See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Rosie O'Donnell 'View' Booking Of 9/11 Conspiracists Made ABC Nervous
Source:
Tittle-Tattle Too
URL Source: http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21283139.shtml
Published: May 28, 2007
Author: Tashi Singh
Post Date: 2007-05-29 15:00:27 by Red Jones
Keywords: None
Views: 203
Comments: 18
The Post Chronicle™ Tittle-Tattle Too Rosie O'Donnell 'View' Booking Of 9/11 Conspiracists Made ABC Nervous By Tashi Singh May 28, 2007 Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen have been the biggest supporters of the wacky 9/11 documentary "Loose Change" - which argues that the World Trade Center terror attack was part of a covert U.S. government conspiracy - but that support is dwindling quicker than John Edwards polling numbers. Rosie O'Donnell trumpeted her feelings about it on "The View" and her blog, making ABC bosses nervous and infuriating many viewers, writes the New York Post. Page Six reports that O'Donnell had reportedly booked the film's producers, Korey Rowe and Dylan Avery, for Thursday's show. But after the fight with Elisabeth Hasselbeck on Wednesday, and after her chief writer was caught defacing Hasselbeck's photos with mustaches, O'Donnell bolted from the show. Charlie Sheen "is having second thoughts" about being involved in an updated version of the film. Virgin Atlantic had announced it would offer the current, narration-free version of the film as an in-flight movie choice, but dumped the idea almost immediately. "Loose Change" attempts to argue the widely debunked "controlled demolition" theory, which claims the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were an inside job. It alleges the jet-fuel fires inside the towers weren't hot enough to melt the buildings' steel reinforcements. It offers the ludicrous idea that the buildings were blown up from within. Those claims were soundly refuted by Popular Mechanics magazine, which methodically shot down every single one. © Copyright 2004-2007 by Post Chronicle Corp.
Poster Comment: Isn't the quality of their propaganda breath-taking?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Red Jones (#0)
Amazing.
Charlie Sheen "is having second thoughts" about being involved in an updated version of the film. "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
This propaganda is also breathtaking for its blatant plagiarism. The Singh article is very clearly plagiarized from the New York Post article by Richard Johnson. [JOHNSON] [SINGH] ----------------------- [JOHNSON] ----- [JOHNSON] ----- [JOHNSON] ----- [JOHNSON] -----
They are all sooooo original, but what can you expect from a paid shill.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
You wouldn't happen to have any evidence for that assertion, would you, Mr. Singh? Interesting, by the way, how Mr. Singh also wants to see Edwards denied the nomination.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
wonder what this means?
It means that the MSM are liars. Sheen issued a statement immediately after saying that it wasn't true.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
I shouldve figured .. thanks
Regarding the methodical, authoritative work of Popular Mechanics, I noticed the following from their book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Why Conspiracy theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts, at page 34: If the Popular Mechanics shills are going to give us their "authoritative" review of a film, it might serve them well to watch the damn thing first. Gedeon Naudet was the regular cameraman and Jules Naudet was learning to be a cameraman. Early on the morning of 9/11, Jules Naudet was riding with Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer to get some camera practice. Jules Naudet was in a Manhattan street a few blocks from the WTC when he heard unusual sound of a plane low overhead in that no-fly zone. He followed the plane with his camera and captured the only video of that first collision. Chief Pfeifer and the firefighters that were with him, with Jules Naudet riding along, immediately proceeded to the WTC. On film, Jules Naudet asked Chief Pfeifer if he could go inside the building. Chief Pfeifer told him that he could, but to remain with him. Firefighter Tony Benetatos was not there. Firefighter Tony Benetatos was back at the firehouse. Jules Naudet followed Chief Pfeifer into the building. When the alarm came in and the firefighters responded from the firehouse, they left one firefighter behind to man the firehouse -- proby Tony Benetatos. When the rest of the crew from that house arrived at WTC, Firefighter Benetatos was still at the firehouse. Later on, retired Battalion Chief Larry Burns reported to the firehouse, suited up and went to the WTC, taking Firefighter Benetatos along. Chief Burns later recounted, "I told the probie, "Get your gear, LET'S GO." Jules Naudet did not follow Tony Benetatos into the WTC as Benetatos was not there. Benetatos was not one of the first responders to the North tower as he was left behind to man the firehouse. Benetatos remained separated from the men from his house. All of the other men reported back to the house with Benetatos still unaccounted for. Finally, as the last man to do so, Benetatos reported back to that firehouse. All firefighters from that house survived. One can only wonder what version of the film was watched by the experts from Popular Mechanics in the course of their meticulous research. The film itself is quite excellent and is the only one with footage inside WTC-1 before, during, and after the collapse of WTC-2. It is listed at Amazon here.
Regarding the methodical, authoritative work of Popular Mechanics, we also have the following from their book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Why Conspiracy theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts, at page 44: This may be seen to be slightly in conflict with the NIST findings: NIST Fact Sheet, FAQ-2, page 2 http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm It looks like it was the PM fantasy that couldn't "stand up to the facts." The book is from 2006. The PM magazine article from March 2005 stated, The final report from NIST is dated September 2005. I guess PM failed to learn that, "NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse... the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."
Regarding the methodical, authoritative work of Popular Mechanics, we also have the following from their book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Why Conspiracy theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts, at page 57-8: A cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull building six." ... "We had to be very careful about how we demolished building six." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc6_pull.wmv WTC-6 BEING PULLED One may believe the meticulously researched material from Popular Mechanics or one's own lying eyes.
Poster Comment: Isn't the quality of their propaganda breath-taking? Popular Mechanics' investigation was so thorough that it was second in quality only to the homicide investigation of Vince Foster's death conducted by the US PARK POLICE. Nothing seems to rate DOJ/FBI investigations anymore. That's the evidence that we as a nation are doomed to collapse.
Regarding the methodical, authoritative work of Popular Mechanics, we also have the following from their book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Why Conspiracy theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts, at page 66: If identifying some millionaire as being behind a 9-11 truth organization is relevant, it would seem only fair for PM to be open about PM management, and what went on at PM shortly before it became a 9/11 propagandist rag. The following was published by David Ray Griffin in Debunking 9/11 Debunking at p. 212-3: [footnotes deleted] Bollyn, describing this Black-orchestrated change at Popular Mechanics as "a brutal take-over," wrote: "In September 2004, Joe Oldham, the magazine's former editor-in-chief, was replaced by James B. Meigs. In October, a new creative director replaced PM's 21-year veteran who was given ninety minutes to clear out of his office." In each of the following six months, Bollyn further reported, three or four more people were similarly dismissed. Accordingly, the suggestion that this book about 9/11 reflects PM's long tradition of expertise is misleading. Bollyn also unearthed another fact relevant to the credibility of PM's writing about 9/11: that 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, who described himself as the "senior researcher" for the article, is a cousin of the new head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. Bollyn then wrote an essay entitled "9/11 and Chertoff: Cousin Wrote 9/11 Propaganda for PM." The Hearst Corporation, Bollyn charged, had hired young Chertoff to work on an article supporting the very interpretation of 9/11 that had led to the creation of the department now headed by his older cousin. As Bollyn learned, this familial relationship seemed to be something that neither Benjamin Chertoff nor PM wanted to advertise. When young Chertoff was asked by Bollyn if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he replied, "I don't know," then said that all further questions should be put to PM's publicist. Bollyn then called Benjamin Chertoff's mother. When asked whether her son was related to the new secretary of Homeland Security, she reportedly replied: "Yes, of course, he is a cousin." From editor-in-chief Meigs' "Afterword" to the book, however, a reader would assume that there was some doubt about this. After commenting about "the odd coincidence that Benjamin Chertoff, then the head of the magazine's research department, has the same last name as the then newly appointed head of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff," Meigs wrote: "Christopher Bollyn phoned Ben's mother, who volunteered that, yes, she thinks Michael Chertoff might be a distant cousin." Confidence in Meigs' reportorial honesty is hardly inspired by this transmutation—of "yes, of course" into "yes, she thinks" and of "he is a cousin" to "[he] might be a distant cousin." Besides mentioning the conversation between Bollyn and Benjamin Chertoff's mother, Meigs himself says: "it's possible that Ben and Michael Chertoff are distantly related." Meigs' expression of doubt is amazing. He is claiming that he and his crack staff were in a few months able to discover all the central truths about 9/11—why the planes were not intercepted, why the World Trade Center buildings came down, what really hit the Pentagon, and what really happened to UA Flight 93—and yet they were not able to find out for sure whether a member of their own team was related to the director of Homeland Security! Meigs does, however, say that there is one thing about the two men of which he is certain: "Ben and Michael Chertoff have never spoken." The point of this denial is, of course, to rule out the suspicion that Michael Chertoff had anything to do with PM's 9/11 article, perhaps encouraging his younger cousin to work on it and even giving advice. If true, this would have suggested, as Bollyn inferred, that PM was consciously serving as an agent of Bush administration propaganda. Whatever be the truth, it appears that PM took every possible step to avoid having this charge leveled against its book. Whereas Benjamin Chertoff had described himself as the magazine article's senior researcher and his name was prominently displayed at the head of the list of reporters who worked on it, his name is not on the book's cover as one of its editors. His name is not even listed under either "reporters/writers" or "researchers," or anywhere else on the book's technical page. Indeed, the only mention of his name, prior to the Afterword, occurs in the "Acknowledgments" section, where he is thanked—even though he had been head of the research department when the article was put out—only as one of many "members of the original reporting team." Probably no one, reading only this book, would think of it as being heavily indebted to a man related to the director of Homeland Security. In any case, whether the book was actually written at the behest of the government, it is clearly perceived by the government as a reliable exponent of the official story. A US State Department document entitled "The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories," after having repeatedly recommended Popular Mechanics' article, says that PM's book "provides excellent additional material debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories."
The investigation into the Anthrax scare went south rapidly after science revealed it to be from the Ames strain. At least those were not relegated to NON-investigative agencies such as FEMA and NIST. FEMA couldn't manage delivering ice cubes to New Orleans. Perhaps we should have outsourced their investigation to Wal*Mart. NIST was no better.
When I first started reading this I thought it was propaganda, then I realized this had to be an onion type article. Unfortunately most won't get the sarcasm and think it's either propaganda or truth.
God is always good! At least those were not relegated to NON-investigative agencies such as FEMA and NIST. FEMA couldn't manage delivering ice cubes to New Orleans. Perhaps we should have outsourced their investigation to Wal*Mart. NIST was no better. Good points.
The PM book is subtitled, "Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts." Here is a PM gem from a caption to a picture in the book which shows a broken lobby window at ground level: Is that a fact? And to think that some conspiracy theorists thought it might have been a fireball. Among the whacko conspiracy theorists would seem to be the NIST whose report, NIST NCSTAR 1, at page 24 states, "Some of the burning fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts, blowing out doors and walls on other floors all the way down to the basement. Flash fires in the lobby blew out many of the plate glass windows." The PM gem continued: PM does not explain exactly what combustibles it imagined to be in the elevator shaft. The NIST report continued, "Fortunately, there were not enough combustibles near the elevators for major fires to start on the lower floors."
thanks for that expert analysis. It is a pattern familiar. The journalist makes money (& advances his career) by reporting the conventional view and doesn't care about the facts. But because he reports it, then it becomes the only acceptable fact in many people's eyes. the fact that it is not true does not matter, it is true (in people's minds) because it is reported. and in the journalist mind he's doing the right thing because he's advancing his career & making money.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Isn't the quality of their propaganda breath-taking?
#2. To: Red Jones, *9-11* (#0)
Page Six reports that O'Donnell had reportedly booked the film's producers, Korey Rowe and Dylan Avery, for Thursday's show. But after the fight with Elisabeth Hasselbeck on Wednesday, and after her chief writer was caught defacing Hasselbeck's photos with mustaches, O'Donnell bolted from the show.
#3. To: Red Jones (#0)
Isn't the quality of their propaganda breath-taking?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05272007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm
By Richard Johnson
with Paula Froelich, Bill Hoffman, and Corynne Steindler
May 27, 2007
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21283139.shtml
Rosie O'Donnell 'View' Booking Of 9/11 Conspiracists Made ABC Nervous
By Tashi Singh
May 28, 2007
A source tells us Charlie Sheen "is having second thoughts" about being involved in an updated version of the flick, which has a huge following on YouTube.
[SINGH]
Charlie Sheen "is having second thoughts" about being involved in an updated version of the film.
The conspiracy documentary got a further boost earlier this month when Virgin Atlantic announced it would offer the current, narration-free version as an in-flight movie choice. But just days later, it scrapped the idea.
[SINGH]
Virgin Atlantic had announced it would offer the current, narration-free version of the film as an in-flight movie choice, but dumped the idea almost immediately.
"Loose Change" pushes the widely debunked "controlled demolition" theory, which claims the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were blown up from within. It alleges the jet-fuel fires inside the towers weren't hot enough to melt the buildings' steel beams.
[SINGH]
"Loose Change" attempts to argue the widely debunked "controlled demolition" theory, which claims the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were an inside job. It alleges the jet-fuel fires inside the towers weren't hot enough to melt the buildings' steel reinforcements. It offers the ludicrous idea that the buildings were blown up from within.
Those claims were soundly refuted by Popular Mechanics magazine, which meticulously shot down every single one.
[SINGH]
Those claims were soundly refuted by Popular Mechanics magazine, which methodically shot down every single one.
#4. To: nolu_chan (#3)
#5. To: Red Jones (#0)
but that support is dwindling quicker than John Edwards polling numbers.
#6. To: Red Jones (#0)
Charlie Sheen "is having second thoughts" about being involved in an updated version of the film.
#7. To: Zipporah (#6)
wonder what this means?
#8. To: Arator (#7)
Sheen issued a statement immediately after saying that it wasn't true
#9. To: Red Jones (#0)
A similar observation was made in the film 9/11, by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. On the day of the attacks, the French brothers were making a documentary about Tony Benetatos, a rookie New York City firefighter with an engine and ladder company on Duane Street, a few blocks from the World Trade center. Benetatos became one of the first responders to the North tower. As Jules Naudet followed him into the lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, the filmmaker saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to record.
#10. To: Red Jones (#0)
Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors bove the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor failed, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process pancaking.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system -- that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns -- consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). ... the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.
#11. To: Red Jones (#0)
The contractors removing the debris tried on several occasions to pull over section of [World Trade Center buildings 5 and 6, both less than 10 stories tall] that were damaged by the fire and the collapse. They couldn't even pull those over.
#12. To: Red Jones (#0)
Those claims were soundly refuted by Popular Mechanics magazine, which methodically shot down every single one.
#13. To: Red Jones (#0)
http://Reopen911.org is bankrolled by Jimmy Walter, heir to a Florida-based home-building fortune. yada yada yada.
However, in the months just prior to the publication of the article on which this book is based, a radical change in PM's personnel was orchestrated by the president of Hearst Magazines, Cathleen P. Black. As reporter Christopher Bollyn pointed out, Black is married to Thomas E. Harvey, who has worked for the CIA, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Information Agency.
#14. To: HOUNDDAWG (#12)
Popular Mechanics' investigation was so thorough that it was second in quality only to the homicide investigation of Vince Foster's death conducted by the US PARK POLICE.
#15. To: Red Jones (#0)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#16. To: nolu_chan (#14)
The investigation into the Anthrax scare went south rapidly after science revealed it to be from the Ames strain.
#17. To: Red Jones (#0)
Engineering studies show that the intense impact of the planes caused widespread destruction, including these shattered North Tower lobby windows.
Jet fuel pouring down elevator shafts ignited secondary fires.
#18. To: nolu_chan (#9)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest