A Great Response to Tucker Carlson

I wish I had done this, but... I'm too nice. :)

From a friend of a friend:

(Carlson's words are italicized)
"[M]y first thought was: Stephen Jones is insane. And he may be. On the other hand, he does have a legitimate job and a responsible-sounding title. He's not living in the park, or writing me letters in crayon. How crazy could he really be?"

What disrespect and arrogance on your part!!

"In the interest of open-mindedness, we booked him."

Actions speak louder than words. Yours were not the actions of open-mindedness, but of the intentional spreading of disinformation and the dishonoring of an honorable man.

"That was probably a mistake."

The 'mistake' -- from the perspective of honest reporting -- was to rig the interview so that no legitimate information could be shared with your viewers.

"Talking about 9-11 is a lot like discussing someone else's religion: You can do it, but you've got to tread carefully. Most of the time, it's best to stick to platitudes and move on."

The events of 9/11 are not a matter of faith, but of EVIDENCE. When a crime has been committed, you look at the EVIDENCE; you don't stick to 'platitudes' and 'move on'.

"The subject is still too raw for debate, particularly here in the New York area."

Baloney. New Yorkers want more than anything to know what happened.

"Professor Jones wasn't up to the job. If you saw last night's show, you know what an uncomfortable six minutes it was. If not, I'll summarize: Jones was almost totally incapable of explaining his own ideas. By the end of the interview I understood no more about his hypothesis than when it began. He was an epically bad guest."

The problem with Prof. Jones was that he actually expected you to play fair and show the clip of WTC #7 coming down so he could easily demonstrate to the audience exactly why the building had to have been brought down by controlled demolition. What you -- the epically bad interviewer but very experienced disinfo artist -- did was to prevent that from happening. And now you're lying about it and dissing him, to boot-- disgusting!!

"Yet - and here's the interesting part - he seemed to connect with a huge number of viewers. The overwhelming majority wrote to thank me for my "courage" in putting him on, and to complain that we didn't give him more time to explain the conspiracy."

Indeed.

"In other words, a lot of people seem to think it's possible that the U.S. government had a hand in bringing down the World Trade Center buildings."

We don't THINK it's possible. We KNOW it's possible, and the REASON is that we looked carefully at the EVIDENCE!! (And I'm not speaking for Prof. Jones, who isn't willing to go as far as accusing the government, since he's sticking with the physics of the matter, which is something he, unlike yourself, is QUITE capable of understanding and explicating.)

"Ponder that for a second: The U.S. government killed more than 3,000 of its own citizens. For no obvious reason."

Actually, they did it for a VERY OBVIOUS reason -- one they NAMED in the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defense" over a year earlier -- namely to terrify Americans into accepting unjustified wars for oil and empire. That one's a no-brainer.

"Then lied about it. Then invaded two other countries, killing thousands of their citizens as punishment for a crime they didn't commit.

If you really thought this - or even considered it a possibility - how could you continue to live here? You couldn't. You'd leave the United States on the next available flight and not come back. You'd have no choice. Continuing to pay taxes to a government capable of something so evil would make you complicit in the crime."


Baloney! What outrageous, oversimplified gibberish! For starters, most people can't leave on the next available flight. But more importantly, knowledgeable Americans patriotically stay to try to educate their fellow citizens into seeing the light so that the crime can be uncovered and those perpetrating it removed from the government and the harm stopped.

"So of course most of the people who wrote to say they think the government might have been behind 9-11 don't really think the government might have been behind 9-11. For whatever reason, they just like to say so. Which as far as I'm concerned makes them phony and irresponsible."

Baloney again!! The reason we say so (and there's no 'like' about it) is because we prefer truth to lies.

"Incidentally, we still have an open mind here on the Situation, even after Professor Stephen Jones. So if evidence ever does arise that the government lied substantially about what happened on September 11th, we'll be on it immediately. I promise."

More lies. You weren't 'open-minded' to begin with, and there's NO sign of a change! But it's interesting to note that you might say something if the government 'lied substantially' about 9/11. Is this an admission on your part that they have indeed lied? And my question is -- why does the lie have to be 'substantial' to be considered? And what, in your view, constitutes 'substantial'.

And here's one final question: Would you be willing to take a lie detector test and swear under oath that ever word of what you wrote is absolutely true and all your actions surrounding Prof. Jones' appearance were absolutely above-board and honorable?