Democracy Now! debate is starting, two on two
BCS Mon, 09/11/2006 - 7:21am
Amy Goodman introduced it as a "national exclusive." Yeah, Amy, you should be so proud. To no one's surprise I am sure, she leads with what hit the Pentagon and flight 93.
UPDATE: Video is here: http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2006/sept/video/dnB20060911a.rm&proto=rtsp&start
Video & audio streams and transcript are near the top of this page: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203
The debate starts somewhere around 10-15 minutes in.
- BCS's blog
- Login to post comments
Cool, thanks!
Cool, thanks!
Began horribly but Bermas is
Began horribly but Bermas is doing great with the War Games.
PM came off slightly better than LC.
I would say that PM came off better than LC. PM did bring up a few points that the LC folks need to address and LC may need to re-think their take on the Pentagon no-plane crash. The generator and fuel tank fire of WTC 7 was also another hit for PM. I think LC scored on the war games and WTC 1 & 2 explosions.
Let's get some perspective on this
Take few steps back people. What do we have here: the schills from
Popular Mechanics take on a couple of 20 somethings with their hiphop
911 conspiracy movies. This is soft ball writ large. This debate is
just a setup - its just more propaganda. Ignore it.
Loose Change has been pumped by the main-stream media as the main
force of the 9/11 truth movement.
They aren't.
To the extent that they are giving positive support to the movement
they deserve kudos. But I'm very concerned about them becoming the
figure heads of the 9/11 truth movement.
We need to focus on the experts: Dr. Steve Jones, Dr. Griffin, Gordon
Ross, Frank Legge and the many others (see st911.org). When the
schills take on these guys we are sure to see the cockroaches go
running.
Who Gains the Most
When ever a serious crime is being investigated, the first aspect that is looked at is who has the most to gain from the act of the crime. Usually it will give you a prime suspect. What did "Al Qaeda" have to gain from this crime? Well, let's look at what they got as a result: 22,000 dropped bombs, loss of control of opium production, removal from there home land, and hatred for there cause. It seems they gained nothing from this crime.
So, who did gain something from this crime?
Bermas just owned the crap
Bermas just owned the crap out of those yellow journalism assclowns. Dylan is doing a wicked job as well, go dudes!!!
I just hope they bring up WTC 7 before they're out of time
Amy is focusing on Pentagon & flight 93 still. Avery & Bermas are doing a great job though. They've hit on the Mineta testimony (Cheney stand down order) and wargames (including McKinney's asking of Rumsfeld & Myers!). Go boys!
just noticed goodman all
just noticed goodman all giddy in her talking with meigs.. hrm.
just tuning in, has it been on a while?
It started about 10 after,
It started about 10 after, right after headlines.
kudos to Bermas for steering
kudos to Bermas for steering the convo into why ANYTHING could have struck the Pentagon, and for focussing on the war games.
Looks like they're getting
Looks like they're getting caught in the trees.... There's only 20 minutes left in the show, and so far, no one - no one- has said the phrase "official complicity" or inside job or anything like it. In her intro, Amy acknowledges only that LC has an alternative theory of "what happened that day", not that it makes a case that the gov't was involved.
Now, they're talking about the hole in the Pentagon, and it's really boring.
"I'm not calling anyone a liar. I'm calling you a liar."
Bermas to Miegs. Ha!
Top notch burn!
LOL
Meigs
is a stereotypical shill... and a nervous one at that, hilarious.
It's GREAT to see LC being played on DN.
Dylan needs to knock it off with the snickering.
Jason is kicking ass.
Yeah, the snickering doesn't help
Amy brought up WTC 7. I am mildly impressed.
bad order in facts discussion
Yeah, i am absolutely not impressed to see it as the last topic during the last 10 mins though.
there on to CD now..
there on to CD now..
Meigs just said everyone agrees on how the collapses happened..
there have been 3 different explanations from 3 different investigations..
pancake collapse (FEMA)
truss failure theory (NIST)
column failure theory (Silverstein)
how that constitutes 'everyone agrees' i dunno.
A real disaster. The show
A real disaster. The show was a tour through physical oddities only, discussions of holes, plane parts, bombs, etc., but in the end, no one said - official complicity, inside job - although Dylan said it in the intro, which I had missed. But there's no discussion of the interests involved, the why, the wherefores, the role of the ISI, the FBI investigations squashed, you name it. Amy did a typical gatekeeper job of focusing on collateral stuff, things that we can't PROVE anything about: Flights 77 and 93.
I posted a note the other day saying that Dylan should address the bigger issues invovled and not get trapped in the engineering argument with these guys. I think the LC guys were nervous, and they were going real fast, so even the good info - Mineta's testimony and its deletion from the official record - got lost, because they didn't or couldn't "connect the dots."
hell no
A disaster? I don't think so.
No way, you can't call it a
No way, you can't call it a "disaster". They kicked a lot of ass.
I'm sorry, but anyone not
I'm sorry, but anyone not already skeptical of the official story would not have been convinced.
Mostly, IMHO, because Amy framed the debate in such a way that the LC guys couldn't tackle:
1. Background: has anything like this really happened before? They could've talked about Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, etc., which addresses that underlying question that a lot of people can't get over: would our government do this to us? Yeah, and they've done it lots of times before.
2. Why, i.e. interests: Geopolitics, Reichstag fire as trigger for war and dictatorship, the rush for oil, the operational linkages between allies in that rush for oil and the 9/11 op - i.e., Pakistan, Bush family. Or any other solid argument for a motive you would like to make, but which the show simply did not address.
These are just examples.
So most people unsure about this - IMHO would probably end up saying, "gosh, a bunch of videos, arguments about whether a noise is really a bomb going off, about where plane wreckage should be, temperatures: Is that all there is? Bah, these conspiracy people need to get a life."
We need to talk about things we can prove - we can't PROVE a damned thing about flights 77 and 93 because the evidence is in the hands of the feds - and about motives with billions upon billions of dollars driving them.
Dylan did such a good intro to WTC7
that Agent Meigs had to bring up Holocasut denial... pathetic lol
Holocaust denial AND creationism
I'll forgive Avery's & Bermas' snickering at that one; it was well deserved.
indeed
that one should have had a laugh track on it... sick
well, yeah, avery is jewish
I'd snicker too it's just ridiculous, just as it is to say odigo warning its users is anti-semetic and an urban myth when any reasonable amount of google-fu will return you the haaretz article
Is that it?
Is that it?
Good job, boys!
You kicked that liar's ass... thank you.
Have an excellent day.
I don't think that went very
I don't think that went very well. They spent most of the time arguing about the most controversial physical evidence and/or theories. The boys did the best they could under the circumstances but seldom managed to interject points unrelated to these controversial claims. Bermas' mention of the war games and the Mineta testimony are two notable exceptions.
Amy Goodman's a cow. She framed this debate in the worst possible way.
They did great
Amy was obviously on the shill side of things but it seemed to me that she was impressed by the LC boys by the end of the segment. They talked about building 7 and the shill response was hilariously pathetic.
Anyway, your analysis of it could be the basis for the next campaign on DemocracyNow! Demand that Amy give equal time to non physical evidence based complaints, ie a segment with Paul Thompson and the Jersey Girls and Press for Truth.
If Amy had any journalistic
If Amy had any journalistic integrity on this issue she would have posted a few hard-hitting questions to the PM shills. She could have brought up put-options and Northwoods and "A New Pearl Harbor" and Willie Brown and other points rasied in Loose Change and asked those two clowns for their response. Instead she deliberately focussed on the stuff most difficult to prove, for which the shills had ready-made talking points.
Still, under the circumstances the loose change guys did pretty well.
Good point
She acted as co-interrogator of the LC boys and didn't pose one question to the spooks. She's really quite despicable... I say we all email her now and don't congratulate her on accepting PM's offer to showcase their latest attempt at 'debunking' - but demand that she host Barry Zwicker and Paul Thompson, etc... hell, maybe even do some real reporting herself? Has she even heard of Gladio? GGRRRR
You may get your wish. I
You may get your wish. I hear Barrie will be attending Amy's little shindig later on today;)
Go Barry!
I am very seriously considering driving the 5 or 6 hours to the nearest stop on her book tour in a few weeks and pulling a Medea Benjamin. Just my small part.
Popular Mechanics got OWNED!
Popular Mechanics got OWNED! I managed to check most of it. It would have been cool if they would have brought up the editor of the original article being Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of DHS head Michael Chertoff. I missed the intro though so they might have done that, did anyone see?
The did not mention that,
The did not mention that, which is probably okay. It's one of the weaker points I think.
I will update this post with a direct link to the video when it's on their site.
Thanks man! I think it's a
Thanks man! I think it's a strong point though. If you've got a blatant connection like that to a man who is clearly facilitating fascism in America. And also a man who shipped out all those Israeli intelligence agents, who had obvious prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks in one-way or another. Such an obvious link like that to one of the biggest creeps in US government, I think at least, completely destroys Popular Mechanic’s supposedly claimed “impartial” position.
All good points; I don't
All good points; I don't disagree. When I said it's a weak point I was thinking along the lines of Bush's cousin being a principle in the WTC security company. Suspicious, yes. But not exactly a smoking gun. Anyway...
I think a better way to destroy Popular Mechanics' credibility is to point out that it is a self-described men's magazine. I just found that link from a quick Google search but my actual source is from the magazine itself. Several years ago I read in PM a letter to the editor where the writer was complaining about all the cars & toys & stuff that blows up other stuff in the magazine. The editor replied that "Let me remind everyone. We are a men's magazine."
P.S. C-SPAN running in background. Caller just mentioned Operation Northwoods.
True, I'd also say that just
True, I'd also say that just even the cooperation that owns popular mechanics (Hearst) is well known for its deceptive journalism;
http://www.pbs.org/crucible/journalism.html
The loose Change guys really caned those two shills hardcore I think, circumstances could have been better, but they still whooped em and forced out stupid responses like “this is what you get from Holocaust Deniers” LOL, what clowns.
suck cockul(i)ar Mechanics!
suck cockul(i)ar Mechanics!
In the CBC thing from
In the CBC thing from yesterday, in an attempt to establish PM's credibility, Miegs said something like, "We've been studying how buildings collapse and airplanes crash for 100 years," which I found incredibly hillarious because my recollection of Popular Mechanics is that they usually have cover stories with stuff like "How you'll get to work in the future" and then an artist's conception of a jetpack or some shit like that.
I think it went horribly.
I think it went horribly.
I don't even think they mentioned PNAC and "a new Pearl Harbor".
Why not drop in something like: "An FBI informant was living with one of the hijackers".
Oh well, at least they mentioned the war games.
I I thought it came out
I I thought it came out maybe 60-40 in PM's favor, to be honest. the one time our guys grabbed the upper hand was when Bermas talked about the war games and Mineta. That's the problem with focussing just on physical evidence (the magic bullet factor), which is why the debate was structured as it was.
Still, they put up the good fight and should be congratulated. They did surprisingly well with the Pentagon stuff.
Sounds like a reasonable
Sounds like a reasonable summary. I think they did a great job given circumstances, especially by telling everyone to LOOK INTO IT FOR THEMSELVES. Hopefully they've planted or watered a few seeds of skepticism in people who will soon be on board. Once you go truth, you never go back.
PM needs an email
OK, PM - you've studied planes and buildings similar to the WTC event for 100 years. Please list them.
no a/v
not getting anything here?
The live stream only works
The live stream only works during the show. I've updated the post with links to the program.
thanks for this blog entry,
thanks for this blog entry, good job!
You're welcome! I'm glad I
You're welcome! I'm glad I could contribute something to the site. Thanks for hosting it.
I had a strong attraction to this particular event because I found Democracy Now a couple of years ago around the same time I was getting my first 9/11 nudges. Amy Goodman opened my eyes to a lot of things. Unfortunately, 9/11 truth was not one of them. About a year ago I saw the discrepency, withdrew my financial support from DN and told them why. It was only after that I heard the term left gatekeeper and saw several essays from people denouncing her and DN for not covering 9/11 truth.
Anyway that's why I'm so familiar with the show and how their website works. :)
Thanks BCS
I'm watching it now...
Where from here?
I think the interview went quite well.
Notice that PM would not return a "specific" answer when challenged. But, instead, changed the subject or attempted to throw unrelated facts. Next time (and this is what I'd like to see in a Presidential debate) you stay on “the” question until it’s fully answered – questions are known in advance and the debaters come to the table with everything they have – paper, video, audio, whatever.
Overall, good job – alas, the only thing that will settle this is an "independent" investigation.
I have a closing comment and suggestion with regard to the fuel issues addressed in the interview and Dr. Jones could get this done for sure:
1) Calculate the size of the "fireball" to determine how much fuel was consumed externally.
2) Take the net difference and model how much surface area the remaining fuel would cover.
3) Calculate flame travel and burn duration – how far down the structure could this liquid travel
4) Obtain a similar piece of steel (same dimensions as the box columns) and place this specimen steel in a hydraulic press and load it to maximum columbar stress - now apply the flame.
If this collapses with atmospheric oxygen should we expect a barbeque or wood stove to melt?
These tests would provide conclusive evidence and should be done in a laboratory setting and filmed.
Nation Magazine
PM got stomped. No 60-40 , no 50-50. The simple fact was fence walkers will now look into it a bit more.
What was curious was the PM guy at the end said he is good friends with Daivd Corn and The NAtion magazine.
Just to let you know that Nation, Goodman, Chomsky, and of the other gatekeepers are using the Left and Liberals just like the Neo-Cons used Conservatives and The Right.
We are seeing this all over Progressive and Constituitionist sites. The "Stick" people have been replaced by "Carrot" people. This is making way for Hillary as President in 2008. A kindler, gentler War Monger.
Dylan, Bermas.... you should have done better
Firstly, the absolute most important thing to do:
keep your cool at all times.
I know they came out with some crap about creationism and holocaust denial, but if you keep your cool insults only go back to hurt them. That is why DRG is so effective, he is always very composed.
Second: do not try to advance an explanation for EVERY single anomalous point of what happened on Sept. 11 - a lot of stuff we don't have good evidence for and it weakens our debating position.
Thrid: do your homework, look into the careers of the people you are debating, finding out conflicts of interest, etc....
Fourth: future talking points in future debates (ignore or deflect any other attempts to steer away from these points). It is very important to transmit the big picture to people who will get lost in the enormous amounts of facts and anomalies.
- who benefits? special interests, military, oil, PNAC, big banks and corporations.
- why no media coverage? mention superconcentration of media outlets into the hands of 5 corporations," they control 90% of what we see, hear, read" (Ted Turner)
- history of false flag attacks: reaichstag, the Maine, Tonkin, Northwoods, etc...
- curtailment of civil liberties: eavesdropping by NSA, national ID cards, rendition, implantable chips, etc..
- involvement of the ISI and the CIA in the attacks, Bin Laden connection to CIA, etc...
- why was the commission set up to fail - corrupt leaders, insufficient funding, no real power
On the more specific issues surrounding 911, the most important points are:
- war games on 911, implications, who was in charge, effect on the response that day
- WTC7 - still no official explanation, SYMMETRICAL vertical free-fall collapse (imprtant to stress symmetrical since damage would always have been random, but the collapse was symmetrical), superhot pools of molten steel underneath, in spite of no plane hitting.
- WTC1&2 - molten pools of super hot steel in basements of towers, eyewitness testimony of explosions, no explanation as to the MANNER of collapse and molten pools of steel in NIST report, why?
- why no release of evidence on Pentagon, WTC? why the elimination of evidence on WTC site?
- secret service response to Bush that morning, inexplicable....
- Pentagon: why no release of evidence? how was the DNA of the hijackers authenticated?
- look into hijackers history, see Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime for more info
- mention whistle blowers, Sibel Edmonds, etc...
Finally, I would like just to say thanks for trying your best, I really do appreciate it, but I'm afraid it's just not good enough. You need to mature your tv approach quickly, we need a much better representation on camera, much better debating, you and us both deserve better.
Multiply your efforts knowing that a large majority of people is behind you (WHY NO MENTION OF THE ZOGBY POLLS, etc... ON THE SHOW?) You have to think about these things and be prepared.
Thanks but please put more effort and work in for the next time. If you need help, just ask.
Hope I haven't been too harsh on you guys but we need to improve a lot and quickly.
Thank you for your time.
Why don't you go out there
Why don't you go out there and do it then?
I thought they did fine all things considered. You have to remember that Dylan and Bermas aren't trained in black ops and subterfuge like the Pop Mech guys are. They are just regular folks who are trying to get the truth out. I think the bigger picture is more or less implied by the nature of the conversation. I also think it's telling the Ms. Goodman would have on only Bermas and Dylan and ignore the likes of DRG and SEJ to go against these Pop Mech assassins.
great post. I think one of
great post.
I think one of the problems here is that "Loose Change" itself is a bit sloppy too in terms of making claims without backing them up. So in a debate setting based on clips from the film, it's fairly easy for an opponent to debunk the more outlandish issues whilst avoiding the core 911 ones. Also I noticed that instead of the 911 truth movement pointing out problems with the official story, this debate was more like the experts pointiing out flaws in 911 conspiracy theories the burden of proof was reversed.
While I think it's commendable what Dylan Avery & co have accomplished in terms of generating interest in 911 truth issues, especially among the younger crowd, and presenting them in a compelling way, I think I would rather see a Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, or Jim Hoffmann in a debate setting - but I guess that was demnocracy now's call. Perhaps in the future it would be better to say "well our film is based on the work of such and such experts, perhaps you should interview them instead of us. We are just trying to get the word out the best way we can"
The boys did an excellent
The boys did an excellent job, and Kudos to Amy Goodman.
She is nothing but an old bat.
So that's Amy Goodman? She is nothing but an old bat. Where do they get these people? It just kills me, these people are so scared of the truth. 9/11 was so obviously an inside job a blind man could see it. I don't know what it will take, perhaps a nuke going off in one of our cities and the neocons getting caught red-handed. Even then some people would deny it. I noticed today the propaganda on the TV is so thick you could cut it with a knife. But don't worry truth seekers......................"Every Dog Has His Day"
Well this is a good start
Well this is a good start maybe now more will go out and look for themselves.
They missed the silverstien comments of pulling building build 7 but it's nice to see it on DN.
I say everyone write nice letters to Amy and thank her for airing the show. Maybe we could get some others to come out and talk about it next time. Jim Fetzer would be nice.
The CBC did a good one last night. Write them and thank them too but ask them to bring Jim on for a talk. You have to remember that James Meigs, David Dunbar are pros. they could've made the point that PM has inside connections.
go to Amy's site if you want to see it again.
lol
Made them stumble all over thier words...body language says it all and the PM guys are squirmin all over the place....sweatin, gulpin, its pretty funny. They definately gave us enough rope to hang them with tho... I would start with the 100 ft hole in the face of the pentagon...Im going to email them and ask where I can see a picture of that. And man that landing gear left a PERFECT circle in the C-ring.
Feedback from a fence-sitter
Someone called me this morning that I've been working on for months to take a closer look at 9/11. He couldn't wait to find out if I'd seen the show. Unfortunately, he's now totally convinced that the government has been telling us the truth all along, and in his opinion the LC guys were "just ridiculous". He believes that since LC has such a high profile they must represent the entire sum and substance of 9/11 "conspiracy theories". With a withering tone in his voice, he said that he hopes I'm "not losing any sleep over this issue". Yeah, right.
LC was all over the place:
LC was all over the place: uncomposed, rapidfire speech, not wearing suits, unable to move the argument over to the strongest points ie: the river of molten "lava" pouring out of WTC 2 minutes before the collapse, the forensics of solidified slag (manganese, zinc, titanium, etc), a brief and clear explaination of the temperature range possibilites for a building/fuel fire, the uninvestigated molten pools of metal under all three buildings, freefall vertical collapse of 7, the energy deficit (physics) regarding available energy to collapse and pulverize building, the red/orange flashes going up and down building, the physics that demonstrate the collapse would halt after at most two floors, explosions in the lower stairwell... I could go on. Christ fellas, do your homework. Imagine if one of those poor chaps atomized in the towers was in your family. You owe it to them to be better prepared. Finally, I cannot understand why LC throws up video cuts based on speculative to zero evidence ie: 93 at Cleveland. LC should focus on Jones, Ryan, and the engineers who use science to produce a strong compelling argument for govt complicity. All the other arguments are basically just chatter and easily shot down by sphincters like those two chumps from PM. To LC: Buck up boys, you only get so many shots in front of the camera. It is both damaging and insulting to the thousands of serious researchers that you performed so poorly today. Grow up.
-Gels
Loose change
Loose change has been viewed by millions of more people than all episodes of Democracy Now combined.
Why?
Why no mention @ all of Steven Jones and his research?!! Good job overall.....
Good Point
see subject
Disappointing
That's too harsh. They did their best. They're good lads. Unfortunately, their best falls far short. Anyone who thinks that went well must be the sort of person who was "convinced" by Loose Change, and doesn't have the skills or the focus to work carefully through the careful scholarly work by people like Griffin and Jones. It seems to me that the Loose Change guys must not have the required scholarly and analytical skills themselves to work through the serious research. If they did, as soon as the WTC buildings were mentioned, one of them would have said, drawing on Griffin's paper with supplementation from Jones: "Well, let be quickly run through twelve aspects of the collapse each of which can ONLY be explained by the hypothesis of controlled demolition." A post above talks about getting caught up in the physical evidence. But you won't get caught up in it if you know the arguments, which are overwhelming and definitive.
What were missing as well were qualities that come as a result of a long process of developing and honing analytical prowess: authority and composure. The whole tone of the debate (to anyone who didn't already know the evidence well enough to be nauseated and creeped out by the PM guys' smug assuredness) was that of a couple of schoolboys trying enthusiastically and breathlessly to defend their wacky theories against their patient and slightly amused teacher. Its absolutely imperative to have a spokesperson capable of stamping the authority of his or her scholarly experience on the debate.
FInally, perhaps the gravest fault was the fact that nobody in this vast new potential audience was pointed towards any specific research materials. No mention of the Scholars website. No mention of Griffin's books... The unavoidable impression given was that Loose Change was the central document of the truth movement. And that's a VERY dangerous and damaging impression to give to a new audience. Its as if the lads have become so caught up in their own celebrity that they THEMSELVES believe that their sophomoric documentary is the lynchpin of the movement.
organize key points
There are some great points on this forum.
It seems what would be helpful is a list of top one hundred key points with references....
Anyone care to start it off with a top twenty?
LC stretches the truth a bit
LC stretches the truth a bit but has the knack of pulling you in. My first exposure to the truth was through LC. I think all things considered they have done a fine job. Everyone has his/her strong points.
LC Vs PM
The two men from PM don't appear to be able to beat down these two plucky young men. I think the presenter was actually very good at moving the debate on when the LC people got overly emotional. PM people looked very nervous.
PM's repeated use of confidence tactics rather than science actually became quite telling after a while and worked in LC's favour.
60/40 to LC .. If they can contain keep their composure then they may do even better next time.
Thanks for posting this video up.
Not a bad result. Dylan, if
Not a bad result.
Dylan, if you reading this, pls stick to voiceover work.
Jason is potentially an excellent debater.
Onward & upward.
Loose Change discredits 9/11 truth movement once again
Loose Change creators did horribly. They are still promoting these easily debunked "no plane theories'.
That's what happens when the media selects only the least scholarly/serious of the 9/11 truth movement for a debate in order to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.
Only the people who thought that Loose Change was a perfect movie (was not. look at jim hoffman's critique), are the only ones who would think this debate went well, otherwise I am disappointed.
Not true
I don't think LC is a perfect movie by any stretch and I thought this debate went really well. I gotta say, you defeatists make me wanna puke.
draw
they drew even with those morons.
Key points they should focus on OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN COINFISCATING VIDEOTAPE. THE WHOLE DEBATE ABOUT WHAT HIT THE PENTAGON IS STUPID WHEN THERE IS TAPE. THE FACT THAT IT BEING HIDDEN IS A SMOKING GUN IN ITSELF.
ALL 3 BUILDINGS CAME DOWN IN CLASSIC CONTROLLED DEMOLITION STYLE, HOW CAN PEOPLE NOT CONSIDER SOMETHING THAT HAS WAY MORE HISTORICAL PRECEDENT AND WOULD PROVIDE AN EASY EXPLANATION, WHEN THE OFFICIAL THEORY IS SO FRAGILE KEEPS CHANGING(NIST DENIES A PANCAKE COLLAPSE WHILE PM CLAIMS IT)
THEY NEED TO TALK ABOUT HOW ALL THE ENGINEERS OF THE TOWERS SAID IT COULD EASILY HANDLE THE IMOPACT OF PLANES.
BLACK BOXES WERE FOUND BUT A TERRORISTS PASSPORT WAS?
THE HIGH POINTS OF THEIR DEBATE WAS MINETAS TESTIMONY.......................
downloadable video?
Does anyone know if this video is available anywhere for download? I have a dial-up connection. Cable and DSL aren't available here. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Amy
Just want to say that while Amy did obviously frame the whole argument against LC's favor, from the beginning, she did move the conversation along where as the LC boys didn't. Those boys held their own but were always on the defensive, when they would get really caught in some reactionary minutia it was AMY who kept them from looking too young, green and emotional for too long by moving the argument along to the next point. It seemed almost as if, as the debate got momentum, Amy started feeling for the underdogs and sympathized with how much less experienced in debating they were than the schills, hence, she'd guide Avery and Bermas back towards real, solid points when they lost it themselves. Interesting dynamics between Amy and her interviewees this morning! That lady is such an enigma, a sphinx. Gatekeeper yes, but once you think you've got her number, she reveals more nuance and perhaps...conscience?
Sharp observation
I agree. The fact that people like Goodman and Chomsky have earned the title of left gatekeepers by failing to examine the strength of the evidence for complicity should not be an invitation to bad, X-files conspiracy thinking. There is no doubt that they misuse their status and authority when they ridicule the truth movement without looking into the issues. And there's no doubt either that their ridicule has helped to protect the real conspirators from the consequences of wide public exposure to the facts. But that hardly implies that they're PART of the conspiracy! As if their foundation grants come with conditions, specified in the fineprint, that the money will continue to flow only as long as they continue to do such a good job of keeping the gate closed to those pesky 911 researchers. As if they are CIA agents whose committed and distinguished record of radical activism over decades is just an elaborate disguise to keep them undercover where they can do the most damage!
Chomsky has no time for bad conspiracy theories because he understands how subtly power works in hierarchical institutions. He rejected early on the tempting idea that the incredible efficiency with which the mass media prevents any deep and sustained questioning of the status quo can only be explained by positing a small group of very powerful figures at the top of the hierarchy who conspire to exert total control over the whole bureaucratic structure. So its not that new journalists are presented with a set of explicit guidelines about where they cannot go if they want to remain in favour and get ahead. Instead, those who have most diligently absorbed the implicit, unstated guidelines in their training will be preferentially hired and promoted. so that the more slavishly one serves power, the more powerful one will become. On Chomsky's model, every member of the bureaucracy is a gatekeeper, and the more efficiently they keep their gate, the more chance they will be given bigger gates to keep.
This model has become one of the central pillars of Chomsky's political thinking, and by osmosis, of the thinking of his disciples, Amy Goodman among them. Its so central for him that he has come to be ready to reject the idea of a shadowy conspiracy at the highest levels of the hierarchy of power without even bothering to look at the evidence. The possibility of such a conspiracy doesn't fit his political paradigm, and so he simply refuses to consider it. He is keeping a gate. But he's not keeping a gate at the behest of the shadowy networks that, according to bad conspiracy theorists, have the planet completely under their control. In order to win over people like Chomsky it would be necessary to convince him that the best 911 researchers aren't interpreting the evidence through the distorting prism of an already accepted paranoid universal conspiracy theory. That should be possible to do, because they aren't. Granted, the workings of government are for the most part open to view, and depend on the gatekeeping efficiency of the general population. There are no lizard people taking off their infernal disguises to get down to their evil business of mass hypnosis behind closed doors. But that doesn't rule out the possibility of a limited conspiracy at the highest levels of government to commit a potentially world-transforming crime. We have to present the conspirators as opportunists motivated by a very dangerous political ideology that justifies misleading the population for its own political good. And we have to think a lot more about how the conspirators could have felt confident about pulling off such an enormous crime without anyone who was knowingly involved coming forward of unwittingly exposing the criminals. Any 911 truther who's being honest with themselves will admit to being troubled on some level by that question...
Day of...
the PM guy kept claiming that all of the "day of" or "day after" eyewitness accounts were unreliable because everything was so fresh, traumatic and unresearched. what a load of crap. everyone knows that first instinct and analysis is usually the most accurate and less bias. you tend to look at things in a broad aspect and an open mind. no gov't propaganda at work. anyway, the LC boys did ok. I give them a +C. PM did seem to get a bit stamered in a few instances.
The Light Brigade returneth...
We send two of our best soldiers into enemy territory to a possible ambush and then we critique their performance? It isn't about what is said, the important thing is that the movement standup to these liars at every junction.
I expected the worst. Amy Goodman frightens the hell out of me,(think Elly Kedward on a bad hairday), but aside from her sinister smirk, she kept the debate moving.
Jimmy Meigs from Popular Mechanics, you should get some therapy for that nervous twitch. Maybe, it's because you have trouble sleeping at night, (or living in your own skin).
We have to remember that this show was aired during the anniversary of 9/11 so although, not everything got covered, the important thing was that respect and civility we're maintained. Gaining credibility is the most important goal for the truth movement at this time and there is no doubt that people are starting to listen.
Dylan and Jason: Good job. There will many more debates to come, so consider this one as practice. We have several leaders with wisdom and experience in the truth movement who have achieved status in their fields but it is you guys who we'll be depending on in the long run.
The way I see it is that
The way I see it is that people warned these soldiers that they were walking into a trap.
I'm a little unimpressed with LC
Given the opportunity granted to them...to bring their case to a televised audience...I expected them to approach this with a sense of professionalism rather than letting their emotions get the best of them. Given the opportunity the opponents of the 9/11 will assassainate the character of anyone who speaks out and has done so repeatedly. Hence why we're still considered fringe lunatics on the whole.
Bermas and Avery should have kept their composure rahter than interupting and snickering and resorting to the name calling...these tactics are the arsenal of the opposition. Not ours. Our arsenal should be comprised of truths and hard questions rather than emotions and surfacing tempers.
I'm also a little disappointed that, given the opportunity, neither Bermas or Avery mentioned that Silverstein admittedly "pulled" building number 7. This is by far the greatest argument for the inside job.
As a previous poster commented, I too am worried about these 2 guys becoming the figurehead for the movement. I'd love to see PM take on the real scholars behind the investigations.
Anyhow, that's my 2 cents.
Sub-G
Popular Mechanics
The PM guys are lying through their teeth. Its plain to see. How did they get put up to this? And how is it that with their collective 2 cents(probaby worth less than that), the discerning public is still in the dark? I will never read Popular Mechanics again---I think those guys are evil incarnate.