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

[yesferatu]

on Democracy Now! today. <br>Not sure if this was just a curiosity for her to explore, or if she will pick up the ball.<br>But if you did not hear it, it was the best type of debate you could hope for. <br>The Popular Mech guy was accompanied by I think two others, and they all sounded really pathetic. It was amazing.<br>I hope you can at least read the transcript.<br>Goodman played pieces of Loose Change and then followed it up with debate. The L.C. boys were aggressive, but tempered, and their flashes of anger truly helped their performance.<br>The debunkers were shown to be the effin ASSES and liars that they are. <br>It was amazing. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=yesferatu@rigorousintuition>yesferatu</A> at: 9/11/06 9:37 pm<br></i>

[FourthBase]

As many misgivings as I have about Loose Change... I still hope they're sincere in their intentions and just a little off-track with their theories. And I still hope they represent us well, and do something good with their fame. Can't wait to hear/read this. <p></p><i></i>

[yesferatu]

sorry...I discovered the transcript is already up.<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203">dem now</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[isachar]

FB, the 911 'facts' movement is in serious trouble if a couple of 20-something LC filmmakers are its chief spokespersons. That said, the official conspiracy theory advocates are in a whole lot of trouble if Popular Mechanics is their proponent. Nevertheless, the LC guys did hold their own.<br><br>Link to today's Democracy Now transcript between LC and PM:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203">www.democracynow.org/arti...11/1345203</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>The arguments over the physical evidence dominate. A couple of observations:<br><br>1) I had an opportunity to speak with Ms.Goodman in early 2003 at a social function during which time I tried to open the subject of her doing a story on the suspicious aspects of 911. I had a pretty close social connection to her. I engaged her about other matters first and eased into the 911 and antrhax stuff very slowly. Nevertheless, she was very dismissive, and gave me the 'he's one of them' looks. So, it's quite a bit of progress for her to have done this show at all - even though she makes quite a bit of hay about being the only live radio show to broadcast the events of that day (her studios are located only a couple blocks away from the former WTC's).<br><br>2) The PM editors contention that cell phone calls of any significant length were possible on commercial airliners in 2001 travelling at altitude at high speeds over rural areas is utterly ludicrous. Just try to make such a call today. You can't even get a service signal at regular cruising speed above 3,000 - 5,000 feet. <br><br>3) The strengths and weaknesses of focusing on the physical evidence are well illustrated by this show. The LC guys clearly lean to the 'no plane' at the Pentagon theory which is wrong, but they're right about Flight 93 and the cell phone calls. They're right on Cheney's stand-down order from the bunker under the WH, paraphrasing Mineta's testimony of those events. But their insistence on questioning that a large airliner flew into the Pentagon diminishes their credibility on these other issues.<br><br>4) The discussion over the physical evidence does tend to drown out the other evidence that is just as, if not more, compelling - such as the war games, the unbelievable 'coincidence' that the attacks happened on the same day and at precisely the SAME TIME as a live, real-time multiple hijacking war game, Sybil Edmonds testimony (and she's the only person against whom the admin has sought and obtained a gag order to prohibit her from talking about what she knows), the Islamic fundamentalist hijackers who were anything but fundamentalist Muslims, the money trail to Saed Sheik and Pakistan's ISI, Bin-Laden's status as a CIA/ISI operative, and Ted Olsen's obviously fraudulent report of his wife's call to him while she was aboard Flight 77, the lack of any cell phone records of any of the purported cell phone calls, the missing last 3 minutes of Flight 93's voice recorder, what happend to the recorders of the flights that hit the WTC's, the lack of sworn testimony or any criminal investigation worthy of the name, the destruction of evidence, the admission by the Chairman of the 911 Whitewash Commission that the military's testimony to them was perjured, and on and on and on....<br><br>There is too much evidence and too little time. Let's hope Ms. Goodman returns to this subject in the future.<br><br>Just some spur of the moment musings.....<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=isachar>isachar</A> at: 9/11/06 10:45 pm<br></i>

[FourthBase]

Nice musings, isachar!<br><br>Generally the transcript makes the LC guys look like chumps.<br>But I was impressed by them here:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>JASON BERMASMs. Goodman, I'd just like to address the fact that they have claimed that they have 84 videos through a FOIA request pertaining to what did strike the Pentagon. But the bottom line is, nothing should have struck the Pentagon. We know through the 9/11 Commission testimony that Norman Mineta, the head of the Transportation Department, was in a bunker with Cheney prior to the Pentagon strike. Now, this is the only three-and-a-half minutes out of the hundreds of hours that’s been censored by C-SPAN. Why? Because he says he's in a bunker with Cheney, and an aide walks in and says, “Sir, the plane is 50 miles out. Sir, the plane is 30 miles out. Do the orders still stand?” Cheney snaps his head around and says, “Of course, the orders still stand.” <br><br>By the time it was ten miles out, it was too late, and the Pentagon was struck. That is a direct stand down order. And if you listen to the NORAD tapes, later on some of these people are actually tracking these planes, asking to shoot them down, and they’re getting a negative shoot-down order. Why is that significant? Well, in June of 2001, Cheney signs a DOD memo putting shoot-down orders in his hands, Rumsfeld' hands and Bush's hands alone, where it was standard operating procedure if colonels were to intercept these planes and they saw a threat, they could do the shoot-down order.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>And of course the PM guys evade addressing that.<br><br>Even when they go into "no plane" territory...<br>Avery lands a late rabbit punch:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>DAVID DUNBARAnd incidentally, about the windows, I'm glad you mentioned that. Those were recently replaced in the Pentagon as part of a whole renovation program designed specifically to be blast resistant after the explosions at the American embassies in East Africa. <br><br>DYLAN AVERY <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>I find it very convenient that Hani Hanjour decided to choose that one particular section of the Pentagon to hit, when he could have just dove straight right into the front door.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <br><br>DAVID DUNBAR In the world of paranoid conspiracy theories -- <br><br>DYLAN AVERY <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>You're not addressing the evidence</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. <br><br>DAVID DUNBAR--there are no coincidences. <br><br>DYLAN AVERY <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>You're not addressing the evidence</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. <br><br>JASON BERMASI would just like to say this. <br><br>AMY GOODMANJason Bermas.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>Nicely done!<br><br>But...<br><br>Alas, they swim back in over their heads, into physical evidence territory, into steel/fire/heat debates with guys from Popular Mechanics. And they drown. Of course. It's sad, and it sucks. No, I am not happy with them representing us. Fuck them. Take them down, please, for our own good. Even if it's just their immaturity that makes them suck, they're almost as bad for 9/11 justice as the perps.<br><br>What we need: 9/11 <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>facts</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. Not 9/11 "truth". Facts that are "known knowns" to paraphrase Rumsfeld. Not conjecture about physics and heat and steel and plane impacts. We need FACTS. War games, "coincidences", insider trading, obstructed investigations, hijackers training/living at US military institutions, Hanjour being a horrible pilot, ETC.<br><br>That said -- if I were them and that scumbag compared me to a Holocaust denier, I would have punched him in the fucking eye. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=fourthbase>FourthBase</A> at: 9/11/06 11:15 pm<br></i>

[DBtv]

Amy Goodman and Democracy Now are obvious gatekeepers and this show was an attempt at discrediting the 911 truth movement. <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I was expecting bad things since Goodman let CIA operative Chip Berlet chop up David Ray Griffin on her show.<br><br>But Griffin is a quiet sweater-wearing theologian while the Loose Change guys are young and feisty and were prepared for the snow storm tactics.<br><br>I was impressed by how the Loose Change team slammed the CIA/Popular Mechanics team.<br><br>They presented their facts better and didn't sit back to listen to discrediting bullshit about 'conspiracy theorists who don't do their homework.'<br><br>The LC boys called the PM men LIARS repeatedly and backed it up. <p></p><i></i>

[wordspeak]

I agree, I thought they held it down, as far as it goes.<br>Really a shame about the major errors in their film: <br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.911research.com/reviews/loose_change/index.html">www.911research.com/revie...index.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>But, still, I bet they had most "DN" listeners on their side. <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Amy Goodman and Democracy Now are obvious gatekeepers and this show was an attempt at discrediting the 911 truth movement.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Christ, I am so tired of the nonsensical "left gatekeeper" phrase getting hurled at good journalists.<br><br>There could be many reasons for Amy Goodman's skepticism about a lot of the 9/11 "truth" evidence -- much of which, as we know, is pure bullshit. <br><br>She's a courageous journalist. Just because she doesn't adhere to a particular viewpoint doesn't make her a pawn. She has her own mind. Perhaps she'll come around, in time. Who knows. But branding her a gatekeeper -- without confirmatory evidence -- is just wrong. <p></p><i></i>

[yathrib]

Journalists who've achieved a modicum of fame and recognition, and/or disagree with one's opinion on esoteric points of "9/11 truth."<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[yathrib]

An interesting experience in this regard: I was manning the book desk at "Camp Democracy" this past weekend, and an individual came up and informed me that virtually all of the authors of the books for sale were either "bourgeois journalists" or "left-wing gatekeepers." Before I could engage him in conversation, he was 100 feet off in the distance. He had no idea whether I even knew what he meant or not. What this tells me is that he--and in my experience, most others of this tendency--are more interested in lording their superior esoteric knowledge over the rest of us than in actually informing or enlightening anybody. To hell with 'em. For all their faults I'll take Amy Goodman, or even Noam Chomsky over them any day. <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Yathrib, how about this definition of "left gatekeeper": Someone with access to crucial information and FACTS (such as the melting point of steel, the performance of cell phones in jets, the political backgrounds of those said to be conducting a "nonpartisan" investigation, etc etc) NOT OPINIONS just plain facts, and the supposed proponent of the "left" avoids discussing them or even getting anywhere near them. They slant the discussion and set the agenda to favor those they reportedly oppose. Now THAT'S left gatekeeping and we all can see plenty of it in the NYTs if you still are enough of a sucker to pay good money for that bilge. There are obnoxious people and people who don't want to listen to others every where. Try talking to some republicans sometime. Your experience at the book table was unfortunate. Labels of any sort for anyone are misleading. Perhaps Amy Goodman is courageous. I just want the facts and she's not there. <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

Come on. Amy Goodman is a 9/11 gatekeeper, pure and simple.<br><br>At least 75% of her audience suspects the Bush administration of 9/11 complicity, but she touches the subject about once a year and then with the deck always stacked for the official conspiracy theory. <p></p><i></i>

[yathrib]

DarkBeforeDawn: You actually have some good points once I get past you accusing me of pro-Bush bias. I could get pissed off at that, but it's so ludicrous that I can only laugh. Can I use your post as evidence in my favor when that knock on the door in the middle of the night comes?<br><br>You know who is definitely a gatekeeper? Al Franken. The NYT is not a left wing gatekeeper because it is not left wing in any sense. Goodman and Chomsky? Can't really justify their failure to at least give the evidence a fair hearing, but I hesitate to attribute malevolent motives... <p></p><i></i>

[DBtv]

FEAR. <p></p><i></i>