Originally posted by culorut
Popular Mechanics was ripped many times regarding their propaganda hit pieces.
Here is Mark Cuban handing Bill O'Reilly his ass and making it very clear that Popular mechanics is full of .
Mark Cuban Exposes O'Reilly Hypocrisy On Radio Broadcast
Hearst yellow journalism devotees Popular Mechanics, NY Post enlisted to debunk 9/11 truth again
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Billionaire Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks who is set to finance a cinema release of Loose Change narrated by Charlie Sheen, exposed Bill O'Reilly's rampant hypocrisy concerning his coverage of the 9/11 truth movement on the Fox News host's radio show yesterday.
Offering the entire 18 minute segment will probably result in Bill calling on Fox security to pay us a visit so here's a 9 minute clip instead.
O'Reilly admits right off the bat that he has not even seen Loose Change, following in the trend of his fellow debunkers who have already arrived at a judgment without even checking the evidence. Bill's mind is made up! Don't bother him with the facts!
This painfully underscores exactly what this whole charade represents, not an open debate on the evidence, but a cynical attempt to smear Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell and Mark Cuban.
O'Reilly wastes no time in doing so by associating Loose Change with "Nazi propaganda."
O'Reilly's claim might hold more weight if Dylan Avery were in control of a powerful industrial country, ran its media and commanded its standing army, but last time I checked Dylan still lives in upstate New York with his friends and a dog called Justice.
"The security in the World Trade Center would have been impossible for anybody to have set charges," claims O'Reilly, oblivious to the fact that, as World Trade Center worker Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. confirms, power downs and evacuation exercises in the towers were taking place on the weekend before 9/11, giving ample opportunity for incendiary devices to be placed. WTC workers Ben Fountain and William Rodriquez also confirmed this.
At this point Popular Mechanics editor-in-chief James Meigs chimes in to state that the impact of the jetliners and the fires they caused were enough to bring down the towers, a claim that is completely contradicted by the very design architects of the World Trade Center, who are all on the record as saying they designed the building to handle multiple impacts of large jetliners.
Meigs has an illustrious pedigree that puts him right up there with the professors and scholars that have studied 9/11 and the architects who designed the WTC - I just can't decide which title to give prominence, his position on the editorial staff of that bastion of scientific empiricism Entertainment Weekly or the equally respected Video Review.
Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Publishing. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst (pictured) wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.
Enter the term "yellow journalism" in the Encyclopedia Britannica and one of the first entries you will see is William Randolph Hearst. The listing attributes to Hearst a legacy of "distorted" and "lurid" reporting, and cites him as being hugely influential in fanning the flames of the Spanish-American war as a result of his newspaper's sensationalist yellow journalism.
Popular Mechanics is owned by the very corporation that defined yellow journalism!
During the interview, O'Reilly lauds Popular Mechanics as politically independent and non-partisan, "Popular Mechanics is not a political magazine, it's a technical magazine," when in fact it was darling of the Republican party John McCain who penned the foreword to Popular Mechanics' Debunking 9/11 Myths book.
In the foreword, McCain re-hashes an abhorrent amount of Neo-Con detritus that relies solely on 9/11 having happened exactly as the government claims it did. "We liberated Afghanistan from the murderous rule of the Taliban, our attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al Qaeda around the globe," barks the Arizona Senator.
Does this sound politically neutral to you?
Returning to the radio broadcast, O'Reilly brings on Mark Cuban, the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks who plans to mass distribute Loose Change, and immediately makes an argument that Loose Change should be banned just as some books should be banned. Cuban points out that O'Reilly's insistence that "lunacy not be given legitimacy" by affording it any attention is contradicted by the very fact that O'Reilly is covering the controversy on his radio and TV show.
O'Reilly persists with his argument of "marginalizing cranks" which Cuban refutes by asking "how many shows have you spent on this topic?" O'Reilly claims he has only done one show on 9/11 conspiracies which is patently false. O'Reilly has attacked both Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett numerous times on his television show.
Cuban's appeal to freedom of speech and his involvement in putting out previous documentaries in association with the Republican party gives strong credence to his argument that people need to hear all sides of the argument, in contrast to O'Reilly's shrill demands for censorship of a film that he hasn't even bothered to watch.
O'Reilly then plays the obligatory Holocaust card to claim Loose Change is insulting to the victims, a myth that we have exposed a dozen times in the past. The representative of the largest 9/11 family victim's group, Bill Doyle who also lost his son in the attacks, is on the record as saying half of his members now have grave questions about what happened on 9/11.
"He's finished," barks O'Reilly, echoing the threat made on his TV show that narrating Loose Change will end Charlie Sheen's career, a baseless assumption considering Sheen's career has only achieved more prominence in the year since he went public on 9/11 to the Alex Jones Show.
Repeating his mafia-like warning of "I'm looking out for him (Sheen) and I'm looking out for you too," O'Reilly concludes the interview by urging Cuban to rethink the project, stating "there's a lot of pain involved in this kind of a situation." With rhetoric like this, O'Reilly wouldn't have looked out of place had he been born into the Genovese Cosa Nostra family.
thats one of your stupidest posts yet. where is the science contradicting popular mechanics? and who or what owns the magazine is irrelevant. you guys love to see conspiracy everywhere. oh noes! someone who knows someone who knows george bush is a part of PM? crap, must be a conspiracy!
also, the towers may have been built to withstand an aeroplane, however they did not take into consideration all the fuel big planes might be carrying.
screw loose change is better at exposing the lies than PM anyway.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Popular Mechanics was ripped many times regarding their propaganda hit pieces.
Here is Mark Cuban handing Bill O'Reilly his ass and making it very clear that Popular mechanics is full of .
Mark Cuban Exposes O'Reilly Hypocrisy On Radio Broadcast
Hearst yellow journalism devotees Popular Mechanics, NY Post enlisted to debunk 9/11 truth again
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Billionaire Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks who is set to finance a cinema release of Loose Change narrated by Charlie Sheen, exposed Bill O'Reilly's rampant hypocrisy concerning his coverage of the 9/11 truth movement on the Fox News host's radio show yesterday.
Offering the entire 18 minute segment will probably result in Bill calling on Fox security to pay us a visit so here's a 9 minute clip instead.
O'Reilly admits right off the bat that he has not even seen Loose Change, following in the trend of his fellow debunkers who have already arrived at a judgment without even checking the evidence. Bill's mind is made up! Don't bother him with the facts!
This painfully underscores exactly what this whole charade represents, not an open debate on the evidence, but a cynical attempt to smear Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell and Mark Cuban.
O'Reilly wastes no time in doing so by associating Loose Change with "Nazi propaganda."
O'Reilly's claim might hold more weight if Dylan Avery were in control of a powerful industrial country, ran its media and commanded its standing army, but last time I checked Dylan still lives in upstate New York with his friends and a dog called Justice.
"The security in the World Trade Center would have been impossible for anybody to have set charges," claims O'Reilly, oblivious to the fact that, as World Trade Center worker Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. confirms, power downs and evacuation exercises in the towers were taking place on the weekend before 9/11, giving ample opportunity for incendiary devices to be placed. WTC workers Ben Fountain and William Rodriquez also confirmed this.
At this point Popular Mechanics editor-in-chief James Meigs chimes in to state that the impact of the jetliners and the fires they caused were enough to bring down the towers, a claim that is completely contradicted by the very design architects of the World Trade Center, who are all on the record as saying they designed the building to handle multiple impacts of large jetliners.
Meigs has an illustrious pedigree that puts him right up there with the professors and scholars that have studied 9/11 and the architects who designed the WTC - I just can't decide which title to give prominence, his position on the editorial staff of that bastion of scientific empiricism Entertainment Weekly or the equally respected Video Review.
Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Publishing. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst (pictured) wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.
Enter the term "yellow journalism" in the Encyclopedia Britannica and one of the first entries you will see is William Randolph Hearst. The listing attributes to Hearst a legacy of "distorted" and "lurid" reporting, and cites him as being hugely influential in fanning the flames of the Spanish-American war as a result of his newspaper's sensationalist yellow journalism.
Popular Mechanics is owned by the very corporation that defined yellow journalism!
During the interview, O'Reilly lauds Popular Mechanics as politically independent and non-partisan, "Popular Mechanics is not a political magazine, it's a technical magazine," when in fact it was darling of the Republican party John McCain who penned the foreword to Popular Mechanics' Debunking 9/11 Myths book.
In the foreword, McCain re-hashes an abhorrent amount of Neo-Con detritus that relies solely on 9/11 having happened exactly as the government claims it did. "We liberated Afghanistan from the murderous rule of the Taliban, our attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al Qaeda around the globe," barks the Arizona Senator.
Does this sound politically neutral to you?
Returning to the radio broadcast, O'Reilly brings on Mark Cuban, the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks who plans to mass distribute Loose Change, and immediately makes an argument that Loose Change should be banned just as some books should be banned. Cuban points out that O'Reilly's insistence that "lunacy not be given legitimacy" by affording it any attention is contradicted by the very fact that O'Reilly is covering the controversy on his radio and TV show.
O'Reilly persists with his argument of "marginalizing cranks" which Cuban refutes by asking "how many shows have you spent on this topic?" O'Reilly claims he has only done one show on 9/11 conspiracies which is patently false. O'Reilly has attacked both Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett numerous times on his television show.
Cuban's appeal to freedom of speech and his involvement in putting out previous documentaries in association with the Republican party gives strong credence to his argument that people need to hear all sides of the argument, in contrast to O'Reilly's shrill demands for censorship of a film that he hasn't even bothered to watch.
O'Reilly then plays the obligatory Holocaust card to claim Loose Change is insulting to the victims, a myth that we have exposed a dozen times in the past. The representative of the largest 9/11 family victim's group, Bill Doyle who also lost his son in the attacks, is on the record as saying half of his members now have grave questions about what happened on 9/11.
"He's finished," barks O'Reilly, echoing the threat made on his TV show that narrating Loose Change will end Charlie Sheen's career, a baseless assumption considering Sheen's career has only achieved more prominence in the year since he went public on 9/11 to the Alex Jones Show.
Repeating his mafia-like warning of "I'm looking out for him (Sheen) and I'm looking out for you too," O'Reilly concludes the interview by urging Cuban to rethink the project, stating "there's a lot of pain involved in this kind of a situation." With rhetoric like this, O'Reilly wouldn't have looked out of place had he been born into the Genovese Cosa Nostra family.
thats one of your stupidest posts yet. where is the science contradicting popular mechanics? and who or what owns the magazine is irrelevant. you guys love to see conspiracy everywhere. oh noes! someone who knows someone who knows george bush is a part of PM? crap, must be a conspiracy!
also, the towers may have been built to withstand an aeroplane, however they did not take into consideration all the fuel big planes might be carrying.
screw loose change is better at exposing the lies than PM anyway.
culorut
quote:
also, the towers may have been built to withstand an aeroplane, however they did not take into consideration all the fuel big planes might be carrying.
Now that is the most ing dumb thing you must have ever typed. What did they think was fueling the planes then? chocolate pudding?
Of course the fuel was taken into consideration.
STFU already you moron.
shaolin_Z
LOL :D
jonSun
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Now that is the most ing dumb thing you must have ever typed. What did they think was fueling the planes then? chocolate pudding?
Of course the fuel was taken into consideration.
STFU already you moron.
Well werent the towers built to withstand hits from 727's? Whats the fuel capacity difference? Also didnt the 911 commision report say that 90% of the planes fuel burned up in the initial fireball when hitting the towers? I dunno, i might be wrong.
culorut
The towers where built for multiple hits from aircraft including the fuel.
culorut
Props to my fellow Canadian journalists for having some balls.
The curious tale of the 'other' WTC tower
Kevin Brooker, Calgary Herald
Published: Monday, March 26, 2007
Now that Rosie O'Donnell is trying to table it on The View, I guess we can talk about it here.
First, a news quiz: If, some time after the collapse of World Trade Center towers 1 and 2, a 47-story office building in a major American city also came crashing to the ground, do you think you'd know about it?
Of course, you would.
But if I were to tell you that such an event actually did happen, could you name that building?
If you are like most North Americans, I'm guessing probably not.
In fact, the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building, which was also known as WTC 7 and stood but two blocks away from ground zero, occurred late in the day on Sept. 11, 2001.
It remains one of the central anomalies in a day filled with anomalies, yet it was treated then, and remains today, at least in official annals, as an insignificant footnote.
Struck by no aircraft, and little debris, WTC 7 nevertheless had small fires mysteriously burning in several of its middle floors. Judging from photographs, one would assume those fires should have been easily contained.
Yet at 5:20 p.m., in a space of 6.5 seconds, or practically at a free-fall rate, WTC 7 collapsed perfectly into its footprint. It should have been big news, if only because it would have been the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due exclusively to fire. But for some reason, reporters gave it a wide berth.
Shortly after 9/11, when Associated Press published a timeline of events called A Stunning 48 Hours of News, WTC 7 was not mentioned at all. Neither was it in the government's official 9/11 report. And to this day, authorities have only issued an inconclusive draft report as to why the building fell.
Not everyone is so incurious, however. A host of researchers have busily gathered everything they could learn about that day, and WTC 7 in particular.
Though you're unlikely to have seen it, video of the collapse does exist (and can be found on the Internet). The footage exhibits the hallmarks of controlled demolition, including bursts of dust from what appear to be many tiny explosions and the curtain-like plummeting of the entire structure.
During the brief aftermath before WTC 7 disappeared into the memory hole, CBS anchor Dan Rather showed the video and said, "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite."
Many have concluded it was just that. Moreover, they discovered that WTC 7 had unusual tenants, including several floors devoted to each of the FBI, the CIA and mayor Rudy Giuliani's emergency headquarters. It was also home to a legal branch of the Security and Exchange Commission, which allegedly harboured evidence relating to a number of ongoing investigations of market malfeasance.
A PBS television documentary later showed the WTC's owner, Larry Silverstein, describing how he reacted that day: " 'We've had such terrible loss of life,' " he recalled saying, " 'maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
You can read into that what you may, just as you can with the fact that Silverstein's group had only acquired WTC six months earlier, for $3.2 billion, and bought insurance that for the first time specifically indemnified acts of terrorism. As of last report, Silverstein had collected $4.6 billion.
Finally, from the department of curiouser and curiouser, came another bombshell this year. Researchers unearthed a BBC television report from 9/11 in which the reporter announced the collapse of WTC 7. Strangely, though, the building is still plainly visible over her right shoulder, and would not fall for another 20 minutes.
Well, if the rest of the world won't get to the bottom of this, maybe Rosie will.
Originally posted by culorut
Now that is the most ing dumb thing you must have ever typed. What did they think was fueling the planes then? chocolate pudding?
Of course the fuel was taken into consideration.
STFU already you moron.
childish responses to balance your juvenile capacity for research and critical thinking, clown
quote:
Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member. The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building—paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained.
rule of thumb cretinrot- dont make pathetically stupid assumptions concerning technical details before consulting what relevant experts have to say on the matter.
keep sleuthing it up einstein.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Props to my fellow Canadian journalists for having some balls.
The curious tale of the 'other' WTC tower
Kevin Brooker, Calgary Herald
Published: Monday, March 26, 2007
Now that Rosie O'Donnell is trying to table it on The View, I guess we can talk about it here.
First, a news quiz: If, some time after the collapse of World Trade Center towers 1 and 2, a 47-story office building in a major American city also came crashing to the ground, do you think you'd know about it?
Of course, you would.
But if I were to tell you that such an event actually did happen, could you name that building?
If you are like most North Americans, I'm guessing probably not.
In fact, the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building, which was also known as WTC 7 and stood but two blocks away from ground zero, occurred late in the day on Sept. 11, 2001.
It remains one of the central anomalies in a day filled with anomalies, yet it was treated then, and remains today, at least in official annals, as an insignificant footnote.
Struck by no aircraft, and little debris, WTC 7 nevertheless had small fires mysteriously burning in several of its middle floors. Judging from photographs, one would assume those fires should have been easily contained.
Yet at 5:20 p.m., in a space of 6.5 seconds, or practically at a free-fall rate, WTC 7 collapsed perfectly into its footprint. It should have been big news, if only because it would have been the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due exclusively to fire. But for some reason, reporters gave it a wide berth.
Shortly after 9/11, when Associated Press published a timeline of events called A Stunning 48 Hours of News, WTC 7 was not mentioned at all. Neither was it in the government's official 9/11 report. And to this day, authorities have only issued an inconclusive draft report as to why the building fell.
Not everyone is so incurious, however. A host of researchers have busily gathered everything they could learn about that day, and WTC 7 in particular.
Though you're unlikely to have seen it, video of the collapse does exist (and can be found on the Internet). The footage exhibits the hallmarks of controlled demolition, including bursts of dust from what appear to be many tiny explosions and the curtain-like plummeting of the entire structure.
During the brief aftermath before WTC 7 disappeared into the memory hole, CBS anchor Dan Rather showed the video and said, "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite."
Many have concluded it was just that. Moreover, they discovered that WTC 7 had unusual tenants, including several floors devoted to each of the FBI, the CIA and mayor Rudy Giuliani's emergency headquarters. It was also home to a legal branch of the Security and Exchange Commission, which allegedly harboured evidence relating to a number of ongoing investigations of market malfeasance.
A PBS television documentary later showed the WTC's owner, Larry Silverstein, describing how he reacted that day: " 'We've had such terrible loss of life,' " he recalled saying, " 'maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
You can read into that what you may, just as you can with the fact that Silverstein's group had only acquired WTC six months earlier, for $3.2 billion, and bought insurance that for the first time specifically indemnified acts of terrorism. As of last report, Silverstein had collected $4.6 billion.
Finally, from the department of curiouser and curiouser, came another bombshell this year. Researchers unearthed a BBC television report from 9/11 in which the reporter announced the collapse of WTC 7. Strangely, though, the building is still plainly visible over her right shoulder, and would not fall for another 20 minutes.
Well, if the rest of the world won't get to the bottom of this, maybe Rosie will.
your capacity for self-deception is truly impressive. that article is filled with so many lies it would be funny if deep, abject stupidity was amusing. as it stands, it just highlights your inability to gauge proper information from outright bull. failure.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Props to my fellow Canadian journalists for having some balls.
The curious tale of the 'other' WTC tower
Kevin Brooker, Calgary Herald
Published: Monday, March 26, 2007
Now that Rosie O'Donnell is trying to table it on The View, I guess we can talk about it here.
First, a news quiz: If, some time after the collapse of World Trade Center towers 1 and 2, a 47-story office building in a major American city also came crashing to the ground, do you think you'd know about it?
Of course, you would.
But if I were to tell you that such an event actually did happen, could you name that building?
If you are like most North Americans, I'm guessing probably not.
In fact, the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building, which was also known as WTC 7 and stood but two blocks away from ground zero, occurred late in the day on Sept. 11, 2001.
It remains one of the central anomalies in a day filled with anomalies, yet it was treated then, and remains today, at least in official annals, as an insignificant footnote.
Struck by no aircraft, and little debris, WTC 7 nevertheless had small fires mysteriously burning in several of its middle floors. Judging from photographs, one would assume those fires should have been easily contained.
Yet at 5:20 p.m., in a space of 6.5 seconds, or practically at a free-fall rate, WTC 7 collapsed perfectly into its footprint. It should have been big news, if only because it would have been the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due exclusively to fire. But for some reason, reporters gave it a wide berth.
Shortly after 9/11, when Associated Press published a timeline of events called A Stunning 48 Hours of News, WTC 7 was not mentioned at all. Neither was it in the government's official 9/11 report. And to this day, authorities have only issued an inconclusive draft report as to why the building fell.
Not everyone is so incurious, however. A host of researchers have busily gathered everything they could learn about that day, and WTC 7 in particular.
Though you're unlikely to have seen it, video of the collapse does exist (and can be found on the Internet). The footage exhibits the hallmarks of controlled demolition, including bursts of dust from what appear to be many tiny explosions and the curtain-like plummeting of the entire structure.
During the brief aftermath before WTC 7 disappeared into the memory hole, CBS anchor Dan Rather showed the video and said, "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite."
Many have concluded it was just that. Moreover, they discovered that WTC 7 had unusual tenants, including several floors devoted to each of the FBI, the CIA and mayor Rudy Giuliani's emergency headquarters. It was also home to a legal branch of the Security and Exchange Commission, which allegedly harboured evidence relating to a number of ongoing investigations of market malfeasance.
A PBS television documentary later showed the WTC's owner, Larry Silverstein, describing how he reacted that day: " 'We've had such terrible loss of life,' " he recalled saying, " 'maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
You can read into that what you may, just as you can with the fact that Silverstein's group had only acquired WTC six months earlier, for $3.2 billion, and bought insurance that for the first time specifically indemnified acts of terrorism. As of last report, Silverstein had collected $4.6 billion.
Finally, from the department of curiouser and curiouser, came another bombshell this year. Researchers unearthed a BBC television report from 9/11 in which the reporter announced the collapse of WTC 7. Strangely, though, the building is still plainly visible over her right shoulder, and would not fall for another 20 minutes.
Well, if the rest of the world won't get to the bottom of this, maybe Rosie will.
your capacity for self-deception is truly impressive. that article is filled with so many lies it would be funny if deep, abject stupidity was amusing. as it stands, it just highlights your inability to guage proper information from outright bull. failure.
