It's rare that two media watchdogs – one on the left and one on the right – ever agree when it comes to assessing coverage on the cable news outlets.It's not surprising. The system is like a football game - two teams play against eachother, each one with fans that cheer them on. To the owners of the league, it doesn't matter who wins, coz they win either way. On the pitch the teams are mortal enemies, but if something threatens the game itself, the two teams will stand together to defend it. Likewise, in poltics, if something threatens the system itself (e.g. 9/11 truth) both the left and the right will attack it.
But both the conservative Newsbusters and liberal Media Matters are aiming fire at Fox News' Geraldo Rivera and Judge Andrew Napolitano for recently suggesting the third building to fall on September 11, 2001 – 7 World Trade Center- may have collapsed for reasons beside the widely held belief that fire from the two World Trade Center towers nearby was the ultimate cause.
While linking to the Popular Mechanics article, WTC7lies, the BBC conspiracy files piece and a structure magazine article which cites the FEMA report and the 2004 NIST interim report as its sources, Lachlan Markay of Newsbusters writes...
Both Napolitano and Rivera have, er, raised questions about the "official" (read: commonsensical) explanation for the collapse of the WTC7 building on September 11, 2001. This conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked a number of times. Apparently Geraldo and the Judge are not convinced.Replace the 'comm' from 'commonsensical' with an 'n' and you've got a bettter description of the official theory of WTC7's collapse. What the government expects us to believe essentially is that on 9/11, malevolent offices fires were able to intelligently seek out and destroy the one vital column preventing the entire building from imploding into its own footprint at the rate of freefall - a theory which makes intelligent thermite look credible.
Aside from the 1 in 81 improbability of fact that the column the fire allegedly destroyed just happened to be the building's alleged single point of failure (one of hundreds of 'coincidences' surrounding 9/11) , NIST's 'thermal expanation' fairytale openly violates simple physics and 'has been thoroughly debunked a number of times' - as have all the propaganda pieces that support it.
Notice the circular logic of these hitpieces. Bob MacIlvaine & Tony Szamboti appear on TV questioning the NIST report, and the response is not to answer they're criticisms, not to get some other expert to address their chief objection (the two-and-a-half seconds of freefall), but to simply parrot the very report they are questioning.
The Newsbusters piece continues...
The physics of the incident (see links above) and moral repugnance of the suggestion that the American government would deliberately slaughter thousands of its own citizens as a pretext for war are generally enough to dissuade thinking Americans from these sorts of theories.Right, because the US government - which slaughters innocent children oversees with predator drones and depleted uranium weapons - is run by moral men and women who would never even think about killing their fellow citizens to justify such acts.
The article ends with an excerpt of a rant about how it would have been pointless demolishing building 7, so why bother? Fair question - one I would like to know the answer to as much as anyone - but the fact that we don't have a definite answer to that doesn't change the fact that the forensic evidence proves that it was demolished! To argue otherwise is a logical fallacy.
These hitpieces really are getting pathetic. It just shows how little the official story has going for it and how desperate it's defenders are.
Related Info:
NFL's Mark Stepnoski & Tony Szamboti: Buildingwhat? Round 2
Building What? is up...
Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself
Breaking News: Hell Freezes Over!
Geraldo Should Be Impressed by 1300 Architects and Engineers
Shirley they can't be serious!
