>Why Australia’s ABC would feature a 9/11 Nutjob on the front page of its website is beyond me. I would have thought that it hurts their brand.
There are two things that all good conspiracies have in common:
- They require government hyper-competence. In this case, the same government whose intelligence agencies got suckered by a tin pot Middle Eastern dictator into believing he had WMD. The same government whose post-Iraq War actions were the very antithesis of competence until someone got smart and appointed General David Petraeus; and
- They are generally held against people with whom the conspiracists have a philosophical difference.
Thus, unwittingly, the ABC shows its anti-Bush, anti-conservative colours. Not that it’s any big secret, of course. If there was a Democratic Party president then you can be sure that the ABC wouldn’t have featured such a topic so prominently.
Hereward Fenton’s post is titled Unanswered 9/11 Questions. The fact is that the questions have been answered. Comprehensively. But these Nutjobs refuse to believe what is clear for all to see.
His bio reads:
Hereward Fenton is a researcher in the 9/11 truth movement in Australia. He is a senior computer programmer and holds a BA in anthropology and religious studies. His passion for truth has led him down some deep rabbit holes, 9/11 being the deepest. He is editor and webmaster of http://www.911oz.com – an Australian website dedicated to the cause of truth and justice for the crimes of 9/11.
Notice how easily the term ‘truth movement’ has entered the vernacular? That it’s got nothing to do with truth is clear. It’s like using the term ‘democratic’ in a nation’s name: the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, for example.
From his article:
The collapse of New York’s World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 is arguably one of the most well documented events in human history. Less well documented is the controversy over why the buildings fell as they did.
I’ll bet there are more than one thousand topics that are better documented than the collapse of the WTC. Nearly all of those documents that do relate to it relate to the controversy about why they fell and have been put forward by Nutjobs like him.
At the time of writing, 357 architectural and engineering professionals have signed a petition which directly challenges the National Institute of Standards & Training’s official finding that the destruction of these massive buildings was caused solely by structural damage from the impact of jet airliners and the resulting fires.
I’ll bet that at least 90% of those 357 people are Democratic Party supporters – if they’re real at all. I googled some names, looked in telephone directories for the areas they’re supposed to be in and there were more than a few that can’t be proven as real using that method.
The petition, demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation, states, in part:
“…the 9/11 investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7.”
At first glance you might be agreeing with the proposition that the collapse of Building 7 is worth further investigation and that the 9/11 Nutjobs have a point.
What they’re actually doing is using the most difficult point to prove, as it requires the reader to have a strong understanding of architecture, explosives and demolitions, to validate the other areas of their arguments that have also been profoundly debunked. By getting people to question the Building 7 collapse Nutjobs get the audience to open up their minds to the possibility, even if it’s ever so slight, that it was an inside job.
Consider this. For the Building 7 collapse to have been caused by explosive planted by a government demolition team then ALL of the following must be true:
- The government flew American Airlines Flight 11 into the WTC North Tower;
- The government flew United Airlines Flight 175 into the WTC South Tower;
- The government flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, or a missile if that’s what you think it was;
- The government intended to fly United Airlines Flight 93 into the White House but were thwarted by passengers, or it was shot down by the Air Force, or it landed and its passengers were then taken away and ‘disappeared’ before crashing in Pennsylvania; and
- The government planted demolition charges in not only both of the WTC Towers but also Tower 7, which was never a target and whose demolition could only arouse suspicion.
Not only does it have to do all of that obvious stuff that we all saw but also:
- The government had to warn all of the Jews working in the WTC not to go to work that day and then make sure none of them talked;
- The government had to ensure that American Airlines and United Airline played along;
- The government had to ensure that security at the airports let the hijackers through; and
- The government has to ‘stand down’ the air force so that the planes couldn’t be intercepted.
What level is there above hyper-competence? Because that’s what it would take for a government to achieve all that in complete secrecy.
It goes without saying that the vast majority of the few hundred comments on the article agree with the author’s thesis though there are some sensible ones in there.
As I said, why the heck that the ABC wants to hurt its brand by featuring such drivel is a mystery to me.
Perhaps there are a few more lunatics in the place than we previously understood.
>You will by now have seen Rosie O’Donnell’s latest insane rant in which she outs herself as a 9/11 Nutjob on her TV show The View. In case you’ve missed it here’s the video:
Popular Mechanics profoundly debunked all of the major claims that the Nutjobs make about 9/11 last year and took the time to respond to O’Donnell on their website.
Here’s another clip of Rosie commenting on the State of the Union, which shows that in the kitchen drawer of life she is, at best, an intellectual butter knife.
The modern day Left would be quite unrecognisable to JFK, as it has been lurching leftwards since the McGovern days of the mid-1970s. Its members would have trouble recognising themselves as such but it has become the natural home for those who reject reason in favour of emotion, demonstrate remarkable fascistic instincts, are disturbingly racist and, as long as they’re attacking the Right, or society’s exceptional achievers, don’t care that they don’t have facts to support their arguments.
Have a look at those in control of the Democratic Party and you see that O’Donnell is very well represented by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean etc, not to forget the most prominent of the Left’s opinion-as-truth crowd, Michael Moore. Then have a look through the diaries at DailyKos, including the tone of the comments, or go over and check out what passes as truth at Huffington Post. These are the people that the leading Democratic presidential candidates are taking their cues from. They all spout exactly the same rubbish as Rosie O’Donnell.
I have commented before that on the Right we look on in bewilderment at the hate-filled vitriol spewing forth from the Left and their spectacular inability to articulate their positions using hard facts. Who isn’t bewildered watching O’Donnell rant on in the way she does? She’s completely unhinged.
There is nobody on the Right that mirrors the Rosie O’Donnells of this world. When Ann Coulter uses the word ‘faggot’ in a bad taste joke about the Edward’s campaign the whole world drops out of the sky to criticise her – including a huge number on the Right! Where are those on the Left pointing out that O’Donnell does not represent them? Nowhere. Let me tell you something for free. Supporters of the great Democratic Presidents of years gone by would be quick to condemn her lunatic statements. The modern day Left truly is a far cry from its classical liberal predecessor.
>Breaking news coming through from the US that will force the 9/11 conspiracy nutjobs to squirm more than a little.
KHALID Sheikh Mohammed has confessed to a multitude of terrorist attacks and plots at a hearing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including the September 11 attacks on Washington and New York, according to a transcript released by US authorities.
Chief suspect and al-Qaeda operative, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, claimed responsibility for the attacks and a multitude of terrorist attacks and plots in a statement read by a US military officer representing him at the hearing.
“I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z,” the statement read in his name said, according to the transcript, which indicates that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was present when the statement was read.
Of course, the Nutjobs will now look to find some connection between Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the Bush administration to support their position that the attacks were at least known in advance. I predict that they will now try to go back to the screed about the US supporting Bin Laden against the Soviets (except that they didn’t) and, by extension, creating Al Qaeda and therefore they should know what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was up to, therefore they had advanced knowledge and let it happen.
>A new video clip from 9/11 has been found and it purports to show that the BBC ‘knew’ Tower 7 was going to be brought down because they reported it 20 minutes before it actually happened. The fact that the video feed ‘conveniently’ breaks up just a few minutes before the tower fell is further sinister proof of the dastardly plot. The implication is that they couldn’t have known unless it was a conspiracy.
Leaving aside the BBC’s pathological leftist anti-Americanism, which should be enough to debunk the story altogether and just looking at the facts, I conclude the following:
- The reporter, Jane Standley, is a couple of miles from the WTC so must have received news from a third party;
- That news was probably that Tower 7 was ‘going to’ collapse not that it ‘had’ collapsed and in the confused reporting of the day that got mixed up;
- Not being a local, she didn’t know which one Tower 7 was. Only a foreign news service could have made that error;
- The fact it’s standing in full view behind her actually debunks the conspiracy because if it was a conspiracy then they would have picked a location that wasn’t so obviously going to give it away; and
- Since when is it abnormal for a satellite signal to break up? I started recording events when the news came on the TV that a plane had hit the first tower and have over 12 hours of news coverage. I can’t count the number of times that the signal broke up during that time because it was so high.