Pat Buchanan promotes 9/11 Truth column
September 15, 2009 8:59 pm ET by Jamison Foser
Pat Buchanan's web site currently features a column by Paul Craig Roberts of the "white nationalist" VDARE, in which Roberts promotes the 9/11 Truth movement:
The staying power of the Big Lie is the barrier through which the 9/11 Truth Movement is finding it difficult to break. The assertion that the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of conspiracy theorists and crackpots is obviously untrue.
...
I have asked on several occasions and have never had an answer, which does not mean that there isn't one, how millions of pieces of unburnt, uncharred paper can be floating over lower Manhattan from the destruction of the WTC towers when the official explanation of the destruction is fires so hot and evenly distributed that they caused the massive steel structures to weaken and fail simultaneously so that the buildings fell in free fall time just as they would if they had been brought down by controlled demolition.
What is the explanation of fires so hot that steel fails but paper does not combust?
...
Why are the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who are demanding a real investigation dismissed as conspiracy theorists? The 9/11 skeptics know far more about the events of that day than do the uninformed people who call them names. Most of the people I know who are content with the government's official explanation have never examined the evidence. Yet, these no-nothings shout down those who have studied the matter closely.
A few weeks ago, Pat Buchanan was defending Hitler. Again.
Then he attacked Martin Luther King. Again.
Now he's promoting 9/11 Truthers.
Once again: What would Pat Buchanan have to do for MSNBC to fire him?
UPDATE: Here's Buchanan promoting the column on his Twitter feed:
And here's a screenshot of the column on Buchanan's web page:
UPDATE 2: Right below Roberts' column on Buchanan's web site is an entry from Chuck Baldwin, a fellow VDARE contributor who has written "I believe the South was right in the War Between the States."
UPDATE 3: And on September 11, Buchanan's web site featured a column by Justin Raimondo headlined "9/11: Our Truth, and Theirs":
The more distance in time from the actual event, the odder such an assertion seems. Eight years to the day, the official account of 9/11 seems more anemic -and inadequate - than ever. Yet anyone who questions the official story - the narrative of 19 Arab dudes going on what would seem to be a rather quixotic jihad, haphazardly making their way through a strange foreign country on their own, all the while readying themselves for The Day That Changed History - is denounced as a "conspiracy theorist," a crackpot, and worse.
...
More critical minds, however, will not be deterred, and will certainly home in on the many discrepancies and holes in the official version of events, as well as the central implausibility of the whole affair, which is this: those nineteen hijackers simply could not have pulled it off without outside assistance of some sort, by which I mean to say help from a foreign power acting covertly in this country.
...
A few weeks after 9/11, I was the first - and, as far as I know, only - writer to draw attention to the fact that, along with the thousand or so Muslims rounded up in the wake of the attacks, as many as 200 Israelis were also taken into custody by then Attorney General John Ashcroft and the feds.
...
What, I wondered, was the Israeli connection to 9/11?
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Is this guy another "foil hat" fool?
There's a defining distinction between "would likely have" and scientific numeric calculation, independently verifiable and reproducible, proves: No, it could not.
NOT saying 'unlikely to have;' saying ONLY: did not; physically impossible.
The distinction is between fancy and fact. Between crime by fraud and justice by truth. Between wrong and right.
Your (hypothesized) "the 'wind'" has force to it. It is force, or energy, coming out -- the reaction energy.
Something must put the force energy in (in order for it to come out). Whatever it is that goes in, is the 'causative' action energy.
EXACTLY, numerically measured, precisely as much energy comes out equaling the same as the numeric quantity going in. AND vice versa.
Say, as Newton: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The ONLY action force pushing down was gravity, 'pancaking' floors, blowing away 'windy' papers and debris. (Fire or heat does NOT 'push,' a force downward.) We know the height and mass of the Tower so we know the calculated (independently verifiable and reproducible) TOTAL building force in action (downward) was 150,000. (Units is KWH, but nevermind for now.)
In a photograph, measure all the 'wind-blown' papers and dust (independently verifiable and reproducible) TOTAL Tower-force out reaction. The measurements calculate energy expansion was 10,000,000 (same Units). At least. No less. Perhaps as much as or more than
100,000,000. Reaction out. Notice: NOT equal action in: 150,000.
(Error margins set generous in figuring 150,000 in; set conservative in figuring 10,000,000 out. Here's the calculation: The (North) Tower's Dust Cloud Thermodynamic Analysis.)
That's a fact. As in courtroom admissible expert witness. Somewhere somehow some energetic force WAS in the Tower, which was not reported and is missing from the calculation of energy in action. We know (including gravity's 150,000) in fact there were at least 10,000,000 units of energetic force acting in the Tower.
Since we know in fact measured over 10,000,000 units of force reacted out.
Gimme, say, The Beatles: One thing you can't hide / is when it's rigged inside.
Don't gimme that some ineffable implausible spontaneous creatively created "wind" would likely have amounted to some amount impossible to figure and know, for a fact, yet all the same, convincing to you and everyone around you 'normally.' In illusion.
Replace the dunce cap with a foil hat attuned to rightwinger (Bushies) sicko warlust motivation. Then re-figure what you think you saw ... yet have never seen evidence for; (like, the airline passenger reservation lists, within a couple hours supplied to the press as standard procedure, showed no evidence of any 'Middle Eastern' names on the lists; two days later, the 'officially authenticated' passenger lists supplied to the press by the FBI, showed nineteen specific names added, and those exceeded the earlier-reported passenger count ... so then the 'hijackers' were not 'officially' counted among the fatalities as a show of disrespect ... did you ever make a flight reservation yourself? what's the chances the airline reservation system 'loses' your name? ... maybe an airport "wind" would likely have erased computer memory ....)
Also, see: this
"Talking to you is like talking to a goat!"
You speak the language of science, but know little of what the words means, or how the philospohy works. You have to be of very little intelligence to think that ANY kind of conspiracy can be pulled off in this day and age, with all the people like you scouring form evidence of it. If there were a CONSPIRACY, somone would have found some evidence OF A CONSPIRACY by now. It ain't there. Give it a rest, willya?
Why didn't the paper burn? Because the fire was in one place and the paper was somewhere else. It's not like the WHOLE BUILDING was on fire! Is that the best you've got?
---------------------------------------------------------------
My Blog
My 2nd favorite website of all-time
Perhaps it is a 'Trojan horse' maneuver or tactic putting Nine-Eleven Op (N.E.O.) truth materials in rightwing sicko websites attacking the Obama administration -- let Obama haplessly defend the 'Official Narrative' of N.E.O.
At the same time exposing the rightwingers to arrays of N.E.O. evidences and measurements presented on 'their own' regularly visited websites. Putting the N.E.O. truth inside the bubble -- introduce it in the echo chamber.
I've read a bunch of Paul Craig Roberts's writing, and in my review, if he is sicko racist / bigoted / nationalism zealous (as Buchanan), Roberts sure hasn't shown it.
It just seems a cogent reader can and is going to tell the difference between N.E.O.truth 'points' and rightwing-attack 'points.' The audience is likely to discern the difference and keep the two separate in mind.
Positioned side-by-side, the Truther's talking points are more infectious in biased radicals -- infectious being the nature of truth; and biased radicals' talking points are less contaminating of Truthers -- weak transference being the nature of stupidity.
As for trying to connect the 9-11 Truth movement to anti-semitism and white supremacists, nice try. That may still work on the absolute lowest IQs out there, but even if someone were, say, a known liar and they told you that every morning the sun comes up and at night it sets beneath the horizon. Well, regardless of what that guy's record for honesty is, what he just told me sounds true. I recall having seen it with my own eyes. But since we've been trained not to believe our own eyes on certain issues, I did some research and – the liar was telling the truth!
Here's another.
Both are very good about citing their sources, and both have a philosphy of reason, skepticism and objectivity. Between the two of them lies 99% of the wisdom you'll ever need.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
...Unlike THIS clown!
It doesn't directly answer Roberts' question, but suggests the answer to it, which is that although the temperature near where the planes struck the towers reached the point necessary to weaken the nearby steel, the temperature on many of the floors below was not high enough to combust paper. Once the weakened steel caused one floor to collapse, the floor below that floor collapsed too because its structure was unable to hold the weight suddenly dumped on it, and this was repeated rapidly all the way down the buildings. As the floors collapsed on top of one another, all the air that was inside them was forced out, taking dust, papers and other things with it.
I'm sure the 9/11 truthers will come up with other objections, but those will be as idiotic as everything else they have come up with. What the truthers have never done is come up with a coherent theory logically derived from available evidence. Instead, they find something that appears anomalous to what happened, cite that as proof that the U.S. government staged the 9/11 terrorist attacks and challenge others to prove that it didn't.
That's a great way to be able to argue, as it forces opponents to prove a negative, much like religious believers force people to prove that God doesn't exist. However, it's also so intellectually shaky that the scientific, academic and legal fields don't allow it. Instead, they actually require people making claims to prove them, and with good reason.
(First of all allowing the premise, although impossible in the conditions known of Nine-Eleven Op, that there was a "once" of heat-softened steel so that initially 'a floor collapsed' -- which requires a sustained 2000 degree heat supply whereas N.E.O. conditions obtained neither that heat nor duration ...), when (accelerating by the force of gravity) moving mass 1 collides against stationary mass 2, mass 1 decelerates and mass 2 reacts by beginning (downward) motion which is less energetic, and moves slower going away from the collision than mass 1 was moving going into it -- each collision in a series removes energy (diffusing it) and slows down the initial impact speed (of falling). That's why enough pages in a book stops a bullet, (even if there is space between the pages, regardless if it's a millimeter or a kilometer: same result, stops the bullet), although any one single page does not stop a bullet. Heck, puny air molecules stop a bullet after a mile or two, which is why bullets don't leave the Earth and fly off into space.
It seems to me that understanding successive collisions slow down and diminish the collision force -- NOT speed it up -- if not an 'intuitive' grasp, is anyway an experiential comprehension, (such as why the first car hit is totally mangled in a chain-reaction highway accident and the last car along the line, perhaps sitting stationary at the traffic light, gets its rear bumper and trunk only dented), and where I encounter someone asserting the opposite -- saying the collision force 'accumulated' and 'magnified' and 'increased' along a succession -- I am certain that is utterly preposterous since it is a physical science impossibility, (like sawing a body in half in a magician's box, and then reconstituting it whole: a physical science impossibility), and no matter to me to hear what the 'someone' thinks or remembers seeing with their own eyes, and no matter to me to hear the 'someone' explain their understanding of the event phenomenology; only: first I consider the motive or purpose of the 'someone' who says such nonsense, and then, suspending judgment, next I ask the 'someone' to show me the numeric measurements and equations which provide reproducible results (as 'understanding'), the same as the 'someone' understands it. Otherwise I declare the force of gravity was insufficient to crush the three skyscrapers each into pulverized micro-fine dust ejected an inch deep a mile wide, (and I declare the comely assistant's body was not actually sawed in half).
"... find something that appears anomalous to what happened, cite that as proof that the U.S. government staged the 9/11 ...."
That does NOT describe my declaration. I declare that science math proves the fact that the three skyscrapers, (or any mass of skyscraper dimensions), canNOT physically be crushed by only the force of Earth gravity into microscopic dust and expanded a mile wide. It is NOT an 'anomaly' that such a phenomenon occurs. But gravity alone is NOT able to do it. I say nothing about what did it, who did it, or how, or why, let alone whether or not as an agent acting in or on behalf of the USGovt. You imagine your own conspiracies about that, if you like. (I also don't say anything about the political persuasion or why damage is designed of the lady sawed in half; only, she wasn't. Altho' I've 'seen' it.)
The 'official narrative' in which 'Gravity dunnit' is poppycock, impossible, and false. The USGovt version is a lie, and you may swallow lies, digest lies, and live a lie if you choose to. If so, it probably is expected of you to misrepresent and deny my declaration, however not to defeat it.
"What the truthers have never done is come up with a coherent theory."
I, Truther, do not intend to come up with a 'theory' that sounds coherent to you or anyone, (except myself and my understanding of human nature). That's why I, truther, have never done it or tried to do it, (in the bandwidth here). One subgroup, at least, of the truthers including me, have no need to "come up with" a (new) theory -- we only invoke and apply an existing scientific 'theory' practiced for a few hundred years declaring and proving that an entire skyscraper turning into gravity dust is a physical ('theory') impossibility.
And challenge you or anyone to declare and prove 'gravity dust' is possible.
F=MA
In other words the force that a collapsing floor will exert on the next floor down is equal to its mass (weight) times it's acceleration over time. (9.8m/secSquared sorry can't do the actual notation)
Thus a one kg mass falling for 1 second will impact with a force of 9.8 Newtons. Take weight of upper floors (multiple since the weight of every floor above the collaping floor will have to be inlcuded) mulitply that times the acceleration (figure that out based on distance between floors) and you will get an initial impact force figure.
Now, when the first collapsed floor hits there will be a transfer of energy, with net loss, and a certain amount of time before the failure of the floor below occurs. Now as this continues you have to understand that the actual weight involved is increasing with each floor that collapses, plus the time lapse involved, between impact and floor collapes decreases with the increase of impact force. Also, as this continues the actual acceleration of the mass increases, thus increasing the forces involved in each impact. Yes, there is a terminal velocity for this but; it only matters as a final acceleration figure for total energy expended.
Sorry, I am too tired to actually do the math but; I am sure that there is some soul out there with way more time than patience than me, who has already done this. Also, please excuse any misspellings, I am tired.
BTW When the towers collapsed I had questions also. Most of those were answered when I researche the building and actually understood that it isnt' built like a lot of other sky scrapers.
Let's suppose a first floor giving way and falling occurs, initially. (However, this is granting a false premise to begin with, per my earlier comment, because the known conditions supplied neither the degree nor duration of heat necessary and sufficient for a structural failure by heated softening. Which non-failure was demonstrated in fact when the Tower still stood an hour after initial fireball, after all kerosine had been combusted, after fire measurably diminished, after maximum heat effects -- which never were 2000 degrees at ignition or anytime, as necessary to 'soften' steel -- were significantly (half or more) lessened: yet the Tower remained after withstanding the worst. And which non-failure of any steel components was asserted by the Underwriters Laboratory engineer who contrasted the tested tolerance of structural steel against the inadequate conditions in the Tower burning an office-furnishings fire. And which non-failure initial condition was demonstrated the first time the Tower caught fire, and burned hotter and longer throughout several lower floors (upholding more mass overburden than upper floors uphold), and withstood all, Valentine's Day, 1975. So there is no evidence or reason that a floor support could fail in the first place. Yet,) ... suppose a first floor giving way and falling occurs, initially.
As you state: "when the first collapsed floor hits there will be ... a certain amount of time before the failure of the floor below occurs." At that moment, then, the floor(s) is stopped (or 'paused') and the velocity is zero.
If the lower floor support fails, whatever mass (one floor, or two or more added) ... whatever mass there is starts from rest (zero velocity) to accelerate at gravity's force rate. For the distance to the next lower floor; where it is stopped, briefly, but is stopped; until the support fails; there it (all) starts from zero velocity at gravity's acceleration, again, gravity operating only for the distance down to the next flor. After each stoppage, however brief, gravity has to start over accelerating from zero velocity, at rest (the accreted mass).
The. Floors. Do NOT. Collapse. FASTER.
For the same reason as Galileo showed when you drop a cannon ball and a golf ball off the Tower of Pisa: they both hit the ground at the same time. Gravity's acceleration is constant; it does NOT operate faster on heavier objects. (But the heavier object hits the ground (at the same time as the lighter object) with more force.)
As you state: F=MA. A(cceleration) is a constant. After some falling time, the F(orce) has variably increased proportional to M(ass), yet A has NOT varied, is constant, the lighter and the heavier are moving at the same velocity.
Heavier buildings do NOT fall down faster than lightweight buildings. Imagining in your mind all the floors stacking up together getting more massive falling in combination, does. NOT. make. them. fall. faster. and. faster. (Recorded images show the Towers fell at the fastest possible rate, as quickly as gravity could operate which is termed 'free fall' and so there was zero delay and zero resistance as the mass above reached each (next) floor below ... since that floor below, and the one below it, and the one below it, etc., had all been pulverized into dust before the above mass coming down had even fallen that far and had not 'touched.')
Picturing in mind the stepwise increments of forces floor-by-floor coming down is too much detail to integrate or comprehend in mind. Besides, the details of each floor are slightly different, and no one knows the details exactly.
That's why I framed the energy analysis for the TOTAL system -- the TOTAL energy that gravity could potentially put in the Tower, and the TOTAL energy measured expanding dust out from the collapse. A fair estimate of expanding dust mass and volume out should calculate a near approximation EQUAL of the accurately known TOTAL potential energy in the Tower.
Instead, the reaction is at least 100 times greater than is possible by gravity forcing the action. 2-orders-of-magnitude discrepancy is NOT due to mistaken estimates of dust cloud dimensions.
When the Big Picture of Tower TOTAL energy in and out figures to be so far out of whack, then the floor-by-floor details of collapsing and speeding up and slowing down ... is distraction into counting trees in order to not see the forest.
And who would have motive to point and lead observers into distraction of counting a hundred floors of details? Whereas, stepping back and seeing a wide view, as cameras recorded, of the whole TOTAL collapse it is plainly obvious the Tower was demolished by explosive energies.
As the planes hit the buildings, windows were blown out, and crosswinds caused lightweight items to be blown out through those open windows. Then office workers broke out more windows, and more papers were sucked out. Then the building collapsed, and on the floors were no fires existed, the air pressure blew out windows and blew out paper that was close to those windows.
It's not rocket science. It's common sense. Which is not so common, apparently.
"It's not rocket science."
It sort of is, and it's called 'materials science.'
"It's common sense."
You misspelled 'common nonsense.'
The overall sense of this Blog post shows some curiously odd character.
I agree in the first place that Buchanan stirs up if not incites racist thoughts, and race baiting, in much of his demeanor. However, that much does NOT mean or prove that 'racism' is all there is on his website, nor even that it is the raison d'etre for his website. Although it is unsurprising to find some there.
Only not hardly in Roberts's 9/11 column specifically. And not hardly in Raimondo's article, particularly, either.
Regardless that one or both of the names might scribe scads of racist screed in other publications or websites, (however they don't seem to have), such disparagement does not fit the two articles cited in this post and update 3. (I did not read the Baldwin article; was its topic 9/11?)
I don't see Roberts or Raimondo countenancing racism here, this time. Raimondo is an unknown to me. All I judge by is the one article, where I don't see a basis for race-baiting objection. Roberts is better known to me. He nearly defies any one-word or one-party political label and his thinking is a compound mix from several subjects, (economics, history, politics, and in this instance psychology and sociology), but detractors couldn't call him much worse than 'controversial' and nowhere near 'contemptible.' It is not clear that Roberts wrote the 9/11 column for Buchanan's website, (anyway its appearance there is not exclusive), nor can I tell whether or not Roberts had any rights of refusal to bar Buchanan from reposting Roberts' column from another website source -- some of Roberts' columns on Buchanan's website show Creators Syndicate credits.
For other, earlier Buchanan transgressions I can agree MSNBC better fire him. And/or fire him for further racial doggerel he might deliver on-air, or even on his website although, again, that seems to be outside the purview of MSNBC except as a platform for promoting the website. If he puts further inappropriate racisms on his website. But the Roberts and Raimondo items on Buchanan's website is not offensive, and for only those, isolate, I disagree he should be fired from MSNBC.
Which brings me to wonder why the two items were deemed blogably disgusting to Media Matters.
The concluding paragraph of Raimondo sounds like something Media Matters could endorse. (emphasis added)
In other words Raimondo clearly objects to Beck, and FOX, and Cameron, and does not object to Van Jones. Moreover, Raimondo disapproves of mass media distortions, lies, menace, and so on.
Roberts is not much different. 'Media,' in his view:
The excerpt is from his 'Epiphany' in which title he declares himself an "Anti-War Radical," converted during 30 years from a Reagan (Republican) Assistant U.S. Treasury Secretary.
Also in 'Epiphany' Roberts wrote (emphasis added):
It all seems Media Matters-compatible, besides that I fail to see anything provocative, disingenuous, harmful of Domestic Tranquility. What reason would Media Matters Blog feature this Buchanan website post for derision? Buchanan shames himself in many statements and instances and associations, but this particular Roberts item (or Raimondo's) is decidedly dignified.
What reason did Buchanan consider to feature 9/11 reminders and reviews on his website? As one conjecture, perhaps such items are annually topical around Sept. 11, (as is featuring the Declaration of Independence around July 4th although everyone has already read it), and posting such items is no intrinsic implication of co-conspiracy. Buchanan does things in my estimation sometimes mischievous, harmless and offhand like tweaking the nose on the self-serious face of officiousness; at other times seeming overly self-serious, too, and liable to be tweaked, or derided when he demagogues.
He need not say why he publishes the material -- likely he shares approving its sentience or styling -- and Media Matters Blog need not say why his publishing is re-published here, albeit with disapproving and disparaging tone. Can Blog consider or fathom that my joy leaped up on reading the headline 'Buchanan promotes 9/11 Truth' -- not my disgust? I sure and strongly disagree that MSNBC should fire Buchanan for forthright questioning 'official 9/11' secrecy and suppression of testimony and evidence, accorded while he is on-air ... let alone on his website.
As I said, I agree MSNBC should fire Buchanan for blatantly biased 'race-baiting' statements, also behaviors, unless he recants and reforms first. But telling the mainstream media the omissions and fictions of the 9/11 Commission Report is not a firing offense.
Here, I get the impression Jamison invokes or enforces doctrinaire 'official' orthodoxy in prohibition or 'town hall tempering' against discussion of 9/11, regarding its doubts or lapses. Should this be Jamison's personal prerogative, it confers a pound of my disrespect for Media Matters -- a taint and tarnish.
Consider the Buchanan-set Roberts column in this Blog post headline. The weakest passage in the column, (Roberts's 'Why Propaganda Trumps Truth'), discounting the veracity of the Legend of 9/11, is the passage Jamison excerpted. Even so, at its weakest point, Jamison brings nothing of rebuttal, counterpoint, or answer for its printed questions -- no substantiation for 'firing' at 9/11 Truth or, conversely, for standing by and on 9/11 Commission dictum.
What IS an explanation of fires which the 9/11 Report claims undid steel while leaving uncharred paper debris nearby in the aftermath?
Why ARE the demands of tens of thousands of New Yorkers, perhaps eyewitnesses, dismissed with unresponsive mute silence?
What credible answer CAN Jamison or Media Matters offer?
Ironically, some answers to these questions are included in the Roberts column Jamison abridges. And leaves showing Media Matters equally as misguided or beguiled as any duped stooges of Fox News.
Here are pertinent excerpts of Roberts (rearranged and emphases added):
I emphasize that the 'propaganda' is synonym for and identifying of mainstream media material. Media conduction makes, or breaks, the 'propaganda' delivery since there is no direct personal contact between 'Americans' and 'administrators.' Whatever 'beliefs' persons held were media-formed completely and finally and only, without discerning whether there were separate parts, being formed of either information originated from government officials through media, or originated inside media 'voices' or 'hosts.' That is to say, news attributed to notorious "unnamed sources," if and when named might identify media celebrities or employees at the actual 'source' and not some veritable one who is in office or employed outside media. (This description fits the radio play 'War of the Worlds' produced by Orson Welles on Halloween, 1938, as a 'news story' from 'unnamed sources.') And without discerning parts from separate sources, as much as says media governs, presumptively, and media IS the Government. In valid synonym, the war was made by the propaganda and the propaganda was made by the media and, therefor, the war was made by the media. (And could have been, or be, undone and ended by the media; completely empowered apart and distinct from any 'administration' whether Bush's or Obama's.)
So to continue in Roberts, reading 'media' interposed where he writes 'government.'
And at that I emphasize Roberts has come to the raison d'etre of Media Matters itself and describes the Media Matters enterprise as: truth-tellers documenting the truth exposing liars, (falsehoods, distortions) in the media, [government]. Media Matters' method exposes liars by contrast with contradictions found elsewhere in 'legitimate' media, (usually through more-thorough Lexis-Nexis documentation which validates 'legitimate,' as far as it goes, yet the complete definition of 'legitimate' goes farther and extends beyond the Lexis-Nexis 'gold standard' validation, such as where science holds valid veritable truths unstated in media), or contradictions as Media Matters founds by its own legitimated research initiatives.
It is precisely on this point that the worm turns, ouroboros, where Media Matters swallows its own tale, which is any tale told uniformly across media. Such as: Holding that the extent of media (information) is the extent of legitimate (information). (Or, as my personal acquaintance in TV news production says, "if there is no video of it, it didn't happen." And/or as Homer Simpson says, "if nobody catches you, it's not illegal.")
Where no scientific finding which contradicts the Legend of 9/11 is incorporated in the media, so the Legend is told uniformly everywhere, then in result Media Matters finds no contradiction somewhere in media in order to cite for contrast against elsewhere in media. Where the entire media fabricates one single same uniform lie, there Media Matters truth-tellers cannot find truth to tell against the lie, and so Media Matters adopts and fosters the lie entire, until (somehow) finding contradiction such as science truth published in legitimate media.
Media Matters does not realize that, by accepting the 9/11 Legend explanation, they have undermined and discredited their own truth-telling capability in opposing validly legitimate contradiction against the media Legend. That is, in synonymous parallel, exactly the abstract of the Roberts column which Jamison dismisses by merely (his) epithet '9/11 Truthers' (while not realizing himself and his epithet are illegitimate).
The heart of the matter with Media Matters is as far as it goes, a body of work lacking a requisite brain for contrast opposed against an Oz-some Scarecrow strawman.
[Compare: Roberts, 'Why Propaganda Trumps Truth' as presented in OpEdNews.COM and especially the Comments upon it.]