Tucker Carlson Resorts To Calling 9/11 Skeptic 'Quack' - Video Inside
Tucker Carlson Resorts to Calling 9/11 Skeptic 'Quack'
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/11/tu...lling-911.html
http://www.911blogger.com/files/images/Tucker_small.jpg
Video
Click Here
Tonight Tucker Carlson played one voicemail from a caller who thought he was wrong in his slander of Jones, and another from a FDNY firefighter who thought he was right, and that Steven Jones was a 'quack'. Tucker then said that 'he knew' that Steven Jones was 'a quack', and that 'it is because of people like you that I had qualms about that story in the first place, people who lived through that day' (referring to the FDNY caller).
Rather than continue to cover the ignorant views spewed from Carlson, tonight I'll just focus on responding to his actions and comments as related to 9/11 skeptics and Steven Jones.
Why not show the WTC7 footage?
When Steven Jones first appeared on 'The Situation' earlier this week his main intention was to explain his recent paper and to show the American people an alternative view of the collapses of 3 steel superstructures on 9/11, focusing specifically on WTC7.
Despite Carlson covering this story for 3 nights now, he has continued to refuse to show the footage of WTC7 sent in by Steven Jones. Perhaps this was a simple mistake, but the continued attacks and slander against Jones is completely unacceptable without at least showing the footage Jones had intended to show.
Since Carlson won't show the WTC7 footage, we will. Below is a clip from a recent documentary entitled '9/11 Eyewitness' (911eyewitness.com). This short clip is a quick and easy illustration showing why the speed of the collapse of WTC7 is worthy of scrutiny.
http://www.911blogger.com/files/imag...tness_wtc7.jpg
Video
('9/11 Eyewitness' WTC7 clip - 8mb WMV)
Why only respect those affected that agree with the official story?
Carlson stated that he had hesitated in covering Steven Jones in the first place in fear that he might disrespect those that died on 9/11. This statement goes along with his previous statement:
Ponder that for a second: The U.S. government killed more than 3,000 of its own citizens. For no obvious reason.
These two statements are similar in that he makes huge leaps in his assumptions. He assumes that those affected directly by 9/11 agree with the official story, and he assumes that alternative theories to 9/11 are unfounded because no motives exist.
To suggest that all of those directly affected by 9/11 agree with the 'official story' as presented by the 9/11 Commission Report is just plain ignorant. Numbers of people have come out in disagreement with the 'official story' who were directly affected by 9/11. A few quick examples include the 'Jersey Girls' who in July of this year called the 9/11 Commission Report a 'hollow failure', and William Rodriguez (20 year WTC worker) who testified to the commission that massive explosions occurred in the basements of the WTC towers. Other examples include Donna Marsh whose daughter was killed on 9/11, and countless scores of others who not only fought tooth-and-nail for a commission to be founded, but whom still today believe our government is covering up important details surrounding that fateful day.
The assumption that no motives exist as to why our government would allow, facilitate, or be solely responsible for 9/11 is another ignorant assumption as well. The major players of this administration had a virtual wishlist come to fruition, all of which would have been impossible without 9/11. From PNAC's desire to massively increase military spending and to secure permanent military bases in Iraq, to the removal of the Taliban who had halted Unocal's trans-afghan pipeline, to the increase of government powers, and the steady infringement of our personal rights, 9/11 has served as the ultimate trump-card to pass anything and everything desired by this administration. To suggest that no motives exist is to be ignorant of how 9/11 has altered our country, and our fellow citizens' mindsets to agree with things that our country previously would never have allowed.
Note to Carlson: Perhaps you can read over these possible motives of the Bush administration by Dr. David Ray Griffin. Maybe next week you could have another 20+ year professor on your show who questions 9/11 that you could bash?
Explosions did occur prior to the 'collapses' of WTC1 and WTC2
http://www.911blogger.com/files/imag...tness_wtc1.jpg
Video
('9/11 Eyewitness' WTC1 Clip - 13mb WMV)
The video linked above is a sample from '9/11 Eyewitness', just one of a dozen different 9/11 documentaries that show massive explosions occurring before each towers collapse. What those explosions were, how they were planted, or what the motives were is of little consequence to the overwhelming fact that WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were not brought down at freefall speeds by fires. You want to see a real skyscraper inferno? Check out the recent Madrid fire.
Whether you quote comments by William Rodriguez, or you reference this compilation or this compilation of FDNY firefighters and others commenting on the explosions, to suggest that none occurred is just an opinion, and a faulty one at that.
Conclusion
Had Tucker Carlson had any real intentions of covering the report from Steven Jones fairly he could have went about it a completely different way. First, he could have played the footage sent to him by Jones at some point in the last three nights. Second, he could have avoided slandering Jones by going over the points of his report instead of just calling him a 'quack' and resorting to attacks based on ignorance and emotion. And third, he could have pointed out that not only Jones, but large percentages of Americans question our government's involvement in 9/11.
Those that want to have a full understanding of 9/11 will do more than rely on a talking head like Carlson and will read any number of books on 9/11, watch any of dozens of videos on 9/11, and read years of 9/11 questioning archives available on the internet. To try to summarize 9/11 in a 8 minutes of prime time coverage is impossible, but to slander and attack the very idea of asking questions about 9/11 in that time is quite easy. While I hope that at some point our media will spend sufficient time covering the wide variety of questions surrounding 9/11, I am certain that it won't be done in 8 minutes of coverage, and that it won't be done by someone so ignorant of the issues surrounding 9/11 as Tucker Carlson.
Seems to me that someone should send The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11 to Tucker.
Special thanks to the creators of 9/11 Eyewitness for their high quality continuous footage of 9/11 which was recently released, and to Jon Gold for tonights capture of 'The Situation'.
