MSNBC Covers Professor Steven E. Jones, Omits WTC7 Coverage - Video Inside

[Gold9472]

MSNBC Covers Professor Steven E. Jones, Omits WTC7 Coverage

Click Here (http://www.infowarsmedia.com/video/clips/wtc/wtc_jones_tucker_carlson.asf)

[PhilosophyGenius]

That was lame. He made a sloppy case and the producers at MSNBC did not even show the building 7 footage he sent them.

[Gold9472]

He wasn't sloppy... he was succint, intelligent, and they rushed him, and wouldn't show the footage he sent them.

[PhilosophyGenius]

I guess your right on the sloppy part. But he was too slow though, problably didn't realize how short the segments are on those kinds of shows.

[Gold9472]

But he continually asked for the WTC7 footage to be shown, and all they would show is a picture of the building as it stood... they had PLENTY of time to show it.

[911=inside job]

they didnt want anyone to see it!!!! there is no way around it... fucking assholes!!!! i would be happy if they would have just showed it.... tucker could of fucked him up and didnt, i dont know why he was so nice....

[911=inside job]

what happened to the other thread like this one.. i looked for it and couldnt find it...

[Gold9472]

they didnt want anyone to see it!!!! there is no way around it... fucking assholes!!!! i would be happy if they would have just showed it.... tucker could of fucked him up and didnt, i dont know why he was so nice....

Did you see it?

[Gold9472]

what happened to the other thread like this one.. i looked for it and couldnt find it...

This is the only thread of this so far.

[911=inside job]

the one that said he was going to be on...

[Rebel Patriot]

I am sure Mr Stephen Jones will get a media learning curve education shortly.

I sent an email to Tucker Carlson thanking him for his coverage, for his "respectfullness" to this guest, and recommended Griffin and William Rodriguez for future spots if he wanted to add to this discussion later.

[PhilosophyGenius]

But Carlson did leave open a possiblity of him returning to finish that discussion though. It sucked how when the Professor kept asking for the footage to be played, the producer just kept showing the picture of that steel building and the WTC debret.

[Gold9472]

It's up... it's on 911truth.org, and it's on 911blogger.com

[aceace]

I am sure Mr Stephen Jones will get a media learning curve education shortly.

I sent an email to Tucker Carlson thanking him for his coverage, for his "respectfullness" to this guest, and recommended Griffin and William Rodriguez for future spots if he wanted to add to this discussion later.

I ripped his ass and called him a shill, which is exactly what he is. I think it was a message to other professors not to touch his hypothesis for a revue.

Here's my letter to Mr.Carlson.

Mr Carlson,

Your interview of Professor Stephen Jones was a joke. Not running the video clip that he sent the show in advance so that he might explain his hypothesis using the visual aid was disingegenenous to the extreme.

Your simple apology after the segment for not being able to understand what Professor Jones meant was insulting to Professor Jones and to all viewers of the program. I would have expected such coverage, or the lack of same, from Fox News. It now appears to me that MSNBC has fallen to the same level as Fox.
I know why I never watched at CNN and now I know your a shill for the Neo-cons. Millions of people believe that the US Govt was responsible for 911 and its growing, each day. 911 was a convienent excuse for Regime change in Afghanistan so a pipeline could be built and the poppy fields could bloom. It was used to invade Iraq and steal Oil. It brought about Patriot Act 1 & 2. Even FBI Director Robert Mueller has admitted in public that there is actually no evidence that proves the named 9-11 hijackers were actually on the aircraft. Feel free to have me on your show in the future. I can and will charge the neo-cons with 3000 counts of murder. I have seen enough evidence long before Mr Jones.

[aceace]

I wish I had added "I never watch you, actually the only time I have ever seen you before tonight was when Jon Stewart made you look like the little bitch you are"

[PhilosophyGenius]

I wish I had added "I never watch you, actually the only time I have ever seen you before tonight was when Jon Stewart made you look like the little bitch you are"

Jon Stewart was a complete asshole on Crossfire. That was extremly rude what he did, and when he did it, I had lost all respect I had for him.

[aceace]

Jon Stewart was a complete asshole on Crossfire. That was extremly rude what he did, and when he did it, I had lost all respect I had for him.I disagree, what he was trying to do IMHO was bring to light the fact that the media does not cover the White House, it takes orders from the White House. The media is a controlled entity and the views are made to appeal to those that take the blue pill.

[911=inside job]

aceace is right on... stewart ruled on crossfire... the daily show is the best news on tv.. HAHA!!

[911=inside job]

sbg, i dare you to post this on letsroll... HAHAH!!!!

from mr jones...
At the same time, I acknowledge that other notions have sprung up in the near vacuum of official consideration of this very plausible hypothesis.^ These notions must be subjected to careful scrutiny. I by no means endorse all such ideas. ^For example, the video “In Plane Site” promotes the theory that a “pod” holds a missile under the wing of the 757 which hit WTC 2 (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). ^Careful inspection of the undercarriage of a standard 757 leads to the explanation that the so-called “pod” was merely a reflection from the bulged undercarriage (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005).^ I find that the “pod theory” is very weak and distracts from central issues.

Again, there is a notion that something other than Boeing jetliners hit the WTC Towers (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). ^Scrutiny of photographs and videos provides compelling evidence that jets did in fact hit these buildings (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). ^A March 2005 article in Popular Mechanics focuses on poorly-supported claims and proceeds to ridicule the whole “9-11 truth movement” (Chertoff, 2005). ^Serious replies to this article have already been written (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005; serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm).

[somebigguy]

sbg, i dare you to post this on letsroll... HAHAH!!!!

from mr jones...
At the same time, I acknowledge that other notions have sprung up in the near vacuum of official consideration of this very plausible hypothesis.^ These notions must be subjected to careful scrutiny. I by no means endorse all such ideas. ^For example, the video “In Plane Site” promotes the theory that a “pod” holds a missile under the wing of the 757 which hit WTC 2 (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). ^Careful inspection of the undercarriage of a standard 757 leads to the explanation that the so-called “pod” was merely a reflection from the bulged undercarriage (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005).^ I find that the “pod theory” is very weak and distracts from central issues.

Again, there is a notion that something other than Boeing jetliners hit the WTC Towers (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). ^Scrutiny of photographs and videos provides compelling evidence that jets did in fact hit these buildings (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). ^A March 2005 article in Popular Mechanics focuses on poorly-supported claims and proceeds to ridicule the whole “9-11 truth movement” (Chertoff, 2005). ^Serious replies to this article have already been written (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005; serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm).
I'll post it, is this from his paper?

[somebigguy]

sbg, i dare you to post this on letsroll... HAHAH!!!!

from mr jones...
At the same time, I acknowledge that other notions have sprung up in the near vacuum of official consideration of this very plausible hypothesis.^ These notions must be subjected to careful scrutiny. I by no means endorse all such ideas. ^For example, the video “In Plane Site” promotes the theory that a “pod” holds a missile under the wing of the 757 which hit WTC 2 (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). ^Careful inspection of the undercarriage of a standard 757 leads to the explanation that the so-called “pod” was merely a reflection from the bulged undercarriage (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005).^ I find that the “pod theory” is very weak and distracts from central issues.

Again, there is a notion that something other than Boeing jetliners hit the WTC Towers (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). ^Scrutiny of photographs and videos provides compelling evidence that jets did in fact hit these buildings (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). ^A March 2005 article in Popular Mechanics focuses on poorly-supported claims and proceeds to ridicule the whole “9-11 truth movement” (Chertoff, 2005). ^Serious replies to this article have already been written (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005; serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm).
They are already discussing this over there. Some of them are attacking Jones claiming he lacks credibility and knowledge of the attacks because he didn't know the exact type of plane that hit the towers.

I say "So what, who cares", his argument has nothing to do with the type of plane that allegedly hit each location.

The promoters of the pod have a serious issue with reasonable doubt. The pod *could* be wing fairing. That is reasonable doubt, and therefore not worth promoting.

[911=inside job]

phil is soooo pissed!!! HAHAHAHAHHA!!!!! jones is now a shill.. HAHAHHA!!!! oh fuck... thats why i have never posted there.... phill is fucking crazy...(almost as crazy as gold)... he cant stand anyone that doesnt back the (pod).. HAHAH!!! i should throw away my in plane site dvd....

[Gold9472]

Please explain to the non-Phil associates what you mean.

[Gold9472]

Here is what Phil Jayhan, discoverer of the "Pod Theory" had to say about Steven E. Jones, Physics Professor.

"To be honest with you all, I have serious doubts about this guys credibility. And not simply because he attacked the pod while not mentioning any other aspect of 911, save the controlled demolitions of the buildings.

1. He is a Johnny come lately. Where was he for the last 4 years? So he believes the WTC was brought down by CD...Whoopdeedooo! We have been saying this for years now...

2. We don't need experts to come to the conclusion that WTC was brought down by CD. All we have to do is watch the videos of all the bombs going off. (duh)

3. The roots of Brigham young University are at best, questionable. It is a false religion, and a newly created one at that. Who started it and funded it, as well as mormonism. My guess is we will find some Vatican ties that bind.

4. He attacks the pod. Why? Is he now an expert on it? Has he studied it and all the other feats of flight 175? What was his purpose in attacking it? He didn't even have to mention it, as he failed to mention the Pentagonand Shanksville, yet went OUT OF HIS WAY to cast aspersion on it. Very interesting indeed, and suspicious....

My spidey sense are tingling all over with this guy....

The last one that shows he is most likely a shill, is he has been a 911 person for a total of 4 days now, and YET HE'S ALREADY BEEN INVITED ONTO, AND APPEARED ON MSNBC....

Thats right, 4 days! 4 days now, and he's on MSNBC, a microphone for the neocons and the Bush mafia...

Something seriously stinks here! Need I say more?

cheers-
phil "

[911=inside job]

HAHHAHAHAH!!!! what, you cant understand my last post???? but its so clear.. HAHAHHAHA!!!!

i was just reading a few threads over there and, jesus, they grab at anything they can...

phil is going crazy because a new professer has come out saying 911 was an inside job and also said that the "pod" is total bullshit... poor philbert....

i was never able to see an sort of fuel spray that he talks about all the time....

[Gold9472]

Sounds to me like Phil Jayhan is that word that is forbidden... that "D" word...

[911=inside job]

Here is what Phil Jayhan, discoverer of the "Pod Theory" had to say about Steven E. Jones, Physics Professor.

"To be honest with you all, I have serious doubts about this guys credibility. And not simply because he attacked the pod while not mentioning any other aspect of 911, save the controlled demolitions of the buildings.

1. He is a Johnny come lately. Where was he for the last 4 years? So he believes the WTC was brought down by CD...Whoopdeedooo! We have been saying this for years now...

2. We don't need experts to come to the conclusion that WTC was brought down by CD. All we have to do is watch the videos of all the bombs going off. (duh)

3. The roots of Brigham young University are at best, questionable. It is a false religion, and a newly created one at that. Who started it and funded it, as well as mormonism. My guess is we will find some Vatican ties that bind.

4. He attacks the pod. Why? Is he now an expert on it? Has he studied it and all the other feats of flight 175? What was his purpose in attacking it? He didn't even have to mention it, as he failed to mention the Pentagonand Shanksville, yet went OUT OF HIS WAY to cast aspersion on it. Very interesting indeed, and suspicious....

My spidey sense are tingling all over with this guy....

The last one that shows he is most likely a shill, is he has been a 911 person for a total of 4 days now, and YET HE'S ALREADY BEEN INVITED ONTO, AND APPEARED ON MSNBC....

Thats right, 4 days! 4 days now, and he's on MSNBC, a microphone for the neocons and the Bush mafia...

Something seriously stinks here! Need I say more?

cheers-
phil "jones paper has been out for over 2 weeks so i dont know where he got his 4 days.....

[911=inside job]

Sounds to me like Phil Jayhan is that word that is forbidden... that "D" word...
it looks like it more and more each day....

[911=inside job]

his board in not as active as it used to be....

[Gold9472]

You all know me... and know that I NEVER focused on the WTC Collapse, or the Missile/Pentagon theory... however... a Physics Professor has come now come out stating that the WTC was brought down by Demolition. Therefore, the "theory" has gained credibility. Therefore, I'll include it in my 9/11 repertoire... however again, it's still not the WHOLE story of 9/11... and from experience, people give me crazy looks when I mention the WTC... so I still won't use it as a main point of focus... but Professor Jones' paper will now be included as part of the greater whole...

[Gold9472]

it looks like it more and more each day....

It's best we don't focus on it... just come to your conclusions, and move on...