Mark Cuban Exposes
O'Reilly Hypocrisy On Radio Broadcast
Billionaire Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks who is set to finance a cinema release of Loose Change narrated by Charlie Sheen, exposed Bill O'Reilly's rampant hypocrisy concerning his coverage of the 9/11 truth movement on the Fox News host's radio show yesterday.
O'Reilly admits right off the bat that he has not even seen Loose Change, following in the trend of his fellow debunkers who have already arrived at a judgment without even checking the evidence. Bill's mind is made up! Don't bother him with the facts!
This painfully underscores exactly what this whole charade represents, not an open debate on the evidence, but a cynical attempt to smear Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell and Mark Cuban.
O'Reilly wastes no time in doing so by associating Loose Change with "Nazi propaganda."
O'Reilly's claim might hold more weight if Dylan Avery were in control of a powerful industrial country, ran its media and commanded its standing army, but last time I checked Dylan still lives in upstate New York with his friends and a dog called Justice.
"The security in the World Trade Center would have been impossible for anybody to have set charges," claims O'Reilly, oblivious to the fact that, as World Trade Center worker Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. confirms, power downs and evacuation exercises in the towers were taking place on the weekend before 9/11, giving ample opportunity for incendiary devices to be placed. WTC workers Ben Fountain and William Rodriquez also confirmed this.
At this point Popular Mechanics editor-in-chief James Meigs chimes in to state that the impact of the jetliners and the fires they caused were enough to bring down the towers, a claim that is completely contradicted by the very design architects of the World Trade Center, who are all on the record as saying they designed the building to handle multiple impacts of large jetliners.
Meigs has an illustrious pedigree that puts him right up there with the professors and scholars that have studied 9/11 and the architects who designed the WTC - I just can't decide which title to give prominence, his position on the editorial staff of that bastion of scientific empiricism Entertainment Weekly or the equally respected Video Review.
Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Publishing. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst (pictured) wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.
Enter the term "yellow journalism" in the Encyclopedia Britannica and one of the first entries you will see is William Randolph Hearst. The listing attributes to Hearst a legacy of "distorted" and "lurid" reporting, and cites him as being hugely influential in fanning the flames of the Spanish-American war as a result of his newspaper's sensationalist yellow journalism.
Popular Mechanics is owned by the very corporation that defined yellow journalism!
During the interview, O'Reilly lauds Popular Mechanics as politically independent and non-partisan, "Popular Mechanics is not a political magazine, it's a technical magazine," when in fact it was darling of the Republican party John McCain who penned the foreword to Popular Mechanics' Debunking 9/11 Myths book.
In the foreword, McCain re-hashes an abhorrent amount of Neo-Con detritus that relies solely on 9/11 having happened exactly as the government claims it did. "We liberated Afghanistan from the murderous rule of the Taliban, our attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al Qaeda around the globe," barks the Arizona Senator.
Does this sound politically neutral to you?
Returning to the radio broadcast, O'Reilly brings on Mark Cuban, the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks who plans to mass distribute Loose Change, and immediately makes an argument that Loose Change should be banned just as some books should be banned. Cuban points out that O'Reilly's insistence that "lunacy not be given legitimacy" by affording it any attention is contradicted by the very fact that O'Reilly is covering the controversy on his radio and TV show.
O'Reilly persists with his argument of "marginalizing cranks" which Cuban refutes by asking "how many shows have you spent on this topic?" O'Reilly claims he has only done one show on 9/11 conspiracies which is patently false. O'Reilly has attacked both Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett numerous times on his television show.
Cuban's appeal to freedom of speech and his involvement in putting out previous documentaries in association with the Republican party gives strong credence to his argument that people need to hear all sides of the argument, in contrast to O'Reilly's shrill demands for censorship of a film that he hasn't even bothered to watch.
O'Reilly then plays the obligatory Holocaust card to claim Loose Change is insulting to the victims, a myth that we have exposed a dozen times in the past. The representative of the largest 9/11 family victim's group, Bill Doyle who also lost his son in the attacks, is on the record as saying half of his members now have grave questions about what happened on 9/11.
"He's finished," barks O'Reilly, echoing the threat made on his TV show that narrating Loose Change will end Charlie Sheen's career, a baseless assumption considering Sheen's career has only achieved more prominence in the year since he went public on 9/11 to the Alex Jones Show.
Repeating his mafia-like warning of "I'm looking out for him (Sheen) and I'm looking out for you too," O'Reilly concludes the interview by urging Cuban to rethink the project, stating "there's a lot of pain involved in this kind of a situation." With rhetoric like this, O'Reilly wouldn't have looked out of place had he been born into the Genovese Cosa Nostra family.
New York Post Tabloid Hack Johnson Attacks Sheen Again
In a related development, undeterred by the criticism of his awful yellow journalism hit piece on Thursday, in which he couldn't even get the names right of the people he was attacking, the New York Post's Richard Johnson is back for more, lauding the fact that his "exclusive" (which we have known for over a year) was confirmed by Sheen himself.
The Post quotes Charlie Sheen who told Extra yesterday, "It's a story that needs to be told. It's a story about the truth, and the truth needs to be exposed." It's not just me, not just the Hollywood community [who] is standing up saying what you have given us doesn't make sense. We just want better answers."
Johnson recycles the outright lie that the controlled demolition hypothesis has been "debunked," and states that the evidence presented in Loose Change was"also soundly refuted by Popular Mechanics magazine, which shot down every single assertion made by the conspiracy theorists."
In reality, crowned Kings and originators of yellow journalism Popular Mechanics' Debunking 9/11 farce was nothing more than a strawman assault based around nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.
The arguments presented in the article and the following book have been widely debunked by the 9/11 truth community as an example of a straw man hatchet job - whereby false arguments are erected, attributed to 9/11 skeptics, and then shot down.
One of the most glaring errors in the Popular Mechanics hit piece appears in the 'Intercepts Not Routine' section where it is claimed that, "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."
As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent rebuttal, "This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!"
"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."
The article also makes no mention whatsoever of the numerous war games scheduled for the morning of 9/11 which confused air defense personnel as to the true nature of the attack as it unfolded, as is documented by the recent release of the NORAD tapes.
A section on the collapse of the World Trade Center fails to address firefighters and other individuals who reported numerous explosions before the towers fell, squibs of debris seen shooting out of the towers well below the collapse point, and the fact that the towers fell only slightly slower than absolute free fall.
The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' applications. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran, all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?
A full debunking of the debunkers run-down article is available here.
Expect the Sheen/Loose Change/O'Donnell controversy to rumble on into next week and for the Neo-Con blowhards to sink further into the quicksand, attempting to marginalize the 9/11 truth movement yet only succeeding at making themselves look stupid and bringing more people over to our side.
Please help our fight against the New World Order by giving a donation. As bandwidth costs increase, the only way we can stay online and expand is with your support. Please consider giving a monthly or one-off donation for whatever you can afford. You can pay securely by either credit card or Paypal. Click here to donate.