Mediaite: 9/11 Truther Ed Asner Offers Conspiracy Theories on The Adam Carolla Show

by Ray Rahman | 5:03 pm, November 12th, 2010

Did you know that Ed Asner, of The Mary Tyler Moore Show and Hollywood in general, is a 9/11 Truther? Adam Carolla didn’t seem to when, on his podcast, Asner started to offer his views as to why the government was behind that Twin Towers attack. Here we go.

“No high-rise has ever gone down by fire,” Asner explains. “Those buildings fell at the rate of gravity in ten seconds, flat.” He served up some more supposed “facts” as to why the buildings had to have been brought down by domestically planted explosives rather than internationally hateful terrorists. Carolla tried to debunk the conspiracy theory by asking why the surreptitious government of Asner’s mind, if it was so keen on instigating a war, didn’t go ahead and plant WMDs in Iraq. “Because it wasn’t the same department of government,” Asner replied, chuckling at Carolla’s naiveté.

Asner continued:

My bottom line on all of this is that this country—which is the greatest, strongest country that ever existed in the world, in terms of power—supposedly had a defense that could not be penetrated all these years. But all of that was eradicated by nineteen Saudi Arabians, supposedly. Some of whom didn’t even know how to fly.

It’ll be interesting how viewers of CMT, the network on which Asner’s new sitcom Regular Joe will air, starting January, will respond to his beliefs. Listen to Asner’s performance, which includes a bonus conspiracy theory regarding Robert Kennedy, in the clip below (via Breitbart TV):

Ed Asner did a great job!

He managed to bring into the conversation some good 9/11 truth talking points and the host and other guests of the show appeared genuinely interested in what he had to say.

Not bad.. but..

The Pentagon and missiles still plays to other hand and the host asked good questions too. By that I mean he didn't seem contrite or dismissive. One just has to correct misconceptions however such as the fire proofing being knocked off (NIST's experiments failed to prove theory) and steel melts at a low temp the host said? Mention AE9T to back up your claims.

A person answered that very same wmd question about "why didn't they plant wmd's then.." (sic) at a gathering I was at once by stating "If they planted wmd's, that would be hard physical evidence that can be scrutinized and traced. Based on their track record of planted evidence falling apart so far, I would have nixed the idea too. Besides, what would be different had they found them? Nothing, we'd still be there."

I thought that was a good point. WMD's were Iraq's "Bin Laden" we'll keep looking there, but that's just it. Oil and military bases on both sides of Iran were the real goals IMO.

just sharing..
peace all


It is eminently easier to control a false flag operation on your own turf. Even the Bush Administration should have been able to waltz through their own defenses (which by all evidence, they mostly did). Too, planning for 9/11 had the element of surprise in their favor. After all, that was "pre-9/11" by definition, and it would not be so easy on the ground in Iraq in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape, I imagine.
I don't doubt that the Bush Administration tried to plant WMDs. I personally thought it was just a matter of time before there was breaking (and joyous for Bush) news. Since when did the Bushies ever fret about a little manufactured reality to meet their goals? Remember the defilement of Colin Powell on the UN floor, extolling the fear contained in the mobile home in his sat-photos? "FInding" WMDs would have been the sweetest icing on the yellow cake ordered up by the NeoCons.
But not everything can go perfectly, especially in a war-zone. I think they were foiled in their attempt somehow. Something failed. What was Valerie Plame's expertise when she was trashed for spelling trouble for the NeoCon agenda? Oh yes, I remember reading that her operations were tasked with tracking WMDs in the Middle East. Was the outing a retribution for more than her husband's truth-telling? Was it a warning shot to others inclined to whistle-blow? Who knows. What we do know is that the Bush Administration would not hesitate to lie and manufacture evidence to promote its deadly agenda, and Plame was in the cross-hairs.
[I've still got to see that movie "Fair Game" -- heard it was very good.]

Mission accomplished--without planting anything

As hard as we might find it to believe, there are still many people who consider the Bush administration to have been 'incompetent,' 'bumbling,' and 'overzealous' rather than knowingly deceptive. And that perception worked very much to their advantage. Lying about WMD in Iraq succeeded well enough so that they were able to sell the invasion. Once the troops were there on the ground, guarding the oil fields, what would have been the point of planting anything? Run some scary stories about what the U.S. military thinks it might have found ('empty warheads' and the like), but avoid making outright claims which will draw in the scrutiny of the international community and the arms inspectors who'd already scoured the country prior to the invasion. That would have risked a dramatic shift in perception, among greater numbers of people, of the administration as deliberately deceptive rather than merely incompetent and overzealous (it would have received much more attention, for example, than did later reports about pre-invasion plans by Bush and Blair to try drawing Iraqi fire on a plane painted in UN colors). Better to leave well enough alone. After all, it's not as if coming up with WMD proved necessary in order to justify the U.S.'s prolonged military presence.