'party to mass murder' keep their mouths shut
*forever*, sonny: why is it suddenly astoundingly unlikely that such a thing
should happen in this instance...? What is more, it could easily have been a
conspiracy of a few dozen, many of them contracted in from other countries'
security services, and some of them actually on the anti-US side: why the
hell would Saudi or Israeli agents want to blow the whistle on something
that got their side something it desperately wanted? Again, it is staggering
to see how a journalist, having once decided to support the myths
promulgated by the powerful, easily forgets everything he knows about the
fluidity of boundaries and loyalties in the 'secret service' world.
Of course, the buildings didn't suddenly pancake. People inside who
survived
the collapse didn't hear a series of explosions.
Now we've reached the point of actual barrel-scraping: we can all see and
hear actual firemen on video saying that they did hear explosions. 'Loose
Change' has such testimony in significant amounts.
Instead, the conspiracy nuts have combined to produce a
ludicrous distraction.
And Cockburn has earned the next little piece of meat he will be thrown by
the grateful criminals who sit at the tables of Power. He did exactly what
they wanted him to do. Well done, Alexander, you compliant *****.
M.
.
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts |
08 Oct 2006 08:40:06 PM |
|
|
Ferdy T. wrote:
THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY NUTS
by Alexander Cockburn
[...]
I find the illogicality and stupidity of this article literally staggering.
The word you're looking for is "illogic"...
<snip>
Why plan to demolish the towers with pre-placed explosives if your
conspiracy includes control of the two planes that hit them?
Duh, because the planes alone might never have brought down the towers.
Again, one has to wonder what kind of level this guy's thinking is on: since
plane-impact and subsequent fires had never before brought down such a
building, one would actually expect things to be the *opposite* of the way
he slyly implies they are. If you have control of the planes that hit the
towers, you are *inevitably* going to want bombs placed *as well*.
Ahem.
OK, let's say you have a building filled with explosives.
You then proceed to fly a fully-fueled jet plane into the building at
several hundred miles per hour.
What effect do you think that might have on all those explosives?
Seriously, the mind boggles.
<snip remaining conspiracy nonsense>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ferdy T." |
|
| Title: Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts |
08 Oct 2006 10:03:10 PM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoth-theraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160340006.757588.218600@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ferdy T. wrote:
THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY NUTS
by Alexander Cockburn
[...]
I find the illogicality and stupidity of this article literally
staggering.
The word you're looking for is "illogic"...
<snip>
Why plan to demolish the towers with pre-placed explosives if your
conspiracy includes control of the two planes that hit them?
Duh, because the planes alone might never have brought down the towers.
Again, one has to wonder what kind of level this guy's thinking is on:
since
plane-impact and subsequent fires had never before brought down such a
building, one would actually expect things to be the *opposite* of the
way
he slyly implies they are. If you have control of the planes that hit the
towers, you are *inevitably* going to want bombs placed *as well*.
Ahem.
OK, let's say you have a building filled with explosives.
You then proceed to fly a fully-fueled jet plane into the building at
several hundred miles per hour.
What effect do you think that might have on all those explosives?
Seriously, the mind boggles.
Pitiful response. Absolutely pitiful.
M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts |
09 Oct 2006 08:03:45 PM |
|
|
Ferdy T. wrote:
"raven1" <quoth-theraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160340006.757588.218600@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ferdy T. wrote:
THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY NUTS
by Alexander Cockburn
[...]
I find the illogicality and stupidity of this article literally
staggering.
The word you're looking for is "illogic"...
<snip>
Why plan to demolish the towers with pre-placed explosives if your
conspiracy includes control of the two planes that hit them?
Duh, because the planes alone might never have brought down the towers.
Again, one has to wonder what kind of level this guy's thinking is on:
since
plane-impact and subsequent fires had never before brought down such a
building, one would actually expect things to be the *opposite* of the
way
he slyly implies they are. If you have control of the planes that hit the
towers, you are *inevitably* going to want bombs placed *as well*.
Ahem.
OK, let's say you have a building filled with explosives.
You then proceed to fly a fully-fueled jet plane into the building at
several hundred miles per hour.
What effect do you think that might have on all those explosives?
Seriously, the mind boggles.
Pitiful response. Absolutely pitiful.
I agree that your response was pitiful; it certainly didn't answer the
question.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts |
08 Oct 2006 10:18:04 PM |
|
|
raven1 wrote in message
<1160340006.757588.218600@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Ferdy T. wrote:
THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY NUTS
by Alexander Cockburn
[...]
I find the illogicality and stupidity of this article literally
staggering.
The word you're looking for is "illogic"...
No, I'm sure the word he was looking for is "illogicality." Of course, the
word he *should* have been looking for was in fact "illogic."
<snip>
Why plan to demolish the towers with pre-placed explosives if your
conspiracy includes control of the two planes that hit them?
Duh, because the planes alone might never have brought down the towers.
Again, one has to wonder what kind of level this guy's thinking is on:
since
plane-impact and subsequent fires had never before brought down such a
building, one would actually expect things to be the *opposite* of the
way
he slyly implies they are. If you have control of the planes that hit the
towers, you are *inevitably* going to want bombs placed *as well*.
Ahem.
OK, let's say you have a building filled with explosives.
You then proceed to fly a fully-fueled jet plane into the building at
several hundred miles per hour.
What effect do you think that might have on all those explosives?
Seriously, the mind boggles.
<snip remaining conspiracy nonsense>
- Rick
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
