Moron the Media Blackout
Here's a report from the center of the nutbar universe this weekend.
The press conference was overflowing with people and media. The speakers included Alex Jones, Ralph Shoenman & Barrie Zwicker, to name a few.
I was able to ask a question to the panel. I was humbled as the room broke into applause for me as I announced my name and affiliation to TvNewsLIES.org. I was overwhelmed by this because I realize that I am making a difference.
Before I posed my question I asked if there were any members of the corporate media covering the event. Nobody responded. I then asked if anyone from Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now was covering the event. Again…the room remained silent. I said that I was “not surprised!”
That dastardly news media, hiding the efforts of these brave seekers of truth!
posted by Pat @ 7:32 AM
33 comments
33 Comments:
Do you find it strange that the Westboro baptist church protesting funerals is run on every news channel, but the 9/11 convention gets nothing?
I think there is clearly some whackjob discrimination going on here. I mean, shouldn't all wingnuts be covered equally for the sake of good media entertainment?
Or maybe the Westboro is more interesting news than a bunch of whackjobs ignoring evidence on 9/11?
You're obviously enamored with the subject...how much time have you killed making that (really, really lame I might add) cover of LC? You might try NOT doing exactly what Avery did, i.e. copyright infringement, citing unreliable sources, and maybe back up statements like 'everyone KNOWS military spending cuts crippled the US air force before 9/11'... which is of course complete fiction. I stopped watching after that whopper, sorry.
So you didn't even watch it yet making judgements?
(really, really lame I might add)
Good one, jackass.
citing unreliable sources
Well, that didn't happen in mark's but nice try.
I stopped watching after that whopper, sorry.
hahah dude you buy Zinn and Chomsky's bull (you know, whitewashing the history of Americna communists and bs about Cambodia and Afghanistan), Loose Change's bull, but you can't stand to see actual facts refute the nonsense. You're a joke, kid.
So you didn't even watch it yet making judgements?
As you didn't infringe on any copyrights, cite any unreliable sources, and backed up your statements, I don't think he watched it.
So you didn't even watch it yet making judgements?
When I step in dog crap, I don't need to go step on it again to make sure. I watched the first 10 minutes. If I thought the 1st 10 minutes was total garbage, can you assure me that it gets much better as it progresses? If you can, I'll go watch the rest. If not, I'll ammend my comment to state the first 10 minutes was really really lame.
Feel better? You cite the 9/11 commission as a reference. False premise. You discard Operation Northwoods for having no connection to 9/11, as if they are trying to something other than offer a context, which is another false premise. You then get on the holier than thou high horse you all seem to love over here, and attempt to insinuate that Hunter Thompson's criticism of the media coverage is a porsonal assault on the families of 9/11. Whatever, fella. The rest sounded straight from Gravy's viewers guide, which I have read completey.
As for copyright infringement, your version has the Naudet Brothers footage in it, and free versions were specifically cited as targeted for removal by their attorney. Maybe you're just special though? Not.
hahah dude you buy Zinn and Chomsky's bull (you know, whitewashing the history of Americna communists and bs about Cambodia and Afghanistan), Loose Change's bull, but you can't stand to see actual facts refute the nonsense.
No, you've converted me with your amazing depth of widom. Now I understand. If Chomsky said it, it never happened. Same for Zinn, it is all fiction. I was fooled by all those footnotes I guess.
insidejob,
People undoubtably saw your copy & paste stuff - replete with all its speculation, tenuous associations, and purely anecdotal evidence - the first time around. There's no need to spam it throughout various comment sections.
If Chomsky said it, it never happened. Same for Zinn, it is all fiction. I was fooled by all those footnotes I guess.
...uh Chomsky's stuff is based on opinions, genius. And you still defend his "silent genocide" statement, when HE said that, not the UN. The UN said 180,000 people are saved from starvation in Afghanistan every year from the American occupation. And you're still an apologist for his ridiculous Cambodia assertions.
And Zinn's book contains no notes.
Insidejob. You're a piece of work you know that? You create an entirely new blog apparently to spread the idea of someone doing a NEW LC video and then post a comment to YOUR OWN POST!
You then copy that comment and spam every recent thread on this site.
.... Wicked cool.
Feel better? You cite the 9/11 commission as a reference. False premise.
How is that a bad source? Because it's written by the government?
You need to better than that. Yelling "The government wrote it, therefore bad" or "It was a coverup" is the CT's version of the Race Card. If the commission is so easy and fake, you should easily debunk page by page, right?
You discard Operation Northwoods for having no connection to 9/11, as if they are trying to something other than offer a context, which is another false premise.
What connection does Operation Northwoods have to 9/11? I never got an answer when I ask this question.
You then get on the holier than thou high horse you all seem to love over here, and attempt to insinuate that Hunter Thompson's criticism of the media coverage is a porsonal assault on the families of 9/11.
Because it's a form of manipulation and going off topic about 9/11. We are watching a video of people running in terror and we got a kid using someone NOT EVEN RELATED to 9/11 as a voice over. This is respect? Tell me how that is respectful to the victims and people fleeing for their lives that day.
Here's a link that contains the authenic video of Alex Jones predicting in the Summer of 2001 a 9/11 like event to be staged with bin Laden as the Boogie Man.
Inside, you are welcome to post contrary views, but please don't spam us repeatedly with overly long rants that make it difficult for other people to read and post comments.
Please delete the spam posts you have put on just about every recent thread. If you don't then we are going to have to go to the trouble of setting up some way of moderating and deleting comments to keep individuals from being disruptive.
Thank you for your cooperation.
BG, you know HOW many predictions alex jones does?
One of them is bound to hit it.
"Within 2 years I'm predicting...that you're going to see a suitcase nuke in this country. You're probably going to see a release in a few years of something communicable. & I am predicting that you will see a lot of conventional bombings...in the next year or so."
--Alex Jones, Infowars (10/18/01)
"Suitcase nukes are a virtual certainty."
--Alex Jones, Infowars (5/16/02)
They're preparing for new terrorist attacks that are much larger.
& they're planning to bring in foreign armies."
--Alex Jones, Infowars, 7/11/02
"They're really setting us up for a smallpox attack...
It's not a question of if & when it's gonna happen."
--Alex Jones, Infowars, 9/26/02
I am reminded of the saying in economics, "Economists have correctly predicted 7 of the last 3 recessions."
Here's a link that contains the authenic video of Alex Jones predicting in the Summer of 2001 a 9/11 like event to be staged with bin Laden as the Boogie Man.
If one were a CT they could easily use that as proof that Jones was somehow involved, since he had prior knowldge, and was therefore part and parcel of the conspiracy itself.
Ugh. Talk radio. Thats gotten so boring. So many of them have picked up the Limbaugh format of hardly ever having a guest and all it is is just some guy talking off the top of his head. I don't take any of them seriously because, as Limbaugh himself said, they're just trying to "find an audience and keep it."
BG, you ever heard of cold reading? It's how "psychics" and "mediums" do their thing. You continually make guesses, and at least one or two are gonna stick.
with respect to my Alex Jones vid:
I'm saying this honestly:
You guys offered thoughtful and civil reponses. Thanks
As someone who believes the evidency supports the idea that bin Laden is a boogie man front as a cover for the false flag operation, I thought it was reasonable to link to Jones' vid.
The fact that James compares Jones to an economist ("predicting 9 of the last ? recessions") is a pleasant surprise (not a complete slam). However, having been an econ major in college, I have to say I'm a tad uncomfortable making that logical comparison between Jones' prediction and economists.
You know, I can respect the logic of those of you who think the case for a "non OBL-based" explanation of 9/11 is wrong, dangerous and you believe you are serving the cause of good to help combat harmful conspiracy theory.
If I believed what you believe, I imagine that I would be just as stident as you are.
If you are indeed correct in your conclusions, I think you do your cause well to be polite as you pursue that cause. In addition, I just plain appreciate it.
And, Joan,
keep up the good work.
It's not a matter of bleiving one thing or another BG. We KNOW OBL did it. He confessed, and numerous intel agencies linked him to it. Theres no reasonable basis for doubtig the fact that he was behind the 9/11 attacks. That's why YOUR beleifs are so aggrivating to me personaly, and it's why we'll never be able to change your mind; yours are beleifs based on faith rather than knowledge based on evidence.
It's not a matter of bleiving one thing or another
And that's what none of them understand. Belief connotes some kind of faith. We know Osama did this, it's a matter of fact.
ummm, if Usama confessed to it all on a tape we found in afghan where he was writing a note with his none writing hand then why did he deny his involvement in 911 one day later, Sept 12. ?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/12/se.34.html
is it possible that he was involved in a different terrorist attack in a different land, with a different agenda that maybe, just maybe was a conspiracy on that very same day. Hey, maybe if we investigate deep into the bowels of this evil man we might find what kind of treachery he was involved in before 911? neah, always better to remain ignorant.
"he who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" Benjamin Franklin
You know what, since someone here will claim that CNN is too vague, and ummm, I am a "conspiracy theorist wack job"
Another fun link....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases
/2006/03/20060329-2.html
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's correct. We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden [sic] was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming. But there -- that's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaeda organization.
:side note :::wink wink:::: I think the veep here is just pulling your leg, especially since we "ALL" know that Usama done it.
yeah, thats it, he just wants to make sure if anyone is listenin lololol...good one VEEP, you had me worried there for a sec.
"he who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" Benjamin Franklin
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Well, we'll start with your tagline first. The REAL quote is:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
You can verify that Here
Unlike you, Franklin wasn't retarded. He understood that sometimes certain liberties can and must be sacrificed in order to achieve safety or security. So, please, stop misquoting the guy.
Secondly, that "non-writing hand" crap has been debunked countless time, both on this blog and elsewhere. If you had bothered to do some reading you would have avoided looking like a dumbass.
Also, you make it sound as if Osama took responsibility first and then denied it later. It was actually the other way around. Why it happened, nobody knows for sure, and I'm not going to make any guesses here. Why don't you phone the guy and ask?
"neah, always better to remain ignorant"
Well, you certainly are doing that. So far you've made an idiotic comment about an arab using his right hand for writing, you've shown your inability to use logic in your attempt to use denial followed by admission of guilt as some strange sort of evidence of innocence, and you've misquoted Benjamin Franklin in order to change the meaning of his words.
What do you do for an encore?
Hey Alex,
at least you understood my abridged version of the quote, which means that you understood its' meaning, and since I was using it from memory, I will now use the correct form in all my posts.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
THANK YOU!
Second, my intention was to show that Usama denied the 911 terrorist attack from the very beginning per that CNN MSM transcript. He has always denied it, and he will always deny it because he is merely an arranged scapegoat.
How can one debunk someone elses inherent ability to be right or left handed? Just curious?
Since you are exception with words, and quotes and such. Here is the definition of "terrorism"
terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]
Do you believe your ad hominem attacks will dissuade me my friend. The truth is spreading quite rapidly, and your support of terrorism will end soon.
In ending, why did you sidestep what the VP said??? Please elaborate here, I am all ears.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases
/2006/03/20060329-2.html
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's correct. We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden [sic] was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming. But there -- that's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaeda organization.
Can someone explain this?? I am all EYES? I am dying to understand this please. Markyx, James? Alex attempted a rather weak distractive attack on my humour and dismissed the above as if did not exist.
Come on, you guys have all the answers on 911, explain it away.
You FUCKING moron. Are you REALLY that stupid? I don't normally get this pissed off, but your idiocy know no bounds. Here's the FULL quote:
"Q: I want to be clear because I've heard you say this, and I've heard the President say it, but I want you to say it for my listeners, which is that the White House has never argued that Saddam was directly involved in September 11th, correct?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's correct. We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden [sic] was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming. But there -- that's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaeda organization. "
The question was "is Sadam Hussein directly connected to 9/11. The VP attempts to answer that question, and MAKES A MISTAKE. You know that word "[sic]"? Yeah, that's to indicate a mistake made by the original speaker. If you read the rest of his paragraph, it's absolutely 100% clear that he's reffering to SADDAM HUSSEIN, and NOT Osama Bin Laden.
You SERIOUSLY need some sense knocked into you. With a 2x4 preferably.
Thank you, you reaffirmed my position.
He lied about Saddam being involved with 911 sept 14. 03, M. Atta, Al-Qaida training camps, WMD, Yellow Cake Uranium, but as for this article he told the truth..YES< CHENEY SPOKE THE TRUTH FOR ONCE MORON. It was a Freudian Slip you imbecile. He was caught!!! When is a conspiracy theorist like yourself ever going to wake up to all the lies. Are you completely braindead? Your numbers are dwindling down my friend. Reptiles like you will cease to exist.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20020620&articleId=371
On the morning of September 11, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees.
Explain that to me???
Yah, that's enough from you there Dr. Freud. Next thing you'll be telling us is that nesnyc doesn't like riding horses because he's intimidated by the size of their penises. If you're unwilling or unable to reckonize a basic miswording, you're a waste of skin, and I have no time for you.
Do you have enough time for the FBI?
http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/15430/FBI_Says_No_Hard_Evidence_Connecting_Bin_Laden_To_9_11
WOW what a surprise. THE FBI does not have enough evidence that USA-MA was involved in 911, yet we invaded a foreign country to get him....What you are doing is the equivalent of Baghdad Bob:
April 5, 2003
There are no Americans there!" "Nobody came here. Those America losers....
Pure and simple BULLSHIT PROPOGANDA
what will you do with your last paycheck?? Just curious
Post a Comment
<< Home