In their typical style of reporting news two weeks later
than the rest of us, the mainstream media, in the shape
of Fox news, has finally caught up with the alternative
media in reporting the story we
first broke here on April 23rd that John Kerry recently
referred to the collapse of WTC building 7 on 9/11 as
having been "done in a controlled fashion".
In another "fair and balanced"
piece Alan Colmes and Sean Hannity again weakly attempted
to debunk the inside job evidence while at the same time
making themselves look like the playground bullies everyone
else has outgrown and now points to and laughs at.
Colmes began by stating "The 9/11 conspiracy
wingnuts are it again". So let us be as equally fair
and balanced by beginning this analysis with the following...
The corporate hack establishment government
lapdog media whores are at it again.
Colmes and Hannity attempted to spin what
John Kerry had said to hoodwink their doped up viewers
into thinking that Kerry was not referring to building
7 and that his words had been taken completely out of
The dynamic duo then went on to falsely
claim that "9/11 conspiracy crazies" had fallen
in 'love" with Kerry, stating "This time, they
are spinning the words of Senator John Kerry to suggest
that the former presidential nominee in some way endorses
those conspiracy theories.”
First of all it is beyond question that
Kerry, speaking at a book launch in Austin two weeks ago,
was specifically referring to building 7.
Kerry was asked about an investigation into
WTC7 and the connection with leasehold Larry Silverstein
who publicly stated that the "decision was made to
pull it," a term that refers to controlled demolition.
In response Kerry said:
"I don't believe there's been a formal investigation.
I haven't heard that; I don't know that. I do know that
that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they
made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying
other things-- that they did it in a controlled fashion.
You know he's part of the construction-- effort for the
memorial and the use of the land, etc. There's been a
long tug-of-war going on in New York and I've not been
following every aspect of it because it's not in my jurisdiction,
so to speak. But I'll check on the story-- I'll take a
look at it based on what you've said. You're the first
people anywhere in the country who've brought this to
Here is the video:
Instead of showing the entire clip, Fox showed
only a portion and then suggested that Kerry was not referring
to 7 at all but was referring to other buildings that had to
be brought down and cleared in the weeks and months AFTER 9/11.
This is clearly not what Kerry was referring to
as the question he is specifically asked begins "World
Trade Center 7 was brought down on 9/11 at 5.20 in the evening..."
and he responds by stating that he was under the impression
that the authorities brought down the building purposefully.
In the week that followed the story some attempted,
in a similar fashion to Colmes, to suggest that Kerry had been
misquoted and was talking about a wall that had been demolished
on 9/11. This is innaccurate. When he says "that wall was
in danger" he is referring to the slurry wall, the below
ground level wall that was constructed to support the soils
surrounding the basements of the World Trade Center buildings.
The wall created a watertight environment for construction and
throughout the service life of the Center, effectively preventing
the Hudson river from pouring in beneath ground level. It was
this wall that was in danger when the towers collapsed, not
this wall that was "demolished in a controlled fashion"
as some debunkers claimed Kerry was saying.
Colmes then proceeded to suggest that somehow
9/11 truthers have suggested that John Kerry supports the "conspiracy
theories". At no point did anyone suggest that Kerry had
done such a thing.
In our article two weeks ago, in which we
the evidence for controlled demolition once again,
we wrote "Whether Kerry is basing his response on
inside knowledge or hearsay is largely irrelevant, the
fact that a sitting United States Senator is openly contradicting
the official 9/11 story as well as a multi-billion dollar
insurance lawsuit strikes at the root of the controversy
surrounding Building 7."
Bringing in 9/11 researcher Webster Tarpley, it
quickly became obvious that he was there to be baited, attacked
and discredited. Tarpley was afforded no chance to speak for
more then a few seconds and was used as a vehicle by the anchors
to once again without any debate attempt to discredit 9/11 truth
as a whole and sweep the John Kerry remarks under the rug at
the same time.
Colmes started off contemptuous toward Tarpley
but within the first minute became downright hostile and
insulting. “To claim that somehow John Kerry supports
your cockamamie theories is absolutely insane,”
Colmes said in a raised voice.
Tarpley said he wanted nothing to do with John Kerry
who, Tarpley claimed, is “a dilettante, an oligarch,
he’s a rich elitist, his wife with her foundations…”
Colmes interrupted and said derisively, “Stop the
cheap shots. You’re making cheap shots now.”
covering for the fact that his earlier lie about the 9/11
truth movement embracing Kerry had just been blown out
of the water.
Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror,
7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get
Terror Storm! Let us help you reach a huge
audience of potential customers. Help support the website
and take advantage of low advertising rates. Click
here for more info.
Colmes then immediately resorted to his own cheap shot
and accused Tarpley (without any evidence) of “further
hurting the families who have suffered enough because
of 9/11, to have to sit and listen to this garbage you’re
A tired and overused accusation that is rolled out again and
again by debunkers who cannot debate the facts. In reality exactly
the opposite is true as the vast majority of 9/11 victims' families
also believe they have been roundly lied to and, according to
the representative of the biggest families union Bill
Doyle, are firmly in the 9/11 truth camp.
Colmes went on to cite the now
thoroughly debunked Popular Mechanics article analyzing
what caused the collapse. “That’s what caused it
to come down, not some kind of crazy, government theory to hurt
the American people.” he stated in a possible Freudian
A frothing and frantic Colmes then proceeded trot out all manner
of ludicrous claims such as "25% of the depth of the building
was gone" then suggesting that it was a fifth floor fire
that burnt for 7 hours that caused the collapse, then switching
again and suggesting it was "the construction of the building
and the weight of the columns", another "cockamamie"
theory that is actually in direct
contradiction to reality.
Colmes seemed utterly desperate to promulgate the official
myth of how building 7 collapsed with reference a number of
different claims, all of which have been thoroughly debunked.
Hannity then attempted to bait Tarpley and draw him into a trap
by saying "but we saw pictures of the planes hitting these
buildings" knowing that Tarpley would urgently try to correct
him that a plane did not hit 7. Hannity, giving himself away
by being totally calm and collected and simply speaking over
Tarpley, knew that this would make it seem to uninformed viewers
that Tarpley was disagreeing and therefore suggesting that no
planes hit any of the buildings. Hannity then seized on the
moment by declaring "Webster, Webster, take a deep breath
and I will educate you" making Tarpley seem like a ranting
raving paranoid delusional.
Reference was then made to the NIST report which states that
some of the building was hit with falling debris from the north
tower. Hannity failed to mention however that this was not declared
to be the catalyst for the collapse of the building and that
and is currently undertaking a study of WTC 7 to determine
if bombs or incendiary devices were used to bring it down.
Hannity then repeated Colmes's cheap "your hurting
the families" jibe and declared that there is no
evidence that building 7 was brought down in a controlled
Colmes then ended the segment with an attempt to make Tarpley
look even more idiotic by asking him if he thinks there is more
than one Bin Laden. Tarpley was obviously previously referring
to the fact that the infamous video in which Bin Laden "confesses"
to 9/11 has been
certified as a complete fake, and stars someone who is clearly
not Bin Laden. In Bin Laden's first video release after 9/11
denied having anything to do with the attacks, not something
you'd expect from a man who it was reported had previously declared
war on America.
Despite their bait and attack tactics, any rational neutral
who happened to see the piece can only have gone away with the
impression that it was Colmes who was the paranoid frothing
delusional on this issue. We should thank Fox news for lavishing
the 9/11 truth movement with attention every week and being
the catalyst for many to go away, do their own research on the
issue and wake up to the 9/11 fraud while simultaneously discovering
that once again the government mouthpiece corporate media is
providing its audience with nothing but bare faced lies it is
then forced to bolster with endless pathetic spin and cockamamie