Glenn Beck feels the heat

[itshappening]

YouTube - Glenn Beck exposes how Debra Medina is mischaracterizing his interview Pt 1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jplwFByj5F0)

[American Idol]

Beck's credibility is toast no matter what he does now.

[DapperDan]

I keep missing his radio show to hear people calling in to call him out on his stupidity and craziness both on radio and tv.

I'd like to know wtf he was thinking on his TV show yesterday having full government side with anarchists and linking Keys and Medina........

http://derp.blogs.exetel.com.au/uploads/derppics/dog2derp.jpeg

[hugolp]

Ive never seen a more riduculous manipulation of words. Beck is scum.

[AuH20]

Beck brings up valid points. There is a huge divide between 9/11 truthers and 9/11 skeptics. Some truthers apparently have all the who/what/why/ worked out in their heads and literally freak out when you start poking holes in the 'truth.'

[brandon]

Beck brings up valid points. There is a huge divide between 9/11 truthers and 9/11 skeptics. Some truthers apparently have all the who/what/why/ worked out in their heads and literally freak out when you start poking holes in their 'theories.'

This is true.

I'm a skeptic and get very annoyed at how sure of themselves truthers are.

[undergroundrr]

Radio audiences are typically characterized by a small core of dedicated fans, and a huge cloud of people just checking out the show because they find it fun to listen to.

A huge percentage of Beck isteners are almost certainly hearing this as hysterical backpedaling. They have to be wondering why he's obsessed with this poll-trailing outlier in Texas. They have to be wondering why the major drive time personalities on his own affiliate station in Dallas (KLIF, Jon-David Wells and Jeff Bolton), and the Morning Drive host, Mark Davis, on the #1 conservative news talker in Dallas, WBAP, are completely opposed to Beck's assessment.

By the way, WBAP's ratings far outstrip KLIF's in the market.

I think it benefits Medina for Beck to keep harping on it every day. It gives WBAP and the rest of the media something to talk about, and it keeps giving Medina major media appearances to back up her position and talk about the platform.

Remember that the biggest damage to Ron Paul in the primaries was when the MSM completely stopped writing about him.

[AuH20]

This is true.

I'm a skeptic and get very annoyed at how sure of themselves truthers are.

The 9/11 commission was undoubtedly a mock committee utilized to cover-up the malfeasance and negligence surrounding the attacks. I don't think that is a controversial assessment if you examine the background of the commission members and the evidence they ignored.

It's sad because as skeptics, we kept sucked into this credibility vacuum that these determined truthers create. When you walk around citing with absolute certainty that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney signed off on the 9/11 attack, it's bound to draw some strange glances.

[jmdrake]

Beck brings up valid points. There is a huge divide between 9/11 truthers and 9/11 skeptics. Some truthers apparently have all the who/what/why/ worked out in their heads and literally freak out when you start poking holes in the 'truth.'

9 times out of 10 what someone calls "poking holes in the truth" is merely circular reasoning. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation for why WTC 7 fell that fits into the official story. I would really like to hear one! I'd rather just deal with the obvious stuff like the confirmed that that the head of Pakistani intelligence helped fund the 9/11 attacks. Instead it's this circular chase your tail nonsense of "Well it would have been too complicated for WTC 7 to have been brought down by a controlled demolition, therefore we must believe whatever cockamame reason that NIST puts out". No plane hit WTC 7. According to the final report diesel fuel wasn't a factor. There was only minimal damage and small fires inside WTC 7. I've seen every possible picture from every possible angle on this. Other buildings like WTC 4, 5 and 6 took much greater damage from falling debris and did not collapse. The BBC reported the collapse before it actually happened. And if they reported the collapse because it looked like it was going to collapse, why didn't they report WTC 4, 5 and 6 were going to collapse? Am I sure of exactly what happened to WTC 7? Of course not. I'm just sure that 2 planes hitting 2 buildings should not have lead to 3 buildings collapsing.

[jmdrake]

The 9/11 commission was undoubtedly a mock committee utilized to cover-up the malfeasance and negligence surrounding the attacks. I don't think that is a controversial assessment if you examine the background of the commission members and the evidence they ignored.

It's sad because as skeptics, we kept sucked into this credibility vacuum that these determined truthers create. When you walk around citing with absolute certainty that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney signed off on the 9/11 attack, it's bound to draw some strange glances.

I'm absolutely certain that Leon Minnetta wasn't lying when he gave his testimony of Dick Cheney saying "Of course the order still stands. Have you heard anything different"? I'm absolutely certain that Dick Cheney not being questioned about this was an absolute travesty. What was that order? I don't know. It's a shame that we will likely never know.

[CapitalistRadical]

Here (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-davisweb_0212edi.State.Edition1.30d181a.html)is what Mark Davis thinks. Not as sympathetic as most of the posters here.

[undergroundrr]

Yes, and he was anti-Ron Paul in the presidential primaries. He's toed the Neocon line persistently. But he has been behind Medina, and proved it by giving her a great opportunity this morning. A lot of Republican voters heard it.

[AuH20]

9 times out of 10 what someone calls "poking holes in the truth" is merely circular reasoning. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation for why WTC 7 fell that fits into the official story. I would really like to hear one! I'd rather just deal with the obvious stuff like the confirmed that that the head of Pakistani intelligence helped fund the 9/11 attacks. Instead it's this circular chase your tail nonsense of "Well it would have been too complicated for WTC 7 to have been brought down by a controlled demolition, therefore we must believe whatever cockamame reason that NIST puts out". No plane hit WTC 7. According to the final report diesel fuel wasn't a factor. There was only minimal damage and small fires inside WTC 7. I've seen every possible picture from every possible angle on this. Other buildings like WTC 4, 5 and 6 took much greater damage from falling debris and did not collapse. The BBC reported the collapse before it actually happened. And if they reported the collapse because it looked like it was going to collapse, why didn't they report WTC 4, 5 and 6 were going to collapse? Am I sure of exactly what happened to WTC 7? Of course not. I'm just sure that 2 planes hitting 2 buildings should not have lead to 3 buildings collapsing.

If I remember correctly, wasn't the foundation base of building 7 compromised due to the demolition of the nearby structures, and they decided to bring down building 7 for safety reasons? Secondly, if the wealth of records housed in building 7 was the true objective of the attack, wouldn't it be quite a chore to waste two airliners on the towers? I think it's a tribute to your intellectual curiousity that you're digging through the clues, but what I don't generally like about truthers is their blanket accusations, when the evidence trail is thin in relation to certain parties.

[American Idol]

Beck brings up valid points. There is a huge divide between 9/11 truthers and 9/11 skeptics. Some truthers apparently have all the who/what/why/ worked out in their heads and literally freak out when you start poking holes in the 'truth.'

9/11 ain't the issue here. It's how Beck tried to railroad both Ron Paul and Medina at crucial junctures.

End of story. Beck is exposed.

[rprprs]

9/11 ain't the issue here. It's how Beck tried to railroad both Ron Paul and Medina at crucial junctures.

End of story. Beck is exposed.

^ this

[Brian4Liberty]

YouTube - Glenn Beck exposes how Debra Medina is mischaracterizing his interview Pt 1 of 2[/url]

Beck has no integrity at all. Medina did laugh when he first brought it up. Beck played a tape of the second time he asked, when she started to seriously address the question. Completely dishonest on Beck's part. (And on the part of his unseen henchmen or controllers or whoever the a-hole is off-camera).

[American Idol]

Beck has no integrity at all. Medina did laugh when he first brought it up. Beck played a tape of the second time he asked, when she started to seriously address the question. Completely dishonest on Beck's part. (And the part of his unseen henchmen or controllers or whoever the a-hole is off-camera).

Also, Medina said she couldn't hear them giggling and talking while she was answering. They turned her headphones off so she couldn't hear them.

[Brian4Liberty]

Beck brings up valid points. There is a huge divide between 9/11 truthers and 9/11 skeptics. Some truthers apparently have all the who/what/why/ worked out in their heads and literally freak out when you start poking holes in the 'truth.'


9 times out of 10 what someone calls "poking holes in the truth" is merely circular reasoning. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation for why WTC 7 fell that fits into the official story. I would really like to hear one! I'd rather just deal with the obvious stuff like the confirmed that that the head of Pakistani intelligence helped fund the 9/11 attacks. Instead it's this circular chase your tail nonsense of "Well it would have been too complicated for WTC 7 to have been brought down by a controlled demolition, therefore we must believe whatever cockamame reason that NIST puts out". No plane hit WTC 7. According to the final report diesel fuel wasn't a factor. There was only minimal damage and small fires inside WTC 7. I've seen every possible picture from every possible angle on this. Other buildings like WTC 4, 5 and 6 took much greater damage from falling debris and did not collapse. The BBC reported the collapse before it actually happened. And if they reported the collapse because it looked like it was going to collapse, why didn't they report WTC 4, 5 and 6 were going to collapse? Am I sure of exactly what happened to WTC 7? Of course not. I'm just sure that 2 planes hitting 2 buildings should not have lead to 3 buildings collapsing.

Hey guys, let's not derail this thread with 20 pages of 9/11 stuff... :o

[undergroundrr]

Beck played a tape of the second time he asked, when she started to seriously address the question.

I caught this too. Medina literally laughed the first time. Shameless manipulation. That laugh was one of the first things I noticed when I first checked out the Youtube.

[Dreamofunity]

She originally laughed it off, before he questioned it again, but of course he didn't play that part.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

She originally laughed it off, before he questioned it again, but of course he didn't play that part.

It's called a setup.

[ravedown]

i gave beck more credit in the past for being media savvy, but he's clearly digging himself a grave here and only worsening his position. the real killer for me was having all the callers from texas on his friday show thanking him for exposing that kook medina....the damage is done and he's hearing about it, that's why he keeps bringing it up.

[jmdrake]

If I remember correctly, wasn't the foundation base of building 7 compromised due to the demolition of the nearby structures, and they decided to bring down building 7 for safety reasons? Secondly, if the wealth of records disclosed in building 7 was the true objective of the attack, wouldn't it be quite a chore to waste two airliners on the towers? I think it's a tribute to your intellectual curiousity that you're digging through the clues, but what I don't generally like about truthers is their blanket accusations, when the evidence trail is thin in relation to certain parties.

No. The official story is that WTC 7 was not "brought down" but somehow fell on its own. If the official story had been "We brought down WTC 7 on purpose for safety reasons", it wouldn't be the hot button issue it has become. After all WTC 4,5 and 6 were taken down and but you never see anyone say "Google WTC 6". Also call to speculation as to the "true motives" of the attack. Say if taking down buildings 1 and 2 were just as important as taking down WTC 7? Silverstein had insurance on all 3 buildings. Gold was reportedly in the basement of either 1 or 2 or both. Plus the "shock value" of taking down 2 important landmarks was important. There is no reason to cabin motive to one particular thing. Crimes can have multiple motives.

[Bergie Bergeron]

Dude.


hey guys, let's not derail this thread with 20 pages of 9/11 stuff... :o

[Pericles]

i gave beck more credit in the past for being media savvy, but he's clearly digging himself a grave here and only worsening his position. the real killer for me was having all the callers from texas on his friday show thanking him for exposing that kook medina....the damage is done and he's hearing about it, that's why he keeps bringing it up.

Beck is finding put that the "tea party movement" can't be steered by a talking head. It has its own momentum and the other point about a "leaderless" movement is that there is no focal point for media interviews, or more importantly, no person or group of people which, if discredited, end the "threat" the movement represents.

[pacelli]

I stopped after a minute. Whats the point in listening to it anymore?

[TastyWheat]

"Wow, that's the fastest way back to 4%... Rick, I think you and I could French kiss right now."Yeah, we totally misread that situation.

[catdd]

If I remember correctly, wasn't the foundation base of building 7 compromised due to the demolition of the nearby structures, and they decided to bring down building 7 for safety reasons? Secondly, if the wealth of records housed in building 7 was the true objective of the attack, wouldn't it be quite a chore to waste two airliners on the towers? I think it's a tribute to your intellectual curiousity that you're digging through the clues, but what I don't generally like about truthers is their blanket accusations, when the evidence trail is thin in relation to certain parties.

That could have been mentioned although this is the first time I ever heard it. Anyway, that's not the official report.

[Athan]

Beck's credibility is toast no matter what he does now.

Fuck yeah. The chickenshit benedict beck put words in her mouth after the interview.