Glenn Beck is talking about Medina on his TV show right now.

[haaaylee]

I was scarred to put it on but did just to see if this was brought up, and he is addressing it right now. Talking about how most truthers are actually on the Left, then plays the Medina clip and says people got angry at him for bringing it up. Yeah, we are mad only because you asked it. As if he is some hero for bringing it up, but people who bring up the 9/11 question aren't?

[Romulus]

People have to be really fuuuking stupid to believe this guy. If they do, they deserve what they get.

[NoHero]

He also said he has questions too but doesnt think bush and cheney blew up the WTC. WTF? She didnt say that either.

[dannno]

People have to be really fuuuking stupid to believe this guy. If they do, they deserve what they get.

+1


Leftist truthers my ass.

[NoHero]

And he went on to say that "truthers" are trying to hijack the movement when this neoclown has been doing exactly that. Said people should look into these things themselves. That could backfire.

[Nate]

Damage Control. He is trying his best to retain his credibility & quickly dwindling support base. This dumbass ruined his career & is now trying to backpeddle, spin, distort & just plain lie about what he did.

I am absolutely thrilled this propagandist hack outed himself. You dug your own grave Beck, now lay down in the MFer & let your career die already.

[Peace&Freedom]

Most people on the controlled left have been some of the harshest critics of 9-11 truth. What Beck dislikes about it is that pro-liberty issues have been destroying the left-right two party paradigm he keeps trying to neatly drag everybody back to. More people are no longer being distracted by the puppet show, and want to know why are we extending the wars, where did the bankers take the trillions to, et al. So he keeps trying to steer his audience back into the partisan mold.

[TroySmith]

Sorry, but Medina did not give a straight answer. She gave a political one. Beck is right on this issue. The focus of the "Tea Party" movement should be on the Constitution and restoring rational fiscal and foreign policies.

[Southron]

Sorry, but Medina did not give a straight answer. She gave a political one. Beck is right on this issue. The focus of the "Tea Party" movement should be on the Constitution and restoring rational fiscal and foreign policies.

If that's the focus why didn't he ask her questions about the Constitution and restoring rational fiscal and foreign policies?

[Son of Detroit]

Someone get a tube? Please?

[Flash]

Sorry, but Medina did not give a straight answer. She gave a political one. Beck is right on this issue. The focus of the "Tea Party" movement should be on the Constitution and restoring rational fiscal and foreign policies.

You couldn't be more wrong. Saying you don't have all the evidence is that exact opposite of a political answer. A political answer would be, "No, of course not. Everyone who believes such a thing is insane. It is an insult to the families of 9/11 to question the motivation of the hijackers [blowback] or suggest the US government partook in such an event.. blah blah blah"

[Valli6]

Checked his channel just for a second about 5:39 EST(tues) and there he is playing the audio where Medina says she doesn't have all the info, and he's pretty sure Bush&Dick Cheny didn't wire the building (sarcasm) and shoulda been an easy answer-no.
Then he starts talking about how some people are angry at him "for even asking the question" cause "it hurt her in the pollS" and "it's only one issue" What a liar!!! (I believe he fabricated his claim that this rumor existed prior to his BS) continued trying to make her look like a lunetic by saying well 'there's some good questions out there from flat-earthers" Then he's complaining how there are people trying to "hijack" this movement, etc' "for crazy people" etc. :mad::mad::mad:!

[dannno]

You couldn't be more wrong. Saying you don't have all the evidence is that exact opposite of a political answer. A political answer would be, "No, of course not. Everyone who believes such a thing is insane. It is an insult to the families of 9/11 to question the motivation of the hijackers [blowback] or suggest the US government partook in such an event.. blah blah blah"


Rationality.

[purplechoe]

Sorry, but Medina did not give a straight answer. She gave a political one. Beck is right on this issue. The focus of the "Tea Party" movement should be on the Constitution and restoring rational fiscal and foreign policies.

http://chikapappi.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/shit-brain1.jpg

[AParadigmShift]

The focus of the "Tea Party" movement should be on the Constitution and restoring rational fiscal and foreign policies.

If Beck's focus was strictly on the Constitution, and what's best for Texas, then Medina - who had NEVER made any public intimations respecting 9/11 one way or the other - would have never been asked the question in the first instance.

/discussion

[Nate]

If that's the focus why didn't he ask her questions about the Constitution and restoring rational fiscal and foreign policies?

+1

What would Beck know about sound fiscal & foreign policies. He supported the bailout & both the wars. He has only been for "small government" since Obama was elected. When Bush was Pres he couldn't cheerlead loud enough for the expansion of the State. That to me spells P-A-R-T-I-S-A-N H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.

Beck is a "right-wing" gatekeeper whose job it is to keep "conservatives" on the neo-con Republican plantation. Anybody who thinks this puppet is pro-liberty is a fool.

[Flash]

Whats weird is I've never been into 9/11 Trutherism before but now since the Beck fiasco I'm beginning to think about it. May be its possible the government knew terrorists would hijack planes and did nothing to prevent it. Similar to how the government knew the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor.

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Glenn Beck Show - February 16, 2010 - Pt 1 of 7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ItfYBmsz8c)

[catdd]

I can't watch that low-life schmuck, I'll just read about it.

[itshappening]

Beck is scared, he better be. the lowlife scum

[specsaregood]

Whats weird is I've never been into 9/11 Trutherism before but now since the Beck fiasco I'm beginning to think about it. May be its possible the government knew terrorists would hijack planes and did nothing to prevent it. Similar to how the government knew the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor.

I'm right there with you and I don't think we are alone. It is a case of "thou dost protest too much".

[NoHero]

[QUOTE=Flash;2551380]Whats weird is I've never been into 9/11 Trutherism before but now since the Beck fiasco I'm beginning to think about it. May be its possible the government knew terrorists would hijack planes and did nothing to prevent it. Similar to how the government knew the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor.[/QU
same thing here. I was never virulently anti-truther, but i did want them to shut up a lot during the RP campaign. Now I'm beginning to wonder on some things. Especially reading recently about a new independent study finding nanothemite in the WTC wreckage. Can a nontruther confirm this? I forget where i read it and google would probably yield only alex jones and truther sites.

[Valli6]

Beck is scared, he better be. the lowlife scum
He must be and I hope this means his "followers" have left him in droves!
And he even had the gall to say how "You must resist the urge to just get somebody elected that's not that guy. You must stand on principle. We move forward in America with honor. If we don't, we'll be repeating the same mistakes that led us to this point. And that, that would be crazy."
It's really sickening!
(If anyone is able to create a short clip - the part I saw happened about 39 minutes into the show)

[Promontorium]

Medina did screw up the answer. And you have really made it worse by attacking Beck, who Medina supporters demanded an interview with, instead of trying to make Beck put her on again to clear things up.

You refuse to clear things up with Beck, then blame him for not doing it on his own. He is the puppet, pull the strings or sit down and enjoy the show.

[Flash]

Medina did screw up the answer. And you have really made it worse by attacking Beck, who Medina supporters demanded an interview with, instead of trying to make Beck put her on again to clear things up.

You refuse to clear things up with Beck, then blame him for not doing it on his own. He is the puppet, pull the strings or sit down and enjoy the show.

Actually putting Medina back on Beck is probably the worst thing that could have happened.

You can't blame people for wanting Beck (self-proclaimed tea party leader) to interview tea party candidates.

[Brad Zink]

Now I'm beginning to wonder on some things. Especially reading recently about a new independent study finding nanothemite in the WTC wreckage. Can a nontruther confirm this? I forget where i read it and google would probably yield only alex jones and truther sites.

You can read the scientific paper by clicking the green download button on this page:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

[catdd]

Beck had his own questions about 9/11 and once said "there's nothing wrong with anyone peacefully questioning those events."


YouTube - Glenn Beck, Sibel Edmonds, Luke Rudowski & the Jersey Girls Question 9/11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zefwbt51aI)

[dannno]

Can a nontruther confirm this?

:rolleyes:



I forget where i read it and google would probably yield only alex jones and truther sites.

Steven Jones is a former Physics Professor from BYU. Years ago he and other scientists began studying dust samples collected from WTC. At first he had found molten metal in the samples, and looking at the chemical signatures he was able to determine that it was exploded super-thermite.

More recently he has been able to find samples containing unexploded super-thermite. He compared to explosiveness to the military grade nano-thermite samples that he was able to obtain and found that this stuff was even more explosive than what the military provided.


All this stuff and much more is detailed in the film Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup

http://www.youtube.com/watch?playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=jOYTMc3a1EM&v=6_TxSCiwwTI


I also recommend:


Loose Change: Final Cut

Loose Change Final Cut (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598)


Fabled Enemies

Fabled Enemies (Super High Quality, full movie) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2144933190875239407)

[american.swan]

Beck is in damage control. HE did his job in helping Perry, now HE is doing everything he can to justify himself to get his listeners back. His listeners are angry at him and he knows it. He's scared. The people who are pulling his strings are breathing down his neck. He can't direct the people to Palin if everyone is angry at him.

Read this: Our job is to get these people on RON PAUL! Not Palin.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=231833

[tangent4ronpaul]

Why are people pissed at Beck about this? Look at it this way - Beck gave her an opportunity to distance herself from the "fringe" truther movement and she gave an excellent reply. In fact, I seem to remember RP giving an almost identical reply during his presidential campaign and it didn't launch a shit storm. Rather, it make the whole thing a non-issue for the rest of the campaign.

What's the difference this time? The media and internet bloggers picked up on it and spun it, as a result her poll numbers went down (or the poll was just "off"... ).

So who should you really be mad at? and why are you mad - really?

Remember, he IS giving a number of our candidates, spokespeople, and folks like the Judge national TV exposure. So one question ON THE RADIO backfired... shit happens...

-t

[TroySmith]

You couldn't be more wrong. Saying you don't have all the evidence is that exact opposite of a political answer. A political answer would be, "No, of course not. Everyone who believes such a thing is insane. It is an insult to the families of 9/11 to question the motivation of the hijackers [blowback] or suggest the US government partook in such an event.. blah blah blah"

No, answering clearly "Yes, I do believe their is merit in the 9/11 inside job theories" or "No, I don't believe in them" is a concise way of answering. Medina, while I have nothing against her, did not concisely but instead rambled.
Beck has, what I perceive anyways, intellectual inconsistencies (for example his support of President Lincoln and a militancy against Iran), but I can't find any fault with him over this. Especially not going wild about trashing the only guy on TV who talks about the Constitution, Woodrow Wilson, the Fed, etc. He at least exposes these issues to the people. Whether we agree or disagree with him is almost immaterial since he is a media figure and not a politician.

[New2Libertarianism]

Liberals are up the gov's ass. They don't know the truth.

*boycotting fox*

[Immortal Technique]

Hes a shmuk

YouTube - Musings Of Glenn Beck's 911 Truth Double Standards (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h11CIv14yus)

Suck it Beck

[Son of Detroit]

YouTube - Glenn Beck Show - February 16, 2010 - Pt 4 of 7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiT-UY5TBtE&feature=channel)

Starting at 5:30.

[Promontorium]

Actually putting Medina back on Beck is probably the worst thing that could have happened.

You can't blame people for wanting Beck (self-proclaimed tea party leader) to interview tea party candidates.

I can blame anyone for anything wrong they do.

How is it somehow ok for people to spam Beck's handlers in order to get an interview, and then go on a rampage after it didn't go the way they wanted it.

It's Beck. EXPECT BAD THINGS.

I suggested making Beck bring Medina back on, because she was mislabeled.

But nooooo, you have to have your Beck and eat him too.

You want a deal with the devil, but you don't want to give up your soul.

How many more ways must I spell it out?

Your wants are irrational. If you think Beck is bad, don't beg for an interview with him, or you are political sluts.

I believe Beck is a tool. And tools can be used by many people.

Instead of bitching, get Medina back on, she'll explain herself, Beck will apologize, and all will be right with the world.

But it has to be under the headline of "Beck incorrectly called Medina a truther"

NOT "Beck has issues with Truthers, here's Medina to defend them" which MANY of you are trying to play.

Do you want the smear-job about Medina to be corrected, or do you want to fight for the Truther movement against Beck? This is the line in the sand.

Apparently you've made your choice. Medina is done.

[jmdrake]

And he went on to say that "truthers" are trying to hijack the movement when this neoclown has been doing exactly that. Said people should look into these things themselves. That could backfire.

Beck's a dufus. The truthers started the tea parties. The Ron Paul campaign hijacked it from them and necons like Beck hijacked it from us.

http://www.boston911truth.org/

[RJB]

Beck said truthers don't speak out!

What a crock. He hasn't been on the internet has he?

[jmdrake]

No, answering clearly "Yes, I do believe their is merit in the 9/11 inside job theories" or "No, I don't believe in them" is a concise way of answering. Medina, while I have nothing against her, did not concisely but instead rambled.
Beck has, what I perceive anyways, intellectual inconsistencies (for example his support of President Lincoln and a militancy against Iran), but I can't find any fault with him over this. Especially not going wild about trashing the only guy on TV who talks about the Constitution, Woodrow Wilson, the Fed, etc. He at least exposes these issues to the people. Whether we agree or disagree with him is almost immaterial since he is a media figure and not a politician.

Medina said "I don't". I'm not sure how you can get any more concise than that. Yes she went on to say that there are legitimate questions and she hasn't taken a position on the issue. So what? Beck has questions too. Only he thinks his questions are somehow more "legitimate". And Beck is not the only guy on TV who talks about the constitution, Woodrow Wilson or the Fed. Have you never heard of Andrew Napolitano?

[jmdrake]

Why are people pissed at Beck about this?

Look at it this way - Beck gave her an opportunity to distance herself from the "fringe" truther movement and she gave an excellent reply. In fact, I seem to remember RP giving an almost identical reply during his presidential campaign and it didn't launch a shit storm. Rather, it make the whole thing a non-issue for the rest of the campaign.

What's the difference this time? The media and internet bloggers picked up on it and spun it, as a result her poll numbers went down (or the poll was just "off"... ).

So who should you really be mad at? and why are you mad - really?


Ummm.......did you stop watching after Beck hung up on Medina and then proceeded to hang her out to dry? Did you miss where he declared her candidacy "finished" and then went on to talk about how he wanted to "french kiss Rick Perry"? And the push polls that Perry started 90 minutes later are quit suspicious.



Remember, he IS giving a number of our candidates, spokespeople, and folks like the Judge national TV exposure. So one question ON THE RADIO backfired... shit happens...


It's been more than "one question on the radio". And "our candidates" have gotten exposure a lot of other places than just on Beck. For that matter Rand Paul announced on Rachel Maddow. And when she (Maddow) does something stupid like attack the tea parties as "racist" or when she defends Obama's "Nobel Peace prize" people go after her too.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

What he did was unforgivable. He compared her to HITLER with his little pal after hanging up. Besides, he knew exactly what he was doing: character assassination. The mainstream media ramped into full on hunter-killer mode after the interview, and haven't let up sense.

Even though her response was okay, their headlines are framing what happened for public consumption, saying things like she's "done" or had a major "gaffe" or "imploded." I don't understand how this can be seen as anything but an attempt to take her out.

[HRD53]

Beck has a strong emotional dislike of 911 truthers so if someone doesn't answer his question the way he wants them to, he is going to lambaste them. Personally i think the whole truth movement is built on a very weak foundation (as evidenced by how many times movies like 'loose change' keep changing their analysis of 911) and really can't fault the guy for not wanting a candidate he perceives is not being straight forward with her beliefs on 911.

[jmdrake]

Well I for one did not "spam" Beck to get Medina on. I did email Beck about another liberty candidate (the guy running against Pelosi) but trust me, I won't email this smuck to promote any candidate again.

That said, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Beck launched to distinct but related attacks on Medina:

Attack 1: Are you a truther yourself?

Attack 2: Is any member of your staff a "truther"?

Whether you think Medina's answer was clear or not (I think it was fine but we can differ on opinion), Medina has made it abundantly clear since then that she's not a truther. Has Beck not listened to her multiple statements since then on the subject? If she repeated the same thing on his show do you really think he's going to say "Oops! My bad!" I don't think so.

As to the second attack, Medina said "not to my knowledge" but she also added that she isn't going to play "thought police" with her staff.

So Debra's position is that she's not a truther herself and that also truthers have a right to ask questions and she's not going to try to police thought. And frankly I agree with her position on free thought. I would think that anybody would agree with that.


I can blame anyone for anything wrong they do.

How is it somehow ok for people to spam Beck's handlers in order to get an interview, and then go on a rampage after it didn't go the way they wanted it.

It's Beck. EXPECT BAD THINGS.

I suggested making Beck bring Medina back on, because she was mislabeled.

But nooooo, you have to have your Beck and eat him too.

You want a deal with the devil, but you don't want to give up your soul.

How many more ways must I spell it out?

Your wants are irrational. If you think Beck is bad, don't beg for an interview with him, or you are political sluts.

I believe Beck is a tool. And tools can be used by many people.

Instead of bitching, get Medina back on, she'll explain herself, Beck will apologize, and all will be right with the world.

But it has to be under the headline of "Beck incorrectly called Medina a truther"

NOT "Beck has issues with Truthers, here's Medina to defend them" which MANY of you are trying to play.

Do you want the smear-job about Medina to be corrected, or do you want to fight for the Truther movement against Beck? This is the line in the sand.

Apparently you've made your choice. Medina is done.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Beck has a strong emotional dislike of 911 truthers so if someone doesn't answer his question the way he wants them to, he is going to lambaste them. Personally i think the whole truth movement is built on a very weak foundation (as evidenced by how many times movies like 'loose change' keep changing their analysis of 911) and really can't fault the guy for not wanting a candidate he perceives is not being straight forward with her beliefs on 911.

It shouldn't have even come up. Medina isn't running for Senate, and 9/11 had more of a foreign policy result than anything else. Why was it ever asked?

Just asking the question when it has nothing to do with her campaign or the office she would hold screams hit job to me. It's a way for the criminal media to paint candidates as fringe no matter what their answer.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Well I for one did not "spam" Beck to get Medina on. I did email Beck about another liberty candidate (the guy running against Pelosi) but trust me, I won't email this smuck to promote any candidate again.

That said, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Beck launched to distinct but related attacks on Medina:

Attack 1: Are you a truther yourself?

Attack 2: Is any member of your staff a "truther"?

Whether you think Medina's answer was clear or not (I think it was fine but we can differ on opinion), Medina has made it abundantly clear since then that she's not a truther. Has Beck not listened to her multiple statements since then on the subject? If she repeated the same thing on his show do you really think he's going to say "Oops! My bad!" I don't think so.

As to the second attack, Medina said "not to my knowledge" but she also added that she isn't going to play "thought police" with her staff.

So Debra's position is that she's not a truther herself and that also truthers have a right to ask questions and she's not going to try to police thought. And frankly I agree with her position on free thought. I would think that anybody would agree with that.

Reminds me of the question they asked Ron Paul in that South Carolina debate about asking Truthers to detach from his campaign. They are trying to stir guilt by association, no matter what the candidate's beliefs. Yet more evidence of a pre-planned attack.

[Bruno]

It shouldn't have even come up. Medina isn't running for Senate, and 9/11 had more of a foreign policy result than anything else. Why was it ever asked?

Just asking the question when it has nothing to do with her campaign or the office she would hold screams hit job to me. It's a way for the criminal media to paint candidates as fringe no matter what their answer.

this

[paulitics]

Why are people pissed at Beck about this? Look at it this way - Beck gave her an opportunity to distance herself from the "fringe" truther movement and she gave an excellent reply. In fact, I seem to remember RP giving an almost identical reply during his presidential campaign and it didn't launch a shit storm. Rather, it make the whole thing a non-issue for the rest of the campaign.

What's the difference this time? The media and internet bloggers picked up on it and spun it, as a result her poll numbers went down (or the poll was just "off"... ).

So who should you really be mad at? and why are you mad - really?

Remember, he IS giving a number of our candidates, spokespeople, and folks like the Judge national TV exposure. So one question ON THE RADIO backfired... shit happens...

-t


He's a dick for saying that if you are a 911 truther, you are too dangerous to hold public office. The founding fathers would say that if you have these types of questions, than you need to seek public office until you get answers. The government is at fault for fomenting conspiracy theories, because the comission report is a farce. They need to reinvestigate, and there is nothing wrong with what Medina, Ventura, Van Jones, or anyone else thinks on this important issue until we get answers.

Debra Medina is a patriot, and he knows this. He pissed on her face by portraying her as a kook, because she has questions about 911. He is a fraud, a neocon posing as a libertarian. Perry is a globalist shill, and Beck endorsed him. There is no excuse for this. None.

If it was Sean Hannity, we wouldn't care, because he doesn't pose as a libertarian. Beck is a traitor.

[jmdrake]

Beck has a strong emotional dislike of 911 truthers so if someone doesn't answer his question the way he wants them to, he is going to lambaste them. Personally i think the whole truth movement is built on a very weak foundation (as evidenced by how many times movies like 'loose change' keep changing their analysis of 911) and really can't fault the guy for not wanting a candidate he perceives is not being straight forward with her beliefs on 911.

The "weak foundation" is the official story. Have you ever sat down and looked at how many times the story of how WTC 7 fell has changed? Even the official analysis of how the twin towers fell has changed over the years. At first it was the "pancake theory". Now that's been thrown out. Should people challenging the official story keep talking about the "pancake theory" if it's no longer part of the "official story"?

Some questions about 9/11 have remained constant throughout the years. For instance the question of what did Sandy Berger attempt to steal from the 9/11 commission. That's a question that Beck himself has (or claimed to have once upon a time). Another constant question is why has there been no follow up on the report from India that was confirmed by the FBI that the head of Pakistani intelligence wired 100K to the lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. The general (Mahmoud Ahmed) had to resign after this information came out. Beck thinks that question is illegitimate. Why? The links between the ISI and Al Qaeda are well known. Why does Beck insist on covering for a corrupt Islamist general?

YouTube - Glenn Beck Attacks 9/11 Truth Again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT5sJiFs35U)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-helped-FBI-trace-ISI-terrorist-links/articleshow/1454238160.cms

[Brad Zink]

What does Richard Gage, a professional architect think about the official 9/11 account?

9/11 Blueprint for Truth (2008 Edition) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4617650616903609314)

[BuddyRey]

Very few of the truthers I've ever known have been on the so-called "left."

[tangent4ronpaul]

Ummm.......did you stop watching after Beck hung up on Medina and then proceeded to hang her out to dry? Did you miss where he declared her candidacy "finished" and then went on to talk about how he wanted to "french kiss Rick Perry"? And the push polls that Perry started 90 minutes later are quit suspicious.



It's been more than "one question on the radio". And "our candidates" have gotten exposure a lot of other places than just on Beck. For that matter Rand Paul announced on Rachel Maddow. And when she (Maddow) does something stupid like attack the tea parties as "racist" or when she defends Obama's "Nobel Peace prize" people go after her too.

I didn't catch the rest of that... Not good!

-t

[dannno]

Beck has a strong emotional dislike of 911 truthers so if someone doesn't answer his question the way he wants them to, he is going to lambaste them. Personally i think the whole truth movement is built on a very weak foundation (as evidenced by how many times movies like 'loose change' keep changing their analysis of 911)

So.... from that statement I can assume that you have attentively watched each version?? Which ones have you seen? How has the analysis changed?

Look, these were kids making these films, based off of actual research from authors and scientists.. Some of the early films used some evidence which may be weak, but as the films progressed they now use extremely strong, accurate evidence. They teamed up with others to help them with their more current films. They are excellent films.






and really can't fault the guy for not wanting a candidate he perceives is not being straight forward with her beliefs on 911.


No, you're wrong, she was being completely straightforward. There are good arguments on both sides and we need to investigate further. I've spent hundreds of hours investigating and I know what side of the fence I'm on, but I can't expect every American to spend hundreds of hours researching. The topic needs to be opened for discussion. Beck has closed it for discussion and all he does is make fun of them.

[dannno]

What does Richard Gage, a professional architect think about the official 9/11 account?

9/11 Blueprint for Truth (2008 Edition) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4617650616903609314)

I just noticed he's picked up about 30 or so more architects and engineers on his petition recently (his website: www. ae911truth.or g)

[dannno]

//

[Peace&Freedom]

Medina was genuinely open-minded and tolerant of others asking questions on 9-11. In that context, not currently being a truther means she might revise her views based on the results of a new, real investigation. That is what is forbidden. At this point the Becks and neocons do not want any legitimacy afforded to the truthers, past, present, or possible future. Beck is protecting the establishment from more people becoming aware of its use of staged events, false facts or frame-ups to create a pretext for advancing policy, at a time where that method is becoming more and more rapidly exposed.

What is climategate, after all, but a busting of the whole myth of a scientific consensus on human-caused global warming scam, before it led to global taxation? What was the supposed swine flu 'epidemic' but a false flag scare to get everybody hooked on H1N1 vaccines? What was the bailout crisis but a staged shakedown op to force the pols to surrendering cash to the banks, to then take offshore? And so on.

[Romulus]

Whats weird is I've never been into 9/11 Trutherism before but now since the Beck fiasco I'm beginning to think about it. May be its possible the government knew terrorists would hijack planes and did nothing to prevent it. Similar to how the government knew the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor.

Watch PBS's: The Spy Factory "NSA and 9/11"

It's pretty clear that the NSA and FBI knew what was coming but it was gagged at the upper levels.

Keep talking Beck, you're waking people. The more you press us down, the stronger we get.

[RM918]

Watch PBS's: The Spy Factory "NSA and 9/11"

It's pretty clear that the NSA and FBI knew what was coming but it was gagged at the upper levels.

Keep talking Beck, you're waking people. The more you press us down, the stronger we get.

I saw some documentary about it somewhere that explained 'truthers' as they're called are divided into two camps, LiHap (Let it Happen) and MaHap (Made it Happen). I don't know if that's the actual truth of it, but I myself might be a truther in that instance because I believe the former is VERY possible and probably likely either due to intent or incompetence. The latter camp seems to be the 'unseemly' one. That sort of accusation, I don't think I can side myself there unless I have some irrefutable evidence. There's just far too many unlikely scenarios I think would have to be put in place to cover it up so expertly, which I don't think the government is really capable of, and although even with all these factors I'm sure it's possible...it's just too huge an assertion to assume through induction.

[TheConstitutionLives]

If the liberty candidate movement fizzes out it will be b/c of 911 trutherism. We've got proven criminal activity with the fed and mutliple ungodly wars yet some folks insist on harping on the 911 thing. Oh well.

[paulitics]

If the liberty candidate movement fizzes out it will be b/c of 911 trutherism. We've got proven criminal activity with the fed and mutliple ungodly wars yet some folks insist on harping on the 911 thing. Oh well.

Do false flags ever occur?

[TheConstitutionLives]

Do false flags ever occur?

Sure. Keep focusing on it and you'll never get a candidate in office.

[Fr3shjive]

I really cant believe that Beck is talking about Medina hijacking the tea party movement when he is the one that did exactly that. Medina was around the whole liberty movement long before Beck and now he wants to call her a hijacker? Fuck him. No way people are going to fall for that shit.

I was on the fence with Beck because I was sure if he was a neo-con or if he really had a change of heart. He just confirmed that he's a neo-con and not to be trusted.

[jmdrake]

If the liberty candidate movement fizzes out it will be b/c of 911 trutherism. We've got proven criminal activity with the fed and mutliple ungodly wars yet some folks insist on harping on the 911 thing. Oh well.

Some folks? How about Glenn Beck? He's the one that brought it up. And no, I'm not going to buy some stupid nonsense about emails or "Beck must be reading these forums" or any other crap that some people sling around.

[Romulus]

I saw some documentary about it somewhere that explained 'truthers' as they're called are divided into two camps, LiHap (Let it Happen) and MaHap (Made it Happen). I don't know if that's the actual truth of it, but I myself might be a truther in that instance because I believe the former is VERY possible and probably likely either due to intent or incompetence. The latter camp seems to be the 'unseemly' one. That sort of accusation, I don't think I can side myself there unless I have some irrefutable evidence. There's just far too many unlikely scenarios I think would have to be put in place to cover it up so expertly, which I don't think the government is really capable of, and although even with all these factors I'm sure it's possible...it's just too huge an assertion to assume through induction.

It's not either or. It obviously was allowed to happen after it was made to happen. You can't divide the two. Although I can see why some would like to (conquer) and divide.

If Medina loses this race, I say we take Beck up on his offer and MAKE it about 9/11 truth.. he should be careful what he asks for.. Blowback is a bitch.

[Peace&Freedom]

If the liberty candidate movement fizzes out it will be b/c of 911 trutherism. We've got proven criminal activity with the fed and mutliple ungodly wars yet some folks insist on harping on the 911 thing. Oh well.

So, how's it been coming ending all those wars just using 'blowback' arguments? How's getting our money back from the banksters coming along, from talking about auditing the Fed, a bill that can't get 60 votes to get past the Senate, let alone get signed by Obama? Has anything been reversed using your left-brain only approach? Well? Yeah, thought so.

The enemy uses the right brain weapon of fear, generated through fraudulent crisises or events, to create pretexts for new war, taxes, and debt. It's not the '9-11 thing,' it's the false flag/staged set-up thing, the main technique through which the other side keeps scaring us into new ungodly wars, and shaking us down to throw more money to the Fed bankers.

It's because we've been harping on it so, that the statist criminals haven't been able to play it like a harp to easily snow us under with a new inside job. If the movement fizzles it will be because we failed to engage the enemy on the emotional front, and tried to politely argue our way from under the tyrant's heel.

[Anti Federalist]

Sure. Keep focusing on it and you'll never get a candidate in office.

If false flags do occur, then electing candidates, even a majority of them, will not solve the problem.

It is indicative of a government gone rogue, one that will no loner respond to electoral plebiscites.

[cpike]

YouTube - Glenn Beck Show - February 16, 2010 - Pt 1 of 7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ItfYBmsz8c)

Well I just wasted 10 minutes of my life. There was nothing about Medina in there.

[purplechoe]

Well I just wasted 10 minutes of my life. There was nothing about Medina in there.

that was just the first part, sorry I haven't watched it myself, here's the part where he actually talks about it...

YouTube - Glenn Beck Show - February 16, 2010 - Pt 4 of 7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiT-UY5TBtE)

[AmericaFyeah92]

I saw some documentary about it somewhere that explained 'truthers' as they're called are divided into two camps, LiHap (Let it Happen) and MaHap (Made it Happen). I don't know if that's the actual truth of it, but I myself might be a truther in that instance because I believe the former is VERY possible and probably likely either due to intent or incompetence. The latter camp seems to be the 'unseemly' one. That sort of accusation, I don't think I can side myself there unless I have some irrefutable evidence. There's just far too many unlikely scenarios I think would have to be put in place to cover it up so expertly, which I don't think the government is really capable of, and although even with all these factors I'm sure it's possible...it's just too huge an assertion to assume through induction.

+1
They were criminally incompetent. But an actual PLOT of that magnitude seems like it would be FAR too risky:
-too many people would have to be involved
-the consequences of getting "busted" would be pretty damn severe, and Bush/Cheney/ROve & co. aren't the type who would stick their necks out

[RM918]

+1
They were criminally incompetent. But an actual PLOT of that magnitude seems like it would be FAR too risky:
-too many people would have to be involved
-the consequences of getting "busted" would be pretty damn severe, and Bush/Cheney/ROve & co. aren't the type who would stick their necks out

I've brought up this same point, and the reply is usually, 'It's because they weren't the ones behind it, but the Shadow government.' Assumptions built upon even more assumptions, for something this big of a deal, I just can't bring myself to trust under any circumstances. I suppose it's possible, anything is, but I can't throw the accusation around with just those. If you just accept 'The Shadow Government Did It!' and lob that accusation around, no matter how many names and and such you bring up you're going to sound like a complete lunatic without any smoking guns - even if you're exactly right.

[itshappening]

Beck is a real piece of work, in that video he uses our language we rightly accuse the neocons of doing, co-opting tea parties. He does this to confuse people and confuse the message.

It is a physop there is no question in my mind.

[Bucjason]

Sorry, but Medina did not give a straight answer. She gave a political one. Beck is right on this issue. The focus of the "Tea Party" movement should be on the Constitution and restoring rational fiscal and foreign policies.

her answer really was a joke....

Beck is simply making fun of it , and rightly so.

[nobody's_hero]

her answer really was a joke....

Beck is simply making fun of it , and rightly so.

The joke is that a Texas candidate for governor was asked stupid, irrelevant interview questions, as if when she becomes governor of the non-New York state of Texas (f.f.s)., she is supposed to have some authority to handle issues related to the 9/11 attacks that happened nearly ten years ago.

We don't even demand this of our Federal government. When was the last time you heard an MSM pundit ask how the hunt for Osama bin Laden has been going? I must have missed the hundreds of thousands of people taking to the street over our government's total incompetence in the 'war on terror.' They don't give a rat's ass about 9/11. They want healthcare, jobs, transportation—whatever happens to be the flavor of the week. They'll get none of that, either. Next week the issue will be something else. If they get anything, it'll be half-assed and unconstitutional.

[purplechoe]

her answer really was a joke....

Beck is simply making fun of it , and rightly so.

http://www.insidesocal.com/tv/oreilly.jpg

[Bucjason]

The joke is that a Texas candidate for governor was asked stupid, irrelevant interview questions, as if when she becomes governor of the non-New York state of Texas (f.f.s)., she is supposed to have some authority to handle issues related to the 9/11 attacks that happened nearly ten years ago.



Yes , and stupid irrelevant questions should be the easiest to answer. Some of you sound like the Palin apologists right now, who make excuses for HER stupid answers.

The answer she should have gave was simple, "no" . What the hell was she dancing around and hymn-hawing for ??

Ron Paul has given the perfect example of how to answer this question in the past...

[jmdrake]

I've brought up this same point, and the reply is usually, 'It's because they weren't the ones behind it, but the Shadow government.' Assumptions built upon even more assumptions, for something this big of a deal, I just can't bring myself to trust under any circumstances. I suppose it's possible, anything is, but I can't throw the accusation around with just those. If you just accept 'The Shadow Government Did It!' and lob that accusation around, no matter how many names and and such you bring up you're going to sound like a complete lunatic without any smoking guns - even if you're exactly right.

Have you ever heard of Robert Hansen? He was a traitor within the FBI. Do you think he was the only traitor ever within the FBI? As far as carrying out such operations being "risky", how risky is it if everyone will dismiss evidence a priori because everyone believes nobody would you would do certain things because they were too risky?

[Immortal Technique]

Beck just took a stab at Michael Savage

Said he has to be taught what liberalism is says its not a mental dis order its Marxism

[reduen]

If that's the focus why didn't he ask her questions about the Constitution and restoring rational fiscal and foreign policies?

+ (Whatever Rifleman would like to add here)