9/11 Free Fall: Richard Gage, Bob McIlvaine, and Deborah Voorhees respond to Rachel Maddow
In this episode of 9/11 Free Fall Richard Gage AIA, 9/11 victim family member Bob McIlvaine, and journalist Deborah Voorhees respond to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s recent diatribe attacking 9/11 Truth. This interview includes Richard and Bob’s challenge to Maddow to bring them on her show, and Deborah’s insight regarding journalistic ethics and the obstacles to getting the 9/11 controlled demolition evidence into the corporate controlled media.
9/11 victim's family member and others insulted by Maddow's 9/11 Truth attack
9/11 Free Fall
By Andrew Steele
After hearing Rachel Maddow's recent attack on 9/11 Truth and her assertion that those who don't believe the U.S. government's official story get a satisfied feeling from their "conspiracy theories", 9/11 victim's family member Bob McIlvaine's immediate response was, "I wish she would say that to my face".
Bob has been investigating and speaking out about the murder of his son, Bobby, since 9/11 happened.
Bobby McIlvaine was 26 years old on the day he was killed at the World Trade Center. According to his father, Bobby suffered explosive injuries to his face and chest-- unlikely caused by falling debris. The burns on his body were postmortem, ruling out the possibility that he was killed by one of the airplane impacts.
Appearing as a guest on my show, "9/11 Free Fall" Bob, along with Richard Gage AIA-- founder and CEO of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth-- and veteran journalist Deborah Voorhees reacted to Maddow's attack, which didn't cite any specific scientific facts to refute the 9/11 controlled demolition evidence, but rather appealed to the host's own perceived authority of the 9/11 Commission Report and the recently revised Popular Mechanics book edited by James Meigs, which Richard's group has taken on in its series, "Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face up to Reality".
When I asked Bob what he would say to Maddow if he were invited onto her show, he said in part of his reply, "...my son died from explosion. He didn't have burns on him...he had postmortem slight burns, meaning that a detonation killed him, then the heat coming afterwards put some burns on him. And I say-- you call that a conspiracy theory? Have you talked to any doctors about how these people were blown into hundreds of pieces? How can that happen with fall down fire and a building falling straight down? These buildings came down from explosions....I would just keep harping on her-- 'you haven't done any research on this'...then harp back to the point now-- 'do you call this a conspiracy theory? I'm trying to find out how my son died...that's a conspiracy theory?...I would call her a coward. "
Both Richard Gage and Deborah Vorhees stated that knowing that the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 were brought down with explosives in a controlled demolition on 9/11 didn't inspire a satisfied feeling in them at all.
"My life was just fine before I became aware in 2006 of the science behind the destruction of these three towers," said Richard. "I was shocked, and my life was turned upside down."
"I only became aware of the forensic evidence for the towers being brought down by explosives over the last year," said Voorhees, "and I have to say, I was much more comfortable in my world and in my life prior to understanding that something far more nefarious may be going on."
Maddow has come under fire from members of her audience for her one-sided attack on those who question the government's official story about what happened on 9/11, and for her exploitation of Alice Hoagland, who not only lost her son on 9/11, but has been told in the eleven and a half years that followed the tragedy that he died a hero with the other passengers on his flight.
"A balanced and fair piece needs to show two sides of it," said Deborah Voorhees. "What we saw with Rachel Maddow was a diatribe, really. Just this angry outburst disclaiming everything and anything that she puts the word 'conspiracy' in front of. There was no use of fact at all. Even in a commentary there should be some factual examples. I am not sure why she has chosen this particular route."
Deborah went on.
"What is it that keeps the media from looking at this? The media in general is very skeptical, yes, but we really have to go back about fifteen, twenty years to see what's happened to media organizations. There was a time when major cities had at least two newspapers...two daily newspapers...to compete with. So when we went to our editors with stories to do, and if the publisher would step into the newsroom or somebody in advertising stepped into the newsroom-- these are people that had to do with the money side of running the business--it was considered completely unethical...that they should not come anywhere near a newsroom...that it was strictly for editors and reporters and no one else. Well we could stand toe to toe with the publisher at that time and say 'we need to run this story or our competitor will run it'. Now what we have is just...I think it's just five or six corporations that own basically all of the news, radio, and newspaper organizations throughout the country. Well you cannot have fair and balanced news when it is so narrowly owned and operated. Any rogue reporter who might try and go off in that direction, or frankly an editor that might, would be quickly squelched."
Richard Gage and Bob McIlvaine are willing to appear on Rachel Maddow's show. Richard is asking the MSNBC host for equal time to present the 9/11 controlled demolition evidence to her audience. The question is-- does journalistic integrity mean anything anymore in the so-called "mainstream media", and does Rachel Maddow have any?
That is something only Rachel Maddow herself can now answer.