AP Misses Story on Chandler Conference
You'd think they'd pick up on the mention at the bottom of the front page of the confab's website:
As a result of the controversy surrounding Eric D. Williams, he has stepped down from involvement in the 9/11 Accountability Conference. The 911 Accountability Conference does not support Holocaust denial, nor does the 9/11 Truth Movement. No speaker listed here is known to have published works related to the Holocaust.
But no, they run a straight piece on the Deniers:
Theories on what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, include one that the government planted bombs to bring down the World Trade Center towers and another is that an air-to-air missile shot down United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.
"We don't believe we've been told the whole truth about what happened on that dreadful day," said Pete Creelman, a member of 911 Truth of Arizona, based in Phoenix.
The local group is one of many nationwide that have sprouted since the attacks. The group meets twice a month in both Phoenix and Mesa. Nearly 300 people have bought tickets to the conference. Organizers are hoping to double that with tickets sold at the door.
I don't have any benchmarks to compare that to; IIRC the LA conference got about a thousand attendees, but it's hard to say whether getting 50% of your attendance in walk-up traffic is normal. I believe Creelman is the guy who's supposedly been trying to get in touch with me for a "Dialogue with Debunkers"; apparently his investigative skills (see update) are up there with Dylan Avery's, since the email addy's up there at the top right.
Update: Creelman and I exchanged a few reasonably pleasant emails this afternoon, and he forwarded to me an earlier email which did look to be correctly addressed to me, so either I or my mail server screwed up. Either way, my crack about his investigative skills is unfair.
Labels: 9-11 Accountability
posted by Pat @ 7:02 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
300 tickets? Maybe double? You would think none of them would be dumb enough to ever try and play the 84% card again. Sadly, we all know they'll keep doing it.
Boy, is this a high speed journalistic outfit or what? Check out the headline (as of 8 am Pacific time on Feb. 19).
"Hundreds who say government about 9/11 to meet in Chandler" [sic!]
Maybe the twoofers will think the botched headline was a government plot to discredit them.
In the following comment, I can be accused of doing exactly what I inveigh against the SLC Blog doing: Attacking individuals rather than sticking to the intellectual argument of what the evidence shows about 9/11.
In light of the BBC hit piece, which used certain 9/11 Truthers as props for discrediting the overall movement, I think it's reasonable to attempt to dissect the some of the individuals involved.
Alex Jones Watch: #10 Holding His Fire Against Fetzer
Except the BBC piece clearly raised and discussed most of the main claims involved in 9/11 conspiracy theory, from the 'missile' at the Pentagon through the poor response times to the controlled demolition theory. All these were in the show and were dissected as well as you can within a one-hour slot, BG - you seem to have watched an alternate cut of the show which was just sixty minutes of laughing at Jim Fetzer.
Besides, why should the BBC be blamed if Fetzer, Avery and Alex Jones come across as being completely barking mad? Nobody can change that but the individuals involved; it's not up to TV journalists to make them look more sane than they actually are.
Which Truthers do you think they should have interviewed?
ny911NSAUrantiagate: "Jewbaiter" Jamieson cancels event from Luke Radowski/ Latest Timeline Update
http://www.911researchers.com/node/249
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=2847
http://www.911bloglines.com/aggregator/sources/1
Should have interviewed Steven Jones. Maybe he declined?
CHF said...
I don't think he would have faired any better, BG.
What would he have said when asked "how much thermite?" or "how did it all burn through the beams at the right time?"
It would have been just as ugly for you kooks had he been chosen.
I see your point.
I think I'm concentrating more on whether just a person's presence, tone and mannerisms are discrediting, which Fetzer seems to have in spades (meaning his sloppy bluster), especially with the camera work that BBC did.
The idea of whether the BBC would have buttressed the argument given even the strongest presenter is exactly the complaint of those of us who thought it was a smear. The BBC knew what they were after, and they pretty much got it.
Who's paying you guys off? Stop being so patronizing....
You know, people all over the world are wising up to all your bullshit - your bullshit wars without end, and your bullshit false flag terror attacks, and your bullshit Hollowhoax, too!
Post a Comment
<< Home