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

LastChild

6th March 2008, 06:25 PM

And your video proves what? I'll answer that: very little, I have seen this docu before and it proves very little.
Question for you:
How does it address your hypocrisy when it comes to citing the media?

My personal view is that the media is driven primarily by ratings and advertising. It's corporate therefore it is compromised at least on that level. 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.

For instance I remember looking at Monica Lewinsky's fat face back when Clinton was president the morning after he bombed Iraq for flying in the no fly zone. Nothing about Iraq on that front page just all about the smut. Because lets face it. That's what sold. I also feel stories can be buried with a phone call if it is going to affect someone’s bottom line. I also know that if someone sends out a letter to a radio station or a TV network and they have it typed out on letterhead and claim they are an entire organization and threaten to boycott the station and the sponsors if certain things don't change they get results more times then not. Even if the letter actually only came from one person with some nice letterhead. This only serves to water down content and substance.

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.

Brainache

6th March 2008, 07:03 PM

My personal view is that the media is driven primarily by ratings and advertising. It's corporate therefore it is compromised at least on that level. 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.

For instance I remember looking at Monica Lewinsky's fat face back when Clinton was president the morning after he bombed Iraq for flying in the no fly zone. Nothing about Iraq on that front page just all about the smut. Because lets face it. That's what sold. I also feel stories can be buried with a phone call if it is going to affect someone’s bottom line. I also know that if someone sends out a letter to a radio station or a TV network and they have it typed out on letterhead and claim they are an entire organization and threaten to boycott the station and the sponsors if certain things don't change they get results more times then not. Even if the letter actually only came from one person with some nice letterhead. This only serves to water down content and substance.

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.

You do realise that there are news outlets beyond commercial network news bulletins, don't you? There are broadsheet newspapers and publicly funded broadcasters etc.
There are still people like Woodward and Bernstein out there digging up stories. How else do you think we get to hear about things like secret prisons, extraordinary renditions, CIA torture techniques? Not all journalists are sitting around on their fat retard asses waiting for the next PR fax about Brittany Spears (although there may be some that do that).

CHF

6th March 2008, 07:56 PM

My personal view is that the media is driven primarily by ratings and advertising.

And it's not like anyone would tune in to see the biggest conspiracy in history being exposed on 60 minutes. :rolleyes:

While I often dislike the way the MSM reports a story while giving no relevant background information, or bending to the desire of special interest groups, the notion that all media are controlled or intimidated into silence is 100% pure BS.

There are thousands of media outlets - TV, radio, print, on-line - in every country on earth, spanning every race, nationality, political view and religion. The fact that none of them are interested in exposing the "truth" about 9/11 says nothing about journalism and everything about the piss poor quality of the TM's "evidence."

Corsair 115

6th March 2008, 08:17 PM

9/11 is a very emotionally fueled topic. Something to avoid. Especially when you can be accused of being unpatriotic.This fails to explain why the media of other countries are afraid to pursue the biggest story of the century if true. Or is media around the world also under control of... well, whomever it is controls the U.S. media?

Brainache

6th March 2008, 08:22 PM

This fails to explain why the media of other countries are afraid to pursue the biggest story of the century if true. Or is media around the world also under control of... well, whomever it is controls the U.S. media?

Yeah well you'd think Al Jazeera would be kicking up a stink. Instead they interviewed KSM when he claimed responsibility for planning the attacks. Is Al Jazeera part of the brainwashed US Media?

WildCat

6th March 2008, 08:24 PM

Is Al Jazeera part of the brainwashed US Media?
Everyone knows it's a CIA front. Man, don't you know anything?

abenja1

6th March 2008, 09:05 PM

All great opinions you guys give. I get the feeling that many truthers were at one time budding journalists and at some point failed, so they decided "if you can't join them, blame them" type crowd.

Unsecured Coins

6th March 2008, 09:08 PM

All great opinions you guys give. I get the feeling that many truthers were at one time budding journalists and at some point failed, so they decided "if you can't join them, blame them" type crowd.

one of them was an aspiring film maker but couldn't get past the "learning" part

tanabear

6th March 2008, 10:26 PM

I feel this a topic that had maybe been addressed but not to the extent that I would like to see it. I'm all for media skepticism but what bothers me about the "truth" movement is how they are implicating all the journalists and people who work in the media as being complicit one way or another in the 9/11 tragedy. I find this particulary disturbing personally as I am being educated in the field of journalism and when I see posters on here (the most notable being Mirage_Memories who I believe is banned) trying to implicate the news media I find it really, really, well... disturbing. Anyone else want to put their two cents on this?

There are a couple people in the 9/11 Truth Movement who implicate the MSM in covering up the crimes of 9/11. The two most notable would be Kevin "Hang 'em High" Barrett and Morgan Reynolds. Kevin Barret wrote this regarding Amy Goodman,

"you will one day find yourself on the scaffold, condemned to hang alongside the other Goebbels-style traitors and mass-murder-coverup-conspirators from the corporate media you pretend to criticize."

Morgan Reynolds wrote this regarding some well-admired televison personalities,

"Preserving the plane fiction is the perpetrators' Maginot line. Once we breach this fortification, a complete route will swiftly follow. The public will find out that Katie Couric, Peter Jennings, Charles Gibson and the beloved leadership of corporate media were accessories to mass murder."

On the other hand some of the best resources for the 9/11 Truth Movement has come from mainstream media sources. Paul Thompson's "Terror Timeline" is almost entirely drawn from mainstream sources. As former CIA analyst Ray McGovern stated,

“The whole mystique of intelligence is that you acquire this… very valuable information covertly… if truth be told, about 80%—eight, zero—of any of the information that one needs is available in open source materials.”

The media has reported important information in regards to 9/11. However, most people in the media are ignorant of the issues surrounding 9/11 and are therefore not capable of connecting the dots as it were. Most of the popular television news shows(The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, Larry King Live) are driven by discussion and debate, not investigative reporting.

Corsair 115

6th March 2008, 10:28 PM

The media has reported important information in regards to 9/11. However, most people in the media are ignorant of the issues surrounding 9/11 and are therefore not capable of connecting the dots as it were. Most of the popular television news shows(The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, Larry King Live) are driven by discussion and debate, not investigative reporting.Once again, what about the media of other nations? The victims of 9/11 included more than just American citizens.

LashL

6th March 2008, 10:34 PM

On the other hand some of the best resources for the 9/11 Truth Movement has come from mainstream media sources. Paul Thompson's "Terror Timeline" is almost entirely drawn from mainstream sources.

You do know that that "Paul Thompson" is not his real name and that he deliberately and repeatedly skews things to suit his personal conspiracy views, right?

tanabear

6th March 2008, 10:54 PM

Once again, what about the media of other nations? The victims of 9/11 included more than just American citizens.

Paul Thompson's "Terror Timeline" includes reports by media organizations from many countries.

You do know that that "Paul Thompson" is not his real name and that he deliberately and repeatedly skews things to suit his personal conspiracy views, right?

Yes, I knew that Paul was not his real name. I think I heard him say in an interview once that it was a "nickname" that he was given when he was younger. Why is that really important? You do know that Babe Ruth is not the real name of the "Sultan of Swat?" In what ways has he deliberately and repeatedly skewed things to suit his personal conspiracy views?

abenja1

6th March 2008, 11:05 PM

There are a couple people in the 9/11 Truth Movement who implicate the MSM in covering up the crimes of 9/11. The two most notable would be Kevin "Hang 'em High" Barrett and Morgan Reynolds. Kevin Barret wrote this regarding Amy Goodman, [QUOTE]

Tanabear, trust me there are not a couple, there a lot. They are all over prison planet and Loose Change.

[QUOTE]"you will one day find yourself on the scaffold, condemned to hang alongside the other Goebbels-style traitors and mass-murder-coverup-conspirators from the corporate media you pretend to criticize."

Morgan Reynolds wrote this regarding some well-admired televison personalities,

"Preserving the plane fiction is the perpetrators' Maginot line. Once we breach this fortification, a complete route will swiftly follow. The public will find out that Katie Couric, Peter Jennings, Charles Gibson and the beloved leadership of corporate media were accessories to mass murder."[QUOTE]

Tanabear thank you for these quotes. I think it illustrates my point. It's easy to make accusations. But what proof do these guys have that Amy Goodman and co. were accessories? The answer: None. I believe that's called defamation.

[QUOTE]The media has reported important information in regards to 9/11. However, most people in the media are ignorant of the issues surrounding 9/11 and are therefore not capable of connecting the dots as it were. Most of the popular television news shows(The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, Larry King Live) are driven by discussion and debate, not investigative reporting.

Sorry Tanabear I'm going to have to say you're somewhat wrong on this. Yes a good amount of the media today is debate and argument, but regarding the "important information in regards to 9/11", there is none. It's all speculation. When you have one guy claiming that the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition but you have on the other hand 10x more experts on the other side said it was not, who are they going to believe? You can't go to the media with speculation and rumors, you can't report on that. If that were true, we would all be in the news.

Brainache

6th March 2008, 11:07 PM

Here's a post by Gumboot from over a year ago:

Originally Posted by MaGZ
Your too late. It's been done.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/9...l_thompson.jsp

What I'm proposing is something quite different.

Thompson's timeline is purely a combination of conflicting newspaper articles and pure conjecture on his point, designed to produce suspicion and mistrust in the mind of the reader.

Thompson makes no effort what so ever to actually investigate any of the claims he or media make. He merely makes broad comments regarding what these claims would mean if they were true.

Here's an example:

Points to keep in mind regarding entries of the day of 9/11: The scrambling (sending into the air) of fighter aircraft at the first sign of trouble is a routine phenomenon. During the year 2000, there are 425 “unknowns”—pilots who didn't file or diverted from flight plans or used the wrong frequency. Fighters are scrambled in response 129 times in cases where problems are not immediately resolved. After 9/11, such scrambles go from about twice a week to three or four times a day. [ Calgary Herald, 10/13/01 ] Between September 2000 and June 2001, fighters are scrambled 67 times. [ Associated Press, 8/13/02 ] General Ralph E. Eberhart, NORAD Commander in Chief, says that before 9/11, “Normally, our units fly 4-6 sorties a month in support of the NORAD air defense mission.” [ FNS, 10/25/01 ]

“Consider that an aircraft emergency exists…when: … There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any... aircraft.” [ FAA regulations (1) ]

“If…you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency.” [ FAA regulations (2) ]

“Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button. They'll call the plane, saying ‘American 11, you're deviating from course.’ It's considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour. When golfer Payne Stewart's incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, heading north instead of west to Texas, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched.” [ MSNBC, 9/12/01 ]

“A NORAD spokesman says its fighters routinely intercept aircraft. When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile.” [ Boston Globe, 9/15/01 ]

“In October [2002], Gen. Eberhart told Congress that ‘now it takes about one minute’ from the time that the FAA senses something is amiss before it notifies NORAD. And around the same time, a NORAD spokesofficer told the Associated Press that the military can now scramble fighters ‘within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States.’” [ Slate, 1/16/02 ]

The commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, Anatoli Kornukov, says the day after 9/11: “Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday…. As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up.” [ Pravda, 9/12/01 ]

Supposedly, on 9/11, there are only four fighters on ready status in the Northeastern US, and only 14 fighters on permanent ready status in the entire US. [ BBC, 8/29/02 ] However, any number of additional fighters could be in the air or ready to fly at the time the 9/11 attacks begin, but exact numbers are not known.
The above section is full of false information, which can easily be checked by a short piece of research. The singular most important thing that both Thompson and the media failed to realise is that NORAD intercepts were only routine inside the ADIZ.

Thompson also quotes many articles regarding the NORAD response post-9/11, when obviously things had drastically changed in this time.

And this is the entirety of his summary of the collapse of WTC1, including fires etc:

Quote:
10:28 a.m.: The World Trade Center's north tower collapses. It was hit by Flight 11 at 8:46. [10:28, MSNBC, 9/22/01 , 10:28, CNN, 9/12/01 , 10:28, New York Times, 9/12/01 , 10:28, Associated Press, 8/19/02 , 10:28 (based on seismic data), New York Times, 9/12/01 , 10:29, Washington Post, 9/12/01 , 10:28:31, ] The death toll could have been much worse—an estimated 15,000 people made it out of the WTC to safety. [ ]
Paul Thompson has not provided a comprehensive summary of what happened on 9/11. It consists of false information, unsupported conjecture, and fails to address key events of the day. In fact it only provides TWO pieces of useful information:

1) Early media reports are often wrong and contradictory, and should not be trusted.
2) Paul Thompson is a 9/11 Conspiracy Theoriest more interested in JAQing than in doing research and finding out what happened.

-Gumboot

There was also a thread started by Oliver:

http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showthread.php?t=76934&highlight=Paul+Thompson+timeline

johnny karate

7th March 2008, 02:07 AM

Liszt

7th March 2008, 02:27 AM

I've worked in the Media for twenty years. The way Truthers portray "The Media" as a monolithic entity is just another example of their ignorance.

I am not a Journalist, but as a Sound Recordist/ Camera Operator/ Floor Manager/ Director I've worked with a lot of them. Some are lazy and a bit dim, some are go-getting adrenaline junkies with an unshakable belief in their own indestructability and there are all kinds of shades in between.

To think that somehow some Journalist out there knows "Teh Trooth" about 9/11 but is refusing to tell because he/she fears for their job is just laughable.

People like Daniel Pearl or Orla Geurin(?) have died for news stories. I've known Journalists that have put themselves and their crews in very dangerous situations for a news story. The threat of suppression just makes them more determined to get their stories out there.

I half agree with this. I worked in the media for 10 years, and saw everything from D notices (now called DA notices) to editors directing hacks to write Y2K stories because our advertisers were selling anti virus software (by the bucket load).

This is the UK DA notice laws explained quite well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_notice

although the 2 times I saw this used, it shouldn't really have been nessesary. One was just embarrassing, the other was to stop some info being published about an MPs family member (!!!).

8den

7th March 2008, 04:40 AM

The media has reported important information in regards to 9/11. However, most people in the media are ignorant of the issues surrounding 9/11 and are therefore not capable of connecting the dots as it were.

Horse manure. The BBC has made a detailed documentary on 911 conspiracy theories, as has the history channel. Popular mechanics has written a book about the subject. Mainstream magazines and newspapers has written about the truth movement (off the top of my head, The Guardian, The UK Independent, Time, Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair) . Truthers heckle and press copies of their "documentaries" into journalists and media workers hands.

I worked in Broadcast journalism for three years between 2004-2007, I worked as a freelance video editor, in stations like Al Jazeera English, The BBC, CNN, and Sky News.

Suggesting that the media are just unaware of the truth movement and their claims, and one day will "wake up" and report the truth is a pathetic fantasy of the truth movement.

Most of the popular television news shows(The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, Larry King Live) are driven by discussion and debate, not investigative reporting.

Er at least two of the shows you mentioned have had truthers on the show, so claiming that they are ignorant of the truth movement's claims is clearly nonsense.

Drudgewire

7th March 2008, 04:42 AM

one of them was an aspiring film maker but couldn't get past the "learning" part
Hee hee. :D

gumboot

7th March 2008, 05:17 AM

Anyone who has followed my posts on here is probably aware of my incredible dislike for the media. I also work in the media myself, though predominantly in the fields of entertainment and advertising. The media genre of "infotainment" is to me a good summary of the negative direction the media has gone in.

I worked on a TV series about animals that brought together an unprecedented level of knowledge and expertise, including the only person in the entire world who had ever studied animal bite forces.

It was a golden opportunity to actually gather some genuine scientific data and put the "info" in "infotainment" into bold.

Sadly, the production company (which has a prestigious track record for scientific documentary making) decided to do it on the cheap, do it for entertainment, and squandered all of that valuable knowledge.

All of this of course builds to an expected conclusion that the media are corrupted by sales and are about as interested in the truth as Dylan Avery.

And I'd tend to agree with that.

But here's the thing. What the media wants is scandal. Anything scandalous, anything out of the ordinary, anything sensational will sell like hotcakes. I honestly cannot think of a story that would sell better than definitive evidence of "inside job" (except maybe news of an alien invasion).

No media outlet in their right mind would sit on news like that. And especially not if their rival is sitting on it.

And here's an important point. News corporations are in fierce competition. The need to be first has superseded the need to be accurate. "Get it out there, then get it right!"

Nothing is worse for a media corporation than to sit on an unconfirmed story, only to see their rival run with it (and the real nightmare would be that it turns out to be true!).

So let's for a moment, pretend there's something wrong with the official account of 9/11. Okay, I can maybe accept that some particular media corporations would sit on that sort of information out of fear of losing their audience base.

But every media corporation? Are you joking?

How about in another country? The New Zealand media have wet dreams over anything anti-American they can run in the news. If they got a whiff of 9/11 conspiracy they'd have kittens.

And how would the media know? The media have journalists.

Now I despise the media, but journalists, as others have said, are a varied bunch. Some are the classic hard-nosed reporter, some are just chasing awards, some are just chasing pay cheques. But there will always be some, for whatever reason, who are chasing the unpopular story. For some it becomes something of a personal crusade.

And what happens when they discover the motherlode? Do they just hand it all over to their editor and hope the corporation will run with it?

Go take a look at any of the most compelling factual books published in the last three decades, and then look at how many are written by journalists.

Some of you are familiar with the book The Looming Tower. Written by a journalist. He interviewed over 400 people for that book.

If there was a 9/11 inside job you get bet every inch of your life that the media would be all over it in a heart beat.

LastChild

7th March 2008, 05:36 AM

You do realise that there are news outlets beyond commercial network news bulletins, don't you? There are broadsheet newspapers and publicly funded broadcasters etc.
There are still people like Woodward and Bernstein out there digging up stories. How else do you think we get to hear about things like secret prisons, extraordinary renditions, CIA torture techniques? Not all journalists are sitting around on their fat retard asses waiting for the next PR fax about Brittany Spears (although there may be some that do that).

Yes I do realize that. But I thought this was about the Mainstream Media.

LastChild

7th March 2008, 05:38 AM

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.

What hypocrisy? Just because I take a quote from say ABC news it doesn't mean they followed up on it or even gave it as much air time as the latest Lindsey Lohan debacle.

CHF

7th March 2008, 05:40 AM

Yes I do realize that. But I thought this was about the Mainstream Media.

The mainstream media broke the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal on prime-time TV. I think it's safe to say there would be some MSM outlets somewhere in the world who would broadcast the findings of 911 twoof....if it were true, that is.

Say, how's the weather in England, LC?

Dave Rogers

7th March 2008, 05:59 AM

Yes I do realize that. But I thought this was about the Mainstream Media.

Broadsheet newsapers aren't mainstream?

Dave

Foolmewunz

7th March 2008, 06:03 AM

Alferd_Packer

7th March 2008, 07:29 AM

I've worked in the Media for twenty years. The way Truthers portray "The Media" as a monolithic entity is just another example of their ignorance.

You’ve touched upon an important point. Truthers have a distorted world view obscures everything into monolithic, monochromatic, simplistic agents against them. For the younger truthers, I think this is mostly due to their inexperience at life. When everything you know about how the world works comes from reading Tom Clancy novels, then youFor the older truthers who should know better, I think that a hint of paranoia is at work here.

As for “mainstream” reporters, the following comment by Matt Taibbi is apt:

Unfortunately, I get the sense that these same nice people have a tendency to turn hostile, venomous and unrelentingly paranoid once they get logged back into an e-mail server, which is why most journalists I know won't go near the 9/11 Truth issue more than once, if at all. On the one hand most reporters don't think it's a serious enough issue to bother with twice, and on the other hand nobody wants to deal with the torrent of abuse that comes with trying -- it's like shoving your head into a beehive. "I'd rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick than write about that *----* again," is how one columnist put it to me.

Cuddles

7th March 2008, 09:11 AM

Broadsheet newsapers aren't mainstream?

Dave

Apparently neither is the BBC.:boggled:

LastChild

7th March 2008, 09:31 AM

Broadsheet newsapers aren't mainstream?

Dave

Sure they are. Because they're not labeled a tabloid they're automatically legit and uncompromised? Just because someone likes to think of their broadsheet newspaper as more intellectual then their neighbors gossip rag doesn’t raise it above scrutiny.

CHF

7th March 2008, 09:37 AM

What about the media in the Middle East?

Dave Rogers

7th March 2008, 09:37 AM

Sure they are. Because they're not labeled a tabloid they're automatically legit and uncompromised? Just because someone likes to think of their broadsheet newspaper as more intellectual then their neighbors gossip rag doesn’t raise it above scrutiny.

:dl:

LastChild, you're the one who said that a list that included "broadsheet newspapers" didn't include any mainstream media. You're getting offended by your own post.

Priceless.

Dave

LastChild

7th March 2008, 09:53 AM

:dl:

LastChild, you're the one who said that a list that included "broadsheet newspapers" didn't include any mainstream media. You're getting offended by your own post.

Priceless.

Dave

No. That post I was replying to assumed all I meant by mainstream media was commercial network news bulletins. I never said that. And I never said I was offended. You don't work in the news business do you? Get your story straight.

dudalb

7th March 2008, 10:27 AM

Take a stroll through the history of political movements from 1965 to today (say).

Weather Underground: "The whole media is controlled by the John Birch Society and Ronald Raygunz(yuk yuk)! We can't get attention to the important stuff so we'll have to blow up a townhouse!"

Pre Neo-Con Right Wing Whackjobs: "Yeah, the whole media is controlled by the Jooz, Commies, and Socialists! Look at CBS.... Look at the New York Times and Washington Post. Katherine Grahamberg!"

Conservative Bloggers and Radio Hosts: "This is the only place where you'll get real news that's not tainted by the liberal establishment Boston-New York-Washington consortium! Stay tuned, but now these words from Kwai, the user-friendly garlic pill."

Troofers: "The MSM is a tool of the NWO and everyone knows it! And they're going to protect the Illuminati and other modern fascisti who run your lives! 911 was an inside job, man! It's so obvious!"

So? Of course, they're all correct. The media that doesn't give your side (see Ronulans) massive coverage is obviously co-opted and perverted by the other side's interests.:spjimlad::spjimlad::spjimlad:

I have one to add
LEFT WING BLOGGERS: "The MSM is controlled by the corporations,and is being used by the evil capitalists to support the GOP AND oppress the people,man! You have to go to Move.on.Org,Counterpunch,and Democracy Now For The Truth!".

I don;t like to defend the MSM,because it is badly flawed and I get as angry at the amount of time spent convering trivial crap as anyone,but I think there is no conspiracy involved, just a desire for ratings and/or Newspaper sales.
With all it's faults, I still would trust a good MSM source,like the BBC or the Washington Post or the LA Times, then "Alternative" news sources which have their own axes to grind.

chillzero

7th March 2008, 11:06 AM

Moving posts to AAH for off topic bickering. STOP accusing people of sockpuppetry in threads. If you believe someone is a sock puppet, report it to the mods by the usual route and provide any evidence for the accusation. STOP derailing threads with this carry on.

cisco

7th March 2008, 11:30 AM

I think that a hint of paranoia is at work here.

Understatement of the year award.

Brainache

7th March 2008, 11:47 AM

No. That post I was replying to assumed all I meant by mainstream media was commercial network news bulletins. I never said that. And I never said I was offended. You don't work in the news business do you? Get your story straight.

Ummm, but you saw my list which included Broadsheets and publicly funded broadcasters and replied with: "Yes I do realize that. But I thought this was about the Mainstream Media." Thereby saying that the Media I listsed isn't mainstream.

Corsair 115

7th March 2008, 11:50 AM

Yes I do realize that. But I thought this was about the Mainstream Media.Surely then The Toronto Star, The Globe & Mail, The National Post, Maclean's, CTV, CBC, and Global qualify as mainstream media? So how are these Canadian media outlets being controlled or pressured or whatever to not expose the truth of this supposed 9/11 conspiracy?

LastChild

7th March 2008, 12:52 PM

Surely then The Toronto Star, The Globe & Mail, The National Post, Maclean's, CTV, CBC, and Global qualify as mainstream media? So how are these Canadian media outlets being controlled or pressured or whatever to not expose the truth of this supposed 9/11 conspiracy?

What is it they have to report? Do they have access to all the evidence? Do people really answer their questions when they’re asked? Did a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress even get all the evidence they asked for when they asked for it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html

And before anyone goes claiming I'm a hypocrite for posting from the mainstream media how many follow-ups to this story I link to have been done?

johnny karate

7th March 2008, 01:04 PM

What is it they have to report? Do they have access to all the evidence? Do people really answer their questions when they’re asked? Did a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress even get all the evidence they asked for when they asked for it?

So you're conjecturing that these major media outlets perhaps attempted to do some investigative journalism regarding what is probably the biggest news story of the last 50 years, were stonewalled, and then just let the matter drop without so much as a peep?

Really?

And by the way, the "evidence" they have access to is the same "evidence" CTers have been claiming to exist for years. If a teenage malcontent with access to Youtube can track down this "evidence" what makes you think The Globe & Mail can't?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html

And before anyone goes claiming I'm a hypocrite for posting from the mainstream media how many follow-ups to this story I link to have been done?

Easy, LastChild. You're going to give yourself whiplash by doing such a quick turnaround.

Either the MSM is covering this story, or they're not. You can't have it both ways. Especially in the same damn post.

LastChild

7th March 2008, 01:27 PM

So you're conjecturing that these major media outlets perhaps attempted to do some investigative journalism regarding what is probably the biggest news story of the last 50 years, were stonewalled, and then just let the matter drop without so much as a peep?

Really?

And by the way, the "evidence" they have access to is the same "evidence" CTers have been claiming to exist for years. If a teenage malcontent with access to Youtube can track down this "evidence" what makes you think The Globe & Mail can't?

Easy, LastChild. You're going to give yourself whiplash by doing such a quick turnaround.

Either the MSM is covering this story, or they're not. You can't have it both ways. Especially in the same damn post.

What's the matter did I cut you off at the pass with your Magic 8 ball responses? Get some new tricks you're a bore. Where's the follow-up on the investigation being obstructed?

Brainache

7th March 2008, 01:46 PM

What's the matter did I cut you off at the pass with your Magic 8 ball responses? Get some new tricks you're a bore. Where's the follow-up on the investigation being obstructed?

So what kind of a follow up do you envisage for that story?:
"CIA still not telling everyone everything"?
"Kean and Hamilton still not happy"?
"Gov't departments guard their turf shock"?
"The CIA has some nasty people on staff"?
"Right wing politicians use terrorism to justify torture"?

They could just publish a three page spread on how to tie shoelaces or how things hit the ground if you drop them.

Par

7th March 2008, 02:24 PM

What's the matter? Do you need another sample?
What's the matter Ron are you still mad because Griffin...
What's the matter did you run out of highway...
What's the matter? Is Gravy's standard of truth...
Oh what's the matter are you getting...
What's the matter did I cut you off at the pass with your Magic 8 ball responses?

You’re forever asking people what “the matter” is. (Incidentally, was that Magic Eight-Ball reference supposed to signify a lack of originality? Well, there’s a thing.)

Corsair 115

7th March 2008, 03:21 PM

What is it they have to report? Do they have access to all the evidence? Do people really answer their questions when they’re asked?I'll tell you this much: Canadian media covers American affairs in far more detail than American media covers Canadian affairs. So the idea that being outside the U.S. somehow prevents Canadian media's ability to do its job in regards to stories originating inside the U.S. is baseless.

Newtons Bit

7th March 2008, 03:26 PM

I'll tell you this much: Canadian media covers American affairs in far more detail than American media covers Canadian affairs. So the idea that being outside the U.S. somehow prevents Canadian media's ability to do its job in regards to stories originating inside the U.S. is baseless.

The only time American media mentions Canada is when someplace in the US is really really cold and they need someplace colder to compare it to. "Well, it's real cold in Detroit today, it feels like Canada!" But that's really about it. You guys are just a silly hat to us. :D

Corsair 115

7th March 2008, 03:28 PM

The only time American media mentions Canada is when someplace in the US is really really cold and they need someplace colder to compare it to. "Well, it's real cold in Detroit today, it feels like Canada!"C'mon, we got some press lately thanks to NAFTA-gate/Obama-gate.

johnny karate

7th March 2008, 06:12 PM

What's the matter did I cut you off at the pass with your Magic 8 ball responses? Get some new tricks you're a bore.

No need for "new tricks", sparky. The ones I already have are quite successful at stymying you lot. If they bore you, try coming up with fresh responses.

Where's the follow-up on the investigation being obstructed?

I'm not sure why you would ask me this. Perhaps a letter to the editor of the New York Times is in order.

But really, how sad for you that's it's come to this. You've had to go from "The MSM doesn't cover these stories" to "The MSM doesn't do follow-up stories to the stories that they've already covered". Tomorrow it'll be "The MSM doesn't do follow-up stories to the stories that were follow-up stories to the stories they've already covered".

I see a definite cognitive pattern here. This kind of infinite loop you're trying to create is the same thing you've done in other threads where you demand that the authors of the NIST report issue statements proclaiming their support for the report that they authored.

But of course, all this is a digression from the topic at hand: The fact that the MSM is certainly willing to cover controversial 9/11 stories as proven by the very stories you have linked here and in other threads. Thus proving your position that they don't a false one.

Which leaves us with the same unanswered question: Why are no MSM outlets on the planet interested in reporting on what CTers claim is obvious evidence of an inside job?

Better get out that Magic 8-Ball and give it a good shake...

tanabear

7th March 2008, 07:52 PM

Sorry Tanabear I'm going to have to say you're somewhat wrong on this. Yes a good amount of the media today is debate and argument, but regarding the "important information in regards to 9/11", there is none. It's all speculation. When you have one guy claiming that the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition but you have on the other hand 10x more experts on the other side said it was not, who are they going to believe? You can't go to the media with speculation and rumors, you can't report on that. If that were true, we would all be in the news.

There is no important information in regards to 9/11? When I stated that the media had reported important information in regards to 9/11, I was not necessarily referencing the claims made by the 9/11 Truth Movement vs. those defending the official 9/11 story. I merely meant that the media reported important information and most people, including those in the media are unaware of it. For instance, supposed hijacker Khalid Almihdhar obtains a multiple entry US visa in April of 1999. On his way to the big Al-Qaeda confab in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in early January of 2000, the CIA knows who he is and that he has a US visa, but no action is taken in reporting this to relevant agencies. Shouldn't John O'Neil have received this information? He is not placed on a watch list until a couple of weeks before the attacks, and it is only for international fligts.

What was the purpose of the Visa Express Program with Saudi Arabia and why didn't George Bush want to end it after 9/11? Five of the supposed hijackers got their visa through this program; Khalid Almihdhar, Abdulaziz Alomari, Salem Alhazmi, Saeed Alghamdi, and Fayez Ahmed Banihammad. Once again, why didn't the impetus come from the WhiteHouse to end this program? No good answers have been forthcoming.

Horse manure. The BBC has made a detailed documentary on 911 conspiracy theories, as has the history channel. Popular mechanics has written a book about the subject. Mainstream magazines and newspapers has written about the truth movement (off the top of my head, The Guardian, The UK Independent, Time, Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair) . Truthers heckle and press copies of their "documentaries" into journalists and media workers hands.

Er at least two of the shows you mentioned have had truthers on the show, so claiming that they are ignorant of the truth movement's claims is clearly nonsense.

Yes, there have been some documentaries regarding 9/11. That does not mean that most people in the media are that aware of all the issues. Being aware of the claims made by the 9/11 Truth Movement and having a detailed knowledge of specific events are two separate issues. For example, I am aware of the claim that the mob knocked off Jimmy Hoffa, but I know nothing about the details of the case and therefore cannot make a good judgement when people present alternate theories.

When James Fetzer was on the O'Reilly Factor it was basically O'Reilly yelling and casting dispersions at Fetzer. It was not even a heated debate, just an O'Reilly yelling session. Nevertheless, it was entertaining to watch. :)

8den

8th March 2008, 06:41 AM

Yes, there have been some documentaries regarding 9/11.

There have been detailed documentaries and articles. Hell South Park has tackled the issue,.

That does not mean that most people in the media are that aware of all the issues. Being aware of the claims made by the 9/11 Truth Movement and having a detailed knowledge of specific events are two separate issues. For example, I am aware of the claim that the mob knocked off Jimmy Hoffa, but I know nothing about the details of the case and therefore cannot make a good judgement when people present alternate theories.

So essentially you're ignorant about one issue, ergo the majority of media workers are ignorant about the claims of the truth movement.

Thats an argument from ignorance. A really asinine one at that.

When James Fetzer was on the O'Reilly Factor it was basically O'Reilly yelling and casting dispersions at Fetzer. It was not even a heated debate, just an O'Reilly yelling session. Nevertheless, it was entertaining to watch. :)

Great so you admit that truthers and their claims have entered the MSM's radar, how you can then claim that the majority of people in the media are unaware of truther claims is mind boggling.

Brainache

8th March 2008, 12:24 PM

Here's another example of the MSM ignoring 9/11. From yesterday's paper (Sydney Morning Herald. A broadsheet):

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/they-knew-but-did-nothing/2008/03/07/1204780065676.html

ETA:
"She'd lost credibility with me," he said. The question among the Democratic commissioners was whether anybody would be brave enough to go public to question Rice's competence and her honesty.

Much as the staff felt beaten down by Zelikow, so did the other Democratic commissioners. By the end, they had given up the fight to document the more serious failures of Bush, Rice, and others in the Administration in the months before September. Zelikow would never have permitted it. Nor, they realised, would Kean and Hamilton. The Democrats hoped the public would read through the report and understand that September 11 did not have to happen - that if the Bush Administration had been more aggressive in dealing with the threats flooding into the White House from January 2001 through to September 10, 2001, the plot could have been foiled. The Clinton administration could not duck blame for having failed to stop bin Laden before 2001.

But what had happened in the White House in the first eight months of George Bush's presidency had all but guaranteed that 19 young Arab men with little more than pocket knives, a few cans of mace, and a misunderstanding of the tenets of Islam could bring the US to its knees.

applecorped

8th March 2008, 01:39 PM

Hello all! I have finally signed up and I wanted to thank all of the truly sincere posters who have actually attempted to explain points using logic and truth (sorry Lastchild - this leaves you out). Yesterday (3/7/08) a local radio station played host to Daniel Sunjata, from the tv show Rescue Me. He completely buys into CT regarding the Pentagon and CD. It was excruciating to listen to. I couldn't help but email the host and recommend that he visit this site before he allows more guests like that on his show. I look forward to more thoughtful discussions but it seems that there are few due to CT's complete inability to be thoughtful and honest. Keep up the good work for those of you that actually do it. For CT's, good luck, one day, hopefully, you will grow out of it before you do real harm.

T.A.M.

8th March 2008, 01:40 PM

Welcome to the forum applecorped.

TAM:)

applecorped

8th March 2008, 01:41 PM

Thank you T.A.M. - I have enjoyed your posts very much.

TheRedWorm

8th March 2008, 01:42 PM

Welcome to the forum, applecorped!

applecorped

8th March 2008, 01:44 PM

Thank you very much TheRedWorm!!

tanabear

8th March 2008, 02:17 PM

There have been detailed documentaries and articles. Hell South Park has tackled the issue,.

So essentially you're ignorant about one issue, ergo the majority of media workers are ignorant about the claims of the truth movement.

Thats an argument from ignorance. A really asinine one at that.

Great so you admit that truthers and their claims have entered the MSM's radar, how you can then claim that the majority of people in the media are unaware of truther claims is mind boggling.

Sure, South Park is certainly the thing to watch if you want to be informed about the events surrounding 9/11. There are all kinds of documentaries on televison. The fact that there have been a couple about 9/11 does not mean that most people in the media have seen them. Yes, most people in the media might be aware that there is a 9/11 Truth Movement, this is different than having the highly specific knowledge required to evaluate certain assertions. Most people in the media are probably aware of the Battle of Gettysburg. However, very few would be able to describe the battle in any real detail. Before the War in Iraq almost everyone in the media was aware of the claims made by the Administration that Saddam was stockpiling and producing WMD. But very few had the level of knowledge required to evaluate those claims. The same is true of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The media is aware that there is a Truth Movement, but largely ignorant when it comes to the details.

Brainache

8th March 2008, 02:21 PM

Sure, South Park is certainly the thing to watch if you you want to be informed about the events surrounding 9/11. There are all kinds of documentaties on televison. The fact that there have been a couple about 9/11 does not mean that most people in the media have seen them. Yes, most people in the media might be aware that there is a 9/11 Truth Movement, this is different than having the highly specific knowledge required to evaluate certain assertions. Most people in the media are probably aware of the Battle of Gettysburg. However, very few would be able to describe the battle in any real detail. Before the War in Iraq almost everyone in the media was aware of the claims made by the Administration that Saddam was stockpiling and producing WMD. But very few had the level of knowledge required to evaluate those claims. The same is true of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The media is aware there is a Truth Movement, but largely ignorant when it comes to the details.

That would be because they judge the basic premise to be hopelessly flawed and see no need to investigate further.

DGM

8th March 2008, 02:26 PM

Sure, South Park is certainly the thing to watch if you want to be informed about the events surrounding 9/11. There are all kinds of documentaries on televison. The fact that there have been a couple about 9/11 does not mean that most people in the media have seen them. Yes, most people in the media might be aware that there is a 9/11 Truth Movement, this is different than having the highly specific knowledge required to evaluate certain assertions. Most people in the media are probably aware of the Battle of Gettysburg. However, very few would be able to describe the battle in any real detail. Before the War in Iraq almost everyone in the media was aware of the claims made by the Administration that Saddam was stockpiling and producing WMD. But very few had the level of knowledge required to evaluate those claims. The same is true of the 9/11 Truth Movement. The media is aware that there is a Truth Movement, but largely ignorant when it comes to the details.

You mean paranoid?

8den

8th March 2008, 04:46 PM

T.A.M.

8th March 2008, 04:51 PM

8den:

What is Burke's book like? I am finishing up the final 50 pages of "The Looming Tower", and found it to be an excellent read, and resource.

TAM:)

8den

8th March 2008, 05:16 PM

8den:

What is Burke's book like? I am finishing up the final 50 pages of "The Looming Tower", and found it to be an excellent read, and resource.

TAM:)

It's honestly stunning. It demolishes the concept of Al Q as an organisation like some Muslim "sceptre" or "creep". Osama Bin Laden is someone who is protrayed as a propaganda expert. While at the same time the detail of the evidence available to Burke about the terrorists and his understanding of the Taliban is, it's, well breathtaking.

As I have mentioned I regularly work with journalists with intense first hand knowledge of the middle east, Jason Bourke's detailed knowledge of the middle east and Afghanistan is, well wow.

Tanabear claims that journalists are ignorant of the facts of the truth movement, he shouls read Jason's book and understand the depth of knowledge of a single journalist well versed in the region.

Magenta

8th March 2008, 07:32 PM

Here's another example of the MSM ignoring 9/11. From yesterday's paper (Sydney Morning Herald. A broadsheet):

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/they-knew-but-did-nothing/2008/03/07/1204780065676.html

ETA:

Saw that. Some of the truthers on 911oz.com were getting excited about it. Their reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired.

Dave Rogers

9th March 2008, 01:11 AM

You do realise that there are news outlets beyond commercial network news bulletins, don't you? There are broadsheet newspapers and publicly funded broadcasters etc.

Yes I do realize that. But I thought this was about the Mainstream Media.

No. That post I was replying to assumed all I meant by mainstream media was commercial network news bulletins. I never said that.

Can't even follow your own posts? You confirmed that in your opinion mainstream media didn't include broadsheets.

Dave

Architect

9th March 2008, 03:50 AM

Let me give you an example of just how ludicrous the "evil mainstream media" argument really is.

This book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/War-Truth-Neil-Mackay/dp/1904684157) was published by the Sunday Herald. The Herald is Scotland's biggest selling broadsheet and about as mainstream as they come. In it the author concludes:

The War on Truth reveals what the UK's spies really make of the war and Tony Blair; how Blair could be legally impeached; how the torture of Iraqis was sanctioned at the very highest levels; how the media manipulated the west into support for the war; how the allies used WMD against the people of Iraq; how two secret spying units were set up by the British and Americans to lie to the public about the threat from Saddam; how the invasion of Iraq was dreamed up by the Bush team long before they took over the White House; and how the US and UK tried to destroy whistleblowers who attempted to expose the lies of the two administrations.

Now how does this square against the "media keeping stuhm" thesis?

:boggled:

funk de fino

9th March 2008, 04:17 AM

The first truthers I came across on sites tried to claim the old hijackers still alive point by posting 5 or 6 quotes from the BBC and The Guardian.

Then two posts later accused me of being brainwashed by the MSM

Then denied using the words brainwashed even though it was there for all to see

Every truther I have met or came across, away from here, has been very un-intelligent. The intelligent ones on here have always seemed nuts.

T.A.M.

9th March 2008, 06:18 AM

It's honestly stunning. It demolishes the concept of Al Q as an organisation like some Muslim "sceptre" or "creep". Osama Bin Laden is someone who is protrayed as a propaganda expert. While at the same time the detail of the evidence available to Burke about the terrorists and his understanding of the Taliban is, it's, well breathtaking.

As I have mentioned I regularly work with journalists with intense first hand knowledge of the middle east, Jason Bourke's detailed knowledge of the middle east and Afghanistan is, well wow.

Tanabear claims that journalists are ignorant of the facts of the truth movement, he shouls read Jason's book and understand the depth of knowledge of a single journalist well versed in the region.

The Looming tower also exposes the things I have bolded above. It also gives great detail as to how Al-Qaeda evolved.

I think I will pick up Burke's Book.

Thanks.

TAM:)

tanabear

10th March 2008, 01:25 PM

Again another asinine "I'm ignorant ergo other people are ignorant. *

Tala care to tel me, as someone who's a mainstream media worker, what facts I'm missing about 911 that would change my mind.

Incidently I've finished Imperial Life in the Emerald City and Jason Burke's Book "Al Qaeda" so I'd like to know your opinions on the Us Adminstration in the Green Zone and your Opinoin on Al Qaeda

Where did I say that I was ignorant, therefore other people are ignorant? My only point was that there is a difference between being aware of a claim and having detailed knowledge regarding an issue. Most people in the MSM are simply not well informed regarding international affairs in general. There are several prominent journalists who have raised questions over 9/11. Robert Fisk stated that he questioned the truth behind 9/11. Former CIA officer Robert Baer also has lingering questions. Peter Lance who has researched 9/11 also favors a new investigation. This does not mean that these individuals are part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, they just acknowledge that there are many things we don't know. Peter Lance has stated,

"There’s no doubt in my mind that the 9/11 Commission Report was a whitewash. It’s well documented in Cover Up."

It should also be noted that Peter Lance believes that the TWA Flight 800 disaster was an act of terrorism, not an accident. Does this make him a conspiracy theorist as well?

abenja1

10th March 2008, 02:35 PM

I guess the MSM which is working with the gov't must've by accident let out that Spitzer was involved in a prostitution ring :rolleyes:

Drudgewire

10th March 2008, 02:44 PM

It should also be noted that Peter Lance believes that the TWA Flight 800 disaster was an act of terrorism, not an accident. Does this make him a conspiracy theorist as well?
Yes.

And yet he (like most of the people twoofers point out "want further investigation") doesn't buy into any of the 9/11 CTs. Tell you anything?

johnny karate

10th March 2008, 04:25 PM

Where did I say that I was ignorant, therefore other people are ignorant? My only point was that there is a difference between being aware of a claim and having detailed knowledge regarding an issue. Most people in the MSM are simply not well informed regarding international affairs in general. There are several prominent journalists who have raised questions over 9/11. Robert Fisk stated that he questioned the truth behind 9/11. Former CIA officer Robert Baer also has lingering questions. Peter Lance who has researched 9/11 also favors a new investigation. This does not mean that these individuals are part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, they just acknowledge that there are many things we don't know. Peter Lance has stated,

"There’s no doubt in my mind that the 9/11 Commission Report was a whitewash. It’s well documented in Cover Up."

Then why aren't any of these people actually doing any kind of investigation?

CTers just love to point to this person or that person who "questions" the events of 9/11, and yet can't seem to provide anyone who has done anything remotely substantial to have those "questions" answered.

But back to the subject at hand, to claim that journalists, of all people, might be ignorant regarding the details of single biggest news story of the last 50 years is beyond preposterous. It is a journalist's job to be informed, so that he or she may then in turn inform the public.

And by the way, if you truly believe that assertion, there's a quick and easy fix. Just start e-mailing all the information you have compiled regarding an inside job to every major MSM outlet in the world.

Of course, when they all uniformly ignore it, you'll have to drop the "ignorance" claim, and go back to the 'they're in on it" claim.

8den

10th March 2008, 04:43 PM

Where did I say that I was ignorant, therefore other people are ignorant? My only point was that there is a difference between being aware of a claim and having detailed knowledge regarding an issue. Most people in the MSM are simply not well informed regarding international affairs in general. There are several prominent journalists who have raised questions over 9/11. Robert Fisk stated that he questioned the truth behind 9/11. Former CIA officer Robert Baer also has lingering questions. Peter Lance who has researched 9/11 also favors a new investigation. This does not mean that these individuals are part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, they just acknowledge that there are many things we don't know. Peter Lance has stated,

"There’s no doubt in my mind that the 9/11 Commission Report was a whitewash. It’s well documented in Cover Up."

It should also be noted that Peter Lance believes that the TWA Flight 800 disaster was an act of terrorism, not an accident. Does this make him a conspiracy theorist as well?

Firstly I notice your inability to point to a specific claim, that the mainstream is unaware of about 911. You claim that the MSM is and I quote

The fact that there have been a couple about 9/11 does not mean that most people in the media have seen them. Yes, most people in the media might be aware that there is a 9/11 Truth Movement, this is different than having the highly specific knowledge required to evaluate certain assertions.

Please define what highly specific knowledge is absent in the MSM?

Now onto Fisk. Fisk makes a number of claims, asking "why" certain "anolomies" exist. This is awful journalism. Asking questions without seeking answers from offical and disputed sources. Fisk just displayed the fundamental flaws of his investigation. Just demanding answers is not journalism. Journalism is the reporting of facts.

I've asked you several specific questions tana. Waving at some journalists isn't an answer.

DGM

10th March 2008, 04:55 PM

Please define what highly specific knowledge is absent in the MSM?

Advanced paranoia.:D

tanabear

10th March 2008, 08:31 PM

Yes.

And yet he (like most of the people twoofers point out "want further investigation") doesn't buy into any of the 9/11 CTs. Tell you anything?

Peter Lance favors a new investigation into the massacre of innocents on 9/11. Almost everyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement does as well. It was reported that Peter Lance also believes that WTC7 came down via controlled demolition. However, he stated that it is standard for buildings like that to be pre-wired so top secret information can be rapidly destroyed. So he doesn't think there is anything suspicious about the collapse.

Firstly I notice your inability to point to a specific claim, that the mainstream is unaware of about 911. You claim that the MSM is and I quote

Now onto Fisk. Fisk makes a number of claims, asking "why" certain "anolomies" exist. This is awful journalism. Asking questions without seeking answers from offical and disputed sources. Fisk just displayed the fundamental flaws of his investigation. Just demanding answers is not journalism. Journalism is the reporting of facts.

I've asked you several specific questions tana. Waving at some journalists isn't an answer.

To determine what level of knowledge people in the media have about 9/11, I suppose we would need to give them some kind of pop quiz. Something like the "Jaywalking" segment on the Tonight Show would be interesting.

Jeff Stein of the Congressional Quarterly did ask several Representatives questions to determine their knowledge of the War on Terror.

"Reyes stumbled when I asked him a simple question about al Qaeda at the end of a 40-minute interview in his office last week. Members of the Intelligence Committee, mind you, are paid $165,200 a year to know more than basic facts about our foes in the Middle East."

"Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?

“Al Qaeda, they have both,” Reyes said. “You’re talking about predominately?”

“Sure,” I said, not knowing what else to say.

“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” he ventured.

He couldn’t have been more wrong."

"And Hezbollah? I asked him. What are they?

“Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah...”

He laughed again, shifting in his seat.

“Why do you ask me these questions at five o’clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?”

“Poquito,” I said—a little.

“Poquito?! “ He laughed again.

“Go ahead,” I said, talk to me about Sunnis and Shia in Spanish.

Reyes: “Well, I, uh...”

"That’s more than two key Republicans on the Intelligence Committee knew when I interviewed them last summer. Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., and Terry Everett, R-Ala., both back for another term, were flummoxed by such basic questions, as were several top counterterrorism officials at the FBI."

If top FBI counterterrorism officials don't have this basic knowledge then it is unlikely that the average reporter at most American newspapers will either.

LastChild

10th March 2008, 08:59 PM

Then why aren't any of these people actually doing any kind of investigation?

CTers just love to point to this person or that person who "questions" the events of 9/11, and yet can't seem to provide anyone who has done anything remotely substantial to have those "questions" answered.

But back to the subject at hand, to claim that journalists, of all people, might be ignorant regarding the details of single biggest news story of the last 50 years is beyond preposterous. It is a journalist's job to be informed, so that he or she may then in turn inform the public.

And by the way, if you truly believe that assertion, there's a quick and easy fix. Just start e-mailing all the information you have compiled regarding an inside job to every major MSM outlet in the world.

Of course, when they all uniformly ignore it, you'll have to drop the "ignorance" claim, and go back to the 'they're in on it" claim.

We have an administration that ignore, stonewall, and just plain disrespect, lawfully constituted bodies of Congress whenever it seems convenient for them and you think some reporter is going to do better? All that would accomplish is get their White House press pass revoked. And now what are they supposed to do? Admit they can't do their job?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html
Where’s the follow-up?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_spyring_fox.html
What happened to this story and where’s the follow-up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon
Are there any real reporters even getting close to the White House?

johnny karate

10th March 2008, 09:22 PM

We have an administration that ignore, stonewall, and just plain disrespect, lawfully constituted bodies of Congress whenever it seems convenient for them and you think some reporter is going to do better? All that would accomplish is get their White House press pass revoked. And now what are they supposed to do? Admit they can't do their job?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html
Where’s the follow-up?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_spyring_fox.html
What happened to this story and where’s the follow-up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon
Are there any real reporters even getting close to the White House?

What makes you think journalists have to go through the White House to break this story? Did Woodward and Bernstein get a confession from Nixon? Did Governor Spitzer show up at the offices of The New York Times, and say, "Excuse me, but I'm involved in a prostitution ring. Just thought you'd like to know."?

It's called investigative journalism for a reason.

Besides, you keep pretending that your movement doesn't claim to already have the evidence to prove an inside job.

Why aren't any MSM outlets knocking down the doors of Steven Jones or David Ray Griffin to get a hold of this evidence and then break what might be the most important news story ever?

(And just so you know, LastChild, your constant linking to MSM outlets reporting on the very stories you claim they don't cover in the very same posts where you make this claim kind of undercuts the point you're struggling to make.)

Brainache

10th March 2008, 11:15 PM

peteweaver

11th March 2008, 01:29 AM

My personal view is that the media is driven primarily by ratings and advertising.

Explain the British Broadcasting Corporation, which is a publicly owned media corporation which has such strict rules against advertising, presenters of its flagship childrens TV programme Blue Peter are not permitted to say Sellotape, or Blu Tack. The original version of Lola by the Kinks was banned from Radio One because of a reference to coca cola (a reference which was changed to Cherry Cola to get airplay).

As a tv licence payer, the BBC is partly mine.

LastChild

11th March 2008, 05:42 AM

Explain the British Broadcasting Corporation, which is a publicly owned media corporation which has such strict rules against advertising, presenters of its flagship childrens TV programme Blue Peter are not permitted to say Sellotape, or Blu Tack. The original version of Lola by the Kinks was banned from Radio One because of a reference to coca cola (a reference which was changed to Cherry Cola to get airplay).

As a tv licence payer, the BBC is partly mine.

Explain to me what it is they would have access to and what they would have to report when the 9/11 commission couldn't even get the powers that be to comply.

LastChild

11th March 2008, 05:43 AM

What makes you think journalists have to go through the White House to break this story? Did Woodward and Bernstein get a confession from Nixon? Did Governor Spitzer show up at the offices of The New York Times, and say, "Excuse me, but I'm involved in a prostitution ring. Just thought you'd like to know."?

It's called investigative journalism for a reason.

Besides, you keep pretending that your movement doesn't claim to already have the evidence to prove an inside job.

Why aren't any MSM outlets knocking down the doors of Steven Jones or David Ray Griffin to get a hold of this evidence and then break what might be the most important news story ever?

(And just so you know, LastChild, your constant linking to MSM outlets reporting on the very stories you claim they don't cover in the very same posts where you make this claim kind of undercuts the point you're struggling to make.)

You're dodging. Where's the follow-up?

LastChild

11th March 2008, 05:51 AM

So we're back to the "Journalists are scared of losing their jobs" argument again?

You think breaking the news scoop of the century is going to hurt a reporter's career?

I can't begin to tell you just how far off the mark your argument is.

http://www.beloblog.com/ProJo_Blogs/newsblog/archives/2007/06/post_939.html
Reporter's press pass revoked by Bush staff

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/06/white_house_thr.html
White House threatens to yank credentials from journalists who publish pics of new briefing room

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDVhYWQzMmQ3YWRlNzFkYjRmZmY4ZTQzZmUwZjJhZjI=
President Bush, who said on Monday morning that the exposure “does great harm to the United States of America,” must demand that the New York Times pay a price for its costly, arrogant defiance. The administration should withdraw the newspaper’s White House press credentials because this privilege has been so egregiously abused, and an aggressive investigation should be undertaken to identify and prosecute, at a minimum, the government officials who have leaked national-defense information.

Next

chillzero

11th March 2008, 06:08 AM

Firstly, I don't see anyone losing their jobs or livelihopod here.

http://www.beloblog.com/ProJo_Blogs/newsblog/archives/2007/06/post_939.html
Reporter's press pass revoked by Bush staff

Silly reporter ignores warning gesture from member of entourage while Bush is busy with someone else, and continues to rudely shout at him.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/06/white_house_thr.html
White House threatens to yank credentials from journalists who publish pics of new briefing room

White House applies results of ignoring no-go areas, and tries to prevent leaking of images before they break the story themselves. Also trying to assist the workmen who are trying to work but being interrupted by idiot reporters getting in where they aren't supposed to be.

We'd a similar thing in the UK last week, when a stupid american reporter broke a story the press had already agreed to hold until a specific date. That resulted in disruption to army deployment, and meant that Prince Harry had to return home from assignment before his time for the safety and security of his regiment.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDVhYWQzMmQ3YWRlNzFkYjRmZmY4ZTQzZmUwZjJhZjI=
President Bush, who said on Monday morning that the exposure “does great harm to the United States of America,” must demand that the New York Times pay a price for its costly, arrogant defiance. The administration should withdraw the newspaper’s White House press credentials because this privilege has been so egregiously abused, and an aggressive investigation should be undertaken to identify and prosecute, at a minimum, the government officials who have leaked national-defense information.

Next

White House applies results of repeatedly ignoring instruction not to share certain information with the people who can use it. A system is put in place to help track terrorists - you don't go and tell the terrorists how it all works so they can avoid detection.

None of those are unreasonable blackout requests, and none have resulted in a loss of job for any of the MSM.

Newtons Bit

11th March 2008, 06:28 AM

LastChild

11th March 2008, 07:20 AM

Firstly, I don't see anyone losing their jobs or livelihopod here. Silly reporter ignores warning gesture from member of entourage while Bush is busy with someone else, and continues to rudely shout at him.

Yes silly reporter must have forgot his place.

White House applies results of ignoring no-go areas, and tries to prevent leaking of images before they break the story themselves. Also trying to assist the workmen who are trying to work but being interrupted by idiot reporters getting in where they aren't supposed to be.

Or they used it to get the reporters in line and set the tone. Establishing the parent child relationship.

We'd a similar thing in the UK last week, when a stupid american reporter broke a story the press had already agreed to hold until a specific date. That resulted in disruption to army deployment, and meant that Prince Harry had to return home from assignment before his time for the safety and security of his regiment.

We don't have Prince's in the US. Maybe someone needs to fill Dubya in.

White House applies results of repeatedly ignoring instruction not to share certain information with the people who can use it. A system is put in place to help track terrorists - you don't go and tell the terrorists how it all works so they can avoid detection. None of those are unreasonable blackout requests, and none have resulted in a loss of job for any of the MSM.

This doesn't surprise me coming from a JREF moderator. So is it all just my imagination?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_and_the_press
Bush administration and the press
"More than any other White House in history, Bush's has tried to starve, mock, weaken, bypass, devalue, intimidate, and deceive the press, using tactics far more toxic than any prose devised in the name of Spiro Agnew," David Remnick commented July 3, 2006, in The New Yorker.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050509/alterman
Bush's War on the Press
Make no mistake: The Bush Administration and its ideological allies are employing every means available to undermine journalists' ability to exercise their First Amendment function to hold power accountable.

chillzero

11th March 2008, 07:41 AM

Yes silly reporter must have forgot his place.

Indeed he did. Or, are all reporters given free rein to be as rude, loud and obnoxious as they like? All he had to do was wait. As I said - he didn't lose his job over it.

Or they used it to get the reporters in line and set the tone. Establishing the parent child relationship.

Goodness! Getting reporters in line where non-accessible areas are concerned!! Whatever next? Why do any of us have locks on our doors, when clearly reporters should be allowed any old place to get whatever photos they want to regardless of any privacy concerns, or hazards.

Do you think reporters should just be allowed to wander wherever they please, despite potential hazards? Workmen are still actively trying to work there, so do you think the public (which is basically what the reporters are in this instance) should wander about through a working area? Additionally, I am certain that workmen may be entitled to certain protection of their identity when working somewhere like the whitehouse.

In any case, I see no loss of jobs. I see a specific rule being put in place, and warnings given about the repurcussions of violating that rule.

We don't have Prince's in the US. Maybe someone needs to fill Dubya in.

That's a stupid thing to say. The world's press where given access to a very big story, on the agreement that they withold the informaiton about a specific regiment's location until the regiment was away fromt hat location. This was a matter of security, and potentially life and death for his regiment, and major upheaval in the UK should anything happen to him. Reporters aren't above the law, and aren't supposed to make agreements with no intention of upholding them. True reporters wouldn't have endangered a regiment in this fashion just for a story. Only scum would do that. That reporter should have lost his job for leaking that information, and as far as I know, that's not happened. So again - nothing to uphold your little fantasy.

This doesn't surprise me coming from a JREF moderator. So is it all just my imagination?

Nothing in that post was written as a moderator. I am a member here like you so I fail to see why you feel the need to mention my additional responsibilities.

What doesn't surprise you anyway? That someone would think it inappropriate to dish out information to assist the very people that a security protection system is implemented to identify? That I see nothing in your post to uphold your claim that reporters are in fear of losing their jobs? So yes - perhaps it is your imagination. Can you identify what in those cases led you to believe they were good examples of the MSM being in fear of losing their jobs over breaking stories?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_and_the_press
Bush administration and the press
"More than any other White House in history, Bush's has tried to starve, mock, weaken, bypass, devalue, intimidate, and deceive the press, using tactics far more toxic than any prose devised in the name of Spiro Agnew," David Remnick commented July 3, 2006, in The New Yorker.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050509/alterman
Bush's War on the Press
Make no mistake: The Bush Administration and its ideological allies are employing every means available to undermine journalists' ability to exercise their First Amendment function to hold power accountable.

I see a lot in the way of opinion, and very little in the way of evidence.

8den

11th March 2008, 07:44 AM

Peter Lance favors a new investigation into the massacre of innocents on 9/11. Almost everyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement does as well. It was reported that Peter Lance also believes that WTC7 came down via controlled demolition. However, he stated that it is standard for buildings like that to be pre-wired so top secret information can be rapidly destroyed. So he doesn't think there is anything suspicious about the collapse.

Link for any of the above.

To determine what level of knowledge people in the media have about 9/11, I suppose we would need to give them some kind of pop quiz. Something like the "Jaywalking" segment on the Tonight Show would be interesting.

Jeff Stein of the Congressional Quarterly did ask several Representatives questions to determine their knowledge of the War on Terror.

If top FBI counterterrorism officials don't have this basic knowledge then it is unlikely that the average reporter at most American newspapers will either.

Specious reasoning. Because some congressman doesn't know much about Al Qaeda you cannot claim journalists have the same level of ignorance.

And incidently you may want to get out a globe, see those big blue things on the either side of the US of A. They're called "Oceans". On the far side of them (and indeed if you look up or down) you'll see other Landmasses. They're called "continents". On these Continents, you'll find "other countries". Like the USA only a littel different. But we have our journalists and our newspapers, and TV stations. Many of whom have actually been to places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Claiming that we all share the same level of ignorance is staggering. It's a handy piece of self aggrandising ego massage there Tana; "All these journalists would agree with me, if only they had access to my facts."

Facts I, needlessly to say, you've failed to actually elaborate on.

Disbelief

11th March 2008, 07:56 AM

Cuddles

11th March 2008, 08:16 AM

Explain to me what it is they would have access to and what they would have to report when the 9/11 commission couldn't even get the powers that be to comply.

So the authorities who investigated an event and the media who reported on it don't have any evidence that anything untoward happened, therefore it was a conspiracy. I think I prefer the paranormal woos, at least they pretend to have something.

johnny karate

11th March 2008, 12:34 PM

You're dodging. Where's the follow-up?

I'm not dodging anything. I answered your ridiculous question a while back. But since you seem to comprehension-impaired, once again for the cheap seats: I haven't the faintest idea why these stories didn't have follow-ups.

Nor do I care.

Why should I? And more importantly, what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

You claim that the MSM doesn't cover these stories. Clearly these stories have been covered. Now you want to know why they don't do follow-ups? That's just idiotic.

And speaking of dodging, you still haven't answered my question: Why hasn't a single MSM outlet on the planet reported on the evidence for an inside job that all you CTers claim is so obvious?

LastChild

11th March 2008, 12:56 PM

You claim that the MSM doesn't cover these stories. Clearly these stories have been covered. Now you want to know why they don't do follow-ups? That's just idiotic.

Actually this is what I said back on page one 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."

And speaking of dodging, you still haven't answered my question: Why hasn't a single MSM outlet on the planet reported on the evidence for an inside job that all you CTers claim is so obvious?

I didn't claim any such thing. You need a new pre-fab argument.

johnny karate

11th March 2008, 01:17 PM

http://www.beloblog.com/ProJo_Blogs/newsblog/archives/2007/06/post_939.html
Reporter's press pass revoked by Bush staff

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/06/white_house_thr.html
White House threatens to yank credentials from journalists who publish pics of new briefing room

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDVhYWQzMmQ3YWRlNzFkYjRmZmY4ZTQzZmUwZjJhZjI=
President Bush, who said on Monday morning that the exposure “does great harm to the United States of America,” must demand that the New York Times pay a price for its costly, arrogant defiance. The administration should withdraw the newspaper’s White House press credentials because this privilege has been so egregiously abused, and an aggressive investigation should be undertaken to identify and prosecute, at a minimum, the government officials who have leaked national-defense information.

Next

So your assertion is that all journalism must go through the White House and have the approval of the Bush Administration? And that if any journalist "gets out of line" by reporting something Bush finds inappropriate or unflattering, said journalist is in danger of losing his or her job?

Well, let's see if that thesis holds water.

Here's (http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/090606HICKMAN.html) a rather unflattering op-ed piece, using words like "absurd" and "delusional" to describe Bush's policies in Iraq, that appeared in the Baltimore Chronicle in 2006. Hmm... I guess that one slipped through the cracks.

Here's (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html) a nice little exclusive from Time magazine reporting on the possible indictment of top figures in the Bush Administration, including former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. Last time I checked, Time was still in business.

And here's ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/03/05/BL2005040700999.html) a piece from The Washington Post in 2005 describing the Bush administration's reaction to Hurricane Katrina as "weak and confused" , among other things. Not only is its author Howard Kurtz not hanging by his ankles in some FEMA death camp, but he actually still has his damn job (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/07/DI2008030702326.html)! Man, I hope Bush fired someone that day.

Congratulations, Lastchild! Your streak of wrong remains unbroken and untarnished!

johnny karate

11th March 2008, 01:52 PM

Actually this is what I said back on page one 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."

And you also said this (bolding mine):

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.

I'm not sure how define "avoid", but when a newspaper runs a story about a certain subject, I'd find it a little difficult to say they were avoiding that subject.

And how much more attention do you feel this story needs?

It was covered by the largest, most esteemed newspaper in the country (http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=46b96867Q2FLZX!LjQ60NAfQ60Q60)ELETToLTJLTELQ60d Q7BQ2BQ7BQ60Q2BLTE5XWQ2BY7)Q24r) and they've even published a widely publicized book written by a prominent journalist (http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Uncensored-History-11-Investigation/dp/0446580759/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202653891&sr=8-1).

What more do you want? Maybe have them light off some fireworks and shout "Look at me! Look at me!".

I didn't claim any such thing.

Fair enough. But these guys do:

Link (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8046)

Link (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/031107Baer.htm)

You need a new pre-fab argument.

I still need an answer to my old one.

LastChild

11th March 2008, 02:33 PM

I'm not sure how define "avoid", but when a newspaper runs a story about a certain subject, I'd find it a little difficult to say they were avoiding that subject.

And how much more attention do you feel this story needs?

Several months after 9/11, famed news anchor Dan Rather told the BBC that American reporters were practicing "a form of self-censorship":

"there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around peoples' necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions.... And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism.
"What we are talking about here - whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not - is a form of self-censorship."

As Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski has written…

"I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life.."

Read the rest of it here. (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/10/hit-them-with-truth.html)

Does that define it for you? Man you walked into that one. lol

DGM

11th March 2008, 02:38 PM

Georgewashington blog? Are you [rule10]ing me?

LastChild

11th March 2008, 02:42 PM

So your assertion is that all journalism must go through the White House and have the approval of the Bush Administration? And that if any journalist "gets out of line" by reporting something Bush finds inappropriate or unflattering, said journalist is in danger of losing his or her job?

Well, let's see if that thesis holds water.

Here's (http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/090606HICKMAN.html) a rather unflattering op-ed piece, using words like "absurd" and "delusional" to describe Bush's policies in Iraq, that appeared in the Baltimore Chronicle in 2006. Hmm... I guess that one slipped through the cracks.

He's just reporting the obvious. Nothing uncovered there. Does he even have a white house press pass?

Here's (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html) a nice little exclusive from Time magazine reporting on the possible indictment of top figures in the Bush Administration, including former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. Last time I checked, Time was still in business.

Was someone from the administration indicted for this? What kind of case are you trying to make here johnny?

And here's ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/03/05/BL2005040700999.html) a piece from The Washington Post in 2005 describing the Bush administration's reaction to Hurricane Katrina as "weak and confused" , among other things. Not only is its author Howard Kurtz not hanging by his ankles in some FEMA death camp, but he actually still has his damn job (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/07/DI2008030702326.html)! Man, I hope Bush fired someone that day.

Well he really uncovered something there huh? The administration is "weak and confused". Who would have ever guessed that? I hope he won a Pulitzer for that brilliant insight.

LastChild

11th March 2008, 02:44 PM

Georgewashington blog? Are you [rule10]ing me?

I'm sorry are they not part of the respectable Mass Media? lol

Alferd_Packer

11th March 2008, 02:52 PM

I'm sorry are they not part of the respectable Mass Media? lol

Respect has to be earned.

For a jounalist, fair, accurate and unbiased reporting of the facts.

all of which GeorgeWashington blog lacks in abundance.

DGM

11th March 2008, 02:52 PM

Answering a question with a question again? Is that how you got your screen name? No Georgewashingtons blog is not main anything.

dudalb

11th March 2008, 03:38 PM

Answering a question with a question again? Is that how you got your screen name? No Georgewashingtons blog is not main anything.

The Father Of Our Country is turning in over in his grave at Mt. Vernon at the misuse of his good name by truther crackpots.

johnny karate

11th March 2008, 04:13 PM

Read the rest of it here. (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/10/hit-them-with-truth.html)

Does that define it for you? Man you walked into that one. lol

So your response to me completely obliterating the points you made is to link to a CTer blog that agrees with those points? Genius.

Try to keep up here, sparky: You claimed the MSM "avoids" controversial 9/11 stories. I demonstrated this to be untrue, using Keane's editorial and Shenon's book as examples.

Link to as many blogs as you want. You're still wrong.

johnny karate

11th March 2008, 04:25 PM

He's just reporting the obvious. Nothing uncovered there. Does he even have a white house press pass?

Was someone from the administration indicted for this? What kind of case are you trying to make here johnny?

Well he really uncovered something there huh? The administration is "weak and confused". Who would have ever guessed that? I hope he won a Pulitzer for that brilliant insight.

Once again, you fail to follow the discussion.

You claimed the the Bush administration both stonewalled and perhaps threatened any journalists that dared cover stories unfavorable to them as a response to why no MSM outlets cover 9/11 inside job stories.

I demonstrated that not only does the Bush administration lack the ability to stonewall investigative journalism (not all reporters are members of the White House Press Corps, sport), but that MSM outlets are more than happy to cover stories that cast the Bush administration in a negative light, and have done so many, many times without retribution. The content of those stories is entirely immaterial.

Once again, you have been proven wrong.

And it should be noted that you insist on focusing on the U.S. media, while ignoring the fact that MSM outlets worldwide are perfectly content to complete disregard your silly movement. Care to offer an explanation for that?

LastChild

11th March 2008, 05:19 PM

Respect has to be earned.

For a jounalist, fair, accurate and unbiased reporting of the facts.

all of which GeorgeWashington blog lacks in abundance.

Is there something inaccurate about those quotes that you know of? Any of them?

LastChild

11th March 2008, 05:29 PM

Once again, you fail to follow the discussion.

You claimed the the Bush administration both stonewalled and perhaps threatened any journalists that dared cover stories unfavorable to them as a response to why no MSM outlets cover 9/11 inside job stories.

I demonstrated that not only does the Bush administration lack the ability to stonewall investigative journalism (not all reporters are members of the White House Press Corps, sport), but that MSM outlets are more than happy to cover stories that cast the Bush administration in a negative light, and have done so many, many times without retribution. The content of those stories is entirely immaterial.

Once again, you have been proven wrong.

And it should be noted that you insist on focusing on the U.S. media, while ignoring the fact that MSM outlets worldwide are perfectly content to complete disregard your silly movement. Care to offer an explanation for that?

And one again you fail reading comprehension. And somehow every time you fail to comprehend if favors you being able to steer the conversation to support the fantasy you have built up in your delusional little brain.

I said they stonewalled a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress, so what chance does a reporter have to get a story out of them. I also showed how they employ male escorts to ask the president softball questions. That story right there hasn’t really been followed up on has it? I also showed where the administration has tried to send a message by threatening to revoke white house press passes.

Don’t paraphrase me again with your nonsense. It’s pathetic.

BTW if the truth movement is just a fantasy that no one buys into what are you doing here? Care to offer an explanation for that waste of life?

Uzzy

11th March 2008, 05:40 PM

On May 29, 2003, BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan reported on the Radio 4 programme the Today Show in which he stated that an unnamed source - a senior British official - had told him that the September Dossier, which was one of the main basis's of the British Government's argument for the War in Iraq, had been "sexed up", and that the intelligence agencies were concerned about some "dubious" information contained within it - specifically the claim that Saddam Hussain could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to use them.

Later, in a major national newspaper the Mail on Sunday, Andrew Gilligan expanded this claim by saying that the government's minister for communications, Alistair Campbell, had inserted the 45 minute claim over the wishes of the intelligence community. Campbell denied this, and demanded an apology. However, the BBC stood by it's story.

The 45 Minute claim was used extensively in the press at the time, with the Sun newspaper carrying the headline 'Brits 45 Mins from Doom'. I remember reading it and being shocked by the claim. Heck, I believed it.

So, the BBC here were running a story that stated that the British Government was 'spinning' intelligence documents that were being used as the rational for going to war. The BBC was willing to stand by it's story, which accused the British Government of playing with the lives of British servicemen, and all those other nasty things.

With that in mind, why wouldn't the BBC publish information on 9/11 being an inside job, if they had any? They have always been willing to defy government orders when the public interest demands it, and I'm sure that any proof of 9/11 being an inside job would count.

WildCat

11th March 2008, 05:43 PM

I said they stonewalled a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress, so what chance does a reporter have to get a story out of them.
What has prevented reporters from digging into the story, exactly? And how do you know about this, if it has all been stonewalled?

I also showed how they employ male escorts to ask the president softball questions. That story right there hasn’t really been followed up on has it?
What percentage of questions asked of Bush have been by male escorts employed by "them"?

I also showed where the administration has tried to send a message by threatening to revoke white house press passes.
What prevented any of the 99.99% of reporters without White House press passes from asking questions?

BTW if the truth movement is just a fantasy that no one buys into what are you doing here? Care to offer an explanation for that waste of life?
Because you guys are amusing. Like watching a dog chase its tail around.

LastChild

11th March 2008, 05:43 PM

LastChild

11th March 2008, 06:03 PM

What has prevented reporters from digging into the story, exactly? And how do you know about this, if it has all been stonewalled?

Who has information about 9/11 and has been candid with that information? Kean says they were stonewalled. Kean says the investigation was obstructed. What information can a reporter dig up that a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress couldn't get?

What percentage of questions asked of Bush have been by male escorts employed by "them"?

I don't know. Have they all been found out? How would you know? Isn't one just one too many? What percentage of male escorts given press passes to the White House is a reasonable percentage? Who has access to check under Dubya's bed? Or at least Karl’s? Is it Lincolns room Karl stays in? Does he have many friends over? Do they all have press passes? Wow. That’s what I call a GOP.

The Debunker legitimate Mass Media…

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:7F2COJUKhm58AM:http://fruitfly.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/jeff-gannon.jpg

What prevented any of the 99.99% of reporters without White House press passes from asking questions?

What percentage does Dubya answer at all? What percentage does Dubya answer correctly? What percentage does Dubya answer truthfully? Do we have any percentage left?

Because you guys are amusing. Like watching a dog chase its tail around

You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little messed up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny? No, no, I don't know, you said it. How do I know? You said I'm funny. How am I funny, what is so funny about me? Tell me, tell me what's funny!

PhantomWolf

11th March 2008, 06:08 PM

One of our stations actually played the awful "In Plane Sight" and interviewed a CT on the national news last September 11. Funnily enough dispte this I haven't seen them break the news of 9/11 being an inside job either.

DavidJames

11th March 2008, 06:11 PM

You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little messed up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny? No, no, I don't know, you said it. How do I know? You said I'm funny. How am I funny, what is so funny about me? Tell me, tell me what's funny!Please consider professional help. Or if you are already under professional care, return to taking your medicine.

Refrain from handling sharp objects and please understand this. The NWO does know who you are and where you live. They also know what you read and watch when you think you are being secretive. Also, you should hide those "special" drawings of yours in a better place.

Okay, I'll return to just watching you post, because you are a funny young man, not in a "ha ha" sort of way, however.

johnny karate

11th March 2008, 07:21 PM

I said they stonewalled a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress, so what chance does a reporter have to get a story out of them.

And I've told you multiple times: All journalism roads do not lead through the White House. The MSM doesn't need to get information from the Bush administration to do a story about them.

Any assumption that they must has already been countered by the stories I have linked that cast the Bush administration in negative light. If they were truly filtering the media to their benefit, none of those stories would have ever run.

I also showed how they employ male escorts to ask the president softball questions. That story right there hasn’t really been followed up on has it? I also showed where the administration has tried to send a message by threatening to revoke white house press passes.

And I've shown you that despite your claims to the contrary, the media is more than willing to present Bush and his administration unfavorably. All this blustering about "revoked press passes" doesn't change that fact.

Speaking of which, can we just let the whole press pass thing drop already? As has been pointed out to you by myself and others many times, there exists journalism outside of the White House Press Corps. It's stupid to keep claiming that journalists won't cover 9/11 stories for fear of losing their press passes when the majority don't even have them.

And I notice you still haven't addressed the issue of the worldwide MSM which isn't anymore interested in reporting on the supposed inside job than the U.S. media. Do you suppose they're afraid Bush will revoke their press passes, too?

PhantomWolf

11th March 2008, 07:50 PM

Do you suppose they're afraid Bush will revoke their press passes, too?

He's too busy complimenting them on their suits to revoke their press passes......

UuCqtAvECvQ

Dave Rogers

12th March 2008, 02:14 AM

Read the rest of it here. (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/10/hit-them-with-truth.html)

If you actually follow the link from the blog to the BBC, there are two points to note here.

(1) Dan Rather isn't talking about 9-11 as such, he's talking about the media being insufficiently critical of the Bush administration over the War on Terror. The implication that there is some sort of media conspiracy of silence over the events of 9-11 is completely unfounded despite the dishonest implication in the blog.

(2) Dan Rather is talking about this to one of the most widely distributed and well-respected news organisations on the fricking planet! Some conspiracy of silence.

Dave

Dave Rogers

12th March 2008, 02:18 AM

Do they have information of an inside job?

No, it's clear from the Conspiracy Files documentary that the BBC has never considered the possibility of 9-11 being an inside job and indeed has never even heard of the 9-11 truth movement.

Sheesh.

Dave

Uzzy

12th March 2008, 02:28 AM

No, it's clear from the Conspiracy Files documentary that the BBC has never considered the possibility of 9-11 being an inside job and indeed has never even heard of the 9-11 truth movement.

As the whole 'Dodgy Dossier' issue showed, the BBC is quite willing and able to take on governments over important matters.

So. Does the BBC have the resources to investigate 9/11? Yes.

Does the BBC have the willingness to defy Governments? Yes.

Does the BBC have the willingness to publish stories that are critical of the Bush Government? Yes.

Does the BBC care about advertising? No.

Does the BBC care about ratings? Yes, but I think that proof of a 9/11 inside job would send it's ratings through the roof, and melt down the BBC news website under the weight of hits. The BBC and the journalist who filed the story would go down as heroes.

Does the BBC need to worry about funding afterwards? No. It's paid for by the public.

Essentially the BBC has the means and the willingness to show that 9/11 was an inside job. If they had proof. They don't, because there isn't any. That is the only conclusion one can draw from this.

johnny karate

12th March 2008, 02:51 AM

Excellent post, Uzzy.

And welcome to the forums!

funk de fino

12th March 2008, 05:06 AM

What's it called when a sock acts even more dumbass than their original profile?

Brainache

12th March 2008, 05:19 AM

As the whole 'Dodgy Dossier' issue showed, the BBC is quite willing and able to take on governments over important matters.

So. Does the BBC have the resources to investigate 9/11? Yes.

Does the BBC have the willingness to defy Governments? Yes.

Does the BBC have the willingness to publish stories that are critical of the Bush Government? Yes.

Does the BBC care about advertising? No.

Does the BBC care about ratings? Yes, but I think that proof of a 9/11 inside job would send it's ratings through the roof, and melt down the BBC news website under the weight of hits. The BBC and the journalist who filed the story would go down as heroes.

Does the BBC need to worry about funding afterwards? No. It's paid for by the public.

Essentially the BBC has the means and the willingness to show that 9/11 was an inside job. If they had proof. They don't, because there isn't any. That is the only conclusion one can draw from this.

Yes. UZZY you appear to have hit the nail on the head. Well done and welcome.

Any response to this Lastchild?

Take your time, think it through.... we'll all be waiting...

Disbelief

12th March 2008, 06:05 AM

What's it called when a sock acts even more dumbass than their original profile?

Out of medication?

LastChild

12th March 2008, 12:22 PM

As the whole 'Dodgy Dossier' issue showed, the BBC is quite willing and able to take on governments over important matters.

So. Does the BBC have the resources to investigate 9/11? Yes.

Does the BBC have the willingness to defy Governments? Yes.

Does the BBC have the willingness to publish stories that are critical of the Bush Government? Yes.

Does the BBC care about advertising? No.

Does the BBC care about ratings? Yes, but I think that proof of a 9/11 inside job would send it's ratings through the roof, and melt down the BBC news website under the weight of hits. The BBC and the journalist who filed the story would go down as heroes.

Does the BBC need to worry about funding afterwards? No. It's paid for by the public.

Essentially the BBC has the means and the willingness to show that 9/11 was an inside job. If they had proof. They don't, because there isn't any. That is the only conclusion one can draw from this.

What access or authority does the BBC or any media agency for that matter have to get answers out of US Government officials? What access does the BBC or any media agency for that matter have to any 9/11 evidence?

I'm still waiting for an answer to this as well as some quotes to back up this so-called vast consensus of experts. Any day now. Any day.

Alferd_Packer

12th March 2008, 12:24 PM

LC, the U.S. overnment is made up of people.

Reporters are generally prety good at geting people to talk.

LastChild

12th March 2008, 12:36 PM

LC, the U.S. overnment is made up of people.

Reporters are generally prety good at geting people to talk.

A lawfully constituted body, created by Congress is suppose to be pretty good at it too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/10/september11.usa

johnny karate

12th March 2008, 12:39 PM

What access or authority does the BBC or any media agency for that matter have to get answers out of US Government officials? What access does the BBC or any media agency for that matter have to any 9/11 evidence?

Come on, Lastchild if you can't answer the question, just admit it. This constant dodging is entirely transparent and is growing tiresome

The BBC nor any other MSM outlet need no special access to run a story about the "suspicious nature" of the WTC7 collapse (complete with quotes by demolition expert Danny Jowenko), the supposed NORAD stand down order, Cheney's "suspicious behavior" as established by Mineta's testimony, the supposedly still alive hijackers, the "fake" Osama Bin Laden confession tapes, the ISI-Atta connection, or any number of so-called "smoking guns".

CTer sites having been running these stories for years, all the while being completely ignored by the worldwide MSM.

Why?

I'm still waiting for an answer to this as well as some quotes to back up this so-called vast consensus of experts. Any day now. Any day.

Wrong thread, sport. Careful, your dodge is showing again

LastChild

12th March 2008, 12:53 PM

Come on, Lastchild if you can't answer the question, just admit it. This constant dodging is entirely transparent and is growing tiresome

Where are your quotes? It's pathetic.

The BBC nor any other MSM outlet need no special access to run a story about the "suspicious nature" of the WTC7 collapse (complete with quotes by demolition expert Danny Jowenko), the supposed NORAD stand down order, Cheney's "suspicious behavior" as established by Mineta's testimony, the supposedly still alive hijackers, the "fake" Osama Bin Laden confession tapes, the ISI-Atta connection, or any number of so-called "smoking guns".

Really? How do you know about any of those things? Wasn't it the BBC who ran the story about some of the hijackers being alive? I didn't claim things don't get reported I claimed certain things don't get covered as much as others or followed up on. I also claimed that if the 9/11 commission couldn't get to the bottom of many of the issues surrounding 9/11 then what chance does the media have? Still no answer. But plenty of dodging from you.

CTer sites having been running these stories for years, all the while being completely ignored by the worldwide MSM.

Why?

How did CTers find out about any of them?

Wrong thread, sport. Careful, your dodge is showing again

I haven't dodged anything. Where's your quotes sport?

And what authority does the BBC or any media agency have to get answers from someone like Cheney or Bush who refused to testify separately under oath to the 9/11 commission? What authority does the BBC or any media agency have to get answers from the CIA when they deliberately hold evidence from the 9/11 commission? Would the media be allowed to interview anyone without "minders" in the room? Because the commission couldn't.

I know you won't answer. It messes too much with your bubble of denial you call home. Maybe you can post a picture of a cat and pretend you’re debunking something.

johnny karate

12th March 2008, 01:09 PM

Really? How do you know about any of those things? Wasn't it the BBC who ran the story about some of the hijackers being alive? I didn't claim things don't get reported I claimed certain things don't get covered as much as others or followed up on.

Move the goal posts all you want, you're still stuck with the same question: Why isn't the worldwide MSM covering (or sufficiently following-up on) 9/11 inside job stories?

I also claimed that if the 9/11 commission couldn't get to the bottom of many of the issues surrounding 9/11 then what chance does the media have? Still no answer. But plenty of dodging from you.

They don't have to "get to the bottom" of these stories to report them. The story would be "The Suspicious Nature of the WTC7 Collapse" not "The True Cause of the WTC7 Collapse".

How did CTers find out about any of them?

In most cases? They made them up.

I haven't dodged anything.

And yet the question remains unanswered: Why is the worldwide MSM ignoring all these stories?

And what authority does the BBC or any media agency have to get answers from someone like Cheney or Bush who refused to testify separately under oath to the 9/11 commission? What authority does the BBC or any media agency have to get answers from the CIA when they deliberately hold evidence from the 9/11 commission? Would the media be allowed to interview anyone without "minders" in the room? Because the commission couldn't.

Now you're just repeating crap I've already demonstrated to be incorrect. Reread my last post. They don't need testimony from Bush, Cheney, or the CIA to run any of the stories I mentioned. Prisonplanet certainly didn't.

Come on, LastChild, it's a simple question: Why does the worldwide MSM ignore your movement and their claims if what you say is true and provable?

Uzzy

12th March 2008, 01:13 PM

LastChild

12th March 2008, 01:23 PM

Come on, LastChild, it's a simple question: Why does the worldwide MSM ignore your movement and their claims if what you say is true and provable?

They ignore it? You mean people aren't aware that there are still unanswered questions about 9/11? Oh that's right your locked up in that bubble...

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy
08/01/2006

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1354
Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment
September 06, 2007

Gee I wonder what it will be at this year? It doesn't seem to be going in your direction Johnny. Maybe you’re not debunking hard enough? Keep trying though maybe you should try something other then preaching to your dwindling choir. lol

Pardalis

12th March 2008, 01:45 PM

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy
08/01/2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls#Scripps_Howard_polls

"Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them"
59% "not likely"
20% "somewhat likely"
16% "very likely""The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings".
77% "unlikely"
10% "somewhat likely"
6% "very likely""The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists".
80% "not likely"
6% "somewhat likely"
6% "very likely"The organization in November 2007 surveying 811 Americans about their beliefs in several conspiracy theories asked this question
How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely?
32% "Very Likely"
30% "Somewhat Likely
30% "Unlikely"
8% "Don't Know/Other"LOL :rolleyes:

LastChild

12th March 2008, 02:09 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls#Scripps_Howard_polls

LOL :rolleyes:

All your poll questions were from 2006 except your last question from 2007 that says 62% think that it is either very likely or somewhat likely, that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings.

Good job debunker back to work you still have much to do. lol

Uzzy

12th March 2008, 02:10 PM

While polls are fascinating (though hardly scientific or even relevant to this topic), perhaps you could answer some of my points in my last post LastChild?

Pardalis

12th March 2008, 02:30 PM

All your poll questions were from 2006 except your last question from 2007 that says 62% think that it is either very likely or somewhat likely, that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings.

So do you concur that everything MIHOP is bunk?

MarkyX

12th March 2008, 02:32 PM

stateofgrace

12th March 2008, 02:38 PM

If these polls are correct and millions of US citizens believe their government committed mass murder on sept 11th, then it still does beg the question as to why the worlds main stream media are not taking notice of such a ground swell of public opinion doesn’t it?

Why is it not front page news on every paper on the planet? Why is it not news headlines everywhere? Why is it not the story of the century?

Why is it simply ignored by the likes of the BBC?

Any idea why LC ?

LastChild

12th March 2008, 02:44 PM

I probably should have supplied a link to who Dr David Kelly was. You can check his Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly)page if you want. He was a weapons inspector under the employ of the Ministry of Defence. All good journalists have sources, in a variety of positions. That is, infact, how most stories get filed in the journalistic profession. David Kelly frequently liased with the media, and was a regular confidential source.

This is an implication without proof that a journalist or their source could uncover something about 9/11 without any of the authority or subpoena power that the 9/11 commission had.

The Mainstream Media has been shown to have plenty of these confidential sources within government and business departments. They don't need to force Bush or Cheney to talk to them off the record about these things. They just get people carrying out their orders, or advisors, or the tea lady. People gossip, especially when a journalist lends a sympathetic ear and takes them to a nice restaurant, orders an expensive meal, some fine French wine. Especially when they are assured that they will be protected as a source.

That's how they can find out about these things.

And the Mainstream media has written stories about the questions surrounding 9/11 including the fact that Cheney and Bush refused to testify separately under oath to the commission. But the Mainstream media isn't going to jump to unpopular accusations based on limited information. This administration has also been known to float out false stories for the media to report and then have to retract.

As for the links to the articles you put up, well, I would firstly argue that those articles aren't about a 9/11 inside job, but rather the CIA refusing to give them information regarding terrorist subjects. Beside, the commission made a public accusation about that! If they were being refused access to much more serious pieces of information, perhaps those which show evidence of an inside job, I'm sure the commission would have publically mentioned that as well.

No they wouldn't. That's putting the cart before the horse. How do they know what they weren't shown? They can only say they were obstructed from seeing certain information when they asked for it. They have no way of knowing what else they were obstructed from seeing never mind making accusations about it.

Secondly, the Mainstream Media can often be better at getting information like that, particularly 'off the record'. People talk when they are offered anonymity.

Correct and then what happens?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_go_ot/anthrax_reporter;_ylt=AmSL84FE4.UKoHAScOzonIayFz4D

Advocates say ruling chills reporters

By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer Sat Mar 8, 1:50 PM ET

WASHINGTON - A judge is trying to bankrupt an ex-reporter with daily fines as much as $5,000 for refusing to disclose her sources for stories about the 2001 anthrax attacks, press advocates said Saturday.

It's a hostile atmosphere. Why talk?

Redtail

12th March 2008, 02:49 PM

LastChild

12th March 2008, 02:53 PM

So when is the truth movement going to do something with these masses demanding the truth?

Something besides posting on internet forums, making and showing cut and paste films, and handing out fliers I mean.

I think some people are at least trying to do a little more then just that.

http://www.nyc911initiative.org/in_the_news.htm

Pardalis

12th March 2008, 02:57 PM

LC, according to your poll, everything that has to do with MIHOP theories is considered bunk by the sample of people interrogated.

Do you concur?

LastChild

12th March 2008, 03:00 PM

How the hell do you manage to type so much stupid without cutting yourself from the sharp edges of the keyboard?

That's a copy and paste. I actually had to delete some of it for language. Over your head?

MarkyX

12th March 2008, 03:01 PM

That's a copy and paste. I actually had to delete some of it for language. Over your head?

Nah, just wanted to say you're stupid.

LastChild

12th March 2008, 03:03 PM

LC, according to your poll, everything that has to do with MIHOP theories is considered bunk by the sample of people interrogated.

Do you concur?

How could I know without an investigation? I'm not a debunker. Do you concur LIHOP based on the polls?

Redtail

12th March 2008, 03:06 PM

I think some people are at least trying to do a little more then just that.

http://www.nyc911initiative.org/in_the_news.htm

Well 100,000 signatures from NYC shouldn't be a problem if those polls you cited are correct. I wonder how they'll do?:rolleyes:

LastChild

12th March 2008, 03:11 PM

Nah, just wanted to say you're stupid.

Yeah and look what happened. You looked like you were too stupid to get it.

You must be getting too used to dummying yourself down in order to believe something. You should watch that.

LastChild

12th March 2008, 03:14 PM

Well 100,000 signatures from NYC shouldn't be a problem if those polls you cited are correct. I wonder how they'll do?:rolleyes:

I don't know how they'll do just that they're not just on internet forums, making and showing cut and paste films, and handing out fliers.

DGM

12th March 2008, 03:15 PM

I see LastChild played the "We can't do it without subpoena power" card. I love that cop-out.

Pardalis

12th March 2008, 03:17 PM

How could I know without an investigation?I'm not a debunker. Do you concur LIHOP based on the polls?

Again, you're moving the goalposts. You can't answer a simple question.

LastChild

12th March 2008, 03:17 PM

I see LastChild played the "We can't do it without subpoena power" card. I love that cop-out.

Why does anyone ever use subpoenas? If they're not needed that is?

LastChild

12th March 2008, 03:18 PM

Again, you're moving the goalposts. You can't answer a simple question.

I didn't see an answer to mine there skippy.

Redtail

12th March 2008, 03:18 PM

I don't know how they'll do just that they're not just on internet forums, making and showing cut and paste films, and handing out fliers.

IF they're doing what they say they are.

Pardalis

12th March 2008, 03:19 PM

I didn't see an answer to mine there skippy.

Answer mine first.

johnny karate

12th March 2008, 03:20 PM

They ignore it? You mean people aren't aware that there are still unanswered questions about 9/11? Oh that's right your locked up in that bubble...

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy
08/01/2006

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1354
Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment
September 06, 2007

Gee I wonder what it will be at this year? It doesn't seem to be going in your direction Johnny. Maybe you’re not debunking hard enough? Keep trying though maybe you should try something other then preaching to your dwindling choir. lol

I see. We're talking about the MSM's lack of coverage of 9/11 inside job stories, and you link to some dubious polls with the tired, old claim "The masses on our side!"? Pathetic.

I never said the MSM hasn't acknowledged the existence of 9/11 inside job conspiracy theories. What they don't do is report on them in any type of investigative manner. And the question remains: Why?

Besides, we're beyond establishing whether or not the MSM gives these stories the proper attention. You have already conceded the point:

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.

What we're trying to establish now is: Why?

A question you continually avoid.

DGM

12th March 2008, 03:22 PM

Why does anyone ever use subpoenas? If they're not needed that is?
Because it's a fun word to say.:D

It gets people into court, It can't make them say anything. Real investigative journalist will always get more info then any state run investigation. The fact you guy's don't have any investigators is very telling (good ones any way). I know these guys hate the fame and fortune of breaking that once in a life time story.:rolleyes:

Corsair 115

12th March 2008, 03:31 PM

And I've told you multiple times: All journalism roads do not lead through the White House.Especially the media of other nations. Plenty of non-U.S. media outlets have bureaus inside the U.S. with their own journalists covering American news events.

LastChild

12th March 2008, 04:40 PM

Answer mine first.

Do I concur that everything that has to do with MIHOP theories is considered bunk by the sample of people interrogated.

No. I don't even concur that the poll implies that much. That's your delusion not mine. That's why I asked if you concur LIHOP. Follow?

LastChild

12th March 2008, 04:49 PM

I see. We're talking about the MSM's lack of coverage of 9/11 inside job stories, and you link to some dubious polls with the tired, old claim "The masses on our side!"? Pathetic.

That was after you claimed there is no coverage of 9/11 conspiracies. Nice try.

I never said the MSM hasn't acknowledged the existence of 9/11 inside job conspiracy theories. What they don't do is report on them in any type of investigative manner. And the question remains: Why?

They didn't report that some of the hijackers were still alive? They didn't report about the put options? They didn't report about the 9/11 commission being obstructed? What they don't do is follow up. Which is what I said.

Besides, we're beyond establishing whether or not the MSM gives these stories the proper attention. You have already conceded the point:

Conceded that they don't give them enough attention? That was my point in the first place. Good to see you've caught up but that would be your concede not mine.

What we're trying to establish now is: Why?

A question you continually avoid.

No you continually refuse to read or you pretend I didn't answer to sustain your denial. You play ignorant because it's the only way to pretend there was a real investigation into 9/11. They don't have access to anything to investigate. Now why are you for less investigation? hmmmm?

LastChild

12th March 2008, 04:50 PM

Especially the media of other nations. Plenty of non-U.S. media outlets have bureaus inside the U.S. with their own journalists covering American news events.

What does any media have access to?

Pardalis

12th March 2008, 05:09 PM

Do I concur that everything that has to do with MIHOP theories is considered bunk by the sample of people interrogated.

No. I don't even concur that the poll implies that much.

Most people say it is very unlikely. A very small minority think it's likely. What do you conclude then?

That's why I asked if you concur LIHOP.

I conclude that for some people there are things they are still unanswered. Maybe your movement should focus on those?

calebprime

12th March 2008, 05:13 PM

How the hell do you manage to type so much stupid without cutting yourself from the sharp edges of the keyboard?

referring to a post by ? (LastChild, I assume) who appears to be channeling Joe Pesci in Good Fellas:

"You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little messed up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny? No, no, I don't know, you said it. How do I know? You said I'm funny. How am I funny, what is so funny about me? Tell me, tell me what's funny!"

warning: 4-letter words galore. quote is ca. 1:38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ff46b58Hk

Uzzy

12th March 2008, 06:34 PM

This is an implication without proof that a journalist or their source could uncover something about 9/11 without any of the authority or subpoena power that the 9/11 commission had.

What authority or subpoena power did Woodward and Bernstein need? They needed none, yet brought down Nixon. Or as a more recent example of the presses ability to get information, how about the scandal over Barack Obama's advisor reassuring Canadian officials about his stand over Nafta? Did the press need to interview Barack Obama to get that information? No. It was leaked.

And the Mainstream media has written stories about the questions surrounding 9/11 including the fact that Cheney and Bush refused to testify separately under oath to the commission. But the Mainstream media isn't going to jump to unpopular accusations based on limited information. This administration has also been known to float out false stories for the media to report and then have to retract.

Firstly, limited information? I thought the position of your movement was that the proof of an inside job was obvious? Secondly, if the polls you use are correct, it wouldn't be unpopular would it? Thirdly, it really wouldn't be unpopular around the world if solid evidence was brought forward to back it up.

No they wouldn't. That's putting the cart before the horse. How do they know what they weren't shown? They can only say they were obstructed from seeing certain information when they asked for it. They have no way of knowing what else they were obstructed from seeing never mind making accusations about it.

If they had suspicions that their investigation was being stonewalled, they could have and have infact gone public with their concerns. If these obstructions were about vitally important factors of the 9/11 investigation, like lets say how it happened, then I'm sure they would have spoken up. However, they've not so far. They've spoken up about the CIA denying them access to tapes though.

Correct and then what happens?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_go_ot/anthrax_reporter;_ylt=AmSL84FE4.UKoHAScOzonIayFz4D

Advocates say ruling chills reporters

By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer Sat Mar 8, 1:50 PM ET

WASHINGTON - A judge is trying to bankrupt an ex-reporter with daily fines as much as $5,000 for refusing to disclose her sources for stories about the 2001 anthrax attacks, press advocates said Saturday.

It's a hostile atmosphere. Why talk?

That must be why your congress is moving to protect Journalists in this regard. Further, this just shows the length journalists are willing to go to in order to protect their sources, which makes them more willing to talk, knowing their anonymity is secure. Additionally, it doesn't reflect at all upon the international situation, where journalist/source relations are considered sacrosanct.

LastChild

12th March 2008, 07:03 PM

What authority or subpoena power did Woodward and Bernstein need? They needed none, yet brought down Nixon. Or as a more recent example of the presses ability to get information, how about the scandal over Barack Obama's advisor reassuring Canadian officials about his stand over Nafta? Did the press need to interview Barack Obama to get that information? No. It was leaked.

So? And what? We haven't had people on the inside of the 9/11 investigations going public with their concerns? Then what happens? Nothing. Where's the follow up not just from the press but from the checks and balances that are supposed to exist in our government? Watergate had nothing on half the crap this administration has pulled. They lied our country into a war and nothing happen to them. They outed a CIA agent and the only one who went down for it got his sentence commuted by the rest of people whose interests he was he working for when he committed the crime. There's your proof right there. The fact that Nixon and the rest of them went down for Watergate and this crooked administration is still in power proves my point not yours.

Firstly, limited information? I thought the position of your movement was that the proof of an inside job was obvious? Secondly, if the polls you use are correct, it wouldn't be unpopular would it? Thirdly, it really wouldn't be unpopular around the world if solid evidence was brought forward to back it up.

It's obvious there needs to be a real investigation to answer so many unanswered questions. It would be unpopular to open a can of worms you don't have the power to follow-up on and you don't have the officials in office that will follow-up on your investigation like they did with Watergate. It wasn't Woodard and Bernstein who held the Watergate hearings.

If they had suspicions that their investigation was being stonewalled, they could have and have infact gone public with their concerns. If these obstructions were about vitally important factors of the 9/11 investigation, like lets say how it happened, then I'm sure they would have spoken up. However, they've not so far. They've spoken up about the CIA denying them access to tapes though.

They have done as much and I have linked to it. Whose turn is it to take the ball and have a real investigation? Where are they?

That must be why your congress is moving to protect Journalists in this regard. Further, this just shows the length journalists are willing to go to in order to protect their sources, which makes them more willing to talk, knowing their anonymity is secure. Additionally, it doesn't reflect at all upon the international situation, where journalist/source relations are considered sacrosanct.

Are you kidding? America is not the example to the rest of the world on freedom of the press and journalist/source relations being considered sacrosanct?

Really? What happened?

Uzzy

12th March 2008, 07:52 PM

So? And what? We haven't had people on the inside of the 9/11 investigations going public with their concerns? Then what happens? Nothing. Where's the follow up not just from the press but from the checks and balances that are supposed to exist in our government? Watergate had nothing on half the crap this administration has pulled. They lied our country into a war and nothing happen to them. They outed a CIA agent and the only one who went down for it got his sentence commuted by the rest of people whose interests he was he working for when he committed the crime. There's your proof right there. The fact that Nixon and the rest of them went down for Watergate and this crooked administration is still in power proves my point not yours.And yet they get called upon this acts. Sure, one can be annoyed by the response of the system to what Bush has done, and that is an entirely fair reaction. Heck, I read up on the things Bush has done and grimace. I think Guantanamo Bay is a disgrace. I think Bush's veto of the bill that banned the use of torture by the CIA was disgusting.

But here's the real important thing. None of that has anything at all to do with 9/11 being an inside job.

If you want to discuss Bush's policies, go to the politics subforum.

It's obvious there needs to be a real investigation to answer so many unanswered questions. It would be unpopular to open a can of worms you don't have the power to follow-up on and you don't have the officials in office that will follow-up on your investigation like they did with Watergate. It wasn't Woodard and Bernstein who held the Watergate hearings.
What unanswered questions are these? From the two links you gave me, it seems more like there are a few questions on the extremes of the investigation. Further, it is highly unlikely any new evidence coming from, lets say, those two video tapes would prove an inside job, given the weight of evidence opposing it.

Also, you didn't reply to my comment about a sentence of your's, which I'll repeat now.

But the Mainstream media isn't going to jump to unpopular accusations based on limited information.I thought the position of your movement was that evidence of a 9/11 inside job was so obvious that it just needed an online video to prove it. But now it's 'Limited' information? Care to clarify that remark?

They have done as much and I have linked to it. Whose turn is it to take the ball and have a real investigation? Where are they?Go lobby your congressman or representative if you want a new investigation. It's pointless though.

Are you kidding? America is not the example to the rest of the world on freedom of the press and journalist/source relations being considered sacrosanct?To be fair, 32 states have Shield Laws, protecting journalist/source relations. All of them should though, but as I said, your Congress has debated bills on just that in the recent past.

One last thing. I quickly checked on the CIA videotapes being destroyed. Apparently the Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey is opening a criminal investigation into why they were destroyed. Source. (http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/January/08_opa_001.html)

johnny karate

12th March 2008, 09:17 PM

That was after you claimed there is no coverage of 9/11 conspiracies. Nice try.

They didn't report that some of the hijackers were still alive? They didn't report about the put options? They didn't report about the 9/11 commission being obstructed? What they don't do is follow up. Which is what I said.

You're playing a verbal shell game to avoid the same unanswered question. I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again: Whether they don't report these stories at all or not enough, why is the worldwide media not giving them the appropriate amount of attention?

(And just so you know, the living hijackers and put option stories were followed-up in the MSM. With the correct information that proved neither pointed to an inside job.)

Conceded that they don't give them enough attention? That was my point in the first place. Good to see you've caught up but that would be your concede not mine.

Fine. Then quit pretending that the issue is whether or not the MSM is covering stories about 9/11 conspiracy theories, when you know the question I'm asking is why they aren't covering the stories CTers claim to be important (see below).

No you continually refuse to read or you pretend I didn't answer to sustain your denial. You play ignorant because it's the only way to pretend there was a real investigation into 9/11. They don't have access to anything to investigate. Now why are you for less investigation? hmmmm?

And as I've told you multiple times, the MSM does not need any kind of special access to cover such stories as he "suspicious nature" of the WTC7 collapse (complete with quotes by demolition expert Danny Jowenko), the supposed NORAD stand down order, Cheney's "suspicious behavior" as established by Mineta's testimony, the supposedly still alive hijackers, the "fake" Osama Bin Laden confession tapes, the ISI-Atta connection, or any number of so-called "smoking guns" CTers claim to exist and report on ad nauseam on their own websites.

Prisonplanet runs these stories all the time. What special access do they have that The New York Times doesn't?

Once and for all, your ridiculous "access" issue is thoroughly debunked. Stop using it as a dodge tactic, and let's see if you can answer my question without spewing the same nonsense I've already proven wrong.

Dave Rogers

13th March 2008, 02:49 AM

Wasn't it the BBC who ran the story about some of the hijackers being alive?

Yes it was, and that fact alone utterly destroys your position. We now know that not only does the BBC have the will, the ability and the independence to investigate stories that run counter to the generally accepted narrative of 9-11, but that they have actually done so.

Dave

LastChild

13th March 2008, 09:37 AM

Yes it was, and that fact alone utterly destroys your position. We now know that not only does the BBC have the will, the ability and the independence to investigate stories that run counter to the generally accepted narrative of 9-11, but that they have actually done so.

Dave

In order to declare my position utterly destroyed one would first have to understand my position. This is obviously out of your grasp.

DGM

13th March 2008, 09:40 AM

In order to declare my position utterly destroyed one would first have to understand my position. This is obviously out of your grasp.
I thought you didn't have a position.

Corsair 115

13th March 2008, 11:43 AM

What does any media have access to?A lot more than you're giving them credit for.

8den

13th March 2008, 12:12 PM

That was after you claimed there is no coverage of 9/11 conspiracies. Nice try.

They didn't report that some of the hijackers were still alive?
What they don't do is follow up. Which is what I said.

Thats is utterly untrue (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html) The BBC, did follow up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1581063.stm) on this particular inaccuracy from the confused days after 911, with many (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3917703.stm) reports.

The fact that the earliest erroneous report suits your deluded fantasies means you can ignore the extensive reporting that followed.

Those among us, burdened with the concept of reality, cannot.

johnny karate

13th March 2008, 12:12 PM

In order to declare my position utterly destroyed one would first have to understand my position.

True enough. Which, fortunately enough, we do thanks to this statement you made earlier in this thread:

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.

So yeah, your position = utterly destroyed.

Jonnyclueless

13th March 2008, 12:13 PM

I thought you didn't have a position.

He does. The idea is to not outright say it so he can change it each time it is shot down. He's just tooo smart for us....

Gosh, wonder what his response would be if you asked him to state his theory/opinion...

johnny karate

13th March 2008, 12:18 PM

They didn't report that some of the hijackers were still alive? They didn't report about the put options? They didn't report about the 9/11 commission being obstructed? What they don't do is follow up. Which is what I said.

Thats is utterly untrue (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html) The BBC, did follow up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1581063.stm) on this particular inaccuracy from the confused days after 911, with many (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3917703.stm) reports.

The fact that the earliest erroneous report suits your deluded fantasies means you can ignore the extensive reporting that followed.

Those among us, burdened with the concept of reality, cannot.

And now we have another position of LastChild's that has been utterly destroyed.

He's just not having a good day.

LastChild

13th March 2008, 12:49 PM

Thats is utterly untrue (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html) The BBC, did follow up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1581063.stm) on this particular inaccuracy from the confused days after 911, with many (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3917703.stm) reports.

The fact that the earliest erroneous report suits your deluded fantasies means you can ignore the extensive reporting that followed.

Those among us, burdened with the concept of reality, cannot.

"A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here."

LOL a half-arsed retraction of something 5 years old is a follow-up? Why was this even necessary what prompted it? hmmmm...?

"In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri...""

Boy I'm REALLY getting utterly destroyed here. LOL

"The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

Well they're confident so I guess that about locks it up. LOL weren’t they pretty confident to dismiss some of the warnings before 9/11 from their own agents? Boy this makes me feel so much better.

Now I never claimed this to be true just that they did give it attention. And it wasn't even the only thing I listed there was it? This semi-retraction 5 years later is a follow-up? Yeah if you say so debunker. Ever wonder why you have to keep debunking? What were you saying about deluded fantasies? Well hard to argue with an expert on deluded fantasies.

johnny karate

13th March 2008, 12:56 PM

"A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here."

LOL a half-arsed retraction of something 5 years old is a follow-up? Why was this even necessary what prompted it? hmmmm...?

"In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri...""

Boy I'm REALLY getting utterly destroyed here. LOL

[I]"The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks."[I]

Well they're confident so I guess that about locks it up. LOL weren’t they pretty confident to dismiss some of the warnings before 9/11 from their own agents? Boy this makes me feel so much better.

Now I never claimed this to be true just that they did give it attention. And it wasn't even the only thing I listed there was it? This semi-retraction 5 years later is a follow-up? Yeah if you say so debunker. Ever wonder why you have to keep debunking? What were you saying about deluded fantasies? Well hard to argue with an expert on deluded fantasies.

Yeah, actually the original follow-up (which you can find by clicking the second link in 8den's post) is dated October 5, 2001.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself, LastChild.

Jonnyclueless

13th March 2008, 01:00 PM

Now you're just embarrassing yourself, LastChild.

Now?

LastChild

13th March 2008, 02:16 PM

Yeah, actually the original follow-up (which you can find by clicking the second link in 8den's post) is dated October 5, 2001.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself, LastChild.

lol yeah that makes a difference.

johnny karate

13th March 2008, 03:11 PM

lol yeah that makes a difference.

Yeah, it does. A difference of almost five years, actually.

But hey, I understand. Accuracy has never been all that important to you CTers.

8den

13th March 2008, 03:37 PM

lol yeah that makes a difference.

You mean they made an error, corrected it within days, and then followed the correct story in intense detail.

The second two clauses are the bits you ignore. You focus on the poorly researched report in the confused initial aftermath.

LC, in the 7 years since the events of 911, there is no evidence that any of hijackers are alive, aside from confused reports in the days and weeks otherwise.

No news organisation, no website, no journalist, no author, and no conspiracy theorist has offered any real evidence that these men are still alive.

A single interview with one of these men would lend incredible weight for the truth movement. Yet how is that Griffin, Tarpley, Jones, Barrett, or any of them could earn them serious credibility.

Whats that you say? Can't get to Arabic countries? What about Al Jazeera? Al Arabiya? al-Arab? al-Hayat? al-Quds al-Arabi? Asharq Alawsat? All of these are regarded independent Arabic TV stations and newspapers, all based in the middle east. None of which has a prowestern policy. Al Jazeera for example had it's Iraq office shelled by the US army. Hell, Tony Blair, had to talk George Bush out of bombing their headquarters, and that was in Qatar, a country that has one of the largest US military bases in the world.

You're telling me any of these organisations wouldn't love to find a hijacker is alive, and it's journalists wouldn't receive plautits?

LC, you're digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole here.

8den

13th March 2008, 03:41 PM

Yeah, it does. A difference of almost five years, actually.

But hey, I understand. Accuracy has never been all that important to you CTers.

Firstly he's laughing at the fact the BBC clarified the story 5 years later, then he's laughing off the fact that it isn't really important that they clarified the story five weeks later.

LastChild

13th March 2008, 05:43 PM

You mean they made an error, corrected it within days, and then followed the correct story in intense detail.

The second two clauses are the bits you ignore. You focus on the poorly researched report in the confused initial aftermath.

LC, in the 7 years since the events of 911, there is no evidence that any of hijackers are alive, aside from confused reports in the days and weeks otherwise.

No news organisation, no website, no journalist, no author, and no conspiracy theorist has offered any real evidence that these men are still alive.

A single interview with one of these men would lend incredible weight for the truth movement. Yet how is that Griffin, Tarpley, Jones, Barrett, or any of them could earn them serious credibility.

Whats that you say? Can't get to Arabic countries? What about Al Jazeera? Al Arabiya? al-Arab? al-Hayat? al-Quds al-Arabi? Asharq Alawsat? All of these are regarded independent Arabic TV stations and newspapers, all based in the middle east. None of which has a prowestern policy. Al Jazeera for example had it's Iraq office shelled by the US army. Hell, Tony Blair, had to talk George Bush out of bombing their headquarters, and that was in Qatar, a country that has one of the largest US military bases in the world.

You're telling me any of these organisations wouldn't love to find a hijacker is alive, and it's journalists wouldn't receive plautits?

LC, you're digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole here.

I'm digging myself deeper? I guess I better watch out for the likes of you and your scary facts huh? lol

You address one story I listed out of a few. I did so just to point out that the mass media has reported on some these stories and in some cases was the initial one to report the story. They just don’t really follow up on it. Then you throw a hissy because I only commented on one of your irrelevant to anything I said links. I said nothing about whether it was true or not just that it’s never really followed up on. Five weeks later and then five years later is follow up? lol if you say so. Is this the best or the lamest you can come up with? Because I can't tell.

8den

13th March 2008, 06:12 PM

I'm digging myself deeper? I guess I better watch out for the likes of you and your scary facts huh? lol

You address one story I listed out of a few. I did so just to point out that the mass media has reported on some these stories and in some cases was the initial one to report the story. They just don’t really follow up on it. Then you throw a hissy because I only commented on one of your irrelevant to anything I said links. I said nothing about whether it was true or not just that it’s never really followed up on. Five weeks later and then five years later is follow up? lol if you say so. Is this the best or the lamest you can come up with? Because I can't tell.

Wow you're shifting the goalposts.

Tell you what LC, admit that the BBC investigated their original incorrect claim, corrected it and you are satisfied with that response? Then I will address the other points.

If you are unsatisfied with the BBC explaination or the other claims about hijackers claims, please address a specific case and the exact claims that trouble you.

Which is it? Lay this one to bed, or go into the details that you object to.

I'm not running away from the other points, I'll address them once you example what's unsatisifactory about the "hijackers being alive" and the BBC's reporting of it.

LastChild

13th March 2008, 06:31 PM

If you are unsatisfied with the BBC explaination or the other claims about hijackers claims, please address a specific case and the exact claims that trouble you.

What's their explanation that they spelled one of the names wrong?

IWhich is it? Lay this one to bed, or go into the details that you object to.

I posted already more then one specific case. Pretend to put as many as you want to bed all you like. It's your fantasy.

I'm not running away from the other points, I'll address them once you example what's unsatisifactory about the "hijackers being alive" and the BBC's reporting of it.

I didn't claim you were. You claimed I didn't address all your irrelevant links as if I was obligated to.

If you feel the bbc or anyone else in the media has been able to uncover or get access to any new evidence or get any officials in the US government to answer questions the 9/11 commission missed, like the tapes that the CIA obstructed them from seeing, or Cheney or Bush's separate accounts of 9/11, and has followed up on it then lets hear all about it.

In other words address my real point not the one you made up in your deluded pea brain. That or put your self to bed.

gc051360

13th March 2008, 06:33 PM

In other words address my real point not the one you made up in your deluded pea brain. That or put your self to bed.
I'm not sure if that point was yours. I see no quote of yours, that states you support what you wrote.

LastChild

13th March 2008, 06:59 PM

I'm not sure if that point was yours. I see no quote of yours, that states you support what you wrote.

Do you actually read the entire threads or do you just look for the pictures of cats and cartoon dogs posted by the so-called debunkers?

tanabear

13th March 2008, 10:34 PM

Link for any of the above.

Specious reasoning. Because some congressman doesn't know much about Al Qaeda you cannot claim journalists have the same level of ignorance.

And incidently you may want to get out a globe, see those big blue things on the either side of the US of A. They're called "Oceans". On the far side of them (and indeed if you look up or down) you'll see other Landmasses. They're called "continents". On these Continents, you'll find "other countries". Like the USA only a littel different. But we have our journalists and our newspapers, and TV stations. Many of whom have actually been to places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Claiming that we all share the same level of ignorance is staggering. It's a handy piece of self aggrandising ego massage there Tana; "All these journalists would agree with me, if only they had access to my facts."

Facts I, needlessly to say, you've failed to actually elaborate on.

He is not just some Congressman. He was picked by Nancy Pelosi to be the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

You are correct, the claim that all journalists share the same level of ignorance is staggering. However, where did I claim that? I said the "average" journalist. I suppose it is easy to knock down someone's argument when you misrepresent what they write. If I said that average American man is 5'10'' and does not have the requisite skills therefore to play in the NBA. You then respond, "To claim that every American man is 5'10'' and can't play in the NBA is staggering." I also didn't say that if they knew more, that they would necessarily agree with me. They would probably understand that many stories related to 9/11 are questionable and deserving of further investigation.

Standard for buildings like WTC7 to be pre-wired? Any kind of corroborating source for this? Peter Lance says it so you believe it?

I didn't say that I believed Peter Lance, merely someone reported that he said that. I believe it was a Q&A session with Richard Gage. A member of the audience said that he heard Peter Lance say that some buildings are pre-wired to bring down and he asked Richard Gage if that was a possibility. Mr. Gage seemed to discount it.

johnny karate

14th March 2008, 02:43 AM

If you feel the bbc or anyone else in the media has been able to uncover or get access to any new evidence or get any officials in the US government to answer questions the 9/11 commission missed, like the tapes that the CIA obstructed them from seeing, or Cheney or Bush's separate accounts of 9/11, and has followed up on it then lets hear all about it.

How many times does your utterly retarded claim that the media needs to come up with new "evidence" or get a written confession from George Bush before they can report on 9/11 inside job stories have to be demonstrated to be wildly wrong before you give it up?

I guess I'm partly to blame. I've been vague in my terminology allowing you room to do all this squirming you've been doing.

So here's what we'll do: Let's deal with one specific 9/11 story that the MSM media has been ignoring, and let's see if you'll finally be able to provide an answer. And I'll even pick a CTer favorite so as not to be accused of being too obscure.

LastChild, why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

And... go!

8den

14th March 2008, 03:40 AM

What's their explanation that they spelled one of the names wrong?

Um. They made a mistake?

I posted already more then one specific case. Pretend to put as many as you want to bed all you like. It's your fantasy.

Um reading isn't your high point is it.

I'll ask again, do you accept the BBC's admission of error in the original report and the detailed subsequent reports into the hijackers identity.

Once we get past that we'll deal with the rest

I didn't claim you were. You claimed I didn't address all your irrelevant links as if I was obligated to.

How are they irrelevant? They detail the BBC's investigation into the error, and exposing the true identity of the hijackers.

If you feel the bbc or anyone else in the media has been able to uncover or get access to any new evidence or get any officials in the US government to answer questions the 9/11 commission missed, like the tapes that the CIA obstructed them from seeing, or Cheney or Bush's separate accounts of 9/11, and has followed up on it then lets hear all about it.

In other words address my real point not the one you made up in your deluded pea brain. That or put your self to bed.

Sigh. We're discussing the BBC follow up of the hijackers. I'll move on when we put this topic to bed.

You are correct, the claim that all journalists share the same level of ignorance is staggering. However, where did I claim that? I said the "average" journalist. I suppose it is easy to knock down someone's argument when you misrepresent what they write. If I said that average American man is 5'10'' and does not have the requisite skills therefore to play in the NBA. You then respond, "To claim that every American man is 5'10'' and can't play in the NBA is staggering." I also didn't say that if they knew more, that they would necessarily agree with me. They would probably understand that many stories related to 9/11 are questionable and deserving of further investigation.

All irrelevant. I'll ask again tana, what aspects of the 911 story do you feel the mainstream media is ignorant about?

I didn't say that I believed Peter Lance, merely someone reported that he said that. I believe it was a Q&A session with Richard Gage. A member of the audience said that he heard Peter Lance say that some buildings are pre-wired to bring down and he asked Richard Gage if that was a possibility. Mr. Gage seemed to discount it.

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.

LastChild

14th March 2008, 07:33 AM

How many times does your utterly retarded claim that the media needs to come up with new "evidence" or get a written confession from George Bush before they can report on 9/11 inside job stories have to be demonstrated to be wildly wrong before you give it up?

How many times are you going to put words in my mouth just to support your retarded replies?

I guess I'm partly to blame. I've been vague in my terminology allowing you room to do all this squirming you've been doing.

Don't be too hard on yourself you can't help it you're special. God loves you so much he gave you an extra chromosome. Don't let anyone else tell you different.

So here's what we'll do: Let's deal with one specific 9/11 story that the MSM media has been ignoring, and let's see if you'll finally be able to provide an answer. And I'll even pick a CTer favorite so as not to be accused of being too obscure.

Is this a special game they taught you at the special institution? How CUTE.

LastChild, why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

They have? Wasn't it the mainstream media that reported it collapsed when it was still standing in the background? I believe they just didn't follow-up with an explanation for that. Gee that wasn’t a very complicated game. But I guess special games never are.

chillzero

14th March 2008, 07:56 AM

Keep it civil here.

8den

14th March 2008, 07:58 AM

They have? Wasn't it the mainstream media that reported it collapsed when it was still standing in the background? I believe they just didn't follow-up with an explanation for that. Gee that wasn’t a very complicated game. But I guess special games never are.

They also reported a car bomb outside the Capital building? OMG INSIDE JOB!

Shock horror, rolling news makes a mistake in the confused aftermath of a massive terrorist shock.

It's kind of odd Last Child for someone who holds mainstream media in such contempt, you seem convinced of their total infallibility.

johnny karate

14th March 2008, 11:23 AM

They have? Wasn't it the mainstream media that reported it collapsed when it was still standing in the background? I believe they just didn't follow-up with an explanation for that. Gee that wasn’t a very complicated game. But I guess special games never are.

Well, of course the MSM reported on the actual collapse. No one is suggesting otherwise (The "early report = inside job" is something completely manufactured by your movement). Please read my question carefully and try again.

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

LastChild

14th March 2008, 12:15 PM

Well, of course the MSM reported on the actual collapse. No one is suggesting otherwise (The "early report = inside job" is something completely manufactured by your movement). Please read my question carefully and try again.

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

They have reported on it I showed you. Now if they can't follow up on it other then to say they made a mistake by reporting it's collapse early maybe it's because they don't know what happened and they don't have access to any of the evidence to find out what happened. Just like I've been telling you. Are you getting it yet?

And maybe they're waiting for the NIST WTC-7 report you think? You should call up all MSM agencies and let them know they don't need the NIST report because you johnny karate have already decided what happened to WTC-7 without even seeing a NIST report on it. And be sure to use the name johnny karate when you call them so they know it's on the up and up. Everybody knows you know everything.

johnny karate

14th March 2008, 12:28 PM

They have reported on it I showed you. Now if they can't follow up on it other then to say they made a mistake by reporting it's collapse early maybe it's because they don't know what happened and they don't have access to any of the evidence to find out what happened. Just like I've been telling you. Are you getting it yet?

Apparently, you're the one not getting it.

I didn't ask you to provide a news report about the collapse of WTC7 that you find suspicious.

What I asked was:
Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

To be more clear, what I'm looking for is a MSM story about the collapse of WTC7 that echoes the sentiment of this piece (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html), or an explanation as to why there aren't any.

Please try again.

DGM

14th March 2008, 12:28 PM

They have reported on it I showed you. Now if they can't follow up on it other then to say they made a mistake by reporting it's collapse early maybe it's because they don't know what happened and they don't have access to any of the evidence to find out what happened. Just like I've been telling you. Are you getting it yet?

And maybe they're waiting for the NIST WTC-7 report you think? You should call up all MSM agencies and let them know they don't need the NIST report because you johnny karate have already decided what happened to WTC-7 without even seeing a NIST report on it. And be sure to use the name johnny karate when you call them so they know it's on the up and up. Everybody knows you know everything.
So it's a matter of them not reporting what you want to hear regardless of accuracy.

8den

14th March 2008, 01:17 PM

So it's a matter of them not reporting what you want to hear regardless of accuracy.

Nail. Head. It's not the BBC doesn't follow up on these stories, it's just the answers that they come up with that LC doesn't like.

LastChild

14th March 2008, 02:42 PM

Apparently, you're the one not getting it.

I didn't ask you to provide a news report about the collapse of WTC7 that you find suspicious.

What I asked was:
Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

To be more clear, what I'm looking for is a MSM story about the collapse of WTC7 that echoes the sentiment of this piece (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html), or an explanation as to why there aren't any.

Please try again.

Let me get the definition for you since you are obviously have some special problems understanding what it even is you are trying to talk about...

Mainstream
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mainstream is, generally, the common current of thought of the majority. It is a term most often applied in the arts (i.e., music, literature, and performance). This includes:
something that is ordinary or usual;
something that is familiar to the masses;
something that is available to the general public.
As such, the mainstream includes all popular culture, typically disseminated by mass media. The opposite of the mainstream are subcultures, countercultures, cult followings, underground cultures and (in fiction) genre. Additionally, mainstream is sometimes a codeword used for an actual ethnocentric or hegemonic subculture point of view, especially when delivered in a culture war speech It is sometimes used as a pejorative term. In the United States, mainline churches are sometimes referred to synonymously as "mainstream."

Mass media
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electronic media and print media include:
Broadcasting, in the narrow sense, for radio and television.
Various types of discs or tape. In the 20th century, these were mainly used for music. Video and computer uses followed.
Film, most often used for entertainment, but also for documentaries.
Internet, which has many uses and presents both opportunities and challenges. Blogs and podcasts, such as news, music, pre-recorded speech and video)
Publishing, in the narrow sense, meaning on paper, mainly via books, magazines, and newspapers.
Video games, which have developed into a mass form of media since cutting-edge devices such as the PlayStation 3, XBox 360, and Wii broadened their use.

Now are you telling me the mass media hasn’t touched on the suspicions surrounding the collapse of WTC7? Well then tell me how the hell do you know about it johnny karate?

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy

http://www.911blogger.com/node/2826
Video: C-SPAN "9/11 Press for Truth" press conference

johnny karate

14th March 2008, 04:40 PM

Now are you telling me the mass media hasn’t touched on the suspicions surrounding the collapse of WTC7? Well then tell me how the hell do you know about it johnny karate?

Because I frequent this forum. Prior to that, I had never even heard of WTC7, let alone the supposed role its collapse played in a massive government conspiracy.

And yes, I am telling you that the MSM hasn't touched on the suspicions surrounding the collapse of WTC7. If they had, I'd imagine you could have provided a link to one such story by now.

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911pollThird of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy

http://www.911blogger.com/node/2826
Video: C-SPAN "9/11 Press for Truth" press conference

Hey, that's just super.

But neither of those links provided an answer to my question.

Here it is again, in case you've forgotten:
Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

LastChild

14th March 2008, 04:43 PM

Because I frequent this forum. Prior to that, I had never even heard of WTC7, let alone the supposed role its collapse played in a massive government conspiracy.

And yes, I am telling you that the MSM hasn't touched on the suspicions surrounding the collapse of WTC7. If they had, I'd imagine you could have provided a link to one such story by now.

Hey, that's just super.

But neither of those links provided an answer to my question.

Here it is again, in case you've forgotten:
Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

I think it's you who is trying to completely ignore it.

Nick Terry

14th March 2008, 04:49 PM

I think it's you who is trying to completely ignore it.

what's the big deal about WTC7 anyway? Please explain.

Nick Terry

14th March 2008, 04:55 PM

I think it's you who is trying to completely ignore it.

what's the big deal about WTC7 anyway? Please explain.

Uzzy

14th March 2008, 07:08 PM

Alright, I'll ask again.

We have shown that the Mainstream Media has firstly the ability to research sensitive and secretive information, discover facts about government and private business that those groups would rather we not find out, clarify and confirm those facts by talking to certified experts in their field and have the willingness to run stories critical of Bush and the military, both in the US and in the wider world.

Further, investigative journalists have both noble desires (revealing the truth) and perhaps less then noble desires (winning fame and admiration of their colleagues and beyond), so they would certainly go for stories that can deliver both those desires. Additionally, many investigative journalists have risked jail and been jailed for protecting their sources. Many have risked death and infact died for their stories.

What does this show? Well, simply that the Mainstream Media has not only the means to investigate suspicions of an inside job, the motive in the form of fame, riches and Pulitzer prizes, and finally the opportunity. Heck, people like Dylan Avery have surely done much of the leg work already. They can research that, and have had the ability to do so for nearly seven years now. Surely the information about an inside job is out there (although, you yourself said that the information was 'limited').

So why is it that the idea of a 9/11 inside job hasn't been mentioned in the Mainstream Media, from Le Monde to CNN, from the BBC to ABC, from the New York Times to al Jazeera. None of them will touch it because there is not shred of truth behind any of the allegations of a 9/11 inside job. Rather, they have an important job to do currently of questioning world leaders for their actions that are occurring within the realm of reality, such as the War on Terror, domestic surveillance, the global economy or global warming. The 9/11 inside job theory is destined to remain where it was spawned, in the back waters of the internet and spread by the gullible, the ill and those who seek fame and fortune anyway possible.

Alternatively, you could have another theory why the Mainstream Media, with all it's investigative resources has not given any credence to a 9/11 inside job, for which the evidence is apparantly so obvious that a layman watching a film made by three amateurs with no scientific qualifications can see. I await to hear this theory.

johnny karate

14th March 2008, 07:37 PM

I think it's you who is trying to completely ignore it.

Yes, that must be it.

Of course, that still doesn't answer my question.

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

LastChild

14th March 2008, 07:44 PM

Yes, that must be it.

Of course, that still doesn't answer my question.

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

I've answered it plenty. You have nothing. You also don't have any quotes from your so-called experts in your so-called consensus. Every time you post without supporting this lie you fail.

And you know it.

Dave Rogers

14th March 2008, 07:52 PM

I've answered it plenty.

Remind us what the answer was, would you? A link would do.

Dave

Confuseling

14th March 2008, 07:59 PM

I've answered it plenty. You have nothing. You also don't have any quotes from your so-called experts in your so-called consensus. Every time you post without supporting this lie you fail.

And you know it.

Hi LastChild. You well? Yes thanks I'm fine.

Discussions about the consensus go here

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108311

Putting them anywhere else is derailing, and that's naughty.

Failing to discuss the issue in that thread and derailing other threads with it would be tacit admission that you aren't interested in discussion at all. That's very naughty.

johnny karate

14th March 2008, 07:59 PM

Remind us what the answer was, would you? A link would do.

Or even just a post number would suffice.

LastChild

14th March 2008, 08:31 PM

Hi LastChild. You well? Yes thanks I'm fine.

Discussions about the consensus go here

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108311

Putting them anywhere else is derailing, and that's naughty.

Failing to discuss the issue in that thread and derailing other threads with it would be tacit admission that you aren't interested in discussion at all. That's very naughty.

There might be a whole lotta discussion or more like lame excuses over there but there certainly isn't any vast consensus of expert quotes supporting the official version in that thread or any other thread for that matter.

Every time someone tries to derail in any thread I’m going to ask for those quotes. That’s why I’m always asking Johnny for them. He can’t ever support his case no matter what the topic without retreating to his lame defense mechanisms.

So keep in line debunkers or I’ll have to smack you back to reality with your blatant failure to produce this vast consensus delusion you’re always fantasizing about.

parky76

14th March 2008, 08:38 PM

Lastchild- dont the chemtrails ever get to you?

Confuseling

14th March 2008, 08:45 PM

...I think it's important to accept that NIST is the best hypothesis we have. Sure, it'll contain inaccuracies, and sure, its remit is limited. But anything glaring would have been picked up by now by those with a vested interest in picking it up.

I'm not married to any specific conspiracy theory so I don't particularly have a problem with this except for the fact that NIST has to be sure about what it is they are reporting if for only the fact of the very reason they are claiming to investigate the collapse of the WTC in the first place. Safety.
...

Well, that's where we ended it.

As long as we're agreed. Great!

johnny karate

14th March 2008, 09:19 PM

There might be a whole lotta discussion or more like lame excuses over there but there certainly isn't any vast consensus of expert quotes supporting the official version in that thread or any other thread for that matter.

Every time someone tries to derail in any thread I’m going to ask for those quotes. That’s why I’m always asking Johnny for them. He can’t ever support his case no matter what the topic without retreating to his lame defense mechanisms.

So keep in line debunkers or I’ll have to smack you back to reality with your blatant failure to produce this vast consensus delusion you’re always fantasizing about.

The only derailing and retreating going on in this thread is by you, LastChild. There's another thread dealing with your "consensus" issue, and you know that. This thread is about the MSM's role in the supposed 9/11 conspiracy.

As far as my "defense mechanisms" being "lame", well then you shouldn't have any trouble dismantling them.

Why don't we start with the question you continually avoid:

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

LastChild

15th March 2008, 06:46 AM

The only derailing and retreating going on in this thread is by you, LastChild. There's another thread dealing with your "consensus" issue, and you know that. This thread is about the MSM's role in the supposed 9/11 conspiracy.

Since when is this thread just about WTC 7?

As far as my "defense mechanisms" being "lame", well then you shouldn't have any trouble dismantling them.

I'm not going to answer the question the way you want no matter how many times you ask it. To give you an answer that would be satisfactory to you would also equate a wrong answer.

I'll leave all the wrong answers to you.

Why don't we start with the question you continually avoid:

You first…

Where's your vast consensus?
Where’s the NIST WTC7 report?
How do you know what happened to WTC7 without this report?
Were you born special or did mommy drop you on your head?

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

Define the MSM. Come Johnny it's not hard. I posted it for you right here in this thread.

Why do you claim the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

http://nymag.com/news/features/16464/

The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll
A new generation of conspiracy theorists is at work on a secret history of New York’s most terrible day.

7.Why 7 WTC Fell

chillzero

15th March 2008, 07:52 AM

Where's your vast consensus?
Where’s the NIST WTC7 report?

Take this to the correct thread LC, you've been asked a few times already. Keep on topic here.

I asked you the same question Johnny Karate has been asking for several pages now, and you didn't give me any answer either; even when I read the specific cases you put forward and found they did not support your claim.

LastChild

15th March 2008, 08:06 AM

Take this to the correct thread LC, you've been asked a few times already. Keep on topic here.

I asked you the same question Johnny Karate has been asking for several pages now, and you didn't give me any answer either; even when I read the specific cases you put forward and found they did not support your claim.

Why do you claim the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

http://nymag.com/news/features/16464/

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html

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

http://www.911blogger.com/node/2826

Foolmewunz

15th March 2008, 08:06 AM

In the category of Defending the Indefensible..... The envelope please..... And the winner is..... LastChild.

This whole thread just represents the QGS (Quantum Goalpost Shift) of all times.

2002-2006 - "How cum no mainstream media pays any attention to us? We've got sterling investigators like Jim Fetzer, Daniel Hopsicker, and David Ray Griffin? But the MSM isn't covering it. They're part of it, I tell ya!"

2007 - "Wow, it's all coming together. Now they're starting to pay attention to us. Won't be long before they impeach (arrest? hang? draw and quarter?) the perps in the White House. Can't stop the troof, baby!"

End 2007 - "Why won't they follow up on the three hundred interviews and articles that were done, huh? They've been bought off, obviously!"

2008 - "Well, okay, they're doing follow up, but they're not doing enough follow up. Why haven't they devoted their entire newspaper(website? television station? radio network?) to this story? They're being muzzled, I tell ya!"

2009 - "Well, okay... so they got nineteen Pulitzer winning journalists to follow up on the CD claims and proved them wrong in a series of articles that ran for four months in every media outlet in the world, but how come they haven't all quit their paying jobs and dedicated their lives to the TM, yet? They were bought off, I tell ya!"

Someone* above got it exactly right.... LC isn't going to be happy until some of this follow up comes up with a conclusion that confirms his bias. No amount of reporting or follow up is going to convince the totally indoctrinated.

*DGM and spotted and highlighted by 8den.

LastChild

15th March 2008, 08:15 AM

8den

15th March 2008, 09:50 AM

Last Child any chance you will respond to post 183?

LastChild

15th March 2008, 12:03 PM

Last Child any chance you will respond to post 183?

You'll get the same response I gave you the first time you asked...

I did so just to point out that the mass media has reported on some of these stories and in some cases was the initial one to report the story.

johnny karate

15th March 2008, 12:41 PM

Why do you claim the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

http://nymag.com/news/features/16464/

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html

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

http://www.911blogger.com/node/2826

All of these stories are about the existence of 9/11 conspiracy theories, and despite that, none of them specifically deals with collapse of WTC7 anyway.

LastChild, I've made this clear in my previous posts, I'm not looking for stories that acknowledge the existence of 9/11 conspiracy theories, but rather stories that deal with those theories in an investigative manner.

It's the difference between saying "There are people who believe the collapse of WTC7 was suspicious" and "The collapse of WTC7 was suspicious".

Please try again:
Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

johnny karate

15th March 2008, 12:41 PM

Deleted. Duplicate post.

LastChild

15th March 2008, 03:25 PM

All of these stories are about the existence of 9/11 conspiracy theories, and despite that, none of them specifically deals with collapse of WTC7 anyway.

LastChild, I've made this clear in my previous posts, I'm not looking for stories that acknowledge the existence of 9/11 conspiracy theories, but rather stories that deal with those theories in an investigative manner.

It's the difference between saying "There are people who believe the collapse of WTC7 was suspicious" and "The collapse of WTC7 was suspicious".

Please try again:
Why has the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

Lazy reading again? Because they most certainly do address WTC7. Some of them more then others. But in any case maybe if you define for me what you think is the MSM I can come up with something to better satisfy you. I mean I wouldn't want to disappoint our unbiased moderator and leave you unfulfilled. Lol

Because I hope you’re not claiming everyone except what you consider the MSM reports on the problems seen by some with the official version of 911. That wouldn’t exactly support your argument now would it? Think Johnny. Think hard.

applecorped

15th March 2008, 03:30 PM

You are incapable of rational thought.

johnny karate

15th March 2008, 04:26 PM

Because I hope you’re not claiming everyone except what you consider the MSM reports on the problems seen by some with the official version of 911. That wouldn’t exactly support your argument now would it? Think Johnny. Think hard.

This is what I'm claiming: The worldwide MSM doesn't report on 9/11 conspiracy theories in an investigative manner.

Do they report on the existence of 9/11 conspiracy theories? Certainly. Do they report on controversial issues regarding the investigation of 9/11? Absolutely.

But what they don't do is treat the so-called "smoking gun" stories (i.e. the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse) in the manner in which the CTer press does. Prisonplanet's archives are clogged with stories about the "obvious" controlled demolition of WTC7, complete with references to numerous pieces of "evidence". So why hasn't a single MSM outlet in the world picked up on this same story?

So, once again, I ask the still unanswered question:

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

8den

15th March 2008, 05:40 PM

You'll get the same response I gave you the first time you asked...

Er yes and BBC followed up the story, you just want to ignore the follow up

LastChild

15th March 2008, 06:39 PM

This is what I'm claiming: The worldwide MSM doesn't report on 9/11 conspiracy theories in an investigative manner.

Do they report on the existence of 9/11 conspiracy theories? Certainly. Do they report on controversial issues regarding the investigation of 9/11? Absolutely.

But what they don't do is treat the so-called "smoking gun" stories (i.e. the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse) in the manner in which the CTer press does. Prisonplanet's archives are clogged with stories about the "obvious" controlled demolition of WTC7, complete with references to numerous pieces of "evidence". So why hasn't a single MSM outlet in the world picked up on this same story?

So, once again, I ask the still unanswered question:

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

Now it's no one in the MSM reports on it in an investigative manner. Ok... As a debunker have you never had the pleasure to read the popular mechanic hit piece investigating different 9/11 conspiracies including I believe WTC-7? Why did such a big shot MSM magazine feel the need to not only cover this in their magazine but I believe put out a book also? Are they not part of your definition of Mass media?

No answer from you on that.

Also did I not link to c-span coverage the 9/11 truth symposium for a full week I believe and wasn't wtc-7 addressed?

Ignored by you.

And didn't I also already answer that maybe there isn't a lot of following up or investigative journalism for lack of access to any evidence or Government officials willing to answer such questions? I pointed to the claims the 9/11 commission had about stonewalling and lack of cooperation and asked how anyone in the media would have any more success then a lawfully constituted body, created by congress?

No answer from you regarding that.

I asked you what it is you want to reserve the right to deem MSM so that I may see if I can accommodate your ever changing conditions to your question. I‘ve answered as best as I know how. Now is this a real question or just a lame defense mechanism for lack of anything else like quotes to support your so-called vast consensus?

I can’t get a straight answer out of you on that either.

Gee I wonder where by own personal moderator is hiding when I need answers to my questions?

Anybody home?

twinstead

15th March 2008, 07:02 PM

So LC your response to questions is not to answer them, but to provide a list of YOUR questions that you believe haven't been answered.

Fair enough, I guess, but whatever happened to being the better man? If you would answer the questions posted to you, perhaps your claim that your questions haven't been answered would be met with something other than guffaws.

johnny karate

15th March 2008, 11:38 PM

Now it's no one in the MSM reports on it in an investigative manner. Ok... As a debunker have you never had the pleasure to read the popular mechanic hit piece investigating different 9/11 conspiracies including I believe WTC-7? Why did such a big shot MSM magazine feel the need to not only cover this in their magazine but I believe put out a book also? Are they not part of your definition of Mass media?

Actually what I was looking for, as I've stated many times already, is a story about the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7, not one about how their exists conspiracy theories about the collapse of WTC7, and how wrong they are.

What we're trying to figure out here LastChild, is why the entire worldwide MSM seems to have absolutely no interest in covering the 9/11 conspiracy theory stories that the CTer press seems to think are so obvious and earth-shattering.

You referencing a story which demonstrates those theories to be wrong does not really help your case.

Also did I not link to c-span coverage the 9/11 truth symposium for a full week I believe and wasn't wtc-7 addressed?

Ignored by you.

Of course I ignored it. It didn't address my question, which I've explained to you in exhaustive detail many, many times.

Once again, I'm not interested in a story reporting on the existence of 9/11 conspiracy theories, what I'd like to see is a MSM story that agrees with the CTer position on these stories. And you know this. Your silly dodges are increasingly pathetic and wholly transparent.

And didn't I also already answer that maybe there isn't a lot of following up or investigative journalism for lack of access to any evidence or Government officials willing to answer such questions? I pointed to the claims the 9/11 commission had about stonewalling and lack of cooperation and asked how anyone in the media would have any more success then a lawfully constituted body, created by congress?

No answer from you regarding that.

No, that's also not true. And you know that as well. I've addressed this point multiple times (because you seem to keep bringing it up). And here's a quote to prove it, which of course you ignored and failed to address:

And as I've told you multiple times, the MSM does not need any kind of special access to cover such stories as he "suspicious nature" of the WTC7 collapse (complete with quotes by demolition expert Danny Jowenko), the supposed NORAD stand down order, Cheney's "suspicious behavior" as established by Mineta's testimony, the supposedly still alive hijackers, the "fake" Osama Bin Laden confession tapes, the ISI-Atta connection, or any number of so-called "smoking guns" CTers claim to exist and report on ad nauseam on their own websites.

Prisonplanet runs these stories all the time. What special access do they have that The New York Times doesn't?

I asked you what it is you want to reserve the right to deem MSM so that I may see if I can accommodate your ever changing conditions to your question.

I've also ignored this particular dodge because it has no relevance at this stage of the discussion. At no point have you presented a news story only to have me claim that it wasn't from a proper MSM outlet, so why the need for me to define MSM for you? It's just another pathetic excuse for you to use.

And the conditions of my question have not changed. I've only had to make my question more specific as you've tried to play silly semantic games to squirm out of answering it. You know the issue were dealing with here, and you know what I'm asking and why.

I‘ve answered as best as I know how.

I must have missed that. Could you please repeat your answer?

johnny karate

16th March 2008, 03:00 PM

Bump for LastChild.

johnny karate

17th March 2008, 11:30 AM

Bump #2 for LastChild.

LastChild

17th March 2008, 12:45 PM

Bump for Johnny karate

johnny karate

17th March 2008, 02:47 PM

I'll take that as an indication of concession.

You've evaded my question over several pages and now have finally run away from the thread.

However, I leave the question for any CTer who wants to take a crack at it:

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

I'm not expecting any responses.

ETA: If any CTer does plan on attempting a response, please read over the last few pages of this thread first. I don't want to have to debunk any of LastChild's lame rebuttals all over again.

LastChild

17th March 2008, 03:00 PM

dudalb

17th March 2008, 03:11 PM

You are incapable of rational thought.

And Lost Child is far from the only Truther on this site of whom that could be said.

johnny karate

17th March 2008, 03:34 PM

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

Oh but LastChild, they have! That was the whole conceit of this thread, and one to which you have already agreed:

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.

And now in your desperate intellectual flailings you are actually contradicting yourself just to try to be right about something. It doesn't say much for your cognitive capacity when you can't even manage consistency within a single thread.

But hey, let's entertain your charming little claim anyway.

Here's a story about the obvious controlled demolition of WTC7 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html) that ran on Prisonplanet.com. Here's another one (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/130907_demolition_countdown.htm). And another (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm).

Please provide a link to a single story that appeared in the MSM of a similar nature.

LastChild

17th March 2008, 05:33 PM

Oh but LastChild, they have!
See I told you they reported on it. Glad you have finally read my links.

And now in your desperate intellectual flailings

That would be you when you can't answer my questions or provide your fantasy vast consensus. Even with the moderators fighting your battles for you. Pathetic.

you are actually contradicting yourself just to try to be right about something.

Same thing I've been claiming since post # 5. You on the other hand claimed the MSM doesn't purposely ignore certain stories and now you claim they are.

What exactly is your argument now? They are conspiring not to report on it? Make up your mind. You're all over the place.

It doesn't say much for your cognitive capacity when you can't even manage consistency within a single thread.

I'm sorry did I get you confused and turn you around? LOL

But hey, let's entertain your charming little claim anyway.

You already have been for pages now. Thank You. Dizzy yet?

Please provide a link to a single story that appeared in the MSM of a similar nature.

I already provided you with links now you provided one. You really need to define what it is you think is the Mainstream Mass Media specifically if TIME doesn’t even qualify. Remember how I caught you in that lie about you not hearing about WTC-7 until you came to JREF? Where did you really first hear it Johnny? The underground railroad?

Lol

Got those quotes or are you stil flailing? Or is it failing? I’m not relay too sure what it is you were trying to spell there. Keep up the good work. You really got me on the run now. Don’t let me off the hook Johnny.

8den

17th March 2008, 05:38 PM

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

Can you answer yes to A) or B)

A) The BBC were incorrect in the spelling of a hijacker in their report from the 5th of October 2001.

or

B) The original BBC was correct, and the hijacker is still alive. It's just that in nearly a decade no one has provided a single shred of supporting evidence to back up this assertion.

Last Child it's a simple question. Which is it. A)? or B)?

LastChild

17th March 2008, 05:56 PM

Can you answer yes to A) or B)

A) The BBC were incorrect in the spelling of a hijacker in their report from the 5th of October 2001.

or

B) The original BBC was correct, and the hijacker is still alive. It's just that in nearly a decade no one has provided a single shred of supporting evidence to back up this assertion.

Last Child it's a simple question. Which is it. A)? or B)?

C)?
D)?
All or none of the above?

TheRedWorm

17th March 2008, 05:58 PM

Bobert

17th March 2008, 06:54 PM

LastChild is sooooooo OWNING you guys!

Corsair 115

17th March 2008, 10:14 PM

Why Hasn't the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?Might the answer simply be they, like many others, don't consider the collapse suspicious?

Brainache

18th March 2008, 01:37 AM

OK LC, let's boil our argument down to a fundamental point that won't shift no matter how hard you scrub:

Why does over 99% of the world think that the Truth Movement is a bunch of kooks?

A: They are all brainwashed.

B: The Truth Movement is a bunch of kooks.

C: Something else.

?

uk_dave

18th March 2008, 02:06 AM

D. The 'truth' movement is incompetent.

johnny karate

18th March 2008, 03:12 AM

See I told you they reported on it. Glad you have finally read my links.

I know reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, but I'm not sure how you could have so badly lost the thread of conversation in only two posts. Allow me to recap.

You said:
Why Hasn't the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

To which I replied:
Oh but LastChild, they have!

See, you're claiming that the MSM has done stories about the suspicious nature of the WTC7 akin to the type that the CTer press does. I, of course, corrected this blatant fabrication.

The point here is that the MSM has completely ignored the "WTC7 was a controlled demolition!" story you Chicken Littles are always running around squawking about. The question to you is: Why?

That would be you when you can't answer my questions or provide your fantasy vast consensus. Even with the moderators fighting your battles for you. Pathetic.

The only thing pathetic here is your constant attempts at a derail to avoid answering my question.

Same thing I've been claiming since post # 5. You on the other hand claimed the MSM doesn't purposely ignore certain stories and now you claim they are.

My position has remained consistent. I have always maintained that the MSM ignores stories about your silly little fantasies. You on the other hand have gone from (bolding mine):
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.

to proclaiming:
Why Hasn't the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse?

You change tacks to suit whatever sad little argument you're making at the moment, without regard to any overall consistency in your thought process. Some would define this as schizophrenic, but I will refrain from doing so as I am not a mental health professional.

What exactly is your argument now? They are conspiring not to report on it? Make up your mind. You're all over the place.

My argument is the same as it always was, sport.

Your movement claims to have earth-shattering evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job, and your little fantasist sites are constantly running stories about this supposed evidence, and their obvious nature.

But for some reason, the worldwide MSM completely ignores these stories about monumental, world-changing events.

The New York Times has never had a headline that read "Twin Towers Actually Brought Down as Part of Government Conspiracy!".

The BBC has never run a story proclaiming Larry Silversteins' complicity in the controlled demolition of WTC7.

Al Jazeera has never once mentioned that the U.S. government staged 9/11 in order to villify and declare war on the Muslim world.

Now, rational people know the reasons for this: Because these stories are utter nonsense.

But what I would like to know from someone who actually believes these stories is how does this incontrovertible fact fit into your worldview?

I already provided you with links now you provided one. You really need to define what it is you think is the Mainstream Mass Media specifically if TIME doesn’t even qualify.

No, LastChild, you have provided no links to MSM stories supporting a CTer view of the WTC7 collapse. The best you have been able to muster is news stories that acknowledge the existence of conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse of WTC7, not any that actually treat these conspiracy theories with any validity.

And of course Time qualifies as a MSM source. Now all you have to do is find a story they ran proclaiming that the collapse of WTC7 was at all suspicious and you'll be all set. Good luck with that.

Remember how I caught you in that lie about you not hearing about WTC-7 until you came to JREF? Where did you really first hear it Johnny? The underground railroad?

I must have missed that. Could you please quote the post where you caught me in this supposed lie?

Your constant attempts to derail are sad and obvious. Moving forward, please stay on topic. If you have questions or issues unrelated to this discussion, then please create new threads for them. I will no longer respond to anything other than the topic at hand, which of course is this:

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

LastChild

18th March 2008, 01:22 PM

http http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531315,00.html
Setting The Record Straight
TIME
Tuesday, Sep. 12, 2006 By COCO MASTERS
THE MYSTERY OF WTC 7
• THE CLAIM: WTC 7 also contained explosives since fire alone has never felled a modern skyscraper. Authorities have delayed releasing a WTC 7 report to hide the truth.
• THE FACTS (ACCORDING TO WHO?): A few critical elements--including damage on the south face, unusual structural design to accommodate a Con Edison substation, extreme weight bearing on floors, and long-burning diesel fuel leaked from large emergency generators--compromised WTC 7's structural integrity. The draft report is expected in early 2007
Maybe you should take issue with Coco and ask her why she called it a mystery and implied the record needed to be set straight on it in such a MSM news outlet like TIME?
BTW has TIME followed up on that final WTC7 report Johnny that isn’t out yet? Because you would think if there was nothing suspicious about the collapse of WTC-7 it would be out by now and not so hard to explain.
So there you go. TIME thought these conspiracy theories were news worthy enough to try and set the record straight on them just like popular mechanics tried and failed. Not that it’s their fault there really is only so much information available so how could they know? And what information has been released to follow up on? Nothing.

Why hasn't the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse? And other 9/11 conspiracy as well?

You know if it's only the fringe of society that bothers with 9/11 conspiracy. Is that who a MSM magazine like TIME cater to? The fringe of society?

stateofgrace

18th March 2008, 01:50 PM

http http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531315,00.html (http://http http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531315,00.html)
Setting The Record Straight
TIME
Tuesday, Sep. 12, 2006 By COCO MASTERS
THE MYSTERY OF WTC 7
• THE CLAIM: WTC 7 also contained explosives since fire alone has never felled a modern skyscraper. Authorities have delayed releasing a WTC 7 report to hide the truth.
• THE FACTS (ACCORDING TO WHO?): A few critical elements--including damage on the south face, unusual structural design to accommodate a Con Edison substation, extreme weight bearing on floors, and long-burning diesel fuel leaked from large emergency generators--compromised WTC 7's structural integrity. The draft report is expected in early 2007
Maybe you should take issue with Coco and ask her why she called it a mystery and implied the record needed to be set straight on it in such a MSM news outlet like TIME?
BTW has TIME followed up on that final WTC7 report Johnny that isn’t out yet? Because you would think if there was nothing suspicious about the collapse of WTC-7 it would be out by now and not so hard to explain.
So there you go. TIME thought these conspiracy theories were news worthy enough to try and set the record straight on them just like popular mechanics tried and failed. Not that it’s their fault there really is only so much information available so how could they know? And what information has been released to follow up on? Nothing.

Why hasn't the worldwide MSM completely ignored the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse? And other 9/11 conspiracy as well?

You know if it's only the fringe of society that bothers with 9/11 conspiracy. Is that who a MSM magazine like TIME cater to? The fringe of society?

So you believe that TIME set the record straight do you ?

From one of your own links.

But there's a big problem with Loose Change and with most other conspiracy theories. The more you think about them, the more you realize how much they depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or documentation, quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses.

A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it

In that sense, the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-3,00.html

Do you feel comforted LC?

Have they set the record straight as you claimed?

LastChild

18th March 2008, 02:16 PM

So you believe that TIME set the record straight do you ?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-3,00.html

Do you feel comforted LC?

Have they set the record straight as you claimed?

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?

DGM

18th March 2008, 02:26 PM

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?

I know enough to know that there's no chance it was blown up on purpose. I can wait for the nuts and bolts of the collapse.

stateofgrace

18th March 2008, 02:34 PM

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?

They trashed 911 conspiracies. They do not support them. Do you think for one second that TIME actually support you ?

Where did I claim to know what happened to WTC 7? Please quote or retract your statement.

If you have some facts to offer about the collapse of WTC 7 please do, otherwise maybe you should take your own advice and wait for the report to come out.

LastChild

18th March 2008, 02:46 PM

They trashed 911 conspiracies. They do not support them. Do you think for one second that TIME actually support you ?

Let's see now...

First it's claimed here that... the MSM totally ignores 9/11 conspiracy particularly WTC-7.

Then it's changed to.... they don't do it in an investigative manner.

Now it's changed to... not that they don't cover it, and not that they don't investigate it, but now it's they don't agree with it.

Did I claim they would?

Where did I claim to know what happened to WTC 7? Please quote or retract your statement.

You just did. You claimed TIME trashed 9/11 conspiracy on WTC-7. How do you know this if you don't know what happened?

BTW is ordering me to do something another one of your delusional fantasies? You really need to watch that. Someone might call your bluff.

If you have some facts to offer about the collapse of WTC 7 please do, otherwise maybe you should take your own advice and wait for the report to come out.

The fact is it hasn't been explained so you and I don't know what happened to WTC-7. You seem to be in a bit of denial about this.

johnny karate

18th March 2008, 02:52 PM

stateofgrace

18th March 2008, 03:00 PM

Let's see now...

First it's claimed here that... the MSM totally ignores 9/11 conspiracy particularly WTC-7.

Then it's changed to.... they don't do it in an investigative manner.

Now it's changed to... not that they don't cover it, and not that they don't investigate it, but now it's they don't agree with it.

Did I claim they would?

You just did. You claimed TIME trashed 9/11 conspiracy on WTC-7. How do you know this if you don't know what happened?

BTW is ordering me to do something another one of your delusional fantasies? You really need to watch that. Someone might call your bluff.

The fact is it hasn't been explained so you and I don't know what happened to WTC-7. You seem to be in a bit of denial about this.

Denial about what? What are you implying exactly?

You have no idea what happened to WTC 7, but in the same sentence anybody who challenges the truth movement who by you own standards have no idea,then they are delusional. How does that work LC?

By your own standards LC the TM is totally wrong and out of order to speculate about the collapse of WTC 7?

Maybe you should pass this on to the TM and ask them to stop speculating and,as you advise on this very forum wait for the report.

LastChild

18th March 2008, 03:58 PM

I'm sorry LastChild, but once again you have failed. By your own admission, this story doesn't treat the collapse of WTC7 in the manner of the CTer press. Quite the contrary.

The only thing that's failing is you pathetically trying to morph your question into something else every time I answer you. Give it up. It's sad Johnny.

Please stop linking stories that merely acknowledge the existence of WTC7 conspiracy theories, or just outright refutes them. It does nothing to help your case, and it certainly doesn't address the question I'm asking.

It shows they covered it. Which you claimed they didn't.

It shows they investigated it (At least they claimed to). Which you claimed they didn't.

Now what is it? LOL

Coco Masters and Time both feel the way I do about your silly, unsubstantiated theories. As does every MSM outlet on the planet. The question to you is: Why?

Why did they cover it then? Maybe you like Coco need to follow up on your NIST report and figure out where it is if everything is so obvious. Maybe you can do a follow up piece together.

You know something like Coco and Johnny KooKoo follow up on the WTC-7 collapse.

LastChild

18th March 2008, 04:01 PM

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Patriotism_Censorship.html
Patriotism & Censorship
Some journalists are silenced,
while others seem happy to muzzle themselves
by Peter Hart and Seth Ackerman
War fever in the wake of the September 11 attacks has led to a wave of self-censorship as well as government pressure on the media. With American flags adorning networks' on-screen logos, journalists are feeling rising pressure to exercise "patriotic" news judgment, while even mild criticism of the military, George W. Bush and U.S. foreign policy are coming to seem taboo.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/27/spin/print.html
White House whitewashers
On Wednesday, tensions between the White House and its media critics, real or imagined, threatened to rise even higher. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer took a slap at "Politically Incorrect" host Bill Maher, who called U.S. military strikes on faraway targets "cowardly." Fleischer blasted Maher, claiming it was "a terrible thing to say," and didn't stop there, noting "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-griffith/silence_b_84150.html
Silence
Posted January 30, 2008
“"I did not hear any mention of the current war in Afghanistan or Osama Bin Laden." I said, hoping to prompt the seasoned reporter to point out the obvious and open discussion. Instead, he simply said, "That's right Leslie, the president did not mention Osama or Afghanistan." I sat there stunned. I walked toward the boss' office knowing the new ultra-conservative regime did not know my history as a reporter, and they did not care. I doubt any of them had read my resume. Controversy is the essence of news and they wanted no controversy. It cost them commercials."Hello, boss," I said. He got right to the point. "Never ask a question like that again. I've been fielding phone calls all day about it. Viewers felt it was unpatriotic."”

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/10/hit-them-with-truth.html
"I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life. To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labeled a disgruntled conspiracy nut or anti-government traitor, or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government service, or literary career. To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American."

johnny karate

18th March 2008, 06:47 PM

The only thing that's failing is you pathetically trying to morph your question into something else every time I answer you. Give it up. It's sad Johnny.

Another blatant and easily provable falsehood from you.

The conditions of my question have not changed. Your silly little semantic games that you use to weasel out of honest discussion have only required me to make it more specific.

The terms I have established have not been altered and described by me in exhaustive detail in several posts:

To be more clear, what I'm looking for is a MSM story about the collapse of WTC7 that echoes the sentiment of this piece (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html), or an explanation as to why there aren't any.

LastChild, I've made this clear in my previous posts, I'm not looking for stories that acknowledge the existence of 9/11 conspiracy theories, but rather stories that deal with those theories in an investigative manner.

It's the difference between saying "There are people who believe the collapse of WTC7 was suspicious" and "The collapse of WTC7 was suspicious".

This is what I'm claiming: The worldwide MSM doesn't report on 9/11 conspiracy theories in an investigative manner.

Do they report on the existence of 9/11 conspiracy theories? Certainly. Do they report on controversial issues regarding the investigation of 9/11? Absolutely.

But what they don't do is treat the so-called "smoking gun" stories (i.e. the "suspicious" nature of the WTC7 collapse) in the manner in which the CTer press does. Prisonplanet's archives are clogged with stories about the "obvious" controlled demolition of WTC7, complete with references to numerous pieces of "evidence". So why hasn't a single MSM outlet in the world picked up on this same story?

Once again, I'm not interested in a story reporting on the existence of 9/11 conspiracy theories, what I'd like to see is a MSM story that agrees with the CTer position on these stories. And you know this.

Here's a story about the obvious controlled demolition of WTC7 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html) that ran on Prisonplanet.com. Here's another one (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/130907_demolition_countdown.htm). And another (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm).

Please provide a link to a single story that appeared in the MSM of a similar nature.

Your movement claims to have earth-shattering evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job, and your little fantasist sites are constantly running stories about this supposed evidence, and their obvious nature.

But for some reason, the worldwide MSM completely ignores these stories about monumental, world-changing events.

The New York Times has never had a headline that read "Twin Towers Actually Brought Down as Part of Government Conspiracy!".

The BBC has never run a story proclaiming Larry Silversteins' complicity in the controlled demolition of WTC7.

Al Jazeera has never once mentioned that the U.S. government staged 9/11 in order to villify and declare war on the Muslim world.

Now, rational people know the reasons for this: Because these stories are utter nonsense.

But what I would like to know from someone who actually believes these stories is how does this incontrovertible fact fit into your worldview?

It shows they covered it. Which you claimed they didn't.

It shows they investigated it (At least they claimed to). Which you claimed they didn't.

What I claim is the MSM doesn't cover or investigate these stories in the same manner as the CTer press. See above for many examples of me making this point very explicitly.

The conditions of my question have been made very clear to you, as they have been from the beginning (see above).

You know what I'm asking and you know why I'm asking it, which is why you are afraid to give any kind of real answer and insist on these intellectually dishonest games.

But in the end, you just look more foolish, and my one, simple question goes unanswered:

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