Paul Joseph Watson
March 23, 2007
Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor featured a segment last night in which TV bully Bill O'Reilly warned Charlie Sheen that narrating Loose Change would destroy his career, amidst a cacophony of slurs, smears and Holocaust jibes, characterized by this and other hit pieces that carried all the weight of a third grader's scribbled essay paper and couldn't even pin down basic facts.
Fox featured three talking heads who all agreed with each other - O'Reilly, whitewash aficionado Gerald Posner and a barely comprehensible New York detective called Bo Dietl - this from the network that likes to call itself "fair and balanced."
Watch the video below.
Posner, a former Al Gore devotee who drank the 9/11 kool aid and immediately pledged his allegiance to Bush following the attacks, opens up by throwing in the obligatory "Holocaust denial" smear. Posner couldn't stumble over his words quickly enough to get that one in and it's somewhat pathetic to witness his ignorance of the fact that calling the other side of the argument Nazis isn't a credible debating tool anymore (not that there was anyone on the other side of the debate to rebut him). Posner's zeal on writing books insisting that no political conspiracies have ever happened, that Oswald acted alone, James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King (despite the fact he later denied it) and 9/11 was all a result of incompetence, portray a figure who is either on the payroll or has some morbid obsession with propping up government propaganda that an ever-dwindling amount of people are buying.
Polls consistently show that 90% or more believe other parties were involved in the JFK assassination so it seems the more extreme Posner has to go in smearing those who disagree with him as Holocaust deniers, the more people see through his baseless bullshit. The Holocaust card doesn't work anymore Posner, you're wasting your time. Posner is quite clearly ruffled that billionaire Mark Cuban is set to throw his weight behind Loose Change and labels it a "disgrace," without explaining why a position that 84% of the country and most of the 9/11 family members now take is a disgrace.
Bo Dietl then proceeds to give us a lecture on how the WTC towers melted and fell down like potato chips, a thoroughly scientific analysis I think we can all agree. Dietl fails to inform us of how jet fuel, which burns at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, melted steel which melts at 2700 degrees Fahrenheit. He then echoes the familiar yarn "but what about the victims." Ah yes the victims, over half of which according to Bill Doyle, the representative of the largest 9/11 victims group, have grave questions about 9/11. How about those victims of a cover-up in the very hours after 9/11 who were told that the air was safe to breathe and are now dying en masse as a result of trusting the government?
Dietl then stumbles into an attempt to explain the collapse of Building 7 at which point he is abruptly cut off by O'Reilly, who parrots the emotional rhetoric about asking questions being insulting to the victims, before cutting off Dietl again when he mentions the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. "Don't confuse anybody with facts," states O'Reilly! Exactly right Bill, because you wouldn't want anybody to find out that the FBI gave the terrorists the bomb material to attack the towers in '93 now would you?
Posner then returns to charge that 9/11 truthers make up facts, without being able to cite any examples, and then backtracks to the comfort of his Holocaust denial slur, stereotyping 9/11 truth films as "propaganda as good as anything the Third Reich turned out." Posner's one trick pony show and ad hominem "they're all Nazis" nonsense is truly laughable and in fact lends our side of the argument more credence because it exposes him as the exact thing he accuses others of being, a propagandist, in that his hyperbole of tossing out buzzwords like "Holocaust denial" appeals to the emotional reactionary human psyche and not to reasoned, sober and factual analysis. "I just don't get the hatred for the country," O'Reilly chimes in, which as everyone knows is yet another cheap pot shot that lost all its persuasive impact years ago. O'Reilly thinks he can still delude people into thinking that questioning your government equates to hating your country. O'Reilly and Dietl end by warning Sheen that he's "not gonna come back from this," insinuating that his narration of the Loose Change final cut will end his career because O'Reilly "knows the country."
Sheen more successful and popular than ever
As usual, the exact opposite is true. The success of Sheen's sitcom Two and a Half Men has only increased in the year since he went public on 9/11, and every poll shows the vast majority of the country support Sheen's viewpoint. Meanwhile, Fox News' ratings continue to sink lower and lower because they refuse to act as anything other than whores for the establishment.
From October 2004, following O'Reilly's phone sex scandal with Andrea Mackris, the ratings for his show almost halved and have never recovered. Fox News' other Neo-Con attack poodle John Gibson, who previously took a pot shot at O'Donnell for suggesting the KSM "confession" was unreliable, a sentiment echoed by all corners of the media besides the Bush administration's TV mouthpiece, also took time out to address Sheen on his "Big Story" show. Gibson parroted O'Reilly in claiming that even the discussion of 9/11 in this context is hurtful to the victims. As a rule, whenever someone does not have the facts on their side and cannot counter the evidence, they are forced to resort to emotional rhetoric in an attempt to throw a blanket over the debate.
Has there ever been a TV or newspaper hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement that doesn't heavily lean on ad hominem insults along with bias and misleading emotional rhetoric? You will never see it. News Hounds summarizes, "FOX doesn't address this issue often - they don't want to make any more people aware of the controversy - but when they do, it is ridiculed and called "garbage." It's as if they only bring it up when it's in the news elsewhere so they have to, but they immediately shoot it right back down." The smattering of hit pieces that have emerged since O'Donnell's public stance and the new angle on the Sheen story have been notable only for their 3rd grade level research and kindergarten name calling.
Richard Johnson of the New York Post couldn't even get Michael Rivero's name correct, calling him Matt, despite Rivero's name being at the very top of his website, proving Johnson didn't even check the website he was trouncing. Both CBS News and the Hollywood Reporter falsely reported that Rosie O'Donnell was involved in the production of the upcoming Loose Change movie. This is completely incorrect. O'Donnell merely used her blog to ask some questions about 9/11 and Building 7, she has never been involved in the project at any step of the way. Will CBS and the Hollywood Reporter issue retractions to clean up their atrocious journalism? Who is writing their articles, the office boy? If you can't even get basic facts right like people's names and which person is connected to a particular project, it betrays the fact that these self-proclaimed reporters aren't interested in the truth, only in conducting slapdash ad hominem attacks.
Underlining how both the fake right-wing and left-wing media are both panicking that their monopoly is being challenged by truth seekers sick and tired of partisan slant, the liberal blog Wonkette also attacked Sheen yesterday. Wonkette goes further than O'Reilly in claiming that, "Sheen will also be getting a fat check from the CIA for further distracting everyone from the non-hidden non-conspiratorial fact that everyone who was in a position to have prevented 9/11 is a drooling incompetent, and for discrediting anything anyone famous ever says about politics for the next six months." If everyone who could have prevented 9/11 was a drooling incompetent then why were none of them fired and why did some receive pay hikes?
Wonkette is just another example of the sniveling "progressive" blogosphere that spends half of its time debating things like Mitt Romney's haircut while uniformly failing to hold their precious Democrat shills like Pelosi to account on impeachment and getting out of Iraq. It's a wonder that they seem surprised by the fact that people are looking elsewhere for truth when they are lauded as the so-called "alternative," when in fact they're nothing more than a gaggle of self-important peons who think they're part of the establishment.
by Larry Simons
I'm not really attempting to add to Paul Joseph Watson's story here, (because Paul's article is EXCELLENT!) I am simply just saying a few extra things. This hit piece on 9/11 truth is a CLASSIC example of how the media and the rest of the "official account" sheeple treats the opposition. Not with fair, balanced, intellectual debate, but with character assassination, lies, distortions and like Paul said, emotional rhetoric...using the pain of the 9/11 families as a weapon to make the public at large hostile at and condemn 9/11 truth. You rarely see a debate where both sides sit down and actually discuss this rationally. The reason for that being that if both sides went head to head on the hardcore 9/11 issues and laid it all out on the table, most people would walk away either taking our position on most facts or at the very least agree with us that there are still many unanswered questions about 9/11 that were purposely ignored during the 9/11 investigations.
The problem is, people in general are busy with their lives, busy with kids, functions, meetings at work, going out to party on the weekends that they really have no time to look into these issues themselves (of the ones who at least care). So, when that rare moment comes when they sit down and switch on the TV to catch a glimpse of news and see these bullshit hit pieces, they just instantly accept it as fact. They hear Bill O' Reilly calling us "nuts" that "hate" our country and they have no reason not to believe that what O' Reilly is saying is absolutely the truth.
I have to put up with the exact same bullshit on my very own site with people posting messages for the sole purpose of just bullying, like O' Reilly does, because they know that when they actually discuss the issues of 9/11, they lose. So, they do what O' Reilly does, name call, call us America haters, "fringe" elements (lol), and make emotional statements like "they hurt the families of 9/11" in an attempt to outrage the audience against us, regardless of what the facts are. Making emotional statements like that frees people like O' Reilly from having to mention specific facts, because they know when specific facts are mentioned, their lies are exposed. This is the very reason that when O' Reilly talks about this topic (which is very rare) he hardly ever has anyone on the show from the truth movement to provide a counter argument. I wish people would wake the hell up and start to realize when all you can do is attack someone's character, lie, name call, label people as un-American, Nazi or a holocaust denier, then you have nothing...ZILCH in which to shoot down their specific claims. I agree with Paul Joseph Watson when he said this very technique gives our argument credence, because it shows that if all the opposition can do is resort to childish and unintelligent behavior....we win simply by default, not to mention the hundreds and hundreds of facts that we have on our side.