Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”     Thomas Sowell

September 17, 2007

Bill Maher On 9/11 Truthers

by Brad Warbiany

There’s are few things that I agree with Bill Maher on, despite his phony claims of being a libertarian…

But he got this one right:


Permalink || Comments (29) || Categories: Media
TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/09/17/bill-maher-on-911-truthers/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

29 Comments

  1. No, he’s got it 100% wrong, and so do you, Brad.

    9/11 was a false flag operation. The information is there for those who are willing to see it.

    Truth talks and bullshit walks in the YouTube Era.

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 18, 2007 @ 2:53 am
  2. I mean, Brad, just to give you the quick course:

    Here are the straaaange anomalies you have to believe to swallow the Official Conspiracy Theory:

    Who made NORAD stand down for 80 minutes — OBL in a cave, or Dick Cheney, who was in charge of NORAD on that morning from the PEOC in the White House basement — the first day in NORAD’s history when Air Force generals in Nebraska WEREN’T in charge of the operation? What a coincidence.

    Just for fun, here’s Rudy admitting he’d been told “10 or 15 minutes” before the towers came down that they were coming down:

    Oooops! No wonder the FDNY families are mad!

    But how could a conspiracy of thousands be kept silent? Answer: it was a conspiracy of dozens, not thousands, prolly something like:

    And we won’t even go into 7 WTC’s unexplained collapse (in 7 seconds), the lack of footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon, the testimony of Giuliani appointee Barry Jennings that there were bodies and bombs in the lobby of 7 WTC — oh wait, let’s lookie at that one:

    And forget “Lucky Larry” Silverstein accidentally admitting to PBS that 7 WTC was intentionally demolished:

    And forget the hundreds of military, aviation, and engineering experts who think the OTC is a bunch of bullshit:

    We’ve moved beyond the realm of the evidentiary and into the realm of the psychological. 9/11 “truthers” have mountains of evidence piling up on their side, and the “falsers” have the magical ability to make all these unpleasant arguments go away by claiming the truthers are, and I quote, “crazy.”

    Yes, we are nuts! Imagine thinking members of the US government would kill their own citizens just to make trillions of dollars. Oh, wait — we’ve lost 4,000 soldiers in Iraq, just to make trillions of dollars.

    Get your heads out of your asses, people. A criminal element in our government did this to gain money and power — the PATRIOT act was passed soon after 9/11 and defense budgets soared like crazy. The PNAC even freakin’ ADMITTED they wanted a “new Pearl Harbor” a year before it happened!

    You really have to be willfully ignorant to not think 9/11 was an inside job. And every time Brad or Bill Maher calls truthers crazy, it just shows they can’t debate on the facts.

    Because our government would never, ever hurt us!

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 18, 2007 @ 3:19 am
  3. Shit, it erased all my links. Oh well, sheeple don’t click links anyway because they’re too scary.

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 18, 2007 @ 3:20 am
  4. Shit, it erased all my links.

    Obviously the Conspiracy is still at work…

    Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 18, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
  5. Chepe provides more fact-based argumentation from the “falsers”!

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 18, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
  6. You confuse satire for argumentation.

    Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 18, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
  7. Well, whatever — the point is that falsers’ arsenal includes only “satire,” and terms like “conspiracy theorist” and “crazy.” Truthers’ arsenal includes evidence, evidence, evidence.

    Note how falsers don’t say, “I disagree, and here’s why…” they say, “the other theory is crazy” or a “conspiracy theory.” No evidence required.

    But whatever, the movement is growing, there have already been YouTubed Macaca Moments and there will be more. It’s painful to have to change your worldview radically so people are reluctant to do it, but you don’t have a choice.

    As I said, in the Google and YouTube Eras, truth wins out of bullshit and satire, and only truly ridiculous theories are worthy of ridicule.

    Like, did you ever wonder why 6 of the original 19 “hijackers” are still alive?

    So many paths to the truth.

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 18, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
  8. How it might have been done with only a couple dozen in the know:

    http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 18, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
  9. You know, I really wonder if I’m crazy for debating you. But, for the sake of those reading who may be wondering how to address your assertions.

    Buckwheat wrote:

    Well, whatever — the point is that falsers’ arsenal includes only “satire,” and terms like “conspiracy theorist” and “crazy.” Truthers’ arsenal includes evidence, evidence, evidence.

    That is patently false, as you know. There are reams of evidence, reviewed by the 9/11 Commission, and publicly available, on the entire series of events. There is expert testimony by all sorts of folks on exactly how everything occurred. There is more evidence than any one person would ever want to wade through.

    “Truthers” evidence consists of carefully cherry picked items, like 6 of the 19 hijackers still being alive. Never mind that the names involved are fairly common and a significant number of them used multiple aliases.

    I don’t need to ridicule anything, I just need to apply common sense and Occam’s Razor.

    Now, let me make a standard disclaimer. None of this means I think the guvmint is wonderful and perfect. None of it means that I think the guvmint hasn’t done, or continue to do, things that are meant to be secret, or are despicable.

    I just think that in this case it is demonstrable, using evidence, logic and common sense, that your accusations are wrong. And that it is incumbent on you, the 9/11 Truthers, to prove your accusations. You haven’t yet done so in a way that an intelligent, skeptical adult can agree with.

    I wish you all the luck in the world trying to do so, but until you show me evidence that can overcome all the evidence that exists and prove the current truth wrong, you will remain a theory that gets little credence.

    Comment by Eric — September 18, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
  10. On a side note, much of the evidence that Buckwheat claims doesn’t exist is part of the court record during Mohammed Atta’s trial and sentencing.

    Comment by Eric — September 18, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
  11. I noodled through about 10% of that site. Every page I looked at had a serious factual error.

    They misrepresent the properties of heated steel (and Buckwheat, I worked in a steel mill as an automation engineer – oh and I was repair locker officer on my carrier – so I know a little how steel behaves in paper fires too.).

    They keep referring to something called “falling speed” which makes no sense. I can only assume they mean terminal velocity of objects as dense as the building. I guess they mean that the building should have collapsed more slowly if were not happening with the assistance of explosives. Except that each collapse started a few seconds before they were visible to those outside, WTC-1 watch the central antenna begin sinking first, WTC-2 the outer columns begin going first then the central column. Incidentally the speed with which the collapse progressed would have little relationship with the terminal velocity of something in the air. Yes the collapse would have progressed more slowly than the speed with which a similarly sized and massed object as the top of each tower would have fallen. Here’s the kicker- both tops would have fallen quite fast, at nearly sonic velocities; it’s not density that governs terminal velocity, but mass to cross-sectional area ratios. Larger objects tend to fall more quickly: there is less viscous drag per unit mass.

    That’s just a reaction to one page of the handful I looked at.

    Crap science, crap engineering, crap analysis of people’s behavior and motivations, and a desperate need to make data fit the desired conclusions namely that U.S. government officials are misrepresenting much of what happened.

    Total waste of time.

    Comment by tarran — September 18, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
  12. Better by far to focus the same energy on the daily deceptions that Congress and the White House play out. For example, the big lie that the Patriot Act and all of the surveillance is a White House thing and only the Democrats stand between us and total tyranny.

    Look at the track record of the Democratic politicians, look at who sponsored and voted for the Patriot Act and look at who is on the committees that had to have been (and were) briefed on various DHS surveillance activities. Look at the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and who sat on it.

    Now, put two and two together. If the Democrats had been in power in 2001, what the current Administration is doing would look like anarchy by comparison. The Democrats opposition to all of this has nothing to do with your rights and civil liberties and everything to do with trying to regain control of Congress and the White House so that they can feed at the public trough that the GOP has been enjoying for 6 1/2 years.

    Comment by Eric — September 18, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
  13. Eric writes:

    “There are reams of evidence, reviewed by the 9/11 Commission, and publicly available, on the entire series of events. There is expert testimony by all sorts of folks on exactly how everything occurred.”

    Hmm, got any specifics? I’ll give you one: the 9/11 Commission was a cover-up from start to finish, headed by CFR members Kean and Hamilton — and the researchers were chosen by none other than Philip Zelikow, a high-level Bush Admininstration official. Fox, guard henhouse.

    I mean, isn’t it a little funny that Bush and Cheney wouldn’t testify separately, wouldn’t testify under oath, and wouldn’t allow their testimony to be recorded? Not people who want the truth to be known. Check it out:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9AoaU7LlTk

    33 months after the attacks, dragging their feet all the way, and we’ll never know their testimony — just trust the CFR members Bush appointed to head the commission! Right.

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 18, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
  14. Tarran,

    Even if WTC 1 and 2 had fallen in the “pancake fashion” the 9/11 Commission claimed — and no steel building had ever fallen in such fashion before — there still should have been a huge core of vertical steel columns sticking straight up. There is no physical mechanism from a plane hitting the building that would have destroyed those steel columns!

    But explosives could do it, and BYU physics professor Steven Jones found both thermate (a trademarked explosive used in controlled demolitions) and pools of molten metal at the towers site. The CFR 9/11 Commission report never mentioned this, because they couldn’t explain it.

    And why did Giuliani have the debris carted off to China and India before it could be examined?

    And why was the debris from the toers ground to fine dust, so that one rescuers said he found nothing larger than half a telephone keypad?

    And why did both buildings fall straight down, 110 floors, never tipping to one side or the other?

    And again, what mechanism DESTROYED the massive steel core of each tower, which consisted of hundreds of vertical steel columns 4 inches thick?

    Folks, NONE of this evidence is consistent with an airplane strike, and ALL of it is consistent with a controlled demolition.

    Again, people — even on a site that doesn’t think much of government — are so trained to think the U.S. government could never hurt them that they can’t even entertain the possibility.

    But we’d better open our eyes soon, because you’d better believe they’re planning the next big one.

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 18, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
  15. “I noodled through about 10% of that site. Every page I looked at had a serious factual error.”

    Got any specifics? We talked about metal. Where are these other “serious factual errors”?

    The author of that site is Jim Hoffman, BTW, who is a very well-known science writer…who knows the official 9/11 story is BS.

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 18, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
  16. Sadly, I must say thanks for proving my predictions correct Buckwheat. And now I think I will end a fruitless conversation.

    Comment by Eric — September 18, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
  17. Here’s a high-level Giuliani appointee who barely got out of WTC alive. Unless he’s completely lying, this is one of the many 9/11 smoking guns.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NttM3oUrNmE

    Need another? Here’s Larry Silverstein admitting that 7 WTC went down by controlled demolition:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs&mode=related&search=

    I don’t know how many smoking guns people need…

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 18, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
  18. Eric, do you not find it odd that

    1) on 9/11, war games were being held nationwide that simulated terrorist attacks involving hijacked planes being flown into buildings;

    2) Dick Cheney was in charge of those war games, directing them from the PEOC in the basement of the White House;

    3) 9/11/01 was the first day in NORAD’s history when NORAD generals were not in control of America’s skies;

    4) That Dick Cheney claimed he got to the PEOC at 10:00 that morning, but Transportation Sec. Norman Mineta told the 9/11 commission that he himself got there at 9:25 and that Cheney was already there?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

    5) Mineta testified in detail that Cheney gave a freakin’ STAND-DOWN ORDER not to shoot down the plane approaching the Pentagon?

    Eric, there isn’t much room between these dots I’m asking you to connect. We have a clear window on how the crime was committed, including motive, means, and opportunity, and it’s all on freakin’ YouTube.

    But you won’t look at it. Why not?

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 18, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
  19. The fact that Buckwheat hasn’t been silenced by the government proves that even they think he’s a whack job.

    Comment by Mog — September 19, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
  20. The fact that Buckwheat hasn’t been silenced by the government proves that even they think he’s a whack job.

    DISCLAIMER: I don’t agree with Buckwheat. In fact, I haven’t even taken the time to read his posts in this thread, but I still feel comfortable in stating that I disagree with his analysis.

    Having said that, Mog’s logic is faulty. Assuming for a moment that Buckwheat is actually on to something, the government would only silence him as an absolute last resort. It’s so much easier to just discredit him and his arguments.

    Comment by Jeff Molby — September 19, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
  21. “In fact, I haven’t even taken the time to read his posts in this thread, but I still feel comfortable in stating that I disagree with his analysis.”

    We truthers get a lot of this from the falsers. They’re impervious to data and evidence, and do not apply one-hundredth the scrutiny to the government’s official story as they do to alternative theories.

    Because if they did, they’d see what really happened on 9/11: a false flag operation.

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 19, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
  22. We truthers get a lot of this from the falsers. They’re impervious to data and evidence

    No, I’ve listened to a few truthers before. I’ve examined the data. Listened to counter-arguments. Listened to counter-counter-arguments. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

    Then I rejected the “truth” as very unlikely. Since that point, I’ve focused my attention on other matters.

    Comment by Jeff Molby — September 19, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
  23. The complaint that skeptics refuse to grant due consideration to the arguments offered by the proponents of the alternative explanation of the events of 9/11 is without merit. There is no logical obligation to give consideration to every single argument before rejecting a hypothesis. It is the responsibility of the proponents of the hypothesis to offer their most compelling arguments first in order to demonstrate plausibility. If those initial arguments fail to establish plausibility in the minds of the skeptics, then the proponents have no moral right to demand that that skeptics consider additional arguments.

    This is the case with the 9/11 arguments. I have considered some of the arguments, found them unconvincing, and rejected the hypothesis. The fact that I will not expend additional time considering further arguments in no wise suggests that I am close-minded or unfair.

    Mr. Buckwheat, I would advise you to carefully organize your arguments so that only the very best arguments, the really bullet-proof ones, are presented first. If you present obviously flawed arguments at the outset, then you deserve the rejection you receive.

    Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 19, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
  24. “No, I’ve listened to a few truthers before. I’ve examined the data. Listened to counter-arguments. Listened to counter-counter-arguments.”

    Everyone keeps saying they were fair-minded and thorough, but no one can give me specifics.

    Just to pick one point, Dick Cheney: don’t you find it odd that 1) he was in charge of NORAD from the PEOC on 9/11/01 2) that was the FIRST day EVER when generals in Nebraska were not in charge of NORAD 3) Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission that he heard Cheney repeatedly give a stand-down order not to shoot down the plane that hit the Pentagon (youtube link upthread) 4) Cheney’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission was private, with no transcript, and not under oath and 5) he and his Halliburton colleagues have made billions of dollars off the war 6) Cheney was in charge of war exercises on that morning (“Vigilant Warrior”) that just happened to include terrorists taking over airplanes and flying them into buildings?

    Can someone tell me why this is NOT a smoking gun? I’m really interested to know.

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 19, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
  25. Chepe, read my 11:26 post. How many coincidences do you need to be a little bit curious? Cheney had means, motive, and opportunity, and then REALLY REALLY didn’t wanna talk about it.

    Denial is a powerful tool, but the interesting psychological mechanism behind this mass brainwashing of intelligent people involves post-traumatic programming.

    After a shock trauma, whether experienced personally (like an unexpected physical assault) or vicariously (like 9/11 for most of us), a person becomes psychologically vulnerable — not only because of the physical harm they experienced, but because their notion that they live in a moral and rational universe has been violated.

    If a person(s) is there to offer both physical safety and psychological safety during this period of vulnerability, their words and actions become part of our new sense of living in a moral universe again.

    Rumsfeld, Cheney and the gang were ready with a quick and clear explanation in the days after the attacks, good guys vs. bad guys story we were all ready to hear, myself included, and a plan of action for the good guys to win.

    Bin Laden was the bad guy, he had hurt us, but here’s a plan of action for making sure it doesn’t happen again. We live in a moral universe.

    Funny how that restorative plan of action coincided so nicely with what the PNAC demanded a year before — a “New Pearl Harbor” leading to huge military budgets and a plan to snatch oil and natural gas from Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The psychological kicker? Once the vulnerable party has accepted the post-traumatic explanation for the trauma and the plan of action to bring the world back to moral order, *any challenge to that plan triggers the same feelings of helplessness and anger the original trauma caused*.

    This is why intelligent people, like those on this board, can’t connect dots that are very easy to connect, as with Cheney’s obvious culpablity.

    And don’t think the plotters didn’t know all this. They had their stories ready. Psy-ops is an entire field of study, you know.

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 19, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
  26. “but no one can chooses to give me specifics.”

    I have other priorities, not the least of which is to get Ron Paul elected. I understand that you agree with me on that point. I also think that if you rationally examine your position today and your goals for tomorrow, you will find that the prospects of achieving your goals will be better served by setting aside your theories for the next 14 months and putting all of your energy towards getting Dr. Paul elected.

    Once that happens, you’ll have the necessary transparency to demonstrate your claims conclusively.

    Comment by Jeff Molby — September 19, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
  27. What we need, incidentally, is a 9/11 Truth and Reconciliation Committee, modeled on the Chilean post-Pinochet and South Africa post-Apartheid cases. Dennis Kucinich has actually called for this and the little elf is 100% correct.

    Answers for the victims, amnesty for the guilty in our own government, and REFORM of the dysfunctional institutions whose members plotted and executed the attacks (I’m lookin’ at you, military-industrial complex).

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 20, 2007 @ 12:00 am
  28. Fine, Jeff. We can table the discussion if the truth is too painful — but when the next false flag comes, open your fucking eyes for that one, OK?

    Comment by Buckwheat — September 20, 2007 @ 12:01 am
  29. Buckwheat, could you at least please stop talking about NORAD being in Nebraska? It’s not. NORAD HQ is out in Colorado at Peterson AFB and Cheyenne Mountain. Offutt AFB in Nebraska is HQ for STRATCOM, which has absolutely nothing to do with the air defense of the U.S.

    Not that the rest of your arguments have any validity, but the fact that you couldn’t get a simple detail like this right says a lot.

    Comment by Mike — September 20, 2007 @ 2:18 am

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML