Saturday, October 14, 2006

When You're In The Company of Bill O'Reilly, You're In Good Company Dude

Bill O'Reilly and Fox News recently took on a 9/11 truth seeker on their broadcast. Listen to the logic Bill uses to discredit Jim Fetzer:

FETZER: Bill, you're obviously not going to give me a chance to talk about any of these things, so...

O'REILLY: No, I'm not, because you're a nut.

Yes, rather than take on the evidence piece by piece, O'Reilly has this gentleman on, proceeds to say things like:
why don't you just say that you have a Martian living in your bedroom, sir?

and of course, the favorite stand-by of all real truth seekers out there:
You hate your country
Yes, rather than look at or discuss any evidence Jim fetzer might put forth, O'Reilly had this man on to belittle him. That's good objective journalism.
So Mr. Fetzer was n't able to present evidence such as this:

This picture is evidence that thermite was used to bring the towers down. It's about the only evidence left, as the remains of the building were shipped off and destroyed before investigators could get a look at them. Now, if there were witnesses reports of explosions in the WTC before the towers fell, and we have photographic evidence that thermite, an explosive used by demolition companies to cut main support beams, was present at the WTC, I think that makes a strong case that something other than two planes crashing into the towers brought them down.
And since the charges would have had to been planted sooner (such as in the weekend before, when there were intermittent power outages in the WTC), that implies that someone was aware that the WTC was being targeted by alleged terrorists. I say alleged because at least six men on the FBI's list were found to be alive and innocent two weeks after the attacks occurred.
Now, for all these facts to come to light, there would have to have been a rigorous investigation. But after resisting for years to conduct a formal investigation, the Bush administartion finally set-up the 9/11 Commission. There were told what they could look at, essentially, intelligence failures, and then limited the amount of time and the budget for the commission. And if that wasn't enough, when called before the commision themselves, Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath (Hello? Wasn't perjury what led to Bill Clinton's impeachment? Why give your poltical enemies that weapon to use against you?) So even thought there was eyewitness and photographic and even video evidence that thermite was used in the WTC, there was no follow-up investigation whatsoever. Why not? Who could have ordered any investigation not to take place?
Bill O'Reilly then finishes up his hit piece by concluding:
If you had the evidence, sir, you would be on the front page of The New York Times in a heartbeat.

Well, Mr. Embodiment-Of-Fair-Balanced-And Responsible-Journalism, if you won't let Mr. Fetzer present his case, why should the New York Times?


AJ said...

Quite a conversation last night at TBR eh? Didn't end very pretty either.
O Well, life's rough and then you die...

You know, with all this BS floating around concerning WTC and 911, one of MY big two questions would be :

1. WHO made money off the short trading and why cant they find them? They f*cking know where every dime goes-especially in trading platforms.
2. What did Silverstein mean when he said " We decided to PULL IT"(refering to his building 7), and why in fact did it come down at all?

Anyway, it was nice to have someone on my side.

karena said...

Lew, Great catch on the "If you had evidence it would be on the front pages of the New York Times." The paper that O'Reilly trounces on for his perceived attacks against him (ignoring how the paper trounced on US with the Judy Miller faux stories that were regurgitations of what Chalabi and the neo-cons fed her). Now O'Reilly suddenly holds the NYT as the paragon that is all that is to be believed and if it is not printed there it is bullshit? What a freak. Thanks for catching that program and O'Reilly's absurd quote.

Kathy said...

I thought O'Reilly held the NY Times in disdain and didn't believe they were credible? All of sudden he's telling this guy if his story were credible it would be in the NT Times. I hope O'Reilly is prepared to back up his words if Fetzer's evidence does end up in that paper.

A question I'd like to see someone ask O'Reilly: Is the NY Times a credible paper or not?

Tina said...

When the Yankees pitcher flew his plane into that Manhattan apratment building, Hubby turned to me and said in full snark: "Hey look honey. A plane flew into that building and yet it didn't crumble to the ground or disintegrate in mere hours. Ain't that something?"

Lew Scannon said...

Yes, why hasn't that person been arrested? Or why haven't they made any headway into the anthrax letters, since they know what lab it came from and have a suspect entering the lab without authorization? As for WTC 7, those are some good questions as well, as it was never hit by a plane, yet mysteriously collapsed into it's own footprint.
O'Reilly seems even less consistent than I, and I always find myself contradicting myself.
I guess the thing that is most surprising is he didn't let the man present his case at all, while claiming to be a 'spin free zone'.
you know, I said the same exact thing. Of course, it was a smaller plane.

Left of Center said...

My friend who is a NYC fireman told me they all knew that 7 was pulled. So they had the charges allread installed? Also, last week they showed a building being demolished, the little white flash of light sent a chill down my spine because it was identical to the flashes you can see as the towers collapsed.

Lew Scannon said...

If you click on the thermite link, it shows a conclusive video case for the use of thermite to collapse the towers. Logic demands that:
1.The charges must have been set sometime before the planes hit.
2. Someone knew that the planes were going to hit ahead of time, and yet no effort was made to stop them.
3.By not investigating this angle, and by destroying all the evidence, the government was complicit in this crime.