Surprising to see Tucker Carlson actually giving Jones a decent chance. I wasn't too impressed with Jones -- he seemed really almost poorly prepared and bumbling. Still, he made his points and Carlson actually let him. Surprising.

Here's an article I wrote about Prof. Jones' apperance on MSNBC's The Situation Room:

Did MSNBC censor the "collapse" video of Building 7 during Tucker Carlson's interview w/ BYU Prof. Steven Jones?

By Stallion4
Tuesday, November 15, 2005

http://www.mypetgoat.tv/forums/viewtopic.php?t=349

It should go without saying that Jones deserves nothing but admiration for his appearance.

Please contact Carlson if you believe in giving Jones fair air time, or at least to give out the URL for his recent paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

georgewashington.blogspot.com has posted a super fast followup linking to this article which is worth checking out:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/9-11-end-game_14.html

" Why couldn't they air the collapse of WTC 7? AMAZING."

Why couldn't they air the perfectly symmetrical, extremely rapid collapse of a 47 story building that looks just like a highly professional demolition? Well, I'm just guessing, but it's probably because they don't want to make it obvious that the good Professor's hypothesis must be right.

What I find amazing is that the interview occurred at all.

Professor Jones did just fine. Gave them a little heck over showing the building 7 video (lol!..), pushed his points at the end after Carlson declared outta time, and had that "low probability" quote at the ready! Ya done real good, Professor!

can one of the more familiar please add a few links to refute the comment by tucker about the diesel tanks in WTC7 attributing to its collapse? i am relatively sure this was not claimed by FEMA, and that they suggested those diesel tanks were irrelevant to the collapse of WTC7..

oh, btw, 'pull it'.
http://www.911blogger.com/2004/10/all-you-need-to-see-about-wtc7.html

ive gotta hit the hay..

you can bet they censored it after all it is evidence of controlled demo and they have to know. If it had been a video of of some democrat picking his nose they would have run it over and over. Cut into other "news" with that breaking story.

IN HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION, he never mentioned any explosions....my goodness, why are you beating a dead horse?

Are you calling Rodriguez a coward? Are you saying he wouldn't have tried to get that story in there? Or spoken to the MSM as soon as he walked out?

WHY IS HE DENYING THE STORY YOU CLAIM HE TOLD????
actor212 | Homepage | 11.15.05 - 11:35 am | #

________________________________________________________________________________

"Troll Whacked. Check."

My work is done. I've just discredited the entire crackpot conspiracy with one facet of its so-called "evidence".
actor212 | Homepage | 11.15.05 - 11:36 am | #

It's cool, then we should just 'carry on'.

The more I read into this NIST site the more questions I have anyway.

Thanks!

we cant let people who hold influence(dont ask me why people listen to him) go unchecked. we gotta fight for the truth while people like actor fight for the government.

Maybe we should all request to see the specific wtc7 video that Steven E. Jones had supplied!

911Truth has an excellent handout rebuttal of the NIST report.
Downloadable folded handout pdf:
http://digitalstyledesigns.com/pages/downloads.htm

It's the Jews stupid!

I concur with John

Thanks for the link jan.

. : I think by bickering with actor we may be turning a lot of people off who have legit questions but, are afraid to post.

http://911truthseekers.blogspot.com/

check it out.. my 911 video.. 911 is the real deal...

I shared the story with WRH :

9/11 Videos - The Controlled Collapse of WTC 7 THE CONTROLLED COLLAPSE OF WTC 7
Posted Nov 15, 2005 07:26 AM PST
Category: 911

BYU Professor Steven Jones on 'The Situation Room' - Video Download
Posted Nov 15, 2005 07:24 AM PST
Category: 911

Notice how Tucker would NOT air footage of WTC 7 collapsing!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

dantastic, I can't seem to view your video in firefox or IE. I have all the required plugins... Do you have a link to the video itself rather than streaming it?

Are we bickering or debating? Was I too forceful with those people? Thats nothing I wouldn't do on any other bulletin board.

hey professional, you might have already saw it. unfortunately i don't have it available for download anywhere... do you know of any good video hosting service where i could make it available for download?

its the same one as here:

http://www.vidilife.com/index.cfm?f=media.play&vchrMediaProgramIDCryp=02...

Hey Dantastic, you're having a presentation at a U-Brew?

Good job!!!

about the 9/11 eyewitness dvd.. i believe the audio/video footage is 100% solid proof of demolition.. the continuous footage throughout the ordeal with crystal clear sound shows explosions going off several minutes before each collapse..

that dvd's new footage (minus some of the boring commentary) proves massive explosions occured, plain and simple.

I'm hoping to get the rights to share some of it.. we will see.. watch it if you can.

Rachel and dz, thanks for your opinions on 911 Eyewitness video. I'll watch for your posting, dz, if you can get the rights. Much appreciated.

somebigguy: Yea I'm not to sure but, the energy felt wrong to me. ;)

Dantastic, I haven't seen your video yet. I just get the WMP interface and it says "Ready".

I'll try a few things and look for a host.

Regarding the trolls at certain messageboards, hate to get all "anti-Semitic" (LMAO) on y'all, much less partisan.. but I had a bad experience a couple years ago, after spending hours a day on SmirkingChimp.com messageboards.

Long story short it came into focus that there were AIPAC whips running around seeking to ridicule 911-truthers, using the most ridiculous and transparent rationales & arguments (like citing NIST and the Kean/Zellikow Whitewash report). I say AIPAC whips coz these same characters were also the first to feign outrage and cry "anti-Semitism!" at any (valid, documented) criticism of the actions of the State of Israel or of Zionism. At smirkingchimp, one of these whips was "boloboffin" and, unbeknownst to most of the users, he is also a "BoardNanny" ie he can lock/delete threads, with or without providing explanation. This rendered the entire site-- a "strong supporter of the Democratic Party" (which AIPAC also owns), whipped. The role of smirkingchimp.com is controlled opposition, a librul pressure release valve seeking to keep the flock IN the demrat party, and to keep all matters Israel/Zionism/AIPAC, and their interests like maintaining the official 911 fairy tale, off their naive flock's radar. "That's right sheeple, if we can just vote in the good and virtuous demrats, everything will be good again, so get out there and fight fight fight!"

Here's the one AND ONLY 911-Truth thread which TPTB at smirkingchimp have graciously permitted to exist, which makes their job of whipping the dialog in it more concentrated & efficient. If you check it out watch for the rantings of AIPAC whips "boloboffin" and "Cerwiller":
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=34081&forum=12&start=0

DOH! I see the 911-Truth subject was just too threatening for the AIPAC-Whipped-Chimp.com gatekeepers to manage. So on 9/3/05, after the thread lived for 1 3/4 years, the final post is from the ostensible owner of the site "smirkychimpster" aka Jeff Tiedrich:

It's time for all the CT people to go bye-bye.

Bye-bye, CT people!

This topic is locked; no new posts may be added

i've never been to the SmirkingChimp.com messageboards before now but on the top of their website, they have a support Sibel Edmonds fight against DOJ...which would clearly help get the truth out.

do they not allow any new thread to be created about 9-11?...if so screw 'em and add them to the list of left gatekeepers...and ignore them

The AIPAC-whiped-chimp.com has been inconsistent wrt 911-Truth. I know Sibel herself posted a thread or two there, I think that Sibel button at the top points to the thread. And a case can be made that Sibel's story is more limited hangout, "mistakes were made" crap. I don't see her saying the gummit LIPOP/MIHOP. I imagine there's been infighting over the years among TPTB at whippedchimp on how to handle the 2-ton elephant (wearing the skullcap) in the room aka 911-Truth; as on their mainpage, they have posted one or two stories which dance around the edges of 911-Truth, ie,
"Barry Crimmins: 'Pass the Reynolds Wrap'"
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=21090&mode=nested&order=0

But it seems they've resolved to censor it altogether now, as "CT" not belonging at their site. Here's their 100 most recent threads:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/recentposts.php

See anything there about Jones? Even after the Tucker piece? Any other 911-Truth? Nope. Just a bunch of clandestinely whipped libruls proud of how smart they are, preaching to their choir, reinforcing the bogus left/right divide/conquer paradigm, not making any real change happen and thus posing no threat to TPTB.

BTW I was kicked off the site 1.5 years ago, and many of those I've kept contact with have been purged in recent months. Those whipped librul dupes remaining chant in unison to their gatekeepers, "Thank you master, may I have another? You're so wonderful master."

IN HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION, he never mentioned any explosions....my goodness, why are you beating a dead horse?

Are you calling Rodriguez a coward? Are you saying he wouldn't have tried to get that story in there? Or spoken to the MSM as soon as he walked out?

WHY IS HE DENYING THE STORY YOU CLAIM HE TOLD????
actor212 | Homepage | 11.15.05 - 11:35 am | #

his testimony was behind closed doors, no one was allowed to hear it but the commissioners...just like Sibel Edmonds.

and as for the MSM:
"During the 9/11 hearings, NBC brought a crew out to my house and spent a day taping my story but they never did air a word of it," said Rodriguez. "Since then, some reporters and commentators have subtly warned me to keep quiet, told me my life could be in jeopardy and warned me that I really didnÂ’t understand who I was dealing with.

for a snippet of his story see:
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm

"Tucker", the ancorman, is an extremely offensive and manipulative ultra-"conservative" in the pro-Bush sense.
I remembered him when first he was launched on PBS with a mid-night (or after-midnight) program, and I remember looking in amazement at his obnoxious manipulative twists.

He obviously is at full throttle here: the hesitating and mildly speaking professor with his lack of verbal aggression is being torn into a heap of little pitiful rags in front of our eyes:
Professor is interrupted on moving to building 7, made to as if "apologize" for (his host's, actually) incorrect imprecise wording, and this takes all the time, so Jones is prevented from stating his thesis even once, all we learn is in the words chosen and sounded by Tucker.

The peak of it is when MSNBC refuses to play the Bld 7 collapse video ("I cannot see what you are seeing, Tucker").

Undoing of Tucker is in his own excessive, too obvious manipulation, of course. No man with IQ above 100 can really miss the blunt manipulation, can he?

ABOUT THOSE DIESEL TANKS IN WTC7.

The details of 911 are not really important, it's the big picture that counts. However they have fascinated me for a few years. Here's one of my favorites...

The tanks of diesel fuel that good ole Tucker referred to were oredered to be removed by a judge, several times over. They were in flagrant violation of building code. However Ghouliani continued to refuse enforcing the order.

Then the WTC7 imploded and the tanks were in place to provide a cover story.
Sir Ghouliani was knighted and became a MSM hero.

somebigguy-

yeah, i've been trying to get the word out here in Vermillion South dakota. its a college town. So far i've telling all my friends, and i've shown a couple videos on campus a few times. Not very many people show up. I'm doing it on a sunday afternoon this time, so maybe i can get a larger audience. this is a republican state.

Vermillion truth seekers is my campus group--

And a case can be made that Sibel's story is more limited hangout, "mistakes were made" crap. I don't see her saying the gummit LIPOP/MIHOP

i agree, but it also might be because she has been gagged by DOJ and anything she says is closely watched.

But i don't find her story to be a limited hangout, it fits very nicely with every piece of intelligence that was ignored right until after the attacks.

The Sibel story and Able Danger might fit together to prove the gov't knew what was going to happen, let it happen, and therefore made it happen....cuz if you let it happen on purpose, you then are a part of making it happen, so LIHOP=MIHOP IMHO

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8063292/

Basically just the transcript was posted. Tucker needs to take his blinders off ? ;)

The video appears to be edited. There are a series of audio fades and clips when Professor Jones begins to speak. These apperant alterations gives the impressions that he is faultering in his statements and seemingly agreeing with Mr. Carlson. Can anyone else not see this?

Building 7 of the WTC complex, a 47-story tower, collapses (5:20). No one is killed. [MSNBC, 9/22/01; CNN, 9/12/01; Washington Post, 9/12/01; Associated Press, 8/19/02 (B)] Many questions will arise over the cause of this collapse in the coming weeks and months. Building 7, which was not hit by an airplane, is the first modern, steel-reinforced high-rise to collapse because of fire. [Chicago Tribune, 11/29/01; Stanford Report, 12/3/01; New York Times, 3/2/02] Some later suggest that the diesel fuel stored in several tanks on the premises may have contributed to the building's collapse. The building contained a 6,000-gallon tank between its first and second floors and another four tanks, holding as much as 36,000 gallons, below ground level. There were also three smaller tanks on higher floors. [Chicago Tribune, 11/29/01; New York Times, 3/2/02; New York Observer, 3/25/02; FEMA study, 5/1/02] However, the cause of the collapse is uncertain. A 2002 government report concludes: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” [FEMA study, 5/1/02] Some reports indicate that the building may have been deliberately destroyed. Shortly after the collapse, CBS news anchor Dan Rather comments that the collapse is “reminiscent of ... when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.” [CBS News, 9/11/01] In a PBS documentary broadcast in 2002, the World Trade Center's leaseholder Larry Silverstein talks about a phone call from the Fire Department commander he had on 9/11. Silverstein recalls saying to the commander about the building: “You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.” [PBS, 9/10/02] It is unclear what Silverstein meant by the phrase “decision to pull.”
THE REAL TELL-TALE ISSUE HERE IS HOW DID THE DEMOLITION PEOPLE PREPARE AND DROP THE BUILDING SO FAST. THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME FORE-KNOWLEDGE AND CHARGES PRE-SET BEFORE THE TWO TOWERS WERE HIT. IT NORMALLY TAKES WEEKS TO DO A CONTROLLED BUILDING DROP.

darrick,

the .mov has a few skips in it (where i assume the creator edited out dead time), however the WMV that Gold provided is unedited, so grab that one if you want to compare the two.

all,

i just relinked the WMV on a new server.. so far today we have received 3,600 unique visitors today, 6x our typical traffic. I will keep the video up on the high bandwidth servers until i get close to maxing out this other server at which point i will post putfile and other free server links.

dz, you are speaking gibberish, but thanks for walking the talk.

I got the story posted here:

Hey, I got it posted:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20051115071401860

great work somebigguy!

I find the review of Tucker by Alex Jones to be almost a completely wrong reading of Tucker.A. Jones states "Tucker Carlson Visibly Shaken, Attemps to Keep Jones from Presenting Evidence"

I have seen Tucker actually interupt a guest that was attempting to give the address of a website tucker found offensive and would not allow the guy anymore time. This did not happen because Prof Jones did not attempt to give his website though he mentioned it. I imagine the Prof was no doubt quite nervous and rightfully so. A hard issue to discuss and to do so on a national cable news network is no easy task.

The show for those that do not watch it is a fast paced program and therefore Tucker was trying to keep the Prof.Jones moving and in that attempt was causing the good Prof.Jones to act as anyone does when they are interupted to pause. Tucker was very nice I have seen Tucker get upset and frustrated and go off on guests in the past this was not the case wih S.Jones. Now I am not saying Tucker is at all on the right side of this issue he is not. However Tucker was not in anyway displaying signs of being shaken or fearful of Prof.Jones.
I only know this because I have to watch him everynight as my partner is a big fan of tucker and he followed him from Crossfire at CNN over to MSNBC.

I do agree with parts of AlexJones review in particular the only effective line was that of the tank in building 7. I also agree that Tucker no doubt is open personally to the idea the prof. presents. I wouldnt be discussing this but I think it would be wrong of people to write the show and complain about it. Tucker should be written and thanked for giving this issue attention and urging him to give us more.

Alex Jones is to be commended for getting great guests on his show, and being perfectly willing to think outside the box. However, he does tend to exaggerate, as well as slant things so that things seems worse than they are. Also, he's not critical enough for my taste, and sometimes doesn't do his homework.

Overall, I give him a B. :-)

alex jones is no worse than bill oriely or rush limbaugh, and they push their propoganda to millions everyday. id rather people hear alex.

I would not lump Alex Jones in with the likes of Oriely and Limbaugh. Jones doesnt push talking points and is capable of having his own thought process. I may not like Alex's style all the time but come on that is like comparing Margret Cho to Ann Coulter.

dz

Last check my page had 1330 hits. Crazy good!!