Bill Maher: 9/11 Truthers Need Professional Help, Not Publicity - Video Inside

[Gold9472]

Bill Maher: 9/11 Truthers need professional help, not publicity

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Bill_...ould_0915.html

(Gold9472: Isn't it amazing? What one thing does he attack us with? Do you think there's a reason for that? Is it because it's EASY to make us look like fools with the mention of Controlled Demolition? YES, it is. The "movement" had better grow up, and grow up fast. Does the "movement" want the truth about whether or not Controlled Demolition took place at the towers and WTC7, or does the "movement" want the truth about what happened on 9/11, and hold ANYONE AND EVERYONE RESPONSIBLE, accountable? Repeating the same mistakes, and expecting different results is the definition for insanity.)

Mike Aivaz
Published: Saturday September 15, 2007

Bill Maher takes a jab at the 9/11 Truth movement in a recent "New Rules" segment.

"Crazy people who still think the government brought down the Twin Towers in a controlled explosion have to stop pretending that I'm the one who's being naive," says Maher.

How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV, igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours, and then think 'Well, if you believe that was the cause...'

Stop asking me to raise this ridiculous topic on the show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you."

The following video is from HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher, broadcast on September 14, 2007:

Video At Source

[AuGmENTor]

Don't get me wrong, I will always think there was something "fishy" about the collapse. Having said that, it is unlikely we will ever be able to prove this one way or another due to the control of the crime scene by the people responsible. I agree with Jon, stick to the things that could be PROVEN, and result in convictions and or executions.

[BASE701]

I won't apologise for believing the buildings were brought down with explosives. I think the evidence is undeniable. That being said, the unanswered questions that the Jersey girls bring up are probably easier to take for the average joe.

[simuvac]

Maher's knee-jerk hatred for Arabs and Muslims kinda bugs me. He says he hates all religions, but when it comes to terrorism he doesn't have any sense of perspective and tends to single out Islam.

The program with Mos Def on it was priceless. Mos Def had the best line of the night when he told Maher that where he comes from, if people want to hurt you they just do it; they don't send videos saying, "Yo man, I'm gonna fuck you up" (referring, of course, to the Bin Laden videos).

[Gold9472]

Something I wrote on truthmove.org's forum...

Can someone please explain briefly what happened this weekend? I only went Sunday to support the families (Bob McIlvaine), and responders. Aside from the Tarpley accusations. I've been glancing at the comments, and admittedly, I don't know what to do anymore. The "movement" seems to have been "hijacked" as it were. Some days I feel like throwing in the towel. I know there are some people out there doing some good, but I am having such a hard time trusting ANYONE in this "movement." It used to be about supporting the 9/11 families, supporting the 9/11 first responders, asking questions, and demanding answers. There used to be an unspoken "rule" that you promote the best information possible, and do your very best not to come across as "crazy."

Now it's WTC7 24/6.5 leaving a half day for everything else having to do with 9/11 (and if it doesn't coincide with CD, you are chastised/ridiculed/attacked), and a touch of fear mongering (OMG... "false flag attack imminent.") I know people are tired of hearing this from me, but this is not the "Controlled Demolition Movement." Whether it took place or not (I don't know), the idea to a lot of people still comes across as "crazy" yet it's the first thing being promoted now by 99% of the "movement." I feel like to even participate, you have to believe that the towers, and building 7 were brought down by Controlled Demolition. Otherwise, you are considered "disinfo."

I remember back in the day when I first "joined" this "movement" officially. I think it was June 2004 when I saw 9/11 CitizensWatch.org on C-SPAN. I had already spent a good year 1/2 or so researching, contacting the media, contacting my congressmen, and was ready to do my part. I saw how they presented themselves, and thought, "these people don't look crazy, and they have legitimate questions." When I saw Cynthia McKinney chairing the 9/11 Omission Hearings (which didn't even mention CD), I thought, "jeez... this is the real deal." When Bob McIlvaine cried on stage during those hearings, I lost it. I balled my eyes out. Every time I watch him speak, I get welled up. When Jenna Orkin talked about the "equivalent to that of liquid drano", my heart dropped. When I attended the People's Commission in D.C. I was so damned proud of everyone in that room that attended.

I felt like I was apart of something "special" back then. I knew I was doing the right thing. Now, I still feel like I'm doing the right thing, but the "value" of what I'm doing seems insignificant when drowned out by the "static" that is currently the message of the "movement."

Maybe I need a break.

[Gold9472]

16 hours a day for the last 3 1/2 years... I do need a break.

[AuGmENTor]

What kind of feedback did you get on that post?

[Gold9472]

None so far.

[Gold9472]

The troof is out there
The rise of the troofer is evidence of our continuing fascination with conspiracy theories - why?

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...out_there.html

Conor Foley
September 16, 2007 2:00 PM | Printable version

What is about conspiracy theories that fascinate us so much? A few days ago Peter Tatchell wrote a piece for Cif about the problems surrounding the 9/11 Commission, which contained a fatal reference to "the unexplained collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Centre building 7". Over 700 people rushed to respond, a record that George Monbiot had previously surpassed when he explicitly rejected conspiracy theories surrounding the attack. A few weeks before this, Robert Fisk declared himself "increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11", sparking off a flurry of rebuttals which reminded us of where the phrase "fisking" comes from.

I had my own minor run-in with the "troofers" when I wrote a piece in which I mentioned conflicting claims about an Israeli military attack on two Red Cross ambulances during the conflict in Lebanon. Coincidentally, this appeared the day after the Israel Defence Force stated saying that the ambulances could indeed have been hit by something fired by them. I wrote a follow-up piece, which covered this report and also the findings of the Guardian and Human Rights Watch investigations into the incidents. I was genuinely amazed at the response I received.

The problem with debating "troofers" is that you have to be prepared to work through many levels of assertion and rebuttal. First they will point to some inconsistencies in the reporting of the initial incidents. Then they will raise some technical issues to "prove" that the official account cannot be true: at what temperature does steel melt, for example, or what does a vehicle look like after it has been hit by various types of ordinance? After you have dealt with these, they come back with the killer, "people are lying to us" theory, which it is almost impossible to refute since, by believing the official explanation, you have, by definition, become part of the conspiracy.

Not all troofers are mad, but there is a point at which it is no longer worthwhile debating with them. This might be summarised as when you get to the "so what?" question in the debate. Often this coincides with ad hominem accusations where the person who is pointing out some logical inconsistencies in the conspiracy theory is imputed to be, therefore, an agent of the forces of evil in the troofers' imagination.

Identifying this point is actually quite difficult because one of the things that make us all a bit susceptible to conspiracy theories is that they underpin a large amount of mainstream debates.

As Seumas Milne has noted, some critics of Naomi Klein's new book immediately threw the conspiracy theory charge at her disaster capitalism thesis. Green activists like George Monbiot have faced similar treatment for exposing the links between politicians and big business. Indeed, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, every attempt to find some causal explanation for major economic and political developments could be rebutted by those who maintain "stuff just happens".

Most people believe that politicians regularly lie to us and have little difficulty believing that this could include lies about important things such as the invasion of Iraq. However, it takes more than a couple of logical steps to get from here to believing that US government blew up the Twin Towers itself and then faked the rest of the evidence to frame Osama Bin Laden. In fact the process would bear some comparisons to a religious conversion. A truth has been revealed to the believer which dramatically changes their worldview and forces a reconsideration of some of their most basic other beliefs and assumptions. The desire to "convert" those around them must be overwhelming.

Most of us remain fairly agnostic about many conspiracy theories. I would not be particularly surprised if some of the stories about the Kremlin's manipulation of some of the protagonists in Chechnya's conflict turned out to be true. I think that all sides use propaganda during conflicts and never automatically dismiss allegations of dirty tricks by various security forces.

When I was working at Liberty I was once taken for lunch by MI5's legal officer (which is a longer story in itself) and I quizzed him about some of the prevalent conspiracy theories of the time. I had just finished reading Seumas Milne's book on the miners' strike, which alleged that the story of "Gaddafi's gold" may have been a piece of black propaganda by the spooks. He denied this, while half-conceding that the possibility of planting a mole within the leadership of the National Union of Miners at the time was not that far-fetched.

I tend to agree with Milne's view that automatic deference to the cock-up rather than the conspiracy view of history can sometimes be a lazy evasion. However, I also agree with Monbiot that conspiracy theories can be a displacement activity. Why bother arguing about the rights and wrongs of US foreign policy, if you think 9/11 was an inside job? Why bother responding to criticisms of Israel's human rights record if you can dismiss its critics as habitual liars or dupes?

This seems to me to be what distinguishes sceptics from troofers. Sceptics should probe for "inconsistencies in the official narrative", but then apply a "balance of probabilities" test with the alternative explanations on offer. Troofers demand "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" because they already have another view fixed in their minds. Most of us already know the telltale signs when someone tells us that they are "increasingly troubled by some of the details about how many people actually died in the Holocaust" and shut the conversation down immediately. I think that we probably need to start treating 9/11 conspiracy theorists in a similar way.

[psikeyhackr]

Most people don't want to believe it was a government conspiracy and most people can't handle physics that is even slightly complicated so why do truthers never break it down to something simple?

Try comparing the south tower to a frozen turkey.

The south tower collapsed after 56 minutes.

What things are involved in cooking a frozen turkey.

Time, temperature and SIZE OF THE TURKEY

Doesn't it take longer to cook a 20 lb than a 10 lb turkey.

So we have 56 minutes for the south tower. There are disputes about the temperature but even if the temperature was high enough to weaken steel it would take TIME for the core temperature of the steel to rise. But why don't we know the quantity of steel on the 80th floor, and 79th and 81st?

Shouldn't we have been told the quantity of steel and concrete on every level of the building by now? Why aren't truthers and structural engineers demanding this information? It has been 6 years. The buildings were designed in the 60's. We should have had that info in 6 weeks.

psik