911 : CNN covers 9/11 Truth Movement, own Poll: 90% believe in Cover-up

[MetalMilitia]

I'll move it depending on how it goes, but this jsut happened on CNN and I thought everyone should see it.

Originally Posted by cnn

November 10

U.S. Mainstream continues to reflect 9/11 truth activism.
Tonight, Anderson Cooper/CNN covered the 9/11 Truth Movement, including an Interview with Jimmy Walter (reopen911.org) and others.
Meanwhile, on the left wing airwaves, Dave v. Kleist appeared today in an Interview on Air America, joined again by Jimmy Walter and John Hankey, creator of "JFK II ? The Bush Connection", "a documentary that connects George Herbert Walker Bush to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.." Report continues...

On CNN, Walter was confronted with author Gerard Posner.
From the Transcript (REPEAT: 11/11, 4 PM/4:30 PM EST):

"...Also tonight, 9/11 conspiracy theory. Have you seen this guy's one, one man's multimillion-dollar ad campaign? Tonight, we're going to separate facts from fiction. We're going to get to the bottom of it all...

Tonight we want to look very closely at a conspiracy theory that is exploding on the Internet and on the airwaves. A California millionaire has spent a lot of money running TV ads, suggesting that we don't really know the full facts of what happened on 9/11. Why World Trade Center building number 7 collapsed even though it wasn't hit by a plane. Why the hole in the Pentagon was so small.

In a moment you will meet the man behind the ads, an investigators who says there are answers to all those questions. But first here's Deborah Feyerick with a look at the ads, and the allegations.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The two ads suggest a government conspiracy and coverup, raising questions like why did a building two blocks from the World Trade Center Towers seem to implode?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was not hit by aircraft. It had no significant fire and no explanation for its collapse has been given...

FEYERICK: Another ad asking why plane parts at the Pentagon seem to have disappeared.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The photos show no cabin, no engines, and no tail.

FEYERICK: The 9/11 commission requested eyewitnesses to both events. A spokesman saying the official report, which makes no mention of any government conspiracy, speaks for itself. But the ads, paid for by California millionaire James Walters, are taking on a who killed JFK-like quality. And they're fueling efforts like 9/11 Citizenswatch, asking New York's attorney general to launch a criminal investigation into what they believe is a government coverup.

KYLE HENCE, 9/11 CITIZENSWATCH: I think there's clear evidence for convening grand juries, and examining the bodies of evidence that the independent community of researchers, and others -- family members, have brought forward.

FEYERICK: Even those who dismiss the more outlandish conspiracy theories say the 9/11 report is incomplete.

(on camera): Many people in the rest of the country probably think there's closure on this. Is there?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not really, because there's still a lot of unanswered questions.

FEYERICK (voice-over): Glenn Corbett is helping investigate the collapse of the Towers for the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

GLENN CORBETT, JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE: The ads seem to implicate bombs and explosives, and the use of missiles on both the Pentagon and the World Trade Center complex. And the evidence, really, just doesn't support that from what we've found so far.

FEYERICK: Not only did Walters shell out 3 million for the TV ads, which got a lot of air time before the presidential elections, he also bought newspaper ads, and helped bankroll a Zogby Poll. The results of which he found 66 percent of those requested want the 9/11 investigation reopened.

Deborah Feyerick, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Joining me from Los Angeles, the man behind the advertising campaign, Jimmy Walter. And in Miami, lawyer and investigator, Gerald Posner, author of "Why America Slept: the Reasons Behind Our Failure To Prevent 9/11."

Appreciate both of you being on the program.

Jimmy, let me start off with 2 things. You talk about the Pentagon and Tower Number 7. Let's talk with the Pentagon. If Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, as you claim it didn't, what did and what happened to the 64 passengers who have died?

JAMES W. WALTER, CREATOR OF REOPEN911.ORG: Well, I don't know. And I am not the person to ask this, I don't have the best evidence. I do know that in 1962, the United States military joint chiefs of staff commissioned a program called Operation: Northwoods, in which they planned to have military personnel dress up as civilians, get on a civilian aircraft, land it secretly, take off a drone, shoot the drone down and blame it on Cuba as a pretext to invade Cuba.

COOPER: So you think this was a pretext, to what, invade Afghanistan and Iraq?

WALTER: I'm just saying that the United States military has done it before. To ask me what happened is absurd. I don't have the evidence. And the Pentagon refuses to release the tapes that would clearly show what hit the Pentagon. Why, if they are not trying to cover something up, won't they release the tapes to prove it one way or the other?

COOPER: All right. Gerald, let me bring you in here. A lot of the conspiracy theorists on this say that there was a small hole. And that there was no large hole from the wings of the plane that hit the Pentagon, therefore, there was no plane that hit the Pentagon. You're explanation.

GERALD POSNER, AUTHOR, "WHY AMERICA SLEPT": You know Anderson, everything about this, they use evidence, they misconstrue evidence. They say, well, the hole was very small. And they show you a picture from the top, an aerial satellite photograph for the top Pentagon that looks like a small hole.

They don't show you the front of the building, which is absolutely devastated through three different layers when that plane hits. And the plane does exactly what you expect it to. It's coming down, it hits the ground at 250 miles an hour. It's 100 tons of debris. It's hitting the Pentagon, which has these 6 and 12 inch steel girders. It largely disintegrates.

But you ask the key question, what about the 64 victims on the plane? Body parts were found there at the Pentagon. They were comprised through dental records and X-rays. Do we expect that somehow the government fired a missile into the Pentagon, then took the 64 bodies that dropped down on a plane somewhere in the United States, nobody saw this happen, drop the body parts in the Pentagon, so somehow we should feel that we should invade Afghanistan? Let me assure you, after the World Trade Center Towers were hit, we did not need the Pentagon as another target to have the American people feel they should go after Afghanistan.

COOPER: Jimmy, your other major assertion is that the World Trade Building Number 7 was detonated from within. And in your commercial, you say that there's never been any public explanation given for why the building collapsed. What is your theory or belief on that?

WALTER: The building is brought down by explosives. Clearly if you look at Larry Silverstein in a movie he claims he told the fire department of the city of New York to pull the building. That's a construction industry specific term to bring down a building with explosives. Larry Silverstein is not an official of the government. He does not represent every person...

COOPER: He's the man who helped police on the World Trade Center. Gerald, let me bring in you here because I've read, this commercial said there's no evidence ever publicly been given. I've read evidence that there was diesel fuel inside the building, being stored there. What do you know about building number 7, why it collapsed?

POSNER: Building number 7 is one of the clearest examples, it's actually a slam dunk in terms of engineering. That's how it came down. I don't even know why this one is a mystery at all and I'll tell you why. It happens to be built over two electrical substations owned by the old electrical utility Coned (ph). It's an unusual design. It has a crosshatch of steel girders that are literally holding it up and after it was built, not the original designs, they stored 45,000 gallons of diesel fuel there, that was used for emergency fuel for generators, for Mayor Giuliani's emergency operations and for the Secret Service.

When that caught fire after the World Trade Center was hit and some of the damage is done to the fire retardant materials in that building there's a fire for five to seven hours. Just the opposite of what you heard in the ad. It slowly burns through those steel birders, fueled by the diesel fuel, and if you watch the tape that's on that ad, 30 seconds before the building implodes, you see the actual mechanical room crash through exactly where you expect it to. There's a clear engineering explanation for that building.

COOPER: We're going to have to leave it there tonight. Gerald Posner, appreciate you joining and Jimmy Walter, as well, thank you very much.

WALTER: It's totally wrong.

COOPER: Well, I know that is your theory and you have been airing those commercials.

(AUDIO GAP)

COOPER: Right. And I think what he is saying is that the wings disintegrated while hitting the ground. That's what I heard him saying. But people can go to your website, they have seen your commercials and you have spent $3 million propagating this. And we appreciate you joining us. Thank you very much. We are going to be doing a special series on conspiracy theories after thanksgiving, and we'd like to hear from you. What's the big story that you think has been covered up that you want us to look into. Email us now.

Thoughts on this?

[DarkAce]

What again were the percentage of the polls for people who thought there was a concrete link between Saddam and 9/11? Hmmmm, exactly. I wouldn't rely (give a shit) what people's opinion is on a CNN quick pole. As for the 9/11 c-theories we've got enough of those proposing what happened.

[prezhorusin04]

I'd never trust a CNN poll, but it is a good sign that so many people voted Yes to a "Conspiracy" surrounding 911. Pretty funny that they took the poll down after 24 hours. Must not of liked what they were seeing. The new poll is "is the movie Saving Private Ryan too violent?", or something like that..

[Emerald_Dragon]

>What again were the percentage of the polls for people
>who thought there was a concrete link between Saddam and 9/11?
>Hmmmm, exactly.

you know, for shortsighted people, that would make sense.
many people in the U.S. would probably agree with you, mr skull-n-bones.
at least, at first.

in answer, roughly ~70% of people polled believed in that SH-911 link. but only after hearing the SOTU, Cheney, Rice, and gang, implying it to the mourning masses, that there was a link, before the Iraqi invasion. the mass media told them so, not explicitly, but by association. that is, many months before a "truth" was released by the 911 commission to the public of "no connection", and conveniently after we took out SH. faulty intelligence? or deceptive information withholding?

whereas, the belief in a 911 conspiracy, was not promoted by the media. on the contrary. they've presented that there was no conspiracy. that bureaucratic bumbling and lacks of inter-agency communications prevented an effective reaction. that no one expected anything like it. yet people still believe a cover up occurred? this, after an investigation is allowed to start 18 months after the event occurred? Warren commission, anyone? people believe in a cover up, only after 2+ years of unanswered questions. see for yourself, do your own research. "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert would be a good start. think for yourself and analyze what you're told vs. what the facts tell you.

Have you looked at the data? or have you believed what the mass media has told you?
"..these aren't the droids you're looking for" - Kenobi.

i'm sorry you're unable to make the distinction between the 2 polls.
but fortunately, there are those among us who can explain it to you.
you're welcome.

i would recommend some additional reading to supplement your POV.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>Pretty funny that they took the poll down after 24 hours...

ahh, don't get you're hopes up, they prolly put up/take down polls every 24 hours.

now, if that wasn't what they normally did/do, that would be really, really funny.

[Emerald_Dragon]

you know, i hope this isn't another "honey pot" operation. like the Kerry campaign. where you get everyone to believe in something and expend their energies to promoting it, only to have it fold when its time to fight. i mean, didn't Kerry have a $55+million fund to contest the polling results? sites where more votes were cast than voters? where votes were not counted because voters were spammed the wrong polls to vote at, hence discounting their votes?

this one would involve getting everyone to voice in and back a stupid theory like a missile hitting the Pentagon when a plane actually did, then the video is released dispelling the myth that a missile hit [discrediting the whole argument]. a plane did hit, just not a 757. and as for WTC 7 collapsing due to diesel fuel, that's just total BS.

so, Silverman was the trigger man for the WTC collapses. I've always wondered who made that call. people should be sueing him for damages, not the gov't. the gov'ts only involvement, IMO, was that they knew it was coming, but let it happen. i daresay, encouraged it to happen.
"that's how it works," - Julius Caesar

[DarkAce]

What are you going on about? My implication was that people on these polls are mostly idiots, hence my Saddam example. Are you so sure (I'm literally asking since you seem to know the collective thinking of these pollsters so well) that these people are actually thinking for themselves and looking for real answers or are they just jumping on a different bandwagon since it's the trendy thing to do?

Looked at data? What the mass media has told me? Where in my post was I talking about the legitimacy of the cospiracies? It was a rather crude attempt, but you're just not suave enough (and never will be) to follow through on me. Keep trying to make shit up that I've allegedly said, I'm in no competition here. Someday you'll get the better of me I'm sure, but not today.


I would recommend some further reading comprehension so you know when to STFU.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>Where in my post was I talking about the legitimacy of the cospiracies?

i was under the impression that you dismissed the conspiracies?
i apologize if i misread you.
is this what you said???

>As for the 9/11 c-theories we've got enough of those proposing what happened.

when people say that they've "got enough" of something, it usually means they don't care for it.
which led me to believe you didn't believe any of it,
because "we've got enough of those proposing what happened".

unless of course, you're talking about "cospiracies", which, i admit, know nothing about.
in which case, you are right, that i mis-comprehended what you wrote. i'm sorry.


>Looked at data?

you know, official releases.
19 hijackers, complete collapses due to fire, NORAD standdown, CIA drills, FEMA mondays, what offices were in WTC 7, people showing up to work on Tuesday morning or not, etc etc.


>but you're just not suave enough (and never will be) to follow through on me.

...why go through, when one can go over? or around, for that matter?



>What are you going on about?

i thought i was talking about 911 and things of that nature. can you be more specific?

[whiskeast]

yeeeahh...or the people in the so called truth movement knew that CNN was going to report on it, watched the report, and then flooded the poll.

<-----WTF?

[Cartesiantheater]

Shouldn't this be in the conspiracy section?

And, does this prove that CNN is NOT in on the conspiracy?

[Now]

Its interesting to note that James Walter is at no point given the opportunity to answer the claims made by Gerald Posner. The pattern seems to be, Walter makes a point, eg, Operation Northwoods, and the Pentagon refusing to produce the evidence which would supposedly put an end to these discussions, and then the interviewer guides the discussion to a different point, eg, the size of the hole in the Pentagon. Then Walter makes the point about Larry Silverstein ordering to "pull" WTC7, and the interviewer chips in to say that they've "read evidence" (certainly not from the 9/11 Commission Report!) about diesel fuel, which then leads nicely to Posner stating that there were shitloads of diesel fuel, etc. At that point, it is time for "We're going to have to leave it there tonight...." Walter is never given the chance to answer. I would imagine that he might have wanted to raise the point that there was no mention of any of this "evidence" in the official 9/11 Commission report!

Just because something is presented by the media, it doesn't mean that it is being laid open for discussion. Sometimes, it is used as an opportunity to attempt to squash a particular notion, which is fairly easy to do when both parties are not given the same opportunities to present their case or respond.

There is nothing here which could be seen to reasonably exclude CNN from being used as a pawn in all of this.


Now.

[Justice]

What are you going on about? My implication was that people on these polls are mostly idiots,

I can see from your comments that you believe in freedom of speech and democracy.

Most here will except that it’s a lot less than 90% of the general population in the UK/USA think that the government was implicated in the events of 9/11 but would you deny it’s around 50% and would you agree that this huge number of people would not warrant a reopening of the case under normal circumstances.

i post on many boards and i can tell you that a lot of people are saying just what i'm saying around the world.

Has it accrued to you that you maybe in the wrong or do you think the official story answered all your questions ? maybe you can remind us as to what it says about WT7

a good link to start with but i don't agree with 7/7 being a setup in the clip

[bbbv3.5]

Its more like 1/20 people. Loose change and the. Alex Jones video have reached over 1-10 million unique visitors in the last 3 years at the most. Say half of them are brainwashed. There ya go. Justice, the people on the internet are only a small portion when it comes to the USA.

[Justice]

Originally Posted by bbbv3.0

Its more like 1/20 people. Loose change and the. Alex Jones video have reached over 1-10 million unique visitors in the last 3 years at the most. Say half of them are brainwashed. There ya go. Justice, the people on the internet are only a small portion when it comes to the USA.

So in your world you think people spend more time watching and reading about 9/11 then they see of the local news papers and TV and if as you say a mere 1-10 million people watch the Alex Jones stuff then how come Billions of people now say GW-Bush was behind the attack, I’ll spare you the link to the CNN poll where 89% disagree with you.

[D34DGuY]

I'll say it again, there is way too many problems with the Government story to be ignored... Alex Jones is a bit eccentric (spelt that wrong I am sure) However he always backs his claims up with hard facts, goto his website and read read read.
www.prisonplanet.com or www.infowars.com

If you want to lay back and ignore the truth, then so be it. I wonder what this country is going to be like when this is all said and done...

[bbbv3.5]

OMG, Alex Jones is retarted. One his 911 The Road to Tyranny Documentary the first thing he says is about a public document telling officials to not touch Al Queda from Geroge Bush. He then went on Chris Matthews and Chris asked him about it, then pulled the document out and it said nothing of that sort. Alex Jones- dedicated to the lives lost at 911.

[I Believe]

Originally Posted by Cartesiantheater

Shouldn't this be in the conspiracy section?

And, does this prove that CNN is NOT in on the conspiracy?

CT I guess it depends on which side of the Liberal Media fence your on.....they have no other way to explain it except on a dead man cause they cannot find or get Bin Laden.

[iulian28ti]

And, does this prove that CNN is NOT in on the conspiracy?

No, not really.

You know how propaganda works. Say something long enough, be known as credible and people will believe you.
Eventually broadcast that poll, which btw is not even a c-theory, to make believe you're impartial and that the media covers up nothing.

If they would have broadcast c-theories at least 1/10 of how much they discredit and mock them, then yes, they would have no part in the conspiracy.