Jon Stewart is SO part of the problem in blocking 9/11 Truth !!!

Last night (6/25/07) Jon Stewart from the Daily Show had an author on who had written a book about
the history of the Pentagon. His name is Steve Vogel and the book is titled
"The Pentagon - A History".

Towards the end of the interview Jon Stewart starts making fun of those
"crazy conspiracy theories" that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon and he asked
Mr. Vogel to debunk those theories.

Mr Vogel goes on to say (I'm paraphrasing) that all you have to do is talk to the family members
who died on the plane or in the Pentagon and once you see that reality you know what really

My jaw just hit the floor!! UNBELIEVABLE!!!

I don't have a direct link because it's a Flash video, but go here and do a search
for the video of Steve Vogel on 6/25/07.

Jon Stewart and Bill Maher

Jon Stewart and Bill Maher are the most intelligen, wittiest, and left-gate keeping MOFO's out there. It pains my hurt because I look up to them in any other political diaphram

47 stories + 6.6 collapse = impossible

"I look up to them in any

"I look up to them in any other political diaphram"

Didn't Maher support the recent invasion of Lebanon?

Imperialistic Zionism is a big part of the problem.

what is a diaphram anyway?

Well then, we should complain!

At the Comedy Central message boards, there is an entire thread devoted to this topic:


Chris?? ;-)

hahaha, nope, i STILL dont

hahaha, nope, i STILL dont take comedians as seriously as you seem to. ;-)

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Not just me buddy!

Not just me buddy! For such a smart guy as yourself, you're pretty stubborn about this one. Oh well, nobody is perfect!

no, i just dont have the

no, i just dont have the same expectations of a comedian that you seem to. hes a tool on COMEDY CENTRAL and people like you play into the same bullshit that the mainstream plays into and expec this guy to do something. hes not going to do shit and the way that people like you continually expect him to is puzzling to me. why do you think these politicians and people with power go on his show? because they expect to get hardball questions or because they realize its COMEDY CENTRAL and they are only going on there for a softball interview with hopefully a couple of laughs and a chance to plug a book? i dont expect shit from the court jester and you do. i go after the real media and expect more from them. we need to stop people from playing into this bullshit in the first place, thinking that Jon Stewart is anything but a clown paid to make people laugh. thats all he is.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Yes -- I was highly disappointed in Stewart

He's no "left gatekeeper", though. (unless you want to qualify it with "unintentional" or "unwitting")

You can tell by the way he talks about it that he's in severe denial. The way he freaked out on that first show back after 9/11 must have indelibly impressed upon his psyche a thought pattern that it's going to take quite a bit to overcome. For some people it's probably as difficult as quitting smoking, alcohol, or drugs.

I've been mentioning to people recently that we've probably gotten all of the easy people and the movement is saturated at this point. Now it's going to be increasingly difficult to get more people. I've also started meeting people who were really resistant until recently, and they finally have broken through the barrier.

And then you have the people who basically don't give a crap about much except themselves. They are mostly a lost cause. And there are WAY too many of them.

I also know several people who have quit giving away free DVD's. They've done their own polling and found out that 80% to 90% or higher of the people still hadn't watched the videos after a few weeks, or longer. Again, I think that is representative of where the movement is now and who is left that needs to be "converted".

We've probably just about got our 10% critical mass, more or less, and it is up to us to soldier on. Which is why it's important for people to become increasingly activist oriented.

Again, we could only get about 150 people to attend our Robert Bowman event. And even though Sacramento "beat us" by getting about 200 people, per capita we still royally 'kicked their ass'. These number are real evidence and proof of the reality of the way things are. (9/11-wise and otherwise)

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Forensic 9/11ologist

R( \ )n P( \ )ul 2( \ )08 ==> A Woman's Right To Choose Is Sacrosanct!

Regarding the DVDs

I have the exact same problem. In my experience, it actually seems like people don't watch the documentaries because they think they're going to get in trouble or something.

what about free movie

what about free movie screenings, with free soda ,popcorn, chips and what do you want?

I decided

John Stewart was an enemy when he had Zbigniew Brzezinski on.

WTF John. Your going to regret that.

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.

If you watch the Daily Show,

you will eventually get to see Jon Stewart interview and suck up to many of the major conspirators who were involved in the mass murders of 9/11.

It was quite revealing to watch Jon Stewart the other night chuckling with his Pentagon book guest about those crazy people who don't believe the Pentagon was hit by AA 77. He felt that to say such a thing was insulting (probably to the families), and then the stooge-author from the government chimed in with, yeah that's just crazy and insulting. His lame-o logic went -- Obviously a plane crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, just ask all the grieving family members. Always remember to play the emotional plug.

Jon Stewart and his guest of course were just showing their ideological loyalty to the New Order, one of whose members is Mr. Sumner Redstone, the majority owner of Viacom and Comedy Central, Stewart's boss, and a good friend to some of the people directly involved in the 9/11 operation. If anyone thinks they will convert Stewart to 9/11 Truth, they are living in a fantasy world. He works for them and is paid by them, but Truth Squads definitely need to approach him with major questions.

What's up with Brzezinski?

He's responsible for fomenting Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.

He basically calls for the invasion of Central Asia using false-flag terror in one of his books (Grand Chessboard?).

Now he telegraphs that there might be another one, "spontaneous," due to "all sorts of calculations," and "hard to trace."

And he criticizes the phrase "war on terror":

Is he feeling guilty about all the destruction he has wrought? Or just recognizing that it has not worked out as he wanted and trying to stop further implementation of his own plan?

thats a really good question

thats a really good question actually. i dont think its guilt though, i think hes feeling a bit of heat and trying to come off as one of the "good guys" despite being a total insider. hes a master of deception, i dont think hes trying to stop anything.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Stewart, Maher, etc.--they

Stewart, Maher, etc.--they are mouthpieces. I doubt they write all that much of their material. Other people do it for them. They probably can make some decisions, but it would not be possible for them to do a real show on 9/11 Truth without permission from their masters. The way to change them is change their masters, and in some cases, that may be possible (though unlikely).

JFK on secrecy and the press

Maybe Jon needs to be interviewed???

Any Truth Squads in NY that can "by chance" get a few minutes with him? or Colbert?

just take that video with

just take that video with Alan Colmes running away from the camera and insert Stewart's or Colbert's face instead of Alan's , cause' it's probably not going to be much different...

Yes, that "all you have to do is talk to the family members who

died on the plane" quip makes all the dummies chuckle, but then you read Operation Northwoods of 45 years ago & see what they were prepared to do, even way back then:

drones painted as commercial airliners
swapping the drones with real airliners
agents posing as passengers
impostor passengers in the guise of college students
phony funerals for fake passengers
innocent people actually being killed or injured
etc., etc.,

(BTW, I too am extremely disappointed in John Stewart.)

Not science

>>& see what they were prepared to do

Doesn't add to "they did."

The fact that "no plane," "no Boeing," "swapped plane" and missile claims contradict much of the other evidence, both eye witness and physical, shows that this area is most likely a honeypot with the potential to destroy the movement at the right time by showing the video of FL77 hitting when it's finally necessary. The millions of viewers watching that show are just the latest casualties.

Wrong NTSB information does not add up to "no plane," "no Boeing," "swapped plane" and missile, it adds up to wrong NTSB, and we don't know why. We can guess, but guesses aren't science. Guesses are guesses.

Most no plane advocates use the witnesses they chose. The rest are ignored. That's called "cherry picking." Not science.

See the pages that do look at the science, reason and the contradictions, rather than going to extreme lengths to deny them -

oilempire on the Pentagon:
There are not any sensible arguments why the conspirators would have substituted a missile / drone / global hawk robot plane. Substituting a missile for the plane would have made the attack much more complicated, involved more technicians with insider knowledge, and not provided any direct benefit to the plotters (especially if the theory about remote control technology being used to direct the plane into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon is ever proved). The "no plane" theories don't make sense -- why would they bother to substitute? why risk being caught in the act, if someone got a clear photo? why not just remote control a 757 into the empty part of the building? The area around the Pentagon is densely populated, and a clear photo showing something other than the 757 would compromise the entire operation.

Pentacon Critique by Arabesque:
"Instead, the film simply moves on and concludes that there is “smoking gun” proof that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station and flew over the Pentagon completely ignoring their testimony (and all other testimony) that claimed the plane hit the Pentagon. Robert Turcios did not see it hit, but claimed “it went in a direct line into the Pentagon—it collided.” Cherry picking their own testimony (i.e. special pleading), the filmmakers do not provide us with a single statement that the plane flew over the Pentagon. I challenge the filmmakers to find one single statement to support this conclusion from less than 5 years after the attack. The Pentagon is surrounded by several major highways and was filled with stand-still traffic jams on 9/11.[251] If a flyover actually happened on 9/11, it should be easy to find several witnesses who actually saw this. In contrast, how many witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon?"'s Mike Rivero:
"The "Pod People" will no doubt scream that the above photos are fake, just as they have insisted that all the photos which show debris at the crash site are fakes, and just as they scream that the witnesses to the passenger jet at the Pentagon "have to be" wrong. But witness-smearing is the exact same tactic the government has used to silence contradictory witnesses from JFK to the shoot down of TWA 800."

Joël van der Reijden's essay, 'Why the No-757 Crowd is Making an Ass out of Itself':
"People are send to the gas chamber based on witness testimonies. It's very obvious that eye witness accounts, when taken as a whole, are considered to be extremely reliable. Even the 9/11 research community acknowledges this, judging from their generous quotations from witnesses who claimed to have seen explosives at the WTC; or a missile at the Pentagon; or a missile hitting TWA800; or an explosion before flight 587 started to come down; etc. On the other hand, the moment the 9/11 skeptics community is confronted with a majority of the statements made about the Pentagon, they suddenly begin claiming that witness testimonies don't mean anything and that people are always imagining things. And on top of that, most of the 9/11 skeptics ignore the fact that the physical damage on the Pentagon does indeed correspond with a 757. And these are the people that call the rest of the world a bunch of sheep. Go figure that out."

Jim Hoffman's most recent Pentagon analysis: The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows -
"Factors such as these have contributed to the creation of a false dialectic, which has eyewitness evidence supporting the Boeing theory and physical evidence supporting the no-Boeing theory. By focusing on the physical evidence here, I hope to sidestep that dialectic and clarify what conclusions the physical evidence actually supports. I found that, in every aspect I considered, this evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757. At the same time, the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77. However, that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities."

Pentagon Attack Errors on
"Numerous points based on the physical evidence of the crash site seem to make an overwhelming cumulative case against a 757 having crashed there, provided one ignores the eyewitness evidence. However, most of these points involve some error in evaluating the evidence."

etc. . . .

"Not science"?

So lack of evidence is proof, because they are just waiting to release it at the right time. Your "honeypot" theory is scientific, all right. Scientifically designed to stop people from thinking.

Let them show another faked video. The laws of physics don't lie. Video, and black operators, do lie.

Jim Hofffman's comparison of a Boeing 757 with the F-4 in the Sandia video is not tenable. The Boeing 757 is much longer with longer wings in proportion to length, just for one example. And this comparison doesn't explain how the plane both disintegrated into tiny pieces and penetrated all the way to the C Ring. In other words, it's nonsense.

yes, what an argument. The

yes, what an argument. The family members know as much as anyone else. Just because someone doesn't turn up ever again doesn't mean you can prove where/how they died. There's only belief left, it is not a proof. A plane could easily have gone down in the Atlantic Ocean unnoticed, just to bring up an example, not saying that is what happened or what happened to what. Anyway, Happy 60th birthday Pentagon! You got your damn wars!

His interview with Musharraf...

... was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen on television. He inserted his tongue into into the President of Pakistan's underwear and wriggled it around around hard for 6 minutes. Stewart is good on the issues you don't have to think about, but if you want to know why drug production has gone up by 2000% in Afghanistan since we invaded it, don't ask him. An infotainment merchant.

What did him in for me was

when he had Thomas Kean (the co-head of the 9/11 Commission) on the show. I was waiting anxiously for Jon to slide a tough question in about at least some obscure unanswered question about 9/11 , or throw some kind of curveball that'd be somewhat difficult for Kean to answer. But then nothing happened. It was all lighthearted jokes and topics, and barely a mention of anything close to substantial, let alone about any unanswered questions. Was pathetic and haven't watched the show since.
Colbert is no better. Just look at the majority of their guests. These programs are no more news than FOX or CNN themselves.

Underestimating Zionist power and influence.

Israel was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks for three main reasons:

1) Longstanding policy and history of "false flag" ops to demonize Arabs, and enable Israeli expansionism.

2) Unprecedented influence (control?) of US Congress to squash legitimate investigations.

DUTCH TV: The Israel Lobby. Portrait of a Great Taboo

3) Huge influence (near control) of major media to enable cover up.

If Israel and their dual-citizenship US allies did not plan and execute the attacks, they were still deeply involved in insuring their success.

This fact has been covered up and hidden from America by a near totalitarian blackout on coprorate media.

Case in point was the Carl Cameron 4 part explosive investigation on Fox which detailed some aspects of Israeli spying related to 9/11. Of some importance was Cameron's uncovering of Israeli surveillance of the nation's telephone systems, nearly all call records being processed through Israeli companies (AMDOCS). Some Israeli mafia activity was aided by breaking the FBI and Justice Department's own communications.

All traces of this large 4 part series were swiftly disappeared from Fox's website.

Part 1:

That's influence/control at an alarming level.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

bang bang. "The Central

bang bang.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

who voted this down? i meant

who voted this down? i meant i agree with you douchebag. goddamnit some people around here are cowardly.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA