The So-Called 'Evil' Mainstream Media and 9/11

[Architect]

He's ignored the link I gave where Scotland's biggest broadsheet not only flagged up the fiction that led to the Iraq invasion, but also published a very critical book.

What hope is there, I ask myself.

[johnny karate]

What hope is there, I ask myself.

Not much, considering he started in this thread by complaining that the MSM avoids 9/11 conspiracy stories, and now, in an effort to avoid answering my question, is claiming that they do in fact cover these stories.

[twinstead]

I suspect that the US government controls all the media on Earth. It's the only explanation and I'm sticking with it!

[LastChild]

Are you back to posting links about the censorship of American media to try and prove a point?

We've already covered this. Even if you make the case that the U.S. media is completely controlled by the Bush administration, you still have to account for the entire rest of the world.

See if you can dig up a link that explains why Al Jazeera isn't reporting "The Truth".

Or you could stop with what is yet another attempt at a derail and answer the question you keep dodging:

Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

Al Jazeera -9/11 Conspiracies-
Al Jazeera takes a look, not at the theories but at where the media comes into play.

VplrNT96niY

[LastChild]

Not much, considering he started in this thread by complaining that the MSM avoids 9/11 conspiracy stories, and now, in an effort to avoid answering my question, is claiming that they do in fact cover these stories.

Post#5 of this thread

"My beef in the past hasn't been so much that they don't report on certain things as much as the amount of attention they give or don't give certain stories."

[Disbelief]

He's ignored the link I gave where Scotland's biggest broadsheet not only flagged up the fiction that led to the Iraq invasion, but also published a very critical book.

What hope is there, I ask myself.

None, you have argued with zen before.

[Architect]

Perhaps the Herald piece was a false flag?

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Bobert]

No I don't. But that's not the point whether or not they set the record straight, or whether or not anyone thinks they did or didn't.

Just that they thought they needed to.

Do you feel comfortable going around claiming to know what did or didn't happen to WTC-7 without even your government report out yet? Do you feel comfortable that it's taking so long to explain what you and the MSM news implies is so obvious and factual?

YOU HAVE THEM AGAINST THE ROPES NOW LC!
TIME TO GO IN FOR THE KNOCK-OUT PUNCH!!!

[johnny karate]

Al Jazeera -9/11 Conspiracies-
Al Jazeera takes a look, not at the theories but at where the media comes into play.

VplrNT96niY

Yeah, I couldn't find the part where Al Jazeera proclaimed 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the U.S.

Of course I stopped watching after the reporter said "We're not going to examine the [conspiracy] theories or assess their validity," since I've made it quite clear many, many times that this is the exact kind of news story I'm not talking about.

And of course, LastChild you know this. And yet you keep posting links like this anyway.

It might be time for you to alter your strategy a bit. The "Fling Crap at The Wall and See What Sticks" gambit you've employed thus far is failing spectacularly.

[LastChild]

Yeah, I couldn't find the part where Al Jazeera proclaimed 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the U.S.

Of course I stopped watching after the reporter said "We're not going to examine the [conspiracy] theories or assess their validity," since I've made it quite clear many, many times that this is the exact kind of news story I'm not talking about.

And of course, LastChild you know this. And yet you keep posting links like this anyway.

It might be time for you to alter your strategy a bit. The "Fling Crap at The Wall and See What Sticks" gambit you've employed thus far is failing spectacularly.


Why hasn't the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

[LastChild]

YOU HAVE THEM AGAINST THE ROPES NOW LC!
TIME TO GO IN FOR THE KNOCK-OUT PUNCH!!!

I'm having too much fun for that. Besides they don't even know when they've been knocked out of the arena.

[johnny karate]

Why hasn't the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

They have. Please post a link proving otherwise, or explain why.

Just make sure you read this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3539822&postcount=249) first so we don't have you once again intentionally misinterpreting my question.

[LastChild]

They have. Please post a link proving otherwise, or explain why.

Just make sure you read this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3539822&postcount=249) first so we don't have you once again intentionally misinterpreting my question.

Your question has a disclaimer now?

LOL

[johnny karate]

Your question has a disclaimer now?

No.

Care to offer an answer?

[LastChild]

No.

Care to offer an answer?

I answered your ever changing question and the fine print. How about you answer some of mine? At least mine doesn't have any after the fact conditions attached to them.

[johnny karate]

I answered your ever changing question and the fine print. How about you answer some of mine? At least mine doesn't have any after the fact conditions attached to them.

I would certainly be willing to answer your questions if you displayed even the slightest interest in engaging in honest discussion.

But you'd rather play games and pretend to interpret my question in a manner that allows you to ignore its true intention, despite my numerous clarifications.

Quid pro quo, LastChild. If you want your questions addressed, then begin to comport yourself in an intellectually honest manner, otherwise they will not be treated with any more seriousness than you have thus far brought to to the debate.

[Architect]

Why hasn't the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

Because it's not suspicious to anyone with a moducrum of sense, that's why.

You've missed the point of my earlier post again (cough) though. So the British media is quite happy to publish whole books fingering Bush for lying about WMD in Iraq, etc. but is somehow scared into not carrying the "true" stories? Aye, right (as they say).

[LastChild]

I would certainly be willing to answer your questions if you displayed even the slightest interest in engaging in honest discussion.

But you'd rather play games and pretend to interpret my question in a manner that allows you to ignore its true intention, despite my numerous clarifications.

Quid pro quo, LastChild. If you want your questions addressed, then begin to comport yourself in an intellectually honest manner, otherwise they will not be treated with any more seriousness than you have thus far brought to to the debate.

http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/07NYTimes7WTCwhy.html

ENGINEERS ARE BAFFLED OVER THE COLLAPSE OF 7 WTC

"STEEL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN PARTLY EVAPORATED"

New York Times, November 29, 2001

THE SITE
Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center
By JAMES GLANZ

Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of a nearby 47-story, two-million-square-foot building seven hours after flaming debris from the towers rained down on it, igniting what became an out-of-control fire.

[Corsair 115]

New York Times, November 29, 2001 You did notice the date, didn't you? Perhaps you ought to link to a more recent item proclaiming the same sentiments as the old news story you linked to.

[johnny karate]

http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/07NYTimes7WTCwhy.html

ENGINEERS ARE BAFFLED OVER THE COLLAPSE OF 7 WTC

"STEEL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN PARTLY EVAPORATED"

New York Times, November 29, 2001

THE SITE
Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center
By JAMES GLANZ

Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of a nearby 47-story, two-million-square-foot building seven hours after flaming debris from the towers rained down on it, igniting what became an out-of-control fire.

Words and phrases that do not appear in that story: "suspicious", "conspiracy", "inside job" , or "controlled demolition".

As far as the words "mystery" and "baffled" appearing, well, here's a follow-up they did a few months later (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE2DD1E31F931A35750C0A9649C8B 63&scp=33&sq=%227+world+trade%22&st=nyt) when more information was made available. Along with the list above, you'll notice that neither "mystery" nor "baffled" appear either. I guess they are no longer "baffled" and consider the "mystery" solved.

LastChild, instead of pathetically and repeatedly trying to invalidate my question, why don't you just answer it?

Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

[LastChild]

Words and phrases that do not appear in that story: "suspicious", "conspiracy", "inside job" , or "controlled demolition".

As far as the words "mystery" and "baffled" appearing, well, here's a follow-up they did a few months later (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE2DD1E31F931A35750C0A9649C8B 63&scp=33&sq=%227+world+trade%22&st=nyt) when more information was made available. Along with the list above, you'll notice that neither "mystery" nor "baffled" appear either. I guess they are no longer "baffled" and consider the "mystery" solved.

LastChild, instead of pathetically and repeatedly trying to invalidate my question, why don't you just answer it?

Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

Why hasn't the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

[DGM]

Why hasn't the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?
Where in that story did they say it was "suspicious"?

[LastChild]

Where in that story did they say it was "suspicious"?

It says they were baffled and that it was a mystery.

Yeah nothing suspicious about that.

LOL

[Cuddles]

It says they were baffled and that it was a mystery.

Yeah nothing suspicious about that.

Excellent. Everyone now agrees that it wasn't suspicious. Glad we have that all sorted.

[LastChild]

Hmmmm...

Wasn't Johnny looking for something from aljazeera before?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=7824

CNN, BBC premature announcement of WTC7’s collapse

Some analysts attributed the collapse to structural failure due to prior debris impact and ongoing fire damage. The other theory suggests the building collapsed as a result of controlled demolition- many support the second theory given the lack of precedent of total collapses of steel framed structures during fires.

But the controversy over the collapse of Building 7 that the Bush administration has so far failed to explain is being brought up again in 2007 with more shocking revelations.

[DGM]

It says they were baffled and that it was a mystery.

Yeah nothing suspicious about that.

LOL
So you agree they did not report it as "suspicious". Why did you post that link then if it didn't support your argument? Didn't you think we would notice? (or didn't you read it)

[LastChild]

So it's agreed that the mainstream media hasn’t completely ignored the mysterious, baffling, and controversial, collapse of WTC-7? And it just hasn’t been followed-up on because over 6 years later NIST still hasn’t released their findings on this perfectly obvious collapse?

Yeah sure… LOL

[DGM]

So it's agreed that the mainstream media hasn’t completely ignored the mysterious, baffling, and controversial, collapse of WTC-7? And it just hasn’t been followed-up on because over 6 years later NIST still hasn’t released their findings on this perfectly obvious collapse?

Yeah sure… LOL
The word you forgot is "suspicious". Your memory is not that good is it? (Or your just being dishonest)

Originally Posted by LastChild
Why hasn't the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

[Uzzy]

9/11 is a very emotionally fueled topic. Something to avoid. Especially when you can be accused of being unpatriotic. That’s not going to help get sponsors or help anyone’s bottom-line so why give it any attention when no one (the administration especially) is going to talk about it anyway. They didn’t even want the 9/11 commission in the first place. Do you really think the media was going to get anything to report out of them? And yet it was covered and still is here and there just not on the level of say Watergate. I’ve said in the past that if Watergate happened these days it wouldn’t even be a story because Nixon didn’t have sex with anyone.

So it's agreed that the mainstream media hasn’t completely ignored the mysterious, baffling, and controversial, collapse of WTC-7? And it just hasn’t been followed-up on because over 6 years later NIST still hasn’t released their findings on this perfectly obvious collapse?

So, what point exactly are you trying to make, LastChild? Cause, your two statements here contradict one another.

The Mainstream Media certainly hasn't avoided the issue of 9/11. They've asked many questions about the response, domestically and internationally. At the time, they even commented on the collapse of WTC7.

What they have ignored is the rantings of a small group of people on the fringe of society who claim that 9/11 was an inside job. Why? Because they have no facts, proof or evidence to offer to support their claims. The Media tends to have standards that don't allow for such claims to be published. They have more important things to discuss.

[LastChild]

So, what point exactly are you trying to make, LastChild? Cause, your two statements here contradict one another.

The Mainstream Media certainly hasn't avoided the issue of 9/11. They've asked many questions about the response, domestically and internationally. At the time, they even commented on the collapse of WTC7.

What they have ignored is the rantings of a small group of people on the fringe of society who claim that 9/11 was an inside job. Why? Because they have no facts, proof or evidence to offer to support their claims. The Media tends to have standards that don't allow for such claims to be published. They have more important things to discuss.

They don't have any facts, proof, or evidence, to offer to support any claim including yours as to exactly what happened to WTC-7.

[stateofgrace]

They don't have any facts, proof, or evidence, to offer to support any claim including yours as to exactly what happened to WTC-7.

If they have no facts, proof or evidence then why should they report the claim by the truth movement that it was demolished?

[LastChild]

If they have no facts, proof or evidence then why should they report the claim by the truth movement that it was demolished?

I believe at least what one of them was trying to do is "set the record straight". At least that's the phrase they used when asserting that this NIST report that will be out in 2007 will put all the questions surrounding WTC-7 to rest. Now did that happen? Did they follow-up when it didn't?

[Uzzy]

Science takes time, dear. Don't you know that? NIST have been working and continue to work on studying WTC7 for quite some time. Further, they have often released information about the findings of their studies, including a F.A.Q section, which you can read here. (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)

There's the facts, proof and evidence.

Now that we've deviated from the main point, perhaps we can get back to it. Given my two quotes on the previous page, just what point are you trying to make LastChild?

[LastChild]

Science takes time, dear. Don't you know that? NIST have been working and continue to work on studying WTC7 for quite some time. Further, they have often released information about the findings of their studies, including a F.A.Q section, which you can read here. (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)

There's the facts, proof and evidence.

Now that we've deviated from the main point, perhaps we can get back to it. Given my two quotes on the previous page, just what point are you trying to make LastChild?

Takes time? Didn't the MSM need the science to completely demolish any questions about WTC-7?

Why not?

[DGM]

Takes time? Didn't the MSM need the science to completely demolish any questions about WTC-7?

Why not?
Because there was nothing suspicious. That why the MSN has never said there was. By the way, do you plan to back up that assertion or are you hoping we'll forget?

[Uzzy]

Which they have. NIST is being thorough with it's investigation, as they have important matters to resolve. What destroyed WTC 7 is not in doubt, as the early science showed. They proved it back in 2004, with the interim report.

How it was destroyed and the implications for other highrise buildings? Those are important issues that take time to resolve.

Now, could you perhaps answer my question LastChild. Given the two quotes in my previous post, what point are you arguing in this thread?

[johnny karate]

It says they were baffled and that it was a mystery.

Yeah nothing suspicious about that.

That's exactly correct.

See, "baffled" and "mystery" are not even remotely synonymous with "suspicious".

I know in the world of a CTer, anything that does not have an easily-digestible explanation is deemed suspicious, but you can't go pretending words mean things they don't to suit your agenda. You can disagree if you want to, but your argument is not with me, it's with the dictionary.

Besides, all this is academic, since whatever was considered baffling and mysterious in that initial report you linked has since been resolved in subsequent follow-up reports, one of which I linked. All of this happened four years ago. The point is so beyond moot, it's laughable.

[LastChild]

Which they have. NIST is being thorough with it's investigation, as they have important matters to resolve. What destroyed WTC 7 is not in doubt, as the early science showed. They proved it back in 2004, with the interim report.

So the MSM isn't as thorough? Is that because of limited access and information on any evidence?

How it was destroyed and the implications for other highrise buildings? Those are important issues that take time to resolve.

So the MSM doesn't know how it was destroyed and didn’t take the time on the important issues before they implied it was resolved? Ok.

Now, could you perhaps answer my question LastChild. Given the two quotes in my previous post, what point are you arguing in this thread?

I stated my position back in post # 5.

[LastChild]

That's exactly correct.

See, "baffled" and "mystery" are not even remotely synonymous with "suspicious".

Covering it and calling it baffling and a mystery would be synonymous with exactly what johnny? LOL

I know in the world of a CTer, anything that does not have an easily-digestible explanation is deemed suspicious, but you can't go pretending words mean things they don't to suit your agenda. You can disagree if you want to, but your argument is not with me, it's with the dictionary.

You're the pretender debunker. I've more then pointed this much out.

Besides, all this is academic, since whatever was considered baffling and mysterious in that initial report you linked has since been resolved in subsequent follow-up reports, one of which I linked. All of this happened four years ago. The point is so beyond moot, it's laughable.

Really? But NIST is still resolving what the MSM has already declared resolved by pointing to the unreleased 2007 NIST report? LOL

Wow that's some amazing debunking there Johnny. How do you do it? LOL

[Architect]

English may not be my first language, however even I can see that "baffling" and "mysterious" do not automatically equate to "suspicious".

[Corsair 115]

Why hasn't the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?What criteria are you using to decide when a collapse is suspicious and when it isn't? Can you list these criteria? Please be precise.

[stateofgrace]

I believe at least what one of them was trying to do is "set the record straight". At least that's the phrase they used when asserting that this NIST report that will be out in 2007 will put all the questions surrounding WTC-7 to rest. Now did that happen? Did they follow-up when it didn't?

Set the record straight?

How can they do that when they have no facts, no evidence and no proof to back any claim?

[LastChild]

What criteria are you using to decide when a collapse is suspicious and when it isn't? Can you list these criteria? Please be precise.

Whether it's been thoroughly investigated or not.

[LastChild]

Set the record straight?

How can they do that when they have no facts, no evidence and no proof to back any claim?

That's what I want to know. Way to follow along there.

[applecorped]

LastChild, at the risk of being infracted, you are without a doubt the biggest waste of sperm ever.

[stateofgrace]

That's what I want to know. Way to follow along there.

Oh good so we now agree that the MSM should not report the truth movements claims that WTC 7 was demolished because it is factless has no evidence and has no proof.

Way to follow LC,just keep digging pal.

[johnny karate]

Covering it and calling it baffling and a mystery would be synonymous with exactly what johnny?

Knock yourself out:
Thesaurus.com (http://thesaurus.reference.com/)

You're the pretender debunker. I've more then pointed this much out.

So wait... I'm pretending to be a debunker? I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

Regardless, words mean what they mean. You can scoff all you want, but scoffing won't change the fact that "mysterious" and "baffling" are not synonymous with "suspicious".

Furthermore, as the follow-up report I linked to demonstrates, once more information was made available, the collapse was no longer considered mysterious or baffling.

That was four years ago.

But like most CTers you want to pretend that the initial reactions in the immediate aftermath are frozen in time as unchangeable and irrefutable.

That's your prerogative.

But for every early report you link saying "We're not sure what happened," I'll be able to provide a later follow-up saying, "We figured out what happened," so I suggest you abandon this strategy as well. It's not going to get you anywhere.

[johnny karate]

Hmmmm...

Wasn't Johnny looking for something from aljazeera before?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=7824

No, I was looking for something from Al Jazeera, the respected Arabic news network, not aljazeera.com, the agenda-driven, non-journalistic website masquerading as a reputable news source.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera.com) (bolding mine):

Aljazeera.com is an English language website for AlJazeera Magazine. It is unrelated to the Arabic satellite TV channel Al Jazeera

Due of its numerous non-journalistic practices (such as publishing unverified conspiracies and not later retracting stories and the anti-Western bias in their choice of topics and how articles are written and researched) aljazeera.com is not considered to be a reputable news source. There is also concern that the similarity of the name to the much more respected aljazeera.net serves to elevate aljazeera.com to a level of readership and seriousness that it does not warrant.

Nice try, ace.

[johnny karate]

Why hasn't the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

Why can't LastChild seem to find a single news story to support this claim?

[LastChild]

No, I was looking for something from Al Jazeera, the respected Arabic news network, not aljazeera.com, the agenda-driven, non-journalistic website masquerading as a reputable news source.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljazeera.com) (bolding mine):Nice try, ace.

Oops more disclaimers. And you should have told me wiki is part of your respected MSM...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC-7

"Conspiracy theorists believe the building collapses on September 11, including that of building seven, were the result of controlled demolition"

And they site these MSM sources...

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060903/11conspiracy.htm

Now if they would only follow up.

Thanks Ace!

Why hasn't the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

[Uzzy]

So the MSM isn't as thorough? Is that because of limited access and information on any evidence?

No. It's because the Mainstream Media probably sees no point in printing the entirety of technical papers which the majority of their audience wouldn't understand. NIST is publishing it's results, so it's certainly not due to limited access or lack of information.

So the MSM doesn't know how it was destroyed and didn’t take the time on the important issues before they implied it was resolved? Ok.

Again, no. The Mainstream Media knows what destroyed WTC7. That would be falling debris from WTC 1 & 2, causing an unfought fire. You can even read the NIST hypothesis for yourself. That is entirely resolved. NIST is busy investigating the exact timeline of events, finding out the implications for future skyline buildings. This, surprisingly enough, is not of interest to the majority of people beyond engineers.


Why hasn't the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

Because in the early days after the 9/11 disaster, the collapse of WTC7 was rather odd. This is newsworthy. Since the science came in and showed why WTC7 collapsed and explained what happened, it became less newsworthy. Frankly, beyond the coverage from the publishing of the 9/11 Commission Report, why would the Mainstream Media cover WTC7. All they would have to cover is 'It collapsed due to being hit by debris from WTC 1 & 2, which caused an unfought fire'. There is nothing new to cover! Perhaps there might be some more coverage when the NIST report is brought out but it's unlikely when there are more important things to cover.

[johnny karate]

Oops more disclaimers.

Al Jazeera and aljazeera.com are two entirely separate and completely unrelated entities. This isn't me nitpicking; it's you getting caught being disingenuous.

And you should have told me wiki is part of your respected MSM...

I didn't because it isn't. Wikipedia is a reference, not a news source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC-7

"Conspiracy theorists believe the building collapses on September 11, including that of building seven, were the result of controlled demolition"

This statement has never been in dispute. It also has nothing to do with the question I asked you.

And they site these MSM sources...

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060903/11conspiracy.htm

Posting links to news stories used as sources for a statement that is not in dispute nor has anything to do with this discussion is beyond pointless. Especially considering that you've been told several times that these particular stories are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Several pages in still no answer to my question:
Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

And still no substantiation for your counter-claim.

ETA: LastChild, did you even read that second story you linked? Not only is it irrelevant to this discussion, but it is not very complimentary towards CTers. You're really just awful at this.

[Corsair 115]

Whether it's been thoroughly investigated or not.That does not answer the question.

You have stated the collapse of WTC7 was suspicious; what about the nature of the collapse strikes you as suspicous? The amount of time it took? The manner in which it fell? What? What are your criteria? And more importantly, why are you apparently so reluctant to lay our your criteria?

[LastChild]

Al Jazeera and aljazeera.com are two entirely separate and completely unrelated entities. This isn't me nitpicking; it's you getting caught being disingenuous.

You really need to stop qualifying after the fact Johnny. It's disingenuous.

I didn't because it isn't. Wikipedia is a reference, not a news source.

Well then you really need to state what qualifies as MSM to you. Why do you keep avoiding this? Do it before you ask me a question not after I answer it.

This statement has never been in dispute. It also has nothing to do with the question I asked you.

That's not reporting on the suspicions some people have about the collapse? Come on Johnny.

Posting links to news stories used as sources for a statement that is not in dispute nor has anything to do with this discussion is beyond pointless. Especially considering that you've been told several times that these particular stories are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

What's the title of this OP Johnny? It's about 9/11 not just WTC-7 or do you think you have reserved the right to change that after the fact also?

Several pages in still no answer to my question:
Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse? And still no substantiation for your counter-claim.

How does the MSM media purport to "set the record straight " if they are completely ignoring it? Give it up.

ETA: LastChild, did you even read that second story you linked? Not only is it irrelevant to this discussion, but it is not very complimentary towards CTers. You're really just awful at this.

Again I'm both trying to address the real OP topic as well as what you are trying to widdle it down to in your pathetic attempt at the getting the last word. You still fail.

How does worldwide MSM set the record straight on the suspicious nature of the WTC7 collapse, by completely ignoring the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

[DGM]

LastChild;

You actually have to have a story in order to ignore it.

[LastChild]

LastChild;

You actually have to have a story in order to ignore it.

So how did they try to set the record straight if there's no story to set straight. And why did they bother? Is somebody worried about it?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531315,00.html

And talking about no story where's your NIST report on WTC-7?

[DGM]

So how did they try to set the record straight if there's no story to set straight. And why did they bother? Is somebody worried about it?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531315,00.html

So a story about conspiracy nuts is covering the "suspicious" nature of the WTC 7 collapse? How so?

And talking about no story where's your NIST report on WTC-7?

My NIST report? Why do you care you won't read it.

[LastChild]

So a story about conspiracy nuts is covering the "suspicious" nature of the WTC 7 collapse? How so?

Is it completely ignoring it? How so? And how is it setting it straight by pointing to NIST?

My NIST report? Why do you care you won't read it.

So I guess you are the one without a story to ignore.

[DGM]

Is it completely ignoring it? How so? And how is it setting it straight by pointing to NIST?

You might as well mention History Channel, BBC and Popular Mechanics as "covering it too". Hey Bill O'Rielly mentions WTC 7 conspiracies too. LOL (as you would say)



So I guess you are the one without a story to ignore?

Read the interim report. That will keep you busy.

[LastChild]

You might as well mention History Channel, BBC and Popular Mechanics as "covering it too". Hey Bill O'Rielly mentions WTC 7 conspiracies too. LOL (as you would say)

Why don't they completely ignore it? Who are they trying to convince?

Read the interim report. That will keep you busy.

Are you blue in the face yet holding your breath waiting for that final explanation of what debunkers claim has been so obvious for years now?

[DGM]

Why don't they completely ignore it? Who are they trying to convince?

Kooky conspiracy theories are interesting sideline news. They still have never given any credence to "the suspicious nature" of the collapse.

Are you blue in the face yet holding your breath waiting for that final explanation of what debunkers claim has been so obvious for years now?

Not in the least. That's because I understand the difficulties they are working through. And no, it has nothing to do with the fact the building collapsed.

[johnny karate]

You really need to stop qualifying after the fact Johnny. It's disingenuous.

You tried to pull a fast one. You got busted. Move on.

Well then you really need to state what qualifies as MSM to you. Why do you keep avoiding this? Do it before you ask me a question not after I answer it.

The reason I haven't answered this question is because it is such an obvious attempt for you to derail this discussion by parsing and purposely misinterpreting whatever definition I give you to suit your agenda, and then making the discussion about that, rather then what I originally asked you.

I'm not being overly pedantic here. You and I both know what I mean by MSM.

That's not reporting on the suspicions some people have about the collapse? Come on Johnny.

Sure it is. But that's not what I asked. Once again, the fact that conspiracy theories exist and that some people believe them, and the MSM reports on this, is not contested.

What's the title of this OP Johnny? It's about 9/11 not just WTC-7 or do you think you have reserved the right to change that after the fact also?

If you weren't so dishonest in your debate tactics, it wouldn't force me to be this specific with my question.

Nonetheless, the collapse of WTC7 is a major part of most 9/11 conspiracy theories, and is considered my most to be a smoking gun, and therefore the MSM's lack of coverage on this particular story is extremely relevant to this thread.

How does the MSM media purport to "set the record straight " if they are completely ignoring it? Give it up.

Again I'm both trying to address the real OP topic as well as what you are trying to widdle it down to in your pathetic attempt at the getting the last word. You still fail.

How does worldwide MSM set the record straight on the suspicious nature of the WTC7 collapse, by completely ignoring the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

Here's what you don't get to do: Avoid my question over several pages and then demand I answer yours.

Again, if you actually want to have a discussion about this then you need to start conducting yourself in an intellectually honest manner. You can begin by answering my question instead of trying to end-run it by spamming this thread with with your hostile derailing.

And just so you know, no one is forcing you to participate. If you truly think my question is somehow unfair, then by all means leave the thread.

But in the meantime:

Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

[LastChild]

Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

I've answered this they don't ignore it and I proved it to you.

Now....

How does worldwide MSM set the record straight on the suspicious nature of the WTC7 collapse, by completely ignoring the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

[johnny karate]

I've answered this they don't ignore it and I proved it to you.

No, you didn't answer it.

And the only thing you have proven is that the MSM reports stories about the existence of conspiracy theories about the "suspicious" nature of WTC7's collapse. This issue was never in contention.

You have yet to provide a single MSM story about the "suspicious" nature of the collpase itself.

Please try again.

[gc051360]

Why don't they completely ignore it? Who are they trying to convince?



Are you blue in the face yet holding your breath waiting for that final explanation of what debunkers claim has been so obvious for years now?

From what I've seen, the only thing debunkers claim is obvious, is that it WASN'T brought down via controlled demolition. And, the other thing that is obvious, is the truth movement has no evidence for the claims they make.

[gc051360]

How does worldwide MSM set the record straight on the suspicious nature of the WTC7 collapse, by completely ignoring the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?
Responding to conspiracy theories, I would imagine.

Writing a story, responding to conspiracy theories, is not the same thing, as doing an expose on the theory itself. They didn't investigate the "suspicious nature of WTC7" they responded to the truth movement's bogus claims.

Those two things aren't the same. They are radically different.

[LastChild]

No, you didn't answer it.

And the only thing you have proven is that the MSM reports stories about the existence of conspiracy theories about the "suspicious" nature of WTC7's collapse. This issue was never in contention.

You have yet to provide a single MSM story about the "suspicious" nature of the collpase itself.

Please try again.

You know what is really suspicious? Remember that NYT article that called the collapse baffling, strange, and a "mystery that under normal circumstances" as well as...
"
"But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire..."

and this...

"Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed in a fire of any duration.""

and this...

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

Why wasn't anything about a gash in the building talked about in this article?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3DE143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B 63

Why did the MSM initially ignore the 10 story gash in WTC-7?

[Architect]

You know, any trained professional's first response isn't "jeez, it must be bombs" but (amongst other things):

1. Is there a design fault?

2. Is there a latent defect?

3. Is there something unusual about the fire?

[johnny karate]

You know what is really suspicious? Remember that NYT article that called the collapse baffling, strange, and a "mystery that under normal circumstances" as well as...
"
"But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire..."

and this...

"Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed in a fire of any duration.""

and this...

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

Words and phrases that do not appear in that story: "suspicious", "conspiracy", "inside job" , or "controlled demolition".

As far as the words "mystery" and "baffled" appearing, well, here's a follow-up they did a few months later (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE2DD1E31F931A35750C0A9649C8B 63&scp=33&sq=%227+world+trade%22&st=nyt) when more information was made available. Along with the list above, you'll notice that neither "mystery" nor "baffled" appear either. I guess they are no longer "baffled" and consider the "mystery" solved.

As far as you finding that story suspicious, well, color me surprised. I'm sure the list of things you don't find suspicious would be much shorter.

Why wasn't anything about a gash in the building talked about in this article?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3DE143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B 63

Why did the MSM initially ignore the 10 story gash in WTC-7?

You know the rules, LastChild. Answer my question first.

[LastChild]

Words and phrases that do not appear in that story: "suspicious", "conspiracy", "inside job" , or "controlled demolition".

As far as the words "mystery" and "baffled" appearing, well, here's a follow-up they did a few months later (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE2DD1E31F931A35750C0A9649C8B 63&scp=33&sq=%227+world+trade%22&st=nyt) when more information was made available. Along with the list above, you'll notice that neither "mystery" nor "baffled" appear either. I guess they are no longer "baffled" and consider the "mystery" solved.

Really? I don't see anything there about a 10 story gash either but the mystery is solved huh? How so? And Jerome Hauer huh? He knows EEEEEVERYTHING about 9/11 doesn't he? LOL

As far as you finding that story suspicious, well, color me surprised. I'm sure the list of things you don't find suspicious would be much shorter.

You know the rules, LastChild. Answer my question first.

This is my answer don't you get it Johnny? Come on try to keep up. Answer mine and you answer yours...

Why did the MSM initially ignore the 10 story gash in WTC-7?

[DGM]

Really? I don't see anything there about a 10 story gash either but the mystery is solved huh? How so? And Jerome Hauer huh? He knows EEEEEVERYTHING about 9/11 doesn't he? LOL



This is my answer don't you get it Johnny? Come on try to keep up. Answer mine and you answer yours...

Why did the MSM initially ignore the 10 story gash in WTC-7?
Your answer is to change the subject?

[pomeroo]

Really? I don't see anything there about a 10 story gash either but the mystery is solved huh? How so? And Jerome Hauer huh? He knows EEEEEVERYTHING about 9/11 doesn't he? LOL



This is my answer don't you get it Johnny? Come on try to keep up. Answer mine and you answer yours...

Why did the MSM initially ignore the 10 story gash in WTC-7?


The answer is obvious: although the MSM despises George Bush and opposes all of his policies, it decided in this instance to participate in a cover-up, as the collapse of WTC 7 could not conceivably relate to anything intended by the imaginary conspiracy.

[johnny karate]

This is my answer don't you get it Johnny? Come on try to keep up. Answer mine and you answer yours...

Why did the MSM initially ignore the 10 story gash in WTC-7?

Answering a question with a question is the lamest of dodges.

I've explained to you how this works. If you want to engage in honest discussion you must behave in manner that is befitting. Which means you must first address my question before you raise any of your own.

Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

[johnny karate]

Bump for LastChild.

[stateofgrace]

Why did the MSM initially ignore the 10 story gash in WTC-7?

I have no theory, facts or evidence to back up my following post but just wish to express my opinion, in accordance with LC’s strict rules and regulations.

Maybe, just maybe, and again it is worth stating this is an opinion, rather than a theory, that the MSM didn't really care too much about a 10 story gash in a building when two large buildings beside it had just collapsed and killed thousands. Maybe, just maybe the fact that the building was empty and therefore not considered news worthy,given the magnitude of the events of the day had something to do with it,. Maybe, just maybe when other buildings that have just had planes slammed into them, collapsed and killed thousands of innocent people, a gash in the side of a building that was at their side wasn’t really considered that important. Just maybe the murder of 3000 innocent people was considered slightly more important than a gash in an empty building.

I would like to state this is not a theory, it is not fact, I have no theory, and I am just using common sense and logic.

What do you think LC? Any chance what so ever you can offer an opinion (with disclaimer of course) or are you going to continue just JAQing off?

[johnny karate]

After several pages, and abandonment of this thread by the original person to whom I asked it of, my question remains unanswered. I'd like to pose it to the CT community at large present on this forum, because I'm genuinely curious how something like this is reconciled in the CTer mindset.

Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

[Brainache]

After several pages, and abandonment of this thread by the original person to whom I asked it of, my question remains unanswered. I'd like to pose it to the CT community at large present on this forum, because I'm genuinely curious how something like this is reconciled in the CTer mindset.

Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

I can tell you're desparate to have this answered by any of the conspiranoid folks on this forum and also that it is very unlikely that any of them can or will answer it. So in the interests of furthering the cause of Truth I will offer my speculative response as a substitute for a real Truther response:

Because Larry Silverstein paid them all lots of money to look the other way. They all accepted Larry's bribes because they are all unscrupulous hacks and shills for the neo-cons.

There were a few tricky moments, like when bigmouth Larry blurted out his evil scheme to some documentary makers, but then Larry Evilstein hosed all that down by bribing all of the demolition companies in the world to tell everyone that "pull it" doesn't mean "destroy using explosives". Whew, close one there Larry.

The fact that also no one in the engineering community thinks it was suspicious is just more evidence of Silversteins bottomless pockets...





Happy now?

[abenja1]

I have not had my challenge answered to any truthers yet. I want to see proof that the MSM was involved in the coverup or as you call it, "murder" regarding 9/11.

[LastChild]

After several pages, and abandonment of this thread by the original person to whom I asked it of, my question remains unanswered. I'd like to pose it to the CT community at large present on this forum, because I'm genuinely curious how something like this is reconciled in the CTer mindset.

Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

I answered this. They don’t.

How could the worldwide MSM purport to set the record straight on the suspicious nature of the WTC7 collapse, by completely ignoring the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531315,00.html

The only thing they ignore is the fact that the NIST report that they claim will explain this collapse has still not been released. Where’s the follow-up on that now that it’s 2008?

[gc051360]

How could the worldwide MSM purport to set the record straight on the suspicious nature of the WTC7 collapse, by completely ignoring the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?
Responding to conspiracy theories is not the same thing as doing an expose on the "suspicious" nature of the collapse.

I can tell you why the MSM ignores the suspicious nature of the collapse. It's because, reporters do research. They'd ask people qualified in the fields about the collapse, and the story would die right there.

[LastChild]

Responding to conspiracy theories is not the same thing as doing an expose on the "suspicious" nature of the collapse.

Why do they continually feel the need to respond to them?

I can tell you why the MSM ignores the suspicious nature of the collapse. It's because, reporters do research. They'd ask people qualified in the fields about the collapse, and the story would die right there.

How could the worldwide MSM purport to set the record straight on the suspicious nature of the WTC7 collapse, by completely ignoring the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

So why doesn't it die whether they follow up on it or not? And if it's research they are into then....

Why did the MSM initially ignore the 10 story gash in WTC-7?

Was it the MSM that discovered that or did they miss it?

[gc051360]

Why do they continually feel the need to respond to them?
As far as I can tell, they don't continually feel the need to respond.

So why doesn't it die whether they follow up on it or not?

Why doesn't what die?

Was it the MSM then discovered that or did they miss it?
They could have missed it. Probably didn't view it as that important, given the rest of the events of the day.

What exactly are you saying about the gash, and the MSM?

eta: Basically, what's your point?

[LastChild]

As far as I can tell, they don't continually feel the need to respond.

There haven’t been multiple MSM news sources addressing these conspiracy theories?

Why doesn't what die?

Has the story or any of the conspiracies died? Ignorance will accomplish this?

They could have missed it.

Probably didn't view it as that important, given the rest of the events of the day.

Could have? They didn't. Find the first MSM reports of this gash and date it.

What exactly are you saying about the gash, and the MSM?

You claim they base all their reports on research. What do they have access to that they can research?

eta: Basically, what's your point?

They don't ignore WTC-7 or any of the conspiracies. They just don't follow-up and probably couldn't if they wanted to. They have been stonewalled and obstructed just like the commission. Unlike Thomas Kean maybe some in the all powerful MSM aren’t as willing to concede that they've been effectively neutered.

[aggle-rithm]

Why do they continually feel the need to respond to them?



Because rampant idiocy sells.

[johnny karate]

I answered this. They don’t.

You have not answered the question.

You instead have repeatedly tried to invalidate the question.

You have done this by using dishonest debate tactics such as pretending my question means something it doesn't, or in one particularly egregious case, attempting to pass off an illegitimate news source as the respected and well-known news source it was trying to masquerade as.

It has been made abundantly clear to you and anyone else reading this thread the intention of my question.

It has been made abundantly clear to you why each and every news story you linked to try and invalidate my question was irrelevant.

At this point you have three choices:

1)Link any MSM news story that actually does invalidate my question.

2)Answer my question.

3)Excuse yourself from the discussion.

Spamming this thread with the same points that have already been repeatedly refuted and constantly attempting to change the subject are both intellectually dishonest and a violation of your membership agreement. I respectfully request that cease this behavior.

[LastChild]

You have not answered the question.

You instead have repeatedly tried to invalidate the question.

You have done this by using dishonest debate tactics such as pretending my question means something it doesn't, or in one particularly egregious case, attempting to pass off an illegitimate news source as the respected and well-known news source it was trying to masquerade as.

It has been made abundantly clear to you and anyone else reading this thread the intention of my question.

It has been made abundantly clear to you why each and every news story you linked to try and invalidate my question was irrelevant.

At this point you have three choices:

1)Link any MSM news story that actually does invalidate my question.

2)Answer my question.

3)Excuse yourself from the discussion.

Spamming this thread with the same points that have already been repeatedly refuted and constantly attempting to change the subject are both intellectually dishonest and a violation of your membership agreement. I respectfully request that cease this behavior.

I've answered your question. They don't.

Now let's put it all to rest right now.

Link to any MSM story that completely explains the WTC-7 collapse.

It's only been 6 1/2 years now.

[johnny karate]

I've answered your question. They don't.

Now let's put it all to rest right now.

Certainly.

Simply provide a post number or a link to the post where you answered my question.

I must have missed it.

[LastChild]

Certainly.

Simply provide a post number or a link to the post where you answered my question.

I must have missed it.

I answered this. They don’t.

How could the worldwide MSM purport to set the record straight on the suspicious nature of the WTC7 collapse, by completely ignoring the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...531315,00.html

Your turn.

[gc051360]

Lastchild. Your responses, to my questions, make no sense.

What is your point about the gash, and the MSM's coverage of the gash?

eta: Please answer this question directly.

[LastChild]

Lastchild. Your responses, to my questions, make no sense.

What is your point about the gash, and the MSM's coverage of the gash?

eta: Please answer this question directly.

I can't help what you don't understand I'm not your tutor. Besides you're selective about what you understand and don't. It's how debunkers sustain their bliss.

[gc051360]

I can't help what you don't understand I'm not your tutor. Besides you're selective about what you understand and don't. It's how debunkers sustain their bliss.

What is your point about the gash, and the MSM's coverage of the gash?

[LastChild]

What is your point about the gash, and the MSM's coverage of the gash?

Was it ignored by the MSM?

[gc051360]

Was it ignored by the MSM?

What is your point?

eta: The answer to this, is not another question.

[LastChild]

What is your point?

eta: The answer to this, is not another question.

So then don't answer it with a question.

Why did the MSM initially ignore the 10 story gash in WTC-7?

Go ahead.

[johnny karate]

I answered this. They don’t.

Link to the post or post number, please.

[LastChild]

Link to the post or post number, please.

post #338 among others

[gc051360]

So then don't answer it with a question.

Why did the MSM initially ignore the 10 story gash in WTC-7?

Go ahead.

I don't know.

Now. What is your point?

[LastChild]

I don't know.

Now. What is your point?

There was no report on this so-called 10 story gash initially from the MSM. Does that mean it didn't exist?

[gc051360]

There was no report on this so-called 10 story gash initially from the MSM. Does that mean it didn't exist?

No. I would highlight the word "initially" though.

[LastChild]

No. I would highlight the word "initially" though.

So? What other additional evidence or information have they uncovered with their research you speak of concerning WTC-7? Someone here keeps asking why they completely ignore the suspicious collapse of WTC-7? I say they don't. They just have nothing more to report.

Has the MSM completely ignored exactly what did bring down WTC-7 or do they just still not know after 6 1/2 years?

[gc051360]

Someone here keeps asking why they completely ignore the suspicious collapse of WTC-7? I say they don't. They just have nothing more to report.
About the suspicious nature? They never really reported on it in the first place, other than to respond to conspiracy theorists.

eta: And yeah, they have nothing more to report. Point?
Has the MSM completely ignored exactly what did bring down WTC-7 or do they just still not know after 6 1/2 years?
Does it matter? Shouldn't we go with people qualified in the field to analyze the collapse, and not wait for the MSM to cover it?

Let me ask you this. How important was the WTC 7 collapse, in the context of the events of the day?

[johnny karate]

post #338 among others

Here's that post in it's entirety:

I answered this. They don’t.

How could the worldwide MSM purport to set the record straight on the suspicious nature of the WTC7 collapse, by completely ignoring the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...531315,00.html

Your turn.

Unfortunately, the link in that post is no longer valid. However, if memory serves, it was an article about the existence of 9/11 conspiracy theories and demonstrating them to be wrong, not a report about the suspicious nature of the WTC7 collapse.

And you of course know this has nothing to do with my question because I pointed this out to you the last time you linked this article (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3539137&postcount=245).

Please try again.

[Architect]

Well professionally, it wasn't suspicious. Mysterious, yes. Suspicious, no.

Let's wait for the report.

In the interim, LC, can I suggest that you read "Why Buildings Fall Down" by Mario Salvadori. You'll find it an education. And it's even available on Amazon, I believe.

[LastChild]

About the suspicious nature? They never really reported on it in the first place, other than to respond to conspiracy theorists.
eta: And yeah, they have nothing more to report. Point?


That's the point. What evidence or information have they uncovered that would qualify them to take a stand either way? Because that's what's really being asked here. Not why they haven't covered it because they have covered it. It's why they haven't taken a stand on it. Which is disingenuous to imply since no one knows at this point what exactly happen to WTC-7.

Does it matter?

Apparently it matters enough to someone here who has been trying to make this entire thread about WTC-7. I'm only responding.

Shouldn't we go with people qualified in the field to analyze the collapse, and not wait for the MSM to cover it?

Your so-called qualified people haven't even released their report yet regarding WTC-7. It's probably safe to say you didn't need to wait for any "people qualified in the field to analyze the collapse" to come to your conclusions about WTC-7.

Let me ask you this. How important was the WTC 7 collapse, in the context of the events of the day?

I don't know. How important was the suspicious nature of the WTC 7 collapse, in the context of the events of the day?

[Architect]

But it's not suspicious.

[gc051360]

What evidence or information have they uncovered that would qualify them to take a stand either way?
The scientific consensus? The evidence of structural damage, fires, firefighters words...etc. etc??

Apparently it matters enough to someone here who has been trying to make this entire thread about WTC-7.
No. The claim of the truth movement, is that the controlled demolition of WTC 7 appears to be quite easily seen. The question is, why hasn't the media picked up that story and ran with it? If it's so apparent, why hasn't a journalist looking to make a name for himself, or the foreign media tried to uncover what would be the story of the century??

Your so-called qualified people haven't even released their report yet regarding WTC-7.
Why are they "so called"? Are you claiming NIST is not qualified to analyze building collapses?

NIST hasn't released the final report. Do you believe that it will support controlled demolition? When it comes out, will you believe what it says?

And, just because the NIST report on the building isn't out, doesn't mean we haven't had scientific opinions, and consensus on the collapse of the building. I'm pretty sure they got it narrowed down to fires + structural damage. Seems to me like they're mostly just coming up with the nuts and bolts of it.

I don't know. How important was the suspicious nature of the WTC 7 collapse, in the context of the events of the day?
The collapse wasn't suspicious.

[johnny karate]

LastChild, since you seem to be in such an argumentative mood this afternoon, perhaps you'd like to continue with our discussion here from which you repeatedly run away?

Here's where we left off (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3568076&postcount=352).

[LastChild]

LastChild, since you seem to be in such an argumentative mood this afternoon, perhaps you'd like to continue with our discussion here from which you repeatedly run away?

Here's where we left off (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3568076&postcount=352).

Run away? LOL

You refused to answer remember...

How could the worldwide MSM purport to set the record straight on the suspicious nature of the WTC7 collapse, by completely ignoring the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

[johnny karate]

Run away? LOL

You refused to answer remember...

How could the worldwide MSM purport to set the record straight on the suspicious nature of the WTC7 collapse, by completely ignoring the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

No, I'm afraid once again you are unable to keep up.

Here's where we left off (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3568076&postcount=352).

You claimed to have answered my question and I responded to your so-called "answer".

Now you can either attempt to refute the points I made in that post, or actually give me a legitimate answer to my question.

This is how a mature and reasonable discussion works.

[LastChild]

No, I'm afraid once again you are unable to keep up.

Here's where we left off (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3568076&postcount=352).

You claimed to have answered my question and I responded to your so-called "answer".

Now you can either attempt to refute the points I made in that post, or actually give me a legitimate answer to my question.

This is how a mature and reasonable discussion works.

You never answered you dodged it like you always do. I answered your question now answer mine. I'm done beating this dead horse.

[DGM]

Run away? LOL

You refused to answer remember...

How could the worldwide MSM purport to set the record straight on the suspicious nature of the WTC7 collapse, by completely ignoring the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?
Your question was answered. Look in the post after you answered the one you said you did.

[johnny karate]

You never answered you dodged it like you always do. I answered your question now answer mine.

Posting the same refuted crap over and over again and then ignoring the responses is not answering a question. It's being intellectually dishonest.

If you want to pretend you answered the question, you go right ahead. I'm content to let what has been posted in this thread speak for itself.

I'm done beating this dead horse.

Your concession is noted.

Any other CTers want to take a crack at this?

Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

[LastChild]

Posting the same refuted crap over and over again and then ignoring the responses is not answering a question. It's being intellectually dishonest.

If you want to pretend you answered the question, you go right ahead. I'm content to let what has been posted in this thread speak for itself.



Your concession is noted.

Any other CTers want to take a crack at this?

Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

Your dodge of my question that buries your question is noted by everyone whether they're willing to admit it or not.

How could the worldwide MSM purport to set the record straight on the suspicious nature of the WTC7 collapse, by completely ignoring the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

[stateofgrace]

Your dodge of my question that buries your question is noted by everyone whether they're willing to admit it or not.

How could the worldwide MSM purport to set the record straight on the suspicious nature of the WTC7 collapse, by completely ignoring the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

What was suspicious about it?

[LastChild]

What was suspicious about it?

Whatever part needs to be set straight by TIME, Popular Mechanics, The History Channel.... you know the MSM?

How many times does it need to be set straight to just a fringe movement of only a few? Who is the campaign for?

[stateofgrace]

Whatever part needs to be set straight by TIME, Popular Mechanics, The History Channel.... you know the MSM?

How many times does it need to be set straight to just a fringe movement of only a few? Who is the campaign for?

What part ?

What campaign ?

[johnny karate]

Your dodge of my question that buries your question is noted by everyone whether they're willing to admit it or not.

How could the worldwide MSM purport to set the record straight on the suspicious nature of the WTC7 collapse, by completely ignoring the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

The MSM has never once reported on the suspicious nature of the WTC7 collapse.

Not once.

You keep spamming this thread with the same links to articles about the existence of conspiracy theories that eventually conclude these conspiracy theories are bunk. Kind of the exact opposite of the type of news stories to which my question referred.

Why you think this is relevant to my question, or even remotely helps your case, I have no idea.

[tanabear]

Back up a bit, you claimed that a respected journalist thought WTC 7 was pre wired with explosives, your source for this claim, is a third hand account from unattributed source taken from a Q&A with a deluded nutcase, that you can't even source?

You understand why the truth movement is held in utter contempt by anyone with a basic understand of the concept of journalism.

I believe Peter Lance made the claim that WTC 7 was pre-wired for demolition back in June of 2005 on the Coast to Coast AM 911 Roundtable. It was a debate between David Ray Griffin and Alex Jones representing the Truth side and Peter Lance and Mike Levine defending most aspects of the official account, but admitting the government was negligent in many ways

[Björn Toulouse]

Actually, the position of MSM complicity that the CTers assume is one of convenience.

CTers, such as our good friend LastChild who is posting in this very thread in support of said position, will gladly link to stories in the MSM if they feel it bolsters their cause, all the while ignoring the glaring hypocrisy of doing so.


When LCF posted an "AJ on Geraldo show (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/254258/1/#new)" video the other day about Palfrey's suicide, it reminded me of this thread and the MSM. Some Truthers will embrace "Faux" News when it suits their cause, but be careful - that is the genius of the NWO - constantly keep 'em guessing.

[LastChild]

Actually, the position of MSM complicity that the CTers assume is one of convenience.

CTers, such as our good friend LastChild who is posting in this very thread in support of said position, will gladly link to stories in the MSM if they feel it bolsters their cause, all the while ignoring the glaring hypocrisy of doing so.

When LCF posted an "AJ on Geraldo show (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/254258/1/#new)" video the other day about Palfrey's suicide, it reminded me of this thread and the MSM. Some Truthers will embrace "Faux" News when it suits their cause, but be careful - that is the genius of the NWO - constantly keep 'em guessing.

And the debunking movement will ignore the actual claim from a so-called truther in favor of an imaginary argument they have already debunked in their delusional little head. They will take an argument out of context or bastardize it completely to serve their own pathetic need to keep up their denial.

[pomeroo]

And the debunking movement will ignore the actual claim from a so-called truther in favor of an imaginary argument they have already debunked in their delusional little head. They will take an argument out of context or bastardize it completely to serve their own pathetic need to keep up their denial.


Your comments appear utterly mad. Can you support them with any actual evidence?

(Thunderous laughter, assorted guffaws, snorts, chuckles, and much soda and beer being ejected from noses)

[Brainache]

Your comments appear utterly mad. Can you support them with any actual evidence?

(Thunderous laughter, assorted guffaws, snorts, chuckles, and much soda and beer being ejected from noses)

Yes CTs are very good at projection.

[abenja1]

So the complicit MSM is now giving coverage to the possibility of a murder with the DC madam? Boy, truthers certainly have no scrupples with regards to integrity.

[abenja1]

"You eat up what the Ruling families news stations and newspapers feed you." - as said by Ron Paul Is Right

Provide evidence for that assertion.

[Profanz]

"The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings," - CNN congressional correspondent Jessica Yellin about he experience post 9/11 at MSNBC

“ I've talked about this a lot with people in the business and thought about it a lot because I remember at the time the buildup was happening, I felt really uncomfortable with the whole atmosphere of the country. I think, you know, sometimes we forget that people in the press are, you know, the press is made up of human beings who experience the same raw emotions, believe it or not, not automatons, and, looking back on it, of course everyone, everyone in the United States was reeling from September 11th. And I think there was a lot of fear in our culture. I think, on some level, we were looking for some kind of patriarchal hero to help us and protect us. And I think we failed to ask really important questions. And, you know, the whole culture of wearing flags on your lapel and saying "we" when you were referring to the United States, which, and, and, you know, even the "shock and awe" in the initial stages, it was just too jubilant and just a little uncomfortable. And I remember feeling when I was anchoring the Today show this inevitable march toward war and kind of feeling like "Will anybody put the brakes on this?" and "Has this been properly challenged by the right people?" And I think at the time, anyone who questioned the administration was considered unpatriotic, and it was a very difficult position to be in, and corporate America owning a lot of media outlets, there's a lot of pressure, and I remember getting an email from one of my bosses when I had asked a challenging question of Condoleezza Rice. And he sent, forwarded an angry email from a woman in Atlanta who was an office manager at a law firm saying I was unnecessarily confrontational and antagonistic. And, quite frankly, I thought I was firm but polite. And he forwarded the email to me with no explanation, which I thought was a fairly insidious way of saying "Back off" to me in terms of questioning the administration....” - Katie Couric

[Disbelief]

Welcome back Profanz. Care to elaborate or are you going to keep the old style of just posting quotes and not adding any of your own analysis.

[abenja1]

"The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings," - CNN congressional correspondent Jessica Yellin about he experience post 9/11 at MSNBC

“ I've talked about this a lot with people in the business and thought about it a lot because I remember at the time the buildup was happening, I felt really uncomfortable with the whole atmosphere of the country. I think, you know, sometimes we forget that people in the press are, you know, the press is made up of human beings who experience the same raw emotions, believe it or not, not automatons, and, looking back on it, of course everyone, everyone in the United States was reeling from September 11th. And I think there was a lot of fear in our culture. I think, on some level, we were looking for some kind of patriarchal hero to help us and protect us. And I think we failed to ask really important questions. And, you know, the whole culture of wearing flags on your lapel and saying "we" when you were referring to the United States, which, and, and, you know, even the "shock and awe" in the initial stages, it was just too jubilant and just a little uncomfortable. And I remember feeling when I was anchoring the Today show this inevitable march toward war and kind of feeling like "Will anybody put the brakes on this?" and "Has this been properly challenged by the right people?" And I think at the time, anyone who questioned the administration was considered unpatriotic, and it was a very difficult position to be in, and corporate America owning a lot of media outlets, there's a lot of pressure, and I remember getting an email from one of my bosses when I had asked a challenging question of Condoleezza Rice. And he sent, forwarded an angry email from a woman in Atlanta who was an office manager at a law firm saying I was unnecessarily confrontational and antagonistic. And, quite frankly, I thought I was firm but polite. And he forwarded the email to me with no explanation, which I thought was a fairly insidious way of saying "Back off" to me in terms of questioning the administration....” - Katie Couric

How does this prove that the gov't and media were working together on 9/11?

[abenja1]

Bumping this up because I want Ron Paul is Right to answer my question.

[Profanz]

How does this prove that the gov't and media were working together on 9/11?

Define together. But I think Katie already did.

[abenja1]

Define together. But I think Katie already did.

Well I'll put in two terms. Assuming that the gov't planned 9/11, that the media knew about the plans to enact what happened on that day and that the media covered up for the gov't. If I'm not explaining it well enough, I'll let Morgan Reynolds speak: "The public will find out that Katie Couric, Peter Jennings Charles Gibson and the beloved leadership of corporate media were accessories to mass murder."

Government always pressures the media to suppress a story for whatever reason. We all know that. It's the accessory to murder charge that bothers me because truthers are implicating a whole group of people (journalists) for the deaths of 3000+ people with absolutly no evidence.