Bill Maher's Opinion Is Naïve About 9/11

I think that Bill Maher is the most talented political pundit of this generation. Since he decided to exclude the right wing nuts from his show, he speaks with much greater credibility. However, his last show was disappointing to me when he essentially marginalized anyone who has doubts about the official 9/11 story. By focusing only upon the controlled demolition theory of the Twin Towers, he excluded a more viable discussion of the collapse of building # 7 that was not hit by anything but the debris from towers 1 and 2. He further criticized those who have other doubts about the official story by intimating that it is ridiculous to believe that our government would attack its own people.

The flaw in that argument is the belief by Maher and other critics that it is absurd to believe that the U.S. Government would attack itself. Those of us who doubt the official story are suggesting that those in high positions in government may have had the motive and opportunity to allow this attack to succeed. This would make it a renegade operation by those in government, not "the U.S. Government." Most of what is done in the name of our government has been hidden from the public since WW II. There are numerous CIA operations in the past 60 years that have been done in the name of our government without the consent of the people.

There are so many failures that took place simultaneously on 9/11 that it is almost an insult to our intelligence to believe that there is no need for further investigation. I agree that government in this administration has been incompetent. However, the unexplained failure of our air defense system and our intelligence agencies goes way beyond incompetence given all that was known by those in government shortly before the event. To use the controlled demolition theory as the sole excuse to argue that those who question the official 9/11 story are in need of Paxil is an insult to those who really want explanations and not just official government self-serving propaganda. And Bill Maher should know better. I would like Maher to explain the other tangible inconsistencies about 9/11 instead of focusing on the controlled demolition theory.

Comments

[whatstheidea]

Why don't yo ask the FIREFIGHTERS who were at the base of WTC 7 before you make your dangerous assertions. If you have a theory the onus is on YOU to prove it...Until then find your facts or kindly shut your pie hole.

[weedhighbuckeye]

In other words, accept what your government tells you as gospel. Don't question authority. Be good little sheep and follow whatever the ruling class tells you, because they have special insight into what's best for the masses. Conform.

Ha! That'll be the day.

[Podewumun]

weedhighbuckeye

Whoooooooo­oooooooooo­o
yooooooooooooooo
calling
a looooooooo­oooooooooo­ooooon?

[Podewumun]

Oh, and Henry, dear, I don not believe WHBE was making assertions­...
...or allegation­s.....
he was merely pointing out that he had a few
...reserva­tions about the 'Oaf-fish-ul Explanation.

Have some cake, OK?

[weedhighbuckeye]

I see by the early comments that those who lack curiosity and natural skepticism are going to start ridiculing those who would like better answers to what happened on that day. Of course, if there was a conspiracy from within the U.S. government, the conspirators could count on those loons to speak up on their behalf.

[weedhighbuckeye]

I agree. I consider myself a skeptic of the official story, which means I don't believe the conspiracy theories but I don't think we know the whole truth about 9/11, especially why all the warnngs were ignored. Was it negligence, or something more sinister? I don't know but I am open-minded, and I wouldn't be so quick to ridicule those who believe in alternative theories. I do find it telling that, with all the resources at their disposal, the mainstream media doesn't do much to disprove the theories. Since polls show that the majority of Americans share my views on the subject, wouldn't it be good business for them to look into it more?

[Podewumun]

Oh, but they did! Right there in the pages of Popular Science.

Ummmm, who owns Popular Science?

[tbudha]

Hey HuffPosters!

Take a history lesson from Dr Paul and all the 9-11 stuff will start to make sense:

http://halturnershow.com/CongressmanSaysUSDollarWillCollapse.html

[Henry]

I too believe that the whole NORAD on coffee break rationalization by the govt and press is kind of like believing that Condi is the 50 year old virgin.
However, a tougher nut to crack is how such a plan can be imagined and implemented by a bunch of Jihaddies whose big claim was shooting down Russkie hliocopters in Afganstan. It is incredible to state that 9/11 had the fingerprint of an Al Qaida operation.­..because it clearly did not. (as we watch their so-called subsequent operations)

[MWAnderson]

Very true. You have to be a tinfoil hat wearer to see the obvious.

Apply Occam's Razor to the issue of building #7. A vague explanation [or the lack of one], qualified with excuses of complexity suggests that a simpler explanation is more likely.

[MWAnderson]

That should have been:

You DO NOT have to be a tinfoil hat wearer to see the obvious.

[jeanruss]

raw story has a ton of good comments about this

[Podewumun]

Missed the show. Who was his guest that night?

Maybe Bill's 'sarcasm' batteries were running low and he was actually spoofing conspiracy nay-sayers?

I've seen all the stuff, and still, that #7 coming down looked awfully...­controlled­.

Just saying.

[RobertPaul]

I think Lee Harvey Oswald did it with a rifle from the Empire State Building.

Everyone just THINKS he's dead!

[Qbear]

would NO Comments on your theory be ANY more deafening?

[weedhighbuckeye]

Not really, since you only commented 3 minutes after this was posted.