Archive for the ‘9/11’ Category

Morning Quote

September 15, 2008

If you want to talk about censorship, if you want to talk about using poltics in order to suppress a certain thought, The Path to 9/11 – blocking The Path to 9/11 is that story. The mainstream media since 9/11 has exposed to a greater extent than any time in our history the degree to which the Democratic Party is the mainstream media. Andrew Breitbart, PJTV Daily Sept. 11 – 9/11 and the Media

HT to The Smallest Minority

Advertisements

7 Years ago today

September 11, 2008

As the wise men who created South Park said, “some pissed off Muslims” attacked the United States of America. Here are pictures of the event that Keith Olbermann doesn’t want Americans to see.

Dr. John Ray sums it up:

“Spare a moment to remember the nearly 3,000 innocent victims of insane hate who died on this day in the year 2001. And spare a thought for the loved-ones they left behind.”

HT to Leslie Bates for the quote.

For those still drinking the WTC7 Troofer Kool-Aid ™

August 21, 2008

“W.T.C. 7 Brought Down by Fire, Not Explosives, Report Says.”

“Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail… video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oils played a rule in the collapse of that brought the building down.”

Those barking moonbat troofers haven’t let reality effect their thinking so far, so this probably isn’t going to slow them down.

HT to Ms. Althouse.

Troofer rules for non-logic

November 5, 2007

By way of the Bronze Blog comes Troofer/Twoofer Rules:

1. Ad hominem is the basis of all reality: Broadest form of pretty much all these other rules: Who you are makes your argument valid, not the internal logic or physical evidence.

2. Evil = Power: Because Bush is evil enough to do something, there’s no need to prove that the laws of physics would allow him to do that something. No need to worry about the administrative nightmare of managing thousands of rogue ninja demolition crews, either.

3. Anonnies and people with pseudonyms are automatically wrong because they might possibly have something vaguely resembling a government connection. Therefore, if a conspiracy skeptic posting under a blog name, rather than his real name, says the sky is blue, then obviously it must not be. Exception: Twoofers who use fake names, after all, they’re the only people who have something honest to protect, and they’re the only people on the entire surface of the Earth who don’t want death threats sent to their snail mail address or government suppression squads at their front door or office.

4. Using your real name = Infinity Plus One times your normal credibility. Being ridiculed by snail mail or physical presence when someone figures out where you live boosts your credibility level far more than email or forum ridicule because Galileo didn’t have an email address.

5. People who are standing up against The Man are automatically right. Outspoken liberal skeptics who berate government officials for trampling on science, trying to get Intelligent Design in schools, employing various ineffective or even counterproductive “War on [Concept]” measures, destroy civil rights, engage in historical revisionism, or whatever aren’t doing enough: They have to sit on their rears talking/posting about being certain of the government using Orbital R-9 Wave Cannons in order to count as being opposed to the administration. Anything less, and they’re exactly as loyal as any Bush crony, and thus automatically wrong.

6. If it doesn’t sound like a TV/movie plot, it’s not realistic. There’s ALWAYS a frame-up, an “unexpected” plot twist, or whatever. If the evidence is rock solid, that just means the guy doing the framing/set up/whatever is more elaborate about the level of evidence he plants.

Go read it there, it has links and more rules in the comments.

Morning Quotes

November 1, 2007

Originally posted on No Moss Here:

“To say that the lack of gun control is “killing our citizens” is like saying stores are the reason there are shoplifters.” — Jay Lundgren

“Our strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.” — Bill Ruder, John F. Kennedy’s assistant secretary of commerce

“There’s a kind of decadence about all this: If 9/11 was really an inside job, you wouldn’t be driving around with a bumper sticker bragging that you were on to it. Fantasy is a by-product of security: it’s the difference between hanging upside down in your dominatrix’s bondage parlor after work on Friday and enduring the real thing for years on end in Saddam’s prisons….” — Mark Steyn

Speaking troof to stupidity

September 19, 2007

The Varmint does it:

Neurotics build castles in the air.

Psychoitcs live in them.

Retards think Bush & Halifburton destroyed the castle in a controled demolition.

HRC dredging up nightmares of Clinton Past…

September 12, 2007

First there is the whole illegal fund raising thing.

“HsuGate is a flashback to the scandals of Clinton’s husband — John Huang and the Buddhist temple; Johnny Chung transferring cash for a Red Chinese military officer, including $50,000 delivered directly to the then-first lady’s chief of staff; Charlie Trie, who was cozy with a front firm for the Chinese military.”

Then there was the really bad foreign policy thing:

The more experienced Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has relied largely on her husband and a triumvirate of senior officials from his presidency—former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke and former national-security adviser Sandy Berger (who tries to keep a low profile after pleading guilty in 2005 to misdemeanor charges of taking classified material without authorization).

Rob at Say Anything has a thing or two to say about that Charlie Fox:

Berger’s crime isn’t given justice here. It wasn’t just taking classified information without clearance, it was taking and destroying classified national security documents related to the Clinton administration’s anti-terror efforts immediately before Bill Clinton’s testimony before the 9/11 commission. A factoid that has, strangely, been completely ignored by the 9/11 conspiracy mongers on the left and among Ron Paul’s supporters in favor of theories about the Bush administration.

Anyway, I wonder if Hillary’s campaign isn’t the first campaign ever to feature the services of a national security adviser who, by order of a criminal court ruling, has no access to national security documents.

The difference speaks volumes.

September 11, 2007

Jonah Goldberg on 9/11/2001, six years later:

If I had said in late 2001, with bodies still being pulled from the wreckage, anthrax flying through the mail, pandemonium reigning at the airports, and bombs falling on Kabul, that by ‘07 leading Democrats would be ridiculing the idea of the war on terror as a bumper sticker, I’d have been thought mad. If I’d predicted that a third of Democrats would be telling pollsters that Bush knew in advance about 9/11, and that the eleventh of September would become an innocuous date for parental get-togethers to talk about potty-training strategies and phonics for preschoolers, people would have thought I was crazy. . . .

But it’s important to remember that from the outset, the media took it as their sworn duty to keep Americans from getting too riled up about 9/11. I wrote a column about it back in March of 2002. Back then the news networks especially saw it as imperative that we not let our outrage get out of hand. I can understand the sentiment, but it’s worth noting that such sentiments vanished entirely during hurricane Katrina. After 9/11, the press withheld objectively accurate and factual images from the public, lest the rubes get too riled up. After Katrina, the press endlessly recycled inaccurate and exaggerated information in order to keep everyone upset. The difference speaks volumes.

HT to Mr. Reynolds

United in Memory

September 11, 2007

9-11 patch

What it takes to be Troofer

September 10, 2007

John Ross lists some of the mental gymnastics required to drink the 9/11 Conspiracy Kool-Aid:

First, you’d have to believe that the U.S. Government — seemingly incapable of keeping even mundane national security programs off the front page of the New York Times — orchestrated a hermetically sealed coverup of epic proportions.

Second, you’d have to believe that Sandy Berger’s destruction of classified 9/11 documents was unrelated to the Clinton administration’s ignorance of and incompetence at deterring terrorists.

Third, you’d have to ignore Usama bin Laden’s self-proclaimed involvement with 9/11 and his assertion that the attacks caught the United States completely by surprise. In effect, you’d have to believe that bin Laden lied and people died — all to benefit the Bush administration.