MSNBC & 9/11

A couple of days ago, Keith Olbermann ended his show with one of his faux-outraged "special comments" calling out McCain and the Replicants for the hideous exploitation video they showed at the convention that used some of the most shocking 9/11 footage, and conflated the event with everything from the Iran hostage crisis to the Iraq war.

And now, here's the same channel attracting viewers with wall-to-wall 9/11 porn.

What's your pot vs. kettle I.Q.?

It's absolutely asinine to ask such serious questions in a multiple choice format, which of course includes at least one wrong choice: this type of method of questioning, has the tendency to plant in the minds of those who don't truly know the answer, the possibility that the wrong choice(s) listed might actually be the right answers, for the reason of seeing it listed (again, in the case where the person reading the list doesn't actually know which is the right answer)... that's an asinine way to ask serious questions, where you practically prompt the person who doesn't know the answer, you prompt them with false possibilities.

It's beside the point to say that the unknowing person will eventually find out that the wrong answer listed is wrong, and what the true answer is, after they have looked at the true answers: in the time it took them to consult the true answers, they were under a false assumption... and who is to say they will take the time to even look at the true answers!

Also, this phony and destructive (malicious even) "test" contains one strange twist in one question, and contains what is a lie, planted in your mind, in another question.

In question #8, it is implied that...

"After the attacks, an investigative panel ...(otherwise known as the 9/11 Commission), was appointed to probe the conspiracy and the security services’ [CIA, FBI, FAA et al] inability to prevent it"

...that question expressly states an "inability" to prevent those attacks, as opposed to a "failure" to prevent them: see the difference?

It's an important distinction to make, and one the Bush administration is desperate for you to believe at this late stage: that they did not "fail" to prevent the attacks of September 11, 2001, but that they were "unable" to do so.

And question #9 is I believe an intentional and malicious (even criminal) attempt to persuade you that the Bush administration has gotten JUSTICE for 9-11, and gotten actual conspirators in the attacks...

9. The 9/11 Commission reported that a captured al-Qaida leader, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, had identified Flight 93's target as having the code name "the Faculty of Law." What building was he supposedly referring to?

That's bullchit! What that question implies to you is, that some raggedy-azzed T-shirted messed up hair character that they rousted out of bed in Afghanistan, and dragged off to Gitmo detention, is a 9-11 plotter, and a conspirator... bullchit!

I say bullchit not in defense of that moron at Gitmo, but against a Bush administration that would pretend that some idiot in Afghanistan (who's never been to the U.S.) is a conspirator in the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Those attackers had material support in the U.S., not only from saudis, but from saudis working for the saudi government... none of those people are in custody anywhere, not in the U.S. or at Gitmo... it's bullchit to think the Bush administration has brought even a single 9-11 conspirator to JUSTICE... this idiot (and all the other idiots) at Gitmo, have never been subject to any legal questioning, and this "code name" crap in that question #9, is just meant to deceive you that this jerk (and others) at Gitmo have confessed to or had anything to do with, the attacks of 9-11...

Bullchit: it's just a false ruse by the Bush administration, in their desperate attempt to write in the history books (as they go out the door), that they got JUSTICE for the attacks of September 11 2001...

They didn't.

The MSNBC 9/11 archival footage appears to have been carefully selected and reconstructed to make the Bush administration look good.  It consists of audio and video footage shown simultaneously, but it's hard to tell if all the audio remarks were actually made on 9/11 or if they were added later.

1)  Some of the comments by Katie Couric and Matt Lauer, supposedly uttered on 9/11 while the attacks were occurring, are direct responses to charges leveled much later against the Bush administration's official version of the attacks. 

Early in the broadcast, shortly after the initial attacks, Lauer notes that building #1 appears to be leaning to one side.  Couric responds that perhaps WTC #1 is "buckling from within."  Subsequent footage shows that the "leaning" effect is clearly the result of the camera angle; later shots show the buildings on fire but perfectly upright, not leaning at all.  Could this audio stream and the crooked camera angle have been introduced later to address questions about the strange and unprecedented collapse of both buildings? 

A little later, Matt Lauer launches into a lengthy explanation of why it was impossible for the government to scramble jets to intercept the hi-jacked airplanes.  On the morning of 9/11, while the attacks are occurring, he already knows this?

Still fairly early in the broadcast, Lauer and some other male media voice discuss the "fact" that the government had received no warnings that such an attack was pending.  They also make the same point (which Condi Rice made many months later to the 9/11 Commission) that there was always a lot of "noise" about future attacks in intelligence gathering.

2) The footage of President Bush's response make him appear far more decisive and admirable than the footage most of us had seen of him in the classroom that morning. 

I hope someone taped the MSNBC documentary, as it deserves further scrutiny.