Wing TV
Wing TV is a fun site that often deals with 9/11 skepticism. The "show" is usually fun to listen to, but exceedingly silly to watch, since it only shows the two hosts' faces for twenty-four minutes, and never shows the guests.
Today, they had Dave McGowan on, who I generally find interesting. They heavily promoted his 9/11 essays, which are linked at their website (besides at McGowan's site). The essays are good, and mostly deal with the three big issues:
1) the collapse of the WTC 1, 2 and 7 buildings,
2) the lack of air defenses,
3) what hit the Pentagon.
Besides talking about 9/11, they got in the seemingly obligatory Mike Ruppert bashing. It's really a shame 9/11 researchers have to denigrate other 9/11 researchers so much, and even go to the extreme of calling each other government agents planting disinfo. Unfortunately Mike Ruppert seems to bring a lot of this on himself, since he appears to have a short fuse with other 9/11 researchers (as evidenced by his e-mails that these people reprint).
From my vantage point, there is not such a major discrepancy in what these various people are proposing about 9/11-- rather they are really getting hung up on what aspects of the 9/11 story are best emphasized. This is a legitimate issue, since ultimately we want to affect public opinion in some way. However, the trashing of other people's work is really, really counter-productive.
Today, they had Dave McGowan on, who I generally find interesting. They heavily promoted his 9/11 essays, which are linked at their website (besides at McGowan's site). The essays are good, and mostly deal with the three big issues:
1) the collapse of the WTC 1, 2 and 7 buildings,
2) the lack of air defenses,
3) what hit the Pentagon.
Besides talking about 9/11, they got in the seemingly obligatory Mike Ruppert bashing. It's really a shame 9/11 researchers have to denigrate other 9/11 researchers so much, and even go to the extreme of calling each other government agents planting disinfo. Unfortunately Mike Ruppert seems to bring a lot of this on himself, since he appears to have a short fuse with other 9/11 researchers (as evidenced by his e-mails that these people reprint).
From my vantage point, there is not such a major discrepancy in what these various people are proposing about 9/11-- rather they are really getting hung up on what aspects of the 9/11 story are best emphasized. This is a legitimate issue, since ultimately we want to affect public opinion in some way. However, the trashing of other people's work is really, really counter-productive.
posted by spooked at 5:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home