Letters to the Editor
-
Us gullible Americans
I've decided to stop being so gullible. I'm going to put my trust in an anonymous posting citing an unnamed source talking about an unspecified truth.
I feel more hip and skeptical already.
(Gene: I'm as left-wing as you're apparently right-wing, but thanks for upholding the cause of reason.)
-
More Americans will die of Cancer than Terrorism
Quote from the interlocutor who got faith and salvation wrong in the Qur'an:
"So if you follow a man like yourself you will certainly be doomed. Does he give you a promise that when you are dead and turned to dust and bones, you will be raised to life again? How far-fetched what you are promised; There is only the life of this world: we die and we live: there is no rising from the dead for us" (23.34-37).
And so the groundwork in revealed religion for martyrdom and skepticism are laid in the same foundation.
It makes you wonder why simple-minded sola fide Protestants have any business in politics. Because healthy minds require skepticism, while poisoned souls submit to signal fantasies of salvation and righteousness all while their children choke on the unforged steel of revoked fortune.
-
Gene and Motherwell
You have asked for evidence of a widespread debris field. Here it is, with documentation, by journalists.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/index.html
enjoy.
-
Thanks RenegadeRick
We needed your link. If it weren't for people who question authority and its lowest common denominator falsehoods and propahandha, in all their nefarious forms, then Dog knows only how many more King Georges this great goddamn nation would have suffered between the Third, Forty-first, and Forty-third.
Honeywell and Gene are witting subjects of the Crown and appear to enjoy spoon-fed snow peas flying into their proverbial gaping and lying hangars: "my daddy the government can't do no wrong."
Disembarass yourselves of comfortable fictions and fantasies - "oh they were heros" BS - they were martyrs, because the government shot them down. This weekend, I plan on watching an "expertly made" film, that is pure fiction, Flight 93. "Permission to engage granted. Kill 93. Missile launch. Let's roll."
Trust your government. It never lies or conceals anything. Be good subjects of the Crown, and Christ will bless your property taxes and transubstantiate them into the holiest of holies, the tax refund. Your only obligation to sustain the relationship of faith is to regress to infancy and abandon your faculties of reason and doubt, and believe every last goddamn trifle of profane bullshit that issues from the foul scabby orifices of the federal government. Along with that tax refund, here's a gallon of thousand island dressing and a weekend getaway at a spa with Karl Rove, Doug Feith, Larry Silverstein, Wolfowitz, and Dicks Cheney and Perle, all of whose pork-encrusted salads you can toss until your marbled little hearts are content.
-
You beat me to it
1) Yes, indeed, there was a huge debris field and someone found one of the engines in their yard far away from the "crash site." I was going to post that link, but you beat me to it.
2) Gene, think about it this way. If you were in charge on 9/11, and you knew that Flight 93 was 15 minutes away from downtown Washington DC, wouldn't you, as a responsible leader, order it to be shot down? I know i would, and i'm not a monster. The twin towers were already hit, as was the Pentagon. Only an incompetent fool would just sit back and wait for #93 to approach DC and crash somewhere (a residential area or a landmark). Shooting it down over rural PA was a much better option.
3) Sir Walter, i was totally on your side, until you wrote:
And what made me think that your sex was female? I don't know, but your gender is clearly female: see your circuitous and illogical style of argumentation and your hysterics and use of capital letters. That's just my opinion. Your gender is female, which is nothing against females, except for the ones with hysteria, infantile regression, and more moxy than intellect, like you. Like I said, you're welcome for being allowed to take the higher ground.
Lame, Walt. Really lame.
-
How does he know?
Despite Paul Greengrass' assertion that the movie was fastidiously researched, United 93 has some glaring misrepresentations. Greengrass portrays the terrorists as if they were martyrs, latter-day Joan of Arcs, mumbling incessant prayers.
Yet if he had done just a little more research, he would have known that the men who were in the terror cell based in South Florida, were out partying in bars, going to gyms and strip clubs before they left for Boston. Their behavior could hardly be considered devout. These men were cold-blooded murderers. It's entirely possible that they were cheering or psyching themselves out in their hotel rooms about how they were going to kick U.S. ass, as if preparing for a critical football game.
United 93 is nothing but pure supposition. There's not a soul alive to tell us what really happened.
-
What a silly site...
The site RenegadeRick mentioned seems to contain EVERY 9/11-related conspiracy "theory." I also noticed this minor howler:
Later in the afternoon 47-story Building 7, also weakened by fire, collapsed (a fact that most people remain unaware of).
Who the hell are they kidding? The collapse of WTC-7 was almost as widely reported as the attacks themselves.
Sorry, but your story still isn't credible, and neither are the people trumpeting it here. And we still haven't seriously discussed how ALL of those cell-phone calls were so well faked as to convince the close relatives of the people allegedly making the calls.
-
...and it just keeps getting sillier...
Check out this citation that firmly establishes the credibility of the 9/11 "research" site:
The researcher calling himself plaguepuppy articulated the thoroughness of the destruction and its incompatibility with the official explanation.
Where is this "researcher's" actual name listed? Come to think of it, where is ANYONE'S name listed? Does anyone expect me to believe the ramblings of someone who calls himself "plaguepuppy" while pretending to articulate "research?" Sure, I use a handle too, but I don't call myself a "researcher," just a "blogger."
This person's words lose even more credibility when one realizes that they basically amount to reading the "official story" and exclaiming "That's inconceivable!" Argument from incredultiy is a standard tool of creationists, flat-earthers, and conspiracy-buffs of all persuasions.