Quote: r3x29yz4a said: (emphasis and spelling corrections added) A. mainstream media ignore anything that challenges the official line. there's some things like the firefighter's account of hearing bombs exploding in the WTC, that aired once but were never brought up again.
Could it be because there's nothing to substantiate that claim? Or because the firefighter might have realized it was an error in judgment? Or maybe because the whole account - possibly even the firefighter - were contrived? We'll never know.
Quote: B. the Northwoods thing is from the ABC site.
Hardly a guarantee of journalistic integrity. There's a reason they're not the top-rated network.
Quote: C. these "pseudojournalists" may not be on a network, but they're perfectly valid researchers who have expert [analysts] that they've commisioned to look at the evidence.
I'm naturally wary of any media outlet 'commissioning' (paying) expert analysts (anyone who has a semi-relevant piece of paper on the wall or resume experience in a remotely related field) to look at evidence. I've said it before and I'll say it again - freedom of the press belongs to the owners of the press, and most people being paid by the press are more than happy to play the yes men to whatever assertions the people that hand out the cash want to make. Call me cynical, but I'm just a little in doubt here.
