pisshead
03-23-2007, 04:42 AM
Debunking NY Post's Tabloid Hit Piece On Sheen/O'Donnell
As sophisticated as a Chicago Bears fan after a heavy drinking session Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson
Prison Planet (http://prisonplanet.com/index.html)
Thursday, March 22, 2007
The New York Post has produced a typically and purposefully ignorant hit piece (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/220307hitpiece.htm) against both Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen for going public with their views on 9/11, commenting that they should "keep their traps shut".
As far as hit pieces go, gossip writer Richard Johnson's scribe is about as sophisticated as a Chicago Bears fan after a heavy drinking session, but considering his other stories today were about Paul McCartney sending a bunch of flowers and Jay-Z making a bet with the editor of Playboy, we shouldn't expect too much.
The piece, clearly aimed at those who don't have the attention span to read the entire word "Hollywood," headlined as it is "H'Wood," labels Sheen as a "hooker-loving Hollywood hunk," denounces his father, Martin Sheen, for having been arrested in the past for protesting and calls Loose Change a "loopy YouTube documentary."
Choosing to focus on name calling and slandering character assassinations, Rupert Murdoch's Post cannot even get the most basic of facts correct. Whatreallyhappened.com's Michael Rivero is referenced in the piece but is referred to as "Matt Rivero". Any visitor to Whatreallyhappened.com will see instantly that at the top of the page it says Michael Rivero's Whatreallyhappened.com, proving that writer Richard Johnson has not even looked at the website he is trouncing, a running theme where baseless debunking and awful journalism is concerned.
Johnson needs to stick to reporting on Britney Spears' latest haircut if he can't even be bothered to conduct cursory investigative research.
After a healthy serving of ad hominem name-calling slurs, Johnson finally addresses Rosie O'Donnell's comments, stating that she is repeating a "widely debunked rundown" of Michael or (Matt as they have it) Rivero's discredited theories about Building 7. Putting aside the subtle assertion that all questions and theories about the collapse of WTC 7 belong to Michael Rivero, it is entirely incorrect and untruthful to state that they have been discredited and debunked.
Indeed, it is the official narrative that has been repeatedly discredited and debunked. Both NIST and FEMA have had to change portions of their reports on several occasions because the conclusions failed to fit the evidence.
Neither body has yet been able to produce an official report that can explain how fire damage caused the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11.
Debunkers of the controlled demolition theory (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html) continually cite "raging infernos" inside the building, yet officially only eight floors of the building were subject to sporadic fires before its collapse. The NIST report concluded after extensive controlled recreation experiments that it could not comprehensively identify how the building could have collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint given the damage that it had sustained.
Remember also that experts stated (http://www.prisonplanet.com/engineers_are_baffled_over_the_collapse_of_7_wtc.h tml) about Building 7:
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures.
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in Building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them. Can sporadic fires on just eight floors of a 47 story building do that? NO, according to NIST, they cannot.
Is the New York Post suggesting that NIST's theories are "twisted"? That is the information that Sheen and O'Donnell are respectively going off, not just some made up nonsense from cyberspace.
Sheen, O'Donnell and celebrities like them are not simply "repeating" the views of "conspiracy theorists," they are relaying the views of experts in their field. People such as Kevin Ryan of Underwriter Laboratories who stepped forward shortly after the release of the NIST report to point out that UL testimony to NIST regarding the ability of jet fuel fire to melt steel was inaccurate. Kevin Ryan was fired from UL shortly thereafter.
Several demolition experts are also on record as stating that they believe WTC 7's collapse to have occurred as a result of a controlled implosion. Indeed, controlled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/290906Jowenko.htm), unaware that the structure had collapsed on 9/11, immediately concluded that Building 7 had been deliberately demolished when he was shown the footage by a Dutch television crew, and maintains that position (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/220207_b_Jowenko.htm) to this day.
The Post also makes reference to WTC owner Larry Silverstein's infamous "pull it" comment (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html), also suggesting only insane "conspiracists" could take it to mean an admission of controlled demolition. However, the fact remains that no one has been able to explain this comment. A spokesperson for Silverstein later attempted to explain the comment away (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html) by stating that by "pull it" he had meant "evacuate the firefighting operation". The problem is, according to FEMA, there were no firefighting procedures in Building 7 and firefighters were outside of the collapse zone that had been set up many hours before WTC 7 fell.
The official FEMA report stresses this in chapter five (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm), stating "...the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities."
In more recent revelations that the Post fails to address, it was discovered that the BBC had reported that Building 7 had collapsed up to 30 minutes before it actually fell. This indicated that the press were being spoon fed information about what was going to happen on 9/11.
Debunkers have charged that Building 7 was expected to collapse before it did, which is true, and the BBC merely jumped the gun - but that begs the question - how did officials know the building was going to collapse when no modern steel building in history had collapsed from fire damage alone and why were the BBC reporting its collapse in advance with the added knowledge of why it collapsed - a question that is still being investigated by NIST five and a half years later? Whoever the BBC's source was for reporting the collapse of Building 7 were ahead of NIST by five and a half years and had already determined why the building had collapsed before it had collapsed. Is this not in the least bit suspicious?
The BBC has still not named its source of this information on 9/11.
In the most infamous debunking piece to date, Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5) relied on a combination of all kinds of theories to explain away the collapse of Building 7, realizing themselves that neither the fires nor the falling debris could explain the collapse of the structure:
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.
However as we have previously reported (http://infowars.net/articles/march2007/010307BBC_WTC7.htm), Building 7 was specifically designed to have floors removed without collapsing. It was essentially a 'building within a building', as the New York Times put it. To suggest Building 7 would have been weakened as an overall structure by damage to limited portions of it is totally untrue. Besides, who in their right mind would design a building with 47 columns, knowing that removing one column would cause the entire thing to collapse?
The fact remains that the Building 7 saga has not been debunked no matter how many times debunkers, or in the case of the Post poor excuses for reporters, say it has been. 7 thus remains the key to unlocking the fraud that is the official story behind 9/11.
The hit piece also contains leaked details of the upcoming Loose Change Final Cut movie, in which it is announced that Charlie Sheen is set to narrate the documentary.
Arising out of Alex Jones' role as a consultant on the project, we have known this information for over a year and withheld it for the very important reason that the project's integrity during its embryonic phase depended on maintaining its secrecy.
We confirmed that the information had been leaked to the media on Monday but now it is verified that the Post already knew the details before they tried to trick William Rodriguez
into admitting it during a subsequent conversation.
The project has now been compromised as a result of a blabbermouth on the 9/11 truth circuit, the identity of which remains unknown, that spilled his guts to the Post's debunker in chief Richard Johnson, but the net effect will probably only raise the film's profile.
Details of the film leaking early, along with the Post being mandated to report on the comments of Rosie O'Donnell, could only make the entire project and 9/11 truth in general go supernova.
As sophisticated as a Chicago Bears fan after a heavy drinking session Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson
Prison Planet (http://prisonplanet.com/index.html)
Thursday, March 22, 2007
The New York Post has produced a typically and purposefully ignorant hit piece (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/220307hitpiece.htm) against both Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen for going public with their views on 9/11, commenting that they should "keep their traps shut".
As far as hit pieces go, gossip writer Richard Johnson's scribe is about as sophisticated as a Chicago Bears fan after a heavy drinking session, but considering his other stories today were about Paul McCartney sending a bunch of flowers and Jay-Z making a bet with the editor of Playboy, we shouldn't expect too much.
The piece, clearly aimed at those who don't have the attention span to read the entire word "Hollywood," headlined as it is "H'Wood," labels Sheen as a "hooker-loving Hollywood hunk," denounces his father, Martin Sheen, for having been arrested in the past for protesting and calls Loose Change a "loopy YouTube documentary."
Choosing to focus on name calling and slandering character assassinations, Rupert Murdoch's Post cannot even get the most basic of facts correct. Whatreallyhappened.com's Michael Rivero is referenced in the piece but is referred to as "Matt Rivero". Any visitor to Whatreallyhappened.com will see instantly that at the top of the page it says Michael Rivero's Whatreallyhappened.com, proving that writer Richard Johnson has not even looked at the website he is trouncing, a running theme where baseless debunking and awful journalism is concerned.
Johnson needs to stick to reporting on Britney Spears' latest haircut if he can't even be bothered to conduct cursory investigative research.
After a healthy serving of ad hominem name-calling slurs, Johnson finally addresses Rosie O'Donnell's comments, stating that she is repeating a "widely debunked rundown" of Michael or (Matt as they have it) Rivero's discredited theories about Building 7. Putting aside the subtle assertion that all questions and theories about the collapse of WTC 7 belong to Michael Rivero, it is entirely incorrect and untruthful to state that they have been discredited and debunked.
Indeed, it is the official narrative that has been repeatedly discredited and debunked. Both NIST and FEMA have had to change portions of their reports on several occasions because the conclusions failed to fit the evidence.
Neither body has yet been able to produce an official report that can explain how fire damage caused the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11.
Debunkers of the controlled demolition theory (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html) continually cite "raging infernos" inside the building, yet officially only eight floors of the building were subject to sporadic fires before its collapse. The NIST report concluded after extensive controlled recreation experiments that it could not comprehensively identify how the building could have collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint given the damage that it had sustained.
Remember also that experts stated (http://www.prisonplanet.com/engineers_are_baffled_over_the_collapse_of_7_wtc.h tml) about Building 7:
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures.
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in Building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them. Can sporadic fires on just eight floors of a 47 story building do that? NO, according to NIST, they cannot.
Is the New York Post suggesting that NIST's theories are "twisted"? That is the information that Sheen and O'Donnell are respectively going off, not just some made up nonsense from cyberspace.
Sheen, O'Donnell and celebrities like them are not simply "repeating" the views of "conspiracy theorists," they are relaying the views of experts in their field. People such as Kevin Ryan of Underwriter Laboratories who stepped forward shortly after the release of the NIST report to point out that UL testimony to NIST regarding the ability of jet fuel fire to melt steel was inaccurate. Kevin Ryan was fired from UL shortly thereafter.
Several demolition experts are also on record as stating that they believe WTC 7's collapse to have occurred as a result of a controlled implosion. Indeed, controlled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/290906Jowenko.htm), unaware that the structure had collapsed on 9/11, immediately concluded that Building 7 had been deliberately demolished when he was shown the footage by a Dutch television crew, and maintains that position (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/220207_b_Jowenko.htm) to this day.
The Post also makes reference to WTC owner Larry Silverstein's infamous "pull it" comment (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html), also suggesting only insane "conspiracists" could take it to mean an admission of controlled demolition. However, the fact remains that no one has been able to explain this comment. A spokesperson for Silverstein later attempted to explain the comment away (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html) by stating that by "pull it" he had meant "evacuate the firefighting operation". The problem is, according to FEMA, there were no firefighting procedures in Building 7 and firefighters were outside of the collapse zone that had been set up many hours before WTC 7 fell.
The official FEMA report stresses this in chapter five (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm), stating "...the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities."
In more recent revelations that the Post fails to address, it was discovered that the BBC had reported that Building 7 had collapsed up to 30 minutes before it actually fell. This indicated that the press were being spoon fed information about what was going to happen on 9/11.
Debunkers have charged that Building 7 was expected to collapse before it did, which is true, and the BBC merely jumped the gun - but that begs the question - how did officials know the building was going to collapse when no modern steel building in history had collapsed from fire damage alone and why were the BBC reporting its collapse in advance with the added knowledge of why it collapsed - a question that is still being investigated by NIST five and a half years later? Whoever the BBC's source was for reporting the collapse of Building 7 were ahead of NIST by five and a half years and had already determined why the building had collapsed before it had collapsed. Is this not in the least bit suspicious?
The BBC has still not named its source of this information on 9/11.
In the most infamous debunking piece to date, Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5) relied on a combination of all kinds of theories to explain away the collapse of Building 7, realizing themselves that neither the fires nor the falling debris could explain the collapse of the structure:
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.
However as we have previously reported (http://infowars.net/articles/march2007/010307BBC_WTC7.htm), Building 7 was specifically designed to have floors removed without collapsing. It was essentially a 'building within a building', as the New York Times put it. To suggest Building 7 would have been weakened as an overall structure by damage to limited portions of it is totally untrue. Besides, who in their right mind would design a building with 47 columns, knowing that removing one column would cause the entire thing to collapse?
The fact remains that the Building 7 saga has not been debunked no matter how many times debunkers, or in the case of the Post poor excuses for reporters, say it has been. 7 thus remains the key to unlocking the fraud that is the official story behind 9/11.
The hit piece also contains leaked details of the upcoming Loose Change Final Cut movie, in which it is announced that Charlie Sheen is set to narrate the documentary.
Arising out of Alex Jones' role as a consultant on the project, we have known this information for over a year and withheld it for the very important reason that the project's integrity during its embryonic phase depended on maintaining its secrecy.
We confirmed that the information had been leaked to the media on Monday but now it is verified that the Post already knew the details before they tried to trick William Rodriguez
into admitting it during a subsequent conversation.
The project has now been compromised as a result of a blabbermouth on the 9/11 truth circuit, the identity of which remains unknown, that spilled his guts to the Post's debunker in chief Richard Johnson, but the net effect will probably only raise the film's profile.
Details of the film leaking early, along with the Post being mandated to report on the comments of Rosie O'Donnell, could only make the entire project and 9/11 truth in general go supernova.