Amy Goodman w/Pop. Mech. assist editr & Loose Chnge boys

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I agree, Prof. Goodman does great work almost every day of the week all year.<br><br>But I do detect a reticence on her part regarding 9/11 and I wish it weren't so. Perhaps this will change with the thermate factor.<br><br>I mean, to have someone like Chip Berlet on to have at Griffin indicates either bending over backwards to appear 'balanced' on the Topic of Topics (commendable in a journalist) or someone at Democracy Now is terribly ignorant about Berlet when they are booking guests (not surprising since not everyone has a handy list of disinfo artists).<br><br>Or there is always the possibility of an infiltraitor at DN since it is an incredibly important news source which helped expose the 2004 US coup in Haiti, for instance.<br><br>9/11 as an inside job is just too damaging to the controllers to allow to come out through even Amy Goodman's show, I think.<br><br>But there really are gate-keepers, not just folks we disagree with.<br><br>Now Bill Moyers, HE is a damn gatekeeper who doesn't tell a fraction of what he knows as a result of being director of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1967-1974.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Infernal Optimist]

How about this as a stake-in-the-sand:<br><br>We need a hard-hitting, no-holds barred, no National Security cop-out investigation of 9/11. How could Amy Goodman object to that? <br><br>Whether the Loose Change guys are right or wrong this was a huge crime and after five years we have no clue what happened that day. <br><br>She should nail Chip Berlet to the wall: Why would you be opposed to a serious investigation of 9/11? <br><br>Get the Pop Mech guys on the ropes: Are there or are there not questions which remain about 9/11? WTC7?<br><br>Get administration officials on: What would be wrong with subpoena powers and sworn testimony from everyone and his brother regarding 9/11? National Security? I thought your investigation was over. Who are you protecting?<br><br>Now, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>that</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> would be a true left opposition! <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

Hugh said -<br><br>"the CIA/Popular Mechanics team"<br><br>Nice slash. <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

Yathrib said - <br><br>"To hell with 'em. For all their faults I'll take Amy Goodman, or even Noam Chomsky over them any day."<br><br>A-fuckin-men. <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

To reiterate:<br><br>Qutb, you're non-MIHOP only or are you also non-LIHOP? <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

Hugh said - <br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"...or someone at Democracy Now is terribly ignorant about Berlet when they are booking guests (not surprising since not everyone has a handy list of disinfo artists)."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>I have a list of secret commies in the entertainment industry. <p></p><i></i>

[Forgetting2]

I noticed at one point the pop-mechanics referred to "our friend, David Corn"<br><br>Thought that was odd <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=forgetting2>Forgetting2</A> at: 9/13/06 1:42 pm<br></i>

[Qutb]

Infernal Optimist said - <br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"Get the Pop Mech guys on the ropes: Are there or are there not questions which remain about 9/11? WTC7?"</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>You don't need to get them "on the ropes". No one denies that the precise mechanism of collapse for WTC7 remains unknown and will likely remain unnknown for lack of evidence. Shaym Sanders of NIST freely admitted they had trouble explaining it, for the very simple reason that not enough evidence survived (in particular, photographic and video evidence, which abunds for the Twin Towers and informs our knowledge about why they collapsed, is sparse with regard to #7). There's nothing suspicious about that. But wherever there's a hole in our knowledge, conspiracists will fill it with fantasies without root in any other evidence than the absence of evidence.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[bvonahsen]

Gatekeeping is when you defend the status quo, your recieved view of the world. We all form a dominant world view, a model of how things work or relate to one another. We seek to maintain that view and usually it takes some pretty strong evidence to break through. <br><br>It can be central to our identity, so much so that when a profound event occurs, like having a UFO experience or something equally traumatic, we become unglued. <br><br>Everybody does this, everyone has to struggle with these kinds of issues. One way to cope is to form a shell of disbelief so that it becomes very hard for anything to puncture ones' recieved core belief system. Another is to work diligently to examine and re-examine ones' beliefs. And of course, both of these are on a dialectic, there are infinte shades of grey between the two.<br><br>Journalist have a recieved view, one that few question. One that is made of corporate and government press releases and lexus nexus searches. That's their model and breaking through it is very hard. They also have a tendency to see themselves in a priestly function. They go to the sacred machine, now a PC but in the past a Reuters or other news service machine. Once there they recieve the holy word, take it back to their desk and write it up a bit. Then dispense the sacred news to the needy masses.<br><br>This is changing, what with the internet and all. Sort of for the better, I guess, maybe not so much in other ways. But it is definitely changing. <p></p><i></i>

[Infernal Optimist]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>There's nothing suspicious about that. But wherever there's a hole in our knowledge, conspiracists will fill it with fantasies without root in any other evidence than the absence of evidence.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>So I can count you in for a more thorough investigation? Besides, who (besides you) even mentioned conspiracy? <p></p><i></i>

[yathrib]

Just to be clear: At minimum, I'm LIHOP, and I find much of the MIHOP material compelling. I found "Loose Change" so convincing that for a couple days I could talk about little else. I'm sure I lost at least two friends. Yet as an example of what I meant, now people are coming out of the woodwork to denounce the "Loose Change" ppl as disinfo agents. Can you blame *anyone* for not wanting to stake their reputations on this stuff, esp. when they're likely to get savaged by other self-proclaimed 9/11 truthers for their trouble? Am I wrong? I don't have all day to sort this stuff out. If I am misperceiving the situation, tell me so, and explain why. Please. <p></p><i></i>

[Infernal Optimist]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Gatekeeping is when you defend the status quo</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Once there they recieve the holy word, take it back to their desk and write it up a bit. Then dispense the sacred news to the needy masses.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Sometimes I disagree with you BVH, but this is pretty funny. I thought that a journalist's job was to ask questions. Isn't that, you know, their job description?<br><br>Gatekeeping is trying to shut down any questioning. Whether it's the Pop Mech editor or Gerald Posner (Case Closed!) they do their profession a disservice by shutting down discussion.<br><br>Yes, Qutb, Pop Mech does need to be accountable. They're journalists. It's their job to dig into things (not to say "It's a mystery. But don't question it!) <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

4th Base -<br><br>"Qutb, you're non-MIHOP only or are you also non-LIHOP?"<br><br>I think both are unlikely. I think "mihop", in particular, has the evidence stacked against it. I don't think what we know accords well with a "lihop" theory either. One example: during the G8 summit in Genoa in July 2001, Bush slept on a Navy ship due to fears (reported in the media at the time) that Bin Laden/al-Qaida might attack the summit with hijacked jets (interestingly, it was also reported at the time that al-Qaida might have joined forces with European neo-Nazis for this attack). This example is often touted as proof that the White House knew more than they've been willing to admit, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>which is true</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, but it also indicates that the administration did <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>not</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> know the exact time and place of the coming "Big Wedding" as late as July 2001. <br><br>Of course, on August 6, Bush was warned that Bin Laden was "determined to strike in US". But even on September 10, Bush had air defense missiles placed on the roof of the hotel at which he was staying. If time and place was known, why put them there? And of course, one popular theory is that Bush was out of the loop himself, but it's not he who makes those decisions.<br><br>I don't think the slow Air Force response is such a mystery either. I think many lihoppers have a slightly naive trust in the capabilities of the US military to protect the homeland... I don't know enough about the routines of the Air Force to say if they could have responded quicker.<br><br>I don't think "lihop" is inconceivable, I just think the evidence is lacking.<br><br>There are some loose ends still... like the role of Mahmud Ahmad, the Pakistani general, and of Omar Saeed Sheikh, which is something that still intrigues me. And those things vaguely hinted at by Sibel Edmonds. I just don't think "lihop" or "mihop" is necessarily where that leads. <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

IO - <br><br>"So I can count you in for a more thorough investigation?"<br><br>Of what? WTC7? It's being investigated by NIST. I'm sure theirs will be thorough enough, but if anyone else wants to investigate it I won't stand in their way. But no, you can't count me in any more than you can count me in to yet another investigation of JFK assassination bullet trajectories. <p></p><i></i>

[isachar]

"And those things vaguely hinted at by Sibel Edmonds"<br><br>"Vaguely"? Who are you kidding? She's practically been screaming from the rafters about this. You might want to do a little more reading here:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.justacitizen.com/articles_documents/Letter_to_Kean.pdf">www.justacitizen.com/arti...o_Kean.pdf</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm">www.nswbc.org/Press%20Rel...11Comm.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.wanttoknow.info/sibeledmonds">www.wanttoknow.info/sibeledmonds</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>This and her other writings SCREAM coverup, fraud, complicity.<br><br>That's why Bush slapped the gag order on her. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=isachar>isachar</A> at: 9/13/06 3:12 pm<br></i>