| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/02/2005 12:48:20 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
I bet nobody reviewed any of the information in the link I posted above. |
It's presented very poorly. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 06:20:18 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Are you really walking down that sad road of "the conservatives control the media". Get a clue is as nice as I can put that. |
Maybe this will drive the point home for you. The title is spicy enough that maybe you will get interested enough to read it?
"IF A REPORTER who doubled as a gay hooker had visited the Clinton White House nearly 200 times, think it would have made the news?"
go here for the paper's report: //www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/11541660.htm
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 06:23:40 PM · #28 |
Heck. you need to regidster to read it. Here it is in it's glory. Tell me again how we have a liberal media?
Posted on Mon, May. 02, 2005
The press takes a pass on 'Jeff Gannon'
By Carol Towarnicky
towarnc@phillynews.com
IF A REPORTER who doubled as a gay hooker had visited the Clinton White House nearly 200 times, think it would have made the news?
If "Jeff Gannon"/James D. Guckert had been unveiled, so to speak, as a liberal imposter who lobbed softball questions at Clinton administration press briefings, he would be as infamous as Michael Schiavo.
And if 39 of those White House visits were mysteriously unrelated to his "reporting" duties, imagine what innuendoes would be issuing forth from Planet Limbaugh. Imagine the organized phone call campaign demanding newspapers and TV stations report the story.
But Gannon/Guckert isn't being unveiled or innuendoed or even blipped on media radar screens, even among liberals.
Last Sunday was the third time in recent weeks that I came across hyper-informed liberals who have not heard the first thing about Guckert, who used the name "Jeff Gannon" to pose as a newsman from a Web site that was in reality a Republican Party front. Gannon advertised his second job as a male escort on Web sites complete with full frontal photos.
For months, Gannon/Guckert asked obviously biased questions at press briefings. He was conveniently ready when Bush spokesman Scott McClellan was being pressed too hard by reporters. Apparently none of those reporters ever thought to check out the obvious ringer in their midst. It was only when Gannon asked one of his trademark questions at a nationally televised presidential press conference in February that some bloggers noticed.
It didn't take much digging for them to uncover Gannon's not-so-secret identity and ask the obvious: Did the Secret Service have this information? Did the White House? But the story went nowhere then and is going nowhere now.
Just last week, a Freedom of Information Act search requested by two members of Congress revealed that Gannon/Guckert visited the White House 196 times - 39 of them days when there were no press briefings. While liberal blogs made much of the news, a Nexis search found that the Associated Press gave it only three paragraphs, which were picked up by only two newspapers nationwide. CNN mentioned the story only to say that the blogs had it. On MSNBC's "Countdown," Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank offered excuses for the 14 times that Gannon/Guckert's entries or exits weren't recorded by White House security and host Keith Olbermann seemed apologetic for bringing it up.
If reporters aren't worried about imposter journalists, at least they should smell a good story in a possible White House security breach.
With an explosion of media, much of it partisan, the role of actual journalism becomes even more critical. Yet the bright line between news and fair comment on one hand versus manipulation and propaganda on the other has all but disappeared.
Of course, Gannon/Guckert was only the most flamboyant of phony journalists to grace our airwaves in recent months: There are the paid hacks who got government money to laud government programs in their columns; there were the government video news releases made to look like actual TV reports - and which were run on many smaller stations.
Journalists get hopping-mad if CIA agents masquerade as reporters in war zones - it puts them at high risk. Yet these same journalists seem almost blasé at the assault on truth zones every day at the White House, on Capitol Hill and on a TV screen near you.
At a time when the radicals of the right, aided by the White House, seek to eviscerate constitutional protections, the news media have found a curious way to protect the First Amendment: Don't worry that Congress will abridge freedom of the press; The press will do the job of abridging itself all on its own.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 07:40:32 PM · #29 |
ROTFL totally bullshit...
Okay, let me explain something to you...
WTC = thin buildings. designed to bear their weight Outer shell, not much inside structurally.
Pentagon = case hardened building (albeit decades old). In concentrict circles, with steel re-inforced cement pilings. Anything going thru these is going to shred and be shredded.
Furthermore, said neat whole is far from an impossibility as the video claims. In fact, a fast object going thru said wall would easily make such a whole.
As for why you don't see wing imprints. Airlines are made of light weight tension metals (aluminum) and are not designed as armor plating. Upon hitting a hardened surface they would nearly disentegrate. Furthermore, much of the area which was hit collapsed in the fires and was burned. And as for the other debris shown of airlines that crashed. Realize in most of those cases the pilots are endeavoring not to crash. There is a big difference between that and flying at top speed into a building.
You wanted "debris"....here you go. Lots of nice photos (better ones on the bottom)
//www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
This images seems to show the angle of attack (from article on the blast resistant windows and how they faired)
//thunderbay.indymedia.org/uploads/pentagon-757.gif
//thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/15776_comment.php#18284
As for books and computers, please realize those were MUCH farther away where the temperatures were less dramatic.
As for the damage....look the whole a fell down, as for wing damage? the photo you posted here sure seems to show damage to some suppurts
//thepowerhour.com/images/911_wtc_images/rpt2a.jpg
More proof of fruitopians...
A common tactic is to present one part of Mike Walter's account:
I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon.
while leaving out the earlier part of his account:
I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.'
Lastly, there is one potential cover-up (and it's funny that none of these have been mentioned by conspirators). Do you really think the Pentagon is completely unguarded? I do believe it's quite possible that the jet liner was hit with a in-close air defense system. Which would also explain why the wreckaged was so disentrigrated. This makes much more sense to me....
Now such in-close defense systems like the Navy's CIWS gatling guns are designed for targeting much smaller "fighter jets" and "missiles". I believe the reason so much evidence, video tape, etc. Seems to be locked away or altered. Is that as the jet approached it was fired at by an in-close air defense. Which essentially shredded much of the wings of the craft but not the entire mass of a commercial airliner. The result! The main fuselage came barrelling thru. This theory explains the impact results, the extra shredded debris and the reason that the Federal goverment would be so tightly closed on the matter. I will say this, I bet those units have been upgraded for larger targets. If you really think this is so shocking. Israeli Commercial airliners have long been rumored (and I believe recently admitted to) have "passive" anti-missile systems. (Foil release, etc. to distract missiles.) So I image the head quarters of our military would have a defense system. And an active CWIS makes a lot of sense to me.
The last big question for this conspiracy....if it wasn't a 757....then where did that 4 airliner go? I mean, we know it took off from the airports. We know people were on it. Did it just go *poof*
???
And...
"Gingerbaker....get real...please. You're as bad as the Iranian woman I talked to the week after. She believed (as told by the Iranian government) that it was disgruntled Vietnam vets and how a lot of pilots were Vietnam vets and they attacked the U.S. in retaliation. You know, Vietnam was a messed up war but every Vietnam Vet I've met has been the biggest patriots.
I bet you believe most of what you saw on Michael Moore's 9-11 Fahrenheit film. Even though almost every fact has been determinately discredited. So much so that many awards review would not classify it as a documentary.
"This administration has been caught in so many bald-faced lies"
[[[Name a few...actual ones...please. Not just rhetoric.]]]
"Moral: When you own the media, you own right to define what is a scandal, and what is a "conspiracy theory" so kooky it deserves no attention."
[[[Most media (outside Fox and Talk Radio is not conservative....*sheesh*]]] |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 07:51:11 PM · #30 |
This is an 81 minute video of a speech/lecture on 9/11 given by Christian and professor of theology, religion and philosophy at Claremont School of Theology, David Ray Griffin.
I hope some of you will take 81 minutes of your time and find out for yourselves whatâs behind all this 9/11 "conspiracy" stuff, and I donât mean the stupid Pentagon video that was posted originally in this thread.
155mb version (high quality)
25mb version (low quality)
Original website: //www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html
I would very much like if anyone watches it in its entirety to post back what they think of it.
Message edited by author 2005-05-02 20:17:18. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 08:31:27 PM · #31 |
Where do you get Dreamworks from? The movie screen in the clip said 'Moon Works'. That just goes to show you how gullible some people are with branding.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 08:32:32 PM · #32 |
| I thought this thread was already dead...... |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 08:34:34 PM · #33 |
MadMorgen...why not give us a brief summary....
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 08:41:49 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
MadMorgen...why not give us a brief summary.... |
No I won't. You seem intested in the topic, why not watch this whole presentation? Put off your normal nightly TV viewing or something. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 09:55:02 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
I bet nobody reviewed any of the information in the link I posted above. |
I certainly didn't, and for 2 reasons:
1 - I actually work when I am on my job.
2 - I have a life. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 10:12:26 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
So, I'm the one who needs to "get real", yet YOU are taking the position that Bush always tells the truth? That's, well, kinda funny........
|
Come on man, just add a link.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2005 10:20:09 PM · #37 |
| Gingerbaker, I've removed your insanely long post. Please feel free to post a link if you'd like. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 10:28:53 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
"Gingerbaker....get real...please.
Gingerbaker said:
"This administration has been caught in so many bald-faced lies"
[[[Name a few...actual ones...please. Not just rhetoric.]]] |
Ok, theSaj. Here are about 400 documented Bush lies for you to "get real" with. The 400 start after the top ten biggest lies.:D
Scroll down to Part 2. Bush lies from A to Z.)
//www.bushlies.net/pages/10/index.htm
Message edited by author 2005-05-02 22:32:14. |
|
|
|
05/02/2005 10:45:16 PM · #39 |
|
|
|
05/03/2005 12:43:18 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
This is an 81 minute video of a speech/lecture on 9/11 given by Christian and professor of theology, religion and philosophy at Claremont School of Theology, David Ray Griffin.
I hope some of you will take 81 minutes of your time and find out for yourselves whatâs behind all this 9/11 \"conspiracy\" stuff, and I donât mean the stupid Pentagon video that was posted originally in this thread.
155mb version (high quality)
25mb version (low quality)
Original website: //www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html
I would very much like if anyone watches it in its entirety to post back what they think of it. |
I would like to add to the video another piece of evidence showing George Bush lying about when he 1st learned of a plane striking the Pentagon.
To sumorize, Bush said in a live question/answer session that he 1st learned about the 1st plane hitting the Pentagon by watching it on TV before he went into the school classroom.
This is a lie because video of the 1st plane hitting the towers did not air on TV until the next day.
Full details and sources here: Caught in a lie |
|
|
|
05/03/2005 01:09:31 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by scuds:
I thought this thread was already dead...... |
LOL I did, too. It went for the longest time without any comments at all and then *FOOM* it exploded in activity. |
|
|
|
05/03/2005 01:26:11 AM · #42 |
To sumorize, Bush said in a live question/answer session that he 1st learned about the 1st plane hitting the Pentagon by watching it on TV before he went into the school classroom.
This is a lie because video of the 1st plane hitting the towers did not air on TV until the next day.
[[[Typical liberals....a sentence can be read five different ways, they read it the way to make it a BLATANT LIE!!!!
Well, if you read what you wrote....he could have easily found about about the first plane hitting by watching it on TV. Mind you, that "it" does not refer to the plane, but in fact to the "info" or knowledge of the first plane hitting. Thus your blatant lie is far far from such.]]] |
|
|
|
05/03/2005 01:37:16 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
To sumorize, Bush said in a live question/answer session that he 1st learned about the 1st plane hitting the Pentagon by watching it on TV before he went into the school classroom.
This is a lie because video of the 1st plane hitting the towers did not air on TV until the next day.
[[[Typical liberals....a sentence can be read five different ways, they read it the way to make it a BLATANT LIE!!!!
Well, if you read what you wrote....he could have easily found about about the first plane hitting by watching it on TV. Mind you, that "it" does not refer to the plane, but in fact to the "info" or knowledge of the first plane hitting. Thus your blatant lie is far far from such.]]] |
Typical republican, instead of actually viewing the evidence to see what Bush actually said, you jump to conclusions, call the person a liar and post in all caps with excessive !'s.
Joking aside, maybe you should watch the video of Bush. so you would see that he said "and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on...".
Message edited by author 2005-05-03 01:45:27. |
|
|
|
05/03/2005 01:49:24 AM · #44 |
SOCIAL SECURITY âCRISISâ
[[[Funny, Democrats were bitching about this until Bush started too. Now the Social Security crisis I've heard Democrats griping about for a decade and a half is no longer there. I'll attribute this to a Democrat lie instead.]]]
Iraq WMDs
[[[Actually, all the reports still state the case is not closed about relocation. Furthermore, we found refining equipment, hundreds of drums of pesticides (guess what....those were all chemical weapons, all you need is a simple glass distiller to concentrate). Did we find the stockpiles of pre-made weapons. Nope. But one must remember that we knew he had them because Russia, France, China, and the U.S. had sold the equipment and weapons to him.
Furthermore, it was clear according to the reports that Saddam did intend to re-start development programs.
]]]
"IRAQ AS IMMINENT THREAT"
[[[Funny, as I recall Bush said "Some believe we should wait until the threat is imminent. But I say that's too late.
So if anything once again we are dealing with with pseudo claims of pseudo lies. And I am sorry if you're too foolish to realize it was a serious threat.
]]]
9-11 WARNINGS
[[[Same warnings that the Senate security council had. The same warnings that caused a warning by the FAA to be sent regarding possible terrorist hijacking threats. At the time there was not enough cohesiveness to formulate that they were going to use the hijacked plains as missiles.
The best lead to such a threat actually is John Doe # 3 from the Oklahoma City Bombing who worked at the airport the hijackers came thru and is believed to have smuggled their boxcutters in. Also had ties to Iraqi Republican guard. However, that's an extremely controversial can of worms because it opens up a lot of baggage on a U.S. government cover-up of a middle-eastern influenced terrorist plot. But it will be another 20 yrs till it's accepted as such.
Oh, and what the hell did you want Bush to do? Ground the airplanes for 3 months. People raised hell when they held a few flights in France inconveniencing people as they pursued a tip.
And how was George W. Bush supposed to have done anything regarding the intelligence. His appointment to the CIA was held up by Democrats until just weeks before 9-11. So if anything, I should be Damning the Democrats for playing politics and getting people killed.
]]]
"Bush tax cuts is three times"
[[[Good we all pay too many taxes as it is.]]]
âMIDDLE-CLASSâ TAX CUTS
[[[Of course...the very bottom doesn't have to pay taxes. So they can't get cuts from that which they don't pay. DUh..]]]
"PRESCRIPTION DRUG BILL COST ESTIMATES"
[[[God forbid a Republican institute a welfare system to help the elderly. I mean....if this was a Democrat there'd be praises for it. Quit switching you leftists...]]]
" A study commissioned by the administration demonstrated that current policies on power plant emissions led to the death of 24,000 people each year."
[[[Studies like these are usually as bogus as the ones about driving with cell phones being more dangerous than DUI. REally....well...anyone above a moron can debunk that study. Okay, let me see....more people drive with cell phones than drunk. If driving with a cell phone is more dangerous than DUI. We should have way more dead than we currently do.]]]
"BUSHâS PATTERN OF HIDING THE TRUTH"
[[[Is no where near as bad as Clinton's pattern of hiding the truth. And no, I don't mean the sex scandal. I mean all the corruption. The deaths. The military technology handovers to China for campaign donations.]]]
"under-reported figures for those officially wounded to only include those directly wounded in combat,"
[[[Wait....I think you have it the other way around. The media was including as casualties of war anyone who was injured. Even if they cut themselves chopping vegetables in the kitchen. That was the misleading.]]]
"Under the No Child Left Behind Act Administration, if a school is deemed a failing school for three years in a row, students would get vouchers to go to a new school based on their share of federal funding (approximately $2,400 per child). The Department of Education website used to list the private school tuition ($28,500) on its website, but the Bush administration has removed this to hide the disparity between the cost of private school and vouchers offered."
[[[OMG...soo insideous...however, I am sorry...there are many private schools that are less than $28,000/year. So I really question this one.]]]
"RESTRICTING DEMOCRATS ABILITY TO QUESTION ADMINISTRATION: In an unprecedented move, the administration is requiring Democrats to submit all requests for information to Republican chairman of the relevant committee, thereby requiring Republican approval of any such requests. "
[[[Could this be after repeated thefts of documents, like Democrat congressmen shoving top secret documents down their pants and trying to steal them.]]]
"FUNDING ABSTINENCE-ONLY PROGRAMS â 80% OF WHICH PRESENT FALSE, MISLEADING OR DISTORTED INFORMATION ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH. The programs contain false claims on the effectiveness of condoms, the risks associated with abortion and exposure to HIV. Bush administration has used âsensitive but unclassifiedâ, âsensitive security informationâ (Report: The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs.)"
[[[Propaganda. You want me to read a Democrat released report. Yeah right...]]]
Okay...so far I've gotten thru a few dozen. And other than a few petty nit-picking "evil environment and racist" (really, he's appointment more ethnic people to higher positions than all the Democrat governments before him combined.
And most of the others are such poor mis-representations, reversals, or downright false accusations.
*haa haa* this site was almost comical if not such a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2005 01:50:57 AM · #45 |
guess what, I saw the a plane hit the towers too when I found out. And no, since I only saw bits on the news and I knew both towers were hit and all the ways they cut and showed the angles. I did not know that they only had the video for the one. So sheesh....
Guess I might have said the same thing.....eeee-vil |
|
|
|
05/03/2005 02:07:56 AM · #46 |
If I'm not mistaken the Iraqi survey group whose reports go straight to the director of central intelligence stated that there were no WMDs found in Iraq and no evidence of any weapons being transferred over to any other countries. What reports can you cite that state the contrary?
Also, I believe that 2004 had the largest number of terrorist attacks in recent history. So Bush's war on terror, if you want to call it that, is not working. They have tried to put the fire out with gasoline.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Iraq WMDs
[[[Actually, all the reports still state the case is not closed about relocation. Furthermore, we found refining equipment, hundreds of drums of pesticides (guess what....those were all chemical weapons, all you need is a simple glass distiller to concentrate). Did we find the stockpiles of pre-made weapons. Nope. But one must remember that we knew he had them because Russia, France, China, and the U.S. had sold the equipment and weapons to him.
Furthermore, it was clear according to the reports that Saddam did intend to re-start development programs.
]]]
"IRAQ AS IMMINENT THREAT"
[[[Funny, as I recall Bush said "Some believe we should wait until the threat is imminent. But I say that's too late.
So if anything once again we are dealing with with pseudo claims of pseudo lies. And I am sorry if you're too foolish to realize it was a serious threat.
]]]
|
|
|
|
|
05/03/2005 02:27:04 AM · #47 |
//www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm
2004 may have had the largest terrorist attacks. But I believe most of those have been in Iraq. Thus one of the primary objectives of the invasion of Iraq, which was to move the front of the war off U.S. soil, has indeed been effectively successful.
Sorry...wish you had half a brain to understand strategy....*shrug* There is a helluvalot more than the average person even comprehends. There is an immense amount of strategy and yes gamble being played out.
The stakes are very high indeed.... |
|
|
|
05/03/2005 02:35:31 AM · #48 |
Yes, I agree the stakes are very high, for both US troops and Iraqi and Afghanistan people. The US had al Qaeda on the run in Afghanistan but instead chose to shift the war on terror to Iraq, who was not an immediate threat, if one at all. By invading Iraq the US angered the vast majority of the Muslim world and created many more terrorists than would have existed prior. Along with torture scandalS that have gone on, it looks to me that all the strategy the US is using is faulty, if not downright corrupt.
Originally posted by theSaj:
//www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm
2004 may have had the largest terrorist attacks. But I believe most of those have been in Iraq. Thus one of the primary objectives of the invasion of Iraq, which was to move the front of the war off U.S. soil, has indeed been effectively successful.
Sorry...wish you had half a brain to understand strategy....*shrug* There is a helluvalot more than the average person even comprehends. There is an immense amount of strategy and yes gamble being played out.
The stakes are very high indeed.... |
|
|
|
|
05/03/2005 02:45:41 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
guess what, I saw the a plane hit the towers too when I found out. And no, since I only saw bits on the news and I knew both towers were hit and all the ways they cut and showed the angles. I did not know that they only had the video for the one. So sheesh....
Guess I might have said the same thing.....eeee-vil |
Is that some sort of pass?
Bush lied, the evidence is there. He was speaking about the 1st tower before the second one hit, before he knew it was an attack. Now why would he lie about that? It brings many other 9/11 "facts" into question when he is caught lying on an easy one.
Maybe you should watch the original video I posted. Or the original link I posted.
An example of the type of information the âliberal Mediaâ doesnât put in the spotlight like you would think anti republican organizations would; insider trading:
Did you know an abnormally large amount of put options were bought on American Airlines and United Airlines less than a week before 9/11? The only two airlines that were high jacked in the attacks. Also Morgan Stanley Dean Witter and Co. which occupied 22 floors World Trade Center had high numbers of put options sold. There are many other examples like this.
âPut Optionsâ are contracts giving the buyer the option to sell stocks at a later date at the price he bought it for. So if a stock crashes, it can still sell and the original higher price.
This implies âsomebodyâ had insider knowledge that 9/11 would happen and took advantage. This also means the CIA knew about it as they monitor stock market transactions for anything abnormal that could lead to insider trading and/or terrorist activity relating to it.
There is much much more information the âliberal mediaâ doesnât show in the main channels. Did you know the FBI is protecting Osama Bin Ladin's "right to privacy" ? In the links above for your and anyone elseâs reading pleasure.
Itâs all about if you really want to know.
âignorance is blissâ
Message edited by author 2005-05-03 02:49:00. |
|
|
|
05/03/2005 03:43:07 AM · #50 |
Sometimes I kind of long for the good ol' days when two people who had a dispute could walk out into the woods and have an old fashioned sword duel to settle their differences...but only sometimes. Nowadays it's guns and seeing which side the NRA is aligned with, I'm not sure it would be a fair fight...
Why did I say that? Oh! I remember why! Because, though I enjoy a political debate, after a certain point, it gets kind of less debate like and more like mud wrestling. I also just finished watching some Rurouni Kenshin, so I'm all high on Kendo right now.
Disregard.
Message edited by author 2005-05-03 03:43:32. |
|
