ABC Nightline -- Failed Hit-Piece on 9/11 Truth Movement (video)

If this reporter was a real journalist, he would be the one asking the hard hitting questions about 9/11, not the young film makers. The profession of journalism has degraded itself to the point of irrelevance.

How demeaning it must be to defend a story which does not even make the slightest bit of sense. If the OS was Kosher, these amateur transparent ruffian tactics by the press would not be necessary. Without even realizing it, they are driving people away from the propaganda and closer to the truth.

reply to post by Josephus23


Nice quote

Fascism is a reaction and not a revolution. Fascism in its pure form is a blending of the corporate and the state. It should actually be called corporatism.

I have a similar quote from a fellow forumist from the ole NYTimes forums from a discussion we were having on the business area. I keep it on my frig.

"metalurgy7 - 11-31 AM ET July 21, 2006 9#1098 of 14102)

When Power and wealth is concentrated in few hands, it is totalitarianism.

Whether you call it communist or fascist, doesn't make much difference.[/quote]

We had a good bunch there. metallurgy is a Canadian who ran a mine down in Peru. If memory serves me right.

reply to post by seattletruth


reply to post by Josephus23


You sum up the entire 9/1 Truth movement with what you state here...

It is impossible to start with a false presumption and derive any truth whatsoever from it

This is also not about your generation, this is about our country. This affected every generation from those who survived WW2 to those born on 9/11. This was not men returning from war and a baby boom and the introduction of rock t to the baby boomers to gen x,y, and z...those are generations.

3000 people of all backgrounds, religions, thoughts and generations were killed and affected. I feel that 9/11 will, when the history books are rewritten 100 years from now will be a defining moment for our country. We were shown as penetrable...weak...a chink in the armor.

Here are some highlights....

A housewife from Jersey who states..." it is a coverup" and " we are keeping the crazies out of here" No evidence...

Dylan Avery and Rowe - agrees with the 9/11 commission report that the government did not do enough. They already know the agenda of the reporter...sounds like these forums....

Or the church musician who is a scientist and a historian...

Coleen Rowley - FBI agent who also will not agree or answer simple question...again, sound familiar???

Lee Hamilton - a commission member who says there is no more to look at

and a few more....

Now, Nightline asked more than 7 people a simple question and NO one would answer it. No one. It was not a smear but it was a chance for those who were asked the questions to give a good, intelligent repsonse and all we got was deflection. They missed thier chance to make the reporter look like a schmuck and did not do it...

reply to post by esdad71


That is because the question that they asked can not be answered.

No one knows what happened that day. The entire dog and pony show has been a debacle from jump.

Ms. Rowley wouldn't answer the question because she can't.

What the "truthers" are seeking is a new investigation.
Out in the open and with no state secret privileges or immunities.
Bush and Cheney should be forced to testify under oath, and the work of the group of international scientists who discovered active thermitic residue in dust samples from ground zero should be recognized and deemed as either valid or invalid.

If it is found to be valid, then we have a big problem on our hands.

This is not a debate that can be won in its current format because the argument and the evidence are based on a contrived story that is RIFE with contradictions.

It is impossible to start with a false premise and derive any truth whatsoever.

reply to post by Josephus23


The question cannot be answered? What the hell kind of response is that? I don't care where you go to school or what your job is but as a 'researcher' you should know that the basis of ANY investigation is a theory.

You try to hide behind this "we only want a new investigation" and " i don't know the answers" and it is getting old. A new investigation of what? and by whom? The loose Change guys or that gov't lackey Professor Jones.

Truthers are a false premise by design. Lets look at what false premise is.

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error.

Truthers think that since it looks like a demo it was a demo. The Syllogism is the argument that you are making..does that make sense?


The video and the reporter gave AMPLE chance to these people to explain their side but they answer just like you. Nothing...nothing. But hey, I did see plenty of DVD's and books. You should go door to door and give all the profits to a new commission.

two questions

1. What if they find the same results?

2. What do YOU think happened to bring down the towers?



[edit on 12-3-2010 by esdad71]

[edit on 12-3-2010 by esdad71]

reply to post by esdad71


The simplest explanation is most often the correct explanation.

I looks like a controlled demo, therefore, it probably was.

No fire has ever taken down a structure like this, which was built to withstand an aircraft hit, therefore it does not stand to reason that the two towers were taken down by the aircraft strike and resulting fire. It is an unlikely explanation.

All evidence points in a different cause of the fall of the towers, including most of the eye witness accounts which describe the explosions.

The people who ignore this evidence are the ones who are choosing to be delusional.

reply to post by esdad71


Nice try on the Straw Man, but it ain't going to work.

The only person that you are convincing is yourself and your entire process of reasoning is full of holes.

There is no rationalizing with you because you are ir-rational.

That is not an insult. So, please don't try to scream personal attack.

Anyone who can read should clearly see this.
You've made up an argument, and your entire conversation has been with yourself.

You make truthers look good man.

Ciao.

reply to post by K J Gunderson

Did anyone catch the narrator saying that "Loose Change" was full of highly discredited claims such as the jet fuel was not hot enough to melt the steel? Wait a minute here. I thought the official line was that no steel was melted because of that very fact. Why does this news report claim the steel was melted by jet fuel? Did I hear that wrong?

Their exact wording was "highly discredited".

But we all know that steel doesn't melt at those temperatures. Does the steel you set your pots on on the stove melt? The OS claims it is the aluminum from the plane but aluminum doesn't glow red it just looks like mercury when hot. So what was dripping out of the building and was found in the rubble pile was likely the result of a thermite like material.

Even if the steel was melted it would just topple over at those points not collapse the whole building. As you go down further the steel gets thicker.

Originally posted by Doctor Smith

Their exact wording was "highly discredited".

Yes in reference to the idea that jet fuel is does not burn hot enough to have melted the steel. I am very confused as to how the same people can support the OS and the MSM when they cannot seem to match up here at all.

"two questions

1. What if they find the same results?

2. What do YOU think happened to bring down the towers?"

1. I assume this question asks what if a new investigation finds the same results. Well, it is impossible to find the same results since there was NO INVESTIGATION done immediately after the attacks. In case you failed to notice, evidence was discarded and the whole event was swept under one giant rug. And not one single person brought up on charges of obstruction of justice. Not too obvious, huh?

2. Since I have not had the opportunity to interview any direct eyewitnesses, I can only go by what is shown on the videos, which show the towers being blown to smithereens. Obviously, it takes a lot more than some oxygen starved fires to blow two immense steel framed skyscrapers to bits. Fables about pancake collapses are for the large number of suckers who were born yesterday.

No need to mention Building 7, since that collapse was the icing on the cake and the ultimate slap in the face to a clueless public.

I haven't read all the replies, but I did just watch the video.

Was it fair on on a scale of 1-10 - I'd put it about a 6 1/2.

It didn't discuss hardly any of the points that are being raised. And the last thing they left us with was that 'some people will never be able to reconcile that 19 hijackers did this'.

What about the fact that a number of the hijackers are alive?

And by putting it in the basket with the assassination of Lincoln and Kennedy will probably steer a hefty proportion of people from getting involved in the truth movement because it seems helpless.