Webster made a lot of points, even though they have the volume up louder for the hosts than the guests.
In fact he might have made all the main points people need to know.
- That WTC7 was hit by no plane and displayed classic demolition characteristics, free-fall speed, falling in own footprint, smoke streamers, etc, the bldg was not damaged, you can look at the film on the Internet.
- That Kerry was talking about WTC7, not another building.
- That Kerry and Democratic party are just part of the elitist oligarchy. They won't bring us 9/11 Truth
- Motivation was war of civilization by the people who brought you the Gulf of Tonkin, and this is what we see, wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran.
- Controlled demolition had to be done by experts before 9/11,
- It could not have been done by Al Qaeda, which is the CIA Arab legion, a troupe of actors assembled by US - UK intelligence, created by Robert Gates, current Defense secretary
- Bin Laden doubles - confession discredited.
- The ploy about the families is a demagogic argument
- The reason this is important is that Cheney is preparing a new 9/11 for a war on Iran. That's the whole point. To understand the next one you have to understand the first one.
Pretty good when they only gave him 3 minutes to talk.
rose and stop attacking Webster just because it didn't sound like a msm truth sound bite! This is the Info war! This is real..
Have you ever tried shooting a riffle after running a hundred yards? Well trying to shoot your point across on this battle field is easily twice as hard! Anyone that has tried to argue with a hostile amateur about 9/11 knows how difficult it is once your blood is up, now multiply that by 10 and that’s how it would be in this forum, think about before you criticize him too hard.
going on Faux Noise.
The delusional psychotics that run & Listen to Faux Noise are unreachable, they represent about 30% of the country that are totally hopeless and will never stop believing in the "Church of Bush".
I thought Alan Colmes looked psychotic and Hannity who is souless just rattled on like the energizer bunny.
How do we know that 30 million people watch Fox. What if they all stopped watching a couple weeks ago during a "progress in Iraq" report.
I don't trust any of the MSM metrics being generated. Its like the inflation index which leaves out fuel, food and housing. What does that number mean?
...while DRG was on that he has talked to Colmes privately and he (Colmes) is scared. I though that Colmes was way more whacked out than usual. Maybe he is trying to covertly tell viewers that Faux is the crazy conspiracy contingency?
--
"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)
i couldnt agree more. this place has a way of expecting perfection out of our "spokesmen". its just unrealistic to think that any of us would perform our best during the 3 minutes of hate that Webster went through. could he have done better? sure but overall i think he did a fine job considering the circumstances.(though like dz said, it would have been nice if Tarpley mentioned who occupied WTC7 :-)
He didn't know what he was talking about. At least he didn't know what the questioner was talking about.
Speading the nonsence about Kerry and WTC7 is a disinfo ploy to make us look like idiots. This is why Hannity had Tarpley on.
Pay close attention to who the debunkers like to have on their TV shows and in their British documentaries.
And another thing, WTC7 was certainly brought down by controlled demolition. But saying it wasn't hit by a plane is a weak argument. It was hit by tons of steel.
The credible argument is how debunkers want to have it both ways. If WTC7 was so severely damaged by falling debris, which it probably was, that is all the more reason to know it should not have collapsed straight down into its footprint..
NOT a disinfo ploy, but your above post IS a disinfo ploy.
WTC-7 was at least 350 feet from the nearest tower. It suffered minor damage from debris being ejected during the controlled demolition of the North Tower. (Even Larry Silverstein said the building was pulled when he was asked about it.)
Since only 3 buildings were brought down in controlled demolitions that day, which building did Senator Kerry think the questioner was asking about?
The PBS Documentary "America Remembers" contains footage of the final building left standing at Ground Zero being brought down by the site workers.
This footage of building 6, which was by then only a steel frame skeleton, was discussed in the documentary as being "pulled" because the close proximity of this structure to the exposed slurry wall dictated they had to exercise caution, or the Hudson River would flood the site. They actually had chains attached to this structure, to insure it fell where they wanted it to, and they used cutter charges and brought it down.
Kerry mumbled something about "controlled fashion" and "protect the wall" in is reply to the Truther's question. There never was a concern expressed on 9/11 in any other videos I have seen regarding danger to "the wall", as the wall existed below ground level, and was only exposed during the cleanup.
Therefore, I suggest this whole Kerry thing is a dead end, and ultimately, will leave us looking a bit foolish if we keep thrashing about with it, trying to make it look as Kerry knew WTC7 was a controlled demolition, and was thoughtless enough to casually say so.
Not much can be based on that isolated comment from Kerry. I guess Kerry's interviewer did not ask him specifically if he was aware of the 47-story WTC 7, which was the third skyscraper that was totally destroyed on 9/11... It doesn't hurt to be specific enough.
The thing to do is be more specific next time.
We have to remember what these guys are saying and make them live up to their promises, or clarify vague statements.
Before long, they will be backed into a corner and forced to give real answers on 9/11.
The reason we aren't getting any pearls from swine like Kerry and Edwards, is because we are going into battle in our boxer shorts. These guys actively study and practice the manipulation of language. They're professionals in this department, it's part of their job! How can we expect to trap them if we are just blurting out unstructured questions like amateurs?
Start studying language and propaganda, and start thinking strategy. Please pass this around the movement. We need to be using our brains.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
responded properly to the lead-in charge by fox by saying that Kerry was talking about building 7. I don't think they expected that and of course Tarpley could have backed up by saying that that was what the question was about that was asked of Kerry. So it remained an equalised sort of debate since charges are flying on either side while Tarpley remained the more informed.
Thats the idea on fox to prevent the tag team from winning, it's all about who wins no matter the cost in honour because thats what the viewers respond to.
the interviewer gave Kerry. You must not have seen the full clip.
The interviewer specifically asked about Building 7, the third building that collapsed on 9/11-- specifically at 5:20 p.m. on that day. He then mentioned Larry Silverstein's comments regarding this building. There was no "wiggle room" for misinterpreting
the question. The 3rd building ON 9/11. Specifically, the 47-story Building 7 that the BBC prematurely reported having collpased.
The full video is available from 911dvd@gmail.com (I just received mine as part of WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11. This is admittedly better than the clip you might have seen.)
It's painfully obvious Kerry is not talking about WTC7. The only good thing to come from this episode is more exposure for 9/11 Truth. But when people such as Tarpley pretend Kerry is referring to WTC7, they make us look foolish.
Also, Tarpley said there were "no" fires in WTC7, which is patently false.
Come on, people, at least make the case for 9/11 Truth within the set of available facts. Every little slip of the tongue pushes us all closer to the Reynolds/Fetzer contingent.
No one is saying Kerry wasn't ASKED about WTC7. What we're saying (and what is abundantly clear from the video) is that Kerry in his answer was not talking about WTC7. He's clearly talking about a "wall" from building 6, which we have all seen brought down on film.
Once again: Kerry was asked about WTC7. He responded by referring to WTC6. The whole episode is making 9/11 Truth look foolish.
And no, I'm not part of John Kerry's "damage control team". Please pay more attention to the videos you are watching, and less attention to the ad hominem attacks you are delivering.
You must have been watching a different broadcast to the one I was watching. Webster Tarpley, very much did know what he was talking about. As soon as the interview started the questioner began with the insults, which Webster handled supremely well. The questioner talked over Webster without answering the points raised by Webster and continued to spout the popular mechanics mythology.
1. Have you actually seen the interview where Kerry is asked specifically about the collapse of Building 7 in Austin, Texas? Granted, Kerry is unable to answer a question without obfuscation and confusing himself and everyone else. Kerry answers the SPECIFIC question concerning Building 7 by saying ‘I know it was brought down in a controlled way’ he is making reference to either the wall (which if brought down would have flooded Manhattan) or making reference to Building 7. Which is it to be? He is not talking about the other buildings, because the questioner is asking about the events of 9/11 not weeks later, when buildings were demolished and everyone, even you, would know this.
2. WTC7 was *NOT* hit by 'tons of steel' I don't know where you get that information from, but it is FALSE. The only photographs which are credible show WTC7 with superficial damage, scattered broken windows, scattered fire of undetermined cause and light damage to the façade of the building at best. The one picture given out by debunkers which supposedly shows 1/3 of the building missing (a chunk taking out by flying steel - allegedly) which you have obviously brought into looks badly photoshopped. The damaged part of the building the supposed 1/3 missing chunk is heavily obscured by smoke. The smoke looks artificial at best, and this is no doubt a fake.
3. I recommend you read Webster Tarpley’s book, if you can’t afford to buy a copy then a previous edition is available for free on PDF:
9/11 Synthetic Terror - Made in the USA by Webster Griffin Tarpley http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119638.pdf
was brought down by CD. He had a chance to be credible and instead went with the bogus.
I'm sure that the producers of Hannity and Colmes knew that Tarpley would make this claim. That's why they had him on.
This is the kind of crap that makes it difficult for me to convince people that we all aren't a bunch of nutjobs.
I have to tell my friends not to even bother researching with google. There's so much absurdity and disinfo.
I send them to 911research, the Journal of 911 Studies, and David Ray Griffin's books.
Cause as soon as they see John Kerry's "wall" transformed into WTC7, they stop listening. Which I'm sure is the objective for some.
I don't know enough about Tarpley to say, but I pay attention to those who the corporate media deems big enough clowns to safely put on television.
James Fetzer, David Shayler, Alex Jones.
Notice who they aren't rushing to interview: Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Paul Craig Roberts, Howard Zinn, Peter Dale Scott, or Mark Crispin Miller - just to name a few.
Alex Jones huh? the only MSM(at least in this country) that allowed him on was a CNN HeadLine News CELEBRITY show and he shined. his appearance on SHowbiz Tonight was ROUNDLY lauded around the 9/11 truth community even by people who cant stand Alex Jones. he fired off fact after fact and came off surprisingly rational. i know its popular to shit on Alex Jones around here now but at least get your facts straight first. also, Steven Jones was on MSNBC and decided not to do any MSM since then. that was HIS decision. again, facts straight.
He performs under pressure, and he knows when to reign in his "kookiness". He's extremely confident, so he doesn't get rattled. From what I've seen he's very sharp and only says what is appropriate to the forum in which he's speaking. I think that most of the people who shit on him are either coming from the stereotypical "liberal" crowd (most of my friends), or have problems with his statements about immigration. I don't agree with his tone on that topic, but I do agree that the "elite" might be using illegal immigration as a tool to destroy national sovereignty and help usher in the N.A.U.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
Partly because he is a radio person and has been doing that for years, and has also had years of experience being on the hot seat, and being an activist, so it is probably second-nature for him at this point. (although I have seen him kind of falter now and then, but it's not very obvious)
So I cut others some slack who are not in his league in that sense. (like Steven Jones, and some others — David Ray Griffin also seems to be able to hold his own pretty well, too)
----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent
fearless T-REX that would have wiped the floor with Sean Insanity & "The Fake-Ass Jimmy Smitts"
Thats why they never have him on. These shows invite him left and right, then always cancel last minute.
by the way, EVERYONE here should be listening daily to AJ's radio show - you'd be surprised just how fucked up things really are beyond the issue of 9/11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB
This web site is polluted with shills like you.
EXPOSE EXPOSE - You are an agent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming is the biggest scam to infect the planet.
Global Warming = Global Tax = Global Police = TOTAL CONTROL
Their goal is a ONE WORLD DICTATORSHIP. COMMUNIST or FASCIST it matters not.
Kerry spun the question and was talking about the wall (looked like a skeleton) of the twin towers. He was not talking about WTC 7.
This debate can last 100 years, like the "Magic Bullet" of generations past.
Why are we letting the MSM control the dialogue?
Tarpley should've defended the family members and said they were the ones who WANT the investigation, and had to fight for the first investigation.
He should've mentioned the whistleblowers, gag orders, and omitted testimonies and information from the 9/11 Commission Report, which has been dismantled as a coverup and "whitewash".
Hannity acted like a child, and even Colmes a little, in their namecalling and yelling. There will NEVER be a serious debate on the matter of Controlled Demolition.
It may be great for activism and getting people interested, but it is not needed to show that there were/are serious conflicts of interest and a lot of things that we still do not know.
To me it feels like many folks want to put all their eggs in the Controlled Demolition Basket, and I am trying to tell you that you can't reach the mass you want that way.
You have to appeal to the victims' families, the same way the MSM is USING THEM AGAINST US!
Once we all stand up against that, there is no stopping us.
Tarpley and many others on these shows have had NUMEROUS opportunities to defend themselves against the slander that "they are dishonoring the family members", yet NONE of them speak up about it? WHY?
///////////////////// 911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info
Your post, and probably this one will most likely get voted down, but I give Webster's appearance a D-.
He should have said, "No, I don't think John Kerry admitted to Controlled Demolition for WTC7, however, 9/11 family members Bill Doyle, and Bob McIlvaine recently filed a petition against NIST... when did Hannity & Colmes cover that?"
I think Colmes was an ass, and Sean Hannity was Sean Hannity (a moron).
You said, "Tarpley and many others on these shows have had NUMEROUS opportunities to defend themselves against the slander that "they are dishonoring the family members", yet NONE of them speak up about it? WHY?"
That is a question I would love an answer to.
Another question I would love an answer to is when has ANY of this information been promoted during National Television spots by the 9/11 Truth "spokespeople" selected by the media?
If not, why not?
I definitely think it's time for 9/11 Truth "spokespeople" selected by the media to start acting more like 9/11 Truth activists than authors/celebrities. I definitely think it's time for people to stop stating theory as fact, and to start focusing on the rock solid information that can't be refuted by simply asking, "who planted the explosives?"
People like Webster Tarpley, Kevin Barrett, and others who somehow manage to get on the television need to stop trying to answer the questions, and start asking them.
Learn key talking points, and repeat them over and over again. Everytime we manage to get National attention, it is precious. There's no reason in the world why that time should be squandered.
Dead on, JG. We need to do better. Read what I said in the other Tarpley/Hannity thread. Start thinking strategically people. Every second of face time is valuable. We absolutely can control the dialogue if we actively plan to. Our opponents use language as a weapon. Why can't we? If we're smart with language, we can nullify or at least diminish their propaganda.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
You see, Faux decided not to play the ENTIRE original video clip, so that they could provide disinfo. Fact is, Kerry was responding to a question that was asked directly to him about WTC 7 as is apparent in the FULL video clip here...
the supposed missing piece of wall of building 7, from the roofline downwards?
I don't even know if that is even true or not, but maybe he saw those photos?
(I am not referring to the lower corner "scoop" damage that has been proven to be faked)
If Kerry is referring to 7 by saying "the wall" then he was saying 7 was brought down in a controlled fashion, which would be impossible to set up for in the course of an afternoon, with fires in various parts of the building mind you.
not sure on any of the above, just speculating possibilities aloud.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB
Can we at least agree to get our facts straight?
- No fires in WTC7? There were fires but they were small
- Couple hundred FEET not YARDS
We don't have to exaggerate.
- No Evidence
Squibs
Kink
Near Free-Fall speed
symetrical collapse
sulfidized steel
molten metal
traces of manganese
That good enough?
I heard "no fires" (7), "attacked Iran" (he meant Iraq) and a few other slips. Webster did better than I would have in any case, so It's understandable that mistakes are made with those jabbering bozos interupting all the time. The clip of WTC 7 going down was wonderful.
...to talk about the global, political, historical context within which 9/11 occurred, not the science of controlled demolition......(although he did fine on CD, mentioning the new proof of thermate signatures in the dust would've been nice).
Faux will probably have Steven Jones on next and then exclusively ask him about War Games and how Coup d'etat's are structured.
I love how Colmes is now just as manipulative in his questioning as is Hannity. It makes me wonder why Colmes launched the questions to begin with. The network must be in panic mode. They couldn't frame this story other than to have the blurb below Kerry's pic read, "The Crazies love him." They tried to villify both Kerry and Tarpley at the same time.
They call themselves a news network?
It always goes back to that stupid argument that 911 Truth is further denigrating the families of 911, the troops abroad, Bush, etc.
been dead for years now! Most leaders in both parties are in collusion with each other. Kerry deliberately took a dive near the end of the 2004 campaign (Kerry's wife helped in this too). Kerry's Skull & Bones partner, Bushie & Co., did the rest to make it happen. The NWO NeoCons preferred Bush to play the part of war monger, not Kerry.
THE GOAL OF THOSE WHO ADVANCE THE 'LEFT VS. RIGHT' B.S. IS TO KEEP AMERICANS DIVIDED AGAINST EACH OTHER SO THAT WE NEVER BECOME UNITED AGAINST AMERICA'S RULING ELITE.
LEFT VS RIGHT
BLACK VS WHITE
MALE VS FEMALE
GAY VS STRAIGHT
Of course Tarpley knows it's bogus...He knows that Kerry could have won but stood down....sound's like a weakness to me....
PS. Tarpley is the MAN! Tarpley has proven himself with the ability to stay calm, reserved, and focused constantly pushing the facts above the badgering. He knows the message and is simply wiser than these FOX schills. Tarpley's show rocks and his book is simply essential. Thanks alot!
I looked for my post on your blog, but I couldn't find it--much less a response. You didn't go and do a Screwy Loose and delete it did you? And after I was so civil and thoughtful....
Mind, my mood will change if I don't hear from that wee kraut ponce soon.
Lets thank Fox for Tarpley's appearance. Fox knows the 9/11 truth community will flock to the network to watch this program and give it a ratings bump. Note how Tarpley to his credit doesn't attempt to answer their questions but instead talks over them to get his points in. BRAVO.
Who the hell is Alan Colmes to speak for John Kerry? To my knowledge, John Kerry never did clarify exactly what the hell he meant with that comment!
That is the point I wish Webster had made. He should have turned it around on Colmes. "Excuse me Alan, did you speak with Senator Kerry? Do you know for a fact what he meant? No... well shut up then and listen to what I have to say about WTC 7!"
_______________________
"Cogito ergo sum"
Colmes has a job description. Mole. Most of us are experienced to know the old adage. "All the world is a stage" and we are all players on the stage. That's a bit sad, though there are six billion of us, most of us fall into one character or another. Some Shakespeare scholars estimate it at a baker's dozen. Yeah, I know all that "each snowflake is unique" hoopla, and in many respects I even adhere to each of our unique facilities or characteristics as being a powerful truth. However, in the day to day world where we punch clocks and shine shoes, sweep floors, or make phone calls or data entries of some sort, it is plain as day that we all pretty much make up familiar characters the world has seen before; and likely will see again whenever one of us unique snowflakes melts and passes away. As the other old adage goes, with or without you 'life goes on." That being the case, the world is a stage, and the particular world for the moment is FOX. Mr. Colmes is stepping up to center stage. His role is obvious, the left wing of pop politics. Normally he sits on the sidelines close to Hannity and ultimately takes abuse night after night with occasionally getting a liberal talking point across the mega-airwaves. That's how he earns his pay. After all, you can't deliver a successful piece of classical drama, a daily dose of FOX fiction, without having counter characters to the hero of the storyline (Hannity being the hero (wow, that sounds so weird)). Colmes plays our good cop to Hannity's bad cop. Colmes is the guy who won't go to extremes, so when he finally does stand center stage and delivers his lines, he's the character we are waiting for to tell us the truth. We believe he couldn't lie because his lie would appear to benefit his abuser, Hannity. In classical fiction, the abused just could never assist his abuser wittingly; the audience didn't buy it. Nowadays that sounds trite. Thanks to modern fiction for blurring those staunch storyline arches. But sadly there are great number who still eat up those classic story lines hook, line and sinker. FOX viewers for the most part, and plenty populist democrat NY Times readers. But with regards to Colmes and FOX, the bright side of this is the fact that they had to pull out Colmes for this latest showdown with 911 Truth. For the poker players out there, that means they're showing their cards. It means they're getting desperate, Grant it, Colmes is not their Ace in the hole, more like a 9 of hearts or less, but it is clear that they do not have the matter of 911 under control. Maybe I'm not the best poker player but I'm looking at my hand (all the 9/11 proof already assembled) and I'm thinking, I'm all in.
I thought he did a great job. People watching this will think twice. Every time they are forced to use a personal ad hominem attack in response to a rational argument, we get closer to winning.
There're strawmen, boldface lies, avoidance...what do you call it when some tiny minute (largely irrelevant) error is made to look like a catastrophic blunder? Nice try JamesB.
Did he, or did he not say that it was several hundreds of yards away? Twice! Is that, or is that not a lie? It is simple math. Measure it.
He also lied and said that there were no fires, something that even truthers have admitted there were. How is this irrelevent, that was all the evidence he had to offer, and it was a lie?
He obviously misspoke and meant to say "feet", not "yards". It was live teevee - and if someone on the show would have caught Mr. Tarpley's error, he would have immediately acknowledged his error.
Ok I watched the interview again and he did say "no fire". Three possibilities here:
1. He misspoke
2. He's clueless regarding the fires in WTC-7
3. He did it on purpose to either deceive the viewers, or to set-up a strawman that could have been easily knocked down.
I hope it's not 3.
_______________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!" -Dr. Frank Greening
He strategically misspoke. In a practical sense, there were no fires. There were no fires any different from office building fires in the past, they were typical. So to talk about the fires as legitimate consideration of destruction is pointless. Also, Tarpley manages to give potential 911 investigators a little spin. No fire at wtc 7 and a complete collapse sounds outrageous. Maybe outrageous enough to get some of those FOX viewers off the couch and take a look at the assembled facts. Because once anyone with a half a brain takes an honest look at the facts 911 Truth simply becomes undeniable.
then he explained the location, across the street, beyond WTC6 (at least that's how I interpreted it.)
James, I'm sorry about all the negative ratings, because I think people with opposing viewpoints and an argument to make should be welcomed. You raised a valid point - it was a mistake.
The "no fires" comment is a bigger mistake. Huge, really. What's up with that? Another valid point - thanks for pointing it out. No matter, we know the fires could not have done that.
Is this all you have? How can you look at the building falling and believe the bullshit that NIST is peddling? Face it, your worldview is going to need a fall-back argument. It sounded to me like Kerry was gesturing in the direction, though he could have just been confused.
of that massive, steel-framed building. (They could well have been arson by the many spook agencies who were tenants in WTC-7.)
Then, shortly before the implosion, huge amounts of gray smoke began pouring out of the structure. This was likely smoke from thermate/thermite used to angle-cut the beams inside, so the could be blown apart by more conventional explosives. And down she fell.
i know that you are completely devoid of fault, but some of us humans mispeak from time to time. the fact that mr tarpley made an error whilst speaking (i know, terrible, isnt it?) really has nothing to do with the fact that WTC 7 fell symmetrically, globally, and straight down in 6.6 seconds, now does it?
I don't see why a top down demolition couldn't have ejected debris as far as WTC7.
The more critical issue is whether or not that debris mixed with small (or even large) fires could have precipitated a 'global' collapse...as rapidly and symmetrically as it happened. Arguing no debris/no fires is misguided and sets up a straw man for skeptics; the issue is the damage those debris or fires could have caused.
It certainly seems like it would have taken a lot more than some debris and fire to make a 47 story steel sky-scraper collapse like that...
Tarpley delivered the goods. As far as Tarpley's supposed misspeak, he meant to say wtc7 was nearly a hundred and fifty yards away. That's right wtc 7 was almost a 150 yards away, on the other side of wtc 5 & 6 which were the two building between the towers and wtc 7. Yeah, building 5 & 6 which took the full load of the north tower but still managed to stand. Funny how wtc 5 & 6 didn't collapse. Also funny how the Winter Garden theater, basically it's a giant greenhouse made of glass, it too was about 150 yards away and it didn't collapse despite sever damage.
how did all the columns in building 7 fail at the same time? can you please provide us with a sequential model because the lead invesistigator for nist told new york magazine"i dont know" "we are having trouble getting a handle on building 7" just last year. Im sure you know the details. Please provide us with a sequential model of how all 90 columns failed at the same time, also how did the building colllapse so rapidly? (7 seconds from the roof down)?
I'll miss the deniars after the next bombshell hits (that the MSM can't ignore). But it could be awhile. I'm patient. Will you come back and visit us after the Truth comes to light?
We must be kept on our toes. Can't get complacent. Must always re-research the "facts".
I don't like how Tarpley says there were no fires in #7. Yes, there are pictures of small isolated fires, but the NYFD could have knocked them out without a problem. Some deniars could jump on this, even though when you watch the video of the collapse it is impossible to not realize that "Building 7 came down in the manner of a classic controlled demolition, as shown by the initial collapse of the penthouse (which didn't appear to be on fire) and the kink at the center of the structure."
I hope that we're not still arguing over this in May of 2008.
Tarpley delivered the goods. As far as Tarpley's supposed misspeak, he meant to say wtc7 was nearly a hundred and fifty yards away. That's right wtc 7 was almost a 150 yards away, on the other side of wtc 5 & 6 which were the two building between the towers and wtc 7. Yeah, building 5 & 6 which took the full load of the north tower but still managed to stand. Funny how wtc 5 & 6 didn't collapse. Also funny how the Winter Garden theater, basically it's a giant greenhouse made of glass, it too was about 150 yards away and it didn't collapse despite sever damage.
*DISINFO - AGENT*
----------------------------------------------------
Global Warming is the biggest scam to infect the planet.
Global Warming = Global Tax = Global Police = TOTAL CONTROL
Their goal is a ONE WORLD DICTATORSHIP. COMMUNIST or FASCIST it matters not.
You continue to attack those who seek truth and justice, focusing on minor points. All the while, the public servants who are supposed to report to the American people escape responsibility for their lies.
Why do you not join us in calling for an honest investigation? I demanded an answer before, but you dodged. Why do you think we can't handle an honest government?
he did about as well as can be expected in that hostile enviroment. I'm sure a few hundred if not thousand people will go to the web to look at more video and that alone makes it worthwhile. I would have liked to seen better response when they mention the victims families however.
people that do this for a living are endlessly attacking them!
All our heros faulter under these evil mens prepared attacks, what makes people like Tarpley so great is that they continue to expose themselves when even their so-called supporters are so f$%^ing critical!
Let's keep remebering we are winning!
Talk up, not down our front line soldiers for they are risking every thing for truth.
that if I knew nothing about 9/11, I wouldn't believe it was an inside job based on Webster's interview here. I think, even though he was constantly interrupted, he conducted himself in a rather flakey fashion. I'm a huge fan of his book, but he made weak arguments, brought up Kerry's wife for some strange reason, and mentioned nothing about 9/11 families calling for a new investigation when told by Colmes that he was insulting the family members. When popular mechanics was brought up, he failed to mention David Griffin's new book. These things should be 'givens'. Personally I think this interview was a virtual dud, except for Webster's description of the collapse of WTC7. I'm not saying it was a setback, but I don't think it helped any. Compare David Griffin's demeanor/approach to Websters and you can see why Webster is allowed on and not David. No worries, learn from the past to make the future better.
Edit: Peggy Carter, I totally agree with you and gave u a + point.
I too heard Colmes claim to be "agnostic on 9/11 truth"! You are absolutely right! So what then accounts for the sudden change of heart?
______________________
"Cogito ergo sum"
He's the controlled opposition on the show. He's the "balance" so the sheeple watching can feel like they're getting both sides of the story. He's there to make-believe that they're having a rational discussion, where all opinions are being presented equally. IT'S ALL AN ACT. This show is fake to the core, scripted every time. There is notihng real about it at all. Everything H&C say is tactical. They play "good cop/bad cop" to make people think they're hearing both sides, then once the shouting gets going they spring the trap. Colms takes off his good-guy mask, and they both proceed to shout insults at the guest. Then the viewing audience bounces up and down in their Lazy-Boys, slap their thighs and squeal like piggies as they spray Diet-Coke out their noses and their bag of Cheetos is spilled all over the living room.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
Overall, I thought Tarpley did OK, great at times, except:
1. "No fires" -- how could he not know about the reported fires? Like stallion4 says, that could be a huge straw man, whether it was intentional or not.
No they aren't. You have to understand, for propaganda to work, it has to be formulated a certain way. Now in the case of Faux News, that method is pure Jerry Springer. It's all emotion and name-calling driven. If you study up and rehearse a little, this crap is easy to disarm. H&C can't get off script or out of character, because that might jolt the audience into consciousness. H&C are predictable. They're going to do "good cop/bad cop" or a shouting match with copious ad hominem attacks. You don't beat that by getting dragged into the shouting match. You calmly use transitional phrases to re-direct the conversation back to your FACTS, no matter what they say. If you want to try to talk over them, you do it calmly and at a regular volume, so they look like the rabid animals, not you.
Wiki search "Propaganda". Spread a little education around.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
They did kind of show the collapse of building 7..... although they for some reason zoomed in on it and showed it after the initialization of collapse had begun. Could get people to go to the internet to watch it.
___________________
Together in Truth!
because the other shots that have the whole building in the frame are undeniably "classic controlled demolition" - with the roof line kink and all. The tight shot they used is the only one they could show in order to keep the waters muddy, and the point out of context.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB
They say no evidence because they can get away with it. Not enough people can call them on bovis stercum so they will keep saying it and saying it until too many people know its wrong. Even then, Fox News might have to get down to 10% of the public (or less) to stop. We have to spread the evidence so more people can call the controlled press out and switch. We are already building an alternative with the best foundations.
We can't ever expect them to do our job for us and tell our story, or be neutral. When they have anyone who will tell the truth on its a plus. Today they brought someone on who is a great researcher, but is more a lecturer for people who know already, and showed at least something of building seven. To be honest, if an engineer is sitting out there and saw that, they have to do a double take. The best they could hope for is to maintain the size of their base and maintain the status quo of when a Fox News viewer hears about this they think, "Crazy, Liberal, Don't Pay Attention". They lost people by showing building seven, even a poor angle, because it was enough for a structural some steel welder, ME, Civil Engineer or Architect to start researching. They damaged the "liberal" word because Tarpley rejected Kerry, but not the best way for the crowd. They lost some of their base tonight. They ever so slightly weakened another. If they bring this up and the person up there doesn't scream "No Planes" they lose a little. If someone searches for his book they are going to get the review by Robert Steel (and hopefully follow up on that too).
Tarpley did well enough. I'd only suggest that when (if) he gets on again he challenge them to have either William Rodriguez, Bob Mcilvaine, any of the first responders or Bill Doyle on. They can't be pushy with them (or at least they will look bad) and their words will shatter the "crazy" thought. Taunt them that they aren't telling the stories of these people. Hearing it from the families or first responders is far more powerful than anything Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley or DRG could say. Enough people watch CSI that Steven Jones or Kevin Ryan could probably do some damage too.
Tarpley should have immediately demanded evidence from H&C.
H&C: "Where's the evidence for your claims."
Tarp: "I have a mountain of evidence that we can discuss for hours, but let me ask you, where is your evidence that bin Laden in responsible?"
H&C: "The confession video."
Tarp: "Obviously faked. Any idiot can see that. Even the FBI doesn't think it's authentic. What else do you have?"
H&C: "The FBI said it's fake?"
Tarp: "They say they have no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11."
I don't care what you think about the whole body of his theories...Tarpley is incredible. No one else can rattle off a list of princeton-bred epithets like this man. He's a genius of some kind, that's for sure.
People on the 9/11 truth side seem to have a problem being objective and realistically self-critical about how our representatives come across in the media. The bias really shows sometimes. Based on the comments so far, this would appear to be one of those times.
Tarpley does not do well in this interview. In his delivery, demeanor, and presence, he is the picture of the classic raving conspiracy nut. He's no Fetzer, but he's in Fetzer's ballpark. Fox News won this round.
Be honest. Does anyone think this interview does us any favors?
any publicity is good publicity. at least it will get a few people thinking and a few people talking. its the domino effect. 9/11 truth isnt going to happen overnight.
"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th;
malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."
Tarpely did real well considering the amount of time they actually let him talk. The interruptions were purposely done to make him look like he's bumbling, but I think he did very well to hold his own against 2 pros that took unwarranted shots on him and his evidence.
It was like watching two bullies cornering the class genious and taking wild punches at him. Tarpely did well to deflect alot of the blows and land a few on his own.
Just the fact that this was aired on mass media will awaken a few more people. Even if it makes just one person turn on his computer and google wt7, thats one more than we had yesterday. Its growing expotentially..have patience.
"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th;
malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."
Tarpley by no means appears as a nut. If anything the way H and C acted made them look like the nuts. Tarpley compared to them kept his cool and made them look like the babble nuts they are. If someone is on the way to truth and see's the debunking go like H and C, the person on the way to truth will of course sense no fact and all attack coming from these schills and continue to see if they can find any answers. In that sense it is of course a victory. We have proven we have the logical and moral upper hand.
Tarpley is a great asset to the movement. He did pretty well, he mentioned that no steel structure ever collapsed before. Nobody is going to believe 9/11 was an inside job after listening to a 5 minute attack interview. I think its almost impossible. The best think to do in these interveiws is to calmly mention a few points and then repeatedly plug a free movie like Loose Change. He should have just sat back and chilled and said "go watch loose change its free on google video" That will reach and convert thousands.
excellent. tarpley handled it very well under the circumstances. i think it should be rather clear to the audience that he'd take those two pawns to the woodshed given an adequate forum. bravo.
The next time when either DRG, Kevin Barrett or Tarpley goes on FOX or some other BS channels. They need to challenge them for a hour open debate. And see how fast they will shut up.
but he hit a lazy fly ball.... leaving several runners on base.
The 911 families..... Webster are you informed or did you write the book and then go AWOL? Are you aware of the numerous family members who are supporting our claims? Pop these fools on these weak ass arguments.
I can not wait for William Rodriguez's documentary which profiles all the family members which he has personally interviewed who are questioning the official conspiracy theory. We need these things to drop along with the release of the Final Cut!
Lets roast these pigs!!!
___________________
Together in Truth!
That's about it, really. They looked shrill, and played WTC7, and it was so short, there wasn't much more than that. Them, as idiots, playing WTC7, insulting a guest, laughing him off as a loon. WTF is that?
Their audiance I hope was like WTF? in reaction, particularly when the building came down, confirming was this guy Webster Tarpley was in effect SAYING!
We won, again, as usual.. [yawn]
"I can not wait for William Rodriguez's documentary which profiles all the family members which he has personally interviewed who are questioning the official conspiracy theory. We need these things to drop along with the release of the Final Cut!
Lets roast these pigs!!!"
Excellent! We're in sinc. They are TERRIFIED, about what's coming at them, like a historical train, which is also a nightmare, making THEM look somehow complicit in willfully attempting to cover-UP what really happened on 9/11.
They are in our sights, having completely painted themselves into a corner on this issue.
It's the blinding light, bearing down on them, of a new tomorrow, of newfound possibility..
Something diametrically opposed to Cheney's "100 year war, for a generation. " [eyeroll]
All of history weighs directly in favour of our worldview. The war was a SHAM and everyone knows it, adn they KNOW that there would BE no Iraq war, without 9/11.. all the lies..?
Tarpley got in a few jabs, but I don't think much of what he said tonight is going to change any minds. The good thing is that 9/11 is still around, we're still getting press.
Was glad to see some WTC 7 footage. Joe construction worker can figure that one out. Was this the first time that MSM has showed this collapse? Man, these guys are such fascists they make me puke. Please archive this video somewhere so that in 30 years the survivors of our civilization can understand how it (may have) ended.
Just left a presentation by Cindy Sheehan. She was so intense. Revolution, but non-violent, was mentioned. We hope, but I don't see much possibility of success there, I don't believe that even a union of 9/11 Truth and peace groups could make too much of a rumble.
The crowd was large and I'd say 80 percent gray-haired. She gave a talk earlier in the day that I hope more students attended.
Towards the end, without any suggestions frrom the audience, she called for a new investigation of 9/11! (With a response of mild applause). She stated that she doesn't know that the government was behind it, but wouldn't doubt it.
There was a long portion dedicated to the need for impeachment. Conyers wrote up a 219 (item or page?) and never released it, due to the pressure of Nancy Pelosi.
I think she is on our side, but is attacking the administration from a wider angle. Probably thinks that spending too much time on the 9/11 issue would annoy a large segment of her audience.
Catch her if she visits your town. She will be at protests in DC on Monday, I believe she said outside congress and Pelosi's house if they can find it. DC911truth could maybe show up as well.
'Towards the end, without any suggestions frrom the audience, she called for a new investigation of 9/11! (With a response of mild applause). She stated that she doesn't know that the government was behind it, but wouldn't doubt it.'
That sounds like progress in Sheehan's views to me.
'I think she is on our side, but is attacking the administration from a wider angle. Probably thinks that spending too much time on the 9/11 issue would annoy a large segment of her audience.'
Well, a large segment of the civil rights movement was annoyed when Martin Luther King spoke out against the Vietnam War, but he decided that somet hings have to be said regardless of the cost.
Approaching a problem from a 'wide angle' might also be called 'circumvention', avoidance of what is at the core. It should be clear enough after 5 1/2 years that activists against war and in defense of the Constitution will not achieve their (our) aims if they leave untouched what Tarpley has rightly characterized as 'the core myth of our times'.
These sub-human scum-bags should be hung for high treason and mass murder along with neocons and their NWO backers. Colms makes me want to puke. This is why I won't watch Fox News. These sub-humans would do Hitler proud. How dare they call themselves Americans. At least they showed the controlled demolition of WTC7. Perhaps some of the walking dead that do watch Fox News will do some research. Who am I kidding?
Colmes proved himself once and for all to be a total bufoon.
For a guy who was on record as saying he's "agnostic" on whether 9/11 was an inside job or not, he sure came off like a good soldier working for the NWO tonight!
Is there any miracle worker who can get through to brainwashed people in 3 minutes in a hostile environment?
OK, Tarpley does have radical views, and that must be why Fox picks him instead of Griffin, it's part of their circus, look at all the crazy leftists. But maybe his radical views are correct!
Re Kerry's shallowness, Tarpley made the point in passing that the Democrats are just part of the oligarchy, that we had the choice of two S&B brothers remember, and the wife, she is the Heinz 57 heiress, you know.
This is relevant. It's not just about regime rotation, remember?
In this way he undercuts the Fox game of punching the democratic strawman. That's why they shut him up there.
As for Pop Mech, he did get in the phrase "discredited sources."
I wonder if DR Griffin, if he has only 3 minutes total, and only split seconds to think, is going to plug his own book or Webster's book?
Tarpley's response about the families was right on - that it's a demagogic argument.
The 9/11 families have been a much bigger disappointment than Tarpley ever was. A new investigation? That old chestnut? He said it - he has written a 500 page book on the subject. We are the investigation. We even know many of the perps.
I think if you watch the video again, you will see he's not flaky at all. He does listen calmly, but then he doesn't let them cut him off when he is making his point. And he does make quite a number of points, very cogently.
But, concerning the demolition of the Twin Towers and World Trade 7, when one is challenged to provide one "scintilla" of evidence in support of such a claim, the name and peer-reviewed studies of Steven Jones must absolutely spring from one's mouth like sparks from steel newly-rent, as it were.
Tarpley fared well enough, and should be commended. I've posted this concern in another thread, but I feel it bears repeating.
"The 9/11 families have been a much bigger disappointment than Tarpley ever was. A new investigation? That old chestnut?"
I'm going to assume the expression "old chestnut" is considered derogatory, so with that assumption, I have to ask you sir...if not a new international investigation into 9/11 (since we, the movement, ARE the investigation after all), then what do you suggest we do to bring *results* to "our own" investigations and inquiries? I see you poo-poo'ing the idea of "new investigation" yet I'm not seeing you share any other ideas.
Nobody should be talking hindsight. We should be talking FORESIGHT and preparedness. Tarpley should have been better prepared, he knew what he'd be facing. These guys are stuck with a predictable set of tactics, Tarpley should have studied tapes of them, and prepared to circumvent their BS. Read my posts in the other thread on this topic.
Why do we have to have two threads??? It's hard enough to track a single conversation around here without it being split in two...
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
they themselves came off as utterly RUDE, INTOLLERANT, and outright BELLIGERANT!
Theyrefore I say that they came off as well, kinda, insane, no matter how Webster composed himself.
Plus we got a viewing of WT7 going down.. mysteriously, moking them, backing and in fact SUPPORTING, precisely what WEBSTER, and not them, were saying!
Think about it from that perspective..
They are starting to look shadey, the way they are playing the REALITY, of the national and GLOBAL 9/11 truth movement, which is nothing more, or less, than the movement of the truth itself about that rather historically SIGNIFICANT event.
All of history, is pointing DIRECTLY, AT, 9/11 now. The whole of it.
Man they must be just shitting BRICKS! ;o)
Their TRUE fear, is Loose Change with Charlie Sheen. Thery are just TERRIFIED about what it might in fact show, which is the truth and the REALITY, that WTC7 was brought down via pre-planted, controlled demolition explosives.
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...
I like something I just said, so I'm repeating it. :-D
"They are starting to look shadey, the way they are playing the REALITY, of the national and GLOBAL 9/11 truth movement, which is nothing more, or less, than the movement of the truth itself about that rather historically SIGNIFICANT event."
Our movement has the benefit, of functioning relative to the historical truth.
They have NOTHING ELSE to play, EXCEPT ad hominems, and if THAT's the case, then their historical worldview is in some very SERIOUS trouble, as we cross over the threshold level, of 50% of the US population, or very close to it.. They are trying to HANG on to their OWN viewers, in fact, and did US the favour of playing the collapse of WTC7, which appears EXACTLY like a high precision engineered, controlled demolition. Many of their viewers were probably like WTF IS THAT? haviong never ever even SEEN it before..! ;-D
That is what they are REALLY dealing with, and LCFC is going to reveal much, it's going to ROCK!
We've got a LOT of videos and audio and eyewitnessess accounts surrounding Building 7. That is ALL OF IT, going to be featured in the upcoming release of Loose Change, Final Cut with Charlie Sheen.. tee hee hee
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...
I saw that footage as well, and I have been searching for about a year trying to find it again. It was on google video if i remember correctly, really clear, he was just walking around right after the "crash". Anyone know where I can find it?
Whilst the the collapse of WTC7 was shown, the producers made quite certain to display the hand-held wobbly, wildly zoomed ground-level footage, as opposed to the most widely circulated network quality video which, being filmed at a removed location, steadily records the building's precipitous fall in unmistakeable clarity.
By way of preface, I do hold Mr. Tarpley in the highest esteem, but I must say I was downright appalled at how remiss he was in this little appearance. We don't require mathematical precision, but certain questions demand very certain answers, and not circumstantial trains of reasoning. As a prominent representative of this movement, it behooves Tarpley to acquit himself a bit more professionally.
The more I mull over Webster's performance, it becomes increasingly apparent that he failed to offer not only the best and most exampled responses, but in some cases even the most obvious, which ought easily to lend themselves to the most unseasoned of 911 researchers, let alone such an elder statesman as Tarpley. When asked to provide evidence of WTC7's demolition, Tarpley unfathomably neglects to mention that the government itself, in the form of NIST, has publicly stated that their best hypothesis for for the destruction of WTC7 presents "a low probability of occurrence."
In other words, they haven't got the foggiest. Had Tarpley uttered this, a deafening silence should have reigned, perhaps broken only by bemused denial and naked insults.
I fear he may have been too preoccupied with devising his next rhetorical flourish than presenting the soundest rebuttal, therefore in these forums one seeks concinnity , passion, and plain-speaking. The FOX-viewing public will naturally balk at the intellectual's strange and arid approach to such emotional matters. Tarpley is indeed brilliant, and unquestionably devoted, yet his tone fails to convey any palpable conviction. Alex Jones would have excelled and smote them something brutal.
That was an immaculate description of the interview. Only in the last sentence I'd replace the name Alex Jones with David Ray Griffin, as Jones oftentimes can appear even *more* hyperbolic than Tarpley was in this instance. It's almost counter-intuitive how you didn't seem to catch that after such an accurate explanation of the Tarpley interview, considering how 'well-known' Jones is with his physical histrionics!
We need someone with a seasoned, mellow tone such as someone like Prof. Griffin. This is why we're not seeing him appear on these programs! He comes off as too sane. I love Alex Jones, but very often he acts like a WWF wrestler and I doubt that'll help us in the recruiting department.
edgewise with Colmes & Hannity yelling insults at him. DRG would be amazing in a civilized, panel-type discussion, but I'd go with Alex Jones when battling FOX Noise.
There must always be a point in any sentient species evolution where the "LIE" is understood by the species from the vantage point of the collective and the individual simultaneously. When these two vantage points intersect, the species has attained collective awareness of it's nature. Unknowingly, the perpetrators of 911 have created the event that has started this process.
There is such a process and it can be described like this:
First stage:
First there is the lie, then some people figure it out, then more figure it out.
Second stage:
More know, then many know, then most know.
Third stage:
Everyone knows.
Fourth stage:
Everyone knows that everyone knows.
This is the end. This is the stage at which the Soviet Union collapsed. For years everyone knew the whole system was a mess and a lie, but it took time for everyone to know that everyone else knew it too. As soon as that happened, adios Soviet Union.
On 9/11, we are in the middle of the second stage as described above.
Every one I've ever seen they end up looking like fools, not because of what
they say, but because of what they're not allowed to say. Also, this guy didn't seem very prepared at all.
I wish they'd stay away from FOX News.
No one who watches FOX is going to believe anything about 9/11 except
the official lie, so why bother?
I just wish he would have brought up the Jersey Girls or Bill Doyle's 9/11 Victims Family Group...also, what the government has done with the body parts.
He had the chance to put to bed once and for all this nonsense about upsetting the families, and I'm afraid he failed. I found that a very frustrating interview. Too much rhetoric and not enough substance. Pity, I would have expected a lot better.
Ok, let's talk preparedness and strategy, not hindsight and reaction.
If anyone reading this has the chance to go on Faux News again, or any other outlet that will label you "conspiracy theorist" right off the bat, disarm the propaganda with your opening statement.
Watch what Faux does. Before they even get to the guest, they have said "conspiracy", "wing-nut", or "crazies" about ten times. This is premeditated, thought out STRATEGY. So how do we disarm them of that strategy? You shine a light right on it, so that their audience can see it.
Insanity - "...Welcome Webster Tarpley to the show."
Webster - "Glad to be here Sean, although I hope your guests haven't already had ideas implanted in their minds about the facts and evidence I will present, based on all the silly names you've probably already called me. But I'm sure your viewers are smart enough to know that they should research peoples claims for themselves, right?"
Shine a light on their manipulation and flatter their audience. Strategy. All this face time is valuable. Think about the effect of a sloppy performance VS. the effect of a well planned assault on their whole charade. Think about the difference between blurting out a few random ideas Vs. actually constructing a rational argument. Don't tell me H&C are too good and won't let you. BS. They are pathetic. Their tactics are aimed at the LCD.
If Insanity interrupts, you just keep repeating until you've got that statement out. Only THEN do you respond to his questions (by leading the conversation into YOUR talking points). It doesn't matter what they ask you. Any response can be steered in your direction, and the subject changed.
If any of you are connected to people in the Movement who get face time, please pass this on to them. Get them aware that they should be planning these appearances and making every second count.
Webster - "Show a little respect, Sean, instead of just trying to yell over me and interrupt. I think your viewers deserve more than just a shouting match, don't you? As I was saying..."
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
WE NEED THIS ADVICE to get to the Tarpley`s (& the Griffins, the Dylan Avery`s, etc.) and we need to be sure the talking points and this type of strategy is at their finger tips WHEN THEY NEED IT - the criticisms afterwards are almost a wase of time (shoulda coulda woulda & maybe next time do not cut it anymore) .
Exactly! By appearing completely rational when dealing with these A-holes, it would win over the rational public. Of course, how many viewers of H&C are rational?
I think Webster should have mentioned Steve Jones when given the "no evidence" line. Even a Fox viewer can go google "steve jones" and get the goods.
He's been in the Movement long enough to know what to expect. Think of a football coach planning for the big game. Wouldn't it be smart to study the opposing team, watch videos of their past games, prepare for their every strategy?
I'm not saying that I could do much better when put on the spot, but everyone from the Movement that is fortunate enough to get publicity must know that they are not playing on a level field. Our guys can win by showing more intense integrity.
Sound bites can work here. "Professor Steve Jones..."
After my first viewing I was going to give Mr. Tarpley a C+ and started to watch it again in order to transcribe it and analyze it carefully. About two minutes into the transcription process I became so disappointed in Tarpley's performance I stopped and changed the grade to D -. After watching it a third time I have settled on a C-, but only because he's brilliant, I love his books and he gives most enjoyable lectures.
If we are to get anywhere with this movement we have to be as critical of ourselves as we are of the government story and all those who defend it.
Verbal sparring on talk shows is not Tarpley's forte and he did not acquit himself very well. In keeping with the boxing metaphor that many here are using for this encounter I would say that Tarpley was shadow boxing by himself while Colmes and Hannity were hitting him with glancing blows. No one got knocked down, but Colmes and Hannity left themselves open for KO's on more than one occasion. If a transcript is available or I decide to finish the one I started I will give my blow by blow analysis of this lame one rounder.
Mr. Tarpley needs to answer direct questions with direct answers. He could've taken control of the debate from the opening bell if he had simply stated that Kerry had not properly understood the question and that the truth movement was seeking clarification from Kerry. This would've been a direct punch to Colmes gut and while Colmes was gasping for breath Tarpley could've launched into the WTC 7 issue with a flurry of facts. Instead Tarpley mis-characterizes Kerry's statement, discredits himself and the movement and falls into Colmes obvious rhetorical trap. I got the feeling that Tarpley had not even seen the entire video of the Kerry Q&A which is inexcusable in my book. When anyone goes on national tv be PREPARED, I don't care how brilliant you are or think you are. These are not high school debates, folks.
I think Colmes entire purpose for doing the interview is shown here where he defends Kerry and the establishment. We all know that the left-right paradigm is a hoax and Colmes confirms it here.
Tarpley, having missed the opportunity to set the record straight about this video and take the rhetorical high ground, then goes off to his corner and begins shadow boxing against Kerry and Kerry's wife. What the heck is this? Tarpley loves to insult the elites whenever he can and his ego won't let him pass on this chance, so off he goes bobbing and weaving and punching at air. This allows Colmes to land a punch when he accuses Tarpley of taking cheap shots, and on Kerry's wife, no less.
After Colmes manages to get Tarpley out of his corner, Colmes incompetently leaves himself wide open for a killer KO combination. When Colmes states that elected officials would never hurt US citizens and that the truth movement's claims are hurting the family members, Tarpley should've immediately pummeled him with the lies from the White House about the WTC dust, Mineta's testimony and the Secret Service's clear violation of SOP in Florida. He could've then KO'd Colmes by stating that 50% of family members want a new investigation into 9/11. Instead, Tarpley returns to building seven and makes a clear misstatement of fact regarding "no fires". This only allows Colmes to step back and trot out the new NIST line on WTC 7 that "25% of the depth of the building was gone" and that the weight of the columns brought it down. Combining this meme with the abbreviated close-up video of WTC 7 going down that they show later allows Fox-watching America to easily dismiss our claims about one of the largest smoking guns of 9/11.
After further review I'm going to give Tarpley a D and stop before I get even more depressed about this poor showing. That is, unless someone really wants me to continue calling the fight.....?
Let's call this one a draw and show them what WE can do on FRIDAY, the ELEVENTH of May, shall we?
Ah, well, it's only Fox and it's only one small battle in a long campaign that we're making real progress in every day.
Just the fact that Fox would risk doing this is very telling to me. I think it indicates a growing desperation to protect their flanks no matter what.
I love you all very much, my brothers and sisters in truth. WE, who re on the front lines, are winning this; and that is how it should be, anyway.
I hope that you are all well and have got or are getting your copies of Debunking 9/11 Debunking so we can all stay five steps ahead of the Fox crowd and their outdated talking points.
(NOTE: I started writing this over two hours ago but was interrupted repeatedly, so if the above points have already been made....)
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Thank you. That was brilliant and I concur with every last word you said here.
As for those who've said we're "attacking" Webster, we in the truth movement need to learn to decipher genuine self-criticism from subtle attacks from the "fake within". The info wars are now going strong and the best way to counter them to is use good logical judgement as well as trusting your gut. It's obvious (to me) that Douglas and LeftWright are using fair criticism of one of our spokespeople in order to bolster our strategic maneuverings for future battles. We need this and we need to not have our posts knocked down for it. We need to stick together at all cost.
Think you could e-mail your "match" analogy to Webster? And Dylan, etc.- anybody who goes up against these guys. Let's have the next Fox Truther guest prepared for battle. We've all watched enough videos of our guys getting the treatment from MSM turds.
I agree with a D+ for Webster, because he has the intelligence to have predicted how the show would proceed. The "no fires" statement is still on my mind, little things like that can hurt us when dealing with the naive non-Truther.
I can't say I would have done better on the hot-seat, but I wouldn't have said "no fires", I would have mentioned Prof. Jones, and I would have watched as many videos of previous shows as I could get ahold of.
Wow!!!!! We're really winning aren't we?
What now? Email Hannity? God we need leadership.
We have to talk about a hopeful future.
Release the energy patents.
Energy is NOT scarce, that's a myth.
Cars can run on water. Google Water Power Car.
Hydrogen, Zero Point, maybe cold fusion.
Wake up!
It's time to create Paradise.
A Box the sixe of a suitcase running unlimited energy for free? Your car, your house, your greenhouse, the NEIGBORHOOD greenhouse, all run on the energy that is limitless, like love? Year round food, heat, cool, desalinization and free time? All is local, cause energy is FREE!!!!
That's the vision we get to share!
K
We can do it! Remember, hope is the most important information we can convey! Let them be the fearmongers, we're the hopemongers!
What is it about these guys,both of them are so smug so patronising so full of themselves that to elicit them to even admit to a tiny sliver of truth would deem them to fall off their well greased government mantra.You certainly know how breed them over there I thought the British media were bad enough,in conjunction with the other right wing nut Bill 'O Reilly the fight seems even harder.All these so called journalists always respond to the emotive attack of the effect to the families concerned,have they interveiwed the Jersey Girls?Do they know what truth is?Why is it that they always quote from those paranoid publications supported by the government,the Commission Report and Popular Mechanics?
When anybody challenges them they always resort to personal attacks i.e.Rosie O Donnel,but rebuff their attacks and your classed as a traitor or whatever.There needs to be proper debate,these clowns would'nt know how to debate,all they want to do is to belittle and humiliate.The Truth Movement is crammed full of people with intelligence,who can debate,but sadly they will continue to be ignored because your governments intransigence,and lack of free and democratic opinion,which is constantly overshadowed by an all powering media controlled by an oligarchy,that blows truth out of the water on both sides of the Atlantic.We know the truth,the evidence is there for everyone to see,other than the three blind mice Hannity Colmes and O Reilly who constantly run after the untruth.
These are just but three of the worst kind of toadyism that society has spawned and will not be the last.Truth will win out in the end and the movement will remain,steadfast loyal and uncompromising in its fight for justice and truth.
Under the circumstances, he probably did admirably.
He could have done better, but I have, as yet, to see anyone under those types of circumstances do well.
But I think that point is moot.
The most important thing is that this was on MSM. (even if it was H&C)
You can't buy advertising like that. And there is no such thing as 'bad publicity'.
AND they actually showed building 7 falling, although I think (obviously?) they purposely used the worst possible version of film that showed a weird angle, beginning after the initiation of collapse, and maybe even blurred it up and did an electronic closeup to make it less interesting and informational.
But it was all on prime time TV with ('unfortunately' / fortunately) millions of viewers.
So, at the end of the day, it's a plus and win no matter how you look at it.
We could use more of these.
----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent
Expected to hear from you about Sheehan. Didn't see you. Maybe you didn't hear about it.
Go up to my replies to LeftWright and Consciousness. Webster did OK, but he knew what he was in for and my opinion is that he should have been better prepared. Again, he should have known exactly how he''d be treated and should have countered them with a confident integrity. I thought I saw a little too much ego coming out.
For the next victim of skewering by the MSM-Prepare-Prepare-Prepare.
We have to stop with the controlled demoliton thing. Yes, its obvious to those of us that have been studying this for some time now that that is the most likely way these towers came down. But you have people watching Fox news that have no idea about our movement and you have assholes - who these viewers believe in - making tarpley look like a fool. They name drop about NIST and Popular MEchanics, call tarpley a crackpot conspiracy theorists and all is lost.
If we talk about things that can't be refuted, that these asshole journalists can't try to refute with some reports that we all know is a crock of shit. then we really start winning. Why were standard operating procedures ignored on that day. What about the incredible amount of intelligence coming in from US Intel, foreign intel, etc. that was completely ignored. The wargames on 9/11. Our "leaders" absence on those days (Bush, Myers, Rumsfeld). History of al-CIA-d. The 9/11 Commission cover-up, etc. These things have documents to back them up and prove to be more than enough to take these criminals down.
All that stuff about controlled demolitions and the like is really just the little things. They become important only after the base is layed.
We need a truther to go on TV and ask these tough questions or talk about these things. Once we break through with that, then we start talking controlled demolitions, etc.
this is from another thread about DRG and the Flight 77 calls but it seems to fit here pretty well too:
because different evidence sways different people. CD may be all it takes for one person to wake up while another cant see CD at all. the Pentagon has recruited many members to the cause despite it being a "honey-pot" or "distraction". the circumstantial evidence my be all it takes to sway one person while another might just say "its all lies on paper, you cant prove it" but be swayed by something physical. faked phone calls are hardly the best evidence weve got but i see no reason to ignore it. imagine how many people we would have failed to reach if we took that same line of reasoning with CD. you may not agree with or like that CD is pushed so hard but can you really deny that it has helped our cause?
that said it should NEVER be either/or and we should never ignore evidence if it works. CD obviously works and i dont understand why people like you want to cut off something that works so well for us. seems to me that your playing right into "their" hands by asking us to drop something that has recruited so many into our ranks. you really think that if we drop CD now that Fox News and others will talk ISI etc.? there has NEVER been a genuine discussion of controlled demolition on national television so please stop pretending that there has been. that discussion would have ended the debate.
The "collapses" of those buildings killed thousands that day, and many first responders are ill as a result of this. Controlled demolition is not a "little thing" -- it is the bulk of the crime.
Most of what you talk about has been discussed in the mainstream and spun away as incompetence, which it was not. I agree it is very important background, but in a short show it is difficult to explain.
The 911 truth movement needs to look at all the evidence as though we are going to court to present a criminal case. All evidence needs to be labeled and documented to eliminate false and/or unproven claims such as "space beams".
Only approved and documented evidence shall be used to present our case to the public.
Only authorized spokespeople from the 911 truth movement will present our case.
It's time to get organized.
I personally think that David Ray Griffin, Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley should take the lead and setup the "911 Truth Commission", so when Fox, CNN, etc... calls upon the 911 truth movement, we can stay on topic with our message.
The same tactics used by the MSM to mislead people can be used by us to drive home the facts and evidence of 911 to the general public and eventually to a Grand Jury.
Fuck you Hannity you scum bag
And you, colmes - you piece of shit
These mutha's are dispendable from both sides.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming is the biggest scam to infect the planet.
Global Warming = Global Tax = Global Police = TOTAL CONTROL
Their goal is a ONE WORLD DICTATORSHIP. COMMUNIST or FASCIST it matters not.
I love Tarpley as a historian, an analyst of current events (his radio show is just superb,) and as a 9/11 researcher .... and I don't like to monday morning quarterback .... but he kind of dropped the ball with this interview.
Obviously he made the errors about the distance, said there were no fires, etc.... which plays right into the hands of the debunkers - it makes 9/11 truthers sound like the type of people who exaggerate things, are uninformed or invent their own facts, and are prone to fantasy. In short, it fits the carefully crafted media stereotype/caricature of what the public identifies as a "conspiracy theorist."
Then when you throw in the tone and delivery - it comes across as shrill, frothing ravings. He is all over the board here - Kerry's wife, Robert Gates, multiple Bin Ladens and acting troupes. All of which are true, but in the brief period of time given for such an interview and the presumed ignorance of the audience, it just sounds disjointed and like a cobbled together paranoid fantasy.
We have to remember - he is not preaching to the converted (like at one of his conferences) - he is addressing the average FOX tv viewer/disbeliever. Getting facts wrong, having a near hyper-ventilated tone, bouncing all over the place is not putting your best foot forward.
He also missed several key opportunities to counterattack. When Colmes starts in on the whole "the government would never kill its own people" tripe ... I dunno how he missed the opportunity to bring up Northwoods and the EPA air toxicity falsifications. He also concedes the argument that 9/11 truth hurts the families by not responding to either Holme's nor Cannity's claims of such. Most of the families want a new investigation and the family steering committee is certainly dissatisfied with the 9/11 Ommission Report. Also, when they bring up NIST - he missed the golden opportunity to explain that NIST admits that the collapse of 7 has no legitimate explanation, and are now resigning themselves to exploring a hypothesis involving planted explosives.
All in all, FOX got what they wanted - someone going off half-cocked - so that they could put their audience back to sleep and never entertain these notions of inside job ever again lest they be like that guy.
exactly. There's no question that Webster's performance in this interview was, at the very least, substandard of what he's shown us in the past. He hit not one homerun. But there's no need to dwell on a small defeat...and it really is a small one. Our movement is now living in it's pre-critical mass stage. We're gettin close, folks...
Webster Tarpley, you did a wonderful job of hitting all the main points.
FOX "news" is an EVIL "business". And evil seems to be rampant in the U.S. where people are deliberately turning a blind eye to all of the credible evidence that the U.S. was indeed involved in 9/11.
When citizens deliberately turn their back on truth, honesty, and integrity, it does not bode well for the future of the country.
The right person could win over even the Fox viewer. Because Fox is the only network that has repeatedly brought on guests from the Movement -if only to attempt to thrash them. Because there are no other outlets out there.
If it wasn't for the 'Net, I wouldn't be here.
Because we need to perfect our arguments to the point that any rational person is convinced that 9/11 was controlled demolitions.
Just getting to that understanding, we open up the viewer to "the rest of the story".
I love Webster Tarpley and I hate that I can't get mp3s of his radio show anymore. But, I think ole Colmes and Hannity won this round. I say that especially because of the end of the interview. Tarpley seriously screwed the pooch on the many bin Ladens issue on the way out. The first question asked by Colmes was answered perfectly. Then when Colmes followed up, saying "he wasn't talking about building 7, Tarpley did not come right back and correct him. "No, Kerry is specifically talking about building 7!" Then when Colmes asks him about "Why THE GOVERNMENT would do this?" Tarpley has the right idea, but he doesn't answer the right way. Right way "I'm not saying it was the government!!!" pause "I'm saying it is a rogue network behind the scenes..." Colmes asks "What evidence do you have?" Answer "There is plenty of evidence, but I'd like you to give me one piece of evidence that says that Osama bin Laden is responsible!" Colmes will have NOTHING. Then Hannity comes on..."Are you saying that after the planes hit, the government..." Tarpley should interrupt "NO! The government itself is not responsible." make Hannity respond. Then you get into an argument that ends in both of you agreeing that it was not "the government" and not bin Laden. Now everyone is one the same page. Then after the WTC7 video clip, Hannity says "You have no proof..." IMMEDIATELY, "Hannity, where's your proof that bin Laden did it?" They have none. "bin Laden takes credit for it." Do not answer "Which bin Laden?" you answer "That video was a forgery, I urge you to check that out on the internet. The person that confessed to 9/11 is not bin Laden. Anyone can see for themselves." I love Tarpley, but H&C successfully made him look like a nut to people who don't know any better.
I agree with your points Johnny, but I'm afraid H&C would make Tarpley look like a nut even if he answered the questions as well as your examples.
Part of H&C's job is to make ANY 9/11 truther look loony. That's why they introduce Tarpley as a "Conspiracy Theorist with cockamame ideas". So the stage is set before he even utters 1 word!
The audience overwhelmingly was convinced Tarpley is a nut before he said anything, so I'm not super worried that he didn't respond with perfect answers to the shills.
Mr Tarpley's broad range is great but easily discredited by Hannity and Colmes. When they asked for evidence Webster should have mentioned some scientific studies, more photographic evidence, and how many victim's families want a new investigation into 9/11 to support his case on WTC7.
Hannity and Colmes easily got out some extraneous issues not associated with the initial quesion, ie. the John Kerry flub. Obviously Hannity and Colmes are in their own fantasy world thinking that a building like that could come down in seconds without some sort of assistance. That place was rigged to go down that way from its inception. Like Kerry said with the massive structrural damage they had to "pull" it. It's the supression of this fact that causes wild conspiracry theories, some of which may be true. The government's silence is its own undoing. It could very well be that the total destruction of that building was vital to the plot succeed. The government allow these theories to spread muliplying upon themselves until they are so tangled they become discredited; always searching for evidence to verify claims beyond a resonable doubt. Webster could have used the issue of unreleased material regarding 9/11 as at least a prima facie case of cover-up. Finally mentioning the lingering questions for many families who lost loved ones that day would certainly help quell any response from Hannity and Colmes of causing further harm to the victim's families. Then say how cavilier either Hannity or Colmes for even suggesting they "speak" for the vicitms, how dare they.
In the end I I think Webster's stuff is great but too complex to be placed in that type of attack interview. So evidence should be delivered in almost four categories on the question of demolition of WTC1 - 7: 1.)Eyewitness testimony 2.)photographic 3.)scientific and 4.)anecdotal.
As usual, you have shut down a credible researcher on the 9/11 travesty by name calling. If you love the principles that this nation was founded on, PLEASE do some fact finding on this issue!! You owe it to every American who watches FOX news to enlighten them on this subject!
IT'S UP TO YOU!
oh well, I know this won't make any difference but, it's all I can do.
and thanked them for turning me on to the controllede demolition of WTC7. I told them I had never heard of WTC7 before but thanks to them I did some web research and found tons of videos on the controlled demolition of said building.
"I told them I had never heard of WTC7 before but thanks to them..."
But, this may be the wrong tactic with Fox. Better to act angry that they haven't done enough to discredit the 911 whack jobs. They need to get every pin headed geek who thinks they know suttom about September 11th and let em have it!
Put on debates with real patriots, to squash them conspiradroids once and for all.
When they say "You are causing pain to the families of 9-11 victims", the comeback should be - "If someone gets murdered, does anyone say: 'Let's not have an investigation, because asking questions will just upset family members of the deceased.' Does anyone say that?"
Jon, thanks for representing that its OK to be critical of someone's actions, without the assumption that you are trying to assassinate their character. I always figured that, assuming we are on the same team, that we could have a developmental attitude that welcomes critique. But both sides have to play their role in that kind of dialog. Tarpley and his fans can't be overly sensitive to criticism, and those with little appreciation for Tarpley need to present their concerns in a reasonable manner.
Also we should keep in mind that people in the movement are better at some things than others. Synthetic Terror is an awesome read, and incredibly informative. That has little to do with whether Tarpley's any good at representing the movement in a FOX News interview. I'm sympathetic to how difficult that must be, but Kevin Barrett set a pretty good example.
I don't hear people talking about why FOX News ran the story in the first place? Most often it seems that FOX invites people based on a position they are expected to take. I assume Tarpley was on specifically because he was going to say that John Kerry said that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. The graphic says, "9/11 conspiracy theorists jump on comments by Senator Kerry." It felt to me like he played right into their hands.
I watched the Kerry video, and what's going on is really quite simple. Kerry is talking out of his ass. He doesn't know the first think about what happened, and would never say if he did. His comments are totally ambiguous, and are no revelation or endorsement.
So I'm concerned that Tarpley was so firm in his affirmation of that interpretation. And I'm also concerned that the news spot to some degree accomplished its goal of muddying the water. The fractured discussion here may have been intended.
Either way, let's not get too wrapped up in this story. It doesn't really amount to much.
to attack Kerry. To the average Fox viewer, this interview makes it sound like Kerry + 9/11 Conspiracists = Democrats Are All Crazy.
Kerry clearly doesn't know what Building 7 is. And even if he does, he's not going to say in public, "Oh yeah! The one my S&B brothers brought down with explosives!" C'mon, folks. It's great to question politicians in public, but not one of them is going to admit knowledge of anything, and I don't think outside of a small inner circle any of them knows much anyway.
Colmes started out with the tried and true technique. Any mention of controlled demolition is immediately equated with the assumption that the US government must have done it. He even dragged in "elected officials," as if they make up the entire government.
He then topped it off with the inevitable assertion that the victim's families are further wounded by suggestions of an inside job. No mention, of course, that the controlled demolitions may have been conceived and carried out by a party outside the US government.
Hannity, the other half of the tag team, then jumped in with part II of the tried and true technique. "WHO did it then?" he bellowed. As if the towers could not have have been brought down by controlled demolition unless Tarpley names exactly who did it.
It's too bad Tarpley responded with some nonsense about a rogue network in British and American intelligence. There is a party out there with both the means and the motive to bring down the buildings and incite wars against Arabs-- and this party is not part of the government.
The party is Israeli intelligence.
"After basic training, I completed a noncommissioned officers' course, and then went on to an officers' course, graduating as the youngest officer at the time in the Israeli Defense force. I then graduated from the military police officers' course and the special military law course, and followed that up with demolition and sniper training..."
-from "The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad's Secret Agenda," by Victor Ostrovsky, pp. xii (prologue)
I don't think that laying it at the feet of Mossad (with no concrete evidence to that effect) would sway the typical H&C user, or serve as a counterweight to H&C's marginalization of CTers . I think Building7 (like the Pentagon) is a mixed bag. When you look at the known facts and the official claims, something seems fishy. From that standpoint, it can cause people to think. But when you follow them down the investigative path, you run into roadblocks. Regarding #7, once you get someone to agree that it looks like a classic controlled demolition, they will ask the next logical question: why did any perpetrator of the attacks have to knock that building down, and knock it down late in the afternoon? The fact is, we have some ideas, but nothing that fits a coherent story. And that story line is what a sceptic is looking for. Otherwise, bringing up the collapse of #7 only gets you so far.
In reality, he should have prepared for EVERYTHING he said, and every comback. He should have written it out, and practiced to himself precisely what he wanted to say.
For a smart guy, that's pretty dumb not to have prepared in advance..
"Michael Moore is under investigation by the U.S. Treasury Department for taking ailing Sept. 11 rescue workers to Cuba for a segment in his upcoming health-care documentary "Sicko," The Associated Press has learned"
After watching the video again Tarpley did an excellent job considering it was sub-human Nazi scum he was dealing with. These traitors are obviously scared shitless. They obviously know 9/11 truth is about to explode not only here in the States but world wide. This is nothing more than a feeble attempt at damage control. When all is said and done these traitors will hang along with the neocons and their NWO backers.....I have always contended that on 9/11/2001 they created a Frankenstein. It sure looks like my contentions are beginning to materialize.
but you have to remember what a rabid animal will do when it's cornered. the 9/11 perps are being cornered now, and they have alot of technology at their disposal. I'm afraid for the possibility that between now and the time that Loose Change Final Cut is released that something huge could happen. For all we know folks...we may never get to see this movie. 4 months from now is a long LONG time when you think about it. This isn't to stir up panic, but for people to remain vigilant.
We must remain vigilant. These monsters are capable of doing anything to save themselves. Like yourself I wish the final Loose Change video was being released sooner. I also think there is something big going on behind the scene. My wife just told me Tony Blair just announced his retirement. Perhaps there is a split among the Elite as Tarpley suggests. Interesting times we live in.
satanic hand gestures, they are everywhere with the nwo freak globalist scum. you can see many pics on the internet if you search.
I also read yesterday that gwb is the grandson to Aleister Crowley...
excerpt:
..Pauline Pierce, after sexcapades with Aleister Crowley, gave birth to Barbara Pierce who became Barbara Bush, who gave birth to none other than, George VV Bush, Aleister’s grand-son. Barbara Pierce is a descendant of President Franklin Pierce, Sr (not a Freemason), who is a descendant of Thomas Percy who tried to blow up the Parliament and King James I. Franklin Pierce lost favor over wanting to keep slavery alive and was replaced by James Buchanan (Freemason) who is a descendant of James I and both James are accused of being homosexual...
freemanTV.com
(I only ended up there while researching the Georgia Guidestones in Elbertson, GA. Now theres some creepy shit)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB
something. Now we can all sit here and be monday morning quarterbacks about what he should have said, or what he could have said, blah blah. But lets consider for a second what he did say, and the fact that someone somewhere right now, who even tho they are a fox viewer, happens to have two brain cells to rub together, and they have decided to go look up "world trade center 7" on google. Now what if its 100 people doing that, or 1000? Some percentage of them will investigate this mess (911) further and will undoubtedly become truthers. Those people will tell their most likely like-minded friends and convince them, and so on. So actually we should be happy because even if we have gained one new truther by Tarpley's appearance then it can turn into more. Worst case scenario is no one watching did anything and went to sleep. If thats the case then we have not lost any ground and are where we were before the show.
Now, I am waiting for the first numpty to say he WAS a truther before seeing the show, and now has changed his mind - and blow up my nice little theory above :P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB
I think he did alright. He messed up on a couple facts. He stumbled. He let them talk over him. He could have done a lot better but what can you do? He did alright. They need to get someone that is "normal", outspoken, not afraid to speak back. A lot of these people are weird, talk weird, sound weird, and look like quacks going up againt these a-holes. This guy wasn't wierd but he was passive. We need someone thats aggressive.
9/11 Truthers Should Thank Fox News
Laughable weekly attempts at debunking only give the movement more credibility
In their typical style of reporting news two weeks later than the rest of us, the mainstream media, in the shape of Fox news, has finally caught up with the alternative media in reporting the story we first broke here on April 23rd that John Kerry recently referred to the collapse of WTC building 7 on 9/11 as having been "done in a controlled fashion".
In another "fair and balanced" piece Alan Colmes and Sean Hannity again weakly attempted to debunk the inside job evidence while at the same time making themselves look like the playground bullies everyone else has outgrown and now points to and laughs at.
Colmes began by stating "The 9/11 conspiracy wingnuts are it again". So let us be as equally fair and balanced by beginning this analysis with the following...
The corporate hack establishment government lapdog media whores are at it again.
Colmes and Hannity attempted to spin what John Kerry had said to hoodwink their doped up viewers into thinking that Kerry was not referring to building 7 and that his words had been taken completely out of context.
The dynamic duo then went on to falsely claim that "9/11 conspiracy crazies" had fallen in 'love" with Kerry, stating "This time, they are spinning the words of Senator John Kerry to suggest that the former presidential nominee in some way endorses those conspiracy theories.”
First of all it is beyond question that Kerry, speaking at a book launch in Austin two weeks ago, was specifically referring to building 7.
Kerry was asked about an investigation into WTC7 and the connection with leasehold Larry Silverstein who publicly stated that the "decision was made to pull it," a term that refers to controlled demolition. In response Kerry said:
Instead of showing the entire clip, Fox showed only a portion and then suggested that Kerry was not referring to 7 at all but was referring to other buildings that had to be brought down and cleared in the weeks and months AFTER 9/11.
This is clearly not what Kerry was referring to as the question he is specifically asked begins "World Trade Center 7 was brought down on 9/11 at 5.20 in the evening..." and he responds by stating that he was under the impression that the authorities brought down the building purposefully
In the week that followed the story some attempted, in a similar fashion to Colmes, to suggest that Kerry had been misquoted and was talking about a wall that had been demolished on 9/11. This is innaccurate. When he says "that wall was in danger" he is referring to the slurry wall, the below ground level wall that was constructed to support the soils surrounding the basements of the World Trade Center buildings. The wall created a watertight environment for construction and throughout the service life of the Center, effectively preventing the Hudson river from pouring in beneath ground level. It was this wall that was in danger when the towers collapsed, not this wall that was "demolished in a controlled fashion" as some debunkers claimed Kerry was saying.
Colmes then proceeded to suggest that somehow 9/11 truthers have suggested that John Kerry supports the "conspiracy theories". At no point did anyone suggest that Kerry had done such a thing.
Reference was then made to the NIST report which states that some of the building was hit with falling debris from the north tower. Hannity failed to mention however that this was not declared to be the catalyst for the collapse of the building and that NIST and is currently undertaking a study of WTC 7 to determine if bombs or incendiary devices were used to bring it down.
Hannity then repeated Colmes's cheap "your hurting the families" jibe and declared that there is no evidence that building 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition.
Colmes then ended the segment with an attempt to make Tarpley look even more idiotic by asking him if he thinks there is more than one Bin Laden. Tarpley was obviously previously referring to the fact that the infamous video in which Bin Laden "confesses" to 9/11 has been certified as a complete fake, and stars someone who is clearly not Bin Laden. In Bin Laden's first video release after 9/11 he categorically denied having anything to do with the attacks, not something you'd expect from a man who it was reported had previously declared war on America.
Despite their bait and attack tactics, any rational neutral who happened to see the piece can only have gone away with the impression that it was Colmes who was the paranoid frothing delusional on this issue. We should thank Fox news for lavishing the 9/11 truth movement with attention every week and being the catalyst for many to go away, do their own research on the issue and wake up to the 9/11 fraud while simultaneously discovering that once again the government mouthpiece corporate media is providing its audience with nothing but bare faced lies it is then forced to bolster with endless pathetic spin and cockamamie smear. http://infowars.net/articles/may2007/100507Thank_Fox.htm
Is it just me, or did Colmes seem WAY more in attack & denial mode than in the past? He used to describe himself as an "agnostic" on this issue, but now he's using a vocabulary set that, if I were reading a nameless transcript, I would have thought was coming from Hannity. Is it possible he was pressured or threatened into taking a meaner stance on 9/11? (Oh yeah, it's Fox News... it's more than just "possible")
Because they play devil's advocate (even the so-called "liberal" colmes), they have nothing to lose and ratings to gain (especially against rising star MSNBC) by giving these "wingnuts" and their (our) cause airtime. As incredible as this may sound, this programming tactic may be a win-win situation for both Fox and 9/11 Truth. The "objective" MSM won't touch us, but if "nutty" 9/11 Truthers can bring up ther ratings, Fox may actually be resposible for breaking 9/11 Truth into the MSM! This will put even more pressure on Olberman to make a Special Commentary on at least the need for a new investigation. Tarpley is awesome, I love the way he keeps on talking straght into thier next show!
"They took it from the top to the bottom, we're gonna take them from the bottom to the top." - Dan Wallace
We have seen over the past six years, from George W. Bush and his administration, a level of incompetence that is surpassed only by their corruption and political deceit. So when I hear from your local band of Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists (I say "your" because the CN&R has given them an extraordinary amount of attention and, what's this now, a cover story?!) that Bush is part of the conspiracy, I have to chuckle. This guy couldn't manage a taco truck, and he is supposedly involved in an incredible conspiracy that, to succeed, would require, if not divine intervention, then a government ingeniousness and secrecy not previously known in the annals of American history.
In the name of journalistic responsibility, stop giving credibility to this paranoid nonsense. Please.
Dave Waddell
Chico
Editor's note: Professor Waddell is the adviser of Chico State's student newspaper, The Orion.
It's no coincidence that some "Truth believers" profiled are also religious. They are predisposed to imagine a world dominated by an omnipotent, unseen force whose mysterious ways are revealed to a select few. How gratifying it must be to shed all doubt and assume the mantle of the enlightened, to regard evidence that challenges our conclusions as another test of the true faith.
Yeah, 9/11 was a "conspiracy." It was a conspiracy of scope and intricacy unprecedented in history. It required years of planning, tens of millions [of dollars] of investment, and the blind commitment, coordination, split-second timing and total secrecy of thousands of people ranging from right-wing American ideologues to Muslim fanatics.
Bush is an evil genius. Right. And the black helicopters are coming. And Elvis parties with space aliens in Area 51.
Kevin Quinn
Now read this quote:
Chico
Dave Waddell Professional-in-Residence
"Journalism at its finest is the pursuit of truth. Finding ? and publishing ? the truth is a meaningful way to spend a life."
Education: M.A., California State University, Chico B.A., California State University, Fresno
Professional Experience: Newspaper reporter and editor for nearly 20 years, including 10 years as the Redding Record Searchlight's editorial page editor and three years as city editor.
Awards: College Media Advisers? Distinguished Four-Year Newspaper Adviser, 2006; Chico Rotary Club outstanding educator of the month, 2004; American Society of Newspaper Editors? Institute for Journalism Excellence fellow, 2001; statewide editorial writing award, California Newspaper Publishers Association, 1992.
Research Interests: Writing, reporting, student diversity.
Course Specialties: Adviser to The Orion.
Understand,this person trains dozens of students a semester to do what he does. Maybe somebody can send him a CD (not that he'd watch it).
Thanks...
To StopLying...
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Webster made all the main points
Webster made a lot of points, even though they have the volume up louder for the hosts than the guests.
In fact he might have made all the main points people need to know.
- That WTC7 was hit by no plane and displayed classic demolition characteristics, free-fall speed, falling in own footprint, smoke streamers, etc, the bldg was not damaged, you can look at the film on the Internet.
- That Kerry was talking about WTC7, not another building.
- That Kerry and Democratic party are just part of the elitist oligarchy. They won't bring us 9/11 Truth
- Motivation was war of civilization by the people who brought you the Gulf of Tonkin, and this is what we see, wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran.
- Controlled demolition had to be done by experts before 9/11,
- It could not have been done by Al Qaeda, which is the CIA Arab legion, a troupe of actors assembled by US - UK intelligence, created by Robert Gates, current Defense secretary
- Bin Laden doubles - confession discredited.
- The ploy about the families is a demagogic argument
- The reason this is important is that Cheney is preparing a new 9/11 for a war on Iran. That's the whole point. To understand the next one you have to understand the first one.
Pretty good when they only gave him 3 minutes to talk.
I'm going to go digg this video.
Thankyou for this second take, hopefully people can smell a
rose and stop attacking Webster just because it didn't sound like a msm truth sound bite! This is the Info war! This is real..
Have you ever tried shooting a riffle after running a hundred yards? Well trying to shoot your point across on this battle field is easily twice as hard! Anyone that has tried to argue with a hostile amateur about 9/11 knows how difficult it is once your blood is up, now multiply that by 10 and that’s how it would be in this forum, think about before you criticize him too hard.
Webster's the man!!!
Some respect please!
11th of every month!
Kind regards John
WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!
Thanks John
You hit the nail on the head. Not as easy as it looks.
Here is the link to digg the story
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Video_Tarpley_on_Hannity_and_Colmes
;-)
_______________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!" -Dr. Frank Greening
An technical info please
Hey stal how can somebody put a "diggs" tag like you've just did? I just don't know how to do it!
Thanks.
Drummerboy
**********************************************************
You can't hide a lie for long. Truth shall come out.
Here you go Drummerboy - Digg Integration info...
http://digg.com/tools/integrate#2
Best wishes
Excellent Job Webster Tarpley...
They gave you an inch and you took a mile :-)
You kept your focus and calm demeanor, despite their double-barrelled attempts to knock you.
Many thanks and best wishes
I think people need to stop
going on Faux Noise.
The delusional psychotics that run & Listen to Faux Noise are unreachable, they represent about 30% of the country that are totally hopeless and will never stop believing in the "Church of Bush".
Fox News
I thought Alan Colmes looked psychotic and Hannity who is souless just rattled on like the energizer bunny.
How do we know that 30 million people watch Fox. What if they all stopped watching a couple weeks ago during a "progress in Iraq" report.
I don't trust any of the MSM metrics being generated. Its like the inflation index which leaves out fuel, food and housing. What does that number mean?
http://www.truthcult.com
I thought i heard...
Alex Jones say that Fox was down to about 2.5 million viewers.
Alex said on air today...
...while DRG was on that he has talked to Colmes privately and he (Colmes) is scared. I though that Colmes was way more whacked out than usual. Maybe he is trying to covertly tell viewers that Faux is the crazy conspiracy contingency?
--
"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)
i couldnt agree more. this
i couldnt agree more. this place has a way of expecting perfection out of our "spokesmen". its just unrealistic to think that any of us would perform our best during the 3 minutes of hate that Webster went through. could he have done better? sure but overall i think he did a fine job considering the circumstances.(though like dz said, it would have been nice if Tarpley mentioned who occupied WTC7 :-)
Kerry wasn't talking about WTC7
He didn't know what he was talking about. At least he didn't know what the questioner was talking about.
Speading the nonsence about Kerry and WTC7 is a disinfo ploy to make us look like idiots. This is why Hannity had Tarpley on.
Pay close attention to who the debunkers like to have on their TV shows and in their British documentaries.
And another thing, WTC7 was certainly brought down by controlled demolition. But saying it wasn't hit by a plane is a weak argument. It was hit by tons of steel.
The credible argument is how debunkers want to have it both ways. If WTC7 was so severely damaged by falling debris, which it probably was, that is all the more reason to know it should not have collapsed straight down into its footprint..
Metalious, "Speading the nonsence about Kerry and WTC7" is
NOT a disinfo ploy, but your above post IS a disinfo ploy.
WTC-7 was at least 350 feet from the nearest tower. It suffered minor damage from debris being ejected during the controlled demolition of the North Tower. (Even Larry Silverstein said the building was pulled when he was asked about it.)
Since only 3 buildings were brought down in controlled demolitions that day, which building did Senator Kerry think the questioner was asking about?
What did Kerry think
The PBS Documentary "America Remembers" contains footage of the final building left standing at Ground Zero being brought down by the site workers.
This footage of building 6, which was by then only a steel frame skeleton, was discussed in the documentary as being "pulled" because the close proximity of this structure to the exposed slurry wall dictated they had to exercise caution, or the Hudson River would flood the site. They actually had chains attached to this structure, to insure it fell where they wanted it to, and they used cutter charges and brought it down.
Kerry mumbled something about "controlled fashion" and "protect the wall" in is reply to the Truther's question. There never was a concern expressed on 9/11 in any other videos I have seen regarding danger to "the wall", as the wall existed below ground level, and was only exposed during the cleanup.
Therefore, I suggest this whole Kerry thing is a dead end, and ultimately, will leave us looking a bit foolish if we keep thrashing about with it, trying to make it look as Kerry knew WTC7 was a controlled demolition, and was thoughtless enough to casually say so.
Come on, U.S. Senator, presidential candidate, Skull & Boner
John Kerry never heard of WTC-7 before???
I fully agree
Not much can be based on that isolated comment from Kerry. I guess Kerry's interviewer did not ask him specifically if he was aware of the 47-story WTC 7, which was the third skyscraper that was totally destroyed on 9/11... It doesn't hurt to be specific enough.
The thing to do is be more
The thing to do is be more specific next time.
We have to remember what these guys are saying and make them live up to their promises, or clarify vague statements.
Before long, they will be backed into a corner and forced to give real answers on 9/11.
Absolutely right.
The reason we aren't getting any pearls from swine like Kerry and Edwards, is because we are going into battle in our boxer shorts. These guys actively study and practice the manipulation of language. They're professionals in this department, it's part of their job! How can we expect to trap them if we are just blurting out unstructured questions like amateurs?
Start studying language and propaganda, and start thinking strategy. Please pass this around the movement. We need to be using our brains.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
Thats why I think that Tarpley
responded properly to the lead-in charge by fox by saying that Kerry was talking about building 7. I don't think they expected that and of course Tarpley could have backed up by saying that that was what the question was about that was asked of Kerry. So it remained an equalised sort of debate since charges are flying on either side while Tarpley remained the more informed.
Thats the idea on fox to prevent the tag team from winning, it's all about who wins no matter the cost in honour because thats what the viewers respond to.
WTC 7 Was the Question
the interviewer gave Kerry. You must not have seen the full clip.
The interviewer specifically asked about Building 7, the third building that collapsed on 9/11-- specifically at 5:20 p.m. on that day. He then mentioned Larry Silverstein's comments regarding this building. There was no "wiggle room" for misinterpreting
the question. The 3rd building ON 9/11. Specifically, the 47-story Building 7 that the BBC prematurely reported having collpased.
The full video is available from 911dvd@gmail.com (I just received mine as part of WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11. This is admittedly better than the clip you might have seen.)
You're right, Douglas
It's painfully obvious Kerry is not talking about WTC7. The only good thing to come from this episode is more exposure for 9/11 Truth. But when people such as Tarpley pretend Kerry is referring to WTC7, they make us look foolish.
Also, Tarpley said there were "no" fires in WTC7, which is patently false.
Come on, people, at least make the case for 9/11 Truth within the set of available facts. Every little slip of the tongue pushes us all closer to the Reynolds/Fetzer contingent.
Kerry is CLEARLY asked about WTC-7 more than once by the
guy who started out by praising Kerry's book. Watch the video embedded in a post further down in this page.
You, Douglas, Visa, et al, seem to be on Kerry's damage-control team the way you're trying to downplay his ducking the question.
I suggest that everyone just email Kerry personally & ask his to answer the question directly.
(Kerry & his billionaire wife are NWO NeoCons, btw.)
You seem a bit confused, Colombo
No one is saying Kerry wasn't ASKED about WTC7. What we're saying (and what is abundantly clear from the video) is that Kerry in his answer was not talking about WTC7. He's clearly talking about a "wall" from building 6, which we have all seen brought down on film.
Once again: Kerry was asked about WTC7. He responded by referring to WTC6. The whole episode is making 9/11 Truth look foolish.
And no, I'm not part of John Kerry's "damage control team". Please pay more attention to the videos you are watching, and less attention to the ad hominem attacks you are delivering.
Were we watching the same interview?
@ metalious
You must have been watching a different broadcast to the one I was watching. Webster Tarpley, very much did know what he was talking about. As soon as the interview started the questioner began with the insults, which Webster handled supremely well. The questioner talked over Webster without answering the points raised by Webster and continued to spout the popular mechanics mythology.
1. Have you actually seen the interview where Kerry is asked specifically about the collapse of Building 7 in Austin, Texas? Granted, Kerry is unable to answer a question without obfuscation and confusing himself and everyone else. Kerry answers the SPECIFIC question concerning Building 7 by saying ‘I know it was brought down in a controlled way’ he is making reference to either the wall (which if brought down would have flooded Manhattan) or making reference to Building 7. Which is it to be? He is not talking about the other buildings, because the questioner is asking about the events of 9/11 not weeks later, when buildings were demolished and everyone, even you, would know this.
2. WTC7 was *NOT* hit by 'tons of steel' I don't know where you get that information from, but it is FALSE. The only photographs which are credible show WTC7 with superficial damage, scattered broken windows, scattered fire of undetermined cause and light damage to the façade of the building at best. The one picture given out by debunkers which supposedly shows 1/3 of the building missing (a chunk taking out by flying steel - allegedly) which you have obviously brought into looks badly photoshopped. The damaged part of the building the supposed 1/3 missing chunk is heavily obscured by smoke. The smoke looks artificial at best, and this is no doubt a fake.
3. I recommend you read Webster Tarpley’s book, if you can’t afford to buy a copy then a previous edition is available for free on PDF:
9/11 Synthetic Terror - Made in the USA by Webster Griffin Tarpley
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119638.pdf
Alex Jones huh? the only MSM
Alex Jones huh? the only MSM(at least in this country) that allowed him on was a CNN HeadLine News CELEBRITY show and he shined. his appearance on SHowbiz Tonight was ROUNDLY lauded around the 9/11 truth community even by people who cant stand Alex Jones. he fired off fact after fact and came off surprisingly rational. i know its popular to shit on Alex Jones around here now but at least get your facts straight first. also, Steven Jones was on MSNBC and decided not to do any MSM since then. that was HIS decision. again, facts straight.
AJ is the man.
He performs under pressure, and he knows when to reign in his "kookiness". He's extremely confident, so he doesn't get rattled. From what I've seen he's very sharp and only says what is appropriate to the forum in which he's speaking. I think that most of the people who shit on him are either coming from the stereotypical "liberal" crowd (most of my friends), or have problems with his statements about immigration. I don't agree with his tone on that topic, but I do agree that the "elite" might be using illegal immigration as a tool to destroy national sovereignty and help usher in the N.A.U.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
Alex Jones does well under pressure
Partly because he is a radio person and has been doing that for years, and has also had years of experience being on the hot seat, and being an activist, so it is probably second-nature for him at this point. (although I have seen him kind of falter now and then, but it's not very obvious)
So I cut others some slack who are not in his league in that sense. (like Steven Jones, and some others — David Ray Griffin also seems to be able to hold his own pretty well, too)
----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent
http://www.chico911truth.org/
9/11 — GET rEVENge! (in a peaceful manner, of course)
AJ is the
fearless T-REX that would have wiped the floor with Sean Insanity & "The Fake-Ass Jimmy Smitts"
Thats why they never have him on. These shows invite him left and right, then always cancel last minute.
by the way, EVERYONE here should be listening daily to AJ's radio show - you'd be surprised just how fucked up things really are beyond the issue of 9/11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB
This web site is polluted
This web site is polluted with shills like you.
EXPOSE EXPOSE - You are an agent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming is the biggest scam to infect the planet.
Global Warming = Global Tax = Global Police = TOTAL CONTROL
Their goal is a ONE WORLD DICTATORSHIP. COMMUNIST or FASCIST it matters not.
Who are the SHILLS for this ORDO AB CHAO
Kerry spun the question and
Kerry spun the question and was talking about the wall (looked like a skeleton) of the twin towers. He was not talking about WTC 7.
This debate can last 100 years, like the "Magic Bullet" of generations past.
Why are we letting the MSM control the dialogue?
Tarpley should've defended the family members and said they were the ones who WANT the investigation, and had to fight for the first investigation.
He should've mentioned the whistleblowers, gag orders, and omitted testimonies and information from the 9/11 Commission Report, which has been dismantled as a coverup and "whitewash".
Hannity acted like a child, and even Colmes a little, in their namecalling and yelling. There will NEVER be a serious debate on the matter of Controlled Demolition.
It may be great for activism and getting people interested, but it is not needed to show that there were/are serious conflicts of interest and a lot of things that we still do not know.
To me it feels like many folks want to put all their eggs in the Controlled Demolition Basket, and I am trying to tell you that you can't reach the mass you want that way.
You have to appeal to the victims' families, the same way the MSM is USING THEM AGAINST US!
Once we all stand up against that, there is no stopping us.
Tarpley and many others on these shows have had NUMEROUS opportunities to defend themselves against the slander that "they are dishonoring the family members", yet NONE of them speak up about it? WHY?
/////////////////////
911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info
Why indeed...
Your post, and probably this one will most likely get voted down, but I give Webster's appearance a D-.
He should have said, "No, I don't think John Kerry admitted to Controlled Demolition for WTC7, however, 9/11 family members Bill Doyle, and Bob McIlvaine recently filed a petition against NIST... when did Hannity & Colmes cover that?"
I think Colmes was an ass, and Sean Hannity was Sean Hannity (a moron).
You said, "Tarpley and many others on these shows have had NUMEROUS opportunities to defend themselves against the slander that "they are dishonoring the family members", yet NONE of them speak up about it? WHY?"
That is a question I would love an answer to.
Another question I would love an answer to is when has ANY of this information been promoted during National Television spots by the 9/11 Truth "spokespeople" selected by the media?
If not, why not?
I definitely think it's time for 9/11 Truth "spokespeople" selected by the media to start acting more like 9/11 Truth activists than authors/celebrities. I definitely think it's time for people to stop stating theory as fact, and to start focusing on the rock solid information that can't be refuted by simply asking, "who planted the explosives?"
People like Webster Tarpley, Kevin Barrett, and others who somehow manage to get on the television need to stop trying to answer the questions, and start asking them.
Learn key talking points, and repeat them over and over again. Everytime we manage to get National attention, it is precious. There's no reason in the world why that time should be squandered.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
Absolutely right.
Dead on, JG. We need to do better. Read what I said in the other Tarpley/Hannity thread. Start thinking strategically people. Every second of face time is valuable. We absolutely can control the dialogue if we actively plan to. Our opponents use language as a weapon. Why can't we? If we're smart with language, we can nullify or at least diminish their propaganda.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
Yes, Kerry was talking about WTC 7
You see, Faux decided not to play the ENTIRE original video clip, so that they could provide disinfo. Fact is, Kerry was responding to a question that was asked directly to him about WTC 7 as is apparent in the FULL video clip here...
Yea that was the question,
Yea that was the question, but he was talking about a WALL!
such as a building's wall,
such as a building's wall, perhaps, seeing as how they were discussing a building - in this case WTC 7.
could he have been referring to...
the supposed missing piece of wall of building 7, from the roofline downwards?
I don't even know if that is even true or not, but maybe he saw those photos?
(I am not referring to the lower corner "scoop" damage that has been proven to be faked)
If Kerry is referring to 7 by saying "the wall" then he was saying 7 was brought down in a controlled fashion, which would be impossible to set up for in the course of an afternoon, with fires in various parts of the building mind you.
not sure on any of the above, just speculating possibilities aloud.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB
Errors.
Can we at least agree to get our facts straight?
- No fires in WTC7? There were fires but they were small
- Couple hundred FEET not YARDS
We don't have to exaggerate.
- No Evidence
Squibs
Kink
Near Free-Fall speed
symetrical collapse
sulfidized steel
molten metal
traces of manganese
That good enough?
www.freewebs.com/springfield911truth
www.myspace.com/culturalrelativity
I don't think he said "no
I don't think he said "no fires". Did he?
No Fires
I heard "no fires" (7), "attacked Iran" (he meant Iraq) and a few other slips. Webster did better than I would have in any case, so It's understandable that mistakes are made with those jabbering bozos interupting all the time. The clip of WTC 7 going down was wonderful.
7man
That may be true, but we both know why that is, don't we?
Tarpley is not the right guy for this kind of show. Period. Get him on the Lehrer NewsHour for 15 minutes and he will start the revolution.
I hope that you and yours are well.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Tarpley is the guy...
...to talk about the global, political, historical context within which 9/11 occurred, not the science of controlled demolition......(although he did fine on CD, mentioning the new proof of thermate signatures in the dust would've been nice).
Faux will probably have Steven Jones on next and then exclusively ask him about War Games and how Coup d'etat's are structured.
Tarpley blew his opportunity
Tarpley blew his opportunity to stick it to Hannity.
Totally blew it.
/////////////////////
911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info
Loose Change update!
I just spotted this on Jesse's TVNewsLies blog. http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2007/05/statement-from-louder-than-wo... It won't be long now!
what in the world
this is nuts
Fair and balanced???
I love how Colmes is now just as manipulative in his questioning as is Hannity. It makes me wonder why Colmes launched the questions to begin with. The network must be in panic mode. They couldn't frame this story other than to have the blurb below Kerry's pic read, "The Crazies love him." They tried to villify both Kerry and Tarpley at the same time.
They call themselves a news network?
It always goes back to that stupid argument that 911 Truth is further denigrating the families of 911, the troops abroad, Bush, etc.
At least Tarpley plugged his book.
Colmes is mini-Hannity
Guess Colmes is taking lessons from abusive Hannity.
What did Kerry bashing have to do with anything?
Tarpley said, "the same [weakess?] lost Kerry the election."
Tarpley should get his facts straight. Bush stole it. Kerry actually won.
Doesn't Tarpley of all people know by now the "elections" are totally bogus?
Yes, Kerry won.
But he didn't exactly push it...
Don't you see that the Republican vs. Democrat paradigm has
been dead for years now! Most leaders in both parties are in collusion with each other. Kerry deliberately took a dive near the end of the 2004 campaign (Kerry's wife helped in this too). Kerry's Skull & Bones partner, Bushie & Co., did the rest to make it happen. The NWO NeoCons preferred Bush to play the part of war monger, not Kerry.
P.S. Excellent job by Tarpley!!!
KEEP AMERICANS DIVIDED AGAINST EACH OTHER
THE GOAL OF THOSE WHO ADVANCE THE 'LEFT VS. RIGHT' B.S. IS TO KEEP AMERICANS DIVIDED AGAINST EACH OTHER SO THAT WE NEVER BECOME UNITED AGAINST AMERICA'S RULING ELITE.
LEFT VS RIGHT
BLACK VS WHITE
MALE VS FEMALE
GAY VS STRAIGHT
YEAR AFTER YEAR.
BOTH SIDES ARE CONTROLLED.
IT'S ALL THEATER.
STOP THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
Yes it's not Left or Right but what's RIGHT or WRONG!
We should always keep the point you make in the back of our minds!
Unity for the truth is where it's at without a doubt!
Regards John
WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!
Kerry Went Along with the Coup and IGNORED HIS WIN
Of course Tarpley knows it's bogus...He knows that Kerry could have won but stood down....sound's like a weakness to me....
PS. Tarpley is the MAN! Tarpley has proven himself with the ability to stay calm, reserved, and focused constantly pushing the facts above the badgering. He knows the message and is simply wiser than these FOX schills. Tarpley's show rocks and his book is simply essential. Thanks alot!
http://www.thesonsofliberty.us
Oi, Pegs! You're at -2...answer this and I won't help bury you-
Did you pass along that message to Nico?
I looked for my post on your blog, but I couldn't find it--much less a response. You didn't go and do a Screwy Loose and delete it did you? And after I was so civil and thoughtful....
Mind, my mood will change if I don't hear from that wee kraut ponce soon.
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
If Tarpley started off with
If Tarpley started off with "Bush stole the election!" the interview would have been a complete disaster and a loss for 9/11 truth.
Fox disparate for ratings
Lets thank Fox for Tarpley's appearance. Fox knows the 9/11 truth community will flock to the network to watch this program and give it a ratings bump. Note how Tarpley to his credit doesn't attempt to answer their questions but instead talks over them to get his points in. BRAVO.
The question is...
Who the hell is Alan Colmes to speak for John Kerry? To my knowledge, John Kerry never did clarify exactly what the hell he meant with that comment!
That is the point I wish Webster had made. He should have turned it around on Colmes. "Excuse me Alan, did you speak with Senator Kerry? Do you know for a fact what he meant? No... well shut up then and listen to what I have to say about WTC 7!"
_______________________
"Cogito ergo sum"
They Draw a Colmes
Colmes has a job description. Mole. Most of us are experienced to know the old adage. "All the world is a stage" and we are all players on the stage. That's a bit sad, though there are six billion of us, most of us fall into one character or another. Some Shakespeare scholars estimate it at a baker's dozen. Yeah, I know all that "each snowflake is unique" hoopla, and in many respects I even adhere to each of our unique facilities or characteristics as being a powerful truth. However, in the day to day world where we punch clocks and shine shoes, sweep floors, or make phone calls or data entries of some sort, it is plain as day that we all pretty much make up familiar characters the world has seen before; and likely will see again whenever one of us unique snowflakes melts and passes away. As the other old adage goes, with or without you 'life goes on." That being the case, the world is a stage, and the particular world for the moment is FOX. Mr. Colmes is stepping up to center stage. His role is obvious, the left wing of pop politics. Normally he sits on the sidelines close to Hannity and ultimately takes abuse night after night with occasionally getting a liberal talking point across the mega-airwaves. That's how he earns his pay. After all, you can't deliver a successful piece of classical drama, a daily dose of FOX fiction, without having counter characters to the hero of the storyline (Hannity being the hero (wow, that sounds so weird)). Colmes plays our good cop to Hannity's bad cop. Colmes is the guy who won't go to extremes, so when he finally does stand center stage and delivers his lines, he's the character we are waiting for to tell us the truth. We believe he couldn't lie because his lie would appear to benefit his abuser, Hannity. In classical fiction, the abused just could never assist his abuser wittingly; the audience didn't buy it. Nowadays that sounds trite. Thanks to modern fiction for blurring those staunch storyline arches. But sadly there are great number who still eat up those classic story lines hook, line and sinker. FOX viewers for the most part, and plenty populist democrat NY Times readers. But with regards to Colmes and FOX, the bright side of this is the fact that they had to pull out Colmes for this latest showdown with 911 Truth. For the poker players out there, that means they're showing their cards. It means they're getting desperate, Grant it, Colmes is not their Ace in the hole, more like a 9 of hearts or less, but it is clear that they do not have the matter of 911 under control. Maybe I'm not the best poker player but I'm looking at my hand (all the 9/11 proof already assembled) and I'm thinking, I'm all in.
Way to go Webster!
I thought he did a great job. People watching this will think twice. Every time they are forced to use a personal ad hominem attack in response to a rational argument, we get closer to winning.
Let's see...
There're strawmen, boldface lies, avoidance...what do you call it when some tiny minute (largely irrelevant) error is made to look like a catastrophic blunder? Nice try JamesB.
I don't need to re-make my
I don't need to re-make my point.
Give the guy some slack
He obviously misspoke and meant to say "feet", not "yards". It was live teevee - and if someone on the show would have caught Mr. Tarpley's error, he would have immediately acknowledged his error.
Ok I watched the interview again and he did say "no fire". Three possibilities here:
1. He misspoke
2. He's clueless regarding the fires in WTC-7
3. He did it on purpose to either deceive the viewers, or to set-up a strawman that could have been easily knocked down.
I hope it's not 3.
_______________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!" -Dr. Frank Greening
#1 sort of
He strategically misspoke. In a practical sense, there were no fires. There were no fires any different from office building fires in the past, they were typical. So to talk about the fires as legitimate consideration of destruction is pointless. Also, Tarpley manages to give potential 911 investigators a little spin. No fire at wtc 7 and a complete collapse sounds outrageous. Maybe outrageous enough to get some of those FOX viewers off the couch and take a look at the assembled facts. Because once anyone with a half a brain takes an honest look at the facts 911 Truth simply becomes undeniable.
I heard him say it once
then he explained the location, across the street, beyond WTC6 (at least that's how I interpreted it.)
James, I'm sorry about all the negative ratings, because I think people with opposing viewpoints and an argument to make should be welcomed. You raised a valid point - it was a mistake.
The "no fires" comment is a bigger mistake. Huge, really. What's up with that? Another valid point - thanks for pointing it out. No matter, we know the fires could not have done that.
Is this all you have? How can you look at the building falling and believe the bullshit that NIST is peddling? Face it, your worldview is going to need a fall-back argument. It sounded to me like Kerry was gesturing in the direction, though he could have just been confused.
There were flames coming out of 5 or 6 of the 3,000 windows
of that massive, steel-framed building. (They could well have been arson by the many spook agencies who were tenants in WTC-7.)
Then, shortly before the implosion, huge amounts of gray smoke began pouring out of the structure. This was likely smoke from thermate/thermite used to angle-cut the beams inside, so the could be blown apart by more conventional explosives. And down she fell.
I'm glad to see lying is near and dear to your heart...
..or whatever you have beating in your chest. So do I get that apology for your repeating that lie Nico posted about me?
While I'm waiting--I expect planets to form and their suns to go nova before you apologize--I need to rattle Peggy's cage.
Be seeing you...
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
hey 007!
i know that you are completely devoid of fault, but some of us humans mispeak from time to time. the fact that mr tarpley made an error whilst speaking (i know, terrible, isnt it?) really has nothing to do with the fact that WTC 7 fell symmetrically, globally, and straight down in 6.6 seconds, now does it?
Does it, mr bond?
_________________________________
Morgantown 9/11 Truth
The Eleventh Day of Every Month
WTC-7 was about 120 yards from the north tower & about
250 yards from the south tower. Since the towers fell due to a top-down controlled demolition, no significant debris reached WTC-7.
This seems to be an overstatement...
I don't see why a top down demolition couldn't have ejected debris as far as WTC7.
The more critical issue is whether or not that debris mixed with small (or even large) fires could have precipitated a 'global' collapse...as rapidly and symmetrically as it happened. Arguing no debris/no fires is misguided and sets up a straw man for skeptics; the issue is the damage those debris or fires could have caused.
It certainly seems like it would have taken a lot more than some debris and fire to make a 47 story steel sky-scraper collapse like that...
-"Johnny
Nearly 150 Yards
Tarpley delivered the goods. As far as Tarpley's supposed misspeak, he meant to say wtc7 was nearly a hundred and fifty yards away. That's right wtc 7 was almost a 150 yards away, on the other side of wtc 5 & 6 which were the two building between the towers and wtc 7. Yeah, building 5 & 6 which took the full load of the north tower but still managed to stand. Funny how wtc 5 & 6 didn't collapse. Also funny how the Winter Garden theater, basically it's a giant greenhouse made of glass, it too was about 150 yards away and it didn't collapse despite sever damage.
Mainstream Media is a Joke
CALLING OUT JAMESB
how did all the columns in building 7 fail at the same time? can you please provide us with a sequential model because the lead invesistigator for nist told new york magazine"i dont know" "we are having trouble getting a handle on building 7" just last year. Im sure you know the details. Please provide us with a sequential model of how all 90 columns failed at the same time, also how did the building colllapse so rapidly? (7 seconds from the roof down)?
IS THERE A "JUNIOR" IN THE ROOM?
I'll miss the deniars after the next bombshell hits (that the MSM can't ignore). But it could be awhile. I'm patient. Will you come back and visit us after the Truth comes to light?
We must be kept on our toes. Can't get complacent. Must always re-research the "facts".
I don't like how Tarpley says there were no fires in #7. Yes, there are pictures of small isolated fires, but the NYFD could have knocked them out without a problem. Some deniars could jump on this, even though when you watch the video of the collapse it is impossible to not realize that "Building 7 came down in the manner of a classic controlled demolition, as shown by the initial collapse of the penthouse (which didn't appear to be on fire) and the kink at the center of the structure."
I hope that we're not still arguing over this in May of 2008.
Nearly 150 Yards
Tarpley delivered the goods. As far as Tarpley's supposed misspeak, he meant to say wtc7 was nearly a hundred and fifty yards away. That's right wtc 7 was almost a 150 yards away, on the other side of wtc 5 & 6 which were the two building between the towers and wtc 7. Yeah, building 5 & 6 which took the full load of the north tower but still managed to stand. Funny how wtc 5 & 6 didn't collapse. Also funny how the Winter Garden theater, basically it's a giant greenhouse made of glass, it too was about 150 yards away and it didn't collapse despite sever damage.
Mainstream Media is a Joke
*DISINFO -
*DISINFO - AGENT*
----------------------------------------------------
Global Warming is the biggest scam to infect the planet.
Global Warming = Global Tax = Global Police = TOTAL CONTROL
Their goal is a ONE WORLD DICTATORSHIP. COMMUNIST or FASCIST it matters not.
why do you hate America James B?
You continue to attack those who seek truth and justice, focusing on minor points. All the while, the public servants who are supposed to report to the American people escape responsibility for their lies.
Why do you not join us in calling for an honest investigation? I demanded an answer before, but you dodged. Why do you think we can't handle an honest government?
Justice deferred is justice denied-MLK
I think
he did about as well as can be expected in that hostile enviroment. I'm sure a few hundred if not thousand people will go to the web to look at more video and that alone makes it worthwhile. I would have liked to seen better response when they mention the victims families however.
I agree, some people here should see how they would go when....
people that do this for a living are endlessly attacking them!
All our heros faulter under these evil mens prepared attacks, what makes people like Tarpley so great is that they continue to expose themselves when even their so-called supporters are so f$%^ing critical!
Let's keep remebering we are winning!
Talk up, not down our front line soldiers for they are risking every thing for truth.
Kind regards John
WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!
I have to say honestly
that if I knew nothing about 9/11, I wouldn't believe it was an inside job based on Webster's interview here. I think, even though he was constantly interrupted, he conducted himself in a rather flakey fashion. I'm a huge fan of his book, but he made weak arguments, brought up Kerry's wife for some strange reason, and mentioned nothing about 9/11 families calling for a new investigation when told by Colmes that he was insulting the family members. When popular mechanics was brought up, he failed to mention David Griffin's new book. These things should be 'givens'. Personally I think this interview was a virtual dud, except for Webster's description of the collapse of WTC7. I'm not saying it was a setback, but I don't think it helped any. Compare David Griffin's demeanor/approach to Websters and you can see why Webster is allowed on and not David. No worries, learn from the past to make the future better.
Edit: Peggy Carter, I totally agree with you and gave u a + point.
Perhaps Tarpley didn't expect to get pounced upon by Colmes,
the supposed liberal of the the pair. (Last I heard from Colmes, he said that he was agnostic about 9/11 being an inside job.)
Hannity & Colmes are skilled bullshit artists/CIA propagandists who practice their craft on a daily basis. It's hard to go up against them.
You're right!
I too heard Colmes claim to be "agnostic on 9/11 truth"! You are absolutely right! So what then accounts for the sudden change of heart?
______________________
"Cogito ergo sum"
Uhh...
He's the controlled opposition on the show. He's the "balance" so the sheeple watching can feel like they're getting both sides of the story. He's there to make-believe that they're having a rational discussion, where all opinions are being presented equally. IT'S ALL AN ACT. This show is fake to the core, scripted every time. There is notihng real about it at all. Everything H&C say is tactical. They play "good cop/bad cop" to make people think they're hearing both sides, then once the shouting gets going they spring the trap. Colms takes off his good-guy mask, and they both proceed to shout insults at the guest. Then the viewing audience bounces up and down in their Lazy-Boys, slap their thighs and squeal like piggies as they spray Diet-Coke out their noses and their bag of Cheetos is spilled all over the living room.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
Yeah - Hannity was being polite and reasonable
I thought my brain was going to explode.
Overall, I thought Tarpley did OK, great at times, except:
1. "No fires" -- how could he not know about the reported fires? Like stallion4 says, that could be a huge straw man, whether it was intentional or not.
2. The ranting about Kerry as an oligarch.
yea, the thing about that is..
are you saying you just believe these guys at face value? THAT NEVER HAPPENED. oh, read 1984. again.
_________________________________
Morgantown 9/11 Truth
The Eleventh Day of Every Month
Skilled?
No they aren't. You have to understand, for propaganda to work, it has to be formulated a certain way. Now in the case of Faux News, that method is pure Jerry Springer. It's all emotion and name-calling driven. If you study up and rehearse a little, this crap is easy to disarm. H&C can't get off script or out of character, because that might jolt the audience into consciousness. H&C are predictable. They're going to do "good cop/bad cop" or a shouting match with copious ad hominem attacks. You don't beat that by getting dragged into the shouting match. You calmly use transitional phrases to re-direct the conversation back to your FACTS, no matter what they say. If you want to try to talk over them, you do it calmly and at a regular volume, so they look like the rabid animals, not you.
Wiki search "Propaganda". Spread a little education around.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
.....???
They did kind of show the collapse of building 7..... although they for some reason zoomed in on it and showed it after the initialization of collapse had begun. Could get people to go to the internet to watch it.
___________________
Together in Truth!
of course they showed that version
because the other shots that have the whole building in the frame are undeniably "classic controlled demolition" - with the roof line kink and all. The tight shot they used is the only one they could show in order to keep the waters muddy, and the point out of context.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB
No evidence..
I'm sick and tired of hearing these idiots saying that there's "no evidence" to support the theories of CD.
Dozens and dozens of eyewitness testimonies of exposions, on 9/11 and still to this day??
Dozens of news media reporting "secondary explosions" the day of 9/11??
Molten metal??
The fabulous work of Steven Jones (THERMITE)??
NASA pics??
Squibs??
OHHH, THE DENIAL....
They say no evidence because
They say no evidence because they can get away with it. Not enough people can call them on bovis stercum so they will keep saying it and saying it until too many people know its wrong. Even then, Fox News might have to get down to 10% of the public (or less) to stop. We have to spread the evidence so more people can call the controlled press out and switch. We are already building an alternative with the best foundations.
We can't ever expect them to do our job for us and tell our story, or be neutral. When they have anyone who will tell the truth on its a plus. Today they brought someone on who is a great researcher, but is more a lecturer for people who know already, and showed at least something of building seven. To be honest, if an engineer is sitting out there and saw that, they have to do a double take. The best they could hope for is to maintain the size of their base and maintain the status quo of when a Fox News viewer hears about this they think, "Crazy, Liberal, Don't Pay Attention". They lost people by showing building seven, even a poor angle, because it was enough for a structural some steel welder, ME, Civil Engineer or Architect to start researching. They damaged the "liberal" word because Tarpley rejected Kerry, but not the best way for the crowd. They lost some of their base tonight. They ever so slightly weakened another. If they bring this up and the person up there doesn't scream "No Planes" they lose a little. If someone searches for his book they are going to get the review by Robert Steel (and hopefully follow up on that too).
Tarpley did well enough. I'd only suggest that when (if) he gets on again he challenge them to have either William Rodriguez, Bob Mcilvaine, any of the first responders or Bill Doyle on. They can't be pushy with them (or at least they will look bad) and their words will shatter the "crazy" thought. Taunt them that they aren't telling the stories of these people. Hearing it from the families or first responders is far more powerful than anything Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley or DRG could say. Enough people watch CSI that Steven Jones or Kevin Ryan could probably do some damage too.
They're the ones with no evidence
Tarpley should have immediately demanded evidence from H&C.
H&C: "Where's the evidence for your claims."
Tarp: "I have a mountain of evidence that we can discuss for hours, but let me ask you, where is your evidence that bin Laden in responsible?"
H&C: "The confession video."
Tarp: "Obviously faked. Any idiot can see that. Even the FBI doesn't think it's authentic. What else do you have?"
H&C: "The FBI said it's fake?"
Tarp: "They say they have no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11."
Tarpley's amazing...
I don't care what you think about the whole body of his theories...Tarpley is incredible. No one else can rattle off a list of princeton-bred epithets like this man. He's a genius of some kind, that's for sure.
"Johnny"
I agree Johnny
but he didn't shine as brightly as he should have in this interview.
He needs power point!
He needs power point!
People on the 9/11 truth
People on the 9/11 truth side seem to have a problem being objective and realistically self-critical about how our representatives come across in the media. The bias really shows sometimes. Based on the comments so far, this would appear to be one of those times.
Tarpley does not do well in this interview. In his delivery, demeanor, and presence, he is the picture of the classic raving conspiracy nut. He's no Fetzer, but he's in Fetzer's ballpark. Fox News won this round.
Be honest. Does anyone think this interview does us any favors?
Chris,
read my replies above.
This board moves fast
This board moves fast sometimes =)
I agree.
It wasn't exactly a victory, nor was it a disaster.
i think...
any publicity is good publicity. at least it will get a few people thinking and a few people talking. its the domino effect. 9/11 truth isnt going to happen overnight.
"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th;
malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."
-George W. Bush November 11, 2001
Tarpely did well
Tarpely did real well considering the amount of time they actually let him talk. The interruptions were purposely done to make him look like he's bumbling, but I think he did very well to hold his own against 2 pros that took unwarranted shots on him and his evidence.
It was like watching two bullies cornering the class genious and taking wild punches at him. Tarpely did well to deflect alot of the blows and land a few on his own.
Just the fact that this was aired on mass media will awaken a few more people. Even if it makes just one person turn on his computer and google wt7, thats one more than we had yesterday. Its growing expotentially..have patience.
Just curious...
Where did you verify the date on your Bush quote? (11/11/01)
11/11/01
his speech to the UN. watch it on youtube
"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th;
malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."
-George W. Bush November 11, 2001
get the
get the shirt:
http://www.grandtheftcountry.com
/////////////////////
911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info
I stronly disagree with you on all points. Tarpley delivered
plenty of great info during that interview, and he is surely no shill like Fetzer.
Right on!!
Regards John
Right On!
Tarpley by no means appears as a nut. If anything the way H and C acted made them look like the nuts. Tarpley compared to them kept his cool and made them look like the babble nuts they are. If someone is on the way to truth and see's the debunking go like H and C, the person on the way to truth will of course sense no fact and all attack coming from these schills and continue to see if they can find any answers. In that sense it is of course a victory. We have proven we have the logical and moral upper hand.
http://www.thesonsofliberty.us
TARPLEY IS KING
Tarpley is a great asset to the movement. He did pretty well, he mentioned that no steel structure ever collapsed before. Nobody is going to believe 9/11 was an inside job after listening to a 5 minute attack interview. I think its almost impossible. The best think to do in these interveiws is to calmly mention a few points and then repeatedly plug a free movie like Loose Change. He should have just sat back and chilled and said "go watch loose change its free on google video" That will reach and convert thousands.
excellent. tarpley handled
excellent. tarpley handled it very well under the circumstances. i think it should be rather clear to the audience that he'd take those two pawns to the woodshed given an adequate forum. bravo.
The next time when either
The next time when either DRG, Kevin Barrett or Tarpley goes on FOX or some other BS channels. They need to challenge them for a hour open debate. And see how fast they will shut up.
YEEEEAAAA!
http://www.thesonsofliberty.us
They set him up for a grand slam
but he hit a lazy fly ball.... leaving several runners on base.
The 911 families..... Webster are you informed or did you write the book and then go AWOL? Are you aware of the numerous family members who are supporting our claims? Pop these fools on these weak ass arguments.
I can not wait for William Rodriguez's documentary which profiles all the family members which he has personally interviewed who are questioning the official conspiracy theory. We need these things to drop along with the release of the Final Cut!
Lets roast these pigs!!!
___________________
Together in Truth!
but he hit a lazy fly ball.... leaving several runners on base.
:-D Love it!
That's about it, really. They looked shrill, and played WTC7, and it was so short, there wasn't much more than that. Them, as idiots, playing WTC7, insulting a guest, laughing him off as a loon. WTF is that?
Their audiance I hope was like WTF? in reaction, particularly when the building came down, confirming was this guy Webster Tarpley was in effect SAYING!
We won, again, as usual.. [yawn]
"I can not wait for William Rodriguez's documentary which profiles all the family members which he has personally interviewed who are questioning the official conspiracy theory. We need these things to drop along with the release of the Final Cut!
Lets roast these pigs!!!"
Excellent! We're in sinc. They are TERRIFIED, about what's coming at them, like a historical train, which is also a nightmare, making THEM look somehow complicit in willfully attempting to cover-UP what really happened on 9/11.
They are in our sights, having completely painted themselves into a corner on this issue.
It's the blinding light, bearing down on them, of a new tomorrow, of newfound possibility..
Something diametrically opposed to Cheney's "100 year war, for a generation. " [eyeroll]
All of history weighs directly in favour of our worldview. The war was a SHAM and everyone knows it, adn they KNOW that there would BE no Iraq war, without 9/11.. all the lies..?
History is on OUR SIDE Hannity and Colmes, consider yourselves "PWN3D"! :-D
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...
H & C
What a pair of absolute TOOLS.
Webster was in an all-but-impossible situation and performed capably. This was hardly the venue for rational argument.
The Revolution is NOT BEING TELEVISED.
NO...
It's being YouTubed!
_______________________
"Cogito ergo sum"
so-so.
Tarpley got in a few jabs, but I don't think much of what he said tonight is going to change any minds. The good thing is that 9/11 is still around, we're still getting press.
Was glad to see some WTC 7 footage. Joe construction worker can figure that one out. Was this the first time that MSM has showed this collapse? Man, these guys are such fascists they make me puke. Please archive this video somewhere so that in 30 years the survivors of our civilization can understand how it (may have) ended.
Just left a presentation by Cindy Sheehan. She was so intense. Revolution, but non-violent, was mentioned. We hope, but I don't see much possibility of success there, I don't believe that even a union of 9/11 Truth and peace groups could make too much of a rumble.
The crowd was large and I'd say 80 percent gray-haired. She gave a talk earlier in the day that I hope more students attended.
Towards the end, without any suggestions frrom the audience, she called for a new investigation of 9/11! (With a response of mild applause). She stated that she doesn't know that the government was behind it, but wouldn't doubt it.
There was a long portion dedicated to the need for impeachment. Conyers wrote up a 219 (item or page?) and never released it, due to the pressure of Nancy Pelosi.
I think she is on our side, but is attacking the administration from a wider angle. Probably thinks that spending too much time on the 9/11 issue would annoy a large segment of her audience.
Catch her if she visits your town. She will be at protests in DC on Monday, I believe she said outside congress and Pelosi's house if they can find it. DC911truth could maybe show up as well.
Progress?
'Towards the end, without any suggestions frrom the audience, she called for a new investigation of 9/11! (With a response of mild applause). She stated that she doesn't know that the government was behind it, but wouldn't doubt it.'
That sounds like progress in Sheehan's views to me.
'I think she is on our side, but is attacking the administration from a wider angle. Probably thinks that spending too much time on the 9/11 issue would annoy a large segment of her audience.'
Well, a large segment of the civil rights movement was annoyed when Martin Luther King spoke out against the Vietnam War, but he decided that somet hings have to be said regardless of the cost.
Approaching a problem from a 'wide angle' might also be called 'circumvention', avoidance of what is at the core. It should be clear enough after 5 1/2 years that activists against war and in defense of the Constitution will not achieve their (our) aims if they leave untouched what Tarpley has rightly characterized as 'the core myth of our times'.
Colms just as bad as Hannity
I used to think there may be some good in Colms but after tonight I can see he's totally on the dark side. What a poor soul.
I agree infowarrior 110%
These sub-human scum-bags should be hung for high treason and mass murder along with neocons and their NWO backers. Colms makes me want to puke. This is why I won't watch Fox News. These sub-humans would do Hitler proud. How dare they call themselves Americans. At least they showed the controlled demolition of WTC7. Perhaps some of the walking dead that do watch Fox News will do some research. Who am I kidding?
I'm with you infowarrior
Colmes proved himself once and for all to be a total bufoon.
For a guy who was on record as saying he's "agnostic" on whether 9/11 was an inside job or not, he sure came off like a good soldier working for the NWO tonight!
Shame on you Alan Colmes!
20-20 hindsight?
Is there any miracle worker who can get through to brainwashed people in 3 minutes in a hostile environment?
OK, Tarpley does have radical views, and that must be why Fox picks him instead of Griffin, it's part of their circus, look at all the crazy leftists. But maybe his radical views are correct!
Re Kerry's shallowness, Tarpley made the point in passing that the Democrats are just part of the oligarchy, that we had the choice of two S&B brothers remember, and the wife, she is the Heinz 57 heiress, you know.
This is relevant. It's not just about regime rotation, remember?
In this way he undercuts the Fox game of punching the democratic strawman. That's why they shut him up there.
As for Pop Mech, he did get in the phrase "discredited sources."
I wonder if DR Griffin, if he has only 3 minutes total, and only split seconds to think, is going to plug his own book or Webster's book?
Tarpley's response about the families was right on - that it's a demagogic argument.
The 9/11 families have been a much bigger disappointment than Tarpley ever was. A new investigation? That old chestnut? He said it - he has written a 500 page book on the subject. We are the investigation. We even know many of the perps.
I think if you watch the video again, you will see he's not flaky at all. He does listen calmly, but then he doesn't let them cut him off when he is making his point. And he does make quite a number of points, very cogently.
Not to quibble
But, concerning the demolition of the Twin Towers and World Trade 7, when one is challenged to provide one "scintilla" of evidence in support of such a claim, the name and peer-reviewed studies of Steven Jones must absolutely spring from one's mouth like sparks from steel newly-rent, as it were.
Tarpley fared well enough, and should be commended. I've posted this concern in another thread, but I feel it bears repeating.
I'm sure he intended to mention many things, you don't think
he has a problem with ego do you Douglas? Because I've never sensed anything but noble intent from Webster!
Fair point though about Jones he is at the heart of the matter of CD. I'm sure it all would come out under different circumstances.
How do you fair in a heated debate in front of millions?
regards John
The old chestnut...
"The 9/11 families have been a much bigger disappointment than Tarpley ever was. A new investigation? That old chestnut?"
I'm going to assume the expression "old chestnut" is considered derogatory, so with that assumption, I have to ask you sir...if not a new international investigation into 9/11 (since we, the movement, ARE the investigation after all), then what do you suggest we do to bring *results* to "our own" investigations and inquiries? I see you poo-poo'ing the idea of "new investigation" yet I'm not seeing you share any other ideas.
John you keep making the crtics here look foolish, another..
fair round up, well done!
WE MUST SUPPORT OUR OWN PEOPLE!!
This man thinks about 9/11 24/7!
I find it difficult to understand the self centered people that think they can Webster how to do it better? Give us and him a break!
regards John
11th of every month!
WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!
Again with the hindsight.
Nobody should be talking hindsight. We should be talking FORESIGHT and preparedness. Tarpley should have been better prepared, he knew what he'd be facing. These guys are stuck with a predictable set of tactics, Tarpley should have studied tapes of them, and prepared to circumvent their BS. Read my posts in the other thread on this topic.
Why do we have to have two threads??? It's hard enough to track a single conversation around here without it being split in two...
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
In the final analysis...
they themselves came off as utterly RUDE, INTOLLERANT, and outright BELLIGERANT!
Theyrefore I say that they came off as well, kinda, insane, no matter how Webster composed himself.
Plus we got a viewing of WT7 going down.. mysteriously, moking them, backing and in fact SUPPORTING, precisely what WEBSTER, and not them, were saying!
Think about it from that perspective..
They are starting to look shadey, the way they are playing the REALITY, of the national and GLOBAL 9/11 truth movement, which is nothing more, or less, than the movement of the truth itself about that rather historically SIGNIFICANT event.
All of history, is pointing DIRECTLY, AT, 9/11 now. The whole of it.
Man they must be just shitting BRICKS! ;o)
Their TRUE fear, is Loose Change with Charlie Sheen. Thery are just TERRIFIED about what it might in fact show, which is the truth and the REALITY, that WTC7 was brought down via pre-planted, controlled demolition explosives.
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...
Our movement is bound to the historical truth and the reality.
I like something I just said, so I'm repeating it. :-D
"They are starting to look shadey, the way they are playing the REALITY, of the national and GLOBAL 9/11 truth movement, which is nothing more, or less, than the movement of the truth itself about that rather historically SIGNIFICANT event."
Our movement has the benefit, of functioning relative to the historical truth.
They have NOTHING ELSE to play, EXCEPT ad hominems, and if THAT's the case, then their historical worldview is in some very SERIOUS trouble, as we cross over the threshold level, of 50% of the US population, or very close to it.. They are trying to HANG on to their OWN viewers, in fact, and did US the favour of playing the collapse of WTC7, which appears EXACTLY like a high precision engineered, controlled demolition. Many of their viewers were probably like WTF IS THAT? haviong never ever even SEEN it before..! ;-D
That is what they are REALLY dealing with, and LCFC is going to reveal much, it's going to ROCK!
We've got a LOT of videos and audio and eyewitnessess accounts surrounding Building 7. That is ALL OF IT, going to be featured in the upcoming release of Loose Change, Final Cut with Charlie Sheen.. tee hee hee
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...
I believe LC Final Cut will also feature
an exclusive interview with a freelance news cameraman who filmed some footage at the Pentagon that day. Can anybody confirm this?
I can confirm it.
I've seen the footage, and I'm all but certain that edited portions of it will be included.
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...
Thanks. From what I remember
he is supposed to have shot the Pentagon shortly after the hit while the roof over the entry hole was still in place. Should be extremely interesting.
The pentagon footage
I saw that footage as well, and I have been searching for about a year trying to find it again. It was on google video if i remember correctly, really clear, he was just walking around right after the "crash". Anyone know where I can find it?
Whilst the the collapse of
Whilst the the collapse of WTC7 was shown, the producers made quite certain to display the hand-held wobbly, wildly zoomed ground-level footage, as opposed to the most widely circulated network quality video which, being filmed at a removed location, steadily records the building's precipitous fall in unmistakeable clarity.
By way of preface, I do hold Mr. Tarpley in the highest esteem, but I must say I was downright appalled at how remiss he was in this little appearance. We don't require mathematical precision, but certain questions demand very certain answers, and not circumstantial trains of reasoning. As a prominent representative of this movement, it behooves Tarpley to acquit himself a bit more professionally.
The more I mull over Webster's performance, it becomes increasingly apparent that he failed to offer not only the best and most exampled responses, but in some cases even the most obvious, which ought easily to lend themselves to the most unseasoned of 911 researchers, let alone such an elder statesman as Tarpley. When asked to provide evidence of WTC7's demolition, Tarpley unfathomably neglects to mention that the government itself, in the form of NIST, has publicly stated that their best hypothesis for for the destruction of WTC7 presents "a low probability of occurrence."
In other words, they haven't got the foggiest. Had Tarpley uttered this, a deafening silence should have reigned, perhaps broken only by bemused denial and naked insults.
I fear he may have been too preoccupied with devising his next rhetorical flourish than presenting the soundest rebuttal, therefore in these forums one seeks concinnity , passion, and plain-speaking. The FOX-viewing public will naturally balk at the intellectual's strange and arid approach to such emotional matters. Tarpley is indeed brilliant, and unquestionably devoted, yet his tone fails to convey any palpable conviction. Alex Jones would have excelled and smote them something brutal.
Thank you Douglas
That was an immaculate description of the interview. Only in the last sentence I'd replace the name Alex Jones with David Ray Griffin, as Jones oftentimes can appear even *more* hyperbolic than Tarpley was in this instance. It's almost counter-intuitive how you didn't seem to catch that after such an accurate explanation of the Tarpley interview, considering how 'well-known' Jones is with his physical histrionics!
We need someone with a seasoned, mellow tone such as someone like Prof. Griffin. This is why we're not seeing him appear on these programs! He comes off as too sane. I love Alex Jones, but very often he acts like a WWF wrestler and I doubt that'll help us in the recruiting department.
DRG is great, but I don't know if he could get a word in
edgewise with Colmes & Hannity yelling insults at him. DRG would be amazing in a civilized, panel-type discussion, but I'd go with Alex Jones when battling FOX Noise.
911 and Evolution
There must always be a point in any sentient species evolution where the "LIE" is understood by the species from the vantage point of the collective and the individual simultaneously. When these two vantage points intersect, the species has attained collective awareness of it's nature. Unknowingly, the perpetrators of 911 have created the event that has started this process.
SH
There is such a process and
There is such a process and it can be described like this:
First stage:
First there is the lie, then some people figure it out, then more figure it out.
Second stage:
More know, then many know, then most know.
Third stage:
Everyone knows.
Fourth stage:
Everyone knows that everyone knows.
This is the end. This is the stage at which the Soviet Union collapsed. For years everyone knew the whole system was a mess and a lie, but it took time for everyone to know that everyone else knew it too. As soon as that happened, adios Soviet Union.
On 9/11, we are in the middle of the second stage as described above.
Why do 9/11 Truthers keep going on FOX News??
Every one I've ever seen they end up looking like fools, not because of what
they say, but because of what they're not allowed to say. Also, this guy didn't seem very prepared at all.
I wish they'd stay away from FOX News.
No one who watches FOX is going to believe anything about 9/11 except
the official lie, so why bother?
Tarpley was great but
I just wish he would have brought up the Jersey Girls or Bill Doyle's 9/11 Victims Family Group...also, what the government has done with the body parts.
Yes
He had the chance to put to bed once and for all this nonsense about upsetting the families, and I'm afraid he failed. I found that a very frustrating interview. Too much rhetoric and not enough substance. Pity, I would have expected a lot better.
Suggestion for Truthers on TV
Ok, let's talk preparedness and strategy, not hindsight and reaction.
If anyone reading this has the chance to go on Faux News again, or any other outlet that will label you "conspiracy theorist" right off the bat, disarm the propaganda with your opening statement.
Watch what Faux does. Before they even get to the guest, they have said "conspiracy", "wing-nut", or "crazies" about ten times. This is premeditated, thought out STRATEGY. So how do we disarm them of that strategy? You shine a light right on it, so that their audience can see it.
Insanity - "...Welcome Webster Tarpley to the show."
Webster - "Glad to be here Sean, although I hope your guests haven't already had ideas implanted in their minds about the facts and evidence I will present, based on all the silly names you've probably already called me. But I'm sure your viewers are smart enough to know that they should research peoples claims for themselves, right?"
Shine a light on their manipulation and flatter their audience. Strategy. All this face time is valuable. Think about the effect of a sloppy performance VS. the effect of a well planned assault on their whole charade. Think about the difference between blurting out a few random ideas Vs. actually constructing a rational argument. Don't tell me H&C are too good and won't let you. BS. They are pathetic. Their tactics are aimed at the LCD.
If Insanity interrupts, you just keep repeating until you've got that statement out. Only THEN do you respond to his questions (by leading the conversation into YOUR talking points). It doesn't matter what they ask you. Any response can be steered in your direction, and the subject changed.
If any of you are connected to people in the Movement who get face time, please pass this on to them. Get them aware that they should be planning these appearances and making every second count.
Edit:
Insanity - "Blah blah blah blahYADAYADAYADA WOOOHOOO HEY HEY!!"
Webster - "Show a little respect, Sean, instead of just trying to yell over me and interrupt. I think your viewers deserve more than just a shouting match, don't you? As I was saying..."
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine
YES!
WE NEED THIS ADVICE to get to the Tarpley`s (& the Griffins, the Dylan Avery`s, etc.) and we need to be sure the talking points and this type of strategy is at their finger tips WHEN THEY NEED IT - the criticisms afterwards are almost a wase of time (shoulda coulda woulda & maybe next time do not cut it anymore) .
Great advice.
Good idea with planning ahead - we have to out-fox them. I prepare rigorously just to show loose change at my house - so you better believe it.
www.freewebs.com/springfield911truth
www.myspace.com/culturalrelativity
Definitely...
C--Again, well said.
Exactly! By appearing completely rational when dealing with these A-holes, it would win over the rational public. Of course, how many viewers of H&C are rational?
I think Webster should have mentioned Steve Jones when given the "no evidence" line. Even a Fox viewer can go google "steve jones" and get the goods.
He's been in the Movement long enough to know what to expect. Think of a football coach planning for the big game. Wouldn't it be smart to study the opposing team, watch videos of their past games, prepare for their every strategy?
I'm not saying that I could do much better when put on the spot, but everyone from the Movement that is fortunate enough to get publicity must know that they are not playing on a level field. Our guys can win by showing more intense integrity.
Sound bites can work here. "Professor Steve Jones..."
Tarpley lays down Motive
Sorry folks but i don't think David RG could have given that kinda concise of an answer as to motive.
http://www.thesonsofliberty.us
Ok, then
After my first viewing I was going to give Mr. Tarpley a C+ and started to watch it again in order to transcribe it and analyze it carefully. About two minutes into the transcription process I became so disappointed in Tarpley's performance I stopped and changed the grade to D -. After watching it a third time I have settled on a C-, but only because he's brilliant, I love his books and he gives most enjoyable lectures.
If we are to get anywhere with this movement we have to be as critical of ourselves as we are of the government story and all those who defend it.
Verbal sparring on talk shows is not Tarpley's forte and he did not acquit himself very well. In keeping with the boxing metaphor that many here are using for this encounter I would say that Tarpley was shadow boxing by himself while Colmes and Hannity were hitting him with glancing blows. No one got knocked down, but Colmes and Hannity left themselves open for KO's on more than one occasion. If a transcript is available or I decide to finish the one I started I will give my blow by blow analysis of this lame one rounder.
Mr. Tarpley needs to answer direct questions with direct answers. He could've taken control of the debate from the opening bell if he had simply stated that Kerry had not properly understood the question and that the truth movement was seeking clarification from Kerry. This would've been a direct punch to Colmes gut and while Colmes was gasping for breath Tarpley could've launched into the WTC 7 issue with a flurry of facts. Instead Tarpley mis-characterizes Kerry's statement, discredits himself and the movement and falls into Colmes obvious rhetorical trap. I got the feeling that Tarpley had not even seen the entire video of the Kerry Q&A which is inexcusable in my book. When anyone goes on national tv be PREPARED, I don't care how brilliant you are or think you are. These are not high school debates, folks.
I think Colmes entire purpose for doing the interview is shown here where he defends Kerry and the establishment. We all know that the left-right paradigm is a hoax and Colmes confirms it here.
Tarpley, having missed the opportunity to set the record straight about this video and take the rhetorical high ground, then goes off to his corner and begins shadow boxing against Kerry and Kerry's wife. What the heck is this? Tarpley loves to insult the elites whenever he can and his ego won't let him pass on this chance, so off he goes bobbing and weaving and punching at air. This allows Colmes to land a punch when he accuses Tarpley of taking cheap shots, and on Kerry's wife, no less.
After Colmes manages to get Tarpley out of his corner, Colmes incompetently leaves himself wide open for a killer KO combination. When Colmes states that elected officials would never hurt US citizens and that the truth movement's claims are hurting the family members, Tarpley should've immediately pummeled him with the lies from the White House about the WTC dust, Mineta's testimony and the Secret Service's clear violation of SOP in Florida. He could've then KO'd Colmes by stating that 50% of family members want a new investigation into 9/11. Instead, Tarpley returns to building seven and makes a clear misstatement of fact regarding "no fires". This only allows Colmes to step back and trot out the new NIST line on WTC 7 that "25% of the depth of the building was gone" and that the weight of the columns brought it down. Combining this meme with the abbreviated close-up video of WTC 7 going down that they show later allows Fox-watching America to easily dismiss our claims about one of the largest smoking guns of 9/11.
After further review I'm going to give Tarpley a D and stop before I get even more depressed about this poor showing. That is, unless someone really wants me to continue calling the fight.....?
Let's call this one a draw and show them what WE can do on FRIDAY, the ELEVENTH of May, shall we?
Ah, well, it's only Fox and it's only one small battle in a long campaign that we're making real progress in every day.
Just the fact that Fox would risk doing this is very telling to me. I think it indicates a growing desperation to protect their flanks no matter what.
I love you all very much, my brothers and sisters in truth. WE, who re on the front lines, are winning this; and that is how it should be, anyway.
I hope that you are all well and have got or are getting your copies of Debunking 9/11 Debunking so we can all stay five steps ahead of the Fox crowd and their outdated talking points.
(NOTE: I started writing this over two hours ago but was interrupted repeatedly, so if the above points have already been made....)
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
LeftWright
Thank you. That was brilliant and I concur with every last word you said here.
As for those who've said we're "attacking" Webster, we in the truth movement need to learn to decipher genuine self-criticism from subtle attacks from the "fake within". The info wars are now going strong and the best way to counter them to is use good logical judgement as well as trusting your gut. It's obvious (to me) that Douglas and LeftWright are using fair criticism of one of our spokespeople in order to bolster our strategic maneuverings for future battles. We need this and we need to not have our posts knocked down for it. We need to stick together at all cost.
Excelente!!!
LR-
Think you could e-mail your "match" analogy to Webster? And Dylan, etc.- anybody who goes up against these guys. Let's have the next Fox Truther guest prepared for battle. We've all watched enough videos of our guys getting the treatment from MSM turds.
I agree with a D+ for Webster, because he has the intelligence to have predicted how the show would proceed. The "no fires" statement is still on my mind, little things like that can hurt us when dealing with the naive non-Truther.
I can't say I would have done better on the hot-seat, but I wouldn't have said "no fires", I would have mentioned Prof. Jones, and I would have watched as many videos of previous shows as I could get ahold of.
Holy Sh*t!!!
Wow!!!!! We're really winning aren't we?
What now? Email Hannity? God we need leadership.
We have to talk about a hopeful future.
Release the energy patents.
Energy is NOT scarce, that's a myth.
Cars can run on water. Google Water Power Car.
Hydrogen, Zero Point, maybe cold fusion.
Wake up!
It's time to create Paradise.
A Box the sixe of a suitcase running unlimited energy for free? Your car, your house, your greenhouse, the NEIGBORHOOD greenhouse, all run on the energy that is limitless, like love? Year round food, heat, cool, desalinization and free time? All is local, cause energy is FREE!!!!
That's the vision we get to share!
K
We can do it! Remember, hope is the most important information we can convey! Let them be the fearmongers, we're the hopemongers!
Hannity and Colmes
What is it about these guys,both of them are so smug so patronising so full of themselves that to elicit them to even admit to a tiny sliver of truth would deem them to fall off their well greased government mantra.You certainly know how breed them over there I thought the British media were bad enough,in conjunction with the other right wing nut Bill 'O Reilly the fight seems even harder.All these so called journalists always respond to the emotive attack of the effect to the families concerned,have they interveiwed the Jersey Girls?Do they know what truth is?Why is it that they always quote from those paranoid publications supported by the government,the Commission Report and Popular Mechanics?
When anybody challenges them they always resort to personal attacks i.e.Rosie O Donnel,but rebuff their attacks and your classed as a traitor or whatever.There needs to be proper debate,these clowns would'nt know how to debate,all they want to do is to belittle and humiliate.The Truth Movement is crammed full of people with intelligence,who can debate,but sadly they will continue to be ignored because your governments intransigence,and lack of free and democratic opinion,which is constantly overshadowed by an all powering media controlled by an oligarchy,that blows truth out of the water on both sides of the Atlantic.We know the truth,the evidence is there for everyone to see,other than the three blind mice Hannity Colmes and O Reilly who constantly run after the untruth.
These are just but three of the worst kind of toadyism that society has spawned and will not be the last.Truth will win out in the end and the movement will remain,steadfast loyal and uncompromising in its fight for justice and truth.
Tarpley did okay, if not well
Under the circumstances, he probably did admirably.
He could have done better, but I have, as yet, to see anyone under those types of circumstances do well.
But I think that point is moot.
The most important thing is that this was on MSM. (even if it was H&C)
You can't buy advertising like that. And there is no such thing as 'bad publicity'.
AND they actually showed building 7 falling, although I think (obviously?) they purposely used the worst possible version of film that showed a weird angle, beginning after the initiation of collapse, and maybe even blurred it up and did an electronic closeup to make it less interesting and informational.
But it was all on prime time TV with ('unfortunately' / fortunately) millions of viewers.
So, at the end of the day, it's a plus and win no matter how you look at it.
We could use more of these.
----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent
http://www.chico911truth.org/
9/11 — GET rEVENge! (in a peaceful manner, of course)
D-
Expected to hear from you about Sheehan. Didn't see you. Maybe you didn't hear about it.
Go up to my replies to LeftWright and Consciousness. Webster did OK, but he knew what he was in for and my opinion is that he should have been better prepared. Again, he should have known exactly how he''d be treated and should have countered them with a confident integrity. I thought I saw a little too much ego coming out.
For the next victim of skewering by the MSM-Prepare-Prepare-Prepare.
Man we really gotta stop talking about this
We have to stop with the controlled demoliton thing. Yes, its obvious to those of us that have been studying this for some time now that that is the most likely way these towers came down. But you have people watching Fox news that have no idea about our movement and you have assholes - who these viewers believe in - making tarpley look like a fool. They name drop about NIST and Popular MEchanics, call tarpley a crackpot conspiracy theorists and all is lost.
If we talk about things that can't be refuted, that these asshole journalists can't try to refute with some reports that we all know is a crock of shit. then we really start winning. Why were standard operating procedures ignored on that day. What about the incredible amount of intelligence coming in from US Intel, foreign intel, etc. that was completely ignored. The wargames on 9/11. Our "leaders" absence on those days (Bush, Myers, Rumsfeld). History of al-CIA-d. The 9/11 Commission cover-up, etc. These things have documents to back them up and prove to be more than enough to take these criminals down.
All that stuff about controlled demolitions and the like is really just the little things. They become important only after the base is layed.
We need a truther to go on TV and ask these tough questions or talk about these things. Once we break through with that, then we start talking controlled demolitions, etc.
Thank
Thank you.
/////////////////////
911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info
this is from another thread
this is from another thread about DRG and the Flight 77 calls but it seems to fit here pretty well too:
because different evidence sways different people. CD may be all it takes for one person to wake up while another cant see CD at all. the Pentagon has recruited many members to the cause despite it being a "honey-pot" or "distraction". the circumstantial evidence my be all it takes to sway one person while another might just say "its all lies on paper, you cant prove it" but be swayed by something physical. faked phone calls are hardly the best evidence weve got but i see no reason to ignore it. imagine how many people we would have failed to reach if we took that same line of reasoning with CD. you may not agree with or like that CD is pushed so hard but can you really deny that it has helped our cause?
that said it should NEVER be either/or and we should never ignore evidence if it works. CD obviously works and i dont understand why people like you want to cut off something that works so well for us. seems to me that your playing right into "their" hands by asking us to drop something that has recruited so many into our ranks. you really think that if we drop CD now that Fox News and others will talk ISI etc.? there has NEVER been a genuine discussion of controlled demolition on national television so please stop pretending that there has been. that discussion would have ended the debate.
No, controlled demolition is a hook that catches people's
attention & pulls them in to learn more about 9/11.
Little things?
The "collapses" of those buildings killed thousands that day, and many first responders are ill as a result of this. Controlled demolition is not a "little thing" -- it is the bulk of the crime.
Most of what you talk about has been discussed in the mainstream and spun away as incompetence, which it was not. I agree it is very important background, but in a short show it is difficult to explain.
It's time to get organized NOW!
The 911 truth movement needs to look at all the evidence as though we are going to court to present a criminal case. All evidence needs to be labeled and documented to eliminate false and/or unproven claims such as "space beams".
Only approved and documented evidence shall be used to present our case to the public.
Only authorized spokespeople from the 911 truth movement will present our case.
It's time to get organized.
I personally think that David Ray Griffin, Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley should take the lead and setup the "911 Truth Commission", so when Fox, CNN, etc... calls upon the 911 truth movement, we can stay on topic with our message.
The same tactics used by the MSM to mislead people can be used by us to drive home the facts and evidence of 911 to the general public and eventually to a Grand Jury.
-just my two cents
...
Fuck you Hannity you scum
Fuck you Hannity you scum bag
And you, colmes - you piece of shit
These mutha's are dispendable from both sides.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming is the biggest scam to infect the planet.
Global Warming = Global Tax = Global Police = TOTAL CONTROL
Their goal is a ONE WORLD DICTATORSHIP. COMMUNIST or FASCIST it matters not.
Who are the SHILLS for this ORDO AB CHAO ?
Don't hold back
Tell us what you really think.
;0))
----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent
http://www.chico911truth.org/
9/11 — GET rEVENge! (in a peaceful manner, of course)
Slightly dissapointed
I love Tarpley as a historian, an analyst of current events (his radio show is just superb,) and as a 9/11 researcher .... and I don't like to monday morning quarterback .... but he kind of dropped the ball with this interview.
Obviously he made the errors about the distance, said there were no fires, etc.... which plays right into the hands of the debunkers - it makes 9/11 truthers sound like the type of people who exaggerate things, are uninformed or invent their own facts, and are prone to fantasy. In short, it fits the carefully crafted media stereotype/caricature of what the public identifies as a "conspiracy theorist."
Then when you throw in the tone and delivery - it comes across as shrill, frothing ravings. He is all over the board here - Kerry's wife, Robert Gates, multiple Bin Ladens and acting troupes. All of which are true, but in the brief period of time given for such an interview and the presumed ignorance of the audience, it just sounds disjointed and like a cobbled together paranoid fantasy.
We have to remember - he is not preaching to the converted (like at one of his conferences) - he is addressing the average FOX tv viewer/disbeliever. Getting facts wrong, having a near hyper-ventilated tone, bouncing all over the place is not putting your best foot forward.
He also missed several key opportunities to counterattack. When Colmes starts in on the whole "the government would never kill its own people" tripe ... I dunno how he missed the opportunity to bring up Northwoods and the EPA air toxicity falsifications. He also concedes the argument that 9/11 truth hurts the families by not responding to either Holme's nor Cannity's claims of such. Most of the families want a new investigation and the family steering committee is certainly dissatisfied with the 9/11 Ommission Report. Also, when they bring up NIST - he missed the golden opportunity to explain that NIST admits that the collapse of 7 has no legitimate explanation, and are now resigning themselves to exploring a hypothesis involving planted explosives.
All in all, FOX got what they wanted - someone going off half-cocked - so that they could put their audience back to sleep and never entertain these notions of inside job ever again lest they be like that guy.
Publius,
exactly. There's no question that Webster's performance in this interview was, at the very least, substandard of what he's shown us in the past. He hit not one homerun. But there's no need to dwell on a small defeat...and it really is a small one. Our movement is now living in it's pre-critical mass stage. We're gettin close, folks...
Thank you, Webster Tarpley
Webster Tarpley, you did a wonderful job of hitting all the main points.
FOX "news" is an EVIL "business". And evil seems to be rampant in the U.S. where people are deliberately turning a blind eye to all of the credible evidence that the U.S. was indeed involved in 9/11.
When citizens deliberately turn their back on truth, honesty, and integrity, it does not bode well for the future of the country.
It is a sad day in America.
If I was a 9/11 truther television type
I would never go on the FOX network again.
Why let the discussion be controlled by the network that already has you pegged?
BECAUSE-
The right person could win over even the Fox viewer. Because Fox is the only network that has repeatedly brought on guests from the Movement -if only to attempt to thrash them. Because there are no other outlets out there.
If it wasn't for the 'Net, I wouldn't be here.
Because we need to perfect our arguments to the point that any rational person is convinced that 9/11 was controlled demolitions.
Just getting to that understanding, we open up the viewer to "the rest of the story".
What Webster should have said
I love Webster Tarpley and I hate that I can't get mp3s of his radio show anymore. But, I think ole Colmes and Hannity won this round. I say that especially because of the end of the interview. Tarpley seriously screwed the pooch on the many bin Ladens issue on the way out. The first question asked by Colmes was answered perfectly. Then when Colmes followed up, saying "he wasn't talking about building 7, Tarpley did not come right back and correct him. "No, Kerry is specifically talking about building 7!" Then when Colmes asks him about "Why THE GOVERNMENT would do this?" Tarpley has the right idea, but he doesn't answer the right way. Right way "I'm not saying it was the government!!!" pause "I'm saying it is a rogue network behind the scenes..." Colmes asks "What evidence do you have?" Answer "There is plenty of evidence, but I'd like you to give me one piece of evidence that says that Osama bin Laden is responsible!" Colmes will have NOTHING. Then Hannity comes on..."Are you saying that after the planes hit, the government..." Tarpley should interrupt "NO! The government itself is not responsible." make Hannity respond. Then you get into an argument that ends in both of you agreeing that it was not "the government" and not bin Laden. Now everyone is one the same page. Then after the WTC7 video clip, Hannity says "You have no proof..." IMMEDIATELY, "Hannity, where's your proof that bin Laden did it?" They have none. "bin Laden takes credit for it." Do not answer "Which bin Laden?" you answer "That video was a forgery, I urge you to check that out on the internet. The person that confessed to 9/11 is not bin Laden. Anyone can see for themselves." I love Tarpley, but H&C successfully made him look like a nut to people who don't know any better.
I agree with your points
I agree with your points Johnny, but I'm afraid H&C would make Tarpley look like a nut even if he answered the questions as well as your examples.
Part of H&C's job is to make ANY 9/11 truther look loony. That's why they introduce Tarpley as a "Conspiracy Theorist with cockamame ideas". So the stage is set before he even utters 1 word!
The audience overwhelmingly was convinced Tarpley is a nut before he said anything, so I'm not super worried that he didn't respond with perfect answers to the shills.
Should have stuck more to the WTC 7, Kerry, and Science
Mr Tarpley's broad range is great but easily discredited by Hannity and Colmes. When they asked for evidence Webster should have mentioned some scientific studies, more photographic evidence, and how many victim's families want a new investigation into 9/11 to support his case on WTC7.
Hannity and Colmes easily got out some extraneous issues not associated with the initial quesion, ie. the John Kerry flub. Obviously Hannity and Colmes are in their own fantasy world thinking that a building like that could come down in seconds without some sort of assistance. That place was rigged to go down that way from its inception. Like Kerry said with the massive structrural damage they had to "pull" it. It's the supression of this fact that causes wild conspiracry theories, some of which may be true. The government's silence is its own undoing. It could very well be that the total destruction of that building was vital to the plot succeed. The government allow these theories to spread muliplying upon themselves until they are so tangled they become discredited; always searching for evidence to verify claims beyond a resonable doubt. Webster could have used the issue of unreleased material regarding 9/11 as at least a prima facie case of cover-up. Finally mentioning the lingering questions for many families who lost loved ones that day would certainly help quell any response from Hannity and Colmes of causing further harm to the victim's families. Then say how cavilier either Hannity or Colmes for even suggesting they "speak" for the vicitms, how dare they.
In the end I I think Webster's stuff is great but too complex to be placed in that type of attack interview. So evidence should be delivered in almost four categories on the question of demolition of WTC1 - 7: 1.)Eyewitness testimony 2.)photographic 3.)scientific and 4.)anecdotal.
I sent this message to Hannity and Colmes
As usual, you have shut down a credible researcher on the 9/11 travesty by name calling. If you love the principles that this nation was founded on, PLEASE do some fact finding on this issue!! You owe it to every American who watches FOX news to enlighten them on this subject!
IT'S UP TO YOU!
oh well, I know this won't make any difference but, it's all I can do.
I sent them a message
and thanked them for turning me on to the controllede demolition of WTC7. I told them I had never heard of WTC7 before but thanks to them I did some web research and found tons of videos on the controlled demolition of said building.
LMAO!!
BRAVO, maddog!!
I was almost out of my chair on that one...
"I told them I had never heard of WTC7 before but thanks to them..."
But, this may be the wrong tactic with Fox. Better to act angry that they haven't done enough to discredit the 911 whack jobs. They need to get every pin headed geek who thinks they know suttom about September 11th and let em have it!
Put on debates with real patriots, to squash them conspiradroids once and for all.
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
Kerry was talking about a
Kerry was talking about a WALL, not WTC7!
Talking to Kerry was like talking to a wall. The guy questioning
Kerry specifically stated WTC-7 twice.
Upsetting 9-11 Families
When they say "You are causing pain to the families of 9-11 victims", the comeback should be - "If someone gets murdered, does anyone say: 'Let's not have an investigation, because asking questions will just upset family members of the deceased.' Does anyone say that?"
I think Jon nailed this one.
Jon, thanks for representing that its OK to be critical of someone's actions, without the assumption that you are trying to assassinate their character. I always figured that, assuming we are on the same team, that we could have a developmental attitude that welcomes critique. But both sides have to play their role in that kind of dialog. Tarpley and his fans can't be overly sensitive to criticism, and those with little appreciation for Tarpley need to present their concerns in a reasonable manner.
Also we should keep in mind that people in the movement are better at some things than others. Synthetic Terror is an awesome read, and incredibly informative. That has little to do with whether Tarpley's any good at representing the movement in a FOX News interview. I'm sympathetic to how difficult that must be, but Kevin Barrett set a pretty good example.
I don't hear people talking about why FOX News ran the story in the first place? Most often it seems that FOX invites people based on a position they are expected to take. I assume Tarpley was on specifically because he was going to say that John Kerry said that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. The graphic says, "9/11 conspiracy theorists jump on comments by Senator Kerry." It felt to me like he played right into their hands.
I watched the Kerry video, and what's going on is really quite simple. Kerry is talking out of his ass. He doesn't know the first think about what happened, and would never say if he did. His comments are totally ambiguous, and are no revelation or endorsement.
So I'm concerned that Tarpley was so firm in his affirmation of that interpretation. And I'm also concerned that the news spot to some degree accomplished its goal of muddying the water. The fractured discussion here may have been intended.
Either way, let's not get too wrapped up in this story. It doesn't really amount to much.
International Truth Movement
http://www.truthmove.org
Very well said,
I couldn't agree more with all your points.
Thank you.
Every interaction is a learning experience. Let's learn from this and move forward.
I hope that you and yours are well.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
They ran the piece
to attack Kerry. To the average Fox viewer, this interview makes it sound like Kerry + 9/11 Conspiracists = Democrats Are All Crazy.
Kerry clearly doesn't know what Building 7 is. And even if he does, he's not going to say in public, "Oh yeah! The one my S&B brothers brought down with explosives!" C'mon, folks. It's great to question politicians in public, but not one of them is going to admit knowledge of anything, and I don't think outside of a small inner circle any of them knows much anyway.
MOSSAD-- not the "US government".....
Colmes started out with the tried and true technique. Any mention of controlled demolition is immediately equated with the assumption that the US government must have done it. He even dragged in "elected officials," as if they make up the entire government.
He then topped it off with the inevitable assertion that the victim's families are further wounded by suggestions of an inside job. No mention, of course, that the controlled demolitions may have been conceived and carried out by a party outside the US government.
Hannity, the other half of the tag team, then jumped in with part II of the tried and true technique. "WHO did it then?" he bellowed. As if the towers could not have have been brought down by controlled demolition unless Tarpley names exactly who did it.
It's too bad Tarpley responded with some nonsense about a rogue network in British and American intelligence. There is a party out there with both the means and the motive to bring down the buildings and incite wars against Arabs-- and this party is not part of the government.
The party is Israeli intelligence.
"After basic training, I completed a noncommissioned officers' course, and then went on to an officers' course, graduating as the youngest officer at the time in the Israeli Defense force. I then graduated from the military police officers' course and the special military law course, and followed that up with demolition and sniper training..."
-from "The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad's Secret Agenda," by Victor Ostrovsky, pp. xii (prologue)
Somehow
I don't think that laying it at the feet of Mossad (with no concrete evidence to that effect) would sway the typical H&C user, or serve as a counterweight to H&C's marginalization of CTers . I think Building7 (like the Pentagon) is a mixed bag. When you look at the known facts and the official claims, something seems fishy. From that standpoint, it can cause people to think. But when you follow them down the investigative path, you run into roadblocks. Regarding #7, once you get someone to agree that it looks like a classic controlled demolition, they will ask the next logical question: why did any perpetrator of the attacks have to knock that building down, and knock it down late in the afternoon? The fact is, we have some ideas, but nothing that fits a coherent story. And that story line is what a sceptic is looking for. Otherwise, bringing up the collapse of #7 only gets you so far.
Dupe
Dupe
Bottom line, he just wasn't prepared
He figured he could just "wing it" I guess...?
In reality, he should have prepared for EVERYTHING he said, and every comback. He should have written it out, and practiced to himself precisely what he wanted to say.
For a smart guy, that's pretty dumb not to have prepared in advance..
Oh well, live and learn as they say right?
Won't happen next time.
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...
i think he got most of his points in
I think he probably did prepare
if you read my comment at
http://911blogger.com/node/8471#comment-140775
I list 10 points he made, which must be some kind of record since they only gave him 3 minutes.
Micheal Moore busted for 9/11 related movie "Sicko"
"Michael Moore is under investigation by the U.S. Treasury Department for taking ailing Sept. 11 rescue workers to Cuba for a segment in his upcoming health-care documentary "Sicko," The Associated Press has learned"
http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/news/bal-artslife-moore0510,0,...
Actually Tarpley did a very good job.
After watching the video again Tarpley did an excellent job considering it was sub-human Nazi scum he was dealing with. These traitors are obviously scared shitless. They obviously know 9/11 truth is about to explode not only here in the States but world wide. This is nothing more than a feeble attempt at damage control. When all is said and done these traitors will hang along with the neocons and their NWO backers.....I have always contended that on 9/11/2001 they created a Frankenstein. It sure looks like my contentions are beginning to materialize.
I hope you're right maddog
but you have to remember what a rabid animal will do when it's cornered. the 9/11 perps are being cornered now, and they have alot of technology at their disposal. I'm afraid for the possibility that between now and the time that Loose Change Final Cut is released that something huge could happen. For all we know folks...we may never get to see this movie. 4 months from now is a long LONG time when you think about it. This isn't to stir up panic, but for people to remain vigilant.
Exactly my sentiments TJ
We must remain vigilant. These monsters are capable of doing anything to save themselves. Like yourself I wish the final Loose Change video was being released sooner. I also think there is something big going on behind the scene. My wife just told me Tony Blair just announced his retirement. Perhaps there is a split among the Elite as Tarpley suggests. Interesting times we live in.
Bush Doing Weird Secret
Bush Doing Weird Secret Society Sh*t Next To Queen, Bush Flashes 'El Diablo' Hand Signal;
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/100507Diablo.htm
yeah, the old illuminati
satanic hand gestures, they are everywhere with the nwo freak globalist scum. you can see many pics on the internet if you search.
I also read yesterday that gwb is the grandson to Aleister Crowley...
excerpt:
..Pauline Pierce, after sexcapades with Aleister Crowley, gave birth to Barbara Pierce who became Barbara Bush, who gave birth to none other than, George VV Bush, Aleister’s grand-son. Barbara Pierce is a descendant of President Franklin Pierce, Sr (not a Freemason), who is a descendant of Thomas Percy who tried to blow up the Parliament and King James I. Franklin Pierce lost favor over wanting to keep slavery alive and was replaced by James Buchanan (Freemason) who is a descendant of James I and both James are accused of being homosexual...
freemanTV.com
(I only ended up there while researching the Georgia Guidestones in Elbertson, GA. Now theres some creepy shit)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB
In the end I think Tarps accomplished
something. Now we can all sit here and be monday morning quarterbacks about what he should have said, or what he could have said, blah blah. But lets consider for a second what he did say, and the fact that someone somewhere right now, who even tho they are a fox viewer, happens to have two brain cells to rub together, and they have decided to go look up "world trade center 7" on google. Now what if its 100 people doing that, or 1000? Some percentage of them will investigate this mess (911) further and will undoubtedly become truthers. Those people will tell their most likely like-minded friends and convince them, and so on. So actually we should be happy because even if we have gained one new truther by Tarpley's appearance then it can turn into more. Worst case scenario is no one watching did anything and went to sleep. If thats the case then we have not lost any ground and are where we were before the show.
Now, I am waiting for the first numpty to say he WAS a truther before seeing the show, and now has changed his mind - and blow up my nice little theory above :P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB
He did...
I think he did alright. He messed up on a couple facts. He stumbled. He let them talk over him. He could have done a lot better but what can you do? He did alright. They need to get someone that is "normal", outspoken, not afraid to speak back. A lot of these people are weird, talk weird, sound weird, and look like quacks going up againt these a-holes. This guy wasn't wierd but he was passive. We need someone thats aggressive.
9/11 Truthers Should Thank
9/11 Truthers Should Thank Fox News
Laughable weekly attempts at debunking only give the movement more credibility
In their typical style of reporting news two weeks later than the rest of us, the mainstream media, in the shape of Fox news, has finally caught up with the alternative media in reporting the story we first broke here on April 23rd that John Kerry recently referred to the collapse of WTC building 7 on 9/11 as having been "done in a controlled fashion".
In another "fair and balanced" piece Alan Colmes and Sean Hannity again weakly attempted to debunk the inside job evidence while at the same time making themselves look like the playground bullies everyone else has outgrown and now points to and laughs at.
Colmes began by stating "The 9/11 conspiracy wingnuts are it again". So let us be as equally fair and balanced by beginning this analysis with the following...
The corporate hack establishment government lapdog media whores are at it again.
Colmes and Hannity attempted to spin what John Kerry had said to hoodwink their doped up viewers into thinking that Kerry was not referring to building 7 and that his words had been taken completely out of context.
The dynamic duo then went on to falsely claim that "9/11 conspiracy crazies" had fallen in 'love" with Kerry, stating "This time, they are spinning the words of Senator John Kerry to suggest that the former presidential nominee in some way endorses those conspiracy theories.”
First of all it is beyond question that Kerry, speaking at a book launch in Austin two weeks ago, was specifically referring to building 7.
Kerry was asked about an investigation into WTC7 and the connection with leasehold Larry Silverstein who publicly stated that the "decision was made to pull it," a term that refers to controlled demolition. In response Kerry said:
Instead of showing the entire clip, Fox showed only a portion and then suggested that Kerry was not referring to 7 at all but was referring to other buildings that had to be brought down and cleared in the weeks and months AFTER 9/11.
This is clearly not what Kerry was referring to as the question he is specifically asked begins "World Trade Center 7 was brought down on 9/11 at 5.20 in the evening..." and he responds by stating that he was under the impression that the authorities brought down the building purposefully
In the week that followed the story some attempted, in a similar fashion to Colmes, to suggest that Kerry had been misquoted and was talking about a wall that had been demolished on 9/11. This is innaccurate. When he says "that wall was in danger" he is referring to the slurry wall, the below ground level wall that was constructed to support the soils surrounding the basements of the World Trade Center buildings. The wall created a watertight environment for construction and throughout the service life of the Center, effectively preventing the Hudson river from pouring in beneath ground level. It was this wall that was in danger when the towers collapsed, not this wall that was "demolished in a controlled fashion" as some debunkers claimed Kerry was saying.
Colmes then proceeded to suggest that somehow 9/11 truthers have suggested that John Kerry supports the "conspiracy theories". At no point did anyone suggest that Kerry had done such a thing.
Reference was then made to the NIST report which states that some of the building was hit with falling debris from the north tower. Hannity failed to mention however that this was not declared to be the catalyst for the collapse of the building and that NIST and is currently undertaking a study of WTC 7 to determine if bombs or incendiary devices were used to bring it down.
Hannity then repeated Colmes's cheap "your hurting the families" jibe and declared that there is no evidence that building 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition.
Colmes then ended the segment with an attempt to make Tarpley look even more idiotic by asking him if he thinks there is more than one Bin Laden. Tarpley was obviously previously referring to the fact that the infamous video in which Bin Laden "confesses" to 9/11 has been certified as a complete fake, and stars someone who is clearly not Bin Laden. In Bin Laden's first video release after 9/11 he categorically denied having anything to do with the attacks, not something you'd expect from a man who it was reported had previously declared war on America.
Despite their bait and attack tactics, any rational neutral who happened to see the piece can only have gone away with the impression that it was Colmes who was the paranoid frothing delusional on this issue. We should thank Fox news for lavishing the 9/11 truth movement with attention every week and being the catalyst for many to go away, do their own research on the issue and wake up to the 9/11 fraud while simultaneously discovering that once again the government mouthpiece corporate media is providing its audience with nothing but bare faced lies it is then forced to bolster with endless pathetic spin and cockamamie smear.
http://infowars.net/articles/may2007/100507Thank_Fox.htm
Colmes
Is it just me, or did Colmes seem WAY more in attack & denial mode than in the past? He used to describe himself as an "agnostic" on this issue, but now he's using a vocabulary set that, if I were reading a nameless transcript, I would have thought was coming from Hannity. Is it possible he was pressured or threatened into taking a meaner stance on 9/11? (Oh yeah, it's Fox News... it's more than just "possible")
Fox Promoting 9/11 Truth?!
Because they play devil's advocate (even the so-called "liberal" colmes), they have nothing to lose and ratings to gain (especially against rising star MSNBC) by giving these "wingnuts" and their (our) cause airtime. As incredible as this may sound, this programming tactic may be a win-win situation for both Fox and 9/11 Truth. The "objective" MSM won't touch us, but if "nutty" 9/11 Truthers can bring up ther ratings, Fox may actually be resposible for breaking 9/11 Truth into the MSM! This will put even more pressure on Olberman to make a Special Commentary on at least the need for a new investigation. Tarpley is awesome, I love the way he keeps on talking straght into thier next show!
"They took it from the top to the bottom, we're gonna take them from the bottom to the top." - Dan Wallace
Gatekeeper Alert: You know what you must do...
This is some replies to last week's issue of the Chico News and Review:
**********************************************************************
Chico News and Review: www.newsreview.com/chico/Home
Letters to the editor,May 10,2007:
We have seen over the past six years, from George W. Bush and his administration, a level of incompetence that is surpassed only by their corruption and political deceit. So when I hear from your local band of Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists (I say "your" because the CN&R has given them an extraordinary amount of attention and, what's this now, a cover story?!) that Bush is part of the conspiracy, I have to chuckle. This guy couldn't manage a taco truck, and he is supposedly involved in an incredible conspiracy that, to succeed, would require, if not divine intervention, then a government ingeniousness and secrecy not previously known in the annals of American history.
In the name of journalistic responsibility, stop giving credibility to this paranoid nonsense. Please.
Dave Waddell
Chico
Editor's note: Professor Waddell is the adviser of Chico State's student newspaper, The Orion.
It's no coincidence that some "Truth believers" profiled are also religious. They are predisposed to imagine a world dominated by an omnipotent, unseen force whose mysterious ways are revealed to a select few. How gratifying it must be to shed all doubt and assume the mantle of the enlightened, to regard evidence that challenges our conclusions as another test of the true faith.
Yeah, 9/11 was a "conspiracy." It was a conspiracy of scope and intricacy unprecedented in history. It required years of planning, tens of millions [of dollars] of investment, and the blind commitment, coordination, split-second timing and total secrecy of thousands of people ranging from right-wing American ideologues to Muslim fanatics.
Bush is an evil genius. Right. And the black helicopters are coming. And Elvis parties with space aliens in Area 51.
Kevin Quinn
Now read this quote:
Chico
Dave Waddell Professional-in-Residence
"Journalism at its finest is the pursuit of truth. Finding ? and publishing ? the truth is a meaningful way to spend a life."
And here's his contact:
Phone: (530) 898-4782
E-mail: dwaddell@csuchico.edu
Fax: (530) 898-4839
Education: M.A., California State University, Chico B.A., California State University, Fresno
Professional Experience: Newspaper reporter and editor for nearly 20 years, including 10 years as the Redding Record Searchlight's editorial page editor and three years as city editor.
Awards: College Media Advisers? Distinguished Four-Year Newspaper Adviser, 2006; Chico Rotary Club outstanding educator of the month, 2004; American Society of Newspaper Editors? Institute for Journalism Excellence fellow, 2001; statewide editorial writing award, California Newspaper Publishers Association, 1992.
Research Interests: Writing, reporting, student diversity.
Course Specialties: Adviser to The Orion.
Understand,this person trains dozens of students a semester to do what he does. Maybe somebody can send him a CD (not that he'd watch it).
Colmes seems to concede controlled demolition
Paul Conant
Despite Colmes' nasty antics, he seems to concede that WTC7 was felled by controlled demolition.
Further comments at http://znewz1.blogspot.com
My letter to Hannity and Colmes
Subject: Conspiracy Nuts and 9/11
You guys need to do more to discredit the 911 whack jobs! They're all over the net! The show should get a bunch of the leaders on and let em have it!
Debate these losers with Real Patriots, to squash those conspiradroids once and for all!
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.