The Media Are Frightened of the 9-11 Deniers?
That's their latest claim, but it's right up there with the 84% of Americans are Deniers nonsense:
The corporate media have launched a desperate attempt to eliminate all discussions about the official body of evidence related to the events of 9/11. Just watch how they are trying frantically to get Rosie O’Donnell fired from ABC’s The View. Also think back to when the media launched a broad based attack against the character of Charlie Sheen for daring to publicly question the official story of 9/11. Rosie, however, is a much greater problem for the criminals in the media. She is on a daily network TV program with a large audience that doesn’t even know that questions and disturbing facts about 9/11 exist.
The media aren't going after Rosie, for the most part. Conservative media (O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough, Michelle Malkin) are. And it's because they're ticked off at the 9-11 Deniers and their enablers like Rosie, James Brolin and Charlie Sheen. The liberal media have been ignoring the story because they don't want to do anything to harm a vocal critic of President Bush, even if they do know that Rosie's gone 'round the bend on 9-11 tinfoil hattery.
I had to laugh at this rather forced analogy:
Have you ever seen the movie Cape Fear? In the film, Max Cady is a criminal who is released after a long prison term. While Cady was in prison he teaches himself law, using the prison library. While in prison Max discovers that his lawyer had been in possession of evidence that might have affected the outcome of the trial. However, the lawyer had not disclosed any of it to either Cady or the jury. He did not allow the jury to see evidence that might have led them to conclude that Cady did not commit the crime of which he was accused. For those of you who saw the movie, you know how angry Cady was when he got out of jail. And you also know that Cady’s vengeance is taken out on his lawyer, not on the jury that actually put him in jail.
Let me suggest that in the theoretical Case of 9/11, you, the American people, are very much like the members of the jury, just as and the criminal corporate media parallel the lawyer in the film.
Well, let's see what does that make the Deniers? Max Cady, the nut played by DeNiro?
Labels: 9-11 Denial, Media, Rosie O'Donnell
posted by Pat @ 6:50 PM
54 comments
54 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pat,
I think your logic and stance on 9/11 is as reprehensible as ever.
However, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that "we deniers are entirely wrong" and you govt story supporters are right.
Any responsible blogger, media, reporter, commentator, etc. would simply say that WTC 7 was a odd occurrence that surprisingly was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. It would be said that NIST is working on a report to cover the true open questions.
Now, I ask you, where has that been done?
The line that "It's been explaned by Popular Mechanics" is a dodge and a lie, and you should have the integrity to admit that.
However, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that "we deniers are entirely wrong" and you govt story supporters are right.
Thanks! Yes, let's assume reality for once. But it's funny you put deniersin quotes and then call us "govt story" supporters.
that surprisingly was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report
Suprisingly?
BG, maybe you didn't understand the 9/11 Commission Report (even after we've explained this to you and other wrong-headed folk), but it was only supposed to deal with the buildings attacked on 9/11/2001.
Shawn,
By supporting the idea that it was legit to leave out any mention of WTC 7 in the 9/11 Commission Report, you are exposing your sad lack of intellectual honesty and integrity.
The criminals ARE scared! The first round of attacks comes from the "right" wing since they are ones relied upon to carry out Brown Shirt activities. The media is praying it will stop there. We'll see if it does or not.
- - - - - -
What the US is fighting for in the Middle East!
God's chosen part 1
God's chosen part 2
The corporate media are trying frantically to get Rosie O’Donnell fired from ABC’s The View.
Uhh... does somebody want to explain to this chowderhead that the "corporate media" can fire Rosie O'Donnell any time they want?
God, these people are just loaded phrases around, and don't even care if they make sense.
By supporting the idea that it was legit to leave out any mention of WTC 7 in the 9/11 Commission Report, you are exposing your sad lack of intellectual honesty and integrity.
WTF?? Every time I think I've seen you at your stupidest, you go and pull something like this. Please, Bill, explain it to us poor, deluded, "intellectually dishonest" fools. What exactly was the purpose of the 9/11 commission?
What exactly was the purpose of the 9/11 commission?
To cover up the real facts, everyone knows that.. duh..
To cover up the real facts, everyone knows that.. duh..
Settle down, child, the adults are talking.
ah the "promised" land...
God's chosen part 3
Settle down, child, the adults are talking.
Hey child, they've admitted it!
I'm not sure the sane media has avoided dissing these clowns because they are anti-Bush, but rather because they think addressing their alleged "questions" gives them legitimacy.
As usual, the tin foil hat crowd greatly inflates their importance. In any case, I haven't heard any criticism of drug addict and pervert Charlie Sheen that wasn't true.
Even for "true believers" (meaning those who see no reason to question the official story), the initial FEMA report admission with respect to WTC 7 set up a huge question mark for any student of the details of 9/11.
If the 9/11 Commission had any interest (and cogent argument) in tackling the tough issues, the WTC 7 mystery was well established as a huge driver of skepticism.
The fact that reasoned argument is rarely applied in public / media discussions is a huge indicator that the govt. doesn't have a strong case.
If you were paying attention, as many of us were, when the 9/11 Commission report was released, and you witnessed, as we did, that WTC 7 was ignored, you would have admitted as well, if you were honest, that the 9/11 Commission is a coverup Commission.
You didn't answer the question.
Why is it people who argue against the "official story", know very little about it?
The 9/11 Commission wasn't a scientific journal. It was a report based on various intelligence agencies leading up to the terrorist attacks. It doesn't deal with secondary damage like WTC7.
WTC7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report because it was not important.
What happened to WTC7 is only important to the conspiracy theorist. To the rest of the community with knowledge in the events of that day and the true experts in building construction building 7 was an unfortunate victim of being hit by WTC1 when it fell. What happened was so obvious to anyone with half a brain that I don't think the 911 commission felt it need an more explanation. They underestimated the profound ignorance of the 911 Truth movement and the public in general to believe in the truthers propaganda.
The physical damage and the major fires are not in dispute by the people who were there, The only ones who seem to think it needs more investigation is a bunch of lowbrow armchair detective who get all their info from online videos. But that is their cause celeb, the only thing they got at the moment.
So now the 911 commission will have to spend more time and money to explain what happened to WTC7 in childlike terms so the truthers can understand it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
MarkyX said...
Why is it people who argue against the "official story", know very little about it?
The 9/11 Commission wasn't a scientific journal.
I didn't say the 9/11 Report was a scientific journal, idiot.
I didn't say it was supposed to be.
The 9/11 Commission, if it wanted to be above board, would have, at the very minimum listed WTC 7, as an issue for futher study.
Stop the f**king denial. Stop the sliming. Just f**king stop it.
07 April, 2007 21
The fact that reasoned argument is rarely applied in public / media discussions is a huge indicator that the govt. doesn't have a strong case.
There is no reason for tax dollars to be wasted trying to respond your crackpot theories. You aren't interested in facts because your theories aren't based on facts.
Stop the f**king denial. Stop the sliming. Just f**king stop it.
Uh oh, stand back folks, another twoofer is losing it. His head might explode.
As for the damage to WTC7 you should check out the comments from firefighters who were there, these guy saw the 20 story gash in the south face of the building, saw the fires inside because some of them had to go inside to check for people, they saw the bulge in the side of the building and felt the building creak and shake. They did not get their info from watching videos on a computer, they were there. But they are lying. Right?.
You should note that there are few if any experts in the field of large scale construction or explosive demolition who support the idea that explosives were used to bring down the WTC7. And who do you have on the truthers side? So call “Scholars” Theologians, Philosophy, Folklore, Bioengineering, French language and culture, Political Science and History and Economics.
No one who has actually designed or built a tall building.
Yep… some group of “experts” you have there, OH! but you do have Rosie.
So now the 911 commission will have to spend more time and money to explain what happened to WTC7 in childlike terms so the truthers can understand it.
You can forget about any "official commission" doing this work. What do you say about buildings 4 and 5 with the towers falling straight on them yet they didn't collapse? It's a fallacy to say that building 7 wasn't important because it absolutely was. Building 7 was part of the biggest crime scene; the biggest mass murder in modern times and you're saying it's not important? Who's denying what now? Get your facts straight, you just failed inspector gadget.
these guy saw the 20 story gash in the south face of the building
Very good! Interesting that the building fell symmetrically with a gash on the one side; all the more reason to do a proper criminal investigation had Rudy not gotten rid of the evidence so fast.
I think they should have also mentioned the face on Mars as an issue for further study. The fact that they didn't, clearly demonstrates that the whole report was a coverup.
Interesting that the building fell symmetrically with a gash on the one side
It didn't, and we've pointed this out to you at least 20 times by now, as well as providing you with photographic evidence. You have, as usual, stuck your fingers in your ears and run away singing "LALALALALA" at the top of your voice.
Well, you didn't loose anyone there so you can make light of this situation as much as you want alex. But there are MANY 911 family members that will absolutely abhor your "humor."
"4 and 5 with the towers falling straight on them yet they didn't collapse? "
DUH.. You do know the other buildings in the WTC were much smaller the Towers and WTC7 at 47 stories.
Both 4 and 5 all of 9! stories and WTC6 8! stories Hell these things were wider then tall.
You are as dumb as a box of rocks.
It didn't, and we've pointed this out to you at least 20 times by now,
So all that video footage is lying? My bad, three Bronx cheers for your "evidence."
Both 4 and 5 all of 9! stories and WTC6 8! stories Hell these things were wider then tall.
But going by your "logic" and "gashes" those should have fell since they had virtual CRATERS on them no? I think you're the one that needs that dunce cap.
"Rudy not gotten rid of the evidence so fast."
Yeah, they should have left a pile of smoldering rubble right there so every armchair self proclaimed investigator can pour over it.
Well this looks like a awfully nasty gash in this video.
And then you have the reports from the firemen on scene WHO SAW THE GASH!
WTC Groove
WTC7 Collapse
It’s interesting to note as you view the video at about 11 seconds into the video if you look closely at the left side of WTC 7 you can clearly see one of the penthouses fall into the building. This is in fact the start of the collapse of WTC 7. It also supports reports from people on site that the south face of the building started to collapse first, this is the side furthest away from the camera and is the side that received massive damage from the fall of WTC 1.
I take a full 6 seconds after the fall of this penthouse for the rest of the building to fall, this is completely unlike an sort of controlled demolition, but is completely in line with the idea of internal structural failure from fire.
Dan Rather also switches to a reporter and his words are also very interesting…..
“Fully involved in fire”
Told by firefighters “there is a good chance building 7 was going to collapse”
“Watching building seven burn cause there was nothing they could do about it”
“Inferno was huge, parts of the building falling into the street.”
“The fires were so massive”
WTC 4 was severely damaged by fallout from the collapse of the South Tower, with all but one wing of the building having collapsed to ground level.
source
Ofcourse, in addition to the height difference, neither WTC4 nor 5 were cantilevered over electrical substations. Nor did either of those buildings hold massive amounts of fuel on their premises. The 9/11 deniers really seem to have a problem understanding the importance of fire in these collapses.
Nazinuts:
So all that video footage is lying?
No, just you are. I know there's no point to telling you this again, but I will re-iterate it for the sake of any readers not familiar with the collapse. The post-collapsed images clearly show that WTC7 collapsed to the side. Photographs show that the resulting debris pile looked nothing like the aftermath of a controlled demolition.
"So all that video footage is lying? My bad, three Bronx cheers for your "evidence."
Yeah, Like you looked at more then the one shortened video clip the truthers play over and over.
Tell me nesnyc, did the whole "hate the Jews" thing rot your brain, or did a rotten brain cause you to be a Jew hater?
"Well, you didn't loose anyone there so you can make light of this situation as much as you want alex. But there are MANY 911 family members that will absolutely abhor your "humor."
When you are being beaten, wrap yourself in the flag and claim you are in it to help the families.
In nesnyc's case it's only the non-Jewish families
So where did nesnyc go to?
I know he when over to his blog to tell everyone how he is kicking ass over at the debunking site.
I may just have to go over there and get some more "Ass Kicking" This one didn't hurt at all.
Well, you didn't loose anyone there so you can make light of this situation as much as you want alex. But there are MANY 911 family members that will absolutely abhor your "humor."
40 is not "many"
The 9/11 Commission, if it wanted to be above board, would have, at the very minimum listed WTC 7, as an issue for futher study.
Okay, did it list the other buildings that were damaged or collapsed? And if not, why isn't your attention focused on them?
Yeah, they should have left a pile of smoldering rubble right there so every armchair self proclaimed investigator can pour over it.
No, so the REAL investigators would have had a chance. Don't you recall they complained the government was preventing them from doing their jobs? I sure do.
Tell me nesnyc, did the whole "hate the Jews" thing rot your brain, or did a rotten brain cause you to be a Jew hater?
"Hate" is a pretty strong word. I hate war, I hate assholes. I hate assholes who push for wars. Do I hate Jews? Not really, only assholes pretending to be Jews and pushing the US into wars not in the US's interest.
Talking sense to people like the toofers serves as much purpose as licking a bald man's head to solve algebraic equations.
Not really, only assholes pretending to be Jews and pushing the US into wars not in the US's interest.
I love this excuse. I don't hate Jews, I only hate "pretend Jews". Ergo, every Jew I hate is thus a pretend Jew. You might want to look up "circular reasoning" sometime.
By supporting the idea that it was legit to leave out any mention of WTC 7 in the 9/11 Commission Report, you are exposing your sad lack of intellectual honesty and integrity.
No, it means I expose that I'm not a moron. WTC7 really had nothing to do with 9/11 (as in the attack, not the day itself). It only matters to people trying to prove an inside job theory - since it wasn't a target for the Nineteen it matters little in the grand scheme of 9/11.
What the US is fighting for in the Middle East!
I don't even have to click the links to know the answer is "the Jews". And you really need to stop calling people Brown Shirts, as you're the biggest Nazi I've ever come across.
No, it means I expose that I'm not a moron.
Fruedian slip? LOL!
Ergo, every Jew I hate is thus a pretend Jew.
Oh boy. I will clarify so as not to fry your brain any longer. I don't even hate the fake pretend Jews if their not pushing any wars down our throats. Cappice?
I don't even have to click the links to know the answer is "the Jews"
Don't be afraid! Click the linkee.. Those people are not Jews, they are assholes, you'll see.
The post-collapsed images clearly show that WTC7 collapsed to the side.
I'm not talking about the photos of the aftermath. I'm talking about all the videos showing the fall and the roof falling perfectly straight down! If it did collapse on the side, the videos would show that too, no? What world do you exactly live in?
neither WTC4 nor 5 were cantilevered over electrical substations.
The record conclusively show that building 7 was "over" engineered because of the substation not weaker as the official nonsense would have us believe.
Nor did either of those buildings hold massive amounts of fuel on their premises.
So when does diesel fuel in an oxygen starved environment produce motel pools of steel weeks afterwards? Damn, your excuses are so pathetic.
"I'm talking about all the videos showing the fall and the roof falling perfectly straight down!"
As if some low quality videos will show this type of off center collapse. But then truthers like videos because it's much easier then actually reading stuff that is often to technical for even smart people to understand let alone a low IQ conspiracy theorist.
Large building like the towers and WTC7 will ONLY fall the way you see in the video because that is the inescapable nature of the physics of thing at that scale.
I know this is going way over YOUR head, after all you are not that smart a guy. And to try and explain the science of what happened to WTC7 would be useless, you just don't have the intellect to grasp it all.
SO you stick to your little videos and let the reat of us do the thinking.
"so when does diesel fuel in an oxygen starved environment produce motel pools of steel weeks afterwards?"
So you have videos of these molten pools of steel? After all you only believe what you see in videos? Right?
I know..... you got the idea from reading a truther site who said there were pools of steel, but you never thought to check to see exactly where those ideas came from. You like the idea and buy it without proof.
Ya got to feel sorry for poor old nesnyc.
Born low of IQ, gullible by nature, deficient in talent, a born conspiracy theorist.
Can't get anywhere in life so he blames the "Jew"
for his plight.
Sad little man.
In Brent Blanchard's paper he devotes section 5 to the issue of thermite and molten metal. His team spoke directly to operators who cleared Ground Zero, and he concludes: To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beans at any point during debris removal activities.
So are the 9/11 deniers threatening to kill my dog?
I'm not talking about the photos of the aftermath. I'm talking about all the videos showing the fall and the roof falling perfectly straight down!
Ah, I see. So a grainy video shot from miles away is reliable, but high definition aerial photos of the wreckage are not. How exactly do you reach this conclusion? Did Da EEEEVil JOOOOS move all the wreckage within seconds of it's collapse? Let me guess, they used anti-gravity rays from the same satellite that housed Judy Woods lasers, right?
If it did collapse on the side, the videos would show that too, no?
No. Study geometry some time. It'll teach you the wonderful concept of angles.
What world do you exactly live in?
Obviously not yours.
Alex you gonna admit you were wrong about greening? He said exactly what I said he said
I already addressed your nonsense. The only thing you got right is that he did in fact use the word "agnostic" to describe himself. Congratulations, you're now batting 1 for 20,000.
shawn said: "No, it means I expose that I'm not a moron."
nesNYC said: "Fruedian slip? LOL!"
Man, you are one dumb rock. What's your reading level; zygote?
Post a Comment
<< Home