MSNBC Covers Professor Steven E. Jones, Omits WTC7 Coverage - Video Inside

That was lame. He made a sloppy case and the producers at MSNBC did not even show the building 7 footage he sent them.
 
He wasn't sloppy... he was succint, intelligent, and they rushed him, and wouldn't show the footage he sent them.
 
I guess your right on the sloppy part. But he was too slow though, problably didn't realize how short the segments are on those kinds of shows.
 
But he continually asked for the WTC7 footage to be shown, and all they would show is a picture of the building as it stood... they had PLENTY of time to show it.
 
they didnt want anyone to see it!!!! there is no way around it... fucking assholes!!!! i would be happy if they would have just showed it.... tucker could of fucked him up and didnt, i dont know why he was so nice....
 
what happened to the other thread like this one.. i looked for it and couldnt find it...
 
911=inside job said:
they didnt want anyone to see it!!!! there is no way around it... fucking assholes!!!! i would be happy if they would have just showed it.... tucker could of fucked him up and didnt, i dont know why he was so nice....
Click to expand...

Did you see it?
 
I am sure Mr Stephen Jones will get a media learning curve education shortly.

I sent an email to Tucker Carlson thanking him for his coverage, for his "respectfullness" to this guest, and recommended Griffin and William Rodriguez for future spots if he wanted to add to this discussion later.
 
But Carlson did leave open a possiblity of him returning to finish that discussion though. It sucked how when the Professor kept asking for the footage to be played, the producer just kept showing the picture of that steel building and the WTC debret.
 
Rebel Patriot said:
I am sure Mr Stephen Jones will get a media learning curve education shortly.

I sent an email to Tucker Carlson thanking him for his coverage, for his "respectfullness" to this guest, and recommended Griffin and William Rodriguez for future spots if he wanted to add to this discussion later.
Click to expand...

I ripped his ass and called him a shill, which is exactly what he is. I think it was a message to other professors not to touch his hypothesis for a revue.

Here's my letter to Mr.Carlson.

Mr Carlson,

Your interview of Professor Stephen Jones was a joke. Not running the video clip that he sent the show in advance so that he might explain his hypothesis using the visual aid was disingegenenous to the extreme.

Your simple apology after the segment for not being able to understand what Professor Jones meant was insulting to Professor Jones and to all viewers of the program. I would have expected such coverage, or the lack of same, from Fox News. It now appears to me that MSNBC has fallen to the same level as Fox.
I know why I never watched at CNN and now I know your a shill for the Neo-cons. Millions of people believe that the US Govt was responsible for 911 and its growing, each day. 911 was a convienent excuse for Regime change in Afghanistan so a pipeline could be built and the poppy fields could bloom. It was used to invade Iraq and steal Oil. It brought about Patriot Act 1 & 2. Even FBI Director Robert Mueller has admitted in public that there is actually no evidence that proves the named 9-11 hijackers were actually on the aircraft. Feel free to have me on your show in the future. I can and will charge the neo-cons with 3000 counts of murder. I have seen enough evidence long before Mr Jones.
 
I wish I had added "I never watch you, actually the only time I have ever seen you before tonight was when Jon Stewart made you look like the little bitch you are"
 
aceace said:
I wish I had added "I never watch you, actually the only time I have ever seen you before tonight was when Jon Stewart made you look like the little bitch you are"
Click to expand...

Jon Stewart was a complete asshole on Crossfire. That was extremly rude what he did, and when he did it, I had lost all respect I had for him.
 
PhilosophyGenius said:
Jon Stewart was a complete asshole on Crossfire. That was extremly rude what he did, and when he did it, I had lost all respect I had for him.
Click to expand...
I disagree, what he was trying to do IMHO was bring to light the fact that the media does not cover the White House, it takes orders from the White House. The media is a controlled entity and the views are made to appeal to those that take the blue pill.
 
aceace is right on... stewart ruled on crossfire... the daily show is the best news on tv.. HAHA!!
 
sbg, i dare you to post this on letsroll... HAHAH!!!!

from mr jones...
At the same time, I acknowledge that other notions have sprung up in the near vacuum of official consideration of this very plausible hypothesis.^ These notions must be subjected to careful scrutiny. I by no means endorse all such ideas. ^For example, the video “In Plane Site” promotes the theory that a “pod” holds a missile under the wing of the 757 which hit WTC 2 (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). ^Careful inspection of the undercarriage of a standard 757 leads to the explanation that the so-called “pod” was merely a reflection from the bulged undercarriage (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005).^ I find that the “pod theory” is very weak and distracts from central issues.

Again, there is a notion that something other than Boeing jetliners hit the WTC Towers (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). ^Scrutiny of photographs and videos provides compelling evidence that jets did in fact hit these buildings (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). ^A March 2005 article in Popular Mechanics focuses on poorly-supported claims and proceeds to ridicule the whole “9-11 truth movement” (Chertoff, 2005). ^Serious replies to this article have already been written (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005; serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm).
 
911=inside job said:
sbg, i dare you to post this on letsroll... HAHAH!!!!

from mr jones...
At the same time, I acknowledge that other notions have sprung up in the near vacuum of official consideration of this very plausible hypothesis.^ These notions must be subjected to careful scrutiny. I by no means endorse all such ideas. ^For example, the video “In Plane Site” promotes the theory that a “pod” holds a missile under the wing of the 757 which hit WTC 2 (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). ^Careful inspection of the undercarriage of a standard 757 leads to the explanation that the so-called “pod” was merely a reflection from the bulged undercarriage (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005).^ I find that the “pod theory” is very weak and distracts from central issues.

Again, there is a notion that something other than Boeing jetliners hit the WTC Towers (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). ^Scrutiny of photographs and videos provides compelling evidence that jets did in fact hit these buildings (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). ^A March 2005 article in Popular Mechanics focuses on poorly-supported claims and proceeds to ridicule the whole “9-11 truth movement” (Chertoff, 2005). ^Serious replies to this article have already been written (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005; serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm).
Click to expand...
I'll post it, is this from his paper?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top