MSM attacks Napolitano and Rivera for 9-11 comments.

No surprise here.

But what I found funny is that "analysts" from BOTH the Republican and Democrat sides are teaming up to smear these two people for daring to have an opinion about 911.

It's rare that two media watchdogs – one on the left and one on the right – ever agree when it comes to assessing coverage on the cable news outlets.

But both the conservative Newsbusters and liberal Media Matters are aiming fire at Fox News' Geraldo Rivera and Judge Andrew Napolitano for recently suggesting the third building to fall on September 11, 2001 – 7 World Trade Center- may have collapsed for reasons beside the widely held belief that fire from the two World Trade Center towers nearby was the ultimate cause

Emphasis mine. Link to the hit job on CNN

They even discuss comments Napolitano made on Alex Jones' show.

Isn't it funny though?? That people on Fox can bark all day long, but the minute one of them utters a question about the events of 9-11, the hounds come outta the woodwork and start howling for blood. Figures.

This should be no surprise to anyone who has thought open mindedly about 911 events. The media does NOT ALLOW us to think anything except their official story. If we DARE to think for ourselves, and question things, we become the enemy of both political parties.

Well thats fine because I can't stand both parties. They are brainwashed drones repeating what they were told to say. Both parties togeather are the reason America sucks. They are ruining this nation, they are behind our downfall.

Anyways, thought you guys would like to know. CNN and these "media analyst groups" are making full out attacks on anyone daring to question 911 events.

Censorship, manipulation, and control are coming our way!

Think as you are told, not as you want!

In a post on its Web site Tuesday, Newsbusters said the suggestion lacked any common sense and amounted to "moral repugnance."

What I find morally rupugnant, is the people who will lie, cheat, and then turn around and call everyone else immoral. Isn't that ironic?

"Just so Fox is clear about the people whom they've given soapboxes, Geraldo and the Judge are apparently unconvinced by physics, common sense, and the simple human decency of their elected officials," wrote Newsbuster's Lachlan Markay.

Hilarious!
Whoever says the words "physics" or "common sense" first wins the debate right? WRONG. You have to actually provide full evidence to win the debate. You cannot just simply say "physics is on my side I win". That's liar tactics.

Also see where it says "Simple Human Decency of their Elected Officials".

Show me ONE elected official that's decent. It's impossible. There is no such thing as a decent elected official. Prove it to my unbelieving mind.

That's all they do in hit pieces like this. Make up totally absurd accusations, throw insults and try to assassinate people's character!

And the worst part of this bull excrement is that tons of people will believe every word of this without even questioning a single part of it. They honestly think that politicians are decent. It's Hilarious and frightening at the same time!

You cannot just simply say "physics is on my side I win". That's liar tactics.

You can if the actual science is on your side, the only 'liars tactic' being used is arguing against science using pseudoscience and general ignorance.

That people on Fox can bark all day long, but the minute one of them utters a question about the events of 9-11, the hounds come outta the woodwork and start howling for blood. Figures.

It was a really silly move, even for Faux news host, which really says something. I'd honestly be more surprised if his comments went by without any response.

Didn't Silverstien, the owner of the building admit it was Control Demolished on the PBS documentary?

How could anyone honestly promote (and sleep soundly at night) the OS version of building 7 coming down? I sometimes wonder how much the talking heads sold their souls for; then I remember just how many people worship their opinions and the chairs they sit in.

Wow! It took the spinmeisters over at CNN this long to craft their hit piece? Hilarious!

I was gratified to see Geraldo do an about face on building 7 considering all the grief he has given the "truthers" over time. I noticed that the clip that Geraldo showed from his NYC confrontation with 9/11 demonstrators did not include the part where he threatened to physically "take care" of the people yelling "inside job" over his telecast. I suppose that there are limits to his epiphany. But then again, I have never forgiven him for "Al Capone's Vault"

Thanks for posting OP

Originally posted by Whyhi
You can if the actual science is on your side, the only 'liars tactic' being used is arguing against science using pseudoscience and general ignorance.

So basically you admit that your only tactic is to just claim "superiority" and claim "the actual science is on my side".

But yet you provide no evidence, no explanations, nothing.

Your post is a joke, right?

You just committed the logical fallacy and underhanded tactic that I just outed. Right under my quote of it. Irony hath no bounds.

reply to post by Whyhi

You can if the actual science is on your side, the only 'liars tactic' being used is arguing against science using pseudoscience and general ignorance.

Interesting statement...

When you consider that the very essence of science is the repeatability of any experiment, coupled with the fact that neither before nor after 9/11/01 has a steel reinforced skyscraper collapsed into its own footprint from fires and superficial damage to the facia, you must come to the conclusion that science is not on the side of the official story.

Care to rethink that position?

reply to post by eNumbra

Didn't Silverstien, the owner of the building admit it was Control Demolished on the PBS documentary?

No.

He had determined that, after the fires were out, the building would have to be demolished eventually. It was too far gone, too damaged, to salvage.

It did the favor, and collapsed on its own first. Actually, saved time, money and risk to the crew that would have had to do the actual demo.

Note how many of the OTHER surrounding buildings were also brought down, later. Research.....

It makes NO sense to claim that it was "secretly" control-demoed....when it is being acknowledged that the building was a lost cause!!!

WTC 7 is a NON-conspiracy, if ever there was one!!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Are you serious? Do you know one thing about controlled demolition? I will have to side with the architects and engineers on this one. I think your conclusion is without real consideration for the laws of physics. There was no resistance to the fall as would be found with a building of that type of structure. There is little doubt in this among serious technical experts not paid to side with the OS.

It's just an opinion. It's subjective.

None of you have any evidence either way. You just believe what you want to believe.

The only reason I cared about this story, is the fact that you are NOT allowed to disagree on this issue. Even though NO ONE ACTUALLY KNOWS EITHER WAY!

It's frustrating. Everyone thinks they know. But in reality they don't have a clue!

The fact that they are trying to suppress free thought is what I am bothered by.

The freedom to speculate and investigate things should never be hampered. The freedom to think whatever you want about 911 cannot be infringed.

I just cannot stand the anti-freedom aspect of all of this.

Since you cannot shut the 'truthers' up, and since they seem to grow in #'s as more and more people are convinced of foul play, the MSM and their followers have NO CHOICE but to just attack the freedom of speech, rather than actually having decent debates.

There has never been 1 single decent debate on 911 EVER in the MSM. And in case there was, it was so unpopular and underrated that no one knew about it.

reply to post by eNumbra

Didn't Silverstien, the owner of the building admit it was Control Demolished on the PBS documentary?

Technically no. What he said on PBS, while recounting his telephone conversation with (I believe) an official of the FDNY, was something to the effect of, "we decided maybe the best thing to do was just pull it" and later in the same conversation, "so they gave the order to pull it and we watched the building come down"

The controvery revolves around the meaning of "pull it". Within the construction/demolition community it is commonly taken to mean a controlled demolition. The official explanation is that they were discussing pulling the firemen out of the building (even though there had not been any firemen in building 7 for hours).

The "they were talking about demolishing the building later" theory is a new one on me, but frankly I wouldn't put too much faith in it.

reply to post by muzzleflash


The more these political criminals scream OS all true, the more Americans are waking up to the fact that both parties are fighting to bury 911 and condemns any American to even have an opinion different than the OS, speaks volumes to me.

I am not surprised Geraldo Rivera was slammed for speaking out, this is to be expected from the media gatekeepers.

The more outrage and venom the media displays against people just voicing their opinions, then the more Americans can see something is terrible wrong with the OS, and the fact that both political parties are using the media to silence anyone who dares speaks the truth.

Both political parties have turn into a cesspool of corruption.
This is more proof that the government had their hands in doing a false flag operation.
When both parties venomously are slamming anyone who dares to speak out about 911 and when most of it has been proven a lie, people have no problems seeing our government is desperately hiding the truth.

reply to post by impressme


Are you suggesting that the news broadcasters are aware of the cover-up and are deliberately derailing discussion about it?

reply to post by wayouttheredude

Do you know one thing about controlled demolition?

About as much as you??

Look....anyone can watch any number of videos, and documentaries. Heck, I saw several even back BEFORE 9/11, and the amount of time and work and manhours that go into prepping a building for a CD are extensive.

Compared to videos readily available, to see REAL CD events, and the sounds and sights....then compare to the WTC 7 collapse. It failed internally, and thus resembled a planned demo.

There are plenty of sources that discuss its unique architectural design, and susceptibility to the damage, and unfought fires too.

The "pull it" comment, in the context of Silverstein's saying it, sounds more and more like he was referring to the efforts to save the building, such as they were. He prefaced those two words with sentiments like, "There's been too much loss of life already..." A clear mention of the WTC 1 and 2 collapse, and the deaths of FFs inside. "Pull it", in that frame of context, is to "pull" the effort, the activity, and let it burn.

SO.....firstly, the idea of a CD for WTC 7 makes zero sense, UNLESS you wish to show how it was set up, in the hours between about 10:00 AM, and 5:20 PM, when it collapsed. HOW? NO one saw it occurring, and as noted, it takes days/weeks, normally, to set up a CD.

AND....it was going to be torn down anyway!!! Just as WTC 5, 6, etc all nearby, and in the range of the devastation, were also torn down. The Marriott Hotel was torn down. en.wikipedia.org...

The whole area was cleared out.

Like I said...a NON-conspiracy. None of this makes any logical sense, this "magical" CD idea....

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by impressme

 

Are you suggesting that the news broadcasters are aware of the cover-up and are deliberately derailing discussion about it?

Nice try.

He didn't say that at all.

But you are attempting to make it "look" like he did, so you can ridicule him and his position.

He clearly said things in generalized vague form, but you applied your own illogical specific detail, in order to derail everything.

That is a very pathetic form of debunking or "debate".

Please think about things a little deeper before playing ball in this court. Thanks.

Ok Look we are getting way off topic here.

The point of this thread, and it's main subject, is how the Media attacks anyone who dares question 911.

This isn't exactly a debate on if 911 was a inside job or not. That's been debated endlessly. It's pretty stale.

I don't mind a little 911 OS vs IJ debate, thats fine. Let's just try to stay a bit focused here on the main gig, and thats the story linked that shows how people from both political parties will team up to silence 911 questions.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I think you miss the point that the demolition was set ahead of time by the co-conspirators with the PNAC global terrorist organization that planned and executed 9/11 to bring about the wars we are now into. Building 7 was likely supposed to be hit by their patsies and was destroyed because it was not and this is what is conspicuous. You have to know this already since it is common knowledge. Only knowing apologist for the OS or the willfully ignorant still believe otherwise.

PS: I set my first shaped charge in training back in 1981. The bridge blew nicely.

reply to post by muzzleflash

I am not surprised Geraldo Rivera was slammed for speaking out, this is to be expected from the media gatekeepers.

He didn't say that at all.

What does a media gatekeeper supposedly do then? Does he do, as I mentioned, "deliberately derail discussion about it?" at the very least? Sounds basically like what I suggested, no?

How am I misrepresenting what he said?

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I am not surprised Geraldo Rivera was slammed for speaking out, this is to be expected from the media gatekeepers.

He didn't say that at all.

What does a media gatekeeper supposedly do then? Does he do, as I mentioned, "deliberately derail discussion about it?" at the very least? Sounds basically like what I suggested, no?

How am I misrepresenting what he said?

edit on 1-12-2010 by Whyhi because: (no reason given)

You said "News Broadcasters".

He said "Media gatekeepers".

These are different words.

Broadcasters just read telepromtors. They broadcast.

Gatekeepers is a very vague term. It could mean Producers. Editors. Script writers. Anything. It could be the owners or whatever.

He was being vague, and you assumed automatically what he specifically referred to. And used it as a way to discredit/ridicule/attack.

reply to post by Whyhi


Ohhh I get it now.

You are emulating a "disinfo agent" for fun? Ok good joke. I'll remember to not take you seriously.

Your Location: Langley (HAHA Good CIA joke)

Mood : Disinformative (Funny also, but I'd reword it "uninformative").

And the tidbit right under your name : Disinformation Operative

Hey you posted all that on your own profile. I am just now aware of it.

So I will take that as a self-explanatory reason of why you are so determined to use distraction, word games, veiled insults/ridicule, etc.

Point is, you are not taken seriously.
You treat all of this like a joke.

This is not an attack at you, it is just an explanation of why I cannot treat your comments with any real consideration because you are making a joke out of ATS, your persona here, etc.

I admit I am off topic by griping about this. But I am going to rout you.