9/11 Theorist Clearly Hits A Nerve (Tucker Carlson)

[ThotPolice]

The story will never break in the mainstream, how the hell would america survive if it did?
The heads of media outlets would not want the story to get out because it could easily destroy the economy and their salary.

Sad but true, you should all move up here, it's a little better.

[PhilosophyGenius]

The story will never break in the mainstream, how the hell would america survive if it did?
The heads of media outlets would not want the story to get out because it could easily destroy the economy and their salary.

Sad but true, you should all move up here, it's a little better.

1. Well then how was Carlson or his producer able to book him in the first place?

2. You know you want to move down to America.

[PhilosophyGenius]

Another thing about Carlson, him and his producers seem to read most, if not all of there mail.

[Gold9472]

MSNBC Studios Telephone #: 201 583 5000

I just called, and spoke to Tucker's secretary... when you call, ask for "The Situation".

[Gold9472]

I'm sure A Lot!!!!

But this guy has already allowed a 9/11 guy to come on his show and explain himself. And here, and on his show, he says he's open to being convinced, just hasnt heard good enough evidence. And sicne that show doesnt have a lot of viewers (which means less mail), then it's more likely that 9/11 Truth mail will get read and he'll put it on, since he's aready done so. Audience participaction is also a huge factor in the show with the emails and phone calls and such.

Explain himself? I'm sorry, did you just say that outloud?

[PhilosophyGenius]

Explain himself? I'm sorry, did you just say that outloud?

Well ya he did allow the proffesor to make his case. I know they didn't play the 9/11 footage but that wasnt his fault. I mean if he didn't' want to hear it he wouldn't have been on the show in the first place.

[Gold9472]

9/11 theorist clearly hits a nerve (Tucker Carlson)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8063563/#051116a

(Gold9472: I've never done this before, but I'm going to "red" the parts of this story that are meant to be misleading, on a subconscious level.)

11/16/2005

We've never had an e-mail response like the one we got after Monday's segment with Stephen Jones, a professor in the department of physics and astronomy at Brigham Young University. Jones believes that the World Trade Center buildings were likely brought down by bombs, rather than by hijacked planes on 9-11. "Use of powerful, pre-positioned explosives in the WTC buildings would imply an 'inside job'," Jones writes in a paper available on the BYU website. "Clearly, we must find out what really caused the WTC skyscrapers to collapse as they did."

When one of my producers first told me about him, my first thought was: Stephen Jones is insane. And he may be. On the other hand, he does have a legitimate job and a responsible-sounding title. He's not living in the park, or writing me letters in crayon. How crazy could he really be? In the interest of open-mindedness, we booked him.

That was probably a mistake. Talking about 9-11 is a lot like discussing someone else's religion: You can do it, but you've got to tread carefully. Most of the time, it's best to stick to platitudes and move on. The subject is still too raw for debate, particularly here in the New York area. (The little town where I live lost six people on September 11th; the town next door lost more than 20.) Professor Jones wasn't up to the job. If you saw last night's show, you know what an uncomfortable six minutes it was. If not, I'll summarize: Jones was almost totally incapable of explaining his own ideas. By the end of the interview I understood no more about his hypothesis than when it began. He was an epically bad guest.

Yet - and here's the interesting part - he seemed to connect with a huge number of viewers. Some who e-mailed were offended that Jones would dare question the official version of 9-11. Some were confused by what he was trying to say. But the overwhelming majority wrote to thank me for my "courage" in putting him on, and to complain that we didn't give him more time to explain the conspiracy.

In other words, a lot of people seem to think it's possible that the U.S. government had a hand in bringing down the World Trade Center buildings.

Ponder that for a second: The U.S. government killed more than 3,000 of its own citizens. For no obvious reason. Then lied about it. Then invaded two other countries, killing thousands of their citizens as punishment for a crime they didn't commit.

If you really thought this - or even considered it a possibility - how could you continue to live here? You couldn't. You'd leave the United States on the next available flight and not come back. You'd have no choice. Continuing to pay taxes to a government capable of something so evil would make you complicit in the crime.

So of course most of the people who wrote to say they think the government might have been behind 9-11 don't really think the government might have been behind 9-11. For whatever reason, they just like to say so. Which as far as I'm concerned makes them phony and irresponsible.

Incidentally, we still have an open mind here on the Situation, even after Professor Stephen Jones. So if evidence ever does arise that the government lied substantially about what happened on September 11th, we'll be on it immediately. I promise.

Keep those e-mails coming to Tucker@msnbc.com

[Gold9472]

Well ya he did allow the proffesor to make his case. I know they didn't play the 9/11 footage but that wasnt his fault. I mean if he didn't' want to hear it he wouldn't have been on the show in the first place.

They DID NOT allow him to make his case. Part of his case has to do with the footage itself. The reason they had him on, in my opinion, was to slander him, and make him look like a fool. Which is one of the reasons they had him on so fast. You think he's the first person to mention the hypothesis of demolition? Of course not. Yet, he was the first "credible" person to do so. So they had to "nip it in the bud" as quickly as possible. Not for people who follow this site, but for the "minions" of people out there who believe EVERYTHING the television tells them. Those are the people we're trying to convince to get off their asses, so those are the people they target.

Now, if someone like me goes to someone, and says, "Hey, did you know that a Physics Professor from BYU thinks the WTC was brought down by pre-planted explosives, and not by fire which was originally thought?", and they would say, "Yeah, I saw that guy on TV. He was a real moron."

THAT, and ONLY that is what they're trying to accomplish.

It's no different than when Jeremey Glick was on the "O'Reilly Factor". In fact, they almost did the same thing. They wouldn't let him speak, or make his case, and the next day, they accused him of something he didn't say, which was that Bush was behind 9/11. Neither Jones or Glick said that on TV, yet, that's what they lied about them saying... because as you know, anyone who even thinks that is a "Unpatriotic Nutty Conspiracy Theorist Tinfoil Hat Wearing Fruitcake".

[Gold9472]

Now you know why I don't watch TV anymore.

[somebigguy]

Think of the ratings the guy got!!! Once those numbers are in, he'll be asking Jones or DRG for a second appearance in no time.