Topic: The U.S. Media's Priorities are Screwed Up.

Anonymous A started this discussion 3 years ago #106,469

I'm not talking about the lamestream media's socialist agenda (this time) but rather it's priorities in general news reporting.

Watching TV on Sunday, 9-11 , there was one subject that dominated , and that was the death of One 97 year old broad who did little more than race pigeons, watch her Yorkies ,wave sideways from her Limo and pop a few spoiled royal puppies a few decades back and was perpetually supported by her countries tax payers, PLUS she lived 3,500 miles off our shores.

Now is it just Me? Shouldn't the anniversary of the date that 3,000 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack take priority over an old foreigner who did nothing to earn her status other than being born?

And Forgive the observation, but Didn't We Kick Royalty To The Curb in that unpleasantness back in 1776?

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #1,196,580

The family is still powerful, even if that power is undemocratic. That makes it newsworthy.

The media has never addressed major question on 9/11, regardless of which channel you flip to.

* Why did records of 2 trillion dollars that went missing get destroyed the day after being disclosed?

* How could WTC7 fall from small fires it was rated to withstand?

* Why did the FBI classify Saudi involvment from day 1?

* Even if the buildings could collapse without melted steel, it was found on the ground, so where did it come from?

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 14 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,196,587

@previous (B)
The fire did not have to "melt" steel. All it had to do was weaken it at certain points. It certainly was more than hot enough to do that.

Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,196,670

@previous (C)
I get what you were going for with that (yes I also read the NIST report), but the question was asking why there was melted steel on the ground in the vicinity of the twin towers if kerosene doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.

You can argue there was no melted steel, or argue that yes the WTC fires were hot enough to melt at least some steel but that wasn't the primary mechanism at play.

But saying "it didn't need to be hot enough to melt steel" doesn't actually answer the question.

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,196,682

@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
It may very well be able to melt SOME steel if it weakens it long enough. It did not have to literally melt the entire building.

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,196,685

@1,196,587 (C)
The bullet you’re responding to specifically addresses what you said before you said it.

Anonymous E double-posted this 3 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,196,687

@1,196,682 (C)
How does it melt some steel if it doesnt get hot enough to do so?

Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 20 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,196,689

@1,196,685 (E)
Was the melted metal from the aircraft itself?

dreamworks joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 20 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,196,942

Time for daas spankenspielen?

boof joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,196,986

wow this thread is full of tards

Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,196,990

@previous (boof)
Durrrrr 🤤

dw joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,197,024

@1,196,942 (dreamworks)
du est ein willyman?

Minichan