Posted on 03/19/2018 9:16:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
Prominent on-air news and opinion hosts at Fox News are going at it tooth and nail, as ailing 86-year-old Rupert Murdoch moves to hand the reins of the network to his liberal son Lachlan. In early February, I got wind of an internal war bubbling below the surface at Fox News. The combatants included several prominent on-air personalities, and there were growing signs that they were gearing up to engage in a serious battle with one another. The conflict pitted representatives of the daytime hard news department against several stars who are faces of the channel during prime time, when opinion-themed shows dominate. Like many Americans in the workplace, beliefs in different opposing ideologies were pushing these people apart. Adding fuel to the fire in the highly competitive hothouse environment of cable television news were jealousy and resentment.
Finally, this past week, the battle went public. It involved three top Fox News personalities: Shepard Smith, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham.
Opening skirmishes in this long simmering conflict began last year, when veteran left-of-center Fox News hosts Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace were the first on-air talent to publicly throw down the gauntlet. Both of them are highly valued and well paid linchpins of the hard news side of the Fox News Channel. Last year, Shepard Smith, 54, the channel's lead news anchor and host of the 3 P.M. E.T. hour-long news show Shepard Smith Reporting, outed himself as a critic of President Donald Trump. Also in his sights were other prominent Fox News personnel who had defended Trump, including the channel's senior judicial analyst, former judge Andrew Napolitano.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
.
So you take unprofessional writing over educated and highly experienced professional structural engineers and architects.
“Normalcy Nuts” like you are an embarrassment.
.
.
>> Oh, so now it’s not really any expert calculations — it’s just someone looking at a video and saying “that looks like a deliberate demolition to me.” That’s your “overwhelming evidence.” <<
The videos were presented by professional demolition engineers as explanation of what really was happening.
If you like “papers,” there are plenty available at the website, just read them. (zero liklihood)
Your twisted attempt to deflect a well presented explanation is typically weak, but what is expected from deep state Normalcy Nuts like you.
Troll on with your propaganda.
.
You are going to need to take your insanity elsewhere. Van Jones may have a job for you at fake news CNN.
.
eat my poop you idiot troll.
Ironic, given that you are the biggest conspiracy theory nutcase and troll on FR.
The wife and I gave up on Fox a long time ago. We watch One America News now.
.
You’re confused.
Facts are not theories.
Keep wetting your pants troll.
>>Like he has no idea what his guests arguments will be.
Ordinarily, I wouldn’t argue facts, but I’ll just leave you with this: as an attorney who has conducted thousands of depositions and hearing/trial direct/cross examinations, and who knows what the answer is probably going to be prior to asking it, it appears to me that many — perhaps most — of the questions Tucker asks, he’s in the same boat. That is, he knows what the answer is. If you’re bothered by his antics or just don’t like him, fine. But I think your assessment on him is objectively incorrect. “No, you’re wrong,” is, to the extent he has used it, not the only thing he says on that point when he says it. I’m not sure why you’re pretending otherwise.
No guess again.
His voice pitch goes up and he replies ‘..but you're just wrong...’ and gives that pathetic look to the camera like he is pleading‘..please help me...’ to the audience.
He could easily be prepared with a video or a document showing how the lib crackpots he bring on claims are wrong, but that would take preparation.
Well, you're already provably wrong....
It's impossible to address everything on that website in limited space, but here's just two examples of how ridiculous it is, from just one article:
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html
1) The discussion of "thermite" as evidence of controlled demolition is ridiculous, and is self-contradictory. Controlled demolitions use explosives -- extremely fast burning so that the force is delivered simultaneously and/or in very specific time sequences. But thermite doesn't work like that. It is a slow burn that would cause irregular and imprecise timing of structural failures. Which directly contradicts the supposed theory of a "controlled demolition". Nor was there any attempt to explain how someone could possibly manage to get inside the structural framing of two fully-finished building to apply thermite directly to the steel supports anyway without being noticed. It's ludicrous.
2) The (repeated elsewhere) claim of "Angular momentum arrested". The problem with this is that it is just as applicable to the pancake theory as to a theory of controlled demolition. To put it differently, "how can even a controlled demolition arrest angular momentum?" It's an alleged anomaly that isn't suggestive of anything.
I'd point out that the only named author for that particular article is "James McDowell". Nowhere does it list any of his qualifications, background, or education. He's not even listed in the "who we are" on the websites homepage.
He will scratch your eyes out, take it back.
You’re being grossly disingenuous now.
“Thermite” was not advanced as the cause of anything.
The videos also clearly show the cutting charges blowing outward floor by floor.
Troll on!
If thermite was not advanced as the cause of anything, then it is the author, not me, who is being disingenuous.
Why was there a section on thermite residue supposedly being found if it "was not advanced as the cause of anything"? Why did they mention mysterious melted steel if that has nothing to do with their theory either? What relevance do either of those things have to a theory of controlled demolition?
And if your answer is "nothing", then they should not have included that stuff in their report just to make it all sound more nefarious. Which is exactly what they did. "Oooh, here's some stuff about thermite and melted steel. It contradicts our theory as well, but we'll toss it in there anyway because it sounds good, and most people won't realize it's a red herring."
Utter garbage.
.
It was an explanation of why it was not used.
The buildings were wired during construction. The owner said that plainly in a TV interview when he admitted that they were going to “pull” building 7.
You’re a nut case.
.
What does that even mean? An explanation of what what was not used? The website to which you directed me to talked about alleged thermite residue and melted steel. At no point did they say that was a red herring, or other wise claim they were just proving that it was not used. So you still have utterly failed to explain why that was included at all.
The buildings were wired during construction....You’re a nut case.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!
So let's see -- construction on WTC-1 was begun in 1966, and finished in 1973. And you're claiming that they were wired for demolition during construction. Yes, that's right. The builders wired the tallest buildings in the world with secret demolition charges so they could demolish the buildings nearly three decades later, and blame it on Osama bin Laden....
What diabolical genius! What incredible foresight to know that one day, destroying the tallest buildings in the world and murdering thousands of Americans would somehow be in our national interest, and worth the monstrous scandal if someone leaked it, or if it was otherwise discovered.
Well, you're right about one thing -- one of us really is nuts.
.
Bruce, you’re in over your head here.
The Billionaire that owned the buildings said on a TV news interview, a short time after the first two buildings were brought down, that he was going to “pull building 7.”
In the demolition industry the word “pull” has a very definite and clear meaning, capiche?
If you can’t accept reality, just go find your comfey space and take a long nap.
.
Ratings will tank if move further left.
Democrats already don’t watch them and aren’t gonna start.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.