Tuesday, August 2nd, 9-10 a.m Pacific (noon Eastern) on NoLiesRadio.org (archived here a few hours after broadcast):
Barrie Zwicker, author of Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11, discusses the latest episode of the media cover-up: Jonathan Kay’s book Among the Truthers, a condescending 100%-ad-hominem attack on the truth movement. (Listen to my interview with Jonathan Kay here, and my discussion of Kay’s book with Anthony Hall and Joshua Blakeney here.)
We’ll also be discussing the state of the truth movement in general, and the upcoming Toronto Hearings in particular.
It should be mentioned that the true experts on the Pentagon, Pilots for 911 Truth and CIT, have NOT been invited to the Hearings. Also might point out that the average rating on Amazon for Kay's book is only 2.5 stars, with 1 star reviews being the majority.
I watched Barrie Zwicker on a TV debate with Jonathan Kay where Mr. Zwickers main criticism of Mr. Kays book was that he basically did not look at the evidence. I then read this quote from Barrie Zwicker
"All the photographs of the Pentagon damage show nothing resembling an airliner crashing into it.
All other information trying to prove otherwise is tinkling cymbals at best."
I just wonder how an intelligent person, who berates others for not looking at the evidence, can make a statement like that.
Anon-1
Maybe because it's true?
I just wonder how an intelligent person can look at the photos, then at the handful of video frames the government has released (as opposed to the 80-plus videos it's still withholding), and believe they're looking at a 757 crash site.
The people who claim to be pro-9/11-truth, yet defend the plausibility of a 757 crash at the Pentagon, argue that the government is withholding all those videos precisely in order to release them someday and "prove" it really was a 757, which would supposedly destroy the whole truth movement.
I just wonder how an intelligent person could believe these people are really pro-9/11-truth.
It's Mr. Zwickers conclusions , as he says himself, that are based on a few photos and a handful of videos frames. And his conclusion contradicts the scores of eyewitness who were actually there and witnessed the event. Describing the eyewitness accounts of scores of witnesses to an event as 'tinkling cymbals' – from someone who talks about other people 'cherrypicking' and ignoring evidence is pretty much beyond parody. The fact that he also supports these CIT peoples' conclusions, which is all about eyewitness evidence , just undermines his own argument. Saying that 80 videos contradict what all the eyewitnesses say ,on the basis that you haven't seen them, is dismissing evidence you do have using evidence you think you would have if only you had it.
I think Barrie Zwicker is an example of someone who is basically ,at this stage, prepared to believe anything, and when you think anything is believable then you loose the ability to judge what is plausible and what isn't plausible. Having to go around accusing this person and that person of being 'agents' in order to sustain his frankly inane conclusions, just make his conclusions less and less plausible.
In that TV program he was bristling with indignation about some remarks that Mr. Kay made about him in his book, when he himself goes around accusing Andrew Card for instance of being involved in mass murder, on the basis that he told George Bush that the WTC had been hit by another plane- but was apparently not excited enough about it. He was following a script apparently but wasn't excited enough – I blame those top Hollywood scriptwriters, who wrote the script, accord to Mr. Zwicker.
Anon-1