Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance

Debunkers' claims about blue screens, inconclusive time frame of Jane Standley footage eviscerated

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
February 28, 2007

If there was any remaining doubt that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes before it fell then it has now evaporated with the discovery of footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse.

According to FEMA, WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. Since British Summer Time is five hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time, the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 at 4:54PM EST, a full 26 minutes before it collapsed.
"News is continuing to come in as you can imagine. We're now being told that another enormous building in New York has collapsed. It is the 47-story Salomon Brothers building [better known as WTC Building 7] which was situated very close to the World Trade Center, right there in this financial capitol," states the anchor Gavin Estler.
Following the controversy created by Monday's footage in which BBC correspondent Jane Standley is seen live in New York reporting the collapse of Building 7 as it remains standing behind her, many debunkers tried to claim that the images were inconclusive because there was no time stamp on the footage. Others alleged that Standley was merely standing in front of a dated blue screen image and that the shot in her background was a recording from earlier in the day. Both these objections can now be easily dismissed by the addition of the News 24 footage confirming that the news that Building 7 had collapsed was prematurely reported by 26 minutes.
Since the BBC obviously had a source for this information, though they refuse to acknowledge exactly what that source was, it can be surmised that the news took a few minutes to make its way to the on air anchor, therefore we can approximate that someone knew Building 7 was going to collapse at least half an hour before it fell. However, if we factor in CNN's Aaron Brown reporting that Building 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing" at 4:15PM EST, then that's over an hour before the building imploded into its own footprint.
First responders, firefighters and police are all on the record as stating they were told Building 7 was to be "brought down" and many took that to mean that it was going to be intentionally demolished by means of explosives. Some even reported a 20 second countdown preceding the building's collapse, which can only mean one thing - that it was deliberately imploded according to a pre-determined schedule.

Building 7 stood 355 feet away from the north tower. Structures closer to the twin towers that were bombarded with debris and essentially hollowed out remained standing for weeks after 9/11, until they were demolished by explosive crews, whereas Building 7 suffered relatively little damage and yet imploded hours after the towers fell. In their Conspiracy Files "documentary" the BBC said WTC 7 was a "raging inferno" when in fact fires were confined to just eight floors according to FEMA.

World Trade Center Building 3 (pictured above), known publicly as the 22-story Marriott Hotel positioned between the twin towers, was heavily damaged during the collapse of WTC 2, yet it did not experience uniform collapse either vertically or horizontally.
The BBC's pathetic excuse for not being able to confirm that they reported the collapse of WTC 7 in advance, that they lost the tapes of the BBC World 9/11 coverage, was nothing more than an attempt to make questions about this huge controversy go away. It remains to be seen if they'll issue another response now that it is 100% certified that they reported the collapse of a building 26 minutes before it happened. So far wider mainstream coverage of this mammoth story has been all but mute.
We received an interesting e mail from a CNN archivist in Atlanta who stated their utter disbelief at the notion that BBC has lost any of their 9/11 archives.
"I'm an archivist with the CNN News Library in Atlanta, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, the mere idea that news agencies such as ours would "misplace" any airchecks from 9/11 is preposterous. CNN has these tapes locked away from all the others. People like myself, who normally would have access to any tapes in our library, must ask special permission in order to view airchecks from that day. Multiple tapes would have been recording their broadcast that day, and there are also private agencies that record all broadcasts from all channels - constantly - in the event that a news agency missed something or needs something. They don't just have one copy... they have several. It's standard procedure, and as soon as the second plane hit, they would start recording several copies on other tapes machines all day long."
"The only information they need to give out is the source of the collapse claim. No one is saying the BBC is "part of the conspiracy," we're saying that someone gave that reporter the information ahead of time. The source of that information is the only thing they can reveal that would be meaningful."
Just ten days after the airing of its bias, error ridden, propagandistic hit piece against the 9/11 truth movement, the BBC's program directors are probably wishing they had never gone near the subject. The response metered out against them, bolstered by the Building 7 fiasco, has tarnished the corporation's credibility and their sophistic attempt to rebut the accusations has only made matters worse.
Suffice to say it would be a very stupid decision to re-air Guy Smith's farce of a documentary in any country ever again. Perhaps the BBC could do us all a favor and 'lose' the tapes just like they claim to have lost the tapes of their 9/11 coverage.


AARON BROWN QUESTIONS SCRIPT ON-AIR, UNLIKE BBC

CNN’s Aaron Brown also reported the coming collapse or collapse of WTC 7 over an HOUR before it collapsed; but says "We are TOLD this building may collapse"………..WHO told you this Aaron???




It is interesting to note that Aaron Brown seems to realize the incongruity of his reporting as he looks over his shoulder at Building 7-- still standing and emitting massive trails of smoke.
Just after announcing that WTC 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing," he lets onto his confusion, stating:
"And I—I—You, to be honest, can see these pictures more clearly than I, but building number 7, one of the buildings in this very large complex of buildings that is that is the trade center."
Clearly, Brown, slicker than the BBC reporter, caught the errors in the script during live coverage and revised his words, saying instead-- as he looked at the standing structure:
"And now we are told that there’s a fire there and that building may collapse as well as you can see."

Monday, February 26, 2007

BREAKING NEWS!!!!! BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 23 Minutes Before It Fell !!

Revealing, shocking video shows reporter talking about collapse with WTC 7 still standing in background, Google removes clip


Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
February 26, 2007

An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.
Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.

This amazing clip was on Google Video, but was removed within hours of the story breaking. A You Tube upload (still processing) is embedded above but we fully expect this to be removed soon. You can watch it for the time being at this link and also here. A WMV link is here (on our server) and a Quicktime here. Bit torrent versions of the file can be found here. An avi version can be found here. We are attempting to compile numerous mirrors of the video file. Skip forward to around the 14:30 minute mark. We expect the surviving links to quickly disappear, so we've also uploaded an FLV file to our own server. Click here to download. You'll need a free player that plays FLV files, a selection of which can be found here. Please use this download to create mirror copies in all formats and e mail the links to us.
To be clear, the Salomon Brothers Building is just a different name for Building 7 or WTC 7.

Although there is no clock or time stamp on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST, 23 minutes before Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm. While the exact time of the report cannot be confirmed at present, it is clear from the footage that the reporter is describing the collapse of WTC 7 while it clearly remains standing behind her in the live shot.

The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building's structure.

As we have documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down. It is widely acknowledged by those who were there on the scene that warnings were issued for people to evacuate the area in anticipation of the building's collapse, with some even stating that a 20 second countdown preceded the collapse of the 47-story skyscraper, again clearly suggesting that it was taken down by means of explosives as the video footage of its implosion illustrates.
Alex Jones' film Terror Storm documents how Thermate was the likely culprit for the implosion of the twin towers and also explores the collapse of WTC 7.

In a September 2002 PBS documentary, the owner of the WTC complex Larry Silverstein discusses Building 7 and states that in the late afternoon of September 11, the decision was made to "pull it." The term "pull it" is industry jargon for controlled demolition, but Silverstein denied charges that WTC 7 had been deliberately brought down.

This newly uncovered video confirms that the collapse of WTC 7 was no surprise, because television news stations were reporting on it before it happened!
This footage is absolutely amazing and should provoke a firestorm of new questions aimed both at Silverstein and the BBC. Who told the BBC that the building was going to collapse before it did and why were they reporting its fall in advance of the event actually taking place?

Many have speculated that some kind of press release was leaked too soon and AP wires, radio stations and TV news outlets prematurely reported on WTC 7's collapse.
The video also severely undermines the credibility of the BBC who recently caused controversy by airing a 9/11 hit piece that sought to debunk questions that bring the official story into doubt.
Calls have already been put through to the BBC reporting the "mistake," click here to listen to an MP3. The BBC have promised to "look into it."
Moronic commenters on Digg are already trying to bury the story, yet none of them have an answer as to why the BBC reported the building's collapse before it happened.

Commentary
by Larry Simons

Below is the full video from liveleak.com. Many sites like YouTube and Google have removed this video so it is very hard to access this video just anywhere. A few more sites have the clip but it's not easy to find.



Keep in mind, the attack dogs will say "Of course the BBC reported it before it collapsed, they are in a different time zone!" This is easily refuted by the fact that on this video clip the woman is reporting LIVE from New York City and it's clearly daylight behind her and you can see a piece of WTC 7 behind her over her right shoulder. Then, she moves out of the way and you can clearly see almost the entire building (what other buildings aren't blocking). The male anchor in the studio makes reference to the fact that the attacks happened "EIGHT hours ago", signifying that the woman is LIVE in New York speaking to him at roughly the 5 pm hour (New York time) since the attacks happened at roughly 9 am New York time. EIGHT hours from that makes it roughly 5 pm. London is FIVE hours ahead of U.S. Eastern Standard Time so had this woman NOT been live she would either be standing in darkness reporting or NOT in New York City at the time, and we know that isn't the case since she says "if you see behind me....." while it says LIVE on the screen.

Keep in mind that the attack dogs will also say this is just bad reporting/bad information. Also...not the case here. Bad reporting is when a reporter comes on TV and says someone has died or certain number has died and they later find that their numbers are wrong. That happens all the time..no big deal. In this case however, we have BBC reporters and anchors reporting on an event that no one could have imagined was even possible to happen. Never, ever have steel framed buildings collapsed due to fire. Now, earlier in the day the twin towers had collapsed but many thought that day (after the collapse) that the buildings collapsed due to fire combined with the airplane impact. Of course, we now know that even airplane impact wouldn't have been enough either. But here we have WTC 7. Very small fires and no plane hitting it. If one were to assume or KNOW this building was due for collapse, then why wouldn't ANY building prior or after 9/11 be suspect of collapse just because it was on fire? Answer: It wouldn't. Because buildings don't collapse because of fire so NO ONE in the world could have known this building was coming down.......unless they knew it was being DELIBERATELY brought down.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Claiming his child-abduction comments were taken "out of context," O'Reilly lashes out at "far-left loons"

Oprah gives child predator defender Bill O' Reilly a free pass in having to answer for his outrageous comments about Shawn Hornbeck not being a victim

Media Matters
February 23, 2007

On the February 22 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly discussed his February 20 appearance on The Oprah Winfrey Show and, in an apparent reference to Media Matters for America and others who highlighted his comments about an abducted child, said that "the far-left loons who took my analysis out of context are despicable." He also claimed that his reporting on the case "has been dead-on accurate" and asserted: "These vile individuals who have attacked us are doing so for political reasons, and I condemn them in the strongest terms."




O'Reilly appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show to discuss child molestation. During his appearance, Winfrey noted that O'Reilly had speculated why Shawn Hornbeck -- a boy who was abducted and held for four years before he was found by police in Missouri -- did not flee, but ignored O'Reilly's claim that "there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances" and that "[t]he situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents." Media Matters originally noted O'Reilly's comments about Hornbeck in a January 17 item that included a lengthy transcript and video clip from O'Reilly's show. Here's the clip:




Additionally, Winfrey made no mention of the decision by the Collier County, Florida, branch of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to replace O'Reilly as keynote speaker of a fundraising event, as Media Matters also noted.

From the February 22 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Hi. I'm Bill O'Reilly, reporting tonight from Los Angeles. Thank you for watching us. There have been a couple of rulings in this never-ending Anna Nicole Smith situation. We'll have that for you in a few moments.
But first, Oprah and the kids, part two. That's the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." Big reaction to my appearance on the Oprah program yesterday. Most of the letters were very kind. Most of the folks get the fact that all decent people have to rally against child predators and those who protect them.
I also made an appeal on the Oprah program for fathers to constantly tell their children they'll protect them; that they are their champions.

"Bill, loved you on Oprah, but you got hammered on some chat boards. They say you owe Shawn Hornbeck an apology for insinuating he wanted to stay with his abductor. What say you?"

Well, Heather, I say the far-left loons who took my analysis out of context are despicable. These people haven't done a single thing to protect kids from danger in this country. Our reporting on the Hornbeck case has been dead-on accurate.
We have introduced Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome to a world that badly needs to understand that concept. These vile individuals who have attacked us are doing so for political reasons, and I condemn them in the strongest terms.
We were also attacked by Vermont State Senator Dick Sears in the ultra-left Bennington Banner. Mr. Sears contends that Vermont's law -- a mandatory five-year sentence for violent child predators -- is tough. OK, I'm ready to listen to Mr. Sears' point of view. We've invited him to appear tomorrow, and we'll let you know what happens.


Editor's note:
by Larry Simons

Geesh! Where do I begin? Let me first address O'Liar's "Our reporting on the Hornbeck case has been dead-on accurate" comment. "Reporting"? "Accurate"? First of all O' Liar, the disgusting comments at hand here have NOTHING to do with "reporting". Reporting is when you investigate a story, and simply relay that investigation (assuming it's fact-based) to your viewers. Not the case here O' Liar and you KNOW it! The following comments made by YOU......."there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances"......"the situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents"....."I'm not buying the the Stockholm Syndrome in this case".....is NOT "reporting"--------they are OPINIONS----NOT reporting, NOT based in fact and NOT accurate. You didn't REPORT Billo, you DECIDED. That is NOT "dead-on accurate", it's dead-on spin, bullshit and LIES.

Now let me address your bullshit comment "These vile individuals who have attacked us are doing so for political reasons". "Political reasons Billo?" But yet you couldn't name ONE of those reasons huh, O' Liar? Because you can't. Because you're full of shit. So, let me get this straight Billo........WE do EXACTLY that-----REPORT what YOU said and we are now "vile individuals" and "left-wing loons"? WE are the ones who REPORTED loofah-boy-----YOU spewed OPINIONS and lies and cared NOTHING for this child who was taken away from his parents for FOUR years!

Now to the "out of context" comment. What EXACTLY did we take "out of context", oh Sultan of Spin? What? And if we DID take you out of context, why did you FAIL to mention exactly what you meant by what you said during your talking points segment? What did we take out of context Billo? The truth is, you didn't want to repeat your own words about Hornbeck in order to provide your audience with the "correct" context that we are all "guilty" of twisting, because your own words in and of themselves are self-incriminating and any self-defensive statements would have made you look like the catastrophic fool you are! You were very careful not to repeat yourself, so that only left you with one choice....name calling your attackers.....who were just REPEATING and REPORTING what you said.

And Oprah...what a disgrace you are as well.....accomodating Billo, a known sexual predator himself, on your show who SUPPORTED a child predator on HIS show a month ago. You make bazillions of dollars and you can't do better research than ME and the rest of the country who simply just type out stories on a blog board? Weren't you sexually abused yourself Oprah? And yet you let a man who defended a sexual predator on national television, who sexually pursued one of his own staffers and bought his way out of prison time by settling out of court come on your show? Nothing screams "I did it" more than using your wealth to buy your way out of getting butt-fucked in the shower at the big house.

This is the SAME asshole that trashed you for months on his own show for inviting 6 or 7 more liberals on your show than conservatives, and now he runs to YOU in his time of need. He knows he is in hot water over the Shawn Hornbeck statements he made and recently was ass-booted from being keynote speaker at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, so he's in panic mode and has to do something to divert attention away from his comments. He's saying "Yoo-hoo, yoo-hoo...over here---see what I'm doing now?? I'm on OPRAH now America---see???? I'm a good guy. My heart is really for the kids, see????? See????? I'm on OPRAHHHHHHHHHH". And instead of having any backbone Oprah, you accomodate this prick and give him a platform to make himself look like......Da da da!!!! O' REILLY: PROTECTOR OF KIDS! (Imagine O' Reilly in a 'Walker: Texas Ranger' stance) You may have fooled your FOX News sheep, Billo, but those of us who still think for ourselves know what's really going on here. I'm sure there was some backstage agreement that you and Oprah made where you wouldn't do the show unless Oprah sold out and zipped her lip.

Yeah, yeah Billo, we're all far-left loons. We simply repeat your own words and take their meaning at face value, and we're loons. Yep, all of us are. The nearly 1,200 people on Oprah's message boards who are outraged, Shawn Hornbeck's own parents and even Mark Klaas (father of victim Polly Klaas), who appeared on Keith Olbermann tonight to support the "far left loons" and of course the NCMEC for cancelling Billo's speech-----yep, you're right Billo, it's really OUR fault. It's our fault for NOT blaming the victim. It's our fault for NOT disrepecting the Hornbeck family by saying it wasn't the abductor who is to blame, but the child for not escaping. You're right Billo. It's EVERYONE'S fault, but yours...right, Billo?

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Neal Boortz: Teachers Unions are more dangerous than al Qaeda

by Larry Simons
February 22, 2007

On Hannity and Colmes Tuesday night, Neal Boortz told an agreeable Sean Hannity that teachers unions are more dangerous to America than terrorists armed with nuclear weapons because a nuke could only wipe out 100,000 people but public schools are "destroying a generation."



“Look, Al Qaeda, they could bring in a nuke into this country and kill 100,000 people with a well-placed nuke somewhere. Ok. We would recover from that. It would be a terrible tragedy, but the teachers unions in this country can destroy a generation.”

EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE 100,000 WOULD BE DEAD!

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Michelle Malkin: "I'm skeptical of anything that has 'Bill of Rights' tacked on to it"

Malkin sits in for O'Liar, but parrots the exact same Anti-American, propagandist, FAUX News bullshit!

by Larry Simons
February 20, 2007

On Friday night's O'Reilly Factor, Michelle Malkin, sitting in for Bill O'Liar, told Kate Hanni, leading advocate for an airline passenger bill of rights, that she's unconvinced. Then, the fat-lipped, anti-American rolls her eyes in disgust as she says this!:

Malkin: "I have to tell you. In general, I’m skeptical of anything that has "Bill of Rights"—tacked on to it "



WOULD THAT INCLUDE THE UNITED STATES BILL OF RIGHTS TOO MICHELLE??????????

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA MICHELLE???????????????

Monday, February 19, 2007

BBC Hit Piece a Tissue of Lies, Bias and Emotional Manipulation

Outraged truth community demands answers from Guy Smith, immediate retractions and apologies urged, savage agenda driven yellow journalism an insult to the truth

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
February 19, 2007

The BBC's Conspiracy Files documentary about 9/11 was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end. Producer Guy Smith should be ashamed of himself for inflicting this travesty of yellow journalism upon the 9/11 truth movement and he is assured to encounter a vociferous and outraged response in its aftermath.

You can watch the one hour show below via Google Video.



Separated into two categories below are a number of questions intended to highlight Guy Smith's production for what it was - a deliberate hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement structured around fallacy, lying by omission and overwhelming bias. We invite Mr. Smith to respond to these questions and the hundreds of others that are already being asked by furious and informed community of people who were made sick to their stomachs by Smith's yellow journalism hatchet job.

GROSS FACTUAL INACCURACIES AND YELLOW JOURNALISM

1) Why did the BBC use a thoroughly debunked graphic animation from PBS' Nova show to illustrate the collapse of the twin towers? This graphic portrays the tower collapsing at a rate of ten floors every six seconds. For this to be accurate, the tower's 110 floors would have taken 66 seconds to completely collapse. In reality, the towers collapsed in just 14-16 seconds at the extreme end of the estimation. The graphic also erroneously depicts the floors collapsing without resistance, which could not have happened if the building's collapse came as a result of fire damage alone. Furthermore, the thoroughly debunked "pancake theory" holds that the core column remained upright and static as the animation shows when in reality the entirety of the towers, including the concrete support structures, were pulverized into small pieces and dust. A video explanation of the erroneous Nova animation is included below. Does producer Guy Smith consider using an animation that portrays a tower collapsing in 66 seconds an accurate reflection of how the twin towers collapsed? Will producer Guy Smith retract this error before his show is aired again? Will the BBC announce a retraction of this error as is common practice for proven factual inaccuracies carried in BBC programming?

2) Why did the program claim that debris from Flight 93 having been found 8 miles from the crash scene was a factual error on behalf of 9/11 skeptics? Both the FBI and the NTSB admitted that mail the plane was carrying had been found 8 miles from the crash scene. Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Crash debris found 8 miles away.

3) Why did the program claim that the collapse of Building 7 resulted in no casualties without mentioning the statements of both an eyewitness at the scene and Congressman Otter who both publicly stated that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse?

4) Why was footage filmed at ground zero on 9/11 of a firefighter discussing the damage to Building 7's sprinkler system used to support the notion that fires caused the building to collapse while footage and testimony attesting to the notion that Building 7 was deliberately brought down, that firefighters had been warned in advance that it was going to be brought down, and that bombs had brought the building down, uniformly ignored? Why was the testimony of Craig Bartmer, a former NYPD official who states he heard bombs tear down Building 7 as it collapsed , omitted from the final edit? Why were the dozens and dozens of references to bombs exploding at all levels of the twin towers including the basement areas made by ground zero rescue workers and firefighters, caught both on camera and tape recorded from the firefighter's communication radios, omitted from the final edit? Why was there no effort made to include the testimony of William Rodruigez, who was a witness to underground explosions in the basement levels?

5) Why during brief coverage of the Building 7 issue were the words of Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex who told a September 2002 PBS documentary that he and firefighting chiefs decided to "pull" the building, not even mentioned? Why were the hundreds of millions of dollars Silverstein made from the collapse of this building alone not mentioned as a plausible motive for its demolition?

6) Why was coverage of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7 narrowed into a mere debunking of the "squib" issue and testimony from the dozens at the scene who both saw and heard explosions completely omitted. In debunking the squib issue, why did the documentary fail to point out the fact that such emissions could be seen exiting the towers many floors below the collapse point?

7) Why were the numerous unprecedented wargames that were conducted on 9/11 dismissed as "routine" when they were anything but? Though the show admitted that such wargames slowed down the response to the hijacked airliners, they refused to ask who was in control of the wargames and refused to mention the fact that some of these wargames involved planes crashing into high profile buildings and the huge improbability of such a coincidence occurring.

MANIPULATIVE AND BIASED EDITING AND PRODUCTION

1) If the documentary was intended to be a balanced piece, why were only three individuals who represented the 9/11 truth movement included in the final edit compared to at least thirteen individuals who advocated the official story or the incompetence whitewash? Why were individuals who represented the 9/11 truth movement and were interviewed by the BBC for this program, such as former NYPD official Craig Bartmer and Jim Marrs not included in the final edit? Does Guy Smith consider a more than four to one ratio of debunkers to 9/11 skeptics a balanced appraisal?

2) How can Guy Smith justify using the strong implication on numerous occasions throughout the documentary that questioning the official story of 9/11 is insulting and hurtful to the victims? How can he justify such a blatant and cynical attempt to emotionally sway the viewer when Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 families, is on the record as stating that half of the victims he represents are asking the same questions as 9/11 skeptics? How can Smith justify using such virulent and propagandistic techniques to bury allegations of a 9/11 cover-up in the face of the fact that it was an admitted government cover-up in the very hours after 9/11, the EPA toxic dust scandal, that is now responsible for the debilitating illnesses that are killing off 20% of the first responders, firefighters and other 9/11 heroes? Is Smith's outright attempt to pardon the government of a 9/11 cover-up not itself an insult to the victims in those circumstances?

3) Does producer Guy Smith consider it ethical on the part of a so-called journalist to laugh off and dismiss the claims made by 9/11 skeptics before filming for his documentary has even finished or editing even begun? Can Smith be trusted to produce a balanced documentary when he has already announced his personal bias months before the program is completed or aired?

4) Why did producer Guy Smith decide to devote an inordinate amount of time to theories that are not even embraced by the majority of the 9/11 truth movement, such as the Jewish conspiracy angle, the C-130 Pentagon angle and the Shanksville "no plane" angle? Were such topics given dominant coverage even over core issues such as controlled demolition, Building 7, wargames and the stand down, which are uniformly embraced as the most hardcore evidence by the vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement? Does such a focus on nebulous issues prove the charge leveled at the BBC that Smith's production was nothing more than a strawman hit piece that sought to distort and debunk fringe elements that are not even embraced by the majority of the 9/11 truth movement? As the Angirfan blog states,
"Imagine a historian trying to prove that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or that George Bush was a good president. The bad historian would select only the parts of the evidence which suited his bad theory; and the bad historian would give lots of time to the spooky sources, and very little time to the honest sources. It was the BBC that led the way in telling us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Now the BBC is trying to support the Bush version of 9-11."

5) Why were 9/11 skeptics afforded only brief, insubstantial and fleeting air time whereas debunkers were given the chance to speak uninterrupted at length? Why were the statements of debunkers subsequently supported in the narrative with documentation yet the statements of 9/11 skeptics were not, even though we know the producer was presented with such documentation. For example, when Alex Jones discussed a desire on the part of the Neo-Cons to have a 9/11 style event in order to launch a pre-planned war, the Project for a New American Century documents which clearly outline an agenda were not shown on screen or even mentioned. Furthermore, Alex Jones was told directly by the producers that any discussion of Operation Northwoods, which is a cornerstone bedrock of the 9/11 truth community, would not be included in the final edit.

6) Why was Dylan Avery filmed listening to the interviewer's question about the coroner's statements while looking nervous? This was a blatant attempt to portray Avery as dishonest and was not mirrored during any of the interviews with the debunkers.

7) Why were the debunkers referred to in sympathetic and sober terms whereas the personalities of the 9/11 skeptics were attacked? For example, Popular Mechanics were called a "no nonsense, nuts and bolts" publication (when in reality it is owned by the original progenitors of yellow journalism, Hearst Publishing) whereas Alex Jones was called an "evangelist" and Dylan Avery a "self-confessed dropout." Surely if this documentary was intended to have been a balanced piece, it would be left to the viewer to make up their mind about the character of the individuals featured in the program and not have it dictated to them by the sardonic female narrator.

8) Why were the 9/11 skeptics filmed and portrayed in an unflattering light whereas the debunkers were lent credence and authority as a result of the style and location of their filming? For example, debunkers were filmed at ground zero, Washington DC and inside military fighters, whereas 9/11 skeptics were filmed in untidy offices and, in the case of Alex Jones, a conference hall that was portrayed as an evangelic religious cult gathering. Why was Jim Fetzer positioned so close to the camera so as to make his gestures and facial expressions seem wild and overexerted? As another blog points out,when Fetzer and Avery were shown talking to the camera, they were overwhelmingly depicted as single-minded and emotional, with a forcible attitude of 'you're either with us or against us', which was intended to subliminally turn the viewer off them - and thus discredit their points. It was almost half an hour before we got to see Alex Jones, who was introduced when he was yelling to an audience about the New World Order. The BBC said he was like an 'evangelist' -- this was another underhanded technique where the BBC tried to associate alternative thought with religious fundamentalism.

9) Why were scientists who represented the debunkers interviewed and yet scientists who represented the 9/11 skeptics, such as Professor Steven Jones or Kevin Ryan, omitted from the documentary? Why did Smith seek to interview former government officials who represented the debunking side and yet omitted any testimony from former government officials representing the 9/11 skeptics side, such as Andreas von Buelow or David Shayler?

10) How can Guy Smith have confidence in his conclusion that Osama bin Laden ordered the attacks when even the world's leading expert on Bin Laden now says that the alleged "confession tape" is a fraud and the individual seen in the video is not Bin Laden?
I will now quote at length the excellent observations made by the 'Debunking the BBC' blog. This is just a sampling of the extensive rebuttal that is fully sourced and supported at the blog website.
There was a strong 'anti-conspiracy' theme throughout the programme. The proponents on the official story were given much more time to discuss their ideas and their opinions, and there was no camerawork or editing to make them appear less than respectable. There were only three truth-seeker proponents and yet they were vastly outnumbered by the proponents of the official story.
Popular-Mechanics was introduced as a 'no-nonsense' magazine, despite having it's article disputed and debunked.
The programme began with the narrator saying the theories were offensive to those families affected by 9-11 - a logical fallacy called an 'appeal to emotion'.
The programme shows us bent WTC steel columns and damaged vehicles in a warehouse, then proceeds onto the official story, whilst showing the alleged hijackers on CCTV at an unnamed airport. Then casualties were discussed, videos of shocked people were shown, and emotional phone calls were aired. This is all emotional manipulation, and it is not related to pure theory, as it does not prove or disprove anything. This did not dissuade the BBC however.
There were scientists used to support the official story, but no counter-scientists shown, such as Professor Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin PhD and others [19]. It was continually stated that blaming the government was scapegoating, yet it is precisely that act which was carried out by the mainstream media and the authorities when blaming Bin Laden.
When Fetzer and Avery were shown talking to the camera, they were overwhelmingly depicted as single-minded and emotional, with a forcible attitude of 'you're either with us or against us', which was intended to subliminally turn the viewer off them - and thus discredit their points.
Before Avery began talking, they called him a college 'dropout', and said he made his money selling Loose Change. Avery is shown saying he does not care what the debunkers say - we believe this clip to be out of context, and that Avery was disagreeing with something else.
Fetzer was always pictured close-up when talking, to make the viewer uncomfortable and to ensure his gestures were exaggerated beyond what was reasonable - a technique that could be used to subliminally turn the viewers off him. There was no explanation made of Fetzer's conflicts with other prominent members of the truth movement regarding his more unusual theories.
Avery and Fetzer were used the most. Alex Jones was not, despite the fact that Alex Jones is one of the more eloquent, respected, and knowledgeable people on these matters.
It was almost half an hour before we got to see Alex Jones, who was introduced when he was yelling to an audience about the New World Order. The BBC said he was like an 'evangelist' -- this was another underhanded technique where the BBC tried to associate alternative thought with religious fundamentalism.
There were several baseless phrases delivered throughout the show, like: "secrecy breeds conspiracies", it is as if they tried to compare the spread of conspiracies to the spread of bacteria. The X-Files guy said that debunking articles aren't liked by some as they take away those people's 'security blanket', and he said conspiracies are present because we've been lied to before, and that 'cynicism and hopelessness still infects us'. He also said 'we're all storytellers', compares conspiracy theory to 'myth', says conspiracists simplify things, and that conspiracies are pleasing to certain people with a political agenda.
The BBC tried to say that believing President Bush was a murderous madman was 'acceptable' to conspiracists, but there was no mention of how widespread that view truly was across society. There was also an attempt to smear conspiracy theory as merely 'Chinese whispers' on the internet which quickly grew to ridiculous proportions.
There was a camera shot of a worker outside the Pentagon; he said: 'flawed people need to make a name for themselves', regarding the Pentagon theories. This appeared to smear all truth-seekers, regardless of whether they accepted the Pentagon theory or not, it also wrongly suggested that truth-seekers wanted fame alone.
The BBC allowed scientists to do a 3D simulation of the Pentagon crash to support the official story, but a truth-seeker's simulation was not used for the WTC collapse. Apparently the scientists who did the Pentagon crash simulation received hate mail from 'conspiracy theorists', who were overly 'emotional' and accused them of being government assets. This was clearly an attempt to paint truth-seekers as unstable and dishonest.
There was focus on a supposed internet rumour that said the X-Files team tried to warn people of 9-11 though the Lone Gunmen WTC episode. It is acknowledged on the internet that this show 'predicted' 9-11, but only in response to official claims that the 9-11 scenario had not been envisioned previously, but not that the X-Files team possessed special information.
The programme finished with the narrator saying the theories were offensive to those families affected by 9-11 - a logical fallacy called an 'appeal to emotion'.
The 9-11 victim's families are themselves asking for an investigation into 9-11, so it appears the BBC used some victims to support it's hit piece whilst ignoring others. [20] Furthermore the 9-11 first responders were made ill by the New York air which they were told was safe to breathe. [21] Many of the emergency service's dogs also suffered fatal illness for the same reasons. The BBC failed to mention this too.
Amidst the myriad of attacks upon its credibility, the BBC failed to mention that Loose Change is being revised to filter out mistakes made and concentrate on infallible evidence. Will Guy Smith release a version 2 of his documentary? Will his propagandistic and manipulative tissue of lies be corrected? Will Smith answer any of the questions listed above? Or will what has become for many the Blair Broadcasting Corporation continue to excel in shoddy research, outright factual fallacy and bias emotional manipulation, while taxing the British public for the courtesy of having to put up with it?

Audio clip of Alex Jones and Dylan Avery confronting Guy Smith on Alex's radio show:
http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/190207smith.mp3

Friday, February 16, 2007

Can This War-Mongering Maniac President Really Be Planning Military Action Against Iran?

by Andy Ostroy
February 15, 2007

The supplying of weapons. The state-sponsoring of terrorists. The threat to America. Sound familiar? It ought to. It's President Bush waving the red flag again, only this time it's not about Iraq (which he was 100% wrong about) but Iran. And why not. The rhetoric is easy to regurgitate. And all he needs to do is change one little old letter and he's got a whole new target.

Yes, the man who brought us the worst foreign policy fiasco in U.S. history is up to his old tricks again. Almost four years and 3000 dead soldiers later, this delusional, lying sack of political poop has determined that Iran is the new Iraq. That we face a grave new threat from the mullahs who he claims are arming the Iraqis with sophisticated weapons used, for example, in roadside bombings that kill our soldiers. This irresponsible lunatic is the master of diversion. Failing miserably in Iraq (itself a diversion from his failure to bring Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 monsters to justice), he's setting his sights on Iran and trying to convince a once-stupid, once pro-war public that they should once again support his dangerous, reckless pseudo-macho battle fantasies. But who in their right mind is going to accept as truth anything this arrogant, irresponsible fool has to say at this dreadfully pathetic low point in his historically unsuccessful presidency? But that sure as hell ain't stopping him from trying. Give him points for stubbornness.

Speaking to (or should I say ducking and evading) reporters in the East Room of the White House Wednesday, Bush warned of the Iranian threat. "I can say with certainty that the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated I.E.D.’s that have harmed our troops. And I’d like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds Force was ordered from the top echelons of the government. But my point is, what’s worse, them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and its happening?" He said it didn't matter whether Iraqi leaders were involved or not. "What matters is, is that we’re responding," and that if the U.S. determined who is responsible for "moving these devices into Iraq, we will deal with them." He added, "Whether Ahmadinejad (Iran's president) ordered the Quds force to do this, I don't think we know. But we do know that they're there, and I intend to do something about it."

So just what exactly is Bush planning to do? The great "uniter" refuses to meet with Iran's leaders, just as he's refused to engage any enemy in meaningful diplomatic dialogue. What a leader: miserable at diplomacy, awful as commander-in-chief. Sadly, I think I'd make for a better president. And he's very bad at lying too. If he thinks that any of us in the sane world don't see this new round of incendiary rhetoric as laying the groundwork for another war, then he's even more delusional than I suspect.

The real question is, how do we stop this dangerous nitwit before he kills again? Will Congress, the U.N. and the American public lay down again as the Busheviks, those natural born killaz, drag us down another deadly path? Stay tuned...

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Lou Dobbs exposes Bank of America's new credit card for illegal aliens!

Bank of America in lock-step with the orchestrators of the North American Union by issuing credit cards to people with no social security numbers....in other words: Illegal Aliens

February 14, 2007

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Bill O 'Liar gets his ass BOOTED from speaking event!!!!

O' Liar given the ole heave-ho by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children from speaking at fundraiser dinner. Only shocker is.....what took them so long?

by Larry Simons
February 10, 2007

It's bittersweet that Bill O' Liar got the ole ass-boot from speaking at a fundraising dinner at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children on the 9th of next month. Why? Well, it's great that Loofah boy got what he deserved in that he was replaced as keynote speaker because of his repugnant comments, saying that abducted and found teenager Shawn Hornbeck enjoyed his captivity for 4 years by child molester Michael Devlin. But, what took the NCMEC nearly a month to make this decision? One must ask why this decision to boot Mr. Falafel wasn't made the very next day, or even in two days. How did this man still keep his job after saying such infuriating things?

The NCMEC has issued this message on their website:

"In response to the numerous e-mails and inquiries we have received, we are providing the following update regarding the Collier County, Florida branch fundraising dinner scheduled for March 9, 2007 in Naples, Florida. Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor, will not be a speaker at the dinner. The dinner will be held as scheduled. John Walsh, host of America’s Most Wanted, will be the keynote speaker.
We would like to thank everyone for their comments and e-mails."

It seems that this cancellation isn't the only consequence that O' Reilly's comments has had to endure. It's confirmed now that the home improvement chain Lowe's has pulled their advertising from FOX News as a result of Billo's heartless, disgusting comments. Again, what took Lowe's so long to do this? Why isn't everyone pulling their advertising from FOX?
It seems FOX News needs to get an eye-opening message from the American public and the corporate world that these comments and views will not be tolerated and I think that message should start with the harshest consequence possible. For the public, simply not tuning into FOX News or boycotting companies/corporations that continue to advertise at FOX. For the corporate sector, to demand the firing of employees such as O' Reilly or pull all advertising unless they do. When we as Americans or businesses/companies do nothing when these comments about our children are made, we are advocates for the crimes committed against them, plain and simple. It disturbs me that Lowe's and the NCMEC waited too long, but at least they ended up coming to the right and just conclusion.

Friday, February 9, 2007

Lou Dobbs confronts the man who could be the new Father of our ...."country"? (Sorry George Washington)

Pastor says we need to integrate to be safer. In other words...if you can't lock enemies out, live among them!

by Larry Simons
February 9, 2007

Lou Dobbs gets it...he just gets it about the elitist elements in this country. We need more journalists like Lou Dobbs who have the guts to expose these people that are trying to destroy our country and integrate it into a "Union" instead of a sovereign country. Incase anyone doesn't know, Robert Pastor (Vice President of International Affairs and Professor of International Relations at American University) actually said last year to WorldNetDaily that he believes a new 9/11 crisis could be the catalyst to merge the U.S., Mexico and Canada. He said in that case, the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America) could be developed into a continental union, complete with a new currency, the amero, that would replace the U.S. dollar just as the euro has replaced the national currencies of Europe. In other words, bye bye America (as we knew it) and hello to the North American Union, all in the name of free trade, political and social integration so we can be "more safe".



Pastor also told a Spanish magazine last October that "crises can force decisions that otherwise would not be made". He added, "What I'm saying is that a crisis is an event which can force democratic governments to make difficult decisions like those that will be required to create a North American Community. It's not that I want another 9/11 crisis, but having a crisis would force decisions that otherwise might not get made." He then adds, "The United States turned to the Marshall Plan when faced with the crisis of Western Europe falling into the hands of communism. So, I'm not advocating, or encouraging, or wanting a crisis, I'm only saying that in order to take important initiatives, sometimes one manner in which this occurs is when there is a crisis to which leaders need to respond."

In other words, Pastor is saying, "Oh yeah, I'm not ADVOCATING or WANTING another 9/11, I'm just saying these things are sometimes needed to make big changes in policies and initiatives...and it just so happens that I am the leading intellectual force in creating a North American Union and another 9/11 crisis would REALLY help out my plan, but nahhhh, I dont WANT it to happen!"

Unreal, isn't it?

Well, if he wants his plan to succeed, then why would he be against another 9/11? There's already TONS of evidence that the main beneficiaries of 9/11 were our own government and key members of the Bush administration. You see people, this is all a big puzzle, and this is just another giant piece of it. It's all a part of their master plan to remove America as a sovereign nation to shift the balance of power to Europe which is under the control of the World Bank, whose President is Paul Wolfowitz, former Secretary of Defense, Neo-con and World Bank nominee of George W. Bush. Also, Wolfowitz is considered by many in the 9/11 truth movement to be a key member in the involvement/orchestration of 9/11. You see people, a big puzzle. People like me, the truth movement and Lou Dobbs are just a few who this country desperately needs to put the puzzle together. Many in country simply don't care, are too lazy or just don't understand the importance of this or don't know what they can do even if they DO care. I don't have all the answers, but I do know one thing. Doing ANYTHING is better than NOTHING.

I get accused of hating my country when I bring these things up, but in my view hating your country is never displayed better than when you just don't care about anything or take no action, and then accuse OTHERS of hating their country when they actually are the ones off their asses doing things! I don't know everything, but I try to bring as much truth as I possibly can to as many I can to save this country. I may not be right on all of the 9/11 issues, but one thing I know I am 100% sure of....and that is there are many, many unanswered questions that are purposely being ignored by our government and the investigations need to be re-opened. Even the most staunch critic of my views should find that to be true. Do something people, anything to save these globalist, money and power-hungry bastards from taking over.

We may need a revolution....but people have to care first.

Thursday, February 8, 2007

Ground Zero EMT: We Were Told Building 7 Was to Be "Pulled"

New Jersey Emergency Medical Technician asked "how could someone have rigged all these explosives?" before towers collapsed, support columns had been blown out

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
February 8, 2007

A New Jersey EMT has gone public on how emergency workers were told that Building 7 was going to be "pulled," before a 20 second demolition countdown broadcast over radio preceded its collapse. The ground zero rescue worker also blows the whistle on how he witnessed multiple underground support columns of the WTC towers that had been severed before the buildings imploded. In a letter to Loose Change producer Dylan Avery, the individual who wishes to remain anonymous refering to himself only as Mike, 30, NJ, describes how he has repeatedly tried to alert numerous authorities to what he saw on 9/11 but was ignored or told to "shut up" on every occasion, and ultimately fired for disorderly conduct. The EMT now dismisses the official government explanation of events and slams the 9/11 commission as a "whitewash."

Having been in his profession for six years, the individual states that he was at ground zero before, during and after the collapse. He was forced to flee from the falling towers and take cover under a bus shelter as debris rained down all around him, leaving his lungs poisoned today with the toxic dust that 9/11 heroes were exposed to as a result of a cover-up on behalf of Condoleezza Rice and the EPA that assured workers ground zero air was safe to breathe. The EMT made the decision to make his claims public after becoming aggrieved at how 9/11 debunkers were viciously attacking the creators of Loose Change for questioning the events of 9/11 in their film, which has now aired on numerous international television stations and has been seen by millions on the Internet.

In his enthralling testimony, the EMT goes into graphic detail of how he and others personally witnessed a plethora of explosions at all points of the buildings before their collapse. "There were explosions. There were flashes. There was molten metal running down the I-beams of the basement levels like lava flows. I've never seen anything like it. Yes, planes hit the buildings - anybody who says otherwise is a moron. But the explosions - the rapid, symmetrical, sequential explosions - they happened," states 'Mike'. He explains how he and others were in the basement of one of the towers helping injured victims when he saw "One of the huge steel and concrete support pillars with an 8 foot section blown out of the center of it." Looking around, Mike saw other support columns that were in the same condition, prompting rescue personal to ask "how could someone have rigged all these explosives?"



"We stood outside listening to the explosions," states Mike, "One after the other, every minute or so. At one point, about 10 minutes before the first collapse, a 30 foot or so section of the courtyard exploded straight up into the air. Just before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions, then numerous explosions in the buildings upper floors. Then we ran. We felt the same deep explosions before the second collapse. This was not just the planes." The rescue worker concludes emphatically, "The buildings were rigged, there is no question about it." Perhaps of even more interest, the EMT relates the fact that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper adjacent the twin towers that was not hit by a plane yet imploded symmetrically later in the afternoon on 9/11, was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story. Questions about Building 7 came to the fore in January 2004 when footage of WTC complex owner Larry Silverstein telling a September 2002 PBS documentary that after consultation with the FDNY the decision was made to "pull" the building surfaced on the Internet. These issues were subsequently explored in Alex Jones' Martial Law and Terror Storm documentary films.

Since then, debunkers and Silverstein's office itself have tried to argue that Silverstein simply meant to "pull" or evacuate the firefighters out of the building, yet in the same documentary explosives experts are seen demolishing the remnants of other buildings in the ground zero area and repeatedly use the industry term "pull" to describe a controlled demolition. In addition, there were no firefighters in WTC 7 to "pull" in the first place. Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7." The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY." And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard 'crimp' in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent 'squibs' of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.Even Dan Rather, commenting on the collapse for CBS News said that the collapse was, "reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.” The EMT worker agrees, stating, "There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us!" In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a profit of about $500 million. Due to the many unanswered questions surrounding Building 7, The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was forced to include in its probe into Building 7 the theory of, "Whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse."

Following the attacks, Mike made a sustained effort to inform the relevant authorities of what he saw, including the FDNY, the NYPD, newspapers and television networks. In every case he was told to "shut up", "forget about it", or "let it go, for my own good." Initially praised as heroes, when Mike and his colleague tried to to alert their EMT Coordinator In Charge of what they had witnessed, they were brought up on charges of disorderly conduct, fired, and fined for damaged uniforms and equipment they had used on 9/11. Two other colleagues who witnessed the same events now refuse to even acknowledge they were at ground zero for fear of reprisals.
The astounding testimony of this brave EMT only adds further credence to the already overwhelming case for controlled demolition of both the twin towers and Building 7. We implore this individual to go public with his full name in the interests of his own safety. It is far more secure to blow the whistle out in the light than to remain in the shadows and become another victim of those who wish to see 9/11 truth buried.

Here is "Mike's" letter to Dylan Avery--->
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207Letter.htm

Wednesday, February 7, 2007

O'Reilly said he will not call Sean Penn Anti-American, after he called him Anti-American!

More lies and spin by the Sultan of Spin, Lord of Lies and the Lover of Loofahs, Bill O' Liar!

by Larry Simons
February 6, 2007


On the 1-29-07 O'Reilly factor Michelle Malkin said both Jane Fonda and Sean Penn are Anti-American, then Bill O'Reilly said this:

O'REILLY: All right, but you say it's anti-American. You know that the Fondas and Penns are going to say, "Listen, I'm as American as you are, Michelle Malkin. I just see things differently." And I'm willing to give them the benefit of that doubt. I don't want to say that they're anti-American.

Yet at the top of the show during his talking points memo the words “Anti-American actor Sean Penn” appeared on the screen. You can see this 1:32 into the clip below.

This is a classic example of Billy O'Reilly talking out of both sides of his face, he said he would not call Sean Penn Anti-American, the problem is he said that about 15 minutes after he had already called him Anti-American.



Let's clear up some of Billo's "facts". Billo jumps on Jane Fonda for saying it was the U.S.'s fault that the Vietnamese killed their own people after we left there. Whether she is saying this or not really isn't the point and Bill knows it. The point is that we started Vietnam in the first place when President Johnson lied about the U.S. being attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. As a result of this non-existant incident, 1 million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans perished. O' Liar also condemns Tim Robbins for telling the FOX reporter to enlist since he supports the war. What's wrong with that? People who agree with the war SHOULD fight in it! O' Liar ends by saying that if we had pre-emptively attacked Afghanistan we could have saved 3,000 Americans on 9/11. How Bill? Weren't these supposed hijackers already in the United States as far back as 1996?

Once again, Billo has his facts FOXED and is lying to the American people. You can count on me to provide you with the REAL truth. I'm not going to let this asshole get away with his blatant lies.

Friday, February 2, 2007

What's the difference? 21,500....48,000.....tomAto, tomato

Bush's "new" math? Or his plan all along?

by Keith Olbermann
Countdown with Keith Olbermann
February 1, 2007

President Bush has cooked the books about the escalation of the war in Iraq.
The surge will not be 21,500 more troops. Instead, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it will be at least 35,000, up to 48,000. The president simply, perhaps cynically, did not mention the noncombat support troops who will have to go along, and who, despite that word “support,” can just as easily be killed or maimed or psychologically ruined as anybody on the front lines.
Mr. Bush is not doubling down on his bet in Iraq. The reality is, the number of troops could be double what he told us they would be.



For nearly a month now, Mr. Bush and his military chiefs, having said they would surge an additional 21,500 troops in Iraq, in a final, last-ditch and supremely controversial attempt to quell the violence in the civil war. Yet those combat troops would needed to be backed up by just as many, if not more, support troops to provide things like communications, engineering, medical, many other services, as a result, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office today releasing a study that says the real troop increase could be as high as 48,000, more than double the number given by the president, the discrepancy coming to light because of an effort by the Democratic chairman of the House Budget Committee, John Spratt, who also serves on Armed Services, to find out how much the so-called surge might cost, the Congressional Budget Office telling Congressman Spratt that it does not know—yet know, because the Pentagon has not yet decided how many additional support troops it will be sending to Iraq, quoting the CBO‘s letter, dated today, to Mr. Spratt, “Thus far, the Department of Defense, DOD, has identified only combat units for deployment. However, U.S. military operations also require substantial support forces. DOD has not yet indicated which support units will be deployed along with the added combat forces, or how many additional troops will be involved.
CBO estimates on support troops based upon Pentagon precedent, ranging from 15,000 to 28,000, again, bringing total additional forces being sent to Iraq to anywhere from 35,000 to 48,000, far cry from the 20,000 cited last month by Mr. Bush.

Thursday, February 1, 2007

George Carlin: Who REALLY owns America

Carlin mixes cold hard truth with side-splitting laughter
February 1, 2007