9/11 Truth Goes Mainstream: Chris Wallace’s ABC News Report

Nightline profiles the 9/11 Truth Movement, needless to say with the requisite amount of skepticism necessary for a story like this to air on network television:

, ,

  • KidX

    Some nice media analysis comparing ABC's coverage of the event with Russia Today's:
    http://www.onlyinphiladelphia.com/2010/03/tv-me

    Also check out the uncut footage of ABC's interview with the Loose Change team:
    http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6382

  • 5by5

    OMG, it's the same corporate media goober who interviewed the Loose Change guys… and his final report is no better than they predicted it would be.

    He never addresses any of the actual EVIDENCE, only the personalities involved.

    What it comes down to is this dude is no better than a celebrity reporter on the E! Channel. More concerned with the “stars” of the picture than the meaning of the film – that sort of thing. He's not a true investigative journalist like say, a Greg Palast or Danny Schechter, or Scott Horton. This guy is better suited to the National Enquirer in more ways than one.

    He was followed by cameras to keep him HONEST, and they were quite correct to do so. Because as a video comparison proves, he left out all the things they said he'd leave out and did exactly as they predicted.

  • 5by5

    BTW, Lee Hamilton is your go-to guy if you want to LOSE evidence of government crimes, or create commissions that hold no one accountable. This is the same guy who intentionally hid evidence in the Iran-Contra investigation as well.

  • 5by5

    Also, the notion that the government conspiracy theory offers the simplest explanation of the events that day, denies the fact that their theory is one of the most convoluted and gap-ridden theories in modern history.

  • mbo

    Why are these Loose Change creators so overtly hostile to the interviewers questions?(http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6382)

    IE “A lot of people here believe the government conspired to kill innocent Americans. Do you share this belief?”

    That is a obvious question that these people seem to have a very difficult time answering. I wonder why?

    Isn't it in their best interest, and the interests of their cause, to try to temper the idea that “Truthers” lack credibility?

    Or maybe this ager stems from the fact that they don't really have the meaningful evidence to prove anything?

    Someone needs to hire a publicist.

    • dumbsaint

      Well what was interesting about this clip is that the entire interview was posted to Disinfo unedited a couple days ago. For the most part they were trying reasonably hard to put a good face on things. The segment of the interview Nightline decided to show was just a small part of where they got overtly hostile. Ironically in this segment they were accusing the reporter of fishing for useable soundbites which is confirmed by this act.

      • 5by5

        Soundbites are what substitute for thinking in the corporate reporter's world.

        If he'd tried to do anything else, it would require him actually investigating the claims, confronting nuance and having to COMMUNICATE that nuance.

        The simple fact is that you can't cover this issue in even an hour, much less some cheesy little piece like this guy is attempting to produce. So rather than challenge himself to cram as much info into his short bit, he just falls back on sensationalism – “These crazy people think their own government attacked them! Crazy!”

        He'll never go the extra mile and point out that people might get that idea for a REASON and the REASON are things like Operation Northwoods, where the gov't proposed just that, but didn't get to do it because Kennedy killed the idea. Bush is not the type to kill such an idea. He's the type to do it if he thinks it will get him a “legacy” or a myth of being a “war president”. And Cheney would do it just for fun, because he's a straight up psychopath.

        Nor would the reporter point out other historical examples like the Reichstag Fire — which BTW, was the third thought I had on that day as the buildings were coming down.

        First I thought “terrorism”, second I thought, “the death is going to be vast and horribly sad”, third I thought, “Reichtag Fire. Bush will use this for his own ends.”

        Because THAT'S WHAT THE BUSH FAMILY DOES.

        The whole lot of them are slimy from grandpa Prescott, to Herbert Walker, to Dubya.

        • ebwolf

          The Reichstag Fire was one of my first thoughts as well.
          I was laughed at that day for suggesting what 9/11 would be used to implement (Patriot Act, Endless War 2.0, Total Surveillance, Classify Everything, etc…))
          I guess a soft, fuzzy lie will beat the cold, hard truth every time.

      • ebwolf

        Interesting side note on soundbites.
        Average length of a soundbite in the fifties and sixties: 30-45 seconds.
        Today: 3-5 seconds
        Modern media has consciously done this to manipulate people's attention span. It helps to get people to accept absurd, one-liner explanations to complex issues.

    • Baron

      Did you hear the questions being asked? They were contrite, leading, bs questions.

      This interview doesn’t have the balls to ask the government what really happened, but it’s easy for him to pick on average folks who are, after all, just asking questions.

  • sidneee

    I reckon the main evidence we need to find out is whether Andrews airbase was given a stand-down order on 9/11. Why did their jets stay on the ground when a hijack threat was reported, and was 'real world' not exercise? Anyone know?

  • global hoax

    WOW! he said jet fuel can melt steel huh? well, there gos ABC's credibility…out the window, and he said that the whole “jet fuel doesnt melt steel is discredited”??? WTF. this is why nobody believes the mainstream news besides idiots. welcome to “nightlie”.

  • nom nom

    The people promoting the official story are not the “skeptics.”

  • The Gibroney Hunter

    “For those who claim to want to find the truth”

    And is that what you think you’ve accomplished, in 10 minutes of character attack, Chris Wallace? Such lopsided journalism, it actually makes me feel a little sick. I love when he says that their beliefs are “unbending”. Yeah, Chris.. you seem pretty flexible yourself, buddy. The only difference is that the people at this meeting have an overwhelming body of evidence (which he conveniently forgot to mention) to support their unbending view. What do you have, Chris Wallace? You have shit, that’s what you have.

  • The Gibroney Hunter

    “For those who claim to want to find the truth”

    And is that what you think you've accomplished, in 10 minutes of character attack, Chris Wallace? Such lopsided journalism, it actually makes me feel a little sick. I love when he says that their beliefs are “unbending”. Yeah, Chris.. you seem pretty flexible yourself, buddy. The only difference is that the people at this meeting have an overwhelming body of evidence (which he conveniently forgot to mention) to support their unbending view. What do you have, Chris Wallace? You have shit, that's what you have.

  • Baron

    Did you hear the questions being asked? They were contrite, leading, bs questions.

    This interview doesn’t have the balls to ask the government what really happened, but it’s easy for him to pick on average folks who are, after all, just asking questions.