9/11 Families Demand Apology from Media Matters

December 1, 2010
Source: 9/11 Truth News

Responding to a series of hit pieces by self-declared “media watchdog” website Media Matters, a public advocacy group representing 9/11 family members has demanded an apology.

NYCCAN, the group responsible for airing ads urging an investigation into the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7, has issued a statement applauding FOX News hosts Andrew Napolitano and Geraldo Rivera for their fair treatment of the subject and rebuking Media Matters and The Huffington Post for their biased coverage.

An excerpt from the statement:

On November 29, Media Matters published an article entitled, “9/11 Victim Families Criticize Judge Napolitano Comments,” in which four 9/11 family members were quoted as attacking Judge Napolitano, without a single mention of the more than one-hundred 9/11 family members from NYC CAN who share Napolitano’s skepticism. One family member quoted in the article went as far as to say, “Anybody who talks about that is obviously not a family member and just trying to stir the pot and cause controversy.”

We who lost loved ones on that day cannot stand idly by as our honest search for the truth about their death is trampled upon. We demand that Media Matters apologize for its unfair, irresponsible and injurious coverage of this deeply sensitive issue.

Media Matters, which claims to “monitor, analyze and correct” right wing “misinformation” in the US media, has regularly portrayed 9/11 truth as a right-wing extremist cause.

Media Matters is the recent recipient of a one million dollar donation from financier George Soros.

__________________

Related News Story:
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-01/911-family-group-judge-napolitano-and-geraldo-rivera-are-right-question-building-7-c...

NEW YORK CITY — Today, the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN), a group of family members of those killed in the 9/11 attacks, issued the following statement:

We who lost our loved ones on September 11, 2001 vigorously applaud Judge Andrew Napolitano and Geraldo Rivera for the courage they have shown in publicly questioning the official claim that the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 was due to fire.

In the week since Judge Napolitano aired his views on Building 7, many voices in the media have singled him out for attack while conveniently ignoring the sequence of events that led to his revelation and the overwhelming evidence that validates his concerns.

This past month, on TV screens across the New York Metropolitan Area, millions of viewers have been seeing footage of Building 7′s collapse for the first time ever. This is because we took it upon ourselves to produce and appear in a TV ad to draw attention to the fact that more than 1,300 architects and engineers publicly join us in challenging the official explanation that Building 7 came down due to fire. We were fortunate enough that Geraldo Rivera saw our ad and invited our representatives to appear on Geraldo At Large. There they presented the irrefutable evidence that Building 7′s collapse could not have resulted from fire as the government claims. Geraldo Rivera then appeared on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano to discuss our campaign and express his doubts about Building 7. The following week, Judge Napolitano courageously voiced his own opinions on this matter.

However, you would not know anything about our position if you are getting your information from outlets like Media Matters and the Huffington Post. On November 29, Media Matters published an article entitled, “9/11 Victim Families Criticize Judge Napolitano Comments,” in which four 9/11 family members were quoted as attacking Judge Napolitano, without a single mention of the more than one-hundred 9/11 family members from NYC CAN who share Napolitano’s skepticism. One family member quoted in the article went as far as to say, “Anybody who talks about that is obviously not a family member and just trying to stir the pot and cause controversy.”

We who lost loved ones on that day cannot stand idly by as our honest search for the truth about their death is trampled upon. We demand that Media Matters apologize for its unfair, irresponsible and injurious coverage of this deeply sensitive issue. And we call upon other voices in the media to follow the lead of Geraldo Rivera and Judge Napolitano, who have so courageously begun to question our government’s scientifically bogus explanation for Building 7′s collapse.

Related News Story:
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-02/cnn-fox-takes-heat-left-and-right-over-analyst

Contact Mediamatters at (202)

Contact Mediamatters at (202) 756-4100, and ask them why they have ignored the 9/11 family members seeking justice for what happened to their loved ones for all of these years, and ask them to release an apology to all of them for their attacks against those seeking justice.

Edit: I left one comment in this thread, and I've been banned.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011290030

How do you know you've been banned?

They've closed commenting on the article, but I was able to vote your comment up.

Your comment certainly kicked some MM ***.

Well done Jon, as usual.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Because...

I can't log in, and when I ask to retrieve my password, I get nothing.

Thanks,

have you ever commented at CNN.com?

I set up an account there and can log in, but can't figure out how to post a comment on an article, very strange.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Thanks Jon.

I just got off the phone with Jess in their media department. She said she didn't know why the family members who were seeking answers to the 9/11 questions were ignored, and exclaimed that she wasn't an author to the story that I was referring to. She was aware of the story though and when I asked if I could get the contacts to someone at Media Matters, or the authors of the story, who were willing to explain why the other family members were excluded or ignored, she said that Media Matters would not be responding further to the story and that the story speaks for itself.

Keep calling these fools and see if you can get any better of an answer or further along in the process.

Also contact them here if you can't make a call. Thanks for the number (202) 756-4100 Jon.
http://mediamatters.org/p/contact_us

Let's send them all the links

Let's send them all the links we can of the documentaries, we of the Truth Movement have so many of. I sent them 911 Revisited.

Jess got another call

from me. She said; "we"re letting the story speak for itself" in response to my concerns as well.

Media Matters

Left Gate keeping at it's best!

Let's be careful about our terms

Neither Media Matters nor the Huffington Post are leftist by any stretch of the imagination. They are centrist liberal organizations designed to further the politics of the Democratic Party. It is why they are so vehemently against exposing state crimes such as 9/11.

True leftists are radicals with a critique of the state and capitalism, and support worker control over their workplaces. Most leftists I know are convinced 9/11 was an inside job, but also are concerned about issues of war, social justice, and empire. 9/11 is not the only issue out there, but a part of a continuum of state violence and imperialism.

"Left Gatekeepers" is an unfortunate term, since most of the people this is meant to represent are liberals. There are two notable exceptions, which are shameful examples to most leftists who understand that 9/11 is a part of the history of state sponsored terrorism and false flag attacks; namely, Chomsky and Cockburn.

I respect the work of both Chomsky and Cockburn, but completely disagree with them on this issue. That doesn't mean I will throw out their superb analysis of U.S. foreign policy and crimes of the state.

wolves in sheep's clothing

i agree.. these are neoconservatives twisting reality by trampling on basic truth and science, and mistreating those family members of victims from a false operation gone mad. I posted a response on their site after registering.. but my words never got posted.

Real left gatekeepers are likely intimidated and targeted into forced silence.. though I was delighted to find Chomsky finally addressing a real part of a true message regarding 9/11 in this article, No Evidence That Al Qaeda or bin Laden Carried Out 9/11 Attack,

An activist organizer near where I live has spoken to Amy Goodman about her 9/11 silence, and she remarked, (but note that I heard this 2nd hand), "I want to live."

If that is true

then that is disconcerting, considering Amy Goodman was dwelling near WTC 7 when it fell. Gretel Kovach, a reporter who was also near WTC 7, and who reportedly told ROBinDALLAS she heard a countdown, didn't want to talk about it anymore when Rob approached her a second time.

this reminds me. . .

. . . of a story i heard a few weeks ago from “x,” a neighborhood guy i’ve known since the early sixties. we were on the topic of 9/11 and i was giving him my (subdued) take that whatever really happened on 9/11 was being covered up by the government. this triggered in him memories of an event that occurred in our area a couple of months after 9/11: the crash of flight 587 out of jfk airport. see http://www.checkmycity.com/Flight-587-Crashes-in-Rockaway-Beach-New-York-November-12-2001/4933/ i had remembered hearing initially back in 11/2001, msm news reports that witnesses (including commercial fishermen) had reported seeing rockets or missiles taking out flight 587. but after a day or two, you never heard those stories again. x said that we never heard those stories again because “guys in suits” went to the houses of the fishermen-witnesses at 3 in the morning and told them not to repeat the story, and threatened them with the loss of their fishing licenses if the fishermen did repeat their accounts. as x was close friends with a key commercial fisherman in the area (from whom he said he got the story), and because x is otherwise credible, his account resonated as possibly true. so...maybe "guys in suits" did call on gretel kovach and/or amy goodman at 3 in the morning and told them, "shut up, or else." i for one would not rule out that possibility--it would certainly explain amy and gretel's bahavior.

See this blog article

Disinformation? Same boy who predicted 9/11 "predicted" crash of AA 587 on 11/12

I'm being kinda mean to Mr. Shapiro...but I don't feel sorry about it.

Why? See this, I cached it; it now no longer exists at the original Fox link.

I just wanted to offer you this information; I know little about flight 587 apart from this; take it as it comes. Thanks for the reply.

thanks. . .

. . . . . . much appreciated. good blog piece. yes, seems like shapiro is into spreading urban legend and disinformation. i seem to recall seeing shapiro’s “shame on jesse” hit piece when it came out, somewhere, but had no idea about shapiro’s article on flight 587, and certainly did not tie the two together. the crash of flight 587 is another huge mystery to me, but not one that i actively look into.

Amy Goodman supposedly said,

Amy Goodman supposedly said, "I want to live"?

-Alex Jones
-Jesse Ventura
-Rosie O'Donnell
-Charlie Sheen
-Karen Kwiatkowski
-Ray McGovern
-Andrew Napolitano
-Geraldo Rivera

All of these wealthy, high-profile people have done extensive work for 9/11 Truth (and Justice as I like to say). Many of them are far, far more well known and successful than Amy Goodman. (I'm sure that Alex Jones and Rosie O'Donnell both make several times as much money, and Jesse Ventura and Charlie Sheen are both way, way higher profile.)

If Amy Goodman did say this, than she's at best a coward (at best) but more likely just a self-important phony. Most likely of all is that she didn't say it and she's a sell-out who knows the truth damn well but will never say it because her loyalty is not to the sanctity of human life nor to the U.S. One way or the other, it's completely bogus.

Don't indulge (supposed) phony excuses from narcissistic "liberals". We're talking about the murder of 3,000 Americans and the subsequent killing of countless millions of defenseless Arabs. There is ZERO excuse to lie about this. Ever.

Right Cameron

You always know that the left is in on it? What's your proof. Amy even said she would be willing to support a new investigation when asked by we are change some time back. You call her a coward and a phony. Cameron have you ever listened to Democracy Now? You have to be kidding.

Varying definitions of "Left" and "Right" etc.

There is not even a real consensus on the meaning of these terms, or even of how the political spectrum should be defined. And there are points at which the lines can blur from any number of viewpoints. This also applies to terms like "liberal," which actually has been used in very contrasted ways.

I consider myself a right-wing conservative; I describe myself as "Old Right." 9/11 is often blamed on "the Right." I wince at hearing this, as I regard neocons as crackpots who are not real conservatives at all, but rather a group of wingnuts who have hijacked what was left of a Conservative movement in the U.S.

However, when I hear fellow-Truthers—many of whom I respect—refer to "the Right" being behind 9/11, I understand what they're saying and why. I simply recognize that they have a different perspective on this, and roll with it. I don't let it bother me, and I see no need to call them out publicly for it—as if we don't have enough problems maintaining a functional unity without getting sidetracked by such banal and frivilous nonsense.

I would hope that all sides recognize this and act accordingly. We could just insist that nobody express their view; I suppose that's one solution. Or we could just allow people to articulate their own views the way they understand them, shrug it off, and leave it at that. I suggest that allowing people to express themselves is preferable, so I would opt for the latter.

Well said, JTL

I was raised by fiscal conservatives who grew up during the depression. My mother left the GOP during Reagan's first run for the presidency because we both laughed at the idea that we could raise defense spending, cut taxes AND balance the budget.

It took my father another four years to come around, but his mother was a big wheel in SoCal GOP circles and was personally invited to the Nixon WH.

I've actually been a radical lefty since I was 11, but that is a long story.

Beginning with the Reagan era of "smash mouth" politics, the terms "liberal", "conservative", "left", "right", etc. have become so misused and scrambled that they really have no meaning at all in popular culture (e.g. I always refer to the party of Dubya as "credit card conservatives").

The name "LeftWright:" is poke at the ridiculousness of labels these days, as well as a play on my last name (Wright).

I have no problem working with true conservatives and the point I try to stress is that it doesn't make any difference what rhetoric the politicians use if they are corrupt.

What we need to do is rid the country of corruption, take back our government and then we can have a real debate as to the role of government in our lives. Everyone in the 9/11 TM is committed to this and this is why I love working with you all so much.

I love reminding many of the left leaning people I work with in the 9/11 TM that Richard Gage describes himself as a recovering Reagan Republican.

Except for the sociopaths and their sycophants, we are all brothers and sisters just trying to create a peaceful world to live and love in.

I hope that you and yours are well.

Cheers!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Thanks LeftWright

I agree that many of the perceived distinctions between those who self-identify as Left or Right are largely contrived. This goes into a whole other area—the NWO crowd is very skilled at dividing.

Of course, this doesn't mean that there aren't real difference, some of which are very serious. The significance here has to do largely with context and circumstances. If our country were attacked (I mean for real) and we had to defend ourselves against a genuine threat, and I find myself in a foxhole with several countrymen, am I going to ask them their position on the 10th Amendment or abortion or the Federal Reserve or anything else before I join them in shooting back?

We're in that position now, like it or not. And the threat we face is even more dangerous because it's in our midst and has seized the machinery of our governments.

A good example from where I stand is David Ray Griffin. I have tremendous respect for this man. In fact, I love this man. I have read all of his 9/11 books multiple times. I admire the way he has approached the various topics, and I have learned a great deal from observing his handling of these issues. I have even incorporated some of his phraseology in speaking and writing about this and other issues. Heck, I've even stolen his practice of raising two fingers when delivering quotations in a speech. I also have what may be the largest archive of his audio interviews, over 120, many of which I've heard literally dozens of times until I had them nearly memorized. (He was amazed when I informed him of this: "120 of my interviews? You obviously have a much stronger stomach than I.")

Yet he and I are otherwise far removed politically (and theologically.) I consider him a Leftist, and frankly a globalist, albeit of a different stripe. He believes the nation/state is obsolete. He wants "global democracy." The areas where we disagree could not be more stark. Is this a contradiction? I don't think so. What matters to me is TRUTH, and he is dead right on 9/11. And he is a brilliant and scholarly gentleman who has shown more courage than many so-called "conservatives" of today. I'm not here to argue over unrelated differences, but to do whatever I can to help the 9/11 Truth Movement of which I am proudly a member!

Lastly, getting back to the terminology issue, I would just leave that with a quote from James Madison (from the Virginia Report of 1799):

Although it might be wished that the perfection of language admitted less diversity in the signification of the same words, yet little inconveniency is produced by it, where the true sense can be collected with certainty from the different applications.

I use the "foxhole test" as well,

I just wish that there were more women in the movement with which to share a foxhole.

wink

I think that we will eventually end up with a globalized world of joyfully connected watersheds (i.e. many well defined localities which respect each other and co-operate as needed).

Cheers!

I tend to be conservative,

I tend to be conservative, too. (And, to be honest, it seems to be like the best and most pioneering work in 9/11 Truth was done by paleo conservatives and libertarians.)

In my opinion, the "liberal" and "progressives" - epitomized here by Media Matters - are way more destructive than any "conservative" organization just because they're so much more insidious and deceitful. When you're dealing with neocons or their stooges, you know what you're getting: a bunch of homicidal, Viagra-popping freaks with no morality. When you're dealing with "liberals", you're lulled into a sense of calm or outright trust. But in fact, it's a pure act. Like I wrote before, the "liberals" on MSNBC and Comedy Central and Media Matters and wherever else are about as subversive and rebellious as gay actor Neil Patrick Harris is a womanizer. They're all just acts.

Basically, I'd rather battle a wolf than a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I tend to be progressive

And believe me, we true progressives know an Establishment Democrat when we see one. They're the same folks that destroyed
Howard Dean. We don't trust them at all.

I'd say the pioneering work on 9/11 has been done by Greens and Libertarians--in other words, folks who aren't beholden to the
Establishment parties.

Playing the party game ay Cameron?

CameronFanSite wrote:

"In my opinion, the "liberal" and "progressives" - epitomized here by Media Matters - are way more destructive than any "conservative" organization just because they're so much more insidious and deceitful."

"But in fact, it's a pure act. "

Really? Proof? Pure act?

Oh yea? Why the party line drawing. One is worse than the other? Feeling cynical much? I hope you aren't referring to Alex Jones as one of the paleo conservative people who you say have contributed the "best" work to the 9/11 truth movement. I'd say Alex Jones is quite insidious and deceitful. He mixes in tons of speculation and conjecture with his "facts." His street actions have been incredibly destructive to the 9/11 truth movement, especially after the movement got behind him and supported him (some of us financially). I don't know whether you meant Alex here or not Cameron, but I have seen you hype him up in the past. Many of the paleo conservative I have seen in the 9/11 truth movement often present radical, conspiratorial, unprovable or racist material. Same with some of the left leaning truther's have done so as well (Tarpley anyone?). No need to draw the lines. Why all the divisiveness?

I think the point has been made that valuable contributions

have come from people whose personal political philosophies vary across the spectrum.

I think that everyone will also agree that 9/11 truth is a non-partisan issue, yes?

I think that everyone should also agree that playing into a divide and conquer strategy is not a viable approach for the 9/11 truth movement, yes?

I do believe this somewhat off topic sub-thread has gone on long enough.

The truth shall set us free (and everyone has their own path to the truth).

Love is the only way forward (part of love is tolerating other points of view and choosing to find common ground with people you may define as adversaries on some issues).

Demand an apology?

I would say they need more than a mere apology. What they, and the rest of the world need is a real investigation. One that proves without a doubt that 9/11 was an inside job. If and when that happens I will be one happy man.

...

CameronFansite wrote:

“I tend to be conservative, too. (And, to be honest, it seems to be like the best and most pioneering work in 9/11 Truth was done by paleo conservatives and libertarians.)”

I would take issue with that. Paul Thompson, Mike Rupert, Nafeez Ahmed, Peter Dale Scott, John Judge, David Ray Griffin, Graeme MacQueen, John McMurtry and scores of other pioneers in the truth movement were/are decidenly NOT conservative or free market capitalst. “Libertarians” have contributed valuable work, but so have progressives and anti-capitalists.

So far, only a democratic socialist has grilled the neocons on 911 (Cynthia McKinney). Ron Paul has supported the party line.

“When you're dealing with "liberals", you're lulled into a sense of calm or outright trust.”

I actually agree with this, and in fact edited a book by Stephen Marshall from the Guerrilla News Networks entitled “Wolves in Sheep's Clothing”. The theme was that modern day American “liberals” are the great enablers of far-right corporatism and militarism.

Many conservatives would take issue with the term “far right”, just as many progressives would take issue with the characterization of the Bolsheviks as “far left”. Indeed, if Obama were to run in Europe based on his policies rather than speeches he would be characterized as fascist. I agree that a simple binary choice is insufficient.

Quadrant 4 has done some pioneering work on the problem, echoing the social anarchists.

4

“Quadrant four is dedicated to the exploration of deeply democratic forms of social organization - ones which use methods, like consensus decision-making, designed to enhance social cohesion and collaboration while simultaneously protecting the autonomy of the individual.”

http://quadrant4.org/

I noticed in a previous post that you quoted admiringly the statement that “Scratch a “progressive” and you find a neocon with sandals.” This is a rather ignorant and offensive thing to post on a 911 truth message board, where probably at least half of the readership characterize themselves as “left wing” or “progressive”.

The essential problem lies with conflating anti-authoritarian “leftists” with “liberals” who take their marching orders from the Democratic Party. Similarly, conservatives and libertarians are often wrongly conflated with neocon war-mongers.

I have no problem debating the merits of libertarianism vs. progressivism or democratic socialism or libertarian socialism, but this is not the place for hostile polemical attacks. JTL, LeftWright, cburn and others show above how people with differing political viewpoints can still engage with other respectfully in common pursuit of 911 Truth.

First off, the quote from

First off, the quote from LewRockwell.com - in response to the "progressive" persecuting Andrew Napolitano for his 9/11 Truth - was this:

"Scratch a “progressive” and you find a neocon with sandals. The attacks on the Judge tell you all you need to know: they prefer the neocons to a consistent advocate of liberty. They attack the neocons now and again, to be sure, but not in the career-destroying mode they reserve for actual dissidents."

I agree strongly with that statement....as long as we're talking about MSNBC, Comedy Central, and NPR or any "progressives" in the mainstream media. But, yeah, individuals are fluid and dynamic, and so there's no point in making extreme generalizations - that quote was specifically responding to Media Matters and MSNBC, not the common man. I thought that was clear from the start, but it's definitely clear right now.

I don't know that half of the readership of 9/11 Blogger is "progressive". I kind of doubt it, but whether 1% or 99% of the readership is "progressive", "libertarian", "paleo-conservative", or whatever else....who gives a shit? Like I've said before, we're talking about a mass murder, not politics. The only reason that I've brought up politics is because of some people's battered wife syndrome-like trust in the Holiness of mainstream media "progressives". It's absolutely insane that a few people continue to preach that Olbermann/Maddow/Stewart, etc. simply need to be "educated" when their flagrant dishonesty is as plain as the noses on their face.

The bottom line for me about politics and 9/11 is this: If the murderers were brought to justice by progressives, I would be happy. If the murderers were brought to justice by libertarians, I would be happy. If the murderers were brought to justice by dynamic, free-thinking individuals, I would be happy.

I want justice, not identity politics. I can turn on cable news for that.

(Honestly, I have no interest in the little reductionist chart or any other political debates about Obama or "socialism" or Sarah Palin and guns or anything else of the sort. I'm here to try to find the truth and have my hopes bolstered that the mass murderers will be brought to justice. I love the great work of Stephen Jones, Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, James Gourley, Richard Gage, etc., etc., etc., etc. I do not believe in pop politics at all....but especially when it's a diversion from a murder investigation. I'm sorry for the lack of clarity in my post which might've indicated I wanted to talk pop politics. I do not.)

...

CFS wrote --

I don't know that half of the readership of 9/11 Blogger is "progressive". I kind of doubt it, but whether 1% or 99% of the readership is "progressive", "libertarian", "paleo-conservative", or whatever else....who gives a shit? Like I've said before, we're talking about a mass murder, not politics. The only reason that I've brought up politics is because of some people's battered wife syndrome-like trust in the Holiness of mainstream media "progressives"."

Nevertheless, you did bring it up, and you posted a highly inflammatory (and frankly, ridiculous) statement. Not once but several times. If I had posted the statement, "scratch a conservative and you'll find a Nazi", I would have have been rightly criticized.

It's absolutely insane that a few people continue to preach that Olbermann/Maddow/Stewart, etc. simply need to be "educated" when their flagrant dishonesty is as plain as the noses on their face.

I agree with you here, but then I don't really consider those folks progressives except on certain (mostly wedge) issues. Mostly they're just cheerleaders for the Democratic Party.

Honestly, I have no interest in the little reductionist chart or any other political debates about Obama or "socialism" or Sarah Palin and guns or anything else of the sort.

If that were true, you probably wouldn't have made several posts railing against "progressives" while touting your chosen ideology, namely free market capitalism or "libertarianism". I'm not sure what you mean by "pop politics".

Once again, that was a quote

Once again, that was a quote from Thomas Woods at Lew Rockwell.com in response to the "progressive" media (MSNBC and Media Matters) attacks on Andrew Napolitano's 9/11 Truth. I'm sorry that you took such offense to it, but it was not about individuals, it was about the "progressive" media. This was very clear.

There's only one person "ranting" here, and it's not me. (Way to go bringing up Nazis. All it took was two posts for Godwin's Law to come into play!)

Anyway....it sounds like we're actually in agreement. You were just trying to argue about the definition of "progressive". Hey, I empathize with you - I still get pissed when people conflate the neocons with conservatism. But, when push comes to shove, that's not relevant. I think that most people would say that Olbermann and Media Matters qualify as "progressives" in the general sense. Are they sincere? I highly doubt it. But I don't have any interest in a semantic debate about what, exactly, a progressive is.

So we're in agreement that the "progressive" media deserves no regard (no more than the neo-con media....although I think they're one and the same, as shown in the quote) and, most importantly, we're in agreement that politics should never be used to divert our attentions or divide our unity about 9/11 Truth. I believe that that's most important.

Now let's move along. I really don't want any more of my statements clumsily misunderstood or any of my quotes taken out of context. Most of all, I don't want to waste time.

...

Anyway....it sounds like we're actually in agreement. You were just trying to argue about the definition of "progressive". Hey, I empathize with you - I still get pissed when people conflate the neocons with conservatism. But, when push comes to shove, that's not relevant.

Well, that's exactly it. Neocons should not be referred to as "conservative", and liberal hacks should not be referred to as "progressive". Language IS relevant, hugely so, because it frames the terms of debate. Your qualifications regarding "progressives" were not made in the original posts; thus, they were not "clumsily misunderstood" but clumsily presented.

Aside from that we do indeed appear to be largely in agreement. Though I doubt we'd agree on economics or many other important issues, we can agree on working together in support of 911 truth.

Again, just to be clear, you

Again, just to be clear, you only took a portion of Mr. Woods's quote. Maybe that was part of the problem.

I believe that it's not just that we should disregard philosophical disagreements, it's that we are obligated to disregard them. Just the same as, for instance, good homicide detectives would focus only on finding the murderer and then building a case rather than barking and bickering about who's got the better car or whose economic philosophy is better.

It's kind of funny because, for me, I absolutely tuned out the pop media in 2006 when saw the :09 second clip of Building 7 collapsing. It was sudden, overwhelming, irrefutable evidence that they're all covering up and/or willfully lying. I went from a person who was relatively flat in my political interests and leanings to somebody who had no doubt that 9/11 was an inside job and the media was complicit. So, for me, it's a little bit frustrating that you still hear and see people begging and pleading with these mainstream media people. It's like, it took me 9-seconds to realize that they're (almost all) scumbags.

(But, then again, ya know, you do see the Geraldo Rivera and Andrew Napolitano thing. And, of course, Charlie Sheen got lots of attention on CNN, back in the day. So I shouldn't be so absolutist. But those minor "victories" are so disproportionate to the obsession that people have worshiping these talking heads that it's just all wasted energy.)

Agree

I agree with you about the talking heads.

I mean, I suppose it's possible that some of these figures haven't bothered to look at any of the evidence, but I sincerely doubt it. They all have internet connections. Begging and pleading with people in positions of power is never the way to go. Ever. I'm very fond of Frederick Douglass's quote that "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." Some may not realize it, but people like Michael Moore and Amy Goodman actually have a considerable amount of power -- even if it only exists at the hypothetical stage.

That doesn't mean that we should go out of our way to turn off said personages by accusing them of being cowardly, traitorous bastards, but we would be naive to think that they don't already know the score. Nine times out of ten I'm guessing they justify to themselves their silence or even hostility to the cause by believing that they do so out of a "greater good". Ie "my work is so important that I can't be tarnished with the conspiracy theorist label". In a few cases there may be legitimate paranoia that they or their children might be Wellstoned.

When I interviewed John Stauber from PR watch, I asked him how these PR flacks who work for corporations like Monsanto live with themselves. He said that he had in fact talked to many PR folks who work for such corporations, and they all said basically the same thing. "I'm engaging in a lesser evil", or "If I didn't do it someone else would".

The best way to deal with organizations like Media Matters is to 1. challenge them and point out their hypocrisy (while withholding donations) and 2. Bypass them by doing what we've been doing all along -- organizing in our communities, making videos, becoming the media.

That's my two cents anyway.

I guess this kind of

I guess this kind of discussion is all shades of gray and "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type of stuff.

But I believe in less tolerance for people who lie about murder. To me, it's so evil that I just couldn't even stand for it.

I like the strength and determination underlying the quote from Frederick Douglass.

...

"But I believe in less tolerance for people who lie about murder. To me, it's so evil that I just couldn't even stand for it."

Does that extend to Ron Paul and his son?

I'm not trying to make excuses, I'm just trying to understand.

I believe that Chomsky should be criticized for his stance, but that also applies to Ron Paul.

CameronFanSite

I'm going to hazard a guess that you are still very angry about the 9/11 false flag and the heinous crime that it is, and that is fine. Everyone needs to work through their anger.

I was very angry for many years during the Contra war, the Salvadoran civil war and the genocide in Guatemala during the 1980's. Sometimes I'm amazed that I survived those years.

I hope that you are actively working through your anger and can find the joy in working with others for a better world that can be found working with the diverse group of people who make up the 9/11 truth movement.

While anger can be a great motivator, I found it only takes you so far, and can also be very debilitating at times. It is also much easier to reach people from a place of peace.

One of the many epiphanies I had when I was eleven was that we are all individuals first, and members of various (often overlapping) groups, second.

It is heartening to see you and Danse work to find understanding, instead of retreating to fortified bunkers and hurling rhetorical grenades at each other (as all to often happens here and on the street).

This two dimensional written world of blogs can sometimes make communicating far more difficult than it should be, especially when subtleties of meaning (e.g. humor or irony) are being used.

I see that you have been a user for three weeks, welcome to the site and thanks for all your work on behalf of 9/11 truth.

I hope that you and yours are well.

Cheers!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Thanks

Danse.

There is one very important thing to understand about America, and that is who runs it. It's certainly not leftists. I dare anyone to debate me on that one.

Both Amy Goodman and Michael

Both Amy Goodman and Michael Moore are on Patriots Question 911 stating they believe there was a cover up. And we can appreciate the good they have done. Michael Moore did alot to stir interest into the Bush cabal. He made clear how corrupt they were. What followed was a domino effect, with many other journalists opening up that vile can of worm, within the circle of Bush neo-cons. And if we realize how decrepit these perps are, we should acknowledge that they are nothing short of a mafia organization. If journalists have reservations about speaking more loudly, give them a break. When they outright dis us verbally, that is another story. I honestly believe that some of them were told they were supposed to do that. Cass Sunstein is the new propaganda minister, and let's not forget what we learned from watching Psywar. Psy-ops are what we are up against. We need to expose that just as aggressively as we are exposing, or trying to expose the day of 9-11-01.

One of the things I appreciate about Democracy Now is the other exposes she has done. As the media goes on about whether waterboarding is torture or not, she brought people to her show explaining the more gruesome torture being done, which exemplifies the nature of the Bush government and the present Obama, which really is a D version of the same, just a different letter next to the name.

Media Matters for America -- or does it? by Jerry Mazza

New article on this subject, and in introducing it, Jerry Mazza wrote:

"Media Matters for America's creator, author, journalist David Brock fancies his organization as a monitor of American media. Unfortunately, Mr. Brock has swung from bashing the left to bashing the right and now is hitting on Fox News for running the left article, "Tower What" on Tower 7's internal demo because it is "conspiracy theory." MMfA has also recently received about a million bucks from George Soros. Strange business."

For complete article, see:
Media Matters for America -- or does it?

Article URL -
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6655.shtml

The failure of IMAGINATION

Mediamatters said more .
they unloaded a pavlovian cyberap on 3rd dec ":Truthers, birthers, and cowards:" which completely laid out their high end contempt of 'truthers' as very BAD people indeed, a discussion never branching into the criminal atrocity of it, or science of freefall, or the corruption of NIST and the Hellersteinan control of the court system:
"The week at Fox News:When Fox host and senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano appeared on "Conspiracy King" Alex Jones' radio show last week and announced that 9-11 "couldn't possibly have been done the way the government told us," he seemingly put his employer in a difficult position." Quoting glenn beck, In abstract but familiar associative method of defining truthers as "nut jobs," "idiots," "dangerous," "anarchists," "the kind of group that a Timothy McVeigh would come from," and "exactly the kind of people who want to rock this nation's foundation, tear us apart and plant the seeds of dissatisfaction in all of us", they introduce us to the top model quandary of Beck being a coward for not attacking his friend/mentor Napolitano, and FOX delivering the good judges head on George Soros's platter. As if he hasn't eaten enough already.

Equating the need for REAL 911 investigation "Anti-American," "hurtful," "mentally ill," "idiots"another 'conspiracy nut-job"theory, the piece then argues it with another 'conspiracy'...Obama. hence the birther in the headline. so associating 911 with 'other conspiracies' tonegate its singular importance.....lighten its load. Turning it into "another 'loony' conspiracy ' as per Cass Sunstein.

I guess the other cowards in the piece are all struggling FOR REAL JUSTICE against this psychotic tide of negative 911 truth hackery being produced from the bought and paid for media .

Here it is complete:

QUOTE:

December 03, 2010
Truthers, birthers, and cowards: The week at Fox News

When Fox host and senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano appeared on "Conspiracy King" Alex Jones' radio show last week and announced that 9-11 "couldn't possibly have been done the way the government told us," he seemingly put his employer in a difficult position.

After all, for years Fox hosts and personalities have attacked anyone dabbling in 9-11 conspiracy theories as "Anti-American," "hurtful," "mentally ill," "idiots" that deserve to be "fired immediately."

By Fox News standards, you don't even have to personally espouse trutherism in order to be attacked. As evidenced by the network's attacks on Park51 Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf because he supposedly "Pals Around With Truthers," if you used to work with someone who later became a truther, you are a fair target for criticism (even if you yourself have emphatically stated that 9-11 was carried out by extremist Muslims.)

Before we discuss Fox News' astounding non-response to Napolitano's comments, it's important to point out that he is not just a random Fox contributor who pops up for occasional analysis -- Napolitano is undoubtedly a rising star at the network.

After several years as an analyst at Fox News, Napolitano was handed a weekend show earlier this year at the Fox News Junior Varsity team, more commonly known as Fox Business. His show -- which was exclusive to FoxNews.com before being bumped up to FBN -- was recently moved to the prime 8pm weekday slot on the network. Napolitano also continues to regularly appear on Fox News to provide input on a wide range of issues.

He has been the recipient of effusive praise from some of Fox's most prominent on-air personalities as well. When Justice David Souter announced he was retiring from the Supreme Court in 2009, Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy joked that he "would like to officially nominate" Napolitano for the position.

Earlier this year, Glenn Beck called Napolitano "one of the sharpest men I know" and told him that "if I were God of the Universe, you'd be my Supreme Court justice."

In a case of remarkably poor timing, the morning after Napolitano's appearance on Jones' radio show -- but before his offensive comments had come to light -- Beck announced on his radio show that Napolitano "used to" piss him off when Beck was "naïve and foolish" in 2002. Beck said that Napolitano has actually "turned out to be right on almost everything," is "one of the most decent men" he knows, and that if Beck "ever had to go to battle" and "needed people behind" him, Napolitano would be "one of the first" people Beck would call.

Beck apparently thinks so highly of Napolitano that he frequently lets Napolitano serve as his guest host when he takes days off.

While Beck reveres Napolitano, he absolutely loathes anyone even tangentially associated with the 9-11 Truth movement. Last year, Beck repeatedly attacked former White House adviser Van Jones after his name appeared on a 9-11 Truth petition (Jones has stated that he believes Al-Qaeda caused the attacks and that he was lied to about the petition, which was "something that I never saw and never signed onto"). Beck also called for an "investigation" of Imam Rauf over the fact that his former colleague eventually became a truther.

On the March 22, 2007, edition of his CNN Headline News program (accessed via Nexis), Beck spent a large portion of his show debunking 9-11 conspiracy theories with Michael Shermer of Skeptic magazine and James Meigs, the editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics.

During the show, Beck called 9-11 conspiracy theorists "nut jobs," "idiots," "dangerous," "anarchists," "the kind of group that a Timothy McVeigh would come from," and "exactly the kind of people who want to rock this nation's foundation, tear us apart and plant the seeds of dissatisfaction in all of us." Teasing the segment, he said "could these nut jobs also pose a very real threat? You'd better believe it."

Well, what does Beck think of the fact that "one of the sharpest" men he knows -- the man he hands the keys of his show over to when he is on vacation -- has revealed himself as a dangerous nut job idiot who could pose a very real threat?

It's anyone's guess, because Beck hasn't said a word about it. (In Beck's defense, he has been busy this week making things up about the food safety bill. And net neutrality. And health care reform. And the Federal Reserve. And the Smithsonian. And Wikipedia. But I digress.)

Beck's cowardly silence about Napolitano is in keeping with the rest of his network. Despite criticism from 9-11 victims' families and even numerous conservatives, both Fox News and Napolitano have refused to address the controversy on-air or off.

And, for the record, Napolitano's promotion of 9-11 conspiracy theories on Jones' show was no accident -- he previously made similar remarks on a Tennessee radio show in May.

During a February 2009 appearance on Fox & Friends, Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld ranted against 9-11 conspiracy theorists and said, "People are too scared to confront 9-11 conspiracies because it's like the crazy guy on the subway. You don't want to make eye contact. But sooner or later you've gotta make eye contact and tell that guy to get lost." Apparently, when the "crazy guy on the subway" is actually your coworker, at no point do you have to "tell that guy to get lost."

As always, it seems like there is almost nothing a Fox employee can do to warrant getting reprimanded by the network. This entire episode confirms once and for all that loyalty to Fox News trumps all.

And, this being Fox News, Napolitano's trutherism was not the network's only foray into promoting conspiracy theories this week.

On Monday's edition of Fox & Friends, the crew hosted former Republican congressman and current NewsMax columnist John LeBoutillier to promote his book, The Obama Identity. During the segment, LeBoutillier pushed the idea that Obama was actually born in Kenya, without any forceful rebuttal by hosts Steve Doocy or Brian Kilmeade. Both LeBoutillier and the Fox & Friends crew tried to suggest that his "fiction" book may actually have basis in reality. The chyron during the segment was "Fact or Fiction? 'Obama Identity' a fictional tale of reality."

So what is this "fictional tale of reality" about? Well, it promotes numerous conspiracy theories about Obama, and, in the words of Media Matters' Oliver Willis, it not only reads like it was written "in the language of a hormonal teenager," but also apparently features President Obama's foreskin as a major plot device.

And who is John LeBoutillier? Well, before his current occupation as a professional peddler of insane and discredited conspiracy theories about President Obama, LeBoutillier spent the 90s pushing outlandish conspiracies about then-President Clinton and his family -- including suggesting Clinton killed Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster and had an account "in the Cayman Islands, which is a refuge for drug money."

As we documented, Fox's promotion of LeBoutillier's book and Napolitano's trutherism are in character for the network, which has increasingly become a welcoming place for conspiracy theorists.

Earlier this week, discussing Napolitano, Hot Air's Allahpundit asked, "Precisely how many of these people does Fox have on staff? Am I going to open a newspaper tomorrow and find out that Megyn Kelly or Julie Banderas thinks the Pentagon was hit by a missile?" Based on the network's steadfast refusal to comment on the story, it's impossible to answer that question -- to the serious detriment of people at Fox who care about their credibility.

What does it say about Fox hosts like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Greta Van Susteren and Mike Huckabee -- many of whom have repeatedly and explicitly condemned truthers in the past -- that they are unwilling to speak out now that their coworker has revealed himself as one?

Are Fox's "news" anchors -- people like Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, and Megyn Kelly -- okay with the fact that their bosses refuse to condemn someone who promotes 9-11 conspiracy theories?

And how about Fox personalities like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Dick Morris, Michelle Malkin, and Laura Ingraham? Are they comfortable being employed by a network that refuses to condemn a truther employee and hosts people like John LeBoutillier to suggest the president was born in Kenya?

Based on their (apparently now discarded) standards, the entire Fox staff's association with a truther like Napolitano should make them a ripe target for criticism.

Is there anyone at Fox whose fealty to the network is outweighed by standards of decency?

Anyone?

This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Ben Dimiero, a research fellow at Media Matters for America.

END QUOTE

Well, remo, the fellow that

Well, remo, the fellow that owns Media Matters, David Brock is his name, was part of the BS that worked over Clinton, with all the absurd lies, despite the fact that Clinton was no boy scout, the lies leveled at him, David Brock was responsible for much of it. Then, Brock had a crisis of conscience, and confessed his lies, went to the Left, and now, when money is dangled in front of his nose by George Soros, sadly his lying ways surface again. It's sickening. I always appreciated the work of Media Matters until now.

I called in and told them off too.

One of the things worth mentioning, and I did, is that the Truth Movement is bigger than most know. Seldom is it talked about, and of course on mainstream media, big taboo, unless it is derision of us. Yet, nevertheless, we have made great strides without the MSM. After all, unless denial is held onto with an iron grip, it is more than obviously demolitions, and of course the rest of the evidence besides. So, the point I made to them, and we all should, is that they are going to be losing credibility much more far and wide than they know of. We are bigger than the MSM knows. They shot themselves in the foot.

I think we also should mention anywhere else that if the disagreement of this issue comes along there, the "free speech" motto is as empty as is he. The comments in disagreement are deleted. Where is his conscience now? 3,000 people killed, our own citizens, plus the million plus innocent civilians in the middle east, and the many first responders dying. He is quite literally an accomplice to genocide.

I can't help but wonder if the office of Cass Sunstein might have delivered a check. The government has many thousands of "perception management" employees. #@%*&

Can't let this one rest.

Can't let this one rest. Must bombard Media Matters on this one. They are a key source for the intelligentsia and the left wing gadget sporting pretentious and vapid yuppie class. This must not be forgotten.