9/11 Hit Pieces Get Just Plain Stupid: Part 1 Writing nonsense, and giving the word its own paragraph is not a satisfactory rebuttal Paul JosephMessage 1 of 1 , Aug 9, 2006View Source
9/11 Hit Pieces Get Just Plain Stupid: Part 1
Writing "nonsense," and giving the word its own paragraph is not a satisfactory rebuttal
Recent advances in the public profile of the 9/11 truth movement, owed in part to C-Span's airing of the American Scholars Symposium and Oliver Stone's World Trade Center movie, have provoked a slurry of new hit pieces against 9/11 truth activists. Most are characterized by their twilight zone illogicality and inability to get basic facts correct.
This has to be my favorite 9/11 hit piece of all time, even topping Betsy Hart's 'argument' that 9/11 skeptics are wrong because they fear Muslims. It is the most inept and manifestly ridiculous attempt at arguing for the official line that I have ever encountered.
Amazingly it's written by the entire editorial staff - their best and brightest - which must mean that the rest of their journalists are a mixture of kindergarten kids and recess monkeys.
Maturely titled, 'We've had enough of 9/11 conspiracy theorists', this pathetic excuse for an article dismisses WTC demolition evidence by proudly announcing, "Our opinion remains steadfast that it was a terrorist attack that brought the towers down."
Maybe my memory is a little faded but I don't seem to remember 'terrorist attack' appearing on the periodic table. I don't think even an extensive Google search will give you any results about a noun melting steel.
Here's another pearl of wisdom.
"The conspiracy theorists claim, in part, that the twin towers collapsed because of internal explosions and not as a result of the hijacked airlines plowing into them. To back this contention, they say the government deliberately reacted slowly to the reports of hijacked planes."
Like some kind of dodgy cut and shut car sold by criminals, the esteemed editorial staff have decided to weld together two different strands of the 9/11 skeptic's argument that are not even directly related to each other. By bizarrely claiming the skeptics say the NORAD stand down made the buildings collapse creates straw man reasoning.
I can't even adequately lower myself to their demented moronic level of thinking to fully communicate how utterly stupid and retarded their claims sound.
So Mr. Professor, what caused the collapse of the towers and Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, the first time any steel building had collapsed from fire damage in history? "It gotta be 'dem 'dirty low down stinkin' terrorists dat done dem cole-apses, uh huh and 'dat's for damn sure."
It gets worse - in one instance they try to scientifically disprove claims that the government's version of 9/11 is a lie by typing the word,
And giving that word its own paragraph.
Cue their heavyweight historical 'fact' that also proves 9/11 was carried out by 19 dunderheads with box cutters that couldn't even fly Cessna's.
"Every major event creates enough doubting space for those who are always looking under beds. There were those who believed that President Franklin Roosevelt either caused or allowed the bombing of Pearl Harbor to happen in 1941 because he wanted the country to be pulled into World War II."
Really? Now c'mon, next you'll be telling me that whole Watergate conspiracy crap actually happened.
And that old conspiracy theory about Station H - a radio intercept station that picked up Admiral Yamamoto's order for the Pearl Harbor attack. Or the declassified McCollum Memo - an eight stage plan to provoke a Japanese attack that was implemented at every stage by President Roosevelt.
Our illustrious editors wrap it all up by throwing their toys out of the pram and saying they don't want to hear any more about it. Unfortunately, following the publication of this expose they'll be hearing more about it. A lot more.
Send a letter to the editor of the Sheboygan Press and politely inform them of the fact that they've just been exposed as inept idiots who couldn't win a debate with a 3-year-old.
Coming soon in part 2: Big city papers scoff at 9/11 skeptics, but have trouble getting names right. Is prison planet.com a radio show hosted by Jack Blood? Is Alex Jones' new film called TerrorWar? The bottomless pit of sloppy research continues.